Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

In a newly-released book, Genesis Enigma, biological scientist Andrew Parker argues that the Jewish Book of Genesis and modern science have unexpectedly similar accounts on the origins of life. He goes on to suggest that the Genesis authors were divinely inspired to explain such similarities.  I have not read the book: this is my summary from Amazon.

This book, however, raises important questions about whether or not to take such hypotheses seriously. More specifically, how do we separate important claims from spurious ones as ignorant (perhaps), non-specialist readers? This is what I do.

Do the claims make prima facia sense against existing knowledge?

My first stage is to do a quick check of the claims against my existing knowledge and my world-view or perspective. I decide whether it is worth pursuing the book and its claims any further. If so, then I list the issues that need to be addressed in considering the author’s claims seriously. I try to recognise that this is very much subject to my biases.

As a naturalist – all things come from physical causes – I immediately have doubts about Parker’s claims of divinely-inspired Genesis writers. So, admittedly, I start very sceptically. Also there are many cases where people seek to prove or disprove points from selective use of the wildly diverse texts of the Christian Old and New Testaments. It is a popular pastime to find ‘hidden’ numeric meanings in biblical texts and, for me, another reason I should be sceptical.

Most biblical scholars see the Torah (also the first five books of the Christian Old Testament) as an assembly of stories from different Jewish traditions and from neighbouring cultures. They were written and edited by multiple authors over hundreds of years to address religious needs of their specific communities, not as sacred texts. Very few scholars believe Genesis was authored by Moses or was dictated by God.

The original texts were written in Hebrew and then subsequently translated into Greek, Latin, Coptic, and English as well as other modern-day languages. There is no such thing as one version of Genesis, either today or throughout history. Each writing and translation was to meet particular ideological of the authors and theological needs of the communities. At least until the advent of printing, we are better seeing the history of scriptural texts as dynamic. In particular the book of Genesis has two distinct and contradictory origin stories, each representing two different historical traditions and exempified by their different portrayals of God.

I like to see if the book claims are consistent with or challenges existing knowledge and thought. Challenging current thinking is not necessarily a bad thing, though it can make you wary.  Homeopathy is premised on the basis that substances and liquids have ‘memory’. So no matter how many times you dilute a substance in a liquid there will still have an effect from the ‘memory’ of that substance in the liquid.  This is contrary to all our understandings from chemistry and therefore, quite reasonably, I am very sceptical about the efficacy of homeopathy despite claims by practitioners and patients.

Conservatively comparing claims with current thinking is not being narrow-minded or anti-progressive: it is prudential. The breadth of scholarly work itself can be diverse to the extent that is rarely is one view considered orthodox. Typically we talk of one or more mainstream views with still others sitting respectably outside of those positions. In biblical studies, for example, two well-respected religious scholars hold diametrically-opposed views. John Dominic Crossan believes the resurrection of Jesus never happened, while N.T. (Tom) Wright argues it did. Both scholars are highly qualified and operate well within the biblical studies community. If an author proposes a radically different hypothesis, then I like to know if the author is working within his or her scholarly community or just appealing directly to the general reader.

I usually like to see a number of things with new hypotheses:  (1) properly conducted research through experimentation or use of independent historical data; (2) some explanatory models to incorporate the new data; and (3) submission to academic peer reviews via respectable scholarly journals. The more challenging is the claim, then the more demanding should be the evidence. Human wishful thinking is a powerful driver.

In Genesis Enigma, Parker is drawing from modern science and the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Jewish Torah. His comparisons and conclusions seem to have little support in the academic worlds of science and biblical studies. Even the publisher acknowledges that these are dramatic claims. Even though Parker is a well-qualified biologist, he appears unqualified in biblical research. I could find no evidence of his claims being reviewed by recognised scholars, qualified in the fields his covers. I generally place little weight in anonymous and potentially unqualified user reviews, found at Amazon.

What are the qualifications and experience of the author or authors? Are they relevant to the claims?

Being dubious about Parker’s claims of divine inspiration, I would quickly check his qualifications and academic experience in the biological sciences (considerable) and biblical research in the Torah in Hebrew (appears none).

Authors should be able to demonstrate a deep understanding to the material associated with any claims.  In the case of Andrew Parker I would expect to find advanced qualifications with research experience in both the biological sciences and biblical studies, especially associated with the book of Genesis. In the case of Parker, he qualifies for the former but not the latter. Private independent study does not usually qualify for recognised expertise.

At this point I would not consider the Genesis Enigma book any further.

Interview on Australian ABC radio