# My review of Craig's Historical Adam book

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Adam, Article\
**Created:** [January 26, 2022, 10:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762 "2022-01-26T22:25:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 15\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/21 "2022-02-05T16:22:33Z")

</div>

> [@Chris\_Falter](#):
>
> Do you not think that Augustine’s full commentary is relevant to our interpretation of Genesis today?

I do think it’s relevant. Here are some examples of it, which I put explicitly in a footnote to the article:

"“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (City of God, XII:10)

Says Origen: “After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept [this].” (Contra Celsum, I:XIX)"

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/22 "2022-02-05T16:23:37Z")

</div>

Let’s remember that Augustine also thought that there were no people on the otherside of the globe. Why do you depart from him on that point?

> **[Antipodes and the Scandal of Particularity](https://peacefulscience.org/prints/ets-keathley-gae/)**
>
> The main concern about the Genealogical Adam and Eve model (GAE) is its assertion that humans already existed outside the Garden. My contention is that there is nothing new about this.

He also thought that the belief there was no animal death before the fall was so ridiculous that any one who believed it was clear evidence of the Fall’s impact on our intellect.

[https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html](https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html)

Why do you depart from him on that point?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 4:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/23 "2022-02-05T16:26:16Z")

</div>

I reference it in the article. Do you not have the book? It’s in the preface, and a quote hardly matters. You don’t write a book if what you think can be reduced to a quote, but since you asked:

“In the traditional interpretation of Adam and Eve, they are the original human pair, miraculously created _de novo_ by God a few thousand years before Christ.”

This is in the preface and in the specific context of him explaining why he chose the terms “traditional” versus “revisionist” for the book and what he means by them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 4:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/24 "2022-02-05T16:27:12Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> “In the traditional interpretation of Adam and Eve, they are the original human pair, miraculously created _de novo_ by God a few thousand years before Christ.”
> 
> This is in the preface and in the specific context of him explaining why he chose the terms “traditional” versus “revisionist” for the book and what he means by them.

This isn’t a YEC interpretation. At least it doesn’t demand YEC. That’s the interpretation I use in the GAE.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 5:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/25 "2022-02-05T17:20:59Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Because the consilience of the scientific evidence does not broadly change, there is no need to keep revisiting established fact.

Evidence doesn’t change, but interpretations of it do. This is not only true of science it is of paramount importance to scientific progress. It’s called a “paradigm shift” and has happened quite often in the history of science. The Copernican Revolution, Newtonian mechanics, and relativity theory are all examples of paradigm shifts where the evidence was radically reinterpreted. Craig himself rejects certain elements of relativity theory because he does not like the philosophical implications.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 5:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/26 "2022-02-05T17:21:52Z")

</div>

You’re right. I think I misinterpreted that to identify with YEC when he was only talking about Adam and Eve. But I do think Craig has changed his mind on this issue, whether he admits it or not. He knows Ross has mishandled the ancient literature and that he got suckered by the guy who brought it up in his Defenders class using material from Ross. But hey, you can ask him yourself and let me know.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/27 "2022-02-05T17:22:56Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> This isn’t a YEC interpretation.

That would depend on what “the original human pair” means. Given that Augustine was a YEC, at least according to the quotes @BenKissling provided, the existence of evolved human populations outside the Garden is precluded, and “original human pair” must refer to biological humans, not just “textual humans”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 5:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/28 "2022-02-05T17:23:31Z")

</div>

That is literally facebook level argumentation. I’ve had this argument a billion times on facebook. You know the response without asking. Augustine is not the authority on what is truth. The Bible is. We are dealing here with a specific, false claim about what Augustine believed. Augustine did not have a “nonliteral” interpretation of Genesis. He had, at least at some point in his career (he wrote four separate commentaries on Genesis and changed his view on this and many other issues), a nonliteral view of the days in Genesis 1. We know though that his view of the genealogies was not only historical, but that he defended this with confidence against pagans who argued the earth was older than that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 7:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/29 "2022-02-05T19:42:59Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> It’s called a “paradigm shift” and has happened quite often in the history of science. The Copernican Revolution, Newtonian mechanics, and relativity theory are all examples of paradigm shifts where the evidence was radically reinterpreted.

I do not think that these shifts are of equivalent character to the consilience of the science in reflecting an old earth. To upend that would undo nearly all the general knowledge of nature acquired to date and vacate the entire life work of untold researchers, largely leaving only basic chemistry somewhat intact.

The following list is off the top of my head and is far from complete, and I offer it not as a Gish gallop, but to survey how pervasive and interlocking the scientific consilience is. I’m aware that YEC has responses to all of these, but none of them are compelling. I do not see how any one “paradigm shift” would alter the overall picture. There is no single point of inflection here. Furthermore, as more data has become available, the new detail has confirmed rather that challenged the broad consensus around the age of the earth.

**Cosmology**  
Cosmic microwave background  
Red shift  
General relativity integration with big bang cosmology  
Astronomy  
Interacting galaxies  
Cosmic jets  
Stellar nurseries  
Cratering

**Geology - Earth Science**  
Oil / gas formation  
Chalk / limestone / Cave formation  
Island chains - Hawaii / Galapagos  
Magnetic reversals along tectonic fissures  
Multiple glaciations - erratic boulder  
Discontinuities (such as Hutton’s Siccor Point)  
Igneous entrainments over sedimentary rock  
Various radiometric dating techniques  
Varves  
Ice cores  
Independent records of Synchronous Solar Energetic Particle events  
K-T boundary

**Fossil Record**  
General progression of life - ie flowering plants  
Segregation of record - no modern mammals with dinosaurs, trilobites  
Detailed record of microfossils - foraminifera, diatoms  
Accumulated fossil record for humans

**Biology**  
Genetic phylogeny  
Human chromosome 2 Fusion  
Endogenous viral elements  
Real time evolution - ie coronavirus  
Dendrochronology

**History and Archeology**  
Dynastic Egypt  
Prehistoric civilization - ie. Göbekli Tepe

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2022, 7:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/30 "2022-02-05T19:43:04Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> Evidence doesn’t change, but interpretations of it do. This is not only true of science it is of paramount importance to scientific progress. It’s called a “paradigm shift” and has happened quite often in the history of science.

Not really. Paradigm shifts do not occur because people retrospectively revise their interpretations of evidence; they occur when people falsify hypotheses by rigorously testing them, creating new knowledge.

Of course, creationists have to justify their scientific inaction by pretending that it’s all retrospective.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2022, 1:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/31 "2022-02-06T01:05:51Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> That is literally facebook level argumentation. I’ve had this argument a billion times on facebook.

Then you should know what the response to your next point is and not bother making it without spiking that response in advance:

> [@](#):
>
> You know the response without asking. Augustine is not the authority on what is truth. The Bible is.

No, it isn’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2022, 1:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/32 "2022-02-06T01:05:54Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> > [@RonSewell](#):
> >
> > Because the consilience of the scientific evidence does not broadly change, there is no need to keep revisiting established fact.
> 
> Evidence doesn’t change, but interpretations of it do.

The available evidence changes whenever we find new evidence, either by looking in new places or by using new techniques.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2022, 8:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/33 "2022-02-06T20:26:38Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> I reference it in the article. Do you not have the book? It’s in the preface, and a quote hardly matters.

@BenKissling , WLC specifically describes his position as “traditionalist”, and his book as a push back on “revisionists.” So even if YEC is a traditional reading, he has argued in several contexts and through out the book that an ancient GAE is a traditional reading of Genesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2022, 2:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/34 "2022-02-07T02:33:07Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> So even if YEC is a traditional reading, he has argued in several contexts and through out the book that an ancient [GAE](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve) is a traditional reading of Genesis.

Could you cite anyone before the 18th Century (i.e. before science started coming up with deep time) who read Genesis that way?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2022, 2:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762/35 "2022-02-14T02:33:27Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/my-review-of-craigs-historical-adam-book/14762.md?page=1)