The Science of Adam and Eve

I’d never heard of the Creation Scientific Society until I came across this announcement of their 2014 annual meeting in Pittsburgh (is this the old ICC conference under a different name?). It will involve a virtual Who’s Who of creationist irrelevancies:

The plenary speakers are:

Fuz Rana, Reasons to Believe, author, with Hugh Ross, of Who Was Adam?

Jack Collins, Covenant Theological Seminary, author of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care

Ann Gauger, Biologic Institute, author, with Douglas Axe and Casey Luskin, of Science and Human Origins

And they’re going to tackle a terribly important subject:

The views of these authors have some significant divergences. This will not exactly be a “debate,” but I am sure there will be some spirited discussion! One of the main topics of disagreement is the status of Neanderthals. Most scientists agree that modern humans date to 50,000-100,000 BC, but Neanderthals go back much further and overlap with modern humans. Were Neanderthals human? Was Adam a Neanderthal? Or were Neanderthals more like “orcs” who fought against humans? Theologically, could there have been a race of sentient creatures without the image of God? Were these who Cain feared? Much to discuss.

Hard to take someone seriously when they think this is worthy of discussion.


  1. Michael Heath says


    Were Neanderthals human? Was Adam a Neanderthal? Or were Neanderthals more like “orcs” who fought against humans? Theologically, could there have been a race of sentient creatures without the image of God? Were these who Cain feared? Much to discuss.

    This works as comedy.

    Modusoperandi writes:

    Laugh all you want, but I’m going. Open bar.

    I think pot is the more appropriate drug for this venue.

  2. says

    Michael Heath “I think pot is the more appropriate drug for this venue.”
    “Are the Neanderthals extinct, or are we the Neanderthals? And if they went away, where did they go, man?”

  3. Hank Fox says

    Our Lady of the Heavy Brow, the Virgin of Neander Valley, brought The Word to all Neanderkind, long before humans and their pale, wimpy latecomer Jesus showed up.

  4. Abdul Alhazred says

    What I want to know is, did Adam have a navel?

    And what about Eve? Did she have a navel? They never get into that do they? :)

  5. Doug Little says

    Or were Neanderthals more like “orcs” who fought against humans?

    Ha Ha Ha they think Lord of the Rings is real.

  6. John Pieret says

    Theologically, could there have been a race of sentient creatures without the image of God? Were these who Cain feared?

    I thought the really heavy question was where did Cain get his wife? Did he marry his sister or did he marry an orc? Man! You could ne dancin’ on a thousand pinheads for a month with questions like that!

  7. anachronistes says

    This will be in my town. I’m half-tempted to try to go just so I can stand up and ask if the orc Neanderthals were commanded by Sauron, or if Sauron is the Devil.

  8. Friendly says

    If Neanderthals evolved into orcs, why are there still Neanderthals? Answer me that, evilu…umm…

  9. raven says

    Theologically, could there have been a race of sentient creatures without the image of God?

    Well there is. We usually call them Democrats, scientists, and Keynesian economists. Sometimes they are also known as “normal people”.

    Were these who Cain feared?

    No, these are who the fundie xians fear.

    Much to discuss.

    This whole meeting is like a Star Trek convention but not as interesting. I’m sure they won’t forget the Niphillim.

  10. coffeehound says

    Or were Neanderthals more like “orcs” who fought against humans?

    Arise son of neanderthalensis! Go forth my fighting Uruk-hai!

    Next topic; Bigfoot: friend or the antichrist?

  11. dingojack says

    Ok, Ok I know it’s kinda obvious but:

    “Then Cain and Abel he begat
    And they begat all of the rest to us
    Which means they must have been incestuous
    I’m going to have to pray about that”
    Creation Science 101 Roy Zimmermann


  12. Al Dente says

    It’s not real theology until Peter Jackson crams it into one of the “Hobbit” movies.

    Have any Neanderthal remains been found in New Zealand?

  13. Reginald Selkirk says

    Ann Gauger, Biologic Institute

    Will she be bringing her laboratory green screen backdrop with her?

  14. Reginald Selkirk says

    Have any Neanderthal remains been found in New Zealand?

    I don’t know if that was a serious question, but no. Neandertals were mostly a European thing.

    There might have been Denisovans in Australia though.

  15. Al Dente says

    Reginald Selkirk @23

    The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit movies were filmed in New Zealand. The orcs in both those series were New Zealander actors and stunt people.

  16. says

    Heh. A screed at apologiaradio spent a long time rambling about whether atheists were orcs, or believed in orcs, or considered humans as equivalent to orcs (I know, I know, “huh?”).

    Expect, for 2014, to see the serious questions (to wit: “Are atheists because Neaderthals?”) being both asked, and answered. “Authoritatively.”

  17. says

    Hi Ed,

    “Creation Scientific Society” –> you mean “Christian Scientific Society”.

    I don’t think it’s connected to the ICC, my suspicion is that it is basically Old-Earth Creationists and ID types who were unhappy with the drift of the ASA* towards theistic evolution.

    * ASA = “American Scientific Affiliation” = a society basically for evangelicals who are also scientists. It was started way back in the 1940s. For a long time they had members of all sorts — YECs, OECs, and theistic evolutionists, and published material from all camps, although YEC never got very far with the members. Henry Morris left the ASA in the 1950s I think, after failing to convert the ASA members to YEC, and went and started what became the “creation science” movement.

    The ID guys were mostly in the ASA and quite active in the 1980s and 1990s, some of them still are but I think they got frustrated at the constant informed resistance they got from the theistic evos…

  18. joel says

    Well, for what it’s worth, I’ve actually wondered whether Neandertals were the source of our troll legends. I insist it’s a plausible idea, though I doubt that creationists will discuss it in any sort of reasonable fashion.

  19. David Marjanović says

    “Our” troll legends? Who is “we”?

    Next topic; Bigfoot: friend or the antichrist?

    Mormons believe Bigfoot is Cain.

  20. robro says

    Why introduce the extra-Biblical Orcs? Haven’t they considered the possibility that the Nephilim are the Neanderthal? I mean it even starts with the same first letter…proof!

  21. richcon says

    I wonder if there are any Michael Chrichton fans I’m that group, because he based a novel on that exact idea. Eaters of the Dead (The Thirteenth Warrior) is based on the idea that Beowulf is exaggerated but true-ish history and its “Orcneas” and other evil brutes were actually a surviving tribe of Neanderthals living in some caves up there.

  22. zetopan says

    nicholasmatzke wrote:

    “* ASA = “American Scientific Affiliation” = a society basically for evangelicals who are also scientists.”

    Uhhh, no. I have been following the antics of creationists organizations for multiple decades, and the
    ASA is NOT in any sense of the word a ‘scientific’ organization. That group originally organized from a
    fundamentalist Missouri Lutheran synod to oppose evolution, since the ‘inerrant’ bible did not claim
    anything like evolution was involved in the development of life on Earth. I happened to have followed
    that specific organization fairly closely since an idiot local member was peddling that particular creationist
    organization in a company that I worked for at the time. The specific person (Dennis L. Feucht) eventually
    became the editor of the Journal of the ASA, a job that he was perfectly suited for, due to his profound
    level of very willful scientific illiteracy. He was locally known as “Dennis the Menace” by local skeptics due
    to his jaw dropping counterfactual claims [*Note 1].

    As far as I am aware, the ASA is actually the oldest creationist organization in the US. They eventually
    evolved towards an ancient Earth view (and have since migrated to ID) and the infighting within the
    group resulted in the splintering and formation of multiple other creationists organizations like the ICR
    (Institute for Creation Research) and CSRC (Creation Science Research Center), neither of which does
    any scientific research.

    The ASA redefines ‘science” to include literally all possible occupations like accounting, the clergy, etc. so
    that they can be a ‘scientific’ organization. In actual practice, there are a few members with backgrounds
    in some kind of scientific discipline, with the vast majority not knowing anything about science at all. They
    strictly publish evangelical apologetics in their journal, and the ‘science’ is often extensively distorted to fit
    into their agenda.

    The ASA actually opened up their membership to non-theists some years ago (most likely to inflate their
    membership size – about 2,300 members at the time). However, any ASA member who refuses to take
    their bible inerrancy oath (“the bible” [sic] is an inerrant guide to morals) has *no* voting rights. Some
    members being more “equal” than others, of course (scientific background becomes irrelevant when a
    religious ideology is being enforced).

    Jerry Bergman (see Pharyngula for PZ Myer’s encounters with Bergman) is a “Fellow” of the ASA and
    his PhD in psychology from a diploma mill apparently does not disqualify him from that position. He
    has written numerous ASA papers explaining that homosexuality has not been shown to have any
    biological basis, so discrimination against them is fully justified. One irony of his false claim being that
    when he lost his tenure at Bowling Green University (for publishing a large number of very low quality
    papers) he claimed that he was being discriminated against for his Christian views (the irony being that
    he never showed that his Christianity was actually biological in origin).

    He has also written at least one ASA article claiming that the entire Galileo affair was created by evil
    secular scientists in an effort to discredit the Catholic church (which actually needs no help at all with
    that specific activity given their propensity for peddling obviously phony “miracles” and protecting
    their pedophilic priests from the relevant civil authorities).

    Lest you think that these above examples only represent a tiny minority view within the ASA, just
    examine their journal (some secular libraries carry it) and also read the publication that they sent to
    40,000 public schools “explaining” what was wrong with evolution. The AAAS (American Association
    for the Advancement of Science) had reported a different number of these being distributed. Sorry,
    but I do not recall the AAAS number, but it was in their “Science” publication, which also showed how
    relatively “sophisticated” some creationists arguments had become (I have issues going back multiple
    decades and it isn’t worth the time to search through them).

    This ASA publication was titled “Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy” and it was strictly religious
    apologetics pretending to be a scientific view that “shunned extremes and sought a middle ground”. The
    internal ASA group that published this drivel has the marvelous title: “Committee for Integrity in Science
    Education”. The ASA likes pretending that it is actually in the middle of the “extremist evolutionists” and
    “extremist creationists”.

    What is an “extremist evolutionist” you might ask? Among other things, as stated in relevant newspaper
    articles and ASA publications, anyone referring to evolution as a “fact”, or insisting that the evolutionary
    mutations occur due to random chance. Also, stating that life arose by chance is entirely “unscientific”
    since science can’t say how life arose. The ASA is very heavy on the “God of the Gaps” theology despite
    their disclaimers. As far as being in the “reasonable middle” between two groups of extremists, that is
    merely a typical creationist appeal to “fair play” argument. An “extremist creationist”, by their definition
    is strictly a young Earth creationist [*Note 2], which I noticed that they are still expelling from the ASA
    organization from time to time. Science and creationism are actually compatible, by their way of (not)
    thinking about it. One wonders why religious apologetics (which was expelled from science about four
    centuries ago) is even required if creationism is so compatible with science.

    • Note 1: According to Feucht, Evolution is not even a scientific theory, it is an unproven hypothesis
    since no one was there to see it happen (followed by numerous claims that allegedly show that
    evolution was not scientific at all, and not even possible. Additionally, “the bible” [sic] has been
    shown to be historically accurate, Noah’s ark and the world wide flood has been proven to be
    historically accurate, the biblical Adam and Even really existed, the Jesus’ resurrection has been
    confirmed, etc. Unsurprisingly, he also intensely disliked Asimov and Sagan, just like every other
    creationist I have even known.

    • Note 2: It is interesting to note how oblivious creationist groups are to other creationist groupings.
    For example, there are strict ~6,000 year old Earth creationists, ~20,000 year old creationists, a few
    million year old Earth creationists, a few billion year old creationists, and even ~1 trillion year old
    Earth creationists (see the Hindu Upanishads: warning, there are *many*). In short, you could
    pick nearly any time interval (including infinite) and find a creationist group that insists that is the
    actual age of either the Earth or the universe (which is obviously not the same interval, although
    some will insist otherwise).

Leave a Reply