Central to some of the conversations we have been having is Kenneth Kemp’s work.
K. W. Kemp, Science, Theology, and Monogenesis. Am. Cathol. Philos. Q. 85 (2011). https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf
And Vincent Torley’s response/rebuttal: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/kemp.html
Kemp quotes a proposal put forward in 1964 by Andrew Alexander C.J., (“Human Origins and Genetics,” Clergy Review 49 (1964): 344–53), in which he suggested that “while it is true that all men are descended from Adam, the race nevertheless had a broad origin.” Superficially, this is similar a genealogical Adam, but there are some key differences (with the problems in parenthesis)…
Adam lived about 200 kya. (to be ancestor of us all, however, he could have lived much more recently).
The last step to be in the Image of God is a single genetic mutation. (genetics does not transmit reliably, only some of his offspring would receive it, other would not).
Adam is the first one with the “Image of God,” by which he means rationality and reason. (that means, under his model, everyone outside the garden is a reasonless brute)
It is considered undesirable (promiscuous) for Adam’s descendants to interbreed with others, and against God’s wishes. (which is understandably distasteful)
He says the scientific account teaches polygenesis. (this is false, it teaches monophylogeny, not polygenesis)
Because of #2, this model is not even plausible scientifically. Connecting Adam to the Image of God #3, also, seems to make the same equivocation of identifying Adam with the Image instead of the Fall. Also, I’d say that rather than being undesirable (in the first place,#4), Adam was created for the purpose of mixing with the surrounding population; it is only because of his fall that this becomes a problem (see Genesis 6:1).
That being said, I’m encouraged that Kemp claims the word “monogenesis” for this scenario, similar to how I have claimed “sole-genealogical progenitorship.” This, it appears, is going to be a very helpful piece of scholarship going forward.
However, it is critical that the distinctions between Kemp’s model and a Genealogical Adam are made clear. I hope our work is helpful to him. I wonder also, if its similarities, were enough to create the wrong impression for some (e.g. @vjtorley and @Agauger).
Curious everyone’s thoughts on Kemps work, @vjtorley’s response, and the relationship to Genealogical Adam. Also, can any one find a PDF to “Human Origins and Genetics,” Clergy Review 49 (1964): 344–53 by Andrew Alexander C.J.? That would be very helpful.