Continuing the discussion from Reviewing Adam and the Genome:
The final review...
Swamidass offers one possible way of holding to both, and it is interesting to note that Venema admits that this is indeed possible; it is even more interesting to note that Venema’s rejoinder to it is distinctly theological. Venema’s criticisms deserve serious consideration, but the crucial point here is that he raises no scientific objections to the proposal. But Swamidass’s approach is not the only possibility here. Indeed, possible scenarios abound; scholars as diverse as C. S. Lewis, John Stott, Denis Alexander, and N. T. Wright have proffered theories.
So where does this leave us? Perhaps surprisingly, it leaves us with the conclusion that one need not reject belief in a historical Adam in order to affirm contemporary genetic science. And, of course, it leaves us with the conclusion that one need not reject the science in order to hold to belief in a historical Adam. Some Christians likely will hold the “Common Ancestry Thesis” and the “Large Initial Human Population Thesis” at arm’s length for other reasons (theological or otherwise), but they should not do so on the grounds that these theses are inconsistent with belief in a historical Adam. Others may dismiss commitment to a historical Adam for various reasons, but they need not do so on the motivation that this historic Christian belief is ruled out by the science. For those of us who remain convinced that belief in a historical Adam is scripturally warranted and theologically important, there is no reason to reject or fear the science.
It is quite good. What are your thoughts @DennisVenema?
@gbrooks9, is this evidence enough that the genealogical adam is important?