Hi Eddie,
It’s good that you asked for clarification because I feel that your formulation mischaracterizes my view on several points.
I would not state it as strongly as to say that American Protestant evangelical theology is “no longer viable” in the forms held by previous generations. That’s why I used the term “wholesome”. In my humble opinion, I do believe it would be healthy for American Protestant evangelical theology to “evolve” somewhat, but I would not dare to be so arrogant as to declare the death sentence on it.
In fact, the kind of evolution I am envisioning is like the position you hold. I think it would be healthy for the Church as a whole if Christians would stop staking their faith on the issue of Adam and Eve as sole (genetic) progenitors of the human race. I consider it a wise choice of Christians to take their theological dogs out of this fight, if I might be so rude to mangle the proverbial expression you used.
On this point, I want to say that I don’t consider such changes in aspects of our theology to be warranted solely on the basis of scientific findings. Instead, scientific evidence from Creation can, at times, be a useful pointer to trigger critical examination of certain theological positions. If that evaluation process leads to finding theological faults with or alternatives to a certain position, only then the change of theology is warranted. That would work in much the same way as your statement that you’re okay with Lamoureux’s position on Adam and Eve. Presumably, that means you consider there to be valid theological arguments that would prevent one’s systematic theology from collapsing in case Adam and Eve are not, strictly speaking, historical figures.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. I agree with you that science should not be exalted to a position of dictatorship over theology. Still, proper science and proper theology should at least be consistent with each other. Then again, I am speaking for myself here and I won’t attempt to defend that moving target consisting of “scores of ECs” you are always shooting at .
Very well said. Have we learned nothing from the Catholic Church’s embarrassing bungle with Galileo? Have we abandoned the traditional concept of the Two Books? Have we forgotten all the warnings of previous generations of Christian scholars back to Augustine, for Christians not to talk nonsense about scientific matters of which they have little or no understanding?
Yes! I wish this is how Theistic Evolution was introduced to the world by Francis Collins. I think this is much more accurate than the unfortunately claims that “Science has ruled out a historical Adam and Eve.”
You are certainly correct here. By MRCA, I am meaning any common genealogical ancestor of all of us, which may not even be the most recent of us all.
Exactly. I would add that this is relatively well accepted, and the point that is most relevant to considerations of if a historical Adam exists. In the most important ways MitoEve and YAdam are misnomers that just serve to confuse the real point where science and theology intersect here.
Once again, this is exactly my point! It is just flat false that evolution is incompatible with a historical Adam and Eve. Rather, it appears to be incompatible with an Adam and Eve that are sole progenitors of us all. But this is a different question altogether.
The key point is that whatever the traditional plain reading has been, the Bible never tell us directly that Adam and Eve were our sole-progenitors. The model I have put forth does not impute error on Paul, or Genesis or anywhere else in Scripture. It does impute a small misreading error on the traditional interpretation. This shift in interpretation is equivalent to what was required by geocentrism. It does not change any of the core doctrines of our faith.
Yeah this is an issue. I suppose the question, is it possible we have a sole progenitor much farther back than Carter puts it (at 6,000 years) if we jigger with the starting genomes a bit. I’m not sure anyone has directly tested that. For example, perhaps recombination rates would not have to change so dramatically if they had 300,000 years to work, and then Carter’s model could work in the old earth context.
I’m not claiming a final conclusion here. I am just asking the question if it is possible to make the Old Earth Special Creation model work, specifically in the case of humans.
I took a stab at that idea last year, looking just at the allele frequency distribution. (I guess I was bored or something – I don’t really remember what prompted me.) My model was a constant-sized population of pre-humans, out of which two are chosen at random at some point in the past. The population was then allowed to grow exponentially and very rapidly back to the original size, which it stayed at until the present. I compared that to just having a constant-sized population throughout. This ignores the large recent expansion in the pop size, but that doesn’t have much effect on most of the frequency spectrum. This was the result for A&E bottlenecks 100, 200 and 300 hundred thousand years ago (with power law trend lines for the constant-sized and 300 kya cases).
Cain’s wife is an exegetical crux if we stay with the traditional reading of Adam and Eve as the sole progenitor pair, especially since the text indicates Cain was aware of other people in the world who were not members of his immediate family. The traditional reading is also flatly in contradiction to the scientific evidence. However the text presents no problems at all if we accept evolution. A reading which causes exegetical contradictions as well as contradicting scientific evidence, should not be favoured over a reading which causes no problems and is in harmony with both the internal evidence of the text and the scientific evidence.
The Genesis flood is an exegetical crux if we stay with the traditional reading that it was both geographically and anthropologically universal, and is flatly in contradiction to the scientific evidence, as well as failing to account for the very obvious survival of the Nephilim which is made explicit in the text and supported incidentally in Numbers 33. It’s just Adam and Eve all over again. However the text presents no problems at all if we accept a flood which was both geographically and anthropologically local. A reading which causes exegetical contradictions as well as contradicting scientific evidence, should not be favoured over a reading which causes no problems and is in harmony with both the internal evidence of the text and the scientific evidence.
The chrono-genealogies of Genesis 4-5 are an exegetical crux if we stay with the traditional reading that they record lifespans of hundreds of years, not least because of the internal tensions this creates with the text (it results in several people outliving the flood, which later scribes felt compelled to cover up). The traditional reading is also flatly in contradiction to the scientific evidence. However the text presents no problems at all if we accept a reading of the text in its Ancient Near Eastern context. A reading which causes exegetical contradictions as well as contradicting scientific evidence, should not be favoured over a reading which causes no problems and is in harmony with both the internal evidence of the text and the scientific evidence.
The change management issue should start with reading the text in its original socio-historical context (as Enns and Walton do so well), and then tying in those conclusions to historical exegesis. There are historical precedents for pre-modern Jewish and Christian exegetes interpreting Adam and Eve as other than the sole progenitors of the human species, interpreting the Genesis flood as geographically and anthropologically local, and the genealogies as other than strict chrono-genealogies with lifespans centuries long. This is where we need to start.
All of this makes perfect sense… as long as it is understood that much of the plot elements that go with a Global Flood are extraneous to a regional flood story.
So … the global part disappears… and instead of a pair of animals from all the world… the ship merely contains an ordinary shipment of local stock. And instead of a boat built in a middle a waterless field, the ship is already in one of the two major rivers. And instead of being the source of all humanity … the survivors of the ark blend into the general population of the Ancient Near East.
A valid point. But that “common” DNA only shows that there had to be a starting point. If God were creating humans all over the planet Earth, wouldn’t it seem likely that some DNA would be shared across all humans?
Regarding Adam and Eve, one point that we should remember, the Bible deals directly with genealogies, and Adam and Eve are shown to be the ones from whom, for example, Abraham descended, and from him Israel, and ultimately Christ. In all cases, God was directly involved, and this is the theological doctrine that Christianity teaches - and part of the point that Paul makes.
Hi Eddie - an Augustinian view of the fall cannot be a core Christian doctrine, in my view, unless you’re willing to exclude Orthodox churches. You could call it a very early doctrine of great influence in the western church, sure - but not a core doctrine. It’s not in the creeds; it’s not universal in Christianity.
I don’t think Protestants are alone in describing other denominations in this manner - many of us have experienced extreme language from Orthodox priests and believers, in a desperate attempt to make us appear right and others wrong. I think Christianity is much easier to discuss than it is to live according to its teachings - but this has been understood by all of us for centuries.
.
