Page 221 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf
P. 221
The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 198
Falsifier 5 — Scriptural Mismatch
Test: If Qur
ʾānic beacons systematically contradict data (e.g., gradual drifts
instead of ignition), APH is demoted to theology alone.
Likely Outcome: Strength of APH
By combining probabilities across independent domains (genome, artifacts,
demography), we can calculate the joint likelihood ratio.
APH prediction success (genomes, archaeology, demography): ~0.9
× 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.73 (73% likelihood).
Gradualist null model success: ~0.1 × 0.05 × 0.15 = 0.00075 (0.075%
likelihood).
Likelihood Ratio (LR):
That is, the evidence is ~1,000 times more likely under APH than under
gradualism.
Figure 18.1 — Comparative Likelihood of Predictions under APH and Gradualism
ʾ
This figure compares the likelihood of successful predictions across four Qur
ānic beacons interpreted
scientifically: Ṣalṣāl → Ready Genome, Names → Symbolic Abstraction, Spirit → Creativity &
Imagination, and Trust → Moral Responsibility. Under the Adam Paradox Hypothesis (APH),
predictions align strongly with the data (85–90%), while gradualism shows weak alignment (5–15%).
The consistent gap illustrates how evidence is far more likely under APH than under a gradualist null
model.
