Special Creation of Humans After Millions of Years of Non-Human Evo?

Touche. But their imagination is constrained when it comes to anything they think the Bible makes “clear.”

2 Likes

They are imagining even now about “those outside the garden”. It is an open question, even at AIG.

1 Like

In this model, why does it matter whether all current Homo sapiens are descendants of Adam or not?

1 Like

Very good question.

First of all, in theological conversation, it has not been known that universal ancestry was possible, and even likely. It was not know that genealogical ancestry is different than genetic ancestry. This means quite a bit of work about the transmission of original sin in theistic evolution literature ends up being flat out wrong, in scientific error. This even includes Kidner widely referenced work on a “representational” Adam. Even if that idea has theological merit, the instinct he had that it was necessary in his scenario is in error. That is consequential.

In traditional discourse on Genesis it is (nearly?) uniform in asserting Adam is the ancestor of everyone. Recall also this claim appears to be reference all over Scripture, “mother of all the living,” Paul’s implication that Adam is the ancestor of everyone (which even Scott McKnight concedes), and Paul’s claim in Mar’s Hill that we are made from “one blood.” Theologically, this becomes closely tied to the universality of the Gospel early on, and deviations from universal ancestry have been called heresy (almost?) every time it has arisen.

This is the reason “Adam” has taken on the meaning of “universal ancestor,” see “Y-Chromosomal Adam.” Usually, when people talk of Adam (see TGC video with Keller) they are taken it for granted that Adam is a “common ancestor of everyone” without precise distinctions between genetic vs. genealogical and who exactly “everyone” is other than “everyone alive today (all the living)”. They do not say it explicitly, that is what they usually mean, and we know this because they reject the “representative” Adam, and we are finding they are also are open to a “genealogical Adam,” especially because Scripture certainly does not speak of genetics.

When people say they need to affirm a historical Adam, they often mean they need to affirm a historical Adam, ancestor of us all. The reason why is because that is how Adam has been understood in traditional discourse on Genesis. That is the reason why the genealogical adams observation changes everything in the origins debate. A Genealogical Rapprochement on Adam?

It is much more important to traditionalists than is appreciated by those who gave up on Adam a long time ago. As they are quick to explain, this is about the universality of the Gospel for them. They are not making this up, but referencing (even unbeknownst to themselves) this long line of thought.

1 Like

1 Like

But in this model Adam isn’t the ancestor of all Homo sapiens; he’s only the ancestor of all currently living Homo sapiens. Why does it matter whether the non-Adamic H. sapiens live today or 10,000 years ago?

1 Like

Once again, an excellent question.

First off, this is not true (see figure). He is the Ancestor of every Homo sapien that Paul could have possibly believed existed when he wrote Romans, and also more (e.g. the Americas).

Except of course if he wondered about Cain’s wife too, or if he understood Genesis the same as @JohnWalton and the midrash of Book of Enoch (which was very popular midrash in his day). Even then, he believes all those alive in his time are descended from Adam, regardless of what happened in the distant past. This is how he roots the universality of the Gospel among all people in his time (see Acts 17), which justifies why he preaches to the Gentiles instead of keeping with just his Jewish roots.


Second, In this model, Adam is recent but a person who for some odd reason wanted to see Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) as the mankind of Paul, they could put Adam 300 kya in the Gulf Oasis (currently covered by water and is the Persian Gulf). Perhaps a bizarro world version of denis lamoureux, who wants to affirm a historical Adam (bizarro world, remember), would place Adam about 50 kya with the emergence of behaviorally modern humans. Some might go as far as to put him back as far as Homo erectus 1.8 million years ago (see @agauger). As you know, a couple thousand years is an instant in archaeological time in these ranges, so all these options are consistent with what we know of archaeology and genetics.


Third, for many people, they are not nearly as concerned about this. I think for good reason.

Paul almost certainly believed that “mankind” began only recently. If you asked him what God thought of Homo sapiens that lived 100,000 years ago, I imagine he would give a response similar to CS Lewis as he contemplated intelligent aliens: http://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-and-rocketry-by-cs-lewis.html . Scripture, it seems to me, is tell us the story of how we got here, but leaves large mysteries about what happened before or alongside Adam. That of course makes sense because the purpose of Scripture is to tell our story so that we might know Jesus, not to tell the story of those who came before us (and are no longer here).

In fact, I think Paul (and many theologians) are nearly defining “mankind” as “Adam, Eve, and their decendents,” but leaving questions about the distant past and those outside his line in the distant past entirely answered. This silence is relied upon by theologians of all stripes (including YEC) as they consider intelligent life on other planets (@JustAnotherLutheran might want to comment on this Life on Other Planets? What Does This Mean??? - Concordia Theology ).


Fourth, all this work to theologically prepare for intelligent life on other planets is directly relevant to Homo sapiens 100 kya. Paul certainly did not think he was talking about them when he wrote Romans; that is far outside his authorial intent. Asking Paul about them would be equivalent to asking him about the theological status of intelligent “human-like” life on Mars.

To be clear, this is not to declare them SUB-human. As CS Lewis writes:

If there are species, and rational species, other than man, are any or all of them, like us, fallen? This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it.

Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek. http://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-and-rocketry-by-cs-lewis.html

So, for this reason, @JohnWalton’s exegesis, I feel, has real merit. It starts to make sense of this age about which Scripture is almost silent, and accidentally taps into CS Lewis’s thought. Perhaps, they biologically were fully “human” but not theologically “human” like us. Perhaps they were unfallen. That is not sub-human; it is better than “human” as we understand it today.

@sfmatheson

Many of us have always thought so. But that really isn’t the problem at hand… unless, of course, you aren’t a theist.

Imagine for a moment, however, that you are a theist. And as a theist, you have already accepted some pretty non-natural things… one might say you have accepted a minmum number of super-natural things.

The problem is that there’s a gang of fellow theists… let’s call them “The Jets”… who believe in way more super-natural things than you ever could!

And because of that, they cause all sorts of problems when you walk home from University. They knock the Bible out of your arms… they say you don’t look like the Eucharist… and other mean stuff.

But … if you get them to agree to a handful of scientific wonders that would fit with a piece of their supernatural world view …they would stop being mean to you.

Wouldn’t you say, it’s worth a try? It’s not like you have to believe in everything they believe. You are just trying to find a way to get a little bit more of your wonderful science accepted by The Jets!

Under these premises, and with these provisos, you’d think it was worth it, wouldn’t you?

1 Like

@glipsnort

I’m going to write a much shorter answer than The Swami (@Swamidass)!

  1. As long as Adam is the ancestor of all humanity by the time Jesus arrives, that is enough.

  2. For those YEC’s who prefer a 10,000 year model, it wouldn’t make a difference.

The key here is to provide the metaphysical role for an Adam ancestor that fits into the usual YEC perspecdtives… and yet also allow a role for Evolution in all of our scientific views…

1 Like

I don’t think that would work with a great many believers.

Why does he have to be the ancestor of all humanity at the time of Jesus? If it was okay for there to be non-Adamic (or nonhuman, or whatever) Homo sapiens before Jesus, why should it be a problem during the time of Jesus? If the humanity Paul (and presumably Jesus) refers to is just the descendants of Adam, why couldn’t there be others around during his time too? I really don’t see why the concept of a recent genealogical MRCA matters; once you accept that some Homo sapiens don’t count as part of the humanity that the New Testament talks about, when they lived logically shouldn’t matter.

My suspicion is that people are more willing to accept the possibility of nonhuman H. sapiens in the distant past because nothing in the distant past seems really real. If you claim that somebody living in London or Cairo is outside the scope of the gospel because they’re not descended from Adam, many would find that idea repellent. But if you posit somebody exactly like that living tens of thousands of years ago, well, hey, they were just kind of fuzzy blobs back then anyway.

Perhaps I’m wrong, though. Perhaps there’s a logical reason why it’s important for contemporary sapiens all to be descended from Adam. But I haven’t heard that reason yet.

2 Likes

@beaglelady

What if we worded that very same truth and reality slightly differently?

“I think that would work for some believers.”

Wow… all of a sudden, you’ve got my interest!

I was a theist for about half a century, and an evangelical for 3 decades. I don’t have to imagine.

2 Likes

@sfmatheson

So, then, I assume you would never write a sentence like this:

“The resurrection of Jesus and his ascent into the heavens is ridiculous.”

Is this a fair description of what you would never post in BioLogos?

[[ Or do I misunderstand you completely? And the only thing keeping you from writing a sentence like this is a posting that focuses on that particular event?]]

The reason I ask you this question is not to be difficult, or to tease you, or to have a laugh. My point is that we here who are supporters of BioLogos have implicitly already accepted that even if we don’t quite accept the truth of the assertion, we would never write that it is ridiculous.

Remember, I’m a Unitarian Universalist. And I’m sure there must be some UU’s who do, in fact, accept the preposition that Jesus ascended into the heavens. But it would still be a rare find in the denomination. And I’m not one of those rare folks in the U.U. church.

So, unless I am terribly misunderstanding you - - and I will accept whatever correction you need to offer me if necessary - - the task at hand for most of BioLogos is what to do with the Metaphysics Module typically called “Special Creation”.

Metaphysics in and of itself is not off limits. We have already accepted that Jesus ascended into the Heavens. So, unless he has a spacesuit, the resolution of that scenario is a metaphysical one.

So… what to do about just a specific kind of metaphysical event - - Special Creation.

I think coming up with a way to take something as extreme as Special Creation, and fit it into an overwhelmingly Evolutionary Scenario is a rather fantastic - - in the sense of amazing - - idea.

Your thoughts, @sfmatheson, when looking at the issue from some of these perspectives?

Not if they did not need the Gospel, because they were unfallen, as CS Lewis argued in Religion and Rocketry.

Because this is the time when Paul appears using universal ancestry of Adam as a reason to theologically justify inclusion Gentiles in the Church, and to oppose Judaizers, etc. All this is happening at the same time that The Book of Enoch is widely read (which includes non-Adamic beings in the distant past) but Paul never disputes this. In fact, he allows for this in Romans 5:12-14, saying that there was wrongdoing before the Adamic law, but it was not held against anyone.

Now, maybe Paul was just wrong. However, we are no longer talking about the interpretation of Genesis any longer. It is this New Testament theology that pushes Keller and others to be minimal literalists about Adam. No amount of ANE exegesis is going to change that for them. Whatever the original author’s intent, they see Paul using this key detail of the account for theological reasoning, and they are not comfortable letting go of it for this reason.

Notice also that here at BioLogos there are very few New Testament scholars. This misses a key point. For people like Keller, driving their concerns is not OT hermeneutics or ANE literature. Instead, they are often concerned with dismissing that which Paul took as fact and used in his theology. Some will even point to Jesus as well. This is very common reason people become minimal literalists. Not because of OT or ANE hermeneutics, but because of NT theology.


To be clear, @glipsnort I am not trying to convince you. Quite the contrary. I have a great deal of respect for you and consider you one of the heros of the current moment.

I think you may be the first scientist I convinced I was right, and then even took to pointing this science to others when they got it wrong. You did this even though you personally do not affirm a historical Adam. That, I feel, is honest. I respect that and think this is an example worth following.

So I know that you see no reason for a historical Adam. Great. I do not care what you believe about our distant past. You have already come to terms with mainstream science, so you are not the one we are trying to reach.

Instead, it is about the concerns of others, the concerns of the empty chair. Even if we do not think the concerns are logical, this is beside the point. The concerns are real enough to be a stumbling block. I’ve just explained this in depth so you can understand the internal logic of their positions. Whether or not it is valid is not really relevant if it is not in conflict with the science.

The goal here has never been to convince you of anything more than the science.

2 Likes

I can’t tell what you’re asking, and I already tried to explain why I think “special creation” is problematic. The context was not belief in miracles. It was explanation. Yes, sure, people who believe in resurrections and ascensions and tax payments arriving inside of fish are people who have room in their minds for “special creation.” My point was that “special creation,” especially when considered alongside… well… _un_special creation, is an explanation that only exists to uphold other kinds of special creation. Special creation, in other words, has no explanatory value outside prior belief in other supernatural stuff.

@sfmatheson

And a great many, many of us here agree with you… Special Creation is a problem. But not Special Creation in and of itself… it is Special Creation presented and described which denies Evolutionary reality that is our mutual buggaboo - - yours and mine, Prof. Stephen.

The Swami’s proposal is not to convince you that “special creation” is proven. But his Proposal has tremendous merit … if it allows for some YECs to accept the full Old Earth history of evolution for all humanity - - except for Adam and Eve!

What if a man sat on your front porch… and said: You are right … there were dinosaurs that came and went long before there were humans. And the dinosaurs were probably wiped out, in part, because of the Dino-Killing asteroid 65 million years ago (or whenever).

Now… if the man then turned to you and said: And I think God created that asteroid just outside of our solar system and threw it right where he wanted to hit … off the coast of the Yucatan!

Would you stop him right there … in mid-passion … and tell him he’s just going to have to leave if he thinks God used “special creation” to make that asteroid?

I would suggest that if confronted by such a situation, you would say, “Well, we all have various beliefs about when God does miraculous things, or just uses the laws of nature.”

Wouldn’t that be something like what you would say?

And if I’m correct, then you could also say to another man: “Well, we all have various beliefs about whether God made a special pair of humans … to influence the human population that he created through Evolutionary processes!”

Thoughts, Prof Stephen?

I think @sfmatheson is on board, he just does not agree with Christian beliefs in general. That is fine.

I could be wrong, but I think he agrees (1) it is important to accurately represent what science does and does not say, and (2) explain science in a way that does not threaten the deeply held beliefs of anyone, as long as those beliefs are not in conflict with science (and not intrinsically abhorrent like racism).

There is not more that is required of him. He will remain ambivalent about “crazy Christian beliefs” like de novo Adam and th Resurrection, as is expected. If we want that to change, he will have to see it for himself.

2 Likes

I didn’t say that everyone would find that idea repellent, just that many would. I would.

Sure. So he’s talking about human gentiles, of course, not those nonhumans. Just as when he talks about people before Christ, he’s only talking about humans, not about all Homo sapiens. That must be what these theologians believe, correct? [quote=“Swamidass, post:75, topic:36985”]
No amount of ANE exegesis is going to change that for them. Whatever the original author’s intent, they see Paul using this key detail of the account for theological reasoning, and they are comfortable letting go of it.
[/quote]
Yes, I get that. You responding to arguments that I’m not making. I know that they desire a single Adam who is the source of sin for all humans. But that includes humans living in Paul’s day, and earlier ones as well – Paul speaks in universal terms about humanity in the past as well – they were all without excuse. If these theologians want to restrict that to a subset of Homo sapiens, fine. Paul is speaking universally only about those descended from Adam. So why couldn’t there have been Homo sapiens still around in Paul’s time that have nothing to do with the theology he’s presenting, and nothing to do with Adam’s sin?[quote=“Swamidass, post:75, topic:36985”]
I think you may be the first scientist I convinced I was right, and then even took to pointing this science to others when they got it wrong.
[/quote]
Well, thank you for the kind words, but you’ve got the temporal aspect wrong. I’ve been telling people for at least ten years that Adam and Eve could have been a real historical couple that were part of a larger population. I didn’t suggest special creation of Adam and Eve, just a miraculous act that gave them souls and a spiritual capacity to know God, followed by the traditional temptation and fall. (I’m reading from slides I made ten years ago, just to be sure I’m not misremembering.) I was also aware of the possible genealogical timeline, since I read the 2004 simulation paper when it came out. This why the controversy here over this issue leaves me puzzled. No, this is not a view I hold myself, but I try to distinguish as clearly as I can things I believe and things we have good scientific evidence for,

1 Like

All the more credit to you. What you realized scientifically a long time ago is more relevant to the Church than you knew. A lot of people care about this.

The reason, as I said, is that Paul is not making theological claims about the past when he is referencing Adam. Taking cultural context into account, everyone is reading the Book of Enoch, and the myth of Lilith (a fully human person who does not descend from Adam) is a common way of interpreting Genesis. Paul knows (it is even quoted in Jude), but he does not say this is false. Instead, he makes allowance for it in Romans 5:12-14. These are all reasons why the universality of Adam is in reference (in Paul’s mind) to those at his time. Going on farther, there are several places in the OT that seem to indicate groups who have mixed with Nephilim (not just Genesis 6:2). So this was clearly part of the text and considered at that time.

Now many who care about a genealogical Adam have not thought this far about it, or made the connections. However, this is exactly the sort of information that will convince them that Paul’s statements about Paul do not apply, say, to Homo sapiens 100 kya.


Honestly, and I think you know this, @glipsnort I think we are on the same page. While I am not trying to change you, I would only say this has higher importance to people in the Church than you imagine. It is worth forefronting this information when they raise concerns that ultimately trace here, even if they do not explicitly know what they are looking for. As I’ve said, you have demonstrated honesty in your account of science. And I respect that a great deal, especially because you do not personally affirm a historical Adam.

It has left me puzzled too. Any ideas?