Some fine examples of AiG dirty tricks in the discussion at BL.
What’s new? At least Ham actually mentions them by name. He still can’t bring himself to mention PS or me.
It is pretty notable that BioLogos’s definition of “traditional” has come under scrutiny.
In a common traditional view, Adam and Eve were created de novo—they were created by God as fully formed humans ( Homo sapiens ), roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. God made them quickly and completely as fully formed humans with no biological ancestors. In this traditional de novo view, Adam and Eve are “sole progenitors”: they were the first two humans, and they alone gave rise to all other humans. The Genesis account is taken to be a record of real events similar to the way a journalist would record them today
I’ve been questioning this definition for quite some time, and in fact it has a telling history of revisions too.
Hey, it says “a common traditional view”, not “the common traditional view”. How can you argue with that?
Well, to start with, this isn’t how they defined it in the past: The BioLogos Statement on Adam and Eve. They’ve been progressively (and non-transparently) narrowing the definition of “traditional”, primarily so they can claim traditional readings have to be ruled out. That is aligned closely with their “revisionist” roots, and perhaps also a desire to obscure their history of positions.
So it has been “interesting” to see this picked up by RTB, ENV, and now AIG, most of them (except RTB) oblivious to the actual history of that quote.
Another interesting aspect is that they are appealing to non YECs in this article. That’s surprising. And the wedge issue is whether or not Adam and Eve are real. They state that the bulk of BioLogos sees Adam and Eve as mythical, not historical. I don’t think that’s “heresy”, but AIG might be correct in that specific assessment. On that basis, they are arguing that even non-YECs should disassociate from BioLogos.
I’d be interested in actually knowing the actual stats on this. Applegate is clearly on record supporting their historicity, as is Falk, as are associates like Walton and N. T. Wright. (I’ve spoken to Stump and Deb Haarsma privately about this, but don’t know if they’re on public record.)
I’m interested the stats too. Jeff Schloss often says that the “Center of Mass” is solidly on no-Adam theology. Certainly the idea of evolutionary creation allowing for historical Adam and Eve in any form is a more recent adjustment to their position, which initially was uniformly no-Adam theology. I think we can say that what ever the break down at this particular point in time, no-Adam theology is BioLogos’s historical position, and it remains the privileged position there.
Eh. Eventually I suspect he will have to. The fact he won’t yet seems to indicate some fear of exposing his audience to me, so it’s probably a good sign if that is in fact the case.
That’s an out of place comment to me…but perhaps I’m missing something.
Unless they’ve changed their view, Stump is no-Adam theology (and genuinely hostile to any sort of historical Adam and Eve as real-people view) and Deb is agnostic.
That wasn’t very clear. What was the original statement? How has it been modified? What quote are you talking about?
I included the quote, along with a link to how it has been modified, including its original form. Don’t know how to make it any more clear to you.
Where did you do this?
Is there something wrong with your interface? You have me wondering now if there is a bug in the forum software…
Joel Edmuch Anderson chimes in:
Is there a wedge issue involving whether they were a real bottleneck-of-two, but not ruling out that they themselves were produced by evolution? I ask that because Ann Gauger and Ola Hössjer (and I think Richard Buggs too) have argued that the evidence does not rule out a bottleneck-of-two 500,000 or more years ago. Is their position different from arguing that they were a bottleneck-of-two but where the two are newly created?
No, I didn’t realize what you meant by “the quote”, which was without a link to the source. And I didn’t know that the revisions were to be found far down in the referenced thread.
I would say that the revisions seem more cosmetic than substantive, incidentally. Is this s tempest in Russell’s teapot?
I’m sure it seems that way to people that don’t understand or sympathize with the theological concerns motivating many anti-evolutionists.
This is unfortunately a complex topic. I don’t think what they’ve argued is reducible to this, and I think they are holding several options in play.