Continuing the discussion from A Genealogical Book Title:
A Summary of a Real Exchange
OEC: (paraphrased) I’m not interested in the Genealogical Adam because I’m paying attention to both the philosophy and theology. You are not. I don’t see any reason to give any details or capitulate to science.
Swamidass: I’m not subject to your view of philosophy. I’m subject to Scripture. You appear to reject mainstream science on human orgins. That is not a small price to pay. You talk about me paying attention to your philosophy. I wonder when you will pay attention to the science here. You aren’t subject to science, so you can believe what you like.
OEC: I just want to be clear that we can affirm an old earth while rejecting evolution. The two do not come together.
Swamidass: Yes, you are right that one can reject evolution while affirming an old earth. Many (most?) are not comfortable with the hash this makes of theological anthropology, and exegesis. That is a bridge to far for me, and I’ve been working with RTB to find some better models for them. As for you, do you take Gaugers’ Homo erectus Adam or Rana’s 150 kya Adam that interbreeds with Neanderthal beasts?
OEC: I would laugh but it seems like you are serious. But…what?
YEC: Swamidass, glad to see there is something we can agree with on this subject, re: theological/hermeneutical problems with OEC proposals. Sorry, Mr. OEC.
YEC: As for the challenges, I am pretty well aware of the challenges to all the different views. I’ve been studying evolution since I was a kid back in the 1960s and much more seriously starting in high school in the late 70s. And science has been my main hobby since that time. My primary expertise, however, is as a Biblical scholar and theologian. And I find the Biblical and theological problems with the other views to be insurmountable. As for the age of the earth, I am agnostic. I can see interpretation of both the scientific and Biblical data being interpreted both ways. But when it comes to Adam, the Scriptures are very explicit that he was created without ancestors less than 7000 ya. The genealogical records of Genesis are too mathematically precise to allow for the kind of wiggle room demanded by other views. And the other views are also completely incompatible with the Biblical record about who Adam is.
Swamidass: Good news though, we made a mistake on how the evolutionary science presses on the Biblical account. turns out that Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, could have been created without ancestors 7000 years ago, and this would all be 100% consistent with evolutionary science. This is a NEW finding, just about 1.5 years since became public, and no book yet. It changes the calculus. Maybe both are true, the YEC reading of Scripture, and evolution. There is no contradiction.
YEC: That is an interesting idea that I would be willing to explore more fully. But if it somehow involves another line of humans as you indicated, that is torturing the Biblical text and full of theological problems. I would be glad to hear you out on it, but I honestly cannot imagine a scenario in which those problems disappear given the basic problem.
Swamidass: It isn’t just the science. All it requires us is to read the (hebrew) text more carefully, paying attention to traditional interpretations, and theology. It is almost like one of those 3d dot diagrams. I’m working on a book (or at least I should be). It will be out with IVP. Hopefully that will explain more clearly.
(OEC blocks Swamidass on FaceBook.)
What Does This Mean?
YEC’s might be more open that you might imagine on this. Perhaps they have a view of Scripture that prevents them from moving towards OEC, but also pushes them towards the GA.