Two interesting articles from a Casey Luskin:
In the subtotals, the GAE and Homo heidelbergensis models perform best because they incorporate mainstream scientific views about common ancestry and human evolution from apelike species in contrast to the other non-evolutionary models, while also acknowledging Adam and Eve as real historical people. The GAE model also allows for their de novo creation and recent origin, while the Homo heidelbergensis model allows them to be the sole ancestors of humans and denies interbreeding with non-human species. In the grand total analysis (Table 4, Figure 1), however, the Unique Origins and Design and Hybrid models tie for the highest scores, followed closely by the YEC model, which is followed closely by the OEC and Homo heidelbergensis models. The TE/EC model scores lowest, largely because it rejects traditional theological beliefs and other important scientific points worth considering in the conversation.
These are notable for several reasons. Casey is trying his best to be even handed with different approaches to human origins in science, and he has succeeded in publishing this in Religion, which is a fairly good academic journal. Moreover, his discussion at ENV ends up discussing the theological approaches to evolution that he thinks might work. That is a pretty stunning thing to observe, and ultimately a really good shift in the conversation.
Casey is doing his best to be even-handed, but still has some ways to go. I noticed a few things off the bat:
-
He tries to make a distinction between Gauger and and WLCâs position, even though they both have essentially the same (perhaps even exact same) position.
-
He misses that Gaugerâs suggestion of a 100,000 years ago unique origin (1) was never demonstrated by their paper, and (2) presumed intermixing between Adam and Eveâs lineage and others, and (3) doesnât at all address the TMR4A data. Thatâs a pretty big set of misses here on the scientific details. He might benefit from reading this article more closely: The Misunderstood Science of Genetic Bottlenecks .
-
He quotes my statements on miracles at length, when all am I saying is that Iâm not invoking ad hoc miracles to explain away difficult data. They seem hung up on methodological naturalism still, though that isnât really the point of disagreement. ID scientists also adopt this rule, eschewing ad hoc miracles to explain away difficult data.
-
He oddly concludes that GAE entails bestiality by (1) assuming that the people outside the Garden must not be in the image of God (not a position I favor!), and (2) assuming that interbreeding between these groups must be bestiality (that isnât the only possibility!).
So in the end, this paper does have some points worth discussing more, and I do think that addressing these issues would change the assessment.
Here is what @jongarvey writes:
his classification of GAE as an âevolutionaryâ model (in contrast to the âhybrid old earth young Adamâ model. Given that your book stresses the special creation of A&E, and treats the existing population as a given, I canât see the difference.
Your own commitment to evolution (as descent from other species) is certainly in the book, but doesnât seem to be entailed by the genealogical approach. Indeed, as I remember it, perhaps wrongly, you tend to use open-ended phrases lie âcompatible with the current understanding of evolutionâŚâ
I see that Casey, though seeking to be evenhanded across all views, has significantly misrepresented GAE by omitting its key feature, ie that it allows, or even requires, Adam and Eve as progenitors of the entire modern human race.
His stress on its congruity with evolutionary theory is therefore the elevation of a minor, optional, feature to its major point, whilst the omission of the major point â genealogical science â makes the paradigm look as if it is an amateurish fudge. In that case, Iâm surprised he scored it as highly as he does!
https://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2023/05/19/would-you-adam-and-eve-it/
Iâd agree with Jon on these points of course.
This all being said, I do think it is valuable that Casey is laying out his theological and scientific priorities. It is great to see the ENV laying out the theological approaches to evolution they are most inclined to find acceptable. That is, in the end, a pretty stunning thing to observe and ultimately helpful.
.