What does "historical Adam" mean? And why is it important?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

“I do try really hard not to be a heretic, so I’m honestly interested in what is dangerous about it.”

I’m sure that’s true, Christy. The danger is ‘scientific racism.’ And also theological chaos for Christian (and human) unity. Have you heard, for example, of Arthur de Gobineau?

“Chosen by God, of course.”

That was the whole point. I’m glad we agree. So, are you saying ‘no history’ when you say about people: “Chosen by God”? (to be continued below)

“the whole discussion of when humans became humans or when humans were given immortal souls”

This is not a discussion I raised and I can sympathise with what appears to be a kind of frustration. Maybe where you’re from the people you interact with focus on that. It’s not my central concern.

What human beings are, i.e. what it means to be a human person, I’m sure you’ll agree is relevant to interpreting Genesis.

I’m just curious, Christy, does the church you attend/are a member of have any/no teachings about Adam and Eve? If it does, could you please direct me to them.

Thanks in advance.

p.s. the Kemp article is not ‘mine’ as your possessive pronoun indicated, but I do hope you found something helpful in it. Thanks for reading. Kemp has a deep mind and is devout in his calling. And his work on monogenism vs. polygenism is imo top notch.

22

Agreed, including the ‘history’ part.

“my objection is to using pop genetics as settled science”

Well, I don’t like the ‘settled science’ claim because it is already being used as a kind of ‘wedge’ and I don’t think you’d find many, if any actual genomicists (or broadly biologists) who would say ‘the science is settled.’ Pop gen can’t answer theological questions and historical A&E is not a biological but a theological topic, as you indicated GJDS.

“involvement by God with Adam and Eve, and all of humanity, is included in the narrative, is central to these discussions.”

Agreed. And I think again, you mean ‘in history’, not just ahistorically when you say ‘involved in.’ Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted you and the Orthodox teachings.

“Speculation and self-referential outlooks seems the flavour in these discussions - in past discussions I have objected to people deciding what is proven science and what is speculation.” … “The Church has taught us…”

Yes, and I think we must remember this is a site aimed at evangelical Protestants, who are the most individualistic of all Christians. Individual interpretation alone has led to denominationalism. From my experience, most evangelical Protestants don’t recognise what ‘the Church’ has taught. To them, ‘the Church’ is just an abstract idea, not a reality. They’re usually more interested in what they learned at their small group Bible study this week than what thousands of scholars in a vast theological tradition of centuries, across affiliated universities, seminaries, monasteries and schools has taught within a ‘hierarchical’ institution, i.e. “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Let us not be shocked nor surprised. In the case of rejecting historical A&E, a movement was eventually likely to come from within evangelical Protestantism, not among Catholics and not among Orthodox Christians. Are they using pop gen against Church teachings across history, using science as a weapon against theology?

To repeat what I’ve said before: I believe BioLogos is fully justified in trying to cleanse USAmerican YECism from evangelical churches. But trying to erase historical A&E as a theological necessity (‘because, just look at the genomic evidence’!) in the process is not a good idea.

23

Gregory,

These are helpful comments from you, and show a sociological dimension is required to the debates/disagreements and “culture wars” that are displayed in forums such as Biologos. I am more encouraged by the overall approach displayed by the majority of articles and comments on the Biologos site, as they display a health curiosity regarding the sciences and often and equally healthy regard for established theological views put over many centuries - for example I find much of what Calvin wrote to be informative and at times inspirational.

25

I am a member of a Converge church. (Formerly Baptist General Conference). The denominational affirmation of faith does not mention Adam and Eve. http://www.convergeworldwide.org/about/values/affirmation-faith

Converge churches are fairly independent, and my church’s statement of faith is very general:

“That man was created in the image of God to live with God, but fell into sin resulting in separation from God.”

People at my church hold quite a range of views on origins and last things. They are considered secondary issues that we aren’t supposed to fight about.

I’m not sure I follow. I personally prefer to believe Adam and Eve were real people who existed at a point in history, though I don’t see the account of them as “historical” in the sense we usually think of when we think of history. I think we are supposed to read our own story of sin and rebellion, our need for the promised Savior, and our innate longing for “paradise lost” into their story. I am not convinced it is theologically necessary for them to be the first biological or spiritual humans.

26

Hi Christy,

Thanks for that and for sending the links.

If you follow this link and download the PDF at the bottom of the page, you will find this in your church’s Gospel Declaration:

“God created all things at the beginning, and it was all ‘very good.’ But the first man and first woman (Adam and Eve) did not trust God enough to obey him. Despite living in the paradise-like garden in which God had placed them, they were not satisfied. Believing they knew a better way, they rebelled against God by defiantly disobeying his command.”

The point is that I want you to know that I take your concerns seriously. When I send a link, I hope it will be edifying for readers who genuinely want to learn more and when people send me links, I usually follow them to discover more and to learn from them. I’m thankful you read the Kemp paper, Christy, because imo it offers a solution that could help BioLogos from falling over the cliff of genomicism (the ideology that exaggerates the importance and relevance of genomics, for us, i.e. especially in this historical Adam and Eve conversation). The anti-historical A&E people at BioLogos are actively, but also needlessly, embracing heterodoxy within their churches, university institutions and schools, witness the case of Jim Stump.

When you say “I personally prefer to believe Adam and Eve were real people who existed at a point in history”, the preference imo is not what’s important, but the belief. If you really believe that (in your ‘heart of hearts’), then we, along with the classical, historical and current teachings of most churches (as well as synagogues and mosques) around the world are in agreement. That some, but not all, BioLogos folks reject this and are trying to overturn these teachings is beside the point. You believe, that’s what’s most important.

The rest of what you wrote in that paragraph is hard to understand, so perhaps we can leave it at the above if you agree.

29

That paragraph about Adam and Eve that you quoted is in a section about the “story of the gospel” and is a summary of the Genesis account, not an interpretation or a doctrine. We affirm that the Bible is true, but that really isn’t guidance on how literally one is to interpret a given passage.

What is scientific racism? I’m still not clear on how thinking that Adam and Eve are meant to function theologically primarily as archetypes for describing the human condition and God’s relationship to humanity (not literal history or science) is dangerous to the Christian message.

30

It still might be possible to sort of find Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden in a sense. The DNA worlds theory says that the DNA system functions similar to a 3D computer simulation, that it is a world in it’s own right.

What this means is there can be representations of both man and woman, trees, snakes, the sun and moon, in the DNA world of a human being.

The main evidence for this theory is that the mathematical ordering of the DNA system is exactly the same as the mathematical ordering of the physics of the universe. Other reasons why this theory is great, besides it being wonderfully simple, straightforward and understandable, is that it provides efficient explanations for non-coding DNA, and the development of organisms to adulthood.

So in the future we might translate the signal from the DNA to a videosignal of a computer, and directly look inside the DNA world, and find “the” Garden of Eden there.

31

@Eddie

It is very difficult to partake in a useful dialogue if you insist on your version of the type of response from people - on the biological question you now keep bringing up, the reference given by Gregory mentions these matters. If you disagree with the paper, make this your point. If you have some technical issues to discuss, then make these as specific points and those with technical expertise may have some specific responses. I have made the observation that the population modelling as expounded in a couple of peer reviewed papers starts with a given population (i.e. it does not prove it nor has a mathematical treatment that would show how mutations of various species led to either a male and female as initial human beings, or a group of such beings). This is another example where modelling needs to be restricted to deal with matters of interest to the modeller. Dennis has responded by correctly noting there are other aspects that appear to support his position.

Whatever the merits (and otherwise) of pop modelling, it cannot address our main concern regarding the biblical teaching, which is that Adam and Eve existed. You may want to make some debating points about descendants, but again the bible shows these are relevant in terms of a line of descent leading to Abraham and Israel.

32

“God created all things at the beginning, and it was all ‘very good.’ But the first man and first woman (Adam and Eve) did not trust God enough to obey him. Despite living in the paradise-like garden in which God had placed them, they were not satisfied. Believing they knew a better way, they rebelled against God by defiantly disobeying his command.”

Maybe it would help me to understand, Christy, what you don’t agree with or reject in your church’s Gospel Declaration message above. When you said, “I personally prefer to believe Adam and Eve were real people who existed at a point in history”, that was enough for me and not confusing. I don’t understand what more needs to be said further.

“What is scientific racism?” - Christy

There’s lots of writings about scientific racism and by scientific racists on the internet. There have been many scientific racists (and eugenicists) in the USA. Recognising this and the huge impact it has had on the USA (I’m not a US citizen) is imo much, much more important for cultural communication today than hearing more 2nd hand about genomics. Suffice it to say, polygenism and scientific racism often go hand in hand.

This might interest you: The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked

With transhumanism and human enhancements très chic right now, you might want to have a look at the gigantic shadow of upcoming neo-eugenics while we’re on the topic of science, philosophy and theology/worldview of ‘anthropos’, humanity, (and as an Abrahamic theist) Adam and Eve. That’s a post-modern (contemporary) reality that we are now facing and which will become more urgent to deal with in the near future.

p.s. since we’re dealing with actual people and not just academic abstraction, let me a bit playfully mention that one of my first girlfriends was named ‘Christy’. So you leave a good impression. :yum: Just don’t tell your husband, as I’m only about 7500 kms away! ;):relaxed:

34

@Eddie

I think we would all agree that a relaxed conversation ‘over a cup of coffee’ is preferable - I suppose the point that interests me is the notion that anyone has a basis for posing a question such as, “Did the human population start from 10,000 humans or from 2?” If we think such a question through, I think we would see that is an impossible question if it is posed as a scientific (or biological) one. Instead, we have arguments that include, for example modelling, and these arguments must, by necessity, include assumptions, such as, is it possible to model the current population of humans, and in such modelling, is it necessary to commence with a male and a female (2), or is it necessary to commence with a population of human beings, say 10,000?

I am using this to illustrate my point, not to make a rigorous examination of a scientific point. If our conversation tried to address both scientific and theological matters, we could involve ourselves in very complicated discussions, as we all understand from the points put on this site.

38

I agree with it. I just don’t think it compels a person to believe that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings on the planet historically, biologically, or spiritually speaking. I think “first man and woman” can have other meanings related to their selection as image bearers and their special relationship with God. Some people in my denomination interpret Adam and Eve as true myth or allegory, and there is room for that.

The SBC is all over this you know. They have called for a position paper on the baptism of cyborgs.

My favorite Baptist theologian Roger Olson had a few blog posts on transhumanism not to long ago.

Fun stuff for all us sci-fi fans.

Spelled the right way, too.

39

Ok, then that’s enough. I’m not sure that the ‘Yes, but…’ or ‘doesn’t compel…’ or ‘can have other meanings’ answer gets us anywhere productive. It’s too obvious to need to be said.

Your church teaches that Adam and Eve were “the first man and first woman” and you agree. Yes. Period. Amen.

We agree. :smile::thumbsup:

“The SBC is all over this you know.”

I didn’t know (not being from USA and not following SBC), but it’s not surprising. Lots of interest (and big funding) right now on this topic. Yes, I’ve read Olson on this. There’s also a new Christian Transhumanist Association and people present on this at the ASA meeting regularly (e.g. Winyard 2013, 2015). Hyper conservative groups, however, like the Discovery Institute are insistently anti-transhumanism.

I wrote an article a few months back about transhumanism and anthropic principles for a special edition on TechnoLogos (yes, they capitalised the ‘L’, just like BioLogos does, but with a considerably different intention). I can send you the link privately if you’d like.

40

Sure. PM me the link. I’ll add it to my rainy day reading folder. :slight_smile:

41

Regarding Dennis Venema, he can answer for himself if he chooses on his own thread re: polygenism. Eddie wants me to directly challenge Venema’s genomics writings on BioLogos, but that is not what I am called on Earth to do.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what I think of Venema’s biology, genetics or genomics. The point is the same one that GJDS has already made here along with many others elsewhere. Population genetics cannot disprove a historical Adam and Eve; it can only suggest a minimum bottleneck size, which doesn’t disprove THEM.

Besides, the more qualified person on this topic at BioLogos is James Kidder, who is a paleoanthropologist, rather than a genomicist.

GJDS was entirely correct: “on the biological question you now keep bringing up, the reference given by Gregory mentions these matters.”

Kemp’s paper deals with this directly. So I’ve done what I think is the responsible thing in deferring to someone who knows more about genetics and biology than myself.

For those who haven’t read the excellent paper “Science, Theology and Monogenism” by Kemp, who is a Catholic philosopher and TE/EC, here are a few highlights:

The foundation of Kemp’s monogenism/polygenism solution are based on this: “while it is true that all men are descended from Adam, the race nevertheless had a broad origin.” – Andrew Alexander (“Human Origins and Genetics”, 1964)

“there is no real contradiction between a theologically conservative (monogenist) account of anthropogenesis and the scientific insights of evolutionary biology and modern genetics.” – Kemp

“Discussion of whether there ever was a population bottleneck in the course of hominid evolution and, if there was, when and of what size is, in fact, on-going among paleoanthropologists.” – Kemp

“That account can begin with a population of about 5,000 hominids, beings which are in many respects like human beings, but which lack the capacity for intellectual thought. Out of this population, God selects two and endows them with intellects by creating for them rational souls, giving them at the same time those preternatural gifts the possession of which constitutes original justice. Only beings with rational souls (with or without the preternatural gifts) are truly human.” – Kemp

This is the same basic argument that has been supported by David Opderbeck, GJDS, Ben Yachov and Jon Garvey here on BioLogos, with figures like John Walton and Denis Alexander more or less in agreement. Lamoureux, Falk, Enns, Giberson and Venema (and apparently Kidder too) are against it, but it has not yet been confirmed that any of them have read Kemp, Flynn or Bonnette.

10,000, 5804, 2685, 229, 12, 4 –> the ‘group’ number simply doesn’t matter. One simply can’t overturn a theological doctrine using mathematical genomics.

So is Venema in particular correct while he sticks with the population number not <10,000? I don’t know and am not qualified to say one way or another, so I’m not going to commit myself to say anything. Others have used different numbers and in so far as they are only interested in the ‘biological human,’ the same response is due to them also as above.

Kemp, Flynn and Bonnette offer a third way, which allows people to maintain traditional Church teaching about historical Adam and Eve and also account for contemporary genetics. Based on that, I neither have to say ‘BioLogos is wrong about the science and the traditional theological account is right’, nor ‘BioLogos is right about the science and the traditional theological account is wrong.’ That polarising ultimatum is not necessary due to the new views available.

“there can be no theological objection to the claim that some one (or two) members of a prehistoric, biologically (i.e., genetically) human species were made sufficiently different from the others that they constituted a new theological species, e.g., by being given a rational soul and an eternal destiny.” - Kemp

Or, as John Stott put it, perhaps more believable for evangelicals who don’t or won’t read Catholics, as quoted here at BioLogos, this constitutes Homo Divinus.

42

Ok, will do. Perhaps it will bring a bit of sunshine on that rainy day. :umbrella: :sun_with_face:

1 Like