Well, let’s look at your last paragraph first. I happen to agree with you on that point.
I don’t really see Geneal.Adam as having much to do with them getting you to believe anything special. Evangelicals will always have some hoop or another to jump:
“Pre-Millenial?! Are you crazy? Post-Millenial is the only way to go… yadda yadda…”
or:
“TULIP is just dead!” “Really? Not in my valley!”
And naturally, we aren’t trying to apply too many limits on how to apply Geneal.Adam to YEC theology; the logic of Geneal.Adam is pretty streamlined:
“Point 1: No Christian can deny God’s ability to specially create just 2 humans.” “Point 2: Nor should a Christian deny God’s capacity to use the natural processes scientists have successfully documented all around us.”
I see Geneal.Adam to be more about getting pro-Evolutionists to tolerate minimal creationism as a default position, while pro-Creationists come to accept Evolution as part of God’s second Book.
You say this isn’t a new idea … and when you recall that there’s nothing new under the Sun, I suppose I can agree with that. But it is new enough that it riles the Evolutionists to even consider allowing God to do a miracle that sounds like Genesis 1 . . . but the time has come to let go of some of those biases.
The description of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, and what God has revealed to us on these matters have nothing to do with evolution or anti-evolution. The error from both groups has been to highjack the conversation, motivated by some type of culture war mentality.
No scientist can,(or would care to) argue concerning a description where ‘red dirt’ becomes a man - it is obvious the writer has something else in mind, something non-scientific. Thus arguments from both camps would be irrelevant.
However, for those of us who consider the bible to be given to us for instruction in the faith in Christ, the genealogical Adam point of view is consistent with the approach shown in the bible, which shows us that it began with Adam and culminated in Christ.
I was in a pretty long and difficult discussion with an atheist micro-biologist. He was “aghast” at the idea that I would say “it is fine for a Creationist to continue to assert Adam was made from dust and Eve from a rib, as long as they no longer rejected the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of Evolution.”
I had to talk him down from a figurative roof, so that he wouldn’t suffer any allegorical “splats”!
@Christy, If you were going to name “the one thing” that riles you about Genealogical Adam, what would it be?
I think we all agree that GA has a seat at the table. Bringing your cool toy will attract a big crowd!
@gbrooks9 Mr Brooks, Brother Chris @aarceng helped me contact Dr Robert Carter from CMI (who reviewed @DennisVenema “s Adam and the Genome”) . I already passed this by Dr Swamidass in October, and he was going to address it further after talking about other projects. I think he said it would help his discussion
Here is his response. He said “I appreciate Joshua’s efforts”
"I am aware of Joshua Swamidass’ writings on this subject. …He solved one issue, but left many other unanswered. For example, the origin and definition of sin 1, the origin and meaning of death, and the reason Jesus had to die 1 to pay for sins. All of these are addressed using straightforward biblical reasoning. His evolutionary approach leaves them all unsolved.
"If A&E were members of a larger society, they may have become the genealogical ancestors of the entire human race. That is simple math. But they would also not have contributed any DNA to the modern human race unless they were extremely lucky. So they are not the genetic ancestors. I believe this is something foreign to the entire concept of people being ‘of Adam’, etc.
"Swamidass does a good job summarizing and explaining one of my favorite topics: genealogical vs. genetic ancestry, but this has been known since late 1990s. His only unique contribution is to suggest that, just maybe, God created Adam and Eve from scratch, but that they just happened to genetically and morphologically match the other humans who lived at the time. My question is simple: why? Why not just say we evolved from apes and get on with it?
"Regarding the ‘sons of God’ section, see this section 1 of the book Alien Intrusion for the best analysis of the topic I have read to date. Also important would be my article How Old was Cain when he Killed Abel?
"Sincerely,
“Robert Carter”
Again, I think this is a place to discuss ideas as brothers and sisters in Christ. We support everyone’s right to an opinion. I think it was helpful to hear his side. I am sure Dr Swamidass will have an excellent review on Peaceful Science. It is also helpful to hear a theologically and scientifically different position.
Why? Because someone who has been reading all of Joshua’s writings would know the answers to Carter’s objections. Can you see where he is going wrong?
If not, I can write up an answer - - and you, or I or the both of us - - can send him a response. I leave it to you. You have done the hard part… you have successfully opened up a discussion.
“Riles” implies an emotional response, which is not really an accurate description of my reaction. I already discussed my issues at the top of this thread in post #2, and #30, and #48. Nothing that has been said has changed my mind.
I am constructing a master list of your concerns … based on a screen capture for posts #2, #31, #41, #48 and even your most recent posts #52 and #53. [Full inventory is at the bottom of this post for the purpose of convenience.]
Below are THREE of your issues, for which I have produced an answer/response. I will return with some additional answers shortly.
Issue #1: Concordism
“I agree with Josh that many Christians want concordism, but I would say we should try to talk them out of wanting that instead of providing a “scientifically palatable” option. Concordist approaches aren’t all that popular with lots of BioLogos people.”
Brooks Response: Since I’m a universalist, I’m not really worried about anyone’s failure to achieve salvation. What I’m concerned with is extremists taking the whole country to “Crazy Town” by pushing the choo-choo train of science off the tracks and crashing into the University libraries all across the country. To me, the logical problem IS the lack of a “scientifically palatable” option for Creationists.
Your last sentence on this (“Concordist approaches aren’t all that popular with lots of BioLogos people…”) is not only an understatement, it seems to be a major barrier to making progress. BioLogos shouldn’t be so focused on making BioLogos people happy … but on trying to address the anxieties of Creationists. Remember what Paul said: "1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NIV): "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible - [i] To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. [ii] To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. [iii] To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. [iv] To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. . . . I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
Issue #2: Original Sin vs. Original Guilt
“I’m not sure that is what Josh believes, but it is the theology held by many people who need their specially created original couple. It is the difference between the concept of original sin and original guilt. Original sin says humans sinned and since all humans inherit a nature prone to sin. Original guilt says that all humans are born guilty for Adam’s sin because somehow in Adam, everyone sinned. It’s based on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12, expounded by Augustine.”
Brooks Response: @Christy, it should be re-assuring to know that neither Joshua nor I want to make Original Sin (nor Original Guilt) a mandatory aspect of Genealogical Adam. When the topic comes up, because there is a literal Adam and Eve in the Geneal.Adam scenarios, Creationists are able to find their source of sin, if they choose to find it in Romans 5:12. I’m a Unitarian Universalist, so this is not one of my personal requirements. It is merely a requirement that those Creationists or Denominations that invest their faith in such matters have their historical Adam & Eve.
Issue #3: “I asked what is the point on insisting Adam and Eve have to be specially created first humans if you DON’T believe it is necessary to uphold the doctrine of original sin.”
Brooks Response: My apologies, Christy. I didn’t specifically answer this because I thought it would be obvious. If you don’t believe you need Adam/Eve to uphold a doctrine, then you can skip over that part. If you are one of the few Creationists who promotes special Creation of Adam even if you don’t them Adam for theological or metaphysical purposes, then I would want to get to know you better… because “that would be a new one” for me!
I don’t think that this is the issue. You don’t believe in the GA and I don’t, but we both believe that it can be at the table.
I feel like we’re metaphorical Methodists and Anglicans :). From my very limited understanding, Methodists felt they had a “method” for bringing people into the church. However, the difference is that when they found their effective manner, they went to those outside the church–not to the Anglicans–to talk. Maybe @TedDavis can correct my analogy, but by all means, let Apollos water and Paul plant… They’re not the same, and only some people will respond to one interpretation. It’s ok to not agree–and those on the discourse don’t represent all of Biologos
On the contrary, Biologos ( On Geniality and Genealogy - BioLogos) the Haarsmas (“Origins”), and the new upcoming IVP book @jstump mentioned will affirm that. Vive la difference!
PS I think it’s great that you are talking about a very important issue.
George, why is it so important to you to imagine that Christy is “riled up” … and must be stewing at home right now over an inventory of “issues” that you’ve so kindly compiled here for her (just in case she isn’t clear what it is that she’s “worked up” about?) With all of this agonizing effort to help somebody else realize how agitated they are, it does appear that somebody must be riled up about something. Hint: I’m pretty sure it isn’t Christy.
[Christy can and does speak up quite capably for herself of course, and needs no help from me. I’m just venting a little bit because I think I may be getting a little agitated at how agitated you are that Christy is insufficiently agitated. I think I may be developing an issue you may have to help me through.]
You think that this one thing, special creation of Adam and Eve is going to address the anxieties of Creationists? I’m super skeptical. The whole way they read the Bible is the reason they can’t come to terms with science. If you don’t address the way they read the Bible, you are going to keep bumping up against scientific concordance issues again and again.
It is a huge over-simplification that the WHOLE issue Creationists have with evolution is Adam and original sin. You keep selling it as a magic bullet, and I’ll say it again; I don’t think it is. I don’t believe it solves any more theological problems than it opens up. The Creationist that Randy contacted pretty much had the same reaction. It doesn’t make all of science palatable to Creationists, far from it. The way you truly address the anxieties of Creationists is convincing them God doesn’t judge them as lacking in faith or faithfulness for accepting provable facts of science. God doesn’t require that you believe things that aren’t true just to prove you take his word seriously.
Fine. But why be complicit in accommodating mistaken views?
He’s in stellar company in that regard. I regard myself as gifted that way as well. … but not here or now. Christy is already resuming the on-topic high-quality programming …
So which is it? Am I derailing the discussion, or deep-diving to answer every aspect of the struggle over Genealogical Adam. Let’s not forget that this is the thread that earned me yet another badge for bringing visitors in to read the thread!
This is the very thread for strangers to read how much (or how little) BioLogos folks are interested in the Genealogical Adam scenarios!
I used the word “riled” because ever since I started spending time with my new girl (Miss Peaceful Science), I’ve heard some of the craziest rejections of the idea of Genealogical Adam! … and more than half of the wildest objections have come from folks right here at BioLogos!
I sometimes can’t quite figure out whether people just haven’t heard a clear enough explanation, or they think Joshua is somehow converting to Creationism!
@Swamidass has been very generous with his ability to share this graceful creation, Miss Peaceful Science, with me. She has become family!
I like your clarifications, but mostly because I understand what you meant by them.
When you just say “he doesn’t [actually] believe in Genealogical Adam…”, this can be interpreted in many ways that are not correct interpretations.
The part I don’t believe is that Jesus was or is a God. I’m a Unitarian.
But to the extent that I believe God does supernatural things, I certainly believe that a God that can create a temporary Eden on Earth can certainly have the similar powers to create 2 caretakers for that Eden!
So the questions and answers become increasingly complex for those who have much larger aspects of their faith invested in Christianity (and in the writings of the Bible) - - and yet they reject something as simple as God creating caretakers for Eden!
Right, @gbrooks9 Mr Brooks, that’s the way I meant. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I don’t have a problem with God creating caretakers either.
My own objections would be like yours, though slightly differently. The issue of why or how or if a “homoousion” occurred isn’t that important to me. As I currently understand things, I don’t think that it would be moral of God to ascribe sin or guilt or responsibility (in disagreement with WLC’s book on the Atonement and translation of legal history). I go to a church (the members of which I love) who believe, like Dr Carter, that genetic Adam is the cause of all evil and suffering in the world. I don’t think they are wrong or immoral for believing that–I think they are mistaken. So, probably my disagreement with the GA isn’t related to science.
But–do you think that your discussion will be helpful for the other threads going on, say the one currently also with YEC? Can you engage with that too?
I do think that Dr Carter’s ideas are a bit more nuanced than we think.
I am kind of interested now in asking my pastor about this. He was a Bible prof and has a doctorate.
I resonate with your concern about trying not to let religion and fear mess up science. And I do think that the GA is a valid one to discuss with others at the table.
This is more or less a chicken-and-egg dilemma, is it not?
When I first met Karl Giberson at ENC, he was a fierce defender of Henry Morris and Creationism… and persisted in his positions for 6, 7 or more years.
20 years after I met him, he had become a physics professor. And it was physics that convinced him that God probably didn’t literally do so many of the things that he once thought God did.
My great great grandfather was an Episc. priest under the leadership of my distant cousin Bishop Phillips Brooks;
he has a vague resemblance to Karl, doesn’t he?
.
.
.
The Rev. James Hattrick Lee, who would eventually die in Rome while on sabbatical, sent a letter, dated during the greatest days of the Victorian Age, to Bishop Brooks explaining why he had to leave the priesthood! Darwin’s writings had changed his views on what was possible in the natural world. And he could no longer, with honor, teach Six Days of Creation.
It would seem there can be many reasons why people lose their original faith. No doubt one of the reasons can include the convincing presentation that the Bible is filled with more figurative narrative than originally imagined. And so, by all means, proceed along those lines.
But should we not also agree that there other reasons, and other different “levers”, that can move the beliefs of people other inclinations? I would be quite gratified if BioLogos didn’t invest all its eggs into just one basket. And maybe … just maybe… I would be less ambivalent about the BioLogos basket if it could tell the difference between “God that Designs Creation by means of Evolution” - - versus “God who thinks Designing is too big of a chore.”
