Were we defending Evolution?, not Hermeneutics 'Per Se'?


(George Brooks) #1

I have heard several criticisms of Genealogical Adam that were based on the principle that this scenario doesnt call for important hermeneutic principles.

I find this quite odd. I am not trying to correct an initial theological premise.

My hope is to return the scope of Creationist aspirations to what should have been its first consideration:

Was Evolution a universal principle? Or was there still room for the Special Creation of Adam and Eve?

The discussion should have never been polarized into all or nothing. But, frankly, i blame the Victorian scientists on this polarization!


(Christy Hemphill) #2

I thought evolution was a scientific model.


(George Brooks) #3

In other words, is the modern impasse between Biblicists and Evolutionists the fault of the former?

Lots of people at BioLogos seem to think so …

Otherwise, why would they fault Genealogical Adam because it doesnt requre a re-generation of Creationist views on figurative interpretation.

It most certainly still does.

There is still the question of 6 days… the 3 days in a fish… Samsons magical hair. Isnt the list almost endless?

What Genealogical Adam does is eliminate Evolution as a problem. I have always thought this was the goal.

Why is this no longer the goal?


The Big Tent ... and Genealogical Adam!
(George Brooks) #4

@Christy

If it was merely a model… would the one-time, “one-off”, Special Creation of Adam and Eve be capable of causing such a ruckus?

This should have been conceded 100 years ago…


(Christy Hemphill) #5

I don’t really know what you are talking about.


(Christy Hemphill) #6

Ha!

Show me the long list of biblical literalist Creationists who are ready to do testimonials about how genealogical Adam solved all their problems and they now are now blissful Special-creation-of-Adam-and-Eve+Evolution-ists. I’m pretty positive you are over-selling the magic.


(Randy) #7

It’s so confusing, Mr Brooks. There are so many different possible combinations. I would think that a Calvinist TULIP EC with strong belief in original sin would find this a good option. An EC who does not, may not. A YEC may or may not–it depends on where they’re coming from.

If you’re pointing out a harmonization–well done, talk to the EC Tulipist and YEC; I don’t even try to argue with YEC, myself. The main reason I come here is to learn more about how Christianity and EC can coexist. So–while I don’t accept that God judged us from Adam’s sin (or transmitted a tendency to sin from him that I can’t escape, or passed any curse on to me from him), it’s fine with me that others do. My kids and I are born sinless, whatever you all are! :slight_smile: (tongue in cheek!)

However, personally, I don’t think I want to change my understanding of the Bible in order to get YEC to agree; though just as with my fellowship with any Calvinist (or agnostic, Buddhist, Wesleyan, or whatever) I’m happy to discuss things.

What I don’t understand is why it’s important to change my hermeneutic, just to get YEC to accept evolution. Evolution is not my personal raison de penser (reason to think)–this is a world with 2 books from God. It’s just more confusing that we thought, --but also less important–isn’t it? But–I will direct people who have questions to Dr Swamidass’ posting and website about GA!

Thanks. Sorry if I’m clear as mud; and feel free to point out my inconsistencies.


(Randy) #8

So --back a thousand years or so, when we were still melding non geneaological and geneaological Adam descendants together, would a baptism look like this? (imagining it as though people baptized then–it was before Christ, presumably, that everyone became a genealogical descendant , though it only took a few thousand years at most–please take this in the gentle spirit in which it’s given)


#9

Evolution is a scientific theory. And a very robust one, at that.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #10

There are no other scientific models that can adequately account for anything. No other scientific theory even has testable predictions but alternatives generally involve some form of magic/supernatural intervention.

There’s always more room for miracles. Especially the sort that doesn’t leave any evidence outside of logical possibility. Kind of like Jason Lisle’s anisitropic synchrony convention. Todd Wood’s summary of it is helpful.


(Mitchell W McKain) #11

Completely irrelevant strawman. The scientific evidence for evolution is in no way restricted to nonhuman organisms. It still remains a fact that the genes for tails and other genes used in invertebrates are still present in the human genome even though they are not used. Evolution thus remains the explanation which actually works. Creationism, including special creation of Adam and Eve, does not. …Unless your idea that Adam and Eve were created by magic but are not our sole ancestors… that might work. I don’t believe it and see absolutely no reason to believe it, but the evidence cannot refute the possibility.


(George Brooks) #12

@mitchellmckain

I’m not sure your comments above have much to do with the point of the thread.

Was BioLogos created to change the hermeneutics of Creationists even beyond Evolutionary questions? Or was BioLogos created to simply to show how Christians can believe in Evolution too?


(Mitchell W McKain) #13

The topic of the thread is defined by both the title AND the OP. If you did not want to discuss this then you should not have included the question in your OP.

Completely irrelevant. The scientific evidence for evolution is in no way restricted to nonhuman organisms. It still remains a fact that the genes for tails and other genes used in invertebrates are still present in the human genome even though they are not used. Evolution thus remains the explanation which actually works. Creationism, including special creation of Adam and Eve, does not. …Unless your idea that Adam and Eve were created by magic but are not our sole ancestors… that might work. I don’t believe it and see absolutely no reason to believe it, but the evidence cannot refute the possibility.

But ok, if you want to distract us from this and turn our attention to the other questions. Oh wait… there are no other questions in the OP… oh the title has one sort of… and there are your comments we can respond to.

Were we defending Evolution?

I thought this forum was about defending the compatibility of Christianity with evolution.

Christians should never have fallen into the trap of putting Christianity in opposition to science. Aggressive atheists LOVE this. They really really want to believe that science is on their side… in this way they are not so different from Christians who want to believe that God is on their side. But both these atheists and these Christians are deluded in this. Both God and science are on the side of truth!

Anyway the blame for this foolish opposition falls on a particularly hard-headed sector of American Christianity.


(George Brooks) #14

@mitchellmckain,

But now that we know how hard-headed they can be… it is within our power to offer a compromise: another little miracle (de novo creation of Adam/Eve)… in exchange for evolution for the rest of humanity and all luving things?


(Mitchell W McKain) #15

Seriously? Compromising the truth on this looks more to me like we are jumping onto a sinking ship. I really don’t see how that helps anyone.


(Christy Hemphill) #16

Again, I’d like to see some testimonials from all the biblical literalist Creationists who believe Genealogical Adam is all their science and faith dreams come true. I think you and some other people are being kind of naive about this “compromise” you think is going to happen. I don’t see it happening. The idea has been out there a while now, and it hasn’t exactly taken the Evangelical world by storm. Where are the excited blog posts on The Gospel Coalition? (Josh taking the opportunity to promote it himself in his Themelios review of the Theistic Evolution book doesn’t count in my book.) Where is the feature article in CT or World Magazine? What prominent Evangelical known for insisting on special creation of Adam and Eve, biblical literalism, and opposing evolution has endorsed this view as consistent with his or her view of the Bible?


#17

I think it reduces but does not eliminate the problem. First, EC claims that eons of suffering and death preceded Adam, while the “plain reading” suggest these resulted from the first transgression. Second, it does little to assuage the sensibilities of those who assume that God must be teaching us the complete story of origins in Genesis. Finally, some who equate special creation of Adam and Eve with Imago Deo would never accept that there were other image-bearing humans made through evolutionary processes.

As an aside, my 10-year-old holds to EC plus special creation of Adam and Eve. She does not yet understand all the implications of this view but I have little interest in over-complicating things for her at this point.


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #18

Just to underscore this… I went through a years-long crisis of faith some time back, and when asked what the essence of it was, I didn’t say “the origins debate” or “how old is the earth?” but rather, “What is the role of death in God’s creation?”

This was a huge deal for me. I had worked out a lot of other pieces of the puzzle but just couldn’t get around this. Is death an unintended interloper to be defeated? Or a yin-yang part of the creative force that has shaped life as we know it over billions of years?


(Albert Leo) #19

Of course it is the latter: death is a necessary part of the creative force that has shaped all life on earth. Even Jesus in Gesthemane feared the painful death he faced, but he still said: “Thy will be done.” Thus even Jesus had to be reminded that death was God’s will–His plan. It was what Jesus accomplished by his death that mattered.
Al Leo


(George Brooks) #20

Ill keep you posted, @Christy.

It seems intuitively obviously that Genealogical Adam is closer to the YEC mindset…

But the proof is certainly waiting for the testimonials…