@vjtorley do not have time to respond in detail to everyone yet, but want to add some additional information into the mix.
First, I want to strongly endorse this statement by @anon46279830:
I would emphasize the goal of establishing a large range of possible scenarios, as this serves the Common Good. Quoting Andrew Toker (Andrew Ter Ern Loke | Hong Kong Baptist University - Academia.edu):
Concerning the relationship between the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and human evolution, Alexander points out that “We really don’t know the precise answer. There are simply too many unknowns in both the evolutionary account, and in our own interpretation of Scripture, to be dogmatic on this issue.”58 Is it possible that the possible scenario I suggested might be falsified by future scientific discoveries? Of course. But there is currently no adequate reason for thinking that there could not be other scenarios which would be consistent with such discoveries and with plausible interpretations of the Bible, and hence no adequate reason for thinking that such discoveries would be inconsistent with the Bible.
Reconciling Evolution and Biblical Literalism: A Proposed Research Program http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1156328
That means, there are two general classes of models we should consider:
-
Recent genealogical Adam models (as put forward by @swamidass, @jongarvey, @anon46279830, @Guy_Coe, David Opderbeck and Andrew Loke), which may or may not include de novo creation of Adam.
-
Ancient sole-genetic progenitorship Adam models (as put forward by @vjtorley, @Agauger, and Richard Buggs). @agauger suggests origin of Homo genus as “human” about 2 mya, and @vjtorley suggests common ancestors of Humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, which would be about 700 kya. In my view 400 kya (as suggested by @vjtorley) is very unlikely to work out, and is at best on the fringe of plausibility.
As for the particular groups we should consider. I will list out several groups I know first hand have responded very positively to this effort. They all have potential to gain, and might be drawn to different solutions.
-
Old Earth Creationists, like Reasons to Believe (and @anon46279830 and @Agauger ), who are unsure of evolution, but are drawn to a more Biblically and scientifically consistent approach than Fuz Rana can offer.
-
Young Earth Creationists, most of whom I cannot precisely identify at this time for obvious reasons. A key point is that Wayne Grudem’s theological values can be accommodated in an evolutionary scenario (see for example Loke’s work http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1156328
-
Christians who affirm evolutionary science, but are not comfortable with the BioLogos approach (e.g. @jongarvey). I’m getting emails from people like this (both inside and outside BioLogos) all the time. See for example: A Flawed Mirror: A Response to the Book “Theistic Evolution” - #6 by John_Rood - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum. Among their values (not always applying to all of them): (1) de novo creation of Adam, (2) traditional theology, (3) a desire to seek peace, (4) literalism, etc. etc. etc.
-
Catholics. The three groups above generally presume an evangelical orientation, but this has also been very helpful to Catholics (e.g. @Agauger and @vjtorley). It will also, as you said, this would help Kenneth Kemp too (https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf), and is also favored by Antoine Suarez too (A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission! - #430 by AntoineSuarez - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum).
-
Those that feel compelled to affirm God’s direct action in creating Adam and Eve, such as Tim Keller, @Agauger, and just about everyone in the ID movement.
-
Literalists and traditionalists of all stripes, especially the peacemakers that are arising everywhere right now.
With that all in mind, we should affirm as much diversity as we can. We have the opportunity to create a new approach forward that dignifies those with whom we disagree. For this reason, it is important that we get better at representing each others positions…
To be clear @vjtorley that is not at all what, for example, @anon46279830 and myself (@swamidass) has put forward. You are describing a Kenneth Kemp scenario (not even precisely @jongarvey’s) . We, however, are putting forward a different scenario, where the people alongside Adam and outside the garden had God’s image too. They were made with capacity to be in relationship with God (and in his Image), but not yet had opportunity (so therefore without opportunity to Fall from relationship with God).
This is a very different model than what you have inferred. It is important too, because there is very good textual reasons to believe that the Image of God pre-exists Adam and Eve. You do not have to accept our scenario as correct, but it is important not to misrepresent it.
Just to encourage everyone down this path further, here is a note (which I have to leave anonymous) from a leading evolutionary creationist.
I have lived with such uncertainly about what to do about Adam and Eve and I’ve never read anything that I couldn’t find many reasons for me to be skeptical. Most schemes just don’t provide an explanatory framework that can find a place for good science and a high view of scripture at the same time. Reading your material is the closest I have every come to feeling comforted rather than agitated. I’m not all the way there but you have hit upon several strands of thought that I have been mulling in my own mind in recent years. You have brought those thoughts, some of which were not well-formulated yet for me, and made them far clearer than I could ever express.
Continue the work here. It has been good to engage all of this deeper with you. Let’s continue on, and I’ll respond more when I can.