Ah, the good old science vs. religion debate. It's been a while, hasn't it. Well, let's cut straight to the point: Personally, I don't believe that science and religion have any business meddling in each other's affairs. Their very nature is antithetic - one's dealing in rationality and the other's inherently irrational. I'm always wary when science is used to prove or disprove religion; it just doesn't work that way. The very nature of religion exists outside of science and rationality - otherwise it wouldn't be worth a thing. The whole point of the exercise is to believe regardless. That's what faith means. The whole point of science, on the other hand, is not to believe at all.

As for me, I'm an agnostic. I don't know whether or not a God exists and I don't particularly care either way. As far as my everyday life goes, the concept of religion is completely and utterly arbitrary and irrelevant. When reading such a news item, I might or might not be interested in its whole scientific impact but it certainly doesn't alter my personal religion or non-religion. Why would it? Let's assume I am religious: If I caught myself thinking, gee, I'm glad, this kinda reinforces my faith, then my faith hasn't been particularly strong to begin with and I would've to ask myself if I am indeed genuinely believing in all that. If I'm thinking, haha, this again proves that religion is nothing but delusional, then I'm caught in the fallacy of using rationality to disprove irrationality.

 

I think religion speaks to the big picture while science refers more to specific details. I don't believe they have to be in competition. I believe that one supports the other. So personally, I see both science and religion helping to form my understanding of the world. BTW when I say religion I should probably say spirituality or belief system b/c I don't believe any single religion has it all right.

 

"Irrational" is a loaded word. In a way, religion is more rational because it provides reasonable answers to questions that science cannot.

It should be noted that the point of the article is not the tracing back to an original couple, the article itself distances itself from that conclusion, but just that the migration of women has contributed more to the gene pool than has that of men. Coincidentally, precedent is found in the Bible, as Rebecca traveled to Canaan to marry Isaac.

 

I'm using it in the most literal sense. I didn't mean it to be derogatory at all.

Being rational isn't the same as being reasonable. Personally, I don't find the answers religion provides to be particularly reasonable but that is up to each individual to decide. They aren't, however, rational because there's no tangible evidence for them whatsoever. Again, I don't mean this in any derogatory sense. If you or others find them fullfilling, believe away. But it's never rational to have faith. Faith is per definition irrational and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at all.

 

irrational - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

 

Thanks. I've just learned that the word "irrational" - although the same in German - has a somewhat different conotation in English. Sorry bout that, didn't know it didn't carry the same meaning.

 

You'll find that cognates between languages may not be completely false, but are often not exactly the same either.

 

Tell me about it ... I studied English so I should've known better. Embarrassing :no:

 

Don't beat yourself up. We learn from mistakes.

 

My friend, the evidence doesn't support or refute that idea. There is simply no way to know from DNA, that all human life sprang from a single male and single female. In fact, there is enough genetic diversity in humans to cast at least a shadow of doubt on the idea that humanity is chronically inbred.

Tracing male lineage is more difficult as the article pointed out but the article and Seielstad's included the following:

For me, it doesn't matter and it does not shake my faith that we are God's creation.

 

Based on the question I will say DNA evidence does not reinforce my faith. To me faith is the complete trust in God, even when you don't understand. There's only one thing that reinforce my faith and that's my walk with God. I guess I am a right wing believer as I do not accept any form of evolution as logical or scientific, I accept the Genesis account as how life came to be and the World and all created in a 7 day period. It's nice when true science proves creation, which DNA is a prime example.

 

Well, my friend. I agree with most of your sentiment but to call evolution not logical and claim that the literal Genesis creation tale is 100% fact is not born out by the data.

The DNA evidence also does not support your idea BUT it is more important to me that you feel comfortable in your faith than in your understanding of the science. God does not judge us by our understanding of the mystery of his works.