You just made it much more complex.
Omphalos is a speculative (and oddly specific) scenario purposfully constructed to dismiss overwhelming evidence for an old earth. Drawing analogy to a speculative bellybutton, the argument is that God created a world with “maturity” so it would be “immediately useful” and as a “test of faith”, and then we misunderstand that maturity as old age ( Is apparent age biblical ). The “Deceitful God” objection (DGO) argues that this means placing a false story in the evidence. This is most obvious in things like distant starlight (where we see, e.g., supernovae that could never have happened), and other artifacts that appear to have no reason deriving from the “immediate use of the world”. The “test of faith” argument is suspect too, and has generally speaking been roundly dismissed (even by YECs) even though there is no replacement “purpose” offered.
Even then, from a theological point of view, there may be some reasonable rejoinders that give better purposes than “test of faith”. The 100 Year Old Tree A Lutheran’s Artistic Tree and more recently John Sanford’s Designed Ambiguity. I do not necessarily endorse these points of view except to point out that this is under considered.
Regardless, the only reason to invoke Omphalos, historically, is to dismiss overwhelming evidence contradicting one’s hypothesis.
DGO has never been meant to imply that perceptions always match reality, especially our perceptions of miracles in the moment they occur. Applied the way you are using, DGO would be valid objection to Jesus creating wine from water, because this presents a “false history” the created wine, as if it used to be a grape, etc. DGO would be valid objection to the Resurrection, because it would give the appearance Jesus was never dead. DGO would be a valid objection to anything outside the natural order, and it puts an odd requirement on God to declare all His movements that we as limited humans have access to immediately without any confusion. DGO, therefore, really needs a clear delimiting principle, or it can be applied to just about everything, including valid science and just about anything we personally find surprising.
Because their is absolutely zero evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam, it is not valid to equate it with the Omphalos argument or invoke DGO. The problem with Omphalos is not primarily about Adam’s development (which should be considered on its own merits), but rather the use of this speculative scenario (as I read it, Genesis says nothing about bellybuttons) as a reason to reject the evidence for an old earth. As @Jon_Garvey has often pointed out, a de novo created mature Adam would be essentially no different (in terms of DGO) as the water to wine miracle.
Perhaps there are valid objections to a mature Adam being created de novo, but those objections are distinct from DGO, and have to be considered on their own independent of the overwhelming evidence for an old earth.
3 Likes
Not objecting to the whole class, but the whole class has a bad case of the “maybes,” as in “Maybe this …” and “Maybe that …” My overall impression is of a bunch of ad hoc arguments cobbled together. It goes back to my original statement: None of the recent Adam proposals are parsimonious. All of them are convoluted and illogical. I couldn’t believe in a recent, literal Adam if I tried. Sorry. Nothing against you. Even as a kid, I didn’t believe Noah’s ark really happened. Just the way I’m wired, I guess.
One of the examples Philip Henry Gosse used in his book “Omphalos” was a tree created with a scar already on it. I think it could be argued that the human genome carries those same types of scars and evidence of both history and common ancestry. ERV’s are probably the most commonly cited example which are genetic scars caused by past retroviral infections in common ancestors shared with a host of primate species. God wouldn’t need to put all those hundreds of thousands of retroviral insertions into a genome that he created de novo, nor would God be limited to using the same introns as those found in other humans since in many cases any old sequence will do for the bulk of the intron. So why use the same introns that carry the signal of evolution if these genomes were not the product of evolution?
Those are some of the criticisms I can think of.
2 Likes
Except that now you’re talking about a human being instead of inanimate matter. A de novo Adam requires that God insert memories into his mind; otherwise, Adam would be unable to walk, or run, or speak, or etc., without God pre-wiring that into his head. This is a step beyond Omphalos, in my opinion.
This would be a reasonable use of the DGO objection.
Some might argue that God chose to do this for some reason as rejoinder. E.g. perhaps the “way” he created was by copying then editing, so the history is not false (this is similar to the RTB answer). If a reason is plausible, it should be considered. I have not been convinced by what I have heard.
Regardless, even if a reason is offered, we still have to concede that it “looks” like we evolved, so science is justified in saying we evolved, and disproving evolution was never God’s design goal. [adding, so why is it your goal?] Evolution is the plain reading of genomes.
Just as an aside, I have always found this to be an interesting theological position. It makes sense for humans to copy and edit because we lack time and resources. However, God is often described as being all powerful, all knowing, and having endless time and resources, so it would seem that it would be just as easy for God to start from scratch as it would to copy and then edit an existing human genome.
That is more of an observation than a point of contention, but I thought it might be worth mentioning here.
2 Likes
@vjtorley has interesting thoughts on this.
I would say that my best case for editing/copying mechanism (on behalf of a position I do not hold) is that disproving evolution was never God’s goal; he was just making art. This is just his style, which we also seen in human artists too. He is just playing variations on a starting theme that is evolving forward, not because he is restricted to this by lack of power, but because variations from a living starting point that carries history is fun and interesting, like a conversation. This interaction makes for good art. Many artists and theologians would agree. A Lutheran’s Artistic Tree
That, to me, seems at least plausible, and I like it because it pushes the one making this argument out of the fixation on anti-evolution arguments. It also describes God’s nature in a way that is theologically sound. Though I do not hold this view of origins, I do think this rejoinder is reasonable.
1 Like
I am enjoying the discussion, lots of thought provoking ideas. I suppose the problem I have with a specially created Adam, is that God would be responsible for not only his physical being, but his growth, education, and development. God would then be responsible for his moral decisions and and failings, ( though I realize I am not responsible for all my kid’s decisions so know that is not entirely a valid position, but then I do not claim to be a perfect parent).
In any case, a representative or archetypical Adam makes the story make more sense without a lot of complications, though you have to deal with how to handle the New Testament references.
I tend to embrace the imagery of God planting a garden, of God creating land and sea and having them bring forth life without pre-ordaining the end result thus giving free will to Adam and us, and making us responsible for our sin, instead of trying to shift the blame to whoever our Eve may be.
I see no problem if a unique biological Adam is what one has to have to make sense of things, but agree with Jay that for some of us it causes more problems than solutions.
4 Likes
Though, let me remind you, maybe that is false. Maybe instead it is genealogical transmission of original sin (rather than representative), which would not be subject to this objection.
Once again, I am not arguing for this as much as saying that there is so much to imagine here. Don’t miss out on the fun. =).
Except this has never been about Jay, you, or even me. We already affirm mainstream science and have come to terms with it. I’m not trying to change your mind. Instead, this is about the empty chair, those who could be here but are not because of their own objections.
This will sound like I’m lampooning the theory, but I’m not: If we postulate a specially-created Adam & Eve whose children then interbred with non-Adamic nearly-humans, there is nothing to say that Adam & Eve weren’t in fact raised by those nearly-humans, so that they could get some sort of nearly-normal socialization experience.
Of course, come to think of it, Adam would also have to be a decent number of years older than Eve, because it wasn’t until Adam had named all of the animals in his environment that Eve was formed from his rib…
2 Likes
Thanks for reminding me. We do get caught up in what we think, rather than looking at it as Paul did in saying," …I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
That is not to say that good theology is not important, just that it is not the main focus.
3 Likes
You are not =). You are engaging in a modern midrash, filling in the ellipses for the fun of it. This is the inviting way forward that can fill the empty chair.
1 Like
If they were raised by nearly humans, Adam and Eve would’ve been just as nearly human as their parents. I met quite a few kids like this in juvenile detention. It’s called “the apple and tree syndrome.” haha. But, what’s another work-around? Throw it on top of the pile with the others!
How about you give us a workaround? There are several.
I’ll just reach into my top hat and … Voila! Haha.
Far better minds than mine have struggled to fit a literal Adam somewhere into history and come up short, I believe. That’s not an eretz I want to plant my flag on. I’m taking the easy way out …
It might not be intrinsic to “de novo creation” that Adam be an adult, but “de novo creation” isn’t in the Bible. A man formed from the dust of the ground, who is put in a deep sleep so that a woman can be formed from his rib and presented to him as his wife is what we find in the Bible. So adult (or at least post-pubescent) Adam and Eve is intrinsic to the traditional interpretation you say you want to make room for. If the whole point of this exercise is to validate some people’s traditional understanding, then no, it’s not like we are only constrained by our imaginations. There is a text that constrains possibilities. The people you say you are making room for don’t want any old historical Adam. They want the historical Adam of Genesis 2 and 3.
1 Like
That is what, for example, Keller means by “de novo”. @Jon_Garvey can jump in if you want, but BB Warfield would not have used the term “de novo” but say it was “from the dust” and “from Adam’s rib,” and he insisted that this must understood literally. Though he was okay with and old earth and evolution of plants and animals, this is where he drew the line, much in the same way as Keller. This is a type of minimal literalism.
Whether this interpretation is justified or not is beside the point, but @TedDavis might clarify the seminal importance of BB Warfield in this conversation. His concerns cannot be dismissed as merely ad hoc. For that matter, nor can Keller’s concerns.
Yes, but they are often open to a very wide range of interpretations of Gen 2-3. See “minimal literalism.”
It all depends how we define “traditional.” If you mean the narrowly proscribed set of views in current debate, than you are certainly correct. However, that is an ahistorical definition of “traditional.” A better definition looks at the range of views from 500 BC to 1,500 AD, in the prescientific era. That, it turns out, is a very very wide range of views.
In a confessional approach, as for example BB Warfield and Tim Keller are taking, it is only constrained by lack of imagination. We have theological and hermeneutical constraints (theirs not ours) and we are given autonomy to wonder about ways to make sense of it. The goal is not to “find out what really happened” but to see how “their way of looking a the world could work.”
Not all we imagine is correct or solid (most of it likely isn’t), but if we do not even imagine possibilities, what hope do we have of finding something better?
Moreover, it has always been an open question what is going on outside the garden. That is a question that has stimulated imaginations of traditional interpreters in all ages, even now. All we are saying in evolutionary science is that genomes gives us the story of those outside the garden. For thousands of years, traditional interpreters have speculated the wildest theories. Now we have information from genetic data that clarifies what was going on. Science, in this way, completes the traditional account, without challenging it.
And if we do not personally approve, that is beside the point. This has never been about our objections. We already affirm mainstream science and have come to terms with evolution. It, rather, is about the objections of the empty chair.
If you say so, I’ll believe it when I see any of the “traditional Adam” Christians I know jumping on this imagination bandwagon.
1 Like