The Genealogical Adam and Non-Adamic Beings

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Swamidass

I’m suggesting nothing here about theology or scenarios.

@gbrooks9 doubts there are non-homo sapiens with moral agency, and homo sapiens without moral agency. He thinks that human = moral agency.

I’m just giving examples that break his pattern. Moreover, the Genesis text itself appears counters to @gbrooks9 view of moral agency. Adam and Eve are fully human, with the Breadth of Life and the Image of God before they take fruit of the Tree Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I’d also point out there is subtle difference between moral law, moral agency, moral responsibility, moral knowledge, moral truth, moral language, moral awareness, etc. This is a deeply complex topic which is why I think he is surprised that there is actually very strong evidence that monkeys and apes almost certainly have moral agency.

At the same time, for example, one could argue that apes do not have moral law or moral knowledge. I’m sure it will take @gbrooks9 some time to process this one.

@Swamidass

Let me clarify my position just a bit:

1. In order to solve the Human Diversity Problem of the current state of the human genome, we need to have a large population 4000 or 5000 years ago.

2. Because of @Jonathan_Burke’s interesting enthusiasm, I think it is Biblically conceivable that Adam & Eve can be seen as a specific subset of this larger population.

3. Because of @Swamidass’s own interesting enthusiasm, it is genealogically conceivable that Adam & Eve’s lineage can win the “pedigree lottery” and displace all rivals for “Patriarchal Pair” of all existing humanity - - most importantly, within the 5000 year time frame!

4. As to the question of Moral Agency, I categorize Adam & Eve as the “First Couple” to be taught Moral Agency (and failing at it). This is not the same as saying all the other humans are incapable of Moral Agency. There is always the First of anything. Once Adam & Eve have the first opportunity, all the other humans of their lineage (which, over “x” number of generations, and within 5000 years, eventually includes 100% of all humanity) are taught the dilemma of Moral Agency as well.

5. My specific objection, then, is that there is no point in endorsing this schema (< a morally neutral word not to be confused with the American sense of the word “scheme”) - - until we start hearing from YEC leaders or YEC groups that this idea is Biblically acceptable. I am willing to be patient for this to happen. But until we have some public acknowledgement of this, this whole approach is moribund.

Jon may find it an easy pill to swallow, along with the Swami - - but I’m not going to plan my hand-stands until I know that there are YEC’s who agree that a pre-Adamite population of humans is not only feasible but Biblically allowable.

Biblical issues that favor this whole approach would include:
a) who did Cain build his city for?
b) who did Cain marry?
c) how did the “Cain-to-Kenite Pedigree” survive if only Noah’s lineage survived?

Biblical issues that YEC’s will use to refute this approach include:

1. the account of the Flood says Noah and his family were the only survivors.
2. Genesis doesn’t specifically acknowledge that there are other people on Earth other than Adam, Eve and his children.