She seems to have misunderstood much of my section of the book - few of her points are actually supported by the quotes from the book that she chooses. All in all it’s pretty lacklustre.
I think Plantinga would be somewhat surprised to hear that he’s a concordist - perhaps @TedDavis might comment further on that.
I have to agree with her on that one point. I don’t find anything objectionable about Concordism in its end result… as long as it is realized that sometimes concordism produces results and sometimes it doesn’t.
I’ve seen much stranger positions here on these pages … by those who support BioLogos goals!
As you like to say in your book, Dennis (and I also like to say in my classes), the Facebook status of this question is, “it’s complicated.”
Certainly Dr Sung presents Plantinga as a concordist (on the basis of a few quotations from his 2011 book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, and she obviously thinks of herself as a concordist, too. That much is not complicated.
To say more with similar confidence, however, I’d need to know a lot more about Plantinga’s views (not just that one book) and hers. I’ll say a few things less confidently below.
First, what does Dr. Sung mean by concordism? My guess is that she means something like this: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - BioLogos, in other words one or more varieties of the OEC view. That’s basically what concordism has come to mean, for the most part, when discussing origins. She does appear to endorse an OEC view, she likes the term “concordism,” and I’m pretty sure I understand her on this much.
Second, is Al Plantinga a concordist in the same sense? Perhaps he is, but if so it’s not obvious from the book she quotes as a whole, much less from the specific passages she quoted. Those passages are about a “deep concord” (which is the title of one of the chapters) between Christian theism on the one hand and the enterprise of science on the other hand. I fully agree with the basic claim here, BTW; one of my current traveling talks is called “Why Christianity Is Good for Science,” and I make historical, philosophical, and theological arguments to support the same type of “concord” that Plantinga also sees.
But that’s not “concordism” as I spoke of it above. One might use the word in that way, but it’s not a common usage.
However, I suspect from other writings that Plantinga is also a concordist of the same type as Dr. Sung appears to be. I’m pretty sure he believes in an OEC view–he’s certainly not a YEC–and I’ve heard him (verbally, in semi-private contexts but still in front of a couple dozen people so I won’t hesitate to talk about it) raise questions and make statements about sin, the flood, and the fall that are entirely consistent with a quite conservative OEC scenario. If someone out there wants to cite chapter and verse from his writings, either to support this claim or to contest it, I’m all ears.
Furthermore, his deep sympathy with ID and his public call for ID proponents to embrace what he calls “theistic science” really do make him sound like a concordist in the usual sense. See Dialogue
That’s the best I can do.
Lisa Sung says, “Notably, McKnight claims more [than Venema]: ‘What follows in Adam and the Genome, then, is a basic introduction to the science of evolution and genetics and how it impinges on the basic claim of many Christians: that you and I, and the rest of humans for all time come from two solitary individuals, Adam and Eve. Genetics makes that claim impossible–as I understand it.’ (…) Thus, Venema and McKnight draw divergent conclusions about the implications of the present state of scientific knowledge.”
Is that accurate?
No, it’s not. She has misunderstood my section of the book. Scot is not a scientist, so he’s not using scientifically precise language here. In my section of the book I lay out the strong evidence for human population sizes and equate our confidence in its findings (that we descend from a substantial population) with our confidence that the earth orbits the sun.
The quotes from my section of the book that she uses do not support her interpretation - she has misunderstood my material.
I was noticing that the passages she was quoting about concord did not, in and of themselves, indicate concordism, per se. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for keeping us updated, @Swamidass. I was not a fan of the present post. Looking forward to your contribution next week!
Here is the next installment. It is relevant to parallel conversations with @jpm, @Socratic.Fanatic, @Mike_Gantt, @AntoineSuarez, @LorenHaarsma and others. So I hope you check this one out.
I want to point out that though I wrote this article, I did not chose the call out text. Which makes me happy, because look what one of the key points this very conservative group chose to highlight:
We do well, then, to remember that the traditional marker of orthodoxy is the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection, not Adam, and a confession that He rose from the dead (Rom. 10:9).
I can only see this as a beautiful thing. Though I do not think evolution requires we deny Adam’s existence, it is wrong to divide the church by our view of Adam. It is very significant that the Henry Center called out this quote, in agreement.
I also want to call out what I believe will really help us in this moment…
Now I face a mystery. We do not know all the details; a very large number of scenarios are consistent with science and Scripture. What are the details? How could we know?
Facing a grand mystery, I fall into the worship of creative curiosity.
I fall into the “theologized fiction” of C.S. Lewis. Instead of clinging to a fragile theology unsettled by intelligent aliens, The Space Trilogy “imagined out loud” a vision of Jesus in a universe with life on other planets. Instead of grasping at fine-tuning arguments, The Chronicles of Narnia embraced the multiverse with a vision of Jesus too. “I am in your world,” said Aslan. “But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia.”
Our generation needs fearless creativity. Come let us worship with curiosity, imagining new stories of Adam that give a clear vision of Jesus to our scientific world.
Curious your thoughts.
My initial thought is that we can break down the discussion into three possible positions as it relates to the genetic evidence:
Adam and Eve could not have existed 6,000 years ago and be the ancestors (but not exclusive ancestors) of modern humans.
The evidence does not rule Adam and Eve out.
The evidence specifically points to the existence of both Adam and Eve existing 6,000 years ago and being ancestors of modern humans.
It would seem that you are arguing for #2. Is that correct?
@T_aquaticus, I’m not sure where you are going with @Swamidass’s scenario.
It seems there is only one solution:
Adam and Eve are a specific clan of pre-moral humanity. They are a tiny slice of the total human population. However …
Adam and Eve’s heirs are the mathematical lottery winners where the “geneology” of descent is far more resilient than the genetics of descent.
In other words, Adam’s “Y” chromosome may not have survived to today’s population, but his ultimate heritage as ultimate “patriarch” of all humanity eventually pervades the entire human population.
Conclusion: This is how it is possible for one mating pair to ultimately gain the historical allegiance of millions of humans who are the source of the genetic diversity that is currently found in the human genome.
If Swami really wants to pitch this to the Evangelicals, he would do well to find the denomination most interested in the idea of a population of hominids that Adam & Eve’s descendants “mate into”!
Yes, but there is more. If I am right, several claims that we’ve heard are false:
None of these claims (which I have heard explicitly and implicitly everywhere) are true. As honest as they might have been, if I am right, they are in scientific error. Moreover, our overstatements of the science have unintentionally created a great deal of confusion in the Church. We are in a multi-decade debate over Adam still, and this is the point that prevents many in the Church from engaging the science evolution. If I am right, much of this debate has been unnecessary.
It turns out that this article has been passed around in private for about two months now. I know how it is being received.
There has been very high interest from several conservative theologians of different denominations. This article is reshaping the conversation. Some are realizing for the first time that one can coherently affirm their historic confessions and evolution at the same time. They did not know this till this article, and is adjust what people think about evolution.
I know this is surprising news for many here. @gbrooks9 is certainly not alone in thinking this is will not be helpful in the conversation. It turns out our intuitions were wrong. Why do you think that conservative theologians are receptive to this model?
I guess that’s a typo, yes?
I would like to think that YECs are receptive. But so far you haven’t produced any names of individuals or names of denominations.
In the absence of such… I am a little skeptical that YECs have “evolved” so dramatically in their views.
Major traditions, such as Catholics, have taught that “true humans” originate from Adam and Eve. This has been around for as long as I remember (but I will not quantify this), and I have thought - indeed I posted some time ago, on the importance of discussing personhood.
This comment is only relevant or even interesting if one also includes the idea that there were hominids prior to Adam, that provide the basis for current human diversity of its genome, which Adam’s heritage assimilated.
Otherwise… it’s the same old “same old”.
These are sensitive conversations. It is not right for me to “out” people. @gbrooks9 you will have to decide if I am a trustworthy person here. I can tell you that many conservatives are very curious, even enthusiastic, about a genealogical Adam in evolution. If this is surprising to you, perhaps it is because you do not understand what is motivating them.
I think you are morally reliable. But I am somewhat dubious regarding your scientific views. Your assertion that non- human apes have moral agency is a perfect example.
I do recognize the sensitive nature of your conversations. So I will just wait and see…
I cannot fathom how you deduce personhood as irrelevant to discussions regarding us humans. But then I guess for @gbrooks9 any comment is ok? 
The ultimate expression of personhood is moral agency. It is what separates humans from all the other animals.
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.
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.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.