So @kkeathley, has a few really interesting lines in this article.
Like Genesis 2, the events of Genesis 3 are presented in a straightforward narrative. Genesis 2 establishes human uniqueness and Genesis 3 establishes human sinfulness.
If the hang up is human uniqueness in Genesis 2, which does seem to be an important layer, there are several solution. I just added a one point to the manuscript in response to just this concern.
Acknowledge a typological or archetypal layer, the narrative could simultaneously be teaching “humanities” uniqueness as a whole (including those outside the garden), even though the story itself is idiosyncratic to Adam and Eve.
Alternatively, one could just move AE backwards in time to the origin of “human uniqueness,” perhaps 50,000 or 150,000 years ago.
Challenges for RTB
First, the genetic evidence indicates that M-Eve and Y-Adam lived at least 100,000 years ago. Some studies indicate the date may be even more ancient.
Second, all indicators are that M-Eve and Y-Adam were in Africa, not in Mesopotamia. This is difficult to reconcile with the biblical account. Genesis 2 squarely puts the Garden in “the east of Eden,” in the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
These issues are well known. I’d add also that there is interbreeding between Sapiens and Neanderthals. That is a real challenge for structuralists, that I don’t know how they can really reconcile, but I’d love to see them make it work!
Keathley Claims GAE For OEC
It is helpful to note that the question at hand focuses specifically on human origins. As stated, one could hold that all life, except human life, came about by evolutionary means and still be considered an old earth creationist. Someone who believes that Adam and Eve were the special creation of God would be viewed as an OEC proponent rather than an EC advocate.
I think this is a very important move. It seems to be the view of evolutionary creationists at BioLogos too, as they are not yet ready to include de novo creation of Adam and Eve. This, once again, this why it is important for us to stay away from the EC label. Let OEC and EC embrace the GAE model (with and without de novo creation if need be), but at PS we want to represent secular science here. We have a big enough tent for everyone, and we do not need others to change sides.
What do you think @dga471, @Jordan, @cwhenderson, @deuteroKJ ?