And if you strike the phrase “through the father,” the idea that a sin nature is passed on biologically from Adam & Eve has a long theological history. We should also note that McKnight qualified his statements on that point (“according to many”) and his point about DNA (“and that often means”), so he recognizes and leaves room for the fact that not every theological construct of original sin teaches that it is biologically passed on from Adam & Eve to their progeny.
I understand your concerns for gracious dialogue, Joshua, but I think you’re being too strict in your reading of him. You are right that he ignores many possible interpretations, including your own, but I think that was by design, since the book is intended to address the popular beliefs of a broad audience.
At high risk of belaboring a tangential point, I do think you are still missing what I am saying here.
(as a quick aside the AIG article is a good read, thoughtful, even though we will disagree at times, and I almost fell of my chair when I saw them conclude with an embrace of “mystery” about what exactly sinful nature is. Mystery is a very good theological response to much of this. Original Sin Topic | Answers in Genesis )
My complaint is not that they dispute or attack these views. Certainly some people hold them and I agree that they (for the most part) are wrong here. What I dispute is saying all this = historical Adam. That bundling is the part that is not fair and contributes to just a massive amount of confusion.
Rather than just repeating that point, let me propose an alternate way of doing this that preserves his point. He might have said…
This framing, I feel, would have left the entire premise of the book intact, but would haved also obviated the most common critiques. This framing most of us who affirm a historical Adam could endorse and even promote, even if McKnight ultimately came to a different conclusion on Adam than us. Speaking for myself, I may not have identified any difficulty with his argument.
So, what exactly is gained by bundling everything into a 7 point definition, rather than mapping it out like I just did here?
If historical = real, several in the BioLogos camp and elsewhere in TE adopt this position. It is not a fringe position. Some even tell me it is the dominant position among Biologos scholars. E.g. John Walton (along with every Wheaton Prof. that signs their belief statement). There is also Jack Collins.
If historical = real and genealogical, this has been prematurely rejected because people thought it was impossible. Turns out, most of the models that, for example, Loren Haarsma discusses are actually geneological Adam models too, even though I may be the first to point this out.
Right now, I may be the first with the scientific expertise and curiosity who has asked if a recent genealogical Adam is possible. That makes this contribution significant. Exciting, right? That is how scientific progress advances, with people asking questions of established ideas, gathering data, and answering them in ways using that data that we did not first expect: a recent genealogical Adam is possible.
However, being the first to raise an issue does not make a person right or wrong. The key thing from here is to determine what evidence falsifies my claims. Turns out, these claims have so far withstood a reasonable amount of scrutiny from my peers. We will see how it goes from here. Maybe I will be shown wrong, and I’ll try to be the first to admit it.
Instead, I’ve found most people in this conversation have not yet considered the idea, and cannot identify an data that disputes it. Give them time though. Maybe they eventually will.
Yes, but as we have seen, that is not the traditional account.
Except that they are not rejecting my scenario. There has been high academic interest in it. Great news, right?
I would think what is gained it that McKnight has made explicit exactly which idea of “historical Adam” he thinks needs to be re-worked in light of the genetic evidence presented in the first half of the book. He has definitively laid out that it is not every possible “historical Adam” construct he is dealing with, just this one he delineated. McKnight was not arguing every construct that could be labelled a “historical Adam” was a no-go in light of science. He was arguing that a specific one, the one he laid out, did not square with the scientific observations laid out in the other part of the book. It seems to me that you are faulting McKnight because some other “historical Adam” construct that wasn’t discussed could potentially be squared with other scientific observations that weren’t discussed, and that would have made people feel better because they could have their historical Adam and science too. That may be the case for some people. But I guarantee that the vast majority of people I know are not committed in a generic sense to any old Adam as long as he is, in some sense, real and historical. They are committed to the specific Adam that McKnight described. That is the one they believe the Bible describes, and the one they believe Paul refers to in Romans when talking about Christ and salvation.
If the Adam McKnight describes is not your historical Adam, then why not just conclude you aren’t the intended audience for the book? You have no dog in that fight.
1 Like
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
103
Since this is a rather crucial point, could you tell me where I have seen that?
By most every thing I’ve seen, it is the traditional account.
You only have two things to play with:
how many years ago?; and
is Adam the father of all humanity?
If Adam isn’t the father of all humanity, then I don’t see how you are going to accommodate YEC’s zeal for Original Sin and the need for Salvation.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
104
The first question that brings to my mind is if there was a recent genealogical Adam then how do you get all of the genetic variation in some of our more diverse genes? For example, you can take a look at the genetic diversity of the HLA genes here:
For HLA-A there are 3,913 alleles. Adam and Eve would have had 4 alleles between them, assuming for the moment that their alleles were all different and not simply a copy from Adam’s. For HLA-DPA2 there are only 5 alleles. So you also need to explain the difference in genetic diversity between different HLA genes. I just don’t see how this can support such a recent and severe genetic bottleneck.[quote=“Swamidass, post:101, topic:35961”]
Except that they are not rejecting my scenario.
[/quote]
But this is only true if the audience agrees that Original Sin transmitted to all humanity, even those who do not have Adam in both their genealogy and their genetics!
A genealogical Adam doesn’t require genetic evidence; it’s just a male who is a common genealogical ancestor to all living humans. Since the number of ancestors doubles every generation that you go back, it’s likely that the most recent common ancestor lived within the last few thousand years (with some uncertainty about the possibility of completely isolated populations).
I’m not worrying about what an audience thinks. I just wanted to clarify the minimum that is meant by a genealogical Adam, and specifically that such a figure does not imply a bottleneck in population size. If somebody insists on everyone having a genetic (rather than genealogical) contribution from Adam, then that imposes additional constraints.
1 Like
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
111
I probably should have left the reference to “genetic” contribution.
I was really trying to focus on the genealogical. If you think Adam brought Original Sin to all humanity … how many Evangelicals or YECs are going to agree that Adam’s descendants didn’t inter-marry with the other humans?
In this case, the conventional ideas of Original Sin get in the way (unlike Antoine’s interesting approach to the communicable nature of Original Sin!).
But if Adam has to be everyone’s Greatest Grandpa … (with or without detectable genetic contribution) . . . 6000 years is not enough time for the present variation in the human genotype.
So, YEC’s have to make up their mind: what’s more important? 6000 years? or Adam being the ancestor of all humanity.
@Swamidass hasn’t been willing to come out and say it … but it’s one or the other. I don’t think there are many takers for rejecting both: 6000 years of history and Adam’s descendants are not amongst us!
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
112
I was just trying to get a feel for where people were coming from. If a belief in a “historical Adam” is a faith based belief, then all the more power to you. I was just more interested to see if there were specific scientific claims being made, which doesn’t seem to be the case.[quote=“glipsnort, post:109, topic:35961”]
Since the number of ancestors doubles every generation that you go back, it’s likely that the most recent common ancestor lived within the last few thousand years (with some uncertainty about the possibility of completely isolated populations).
[/quote]
This would be true if there was an Adam/Eve or not. It would seem to fall under the banner of a faith based belief that isn’t contradicted by scientific evidence.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
113
The only way it works is if God also created a separate and largish human population 6,000 years ago with all of that genetic variation already in place.