My guess is WLC’s model is probably somewhat like the old Catholic model. Evolution produces Adam and Eve and God gives them a soul or a mind. My guess is he probably places them at the beginning of homo sapien sapiens, and will value the work of guys like Tattersal to make his anthopological case. I think that’s plausible. The genetic and biblical data (oh, the fact that everything is set in the neolithic revolution is anachronism and somehow the biblical writers maintained the “right” oral tradition from 200,000 yrs ago up to Adam and Eve)…that’s where it gets implausible to me. But he’s a smart guy. If he does take this line, I will be very interested in the arguments he uses to make it sound plausible.
I think he wants to maintain an historical Adam because it fits with inerrancy better and his view of the atonement/salvation.
All this is conjecture but it’s fun and I hope that’s ok.
Those who reject or don’t care as much about Adam usually take a more Eastern view of original sin and atonement. I KNOW he doesn’t like anything that goes against the idea that God punished Christ or that Christ took on the punishment that we should have taken on, but I don’t know for sure if he also believes in some sort of imputation model of orginal sin. That being said, when I say Eastern view, I mean the view most prominent within Eastern Orthodoxy today. Within our history, there are brief texts from the Church Fathers that DO speak of penal substitution (Chrysostom and perhaps a snippet of Athanasius). But not in the Cappadocians or Maximus. As far as I’m aware.
If he accepts the imputation of original sin, then he’s REALLY going to want an Adam and Eve.
What you have to understand is that some doctrines of Christianity are more foundational than others. For example, that God exists is more foundational than whether infant baptism is allowed. What you label as “selective literalism” is really operating based on this background structure of beliefs.
Amen. It’s not terribly important to my structure, so I don’t see a literal Adam and Eve as necessary. I do see some sort of fall or “failure” as necessary though.
So I can now tip my cards, with permission from WLC.
The two of us are in conversation about writing a book together on AE. If we do this, I will be writing how we could understand his constraints within science. He is not yet settled on his constraints, and has very few of them to begin with. It is possible he will end up in a variant of the GAE, or possibly in a variant of the RTB model (a variant without de novo creation fo AE is important).
WLC and I have become good friends. The misreading happening is that we are competitors. We are not competitors. Likewise, WLC is not yet settled on his constraints, and it is going to be really interesting to see this play out. Most of his disagreement publicly with me is on minor details of the exegesis he can easily change.
At the moment, we have something far more important than rigid agreement. We have trust.
Note, if this moves forward, I may begin to share key points from his analysis, so my response can get review here. Likewise, we might plan a workshop to review my contribution, or perhaps the whole book too. Once WLC settles on his constraints, he will be writing a whole book to explain how he arrives at them. Until then, however, he is a moving target. PS is going to have front row seats!
I wonder if someone could affirm that “human” begins with homo sapien sapiens, and then affirm some sort of GAE without a de novo creation around the time that RTB usually gives. Like what if there are two people that are the first humans that have all the genetic and physiological capabilities of language and then they start interbreeding with everyone else. Not sure if a 100,000-200,000 yr old GAE would solve anything. Although I’m already unconvinced by Craig’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 from his new defenders classes, I’m sure I will find his formulation thoughtful, and with your help, compatible with all mainstream science. And if he “starts” humanity with homo sapien sapiens, then even though I don’t hold to a historic Adam, that could help me formulate my own view, which is a varient of C.S. Lewis’s “Problem of Pain” view.
Along with Craig, and Lewis, I think there needs to be a considerable degree of discontinuity (though abolutely common ancestry) between humans and their animal ancestors to safeguard human rights and the chalcedonian conception of humanity having a “nature.” Also, I’ll be interested to see what he does with human- neanderthal interbreeding.
That’s spot on @mark. The diversity is fun. It is possible we will need a whole sale revision, but it is also possible his constraints will be satisfiable with a variant of the GAE with an ancient AE.
This doesn’t look like “He already agrees with me”, but it does look like “If X happens then I’ll be writing about how we can make his view fit inside science” (but nothing about him agreeing with you).
This doesn’t look like “He already agrees with me”, but it does look like “In the future it’s possible he’ll agree with me about GAE in some way, or he might end up agreeing with RTB in some way”.
This doesn’t look like “He already agrees with me”, but it does look like “He doesn’t agree with me yet but in my view he can change his views easily enough to agree with me”.
This doesn’t look like “He already agrees with me”, but it does look like “His views aren’t fully settled yet”.
If I’ve misread this and all those paragraphs are saying “He already agrees with me”, then you could just write here something like “He already agrees with me”. Alternatively I could just write to WLC and say “Is it true that you already agree with Joshua Swamidass on GAE”.
We have many disagreements, but what he has shared publicly shows they are truly minor. I have no idea where he will land, and it doesn’t matter so much to me because I’m not trying to change him.
We are not competitors because my goal isn’t agreement on every little detail.
My interpretation is that @swamidass’s favored model is about a 6-10,000 yr old GA, but he is willing to work with Craig’s PROBABLY 100-200,00 yr old GA so that whatever Craig ultimately comes up with fits the scientific data.
WLC: Again and again von Rad seems to side with the Young Earther that Genesis is to be interpreted scientifically and factually rather than mythically or figuratively. Does he therefore agree with Young Earth Creationism? Of course not!
Why is that “of course”? Is it not absolutely patently obvious that the reason he is not a Young Earth Creationist is because of the science?
WLC: Rather he regards Genesis as antiquated and erroneous in many of its scientific, historical, and geographical affirmations, while holding to the spiritual truths expressed in Scripture.
And why does he hold Genesis to be antiquated and erroneous?
WLC: We cannot allow modern science to guide our biblical theology so as to avoid the Young Earth interpretation. But we can, in light of modern science, be motivated to consider afresh our interpretation of the biblical texts to see if we have properly understood them.
By what impressively flexible mental contortions does one distinguish the former from the latter?
This whole thing is more transparent than intergalactic supervoid vacuums are to the passing of neutrinoes. The bible is being re-interpreted because what it says conflicts with the findings of science.
Please have the respect to admit to yourself, and to not lie to my face, that this is what is going on.
The difference is that even if the science was the circumstance that caused you to change your argument, you have to argue for your interpretation based on the textual evidence itself. You cannot say “this passage must be interpreted as X instead of Y because science shows Y to be impossible.”
You can’t say it, but it seems that you must think it, because you are forced into a farfetched exegesis that the words alone would never lead you to. It’s only a matter of time before you decide that the sun wasn’t created on Day 3, it’s just that the atmosphere became transparent then. That would seem to qualify as “mental contortions”.
There’s no such thing as “words alone”. The meaning, function, and connotation of each word in an ancient text is determined by comparing its use to other passages or other similar texts. You can also look at texts in cognate languages from a similar era and region to see if a text is a polemic or response to another one. There are many ways to do these sorts of analysis, which is why OT and NT studies is an active field of research.
Ah, but is any of that what has convinced anyone whatsoever to choose an interpretation more in line with science? I don’t think so. The unexpressed motivation to fit the meaning to the science is behind it all.
Only the ones here, assuming there are any. But I’ve read others. Does RTB count?
Agreed. And the implausibility of the arguments is what convinces me that they are motivated by something other than careful analysis and comparison of the texts.