A Guide to Understanding Contemporary Models of Human Origins

Intelligent Design the Future

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

Science, Philosophy, Astronomy, Society & Culture, Life Sciences

4 • 993 Ratings

🗓️ 17 July 2023

⏱️ 32 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Are there ways to reconcile the latest scientific evidence with traditional theological views? On this ID The Future, host Emily Reeves talks to geologist and Center for Science & Culture Associate Director Casey Luskin about his recent paper in the mainstream journal Religions. In "Comparing Contemporary Evangelical Models Regarding Human Origins," Luskin compares eight different models of human origins. Four of the models present an evolutionary mechanism, while the other four models propose non-evolutionary approaches. Luskin explains how each of the models interface with the scientific evidence and with key theological views. "The hope is not necessarily to tell you which model you should adopt," says Luskin, "but to help you understand the models and to get a better feel for them." In doing the research on this issue, Luskin learned that you don't have to jettison traditional beliefs about Adam and Eve in light of the findings of science. He notes that there's a rich diversity of models to explore with an open mind and a willingness to learn. But the landscape of options can get confusing, notes Reeves, so a good first step is understanding all the models. In this interview and in his new paper, Luskin gives us a concise and organized guide to do just that. Luskin's Religions paper is open-access and free to read here: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/6/748

Source

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	I d the future a podcast about evolution and intelligent design
0:12.3	hello and welcome to I the Future. My name is Emily Reeves and today I'll be speaking
0:17.0	with Dr. Casey Luskin, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at
0:21.3	Discovery Institute.
0:23.2	We're going to be talking about his recent paper
0:26.0	in the Journal of Religions
0:27.6	that can compare eight different models of human origins.
0:31.7	Human origins may be the area or mainstream science and faith appear to be most at odds, but are they?
0:38.0	What are some of the various ways that contemporary scholars have reconciled these differences?
0:42.0	In today's podcast, we'll get answered. temporary scholars have reconciled these differences.
0:43.0	In today's podcast, we'll get answers to these questions and more.
0:46.8	Welcome, Casey, and thank you so much for joining me.
0:49.9	Thank you, Emily, or should I say Dr. Reeves, it's great to be on the show with you.
0:54.0	Yeah, absolutely.
0:55.0	It's been a while since we've done one of these together.
0:57.0	Yes, it's been a while.
0:58.0	Yeah, so Casey, the title of your paper is comparing contemporary evangelical models regarding human origins.
1:07.2	Can you tell us just a little bit about that title, what your paper is about, and who did you write it for?
1:14.0	Yeah, so the purpose of the paper is to look at various attempts to sort of synthesize science and
1:23.8	Compare those models sort of looking at the the strengths and the weaknesses of different models that are out there and its purposes
1:27.8	of different models that are out there and its purposes really to help people sort through all the different models that are out there.
1:35.0	I'm aware that there's a lot of different viewpoints and ideas and thoughts of people have had
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.