Greg Cootsona: "Mere Science" and Adam's Empty Chair

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@fuglega, I’ve been thinking about this exchange, and want to juxtapose a few linked concepts regarding your position.

I emphasize there is no evidence against the de novo creation of Adam. In fact, it is 100% consistent with the common descent of man. At the same time, I also emphasize that the Church is defined by our confession of Jesus, not of a historical Adam, or de novo creation. That is a two part message, challenging to both sides of the debate.

Let’s examine TGC/Keller’s statement that the “essentials of creation” doctrine include the de novo creation of Adam (Keller on Adam and Eve). Is this a problem? It depends. They certainly can assert that it is personally essential for them. A problem might arise if they exclude you @fuglega as an equal member of the Church. That, according to the juxtaposed message I’m giving, is missing something important. This a real ecclesial risk, that I imagine you are concerned about. The right response to that valid concern, however, is not to falsely suggest that TGC/Keller are rejecting science:

@fuglega

To me, the only reason to maintain the de novo creation of A&E is to hold onto a favored traditional reading of Gen 2, but it’s not worth the rejection of science.

That is just not true. They are not in conflict with science. However, depending on how they apply this essential, they might be in conflict with the intended ecclesiology of the Church.

At the core is this fact: affirming the de novo creation of Adam and Eve does not necessarily imply rejection of science. To say that is to make a scientific error. Even if we disagree with de novo Adam, it is not warranted to use science as a weapon like that. This is merely a call to honesty in science. You don’t to agree with a historical Adam or a de novo Adam to be honest about what science does and does not allow.

So the question for you, I wonder, is “Will you lay down arms?”

---

On the theological side, I really interested to see the contrast between you words and @Cootsona’s. You say:

@fuglega

I give important reasons in my book why a literal Adam and Eve need to be retained.

@Cootsona

And respectively, I’m also surprised by a willingness of those who see an historical Adam and Eve in these texts then also eschew or ignore other clear features of the narrative. It strikes me as a position that lacks consistency, and even integrity, to affirm the historical Adam and Eve, but to cast out key biblical affirmations such their special creation by God ( Yahweh Elohim ) in Genesis 2:7 and that this occurs in the ancient near east in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:8, 1-14. How does a person decide to take some core elements of the narrative literally, but not others?

I understand how @fuglega is making that distinction, but reading from Paul rather than Genesis. Though there is a better way to make sense of this, the history that @Cootsona lays out…

@Cootsona

After Darwin, theologians began to work at ways in which Adam and Eve as the first humans had to be reworked. It appeared that human beings had descended from a lineage of hominids and therefore that there was never a first pair created directly by God

That is the historical legacy that we all inherit. Even though it was 150 years ago, we are shaped by that declaration that the de novo Adam conflicts with science. One way theologians reworked Adam from the traditional view is to take your position, that Adam was not de novo created, but perhaps chosen. Correct me if I am wrong @Cootsona, but the primary (only?) reason this deviation from the traditional reading was put forward was because de novo creation was in conflict with science.

As we have demonstrated, however, that declaration was in error. Evolution and a de novo Adam are not in conflict. Despite what we have heard, these two things are not in any conflict. This calls into question the entire project of reworking the traditional reading in the first place.

Which is partially why, perhaps, you need to assert things like this.

@fuglega

To me, the only reason to maintain the de novo creation of A&E is to hold onto a favored traditional reading of Gen 2, but it’s not worth the rejection of science.

That conflict is the background assumption and starting point of your position, it seems. However, that conflict is an illusion. This puts a new burden on your position, and creates a new opportunity. The burden: do you really have good reason to deviate from tradition? Perhaps not. The opportunity: perhaps you can find a more coherent position, which is no longer susceptible to the “arbitrariness” critique put forward by @Cootsona against you.

I’m not sure what the right answer is. Though this is a major correction. We have to reexamine many of the theological and hermeneutical tradeoffs that have been made over the last 150 years. Many things that had been taken away by science, are being given back. The calculation is different this time around, and traditional views on Adam might not have even been wrong in the first place.

In fact, those taking @Cootsona’s independence model might be vindicated. Some continued to affirm traditional views on Adam alongside evolution, even though they did not know how it fit together. They have new coherence to their position.

Once again, I’m not sure the answer, but we do have to be honest about science. The theological questions rising right now, also, are profound. Don’t miss the opportunity to be part of this.