Reviewing Adam and the Genome

I suppose it’s a nice thing to have someone holding that line, though nobody can know for sure. I imagine that your faith inspires many people. It’s that someone who affirms evolution firmly can believe in the Scriptures. And so, the worst enemy of Christianity (no it’s not satan but evolution) is no longer an enemy. Do you know if your position is similar to Tim Keller? The position just seems completely made up to me. It’s like saying there was a big population that evolved and one of them was named ‘man’ and the other ‘living.’ I think it is partially misleading in that people easily connect dots in that thinking modern genetics actually proves this geneological Adam and Eve. We all know it does nothing of the sort and you believe your position by faith (which is fine and admirable-I know you know this but fear others will not realize this). I just wonder where most people go after a real Adam and Eve where God called man to go live in a magical garden, and then brought Eve into the picture after ‘man’ took a nap, tired from playing scientist, where they walked around naked (separate from their parents in marriage - always an odd addition to the story for people who had no parents - this perhaps strengthens your viewpoint) with talking snakes and then God got mad and killed almost everyone a few chapters later.

This being said I think your position is also fairly popular for the same reason Reasons to Believe is somewhat popular amongst conservative Christians (though still pulls in a tenth or so of that of YEC organizations as of 2011). In other words this ancient document correctly describes real history and modern science affirms it all. After all, “science has never proven the Bible false.” I hear so many folks saying that in my part of the country it drives me nuts. And in some sense they are right, so as long as either your are flexible in your interpretation of Scripture or your rejection of science.

I’m glad it’s you and not me as I’ve given up on Genesis being history (most or all of it, but especially the beginning 11 chapters) and do not think I can return to that position.

2 Likes

Humanity has committed such atrocities and crimes that one may be tempted, by taking your approach, to consider human immorality to separate us from all other creatures.

1 Like

@GJDS

Ah, but this is where knowing science can make all the difference: non-human animals are capable of terrible things. In my minds eye, for example, I think of the various species of birds where eggs are laid in the nests of other species. And the interloper chick systematically kills (usually indirectly) the native chicks. And there are even some species where the largest of the native chicks systematically murders his/her nest mates. Some animals are no inspiration for righteousness.

But is it immorality if they don’t know the difference between Good & Evil?

Isn’t this one of the key lessons of Genesis 1? Isn’t Adam just like all the other amoral hominids living with him? Adam was the first to learn…

I will leave it up to you and other Christians to decide how science impacts your theology and interpretation of scripture. What I am more interested in is what the science allows us to include as being supported by evidence, not necessarily exclude. The same data could allow for a situation Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa were snatched up by aliens and transported back in time where they became the genealogical parents of all of humanity. It becomes a bit of a Cosmic Teapot or a “Dragon in My Garage” situation, to name a few famous examples of the same type of argument.[quote=“Swamidass, post:129, topic:35961”]
Why do you think that conservative theologians are receptive to this model?
[/quote]

I would suspect that some of them mistakenly think your model is consistent with YEC.

1 Like

And here is the next installment by RTB’s Fuz Rana:

This article makes some good points, but I think Fuz’s effort to make a new version of science is misguided. Methodological Naturalism is probably misnamed, but is how modern science works.

A better strategy would acknowledge that science is just part of the story. It is the task of theology to complete the scientific account.

1 Like

Most conservative theologians are OEC. Most of the Biblical scholars that are YEC do not think that the Bible itself requires a YEC position. There are exceptions, but the general pattern is OEC.

Their concerns are different than you imagine. They are not as concerned about Genesis as they are about (1) Romans and (2) historic confessions. The work on genealogical Adam is important because unequivocally demonstrates that evolution does not require (thought it does permit) revision of Paul’s teach on Adam in Romans or revision of the historical confessions. No matter your personal position on these points, that has very high ecclesial value.

This is a very strange requirement. There are a lot of things we believe that are not “supported” by scientific evidence. Why do we need to have scientific support for something that is demonstrably unobservable?

In response to Dr. Rana’s critique of the book.

He writes,

But what about the question of origins? Given the descriptions of God’s creative work in the creation accounts, it looks as if God intervened in a direct, personal way when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin and history of life—including humanity’s genesis. If so, then methodological naturalism serves as a questionable guide to certain scientific questions, because it insists that all origin events must have mechanistic causes—even if they do not.

This was perhaps to be expected, along with a few book plugs which were in there. There is certainly nothing testable about the RTB creation model as it pits their model against a strawman model of naturalism (Review: Origins of Life | National Center for Science Education). Also this, despite the claims otherwise is a god of the gaps type of argument. In other words, as was posted on BioLogos’ social media feed maybe a week ago:

To these we can ask, is our Christian Creed “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of only those parts of nature that seemed like God tinkered with them or that we cannot explain yet via science?”

He is either the Creator of heaven and Earth (all of it) or none of it. And you’ve done well to identify the redefinition of methodological naturalism along with his incorrect use of science to pit modern science against the resurrection. I will have to look at your MN article in more detail, while also providing one submitted to ASA titled ‘A Defense of Methodological Naturalism’ by Kathryn Applegate - http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2013/PSCF3-13Applegate.pdf. Kathryn does an excellent job showing how those at the discovery institute and others have redefined and perhaps misunderstood methodological naturalism.

It was also to expected that Rana attack the the population estimates, hinting and suggesting that one day we will find a bottleneck of just two people. Actually, according to RTB, all species should show a severe bottleneck of just two species starting every population on Earth. The paper he cites in his article, Is genetic diversity really higher in large populations? - PMC, is an interesting paper which has an abstract that proposes:

…variation in the rate of mutation rather than in population size is the main explanation for variations in mtDNA diversity observed among bird species.

In other words, this one paper is provided to suggest population size has little to do with genetic diversity and @DennisVenema 's argument is no good. Here’s a larger paper which has been cited about 15 times as much from the same year: Revisiting an Old Riddle: What Determines Genetic Diversity Levels within Species? that is a much broader picture of what factors determine genetic diversity. A more recent 2016 paper looks at some lizards and concludes that (Does population size affect genetic diversity? A test with sympatric lizard species | Heredity) - emphasis mine:

Taken together, our data are consistent with neutral models that predict a relationship between genetic diversity and population size. Alternative evolutionary forces have been proposed as major drivers of differences in population genetic diversity, for example recurrent selection and ‘genetic draft’ (Smith and Haigh, 1974; Gillespie, 2001; Bazin et al., 2006). Although we cannot rule out the importance of other such forces, our data are predominantly consistent with the predictions of neutral theory. Ultimately, no one study can validate the generality of a relationship between genetic diversity and population size.

Cherry picking phrases from papers, casting doubt on scientific ideas, and subtely suggesting that it means that your model of 2 people supernaturally created some 50,000 years ago is a YEC tactic (except in their case there’s the mitochondrial eve that 6,000 years old and mitochondrial Adam that’s 4,000 years old) and I hope for better than these tactics.

2 Likes

@Swamidass

You wrote: Most conservative theologians are OEC.

Are you sure about that? Are you even close to being sure about that? - - Just wondering …

Well this is based on my experience at Concordia Seminary, Covenant Seminary, and most recently at the Dabar Conference. There are a few YECs around, but most conservative theologians are either OEC or do not care about the age of the earth. The insistence on the young age is an anomaly in theology, and this becomes quite obvious if you make your living in studying historical interpretations of Scripture. Very few of them are holding the line on the age of the earth, however they do value including YECs in the conversation.

I would also add that a large number are very pro-ID. This ends up being a bigger difficulty on the conversation than the age of the earth. Historical Adam, also, is very important to them.

@Swamidass ,

I find this fascinating. Is there a denomination or two where Old Earth predominates? If not, doesn’t that suggest the conference draws Old Earth more than Young Earth?

It is common for the theological leaders to be OEC, but the pastorate and “crowds” of the denomination to be YEC. This, for example, is a reasonable description of Biola and Ratio Christi and LCMS Lutherans and Oral Roberts and conservative Baptists.

In these contexts, there is real and uncomfortable gap to bridge for the theological leaders. They have to find ways to build trust with YECs in the constituency. This is one reason why ID does so well with them, and why they often adopt anti-evolution rhetoric. ID and anti-evolution rhetoric has a “function” here, it gives them a way to signal that they are making a stand on the same side as YECs against evolution. This is one reason that pure pro-evolution appeals will always fail here. Something has to be given that can replace the ID-anti-evolution function they have come rely upon. Something has to be substituted in its place, or the coalition crumbles.

Here, a strong Gospel focus is the best response. It is theologically grounded and is the true source of Christian unity. If you ever get a chance to watch my recorded talks, you will see me inserting the Resurrection of Jesus into the center of the conversation. This is intentional. Leaders are often truly amazed how well I am treated and accepted by their YEC audience because of this. YECs that follow Jesus respond to the Gospel. They hear the voice of Jesus, and they accept me as one of their own.

Encountering Jesus, and a clear confession that God raised him from the dead, this raises questions about anti-evolutionism and ID. What do we have need for it in the Church?

I do not think it is possible for the Church to move past its reliance on anti-evolutionism until theistic evolutionists begin to regularly confess the Resurrection. This is the key act that completely alters the conversation.

5 Likes

Hi Joshua,

I agree with points 2 - 5 that follow the above point, but point 1 seems like an overreach to me. Evolution does not require a rethinking of Romans 5 under your scenario, but Genesis is still going to require some rework. After all, the order of creation in Genesis 1 does not match the order of the appearance of phyla in the fossil record, and the days could not have been literally 24 hours each, etc. Unless by “traditional” you mean something very different than what the vast majority of theologians believed about Genesis 1 - 3 over the first 1800 years of church history.[quote=“Swamidass, post:147, topic:35961”]
there is real and uncomfortable gap to bridge for the theological leaders. They have to find ways to build trust with YECs in the constituency. This is one reason why ID does so well with them, and why they often adopt anti-evolution rhetoric. ID and anti-evolution rhetoric has a “function” here, it gives them a way to signal that they are making a stand on the same side as YECs against evolution. This is one reason that pure pro-evolution appeals will always fail here. Something has to be given that can replace the ID-anti-evolution function they have come rely upon. Something has to be substituted in its place, or the coalition crumbles.

Here, a strong Gospel focus is the best response. It is theologically founded and is the true source of Christian unity. If you ever get a chance to watch my recorded talks, you will see me inserting the Resurrection of Jesus into the center of the conversation. This is intentional. Leaders are often truly amazed how well I am treated and accepted by their YEC audience because of this. YECs that follow Jesus respond to the Gospel. They hear the voice of Jesus, and they accept me as one of their own.
[/quote]

On the other hand, I nominate this for “Quote of the Year”!

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

In my view, this turns out to be a false history @Chris_Falter. On this one, it would be great to get @tremperlongman and @TedDavis and @JRM 's thoughts.

By “traditional” I mean “within the range of acceptable interpretations in the pre-science era.”

This is an entirely defensible definition of “traditional” and shuffles the deck. We find that traditional interpretations does not include Ken Ham style interpretations of Genesis which arise in the 1800s. Moreover, insisting on a historical Adam, to the point of dividing the Church, also is not a traditional view of our faith, which centers on Jesus not Adam. Traditionally, we see people outside the garden an old earth an more. None of this was insisted upon as central to our faith. This is part of what tradition gives us, a correct ordering of our priorities, and a proper grounding on the revelation of Jesus instead of human efforts to study nature.

For example, look at the Book of Enoch, which one of the extra biblical sources that YECs draw upon, part of the Ethiopian Bible, and dated to about 200 BC. Most interestingly, this is where we see most clearly the term “Son of Man” as a Messianic reference, and may be what Jesus was was referring to in his ministry (the Daniel passage notwithstanding). Without arguing if this book is in the cannon (it is not), we can take it as a 2nd Temple example of CS Lewis’s theologized fiction. It prominently includes non-Adamic beings that are biologically compatible with humans, and produce giants for hybrid offspring. It also clearly teaches that Eve was not the first woman created by God, but that there were others. This notion of non-Adamic beings is found throughout Jewish, Christian, and pagan interpretations of Genesis for 2 thousand years, and it is never considered heretical in of itself (though it has at times been mixed with other heretical teachings and racism).

About “traditional”, knowing the history I am unwilling to give rhetorical high ground to scientific YECs on this. They are not defending a traditional interpretation at all, but promoting a theological innovation they have no authority to make. The belief in 6-day creation is found in the traditional interpretation (see Origen) but it is never seen as central to the faith or provable by studying nature as a foundational sign of God. In contrast with their theological innovation, I root my faith in Jesus. To be clear, my problem is not with YEC, but with a science-rooted faith.

For those that think that this is just “playing games with words,” it is not. Rhetoric is important because careful and honest word choice is what guides people to correct understanding. Debates are lost over word choices like this, and entire histories rewritten. It is critical to present an accurate view of these things, and the scientific emphasis of YEC is a major deviation from traditional theology. For me, the process of affirming evolution was a return to orthodox theology. It was repentance from these sorts of theological innovations that I had no right to make or impose on others.

I affirm the traditional interpretation of Scripture that places Jesus above the diverse understandings of Genesis the Church has always harbored. Nothing in evolution requires us to deviate from it.

3 Likes

Which is why I wrote…

**Venema and McKnight might have calmed concerns of many readers with personal confessions.**9 They could have explained how and why they personally came to know Him, affirm His Lordship, and believe the Resurrection. Confessing Jesus’ authority over all things, including science (Matt. 28:18-20), might have averted their after-science framing too. From the Empty Tomb, it seems untenable to interpret the Gospels after assuming the solid scientific conclusion that men never rise from the dead. Science is blind to the Resurrection and this blindness declares its limits; science cannot bring us to God or speak of when He acts. Therefore, in view of Jesus, why interpret any Scripture after assuming science?
http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

`9. ‘When people utter the sentence, “I confess that Jesus is Lord,” they are confessing. They are not stating a fact about Jesus. They are enacting a commitment by speaking. By making the confession, you bind yourself to what you confess.’ Okamoto, Joel (2015) “Making Sense of Confessionalism Today,” Concordia Journal: Vol. 41: No. 1, Article 5. "Making Sense of Confessionalism Today" by Joel Okamoto

I would also add that this is what gave Francis Collins authority when he wrote The Language of God. His book was written to his secular colleagues and included first an extended confession of belief in the Resurrection and of Jesus’ Lordship. It carried authority because of the risk he took in making this confession, not merely because of his rank in science.

Sometimes I think we forgot his example, and turned our message exclusively to the Church, where the Ressurection is inexplicably “assumed.” Spiritual authority comes from taking risks, and the Church does not trust voices that are timid about declaring Jesus. I advocate a return to Dr. Collins example.

We need a generation of confessing scientists.

2 Likes

You should probably let @BradKramer know =).

1 Like

I can see the wisdom of expanding our discussions to more frequently include Enochian themes… not because they are inerrant… but because they help fill in the missing pieces… and they can be inspirational in themselves!!!

Enochian literature is the logical place for any Christian interested in the backstory on angels and the patriarchal period!

Confessing Jesus is a perfectly reasonable addition to the discussion.

1 Like

62 posts were split to a new topic: Subjectivity/Objectivity and evidence in science and philosophy

Dr. Rana’s article, “If Christ Be Not Raised,” suffers from a common problem with the symposium. Namely, he spends more time promoting his alternative theory than actually reviewing Adam & the Genome. By my count, Rana interacts with Venema’s portion of the book in just two paragraphs, or roughly 100 of the article’s 1700 words. Not exactly a “review,” by my understanding.

A total side issue, but “Son of Man” was Jesus’ preferred term in public contexts precisely because it carried no Messianic connotations in his audience’s mind, despite its presence in Daniel 7.

3 Likes

Christy, there is a rational scenario that would reconcile your position and Joshua’s if you are willing to give it some serious thought. He is correct in stating that sin cannot pass through DNA. But humankind is not solely the result of DNA. Darwinian evolution produced the species, Homo sapiens, but it took another 100+K yrs. to produce the human Mind that resulted in a behavior that makes us exceptional in all of Nature. And there is good evidence that this occurred suddenly–a Great Leap Forward that may have begun with a single person (Adam) or a single couple, A&E who spread it to the other Homo sapiens already present. Sin–moral evil–could only occur if the creature involved had mind and conscience–knowledge of good and evil. Sin could only spread when the first recipients of Mind (i.e. a programmed brain) spread it to fellow Homo sapiens.

Admittedly, this scenario will not become accepted by most scientists until a biological mechanism for ‘brain programming’ becomes well established. I have a ‘gut feeling’ (a Faith) that it soon will be. In the meantime it can be considered as a reasonable possibility. From a religious point of view, its major ‘flaw’ is that it offers no support for the Fall, and thus a rethinking of Christ’s role as Savior.
God bless,
Al Leo

@Swamidass invited me to comment on this exchange with @Chris_Falter. I gather that Chris’ original point concerns the interpretation of the Genesis “days,” not Adam & Eve (the main topic in this thread). If the topic is the timescale of creation, then much can be said about what the “traditional” views were. I’ll try to keep it short.

Prior to the final years of the 17th century (when some began to speculate about other possibilities), Christian scholars basically held either of two views about the Genesis timescale. (1) God made everything (as Calvin put it) “in the space of six days,” words that remain important to many in the PCA and OPC churches today. That’s the YEC view. (2) God made everything all at once, in an instant, and told us about it through the vehicle of six “days,” so that our feeble understanding would not be totally lost. That was Augustine’s view, from which Calvin was directly dissenting. For more on this, see http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-concordism-part-3

In both interpretations, the creation took place at the time of Adam & Eve–that is, there was no vast history of the earth or the heavens prior to the creation week, and there was no vast history of the earth or the heavens within the creation “days.” In other words, both (1) and (2) were “young earth” views, although Ham and other YECs today greatly protest against (2).

Did Ham-style interpretations exist prior to the 1800s? Yes, but (to be fair to the truth) the Flood was not often seen as having created the fossiliferous rocks prior to John Woodward in the late 17th century. In the early 19th century, however, a view equivalent to Ham’s was quite popular. It had a near-death experience as a result of the slow but steady acceptance of “concordist” views prior to the Civil War, a process that continued (perhaps accelerated) for the rest of the 19th century, such that by the time of the “Fundamentalists” in the 1920s there were no Fundamentalist leaders who held a view like Ham’s.

1 Like