EthanW's take on the GAE

When, within the paper’s scenario, which extends from the Late Pleistocene, are you proposing to find Eden?

No, the central theme is a garden or perhaps an orchard.

How do you separate the window dressing from the central theme? It seems to me that the Tree of Knowledge is much closer to any central theme than any “agricultural district”.

Any time in that range seems to work just fine. Does not seem to have tight constraints.

So you’re not buying the whole bit about agriculture.

I don’t think there is anything in scripture that requires AE to be the first agriculturalists.

That’s not the issue. Is there anything that requires them to be agriculturalists at all? If so, that rules out a Pleistocene or Paleolithic timing. They must be more recent than that. Not so?

The Persian Gulf Oasis might have been accessible as late as 10 or 8 Kya.

Was that intended as an answer to my questions?

As I have said before, the degree that an unscientific Creationist attempts to retain some element of Genesis despite the poor fit with current archaeological science is not really something in our interest to control.

Adam/Eve is the theological part of the analysis, and there is no way to predict how many additional Genesis elements might be considered theologically important. It could vary quite a bit from audience to audience!

On the specific example of rain… we can argue that there is plenty of evidence for rain prior to Adam/Eve. But if the audience wants the issue of “no rain” to be restricted to the confines of the Garden, that would be something science can’t negate.

1 Like


Please notice the hierarchy of descriptions:

“First Agriculturist” > how much skill does it take to meet this definition?

Is that different from “First Farmer”?
Or First GOOD Farmer?
Or First Farmer to use irrigation?
Or First Farmer to raise barley?
And so on, and so on?


This will always depend upon the theological needs of any particular audience … and how much of these elements are definitively excluded by science … or not.

Why is any of those necessary? Why does Adam have to be the first anything, and what biblical support is there for whatever first you intend?


I have explained this several times. We are not debating GAE with atheists. We are trying to offer a flexible approach to YECs for how they can trade off some of their views in order to reconcile their faith with Evolution.

Since YECs come in many varieties, GAE scenarios are designed for maximum flexibility … because it’s all about the stance on Evolution.

Everytime you ask the same question about tolerating “this” or “that” from Genesis (in exchange for accepting Evolutionary science) you reveal how incapable you are of understanding the many hues of the YEC perspective!

Please answer my question. What biblical support is there for Adam being the first farmer or whatever else you want? I would maintain that the only support is for him being the first person, which GAE contradicts. Accept that he’s not the first person and there is no reason to posit that he’s the first farmer. If you have an argument, present it.

1 Like

I agree he need not be the first farmer.

But is there any biblical support whatsoever for him being the first farmer? Anything that can be interpreted that way?

Thanks! I am just a Christian who has always been interested in the topic of origins. I used to be a young earth creationist, but I found myself unable to maintain that belief for various reasons. For some reason I like to have an idea in my mind about how things happened. It’s a bit of a compulsion of mine, but I enjoy entertaining different possibilities. I am committed to the concept of a literal Adam and Eve because I believe they are necessary theologically.


Oh, I didn’t realize that there was a difference between evolutionary creationism and a belief in evolutionary science that is providentially governed.

1 Like

Well, I think most (though not all) evolutionary creationists believe that evolution is providentially governed. They also believe other things. As Deborah Haarsma puts it,

evolutionary creationists cannot affirm a traditional de novo view of human origins

My premise:

The traditional de novo account of AE is entirely consistent with evolutionary science, so we should make space for it.

So, this is one reason I say I am not an evolutionary creationist,. I prefer the term, Christian that affirms evolutionary science (CAES).


A post was split to a new topic: What did Haarsma Mean?