My Last Post at BioLogos?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from BioLogos Might Delete Me!:

---

After this thread, on April 20th, 2018, I was permanently banned at BioLogos. That was 1.5 years ago.

@John_Rood

Thanks Dr. Haarsma. Aside from one matter, I think this article is fantastic, and I am impressed with the posture of humility it assumes and for the clarity that it brings to this conversation. I’m glad to see concern with making sure that our definition for a view corresponds to the what the person holding that view actually believes.

I’m concerned about this sentence:
“Regarding the biological origin of Adam and Eve, it is true that evolutionary creationists cannot affirm the traditional de novo view of human origins (in which God miraculously creates the first pair roughly 10,000 years ago, with this pair as the sole genetic progenitors of all humans today), because there is abundant evidence in God’s creation that the early humans were a population of at least several thousand individuals roughly 200,000 years ago.”

When I read that sentence, I was surprised, frustrated, and just deeply disappointed, because it seemed initially to me to be saying that the “de novo” view necessarily includes an affirmation that Adam and Eve were the “sole genetic progenitors.” Wouldn’t you agree that it is entirely possible for someone to believe in the “de novo” creation of Adam and Even without believing that they are the “sole genetic progenitors”, that God could have created them specially (just as Jesus’ virgin birth was special) and their children could have intermarried with other hominids who had evolved in accord with evolutionary science? In fact, this is the view I currently find most convincing. In referring to the “traditional de novo view”, were you distinguishing it from other non traditional “de novo” views? I can see now that perhaps that is what was meant, although I didn’t see that at first and I don’t think it is clear.

Ultimately, it’s not the terms here that are important to me, but rather the concepts behind them. Although we are dealing with a subtle distinction, I’ve become convinced that the failure to make this distinction clear over the years may have been the source of a fairly profound amount of unnecessary disagreement. I myself suffered much cognitive dissonance in trying to reconcile population genetics with the claims of Romans 5, and the solution came in realizing that I could affirm that affirm Adam and Eve as the sole Imago Dei progenitors without having to affirm that they were the sole genetic progenitors. Perhaps you have found other ways of reconciling these things, but I haven’t found any others that were satisfying, and I suspect many others are in the same boat as me.

I want to highlight that I am not alone in wishing that Biologos would have more clarity on the “de novo”/”sole genetic progenitor” distinction. I believe it was this issue that Josh Swamidass was addressing in his defense of Tim Keller after Biologos’ interaction with a Gospel Coalition video last fall In Defense of Tim Keller I was hopeful that the conversation then marked a turning point. I’m still hopeful, that we can eventually find a way to make this distinction more clear.

I hate to focus so much on a single sentence. Thanks again for this article as a whole. I very much appreciate it and I hope it will be the catalyst for more charitable discussion around evolutionary creation.

@Haarsma

Hi John,

Thanks for your note, and I’m glad you found the article helpful overall.

Yes, I was describing the “traditional de novo view” in a way to distinguish it from other de novo views, and the key word there is “genetic.” I was describing the view that many Christians hold, that I grew up with, and that Wayne Grudem clearly holds (the inverse of his “twelve theistic evolution beliefs that conflict with the creation account”), in which Adam and Eve were not only created de novo from dust and rib, but recently, and as the sole genetic progenitors of all humans (i.e. no other human-like creatures for their descendants to interbreed with).

As our history expert Ted Davis mentioned to me in a recent email, common ancestry and separate de novo creation have nearly always been seen as contradictory ideas. So, this idea is new to all of us; we’re getting up to speed on the picture of a de novo Adam and Eve having descendants interbreed with other human-like creatures. Since it is so new, I wasn’t ready to highlight it in the response to the Moreland et al book, and merely used “genetic” to be specific about what is ruled out by scientific evidence. Josh has done important work on recent universal genealogical ancestors that we’ve affirmed as good science and inside the BioLogos “tent” , with the peer-reviewed publication only last month at Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith ; the de novo arguments are even newer.

Note that for many years, BioLogos has discussed and affirmed other ways to incorporate a historical Adam (and Romans 5) with common ancestry and the genetic evidence, check out our Common Question and the links therein. And we are completely committed to humans as made in God’s image (our theme in May will be on this very topic).

Deb Haarsma

@swamidass

@DeborahHaarsma thank you so much for this irenic and helpful response to @John_Rood. @BradKramer thank you for liking his post.

I am hopeful it marks a real turning point in the conversation. I want to affirm and endorse some of things most important things said here.

DeborahHaarsma:

As our history expert Ted Davis mentioned to me in a recent email, common ancestry and separate de novo creation have nearly always been seen as contradictory ideas. So, this idea is new to all of us; we’re getting up to speed on the picture of a de novo Adam and Eve having descendants interbreed with other human-like creatures. Since it is so new, I wasn’t ready to highlight it in the response to the Moreland et al book, and merely used “genetic” to be specific about what is ruled out by scientific evidence.

@DeborahHaarsma, referencing @TedDavis here, is absolutely correct. It has always been thought that common descent is in conflict with de novo creation. The work at Peaceful Science is breaking new ground here. It is not just BioLogos that missed this, but just about everyone in the conversation. It will take time to process this and reconfigure.

DeborahHaarsma:

Yes, I was describing the “traditional de novo view” in a way to distinguish it from other de novo views, and the key word there is “genetic.”

@DeborahHaarsma’s use of the term “sole-genetic progenitor” here does render this scenario incompatible with science. We have done work to show that a more ancient bottleneck might be possible, but the scenario she is pointing to here is only recent, and our work is not yet published.

DeborahHaarsma:

I was describing the view that many Christians hold, that I grew up with, and that Wayne Grudem clearly holds (the inverse of his “twelve theistic evolution beliefs that conflict with the creation account”), in which Adam and Eve were not only created de novo from dust and rib, but recently, and as the sole genetic progenitors of all humans (i.e. no other human-like creatures for their descendants to interbreed with).

Very gently though, I would push back on this use of the word “traditional.”

Traditional interpretations of Genesis make no reference to sole-genetic progentiorship. DNA is a recent discovery, and whatever traditional interpretations refer to, it cannot be DNA. Grudem makes this point in his chapter too, emphasizing that he is making no genetic claims about Adam and Eve or original sin. He does not rule out interbreeding. He does not specify a timeline.

Studying Grudem’s 12 claims about Adam and Eve, all of them are compatible with evolutionary science. Sole-genetic progenitorship is not one of his claims. That is good news, because his traditional de novo view of Adam and Eve, as stated in his 12 points, is not necessarily in conflict with evolutionary science.

That being said, I once again want to emphasize that BioLogos appears to be working to catch up on these matters. It will take time. As @TedDavis will likely agree, we are facing a major paradigm shift in our understanding of how evolutionary science interacts with theology. This is a process unfolding as we speak. Do not be too harsh with BioLogos in this specific moment; look instead to see how they grow in the coming months.

---

@BradKramer and @DeborahHaarsma thank you for your hard work on this, and the movements being made to adjust to these new findings. Peace.

@jonathan_burke

Josh has done important work on recent universal genealogical ancestors that we’ve affirmed as good science and inside the BioLogos “tent”, with the peer-reviewed publication only last month at Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith; the de novo arguments are even newer.

I think it’s important to remember that Biologos was showcasing the genealogical Adam as early as 2010, and it has only recently been picked up by other people, who are still catching up with where Biologos was on this subject nearly 10 years ago. I believe the reason for this is some people have found it really difficult to let go of the idea that humans didn’t evolve, and that Adam and Eve were not the first humans who existed. The genealogical Adam necessitates abandoning the traditional de novo Adam and Eve who had no ancestors. It’s a capitulation to the fact of evolution, which is why we don’t find it promoted by YEC or OEC, and why ID has stayed away from it.

What concerns me is the way that a genealogical Adam is being presented by some people using language which sounds like they’re arguing for the traditional de novo Adam and Eve who had no ancestors. This makes it sound like evolution isn’t a fact. Additionally, there’s some serious historical revisionism going on when people suggest that the traditional theological position allowed for the idea that Adam and Eve were not hiomo sapiens, but were ape-like pre-humans who may have not even been able to talk.

@swamidass

I think it’s important to remember that Biologos was showcasing the genealogical Adam as early as 2010, and it has only recently been picked up by other people, who are still catching up with where Biologos was on this subject nearly 10 years ago.

Both @David_W_Opderbeck and @Jon_Garvey were prescient in recognizing the importance of the 2004 . Nature paper on universal ancestry. They certainly deserve credit.

However, a single @David_W_Opderbeck article (https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/is-there-a-historical-adam ), though prescient, does not constitute either “showcasing” or a “genealogical Adam.” I also acknowledged @Jon_Garvey excellent work on this back in 2010, that was ignored at the time Hump articles on “Genealogical Adam” hypothesis | The Hump of the Camel.

In addition to genealogical ancestry, from the beginning I’ve been emphasizing de novo creation and also granting autonomy to theology by using “human” in a flexible way. Moreover, there was a great deal of resistance to the scientific claims of universal ancestry which required scientific expertise to overcome. So, in fact, it is possible that Adam and Eve were de novo created the first humans who existed AND we all evolved. Both can be true at the same time.

If BioLogos did know about all this in 2010 (and they did not) it would be gross negligence how they represented the science of Adam and Eve. The actual situation is much less nefarious. This is a major revision of our understanding of how evolutionary science interacts with theology of Adam.

That is good news. There are new opportunities for peace.

Jonathan_Burke:

What concerns me is the way that a genealogical Adam is being presented by some people using language which sounds like they’re arguing for the traditional de novo Adam and Eve who had no ancestors. This makes it sound like evolution isn’t a fact.

My entire point is that common descent does not in conflict with a “traditional de novo Adam and Eve who had no ancestors.” That claim includes an affirmation of evolutionary science. No one is confused by this. I affirm evolutionary science, and insist this is important science with which the Church must come to terms.

@Jonathan_Burke, any time you see someone thinking this undermines evolution, remind them that I affirm common descent, which I do.

Then, I was permanently banned, at least for the last 1.5 years.