Perfect! I’m so glad we’ve come to an amicable and productive agreement at last!
Show me a case of personal or ad hominem attack and I will apologize. I have merely stated my position for others not to be confused that if I fail or choose not to respond to your comments, they should not stand as agreed upon.
2 Likes
I see. @Patrick took @AJRoberts comment as an attack. She clarifies it wasn’t. Are we all good then?
1 Like
Sure I’m over it.
1 Like
What do you mean by “science reject polygensis”?
Jordan, I think this is a clear and fair distinction. Do you mind if I use this in a manuscript I’m working on? If you don’t mind, would you prefer credit or anonymity?
1 Like
@AJRoberts if you include something like this, please mention that Peaceful Science is marking out a different way through this. I’m happy to give you or modify text to clarify.
Note @kkeathley just claimed the GAE as a variant of OEC.
1 Like
I sure hope my own contributions are not simply dismissed as “word games” or some such.
The interpretation of the Hebrew text REALLY DOES turn on questions and observations such as those being made here by various viewpoints.
A multiperspectival dialogue like this is truly designed to be groundbreaking.
Dr. Keathley rightly points out that both the genetic and geneaological approaches still require additional nuance in order to be truly clarifying and satisfying.
1 Like
True but his scientific objection is moot.
2 Likes
Thank you. You are welcome to use it, and credit would be appreciated (especially as I try to convince my bosses that spending inordinate amounts of time on PS is worth it 
)
6 Likes
Isnt that an odd development!
I say this because nobody considers accepting the birth of Jesus as intrinsically “Creationist”…
But if we add de novo Adam and millions of evolved humans… somebody wants to flag it as Old Earth Creationism?
1 Like
It’s worth it to us!!
3 Likes
Not at all. I predicted it. There are a large number of people that reject EC and TE, but don’t necessarily have any objection to evolutionary science. Ken is one of them. There are many many more.
2 Likes
I agree.
1 Like
But OEC have historically made a pretty big deal about the distinction between micro and macro-evolution. It seems like a pretty big leap to “everything but Adam”, that’s why I’m surprised. The local RTB group meets on my campus and the few times I’ve attended there was much to be said about the failure of macro-evolutionary explanations. The RTB website also seems to lean that direction as well. I get that “everything but Adam” is likely on the far end of the OEC spectrum, but it does surprise me. That makes OEC much more broadly appealing to Christians, and less “offensive” to secular scientists, I think.
5 Likes
RTB is an excellent organization, respected in large part because of the person of Hugh Ross. RTB does not, however, speak for all OECs. They are also predominantly staffed with scientists and Samples is possibly an outlier in theology compared to most OEC.
@jack.collins is perhaps the most important theological voice in OEC, and perhaps WLC and @kkeathley after him. Jack is far closer to the mainstream of exegesis than RTB, and has already given his blessing to the GAE. I’m pleased to report he gave me permission to publish his response to the GAE as an appendix to my book, and I’m very pleased with how positive it is. Jack, notably, is a vocationalist, not a structuralist like Ken, Samples, and WLC.
There are three possible solutions for the structuralist.
-
GAE with the Image of God outside the Garden, before Adam. This is default in my book, but not insisted upon. It works for both structuralist and vocationalists.
-
GAE with the Image of God confined to Adams linage, with the structure completed with a spiritual refurbishment. @Andrew_Loke takes this view. So does @AntoineSuarez.
-
Genetic progenitor with interbreeding in the ancient past, taking just about everything in Scripture as mythical.
I don’t know for sure what everyone will do, but I predict @kkeathley will pick either 1 or 2. WLC is a total wild card right now, but might be telegraphing 3. Collins I think will pick 2 with a vocation, no spiritual refurbishment. That is only a guess though. The point of the GAE is to accommodate differences, and to encourage creativity. It is possible that @kkeathley might think of a better way, which would be excellent to see.
3 Likes
My theory, which is getting validated, is that the real anxiety is about Adam. None of them really object to macro evolution in an essential way. Rather evolution is fearful because of what it does to Adam. So fearful in fact that they go after distractions like the Cambrian explosion instead of dealing with their core challenge. Solve the “Adam and Eve” problem, much of that macro evolution oppositionalism will evaporate. I’m not saying we will agree, but the oppositionalism will be defanged.
4 Likes
When the conceptualization is “creation VERSUS evolution” and the false dichotomy of what “nature alone” might do versus what “God alone” might do, what gets lost in the shuffle is that God also created and upholds nature itself, but is not limited thereby.
Just because there are MN practitioners who have a policy to exclude God’s action as an explanation doesn’t make it true.
It’s a good exploratory methodology, but entirely inadequate for explaining everything in a universe with a God Who is both immanent and transcendent.
There is no actual fundamental conflict inherent in “creation versus evolution,” only a short-sightedness as to the adequacy of “nature alone” as causative of everything we observe.
My two cents.
3 Likes
Just in case this is the “more” you were asking for, @AJRoberts , I’ll repeat what seems to have gotten little comment or reaction so far, which I think is a central clarifying tenet.
Given what we know of genetics and evolution, not to mention of biblical Hebrew and theology, I’m totally comfortable with Job’s description of the situation of his own origins, and God’s specific role in it.
‘Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again? Did You not pour me out like milk And curdle me like cheese; Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and lovingkindness; And Your care has preserved my spirit.’ - Job 10:9-12 NASB
Job uses terms involving God’s skillful artistry in making him unique, “de novo” even, one of a kind, formed from dust --while not thereby denying his normal birth to a preexisting human mother --“evolving” from her, so to speak, and from his dad --but not being identical with either of them.
So, even normal human births involve God’s active creative artistry and superintendence… which means that both OEC and EC are not actually fundamentally at odds.
“De novo” and “evolved” are different, yes, but not incompatible.
Every human being is “de novo.” That’s both genetically AND spiritually true, even in the cases of identical twins, or in species where it occurs, parthogenesis.
So, what’s the real controversy, then?
Only whether one is explicitly denying God’s active artistry and superintendence in the history of life.
I am aware that, in saying so, I am probably being more explicit on the question of “de novo” than Josh, but I am concerned to show that it is actually not in conflict with science, only non-demonstrable when using only MN scientific inquiry alone.
3 Likes