There are YECs who want to accept Evolution, but are unwilling to do so if it means eliminating Adam/Eve as historical people. Please note that this is a different fixation than those who might insist that the redemption of humanity won’t work unless Creation is in six days.
In fact, I have never met a YEC who believes redemption won’t work if Creation was not performed in six days. But I have met MANY YECs who believe without an historical Adam and Eve, the redemption of humanity is impossible.
I guess the problem I run into is the need for a theodicy, an explanation for the evil in the world. If sin is the evil in the world, and Adam’s progeny, by spreading and intermingling with others, is the foretelling of doom (in YEC discussions, pre-sin cognition is free and innocent, like Adam before the fall), then, to quote from the Lord of the Rings, "Frodo… your coming to us is as of the footsteps of doom. You bring great evil here, Ringbearer. "
It would turn the whole YEC message on its head (and that’s not just the case with GAE, but with any idea of Adam, that I can see, if put in to EC)–that sin is not the cause of death or evil, but of relationship with God.
This actually branches out into a nice discussion about why Adam is even relevant (not with GAE only; so maybe this should be on another thread). Though I support the GAE idea, as well as any other with regard to a potential fall, for people to come to the science–as you do. I’m definitely not understanding or comprehending it all–and think that all this is a great way to learn.
I personally lean more toward no history of Adam; such as Lamoureux.
Dear George,
Then why would they have a problem with Adam and Eve being placed around 100,000 years ago? This does not upset a six day creation nor conflict with evolution. It just requires not taking a literal view of the genealogy which is easy to explain - there has been no written history over that time period.
I suppose what I’m trying to get at is this: it’s not just the historicity of A&E that’s important to YECs, but also a whole range of theological issues rooted in their historicity.
I’m an EC but believe in a historical A&E with or without GAE, so what’s stopped these YECs from accepting evolution thus far? They don’t need GAE, they just need a model of origins that preserves a historical pair in some way, of which there are a few options…
FWIW, I’m not opposed to the GAE thesis, I’m just interested in understanding the goal as it relates to YECs. So I really appreciate the dialogue!
Evidence, please. Any opinion polls or research? As far as I can tell, YECs want to accept evolution as much as Republicans want to impeach the President.
I think that is the strategy. But, converting YECs to “believe” in evolution is not really the mission. The mission is to invite people to see that finding harmony between faith and consensus science is a possibility for faithful Christians, and to present the evidence for that consensus science in an accessible and honest way.
Thanks for the reply. Romans 5 is an important passage, for sure. But how does GAE help a YEC with that text in such a way that they come to accept evolution?
Any EC model of origins with a historical A&E fits with Romans 5 because Paul’s making an argument based on Adam’s federal headship of humanity. That federal headship exists whether GAE is true or not, so that shouldn’t stop any YEC from embracing EC.
Genesis 2 describes, explicitly, the special creation of Adam & Eve (in contrast to Gen 1, which doesnt).
Virtually all Evolution models prior to GAE dismiss Gen 2 as allegory. YECs insist that Romans 5 does not work to explain human redemption unless the Adam/Eve pair is literal and an historic reality.
If these YECs think that a specially created A&E is essential to both Gen 2 and certain theological issues, they could insert a specially created couple into either an ancient or recent representative EC scenario.
Again, I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but GAE doesn’t appear to be necessary. And again, let me stress that I’m not arguing against GAE, I’m just trying to understand what it’s attempting to do for a particular group of people which can’t already be achieved by EC models, with or without it.
Does it though? I’m grabbing this quote from Since the Beginning: Interpreting Geneis 1 and 2 through the Ages:
The point in Genesis at which titular adam becomes the proper name Adam is a complicated issue, due to the ambiguity of the Hebrew language itself… This ambiguity is reflected quite clearly among modern commentators and major English translations, where at least seven interpretations have emerged regarding the introduction of Adam in Genesis (Gen 2:19 = KJV, Gen 2:20 = ESV/NASB/NIV, Gen 3:17 = RSV, Gen 3:20 = NLT, Gen 3:21 = NEB, Gen 4:1 = CEB, Gen 4:25 = JB/NRSV/NAB).
YECs dont want to do any such thing… they want to start everything with Adam/Eve.
It is the very design of inserting 2 specially created humans in the middle of an evolved population that changes the whole conversation!
It is at the core of GAE. And now that it has been articulated by Dr. @swamidass , you are dismissing its importance by saying anyone could propose that?
Well, let them! Its GAE.
Important Note: Romans 5 is the chapter being shored up… by re-interpreting Genesis 1 and 2.
All I’m trying to say is that a historical, specially created A&E can happen in an EC scenario, whether or not GAE is true. There was nothing stopping the YECs you have in mind from opting for an EC model that gave them what they wanted before the arrival of the GAE hypothesis.
But, look, if I’m not making sense then that’s fine. As I said, maybe I am missing or misunderstanding something (I haven’t read the book). I was just trying to better understand things.
Thanks for the engagement, George. I do genuinely hope that the book and it’s thesis helps YECs, or whoever, in the ways Joshua Swamidass hoped for.
Not any. Any model that retains a historical A&E could, in theory, have them specially created if that was thought essential.
I thought this whole discussion was based on the fact you said the book was aimed at YECs who wanted to accept evolution but also wanted to retain a historical, specially created couple…
A third choice was already available, which is what I’ve been trying to say this whole time…
Evolution except for A&E without GAE.
I’m not wedded to that view myself, but it’s been an option all this time - evolution happened but God created A&E specially at some point and their offspring ended up interbreeding with everyone outside the garden…the rest is history!
Which brings us full circle to my original question…but let’s not go back there because it’s nearly 10pm here in London and I want to go to bed soon haha.
haha.