@AJRoberts I see that you are in the process of replying to my post—so I should point out that I did some additional editing of my comment in order to elaborate and clear up some ambiguities.
The issue you raise is a fascinating topic which probably deserves its own thread. Yet, I don’t really want to interrupt the flow of discussion here by segregating these posts on their own thread.
If we stick to the two independent oral traditions compiled by Moses (or whomever), one could present the idea that the internal stories of each of the two oral traditions, are chronologically ambiguous. Something like this: Adam and Eve the first humans, Gen 1:26 all humanity (including Cain’s people), all humanity in the image of God, all created in the beginning: no chronological priority given to any humanity created anytime BEFORE the first couple. This still seems equally valid, if I’m understanding you and all you’ve said correctly [and I have read it all - and find it very helpful and thoughtful]… By stating this I am not trying to exclude the validity of other interpretations. But it seems at least one reason many here are arguing for a chronological 1:26 before 2:4ff - to the exclusion of views that differ from theirs - to be based on a desire to harmonize a historical Adam and Eve with the mainstream scientific view of hominid evolution.
With all due respect to my evolutionary colleagues, I am not saying that your interpretation is wrong or unfaithful or unwarranted or unbiblical or unscriptural. I am saying it is driven by a (albeit noble) desire to harmonize mainstream science and Scripture. And I support you in your effort. But disagreement and interpretive conclusions different from yours (not all of them, but certainly some of them) are not less valid or less supported by the texts, so it seems to me.
This does not surprise me. It also does not bother me that you disagree. I respectfully still repeat my view and acknowledge your disagreement.
Yes. I certainly do believe that many in our day probably do reach that chronology conclusion for science-related reasons. (How many? I don’t know. My hunches on such topics are often later proven wrong!)
In my case, my rabbinical literature professor introduced me to these ideas long ago when I was still an adamant Morris-Whitcomb Young Earth Creationist very much opposed to the Theory of Evolution and any sniff of biblical hermeneutics accommodating it. Nevertheless, I would never claim that my experience on this topic (and my long path to my current position) is necessarily typical. Indeed, even my academic path was quite convoluted and unexpected.
In any case, thank you, Dr. Roberts, for exploring this topic and clarifying your position.
It has been to my benefit. I’m happy to have had the opportunity to meet you here in the threads of PS, and I look forward to your future contributions. Thank you for taking so much time to give such substantive responses.
In the Biblical “kosmos”, there are many choices to make. And having made the first of many choices, an increasingly simplified string of choices are made available to us all. So, the first choice is particularly important. This first choice sends us in a certain trajectory, a path of natural movement from which some find it increasingly difficult to diverge.
@swamidass, myself, and many others start from a first choice that the evidences of the natural world should not be dismissed; they are there for a reason. This sets us on a path. And here at PeacefulScience.Org, we hope to intersect in our trajectory with those who have made their first choice differently … a first choice, perhaps, more Biblically-devoted. When we do meet up with folks coming to us via this Biblical path, there is a satisfaction that there is some validity to what we are doing.
But let’s backtrack a moment and review the decisions that put us on our trajectory from the PeacefulScience launchpad, starting with the first decision I mention above.
(Decision 1) We shall not dismiss millions of years of evidence in support of common descent of animals from an earlier population, leading to adaption, speciation, the creation of mammals including primates, leading to the Great Apes, from whom humans have come.
(Decision 2) Since there can only be one first decision, the honor of the second decision, at the very least, should be to devote one’s energies and goals to a Christian life
(Decision 3) Somewhere in these early decisions is the decision to not let the idea of selected, “smallish” miracles interfere with the overall assessment of Science and the natural rules of the Universe. For example, the birth of Jesus, God incarnate, can be seen as an isolated miraculous event not intended to overturn all of biology. Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus, from the jaws of death - - can be seen as another isolated miraculous event, not intended to overturn all of biology.
(Decision 4) The fourth decision for those who the natural world to be real and awe-inspiring, is to consider whether the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is somehow different from the miracles considered in (3). We are here at PeacefulScience.Org because we don’t find the appearance of Adam and Eve to be the same category as those events considered in (3) … but only if we can find a credible way of fitting Adam and Eve into the overall pattern of the evolution of humanity.
(Decision 5): A Fork in the Path:
In the hierarchy of decisions, we arrive at this point with one hand on the engine of nature and the other hand holding our open Bible. We look to both our sources to find where Adam & Eve fits into the timeline of the Universe. Currently, we have the choice between:
[A] Adam and Eve, as the first humans, were miraculously created as the first human
couple some 500,000 years ago or more. It has to be older than 500,000 years ago,
because any more recent time frame would be demonstrable to us by measuring the
current diversity locked up in the human genome. The Natural World prevents us from
moving Adam and Eve (as first humans) any closer to the present day than 500,000
years ago. [Notice how this choice is affected by the choices made earlier, sometimes
regardless of the specific order of the earlier decisions.]
versus
[B] Excluding [A] above, since Adam and Eve cannot satisfy the 6000 year time frame in
the Bible as “first humans”, what if we allowed Adam and Eve to be one of many
UAP’s? Can Adam and Eve credibly represent the most crucial of the UAP’s - -
miraculously created by God, as the human bridge between Him and all the evolved
humans that need Redemption!
(Decision 5): Evaluation and Decision
It is the 5th decision of this trajectory that some might consider the most nuanced, the most subject to preference and bias. And it may well be all these things. But I will list the factors that enter into my own calculations:
… [i] Hominids more than 500,000 years ago seem to make a poor choice for the Bible’s first humans.
… [ii] An unwritten genealogy from 500,000 years ago (instead of 6000) seems to be a poor
… fit with Genesis.
…[iii] The [B] choice seems to fit the inconsistencies I find between Genesis 1 and 2.
…[iv] The [B] choice seems to fit the inconsistencies produced by Cain’s story line, including
… why he fears for his life, who he marries, and the city he builds.
… [v] If I choose [A], I am still eventually confronted by the dilemma of a global flood,
… but if I choose [B], it makes a figurative interpretation of the flood as a regional
… flood more consistent with the methods of my earlier decisions (as seen here).
@AJRoberts, this analysis takes us back to our earlier discussion of an “either/or” analysis… which frankly is always tied to the idea that we can’t just overturn millions of years of evidence because of
the weight of Biblical convention.
Using natural evidence as the ultimate litmus test, we consistently keep arriving at decisions that support the later decisions.
I hope this helps you see the path of our decisions as less arbitrary, less cynical and more sincerely driven by a search for the Truth.
Hi, George.
Thank you, very clear indeed. And always well understood by me that this was @swamidass’ position and now, by your own admission, yours as well. Thanks for making this clear to me. Also always very clear to me: the official PS position in regard to mainstream science.
From the possible forks in positions that you have laid out so clearly, it is my conclusion, that a scientific dissent is not acceptable or welcomed; only theological dissent will be addressed and discussed.
This is unfortunate, because like the false arguments leveled against pre-Darwinian typologists upon the advent of OOS, we hold our, as they held their, interpretive positions primarily on a interpretive dissent of scientific data. The primary and persistent issue being an utter lack of evidentiary support, backed by experimental verification, for mechanistic plausibility for major biological transitions.
The unfortunate movement to classify all scientific dissent as primarily religiously motivated is a very effective way (based on current and historical trajectories) to not engage (to the disadvantage of science itself) those who would challenge the prevailing scientific paradigm.
If I am only invited to participate at PS on the grounds laid out in your post, I will respectfully bow out and wish you all well. I am not here JUST to help you all make my position or other dissenting positions from yours irrelevant. I am here to help anyone interested in discussing ways to make their position, whatever it is, more robust and clearer for those of dissenting positions or differing worldviews.
RTB is an OEC/PC organization that seeks integration of God’s revelation in nature through science and Christian scripture. The only, the only, reason we hold and advocate this position is because scientifically we do not agree with all evolutionary interpretations (primarily macro-evolution and abiogenesis) of the scientific data. This is not to assert that we are not driven by deep biblical convictions. But for Pete’s sake, if we were convinced of evidentiary support for evolution to the extent you and Joshua are, we would not be OEC/PC proponents. What would be the point?
To be 100% clear this is @gbrooks9’s position, and NOT the official position of PS.
Please do not conflate indivual’s views with the position I hold or of PS as a whole.
Glad to have that clarified, @swamidass. George seemed pretty confident in his assertion.
Hopefully this dialogue will help clarify for @gbrooks9 where the real disagreement lies for many people in the threads and how he might be able to understand their positions within a broader context as an earlier fork of disagreement or dissent.
Sorry, @swamidass, my original comment was missing a very critical colon… corrected now. I was not conflating the official PS position in regard to mainstream science with yours or George’s interpretive positions. I was merely stating that I understood both yours and PS’s position in regard to mainstream science from the beginning (No, not THE beginning as in Gen 1:1!)
@AJRoberts, I get what you ar etrying to do, but am somewhat resistant to describing this as the PS approach, because we are including a large range of people. For example, though we are making space for people who are taking the bible as a legitimate source of knowledge, we also include atheists. So I wouldn’t call it the “PS” point of view, but rather say we are here with the intent of serving others, even those with whom we might personally disagree.
So rather than saying that this is the “PS view”, I’d rather say that “PS is trying to make space for this view.”
Does that make sense?
Yes, I know this. And this should be clear. PS’s official position is one that affirms mainstream science, but it welcomes all perspectives (yes, atheists, materialists, non-religious, agnostic, et al.), and has the intent to bring people from many diverse perspectives into peaceful, respectful dialogue, correct? If so, I am and have always been clear on this. And that’s all I was saying in my edited original response to George.
I think that fits in with the the ideals of Peaceful Science. I’m not saying every person and every post by any means, but the more that can contribute to that ethos, the better.
What is PC in this context? [Edit: never mind, Progressive Creation, I forgot]
@swamidass, I just got back to my computer and haven’t had a chance to read the whole thread since my departure. I see that once again I have “lept” to a conclusion about Joshua’s views. There was a time when he was much easier to anticipate. I will consider those the “Golden Months”!
When I’ve read everything posted, I’ll weigh-in on how I would modify my “5 Decision Analysis” to be more generally correct, instead of just reflecting my own views.
Clarification sought:
But am I wrong to interpret this sentence as a reference to “God-guided biological transitions”? If that is what your sentence means, obviously I fully accept God-guided Evolution… as a theological stance on a scientific position.
In fact, I think I have adopted Behe’s stance with even more allowance for “the miraculous” than Behe usually comments upon. While he has been quoted as saying things could be natural or super-natural, his discussions usually focus on God designing biological transitions using virtually all natural processes - - but using them in a way that seems quite improbable if God had not set down the steps the way he did. In contrast, not being a professional scientist, I am much more tolerant of God scattering the miraculous or super-natural event throughout the Cosmic timelines… where God’s guidance is uniformly present, but not uniformly natural or super-natural!
So maybe I need to find a spot in Decision #2 which specifically announces the acceptability that God is guiding the cosmic timeline? I’m perfectly happy to do that. But I’ll wait until I finish all the posts to see what I guessed wrong about Joshua before making edits!
Doesn’t this sentence only make sense if you were debating folks at the old version of BioLogos? I’m the fellow who took the flogging over at BioLogos every time I used the phrase “God-Guided Evolution”. Oh, how they laughed and mocked.
But here at PeacefulScience.Org, we (and certainly I myself!!) are comfortable with the idea that God could be guiding every step of Evolution. So when you say “… for Pete’s sake, if we were convinced of evidentiary support for evolution to the extent you and Joshua are, we would not be Old Earth Creationists…”, I understand what you mean - - but only because there is one more factor that your posting above doesn’t specify:
AJ, you and I both agree to the phrase “God-Guided”… but I’m not so sure you and I both agree to “Evolution”. So this is another attempt by me - - to obtain a categorical clarification:
Do you, @AJRoberts, accept that God-Guides Evolution? Or is your position that God creates the appearance of Evolution by means of a long series of special creations? You follow what I mean here, right? One of the charter members of PS.Org specifically endorses this doctrine:
there is no speciation by means of Evolution … because when God wanted a new species, he would create the new species by super-natural and miraculous creation! Is that your position? Once I know whether it is or not, I’ll be able to make some edits where our agreement (or disagreement) on the issue of speciation is memorialized in a clear edit!
Since it is difficult to know exactly what is “official PS position” (since we try very hard not to over-specify)… which part of my 5 Decision survey do you think is “overly specific”?
It will be easier for me to keep track of the differences if you spell out what the differences are… and, really, you are the only one able to do it!
I’m still reading through the thread … if you have already spelled out the differences, then I look forward to reading and re-reading them to absorb every detail!
Oh brother … so this is what I was worried about? This is not the official position because I didn’t include the Atheist position on God’s role in Evolution? Joshua, what are you talking about?
There is no relevant Atheist position on God’s role in Evolution. Is that what your OFFICIAL PS POSITION needs to include? I find your hyper-scrupulous objection rather funny!
How about this, Joshua: how about providing these TWO positions!:
.
.
(1) You have an OFFICIAL PS THEISTIC position on God’s role in Evolution … and
(2) you have an OFFICIAL PS SCIENTIFIC position on God’s role in Evolution!
I’ve always thought you should make it clear how your professional views differ from your religious views… and I think this would definitely help make them clear.
However, secretly, I think what you really want is to NOT HAVE A POSITION AT ALL… to keep people guessing…
What I don’t get, @AJRoberts , is why you would want to recommend a position which, at best, presents an ambiguous picture, by positing two independent oral sources which the compiler then never tried to clarify how they can be interwoven successfully, without ambiguity.
That they can be, however, is not in doubt, as @jack.collins has so adequately demonstrated in his contributions to the ESV translation, and elsewhere.
My counterargument is that the compiler, Moses, deliberately wrote the chiasm linking the two pericopes to prevent this very thing --the idea that the first two pericopes are hopelessly incompatible accounts!
He wants us to take both stories as completely true, and not settle for interpreting them as ambiguous or conflicting accounts.
How we are to subsequently harmonize them with each other and with our developing understanding of the “book” of nature is certainly oblique to the texts themselves, but Moses’ chiasm, at least tangentially, adjures us to do so.
The view that only a committed TE or EC advocate would hold the sequential view is false; I am an ardent OEC and monthly financial supporter of RTB who arrived at this interpretive approach through an intuitive appreciation of its possibilities, as the result of a closer inspection of the Hebrew behind the text, culminating in an “aha” moment --well before I’d read about it as an interpretive option in any other literature.
What I will not claim is an “infallible leading of the Holy Spirit” for this view thereby, as that might unfairly prejudice others against your claim that those who hold it do so out of some misguided attempt to “exclude” a recapitulatory view.
While, in answer, I think that is a misguided view itself, I will not claim infallibilty in thinking thus.
It just makes better literary, linguistic and semantic sense to me, arising as it does from a closer inspection of the Hebrew text’s meaning, rather than some vague impression left by the English translation (which is the very problem that leads to YEC, in my view).
That is, for me personally, it was a step into deeper scholarship which resulted in clarity.
The “aha” moment was when the pieces suddenly came together --which may very well have been, for me, personally, the leading of the Holy Spirit in my own personal walk.
Your mileage may vary, and you are free to disagree with me, without being concerned that I would somehow conclude you were not being so led. I’ve gotten to know you a bit in person, and I find your continuing desire to understand what is not familiar as evidence that you are, indeed, being led by the Holy Spirit.
Complete agreement on everything --especially the non-essentials --is not a prerequisite to unity in the faith together!
Let me ask this, AJ: where in Scripture is the claim clearly made that Adam was the first “imago Dei” human being ever?
Please answer that in light of C. John Collin’s own assertion that the first time the proper name for Adam even arises isn’t until Genesis 2:20.
That is, any identification of Adam with anything presented in chapter 1 is an inference, not clearly indicated by the text.
The one passage which seems to suggest such an inference, if Adam as the first man, also calls Jesus the last man, so it is, instead, presenting the “first” and “last” in a comparative contrast, not in “originative” or “conclusory” enumeration.
This view results from a false impression, created in part by, in my view, the inadequacy of the English translation, of the clearer Hebrew sense of the original.
I mean this as a serious challenge to any other devoted Bible readers here, as well --where does the text explicitly claim that Adam was the first “imago Dei” human being ever???
@jack.collins???
@gbrooks9, It seems to me that @swamidass is more concerned with staking out the Peaceful Science “approach” than any particular PS "position."
Okay … he can call it the PS APPROACH.
But come on … it had to strike you as pretty funny that the thing he was worried that @AJRoberts would get wrong is that she might think what I write might be accidentally applied to Atheists TOO!?
Come on… didn’t you laugh?
How could anything in my “Five Decisions” critical path analysis be interpreted as applying to Atheists? The official PS.org position on Atheists is going to be pretty short, right?
But if he can put together a 1,000 words on his APPROACH to atheists… well, we’ll be sitting pretty smugly in the world… don’t you think?
It was a good point, but not, in my view, his aim, to “stake out a (particular) PS position.”
I find it marvelous that many atheists here don’t simply take this effort as "smug," in a searching exploration through the available premises and evidence. I am hopeful that many will be willing to try the approach on for size, as I know you are, too!
I think what many atheists will find fascinating, even humorous, is the Christian belief that they are “made in the image of God,” too --as are all human beings. The Scriptures do not, nor did they ever, suggest two “classes” of human beings.
It may, however, be a fool’s errand to try to determine exactly “when” this took place, as the Hebrew sense of “and God created them in His image; male and female created He them” cannot specify either the duration of this process, nor the preexisting “creatures,” “stuff,” “dust” (not mentioned 'til later) or whatever, from which humanity was created thus. The Hebrew verb does not --cannot --be forced into specifying an “instantaneous” semantic rubric.
An example, in English: “Michelangelo created the Sistine Chapel ceiling panorama” says nothing about how long it took, when it was finished, nor the materials or techniques used.
Cheers!
