Pevaquark, The Genealogical Adam, and Polygenesis

Any mistakes obviously should be corrected, though one still has a world population of millions of people at least 6,000 years ago. While this post is about official biologos posts I am not representing biologos here. There have been a handful of posts under their Adam and Eve tag In the past few months, but not much directly related to you. I am just a volunteer moderator who does want to align what I hold to be true with the best evidence and explanations we have at present.

This being said however, you do have to realize that your model sounds dangerously close to certain models of the past. That’s is a singular couple is visited by God and endowed with His Image. But nobody else in the entire world who is a human has this particular thing until somehow they contact the primordial couple. Thus for some period of time such an image is not brought to people for maybe even thousands of years. Eventually though it covers the whole Earth as evident by genealogical science. I understand that your model doesn’t necessarily speculate too much beyond simply communicating the difference between genealogical and genetic descent though a de novo couple among millions of others and is not much more beyond a technically possibility (feel free to comment or correct). Some of the versions of such a model in the past have been racist, though I certainly do readily agree that your model was so far removed from such that it is absurd to even hint at such. You yourself are a man of God who has continually positively challenged me personally to continue to grow and see things more like Christ. I actually recommended you to as one (of two Christian scientists) to one of my evangelical students as a Christian who take seriously the evidence for evolution and has a genuine love for Christ and are someone who is worth listening to on these topics.

All this to say if I am an organization (which this again is not any official BL position, just speculation) that is virtually the only or at least main Christian one who accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution I am going to tread very lightly on certain topics. A de novo couple amongst millions of other without the imago dei does not help things exactly as it opens up a whole can of worms thanks to unfortunate models of the past, though the idea does deserve engagement and discussion in time. Continually speaking a particular way against them while bonding together with many other who aren’t fond of their position doesn’t necessarily help move forward in a peaceful way. But time will tell what happens and I am looking forward with curiosity.


@pevaquark thanks for the note. I understand also that you are not representing BioLogos here, and speaking for yourself. That is a good thing, I am sure.

The Key Thing: Fix the Errors

That is the key thing I have been asking for now for over a year. There is no good reason it has not happened yet. That is really the focus of what I am asking for, the rest is a distraction.

Please Do Not Misrepresent Me

@pevaquark this is FALSE. I never once have made that claim. In fact I’ve claimed the opposite. Why would you make stuff like this up? There actually is a model being put forward, and what you are describing here is 100% fabrication. I never said any of this. In fact, I’ve said the opposite.

That is not true. I urge you to understand that which you reject, especially if you are going to criticize it.

For goodness sakes @pevaquark, not once have I ever put forward that model. The model I did put forward, takes a very different view.

The Racism Card? Again?

Is it really your intention to play the racism card here?

I appreciate you are clarifying you don’t think I am a racist, but this is absurd @pevaquark, on several levels. The same can be said about every model of origins, including your personal view of origins. Some versions of Denis Venema’s view have been racist in the past. Some versions of evolutionary science have been racist in the past. Some versions of YEC have been racist in the past.

What exactly are these other models which you are talking about? This is a new approach. That breaks strongly from models like polygenesis and others.

Look, you don’t have to agree with it, but I protest the association with racism. This is baseless and biased. It is irresponsible. If racism was really your concern, you’d be raising the same issue with everyone in the origins conversation, most forcefully with evolutionists.

Right now, however, you seem to be just imagining a risk based, most likely, on an imagined version of what I am putting forward. Is that really what you want to do here?

I wish they had tread lightly. Instead, they made a ton of scientific errors, publicly reprimanding people who should be their friends, like Tim Keller and myself. Then, rather than fixing the errors, they started calling other’s views racist, and associating them with racism, as you are doing right now. Thankfully, the racism nonsense has stopped at BioLogos (I hope). They finally recognize now that this is not racist (I hope). Maybe you should take a cue from them.

Seeking Peace…

I am just asking them to be honest about science.

I understand they have no desire to work with me at this point. I still seek reconciliation with them. This does not appear to be a shared desire.

As for “bonding” with others that aren’t friends with them, what exactly is your complaint? I am just asking BioLogos to be honest about the science. I disagree with @patrick and agree with @T.j_Runyon. BioLogo is an important voice. It matters that they are not being upfront about their mistakes. It matters that they kicked me out. I’d probably still be on the forum there, one of their speakers, if I hadn’t been asked to leave.

If you want peace here @pevaquark, as do I, please encourage them to seek reconciliation. I hope to reconcile. This does not appear to be a shared hope.


I appreciate this @pevaquark. I do not have any ill will to you or to BioLogos. All I am asking is for them to be honest about the science. We are pretty far from this right now.

@jongarvey, could you help me out on this one? I’m pretty shocked to see the racism card played again. I thought we were past this.

1 Like

I’m not slandering you in anyway whatsoever. I tried to make it as clear as I could that this is not about you but how some elements of genealogical Adam appear to overlap unfortunate models of the past. I apologize for appearing as such- and I probably wasn’t as clear as I should – some ideas that you are proposing and this is all I ever really meant to say and again apologize- have elements similar to models of the past. This again would have nothing to do with you. Or even accusing your model of being such.

Maybe I shouldn’t have posted. But maybe this is a good thing – I really have not followed any of the response from other Christians – but listening to your talk and reading your paper a few times I hope that you can at least see how any de novo Adam within an evolutionary/population context can have negative baggage.

Do you know what my view of origins is? I don’t even know so I’d be impressed if you did technically speaking.

Definitely. I.e. the science book that would have been used around the time of the scopes monkey trial. Even some genetics studies in the modern times depending on what one does with neanderthals.

Well kind of. In a polygenesis scenario God supernaturally creates a primordial couple and endows them with His image. There are other people groups around that don’t have this image and never can get it. In some, you have a version of what I described above where contact or offspring with the original pair can spread such an image or knowledge of God. I suppose one could speculate that instantaneously among all humanity that the Adamic Fall from grace impacted all of them simultaneously or they all had knowledge of God but just like the whole genealogical scenario, is completely undetectable or able to be tested.

But if that’s how you keep feeling, how can you address such concerns that various people have? You can cry foul and talk about how it is absurd all you like, and again I know you don’t see any of this this way and rightfully so, but being able to speak to such things I think is important.

I don’t know what their models are. Thankfully we have people like @glipsnort to write papers correcting such things.

Well I don’t want to argue against a straw man version, so actually stating things is helpful for me. Other times I’ve said things I’ve gotten a few ‘get with the ballgame’ types of responses.

Okay, racist is the term for most polygenesis models of the past. There was some overlap with polygenesis models and thus the appearance of such brought back the word. Again I’m not associating you with racism in any way. If I put forth a model that someone points out could appear similar to racist models of the past, I would keep imaging that anyone thinks I am being racist or just call them absurd. I would try to rethink or clarify my model.

I think ‘race’ isn’t even the right word anyways. I think that the problem is we could have non ‘image bearing’ humans at some point. That was the point in many polygenesis models anyways- it’s that a certain lineage had the image and others didn’t. So it’s not a matter of racism and never was but rather the imago dei. Beyond communicating a scientific model, clearly such a clarification is important. Maybe you’ve addressed this but to have God come in at any point and have a real Adam and Eve can be problematic in some similar way.

Why not just have genealogical Adam and Eve be figurative for all people alive at some point not so long ago?- the genealogical science if I understand correct would say that nearly everyone alive some few thousand years ago likely have descendants today.

I’m not so sure it has much of anything to do with your model here.

I’m not sure that anything I can say will be listened to now at BioLogos when it has been ignored or rejected for years!

There seem two conceivable “racist” issues here.

The first is that some people nowadays could be conceived as non-adamic, sub-human, or whatever. That seems to be associated with the idea that La Peyrere and his followers took that view. It has, of course, been entirely refuted both by the science of genetics and, very specifically, by genealogical science stemming from Rode and, of course, the Genealogical Adam hypotheis itself.

The second, more subtle, idea seems to be that God would be unjust and unloving not to offer the entire package given to Adam - covenantal relationship with God, access to eternal life, or whatever - to all mankind everywhere at the same time.

Maybe he did, of course, if we take Reformed federal headship views into account… but it would not have done them much good if they were ignorant of it. But that aside, the problem lies in ignoring the entire Scriptural narrative on grace, revelation and salvation.

There is a recurrent pattern in Scripture from Adam to Christ, and it is this: an individual is called into relationship with God, and that relationship diffuses to others over time and space.

Abraham was called out of Ur to bless the nations - but two generations later, that blessing had spread only to his 12 great-grandsons: 70 people alone bore the covenant into Egypt.

Moses was called to raise up a nation of priests - to bring the knowledge of God to the world. Their development (and failure) was spread over more than a millennium, during which time they were called to exclusivity - as Paul said, the gentiles were “without God and without hope in the world”. That’s just a fact.

And so Christ comes, offering the whole package of the kingdom. But at Pentecost, only 120 people have benefited, and the messageof salvation has still not gone out to the whole world 2000 years later. And that slowness of blessing was predicted in the whole of Christ’s own teaching - he confounded all Jewish expectations by not transforming the world instatly and finally.

Why has God done things that way, if eternal salvation comes only through faith in the risen Christ? Does it matter, since it is the testimony both of Scripture and history that he has.

So why should it be “racism” for there to be a first man, or a first couple, given an unearned blessing by pure grace, who were intended to extend that blessing in real time and space?


My answer would be:
Because I know of no scripture-based argument for that which seems all that compelling. So I have no reason to default to “Adam and Eve are meant to apply to all people at some point in time in a merely figurative sense” just because it doesn’t risk hurting someone’s sensitivities because they think the other possibilities are racist. Basing one’s position on how people might react or abuse the alternative positions strikes me as a logic fallacy.

If I am following your thoughts accurately here, I think this is an important point. However, I don’t see “non-image-bearing humans at some point” as any sort of problem because without the Imago Dei, I don’t consider them “human” in the Bible’s theological sense. Hominids lacking the Imago Dei are not culpable of willful sin in rebellion against God and they wouldn’t have an innate desire and created purpose for a relationship with God. (And even if those creatures could be labelled as Homo sapiens, that doesn’t mean that they were “Imago Dei humans.” It is not racist to notice true distinctions based on God’s plan for creating beings of a special type who would be capable of intimate relationship with their Creator in ways that were impossible for other creatures.)

Meanwhile, whenever I hear complaints about racist implications of some idea and avoiding any possibility whatsoever that someone might in the future take that idea in a racist direction, I wonder how they react to the idea that God called Abraham and his descendants to be his chosen people. Yes, the fact that God called out a people for himself based on their ancestry in Abraham did lead to deplorable “racist” attitudes which the Bible describes. For example, the Samaritans were hated in Jesus’ day because they were “half-breeds”. (That is, they had Jewish lineage but they had mixed with Gentile blood, among other things. Jesus countered that racism with the story of the Good Samaritan.) So should I reject the Abrahamic Covenant because it is “racist”? Moreover, do I reject every teaching in the Bible which somebody somewhere at some time in history has abused and based some brand of racism upon it?

I’ve even heard some people label the Gospel of Jesus Christ as racist (even “a white man’s religion”) because the teachings of Jesus were for many centuries propagated primarily in Europe even while so many generations of people in Patagonia, Guam, and Madagascar lived and died with no opportunity to hear about the love of God and the path to salvation. So, is the doctrine of the exclusiveness of salvation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ thereby “racist” and to be avoided at all cost?

I do think that these are important discussions and I appreciate having the opportunity to read what Pevaquark and Swamidass have written in clarification.

POSTSCRIPT: In my haste to response to the discussion I had not yet read Jon Garvey’s post—and now that I have done so I recognize that he was thinking in similar directions.


I get what you’re saying and appreciate your post. I suppose though one still has other humans living and God creates a lineage that is unrelated to all of the others. I certainly can’t deny the idea that God can appear to small groups of people or a single person individually – but the still is like a polygenesis scenario. I don’t see how one can escape that with a de novo Adam of any kind with millions of other humans alive. I personally am fine with what you are describing, ie God coming to one person with his message which necessarily means all the other people with messages from their gods are wrong.


@pevaquark, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. It seems that you are actually sticking around to work this out. This has not been the typical pattern.

You, however, do not appear to know the GA model being put forward, or know what polygenesis is, or how other people highlighted at BioLogos write about this. Let me give you a few examples. There are soem key questions put through here.

The Image of God Outside the Garden

Okay, apology accepted. Then at least get some of the facts straight. I’ve been saying that those outside the garden are in the image of God. I have never said anything different.

Look what I wrote in the PSCF article:

John Walton proposed that humankind is first created in the image of God, but then at a later time Adam is identified, perhaps specially created, and then subsequently falls. Of note, this portion of his argument is purely textual and does not rely on Ancient Near Eastern literature. Moreover, Adam and Eve are the first and only theological “humans,” both inside and outside the garden, when they are created.54 Walton himself does not specify his model more precisely, but one might look for markers of the Fall to identify when Adam or Eve might have lived. An attractive feature of this model is its affirmation that, at any specific time in the past, all our ancestors equally bear the image of God. This supports important theology of race and lays a foundation for universal rights. Though outside the scientific scope of this study, Walton’s model merits more consideration.

In the Dabar paper I presented beginning of the summer, I expanded this model much more fully. You are welcome to receive a copy of it. You’ll find that you are totally misrepresenting me. I emphasize that:

  1. everyone outside the garden could be in the image of God. (Why would you say otherwise?)
  2. This is closely parallel to John Walton’s view.

The most interesting part of this puzzle is why you are selectively concerned about the polygenesis in my origins model, and not others.

The Polygenesis Game

We are going to step through this. If you can’t give good answers to this, you’ll understand why I consider it baseless and biased.

Is John Walton’s View Polygenesis?

@pevaquark, here is a question for you. Do you have similar concerns about polygenesis in John Walton’s model?

Why not? The only difference Walton has is that we do not all descend from Adam. Walton claims:

  1. Adam and Eve were chosen (or specially created) in a larger population.
  2. Everyone at that time was in the image of God.
  3. We do not all descend from Adam (in scientific error)

By your logic, BioLogos should distance themselves from Walton because his view is dangerously close to polygenesis. Is that your view?

Is Walton’s model polygenesis?

Denis Lamaoruex Accepts Polygenesis

In conflict with what we know of biology, Denis Lamaoruex affirms polygenesis. He argues that you, BioLogos and Venema are polygenecists too.

Second, I accept polygenism (Greek polus means “many”; genesis, “origin”). Humans descended from a small population of pre-human creatures, and not from just one person. The variability in our genes rules out monogenism (monos, “single”) and indicates that this group was about 10,000 individuals.

Are you concerned with his view? Why not?

I am concerend, because this is a falsified view that totally (1) distorts current understanding in science, (2) creates a historically inaccurate definition of polygenesis to rehabilitate a racist term. In science, we came to understand all humans are monophylogenetic a long time ago, and that polygenesis is false. Why resurrect a scientifically falsified idea?

Is Denis Lamaoruex’s views polygenesis?

Is Denis Venema’s View Polygenesis?

Venema argues that any line in our origins is polygenesis, then he goes on to define lines. Is he promoting polygnesis?

T Genealogical models of Adam and Eve have to draw a line of some kind between their descendants and everyone else. I don’t like that. I think everyone with an anatomically modern human skeleton is just as human as anyone else. I don’t think that when someone’s lineage finally encountered Adam’s that the children born from that meeting had any different status than the children born the generation before.
(Note: immediately after I began to respond to Venema, the moderators banned me.)

We had an exchange on this. I pointed out that he thinks: (1) Sapiens are “humans” but (2) Neanderthals are a different type of human of some sort. In my case, he always insisted this must mean non- or sub-human.

In @DennisVenema model, the only humans in this diagram are on the PURPLE line. All the other lines are non-human. @DennisVenema has clarified that all non-humans are sub-humans in his mind.

This is how he responded:

Josh: I said that I consider all individuals with an anatomically modern human skeleton to be fully human. It simply does not follow from that statement that I consider only those with an anatomically modern skeleton to be human.

And I responded:

Sounds very similar to my clarifications…

I have said I believe that Adam and Eve bear the Image of God, it simply does not follow that those outside the garden did not bear the Image of God too. As I have explained…

They are not sub-human, to be clear, but they are also different than humans as we understand them today

That sounds just like the distinction you make between Homo sapien and neanderthal.

[THEN: I was banned from the BioLogos forum. This is one ban before the permaban that came a few month later]

Notice that:

  1. Denis believes that Sapeins and Neanderthals are biologically distinict (just like polygenesis)
  2. Tha Sapiens and Neanderthals are not the same types of human (just like polygenesis)
  3. Refuses to specify anything more clearly than this.

I won’t belabor the point, but Denis adopts a view that is very similar to polygenesis in more ways than that GA.

So, is Denis Venema’s position polygenesis?

Just for the record:

  1. Venema still believes that the GA is polygenesis.
  2. When confronted with the similarities to Walton, he now says that Walton’s model is polygenesis.

Is Derek Kidner’s View Polygenesis?

So BIoLogos loves to quote Kidner as a supporter of a federal headship model. He wrote this, saying that Adam was chosen (or specially created) , but Eve was specially created.

“If this…alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind it would be of course quite untenable. God…has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26)….Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s vice-regents (Gen 1:27,28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.”

In this case, Kidner is proposing that:

  1. Eve was specially created in a larger popopulatoin (perhaps with Adam too).
  2. We do not all descend from Adam and Eve (in scientific error)
  3. For an unspecified reason, everyone here outside the Garden acquires the image of God from Adam.

Is Kidner’s view polygenesis? If so, why does BIologos continue to put him forward as a positive model?

Is Deb Haarsma and Loren Haarsma’s View Polygenesis?

In their book Origins, the Haarsmas put forward and legitimatize the same interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 as did La Preyrere, the father of polygenesis. They argue that Romans 5:12-14 teaches that there were people before Adam in the world.

Is the Haarsma’s view polygenesis?

What Exactly is Polygenesis?

Polygenesis is not actually about Adam and Eve. Many people who affirmed polygenesis did not even believe Adam and Eve were real, or believed that we all had an origin in single population. Polygenesis always has these characteristics:

  1. Humans arise from multiple or single sources in the distant past.
  2. Humans are separated into distinct lineages (species or sub-species), with differences in biological abilities.
  3. These distinct sub-species persist to current day (denial of monophylogeny)
  4. These distinct lineages either arose from different Adam&Eve couples (one version) or by speciation from a single source (the evolutionary version)

The way that modern science came to reject polygenesis is by discovering and affirming monophylogeny in the present day. Just to be clear, I do not think any of the views mentioned above approaches polygenesis. They all affirm monophylogeny in the present day. None of them should be concerning, except perhaps the Denis L. position, for attempting to rehabilitate the term itself.

Biased and Baseless?

You are troubled by the “connection” between the GA and polygenesis. I’ve point out several factual error in this claim, and there are more. And I have also pointed to several views even more closely aligned with polygenesis among authors from BioLogos.

At this point, @pevaquark, I’d like to know:

  1. Looking at Walton, Venema, Kidner, Haarmas(s), and Lamaoruex, which of these people are putting forward ideas associated with polygenesis?

  2. Can you provide a consistent and fair criteria that absolves all of them, while implicating me? If not, why are you more concerned about me than them?

  3. If you can’t provide such a criterial, do you understand why I think this is all baseless and biased?

I’ve taken the time to write quite a bit about this to you in this post right now. I’d really hope you can give a careful response @pevaquark.

1 Like

With all due respect, I disagree. I was told directly by them that this is the case. It is also the case that I am not welcome at BioLogos. They seem to be angry with me for asking them to fix the scientific errors they’ve made here. They do not want to retract.

If it was not about this, can you please explain to me what you think it is? I would love to know.

I am engaging you. I’ve explained now why it is baseless and biased. Make your case you are informed and fair in your assessments.

You affirm evolution. Evolution has been associated with polygenesis. Therefore we should be concerned about your view of origins. (or so the logic goes).

Did I misunderstand your view of origins, that you affirm evolution?

Finally, this is the main point of all this:

I am still waiting for this to happen.

1 Like

The assumption here is that at the time of Adam, other gods had been giving, or were believed to be giving, messages to their people. I know of no evidence for that.

What is certainly true is that, if we believe Christ’s message to be uniquely salvific in any way, that it has not been available equally to all people at all times.


I think it is worthwhile noting at this point—amid so much discussion of the Image of God in humans—that theologians have long struggled to define exactly what the Imago Dei entails! It should be no surprise that people have disagreed on whether Homo nethanderthalis (for example) possessed the Imago Dei when nobody really knows what it means.

Yes, the Imago Dei distinguishes humans from other animals. The Imago Dei gives us an ability to relate to God that other animals lack. It also places us in a position of dominion over other animals. And it makes us culpable for our sin. Those are important characteristics but beyond that we don’t have a lot of descriptions in the Bible so as to determine exactly what is and isn’t tied to the Imago Dei.

Indeed, is there a set of scientific criteria we could apply to determine whether other hominids had the Imago Dei? If we could go back in time to observe other hominids, what experiments could we conduct? Would we watch for certain social characteristics? Would veneration of the dead and various funeral practices be indicative of the Imago Dei? Would use of symbols or perhaps even basic written communication be the clincher? Would signs of regret and repentance of wrong actions be important?

I just find it interesting (and this was a frustration for me when I was in seminary) that there were such nebulous descriptions (and even outright disagreement) of what the Imago Dei entailed from many centuries of theologians.

If nothing else, this should give us another good reason to display grace towards others whenever we disagree over the topics mentioned in this thread.


This wasn’t intuitive to me, I thought of man being created in God’s image starting with Adam. But if you interpret Genesis as saying there were other people at the time of Adam’s creation, the people in chapter 1 were specifically said to be created in God’s image.


John - two ways of addressing this. My own preferred option is to treat Gen 1 as sequential, and the image as, primarily, functional - Genesis 1 being essentially a temple inauguration account, and the image being the representation of God in it. I take man in Gen 1 to be all humanity, in his creational role as an intelligent being. That allows me to consider any level of culture we may find as compatible.

Adam, then, would be called from that people (or, perhaps, created specially but biologically identical - I have my own ideas on that but not the space here to expand) for a new, and greater role and destiny, on behalf of that race. Needless to say he screws up (and after that, Genealogical Adam puts us all in the same boat). The image is a matter of the creation of mankind, not Adam’s specific calling.

The alternative view (preferred by theologians like C John Collins, for example, is to take Gen 2 as a partial recapitulation of Gen 1 - that is, it is Adam and Eve who are described in ch 1, with detail added in ch 2. My problem with that is that there is no mention of those whom we know existed, from the whole range of sciences, (and, i contend, whom the author also knew existed) outside the garden.


May I add something regarding the previous conversation with @pevaquark? If you look at Genesis 1 my way, there is nothing dishonourable in the idea of an intelligent being naturally disposed, as mankind is, to bring the earth under control, and with some natural sense that there is a Creator worthy of worship. That is what is described in Genesis 1 - it fits what we know of ancient cultures froim the palaeolithic onwards.

There would be no need for a personal relationship with God, or a sense or hope of eternity, or specific commands from God, for that to be a worthwhile way of life. Life would be there to be enjoyed, with a sense of awe and gratitude, and maybe worship, but with no more than that.

The idea of being called to a close, covenant relationship, and to a conscious suzerainty under God to bring the whole earth - and perhaps the whole cosmos - into a new kind of relationship with God (the same hope the NT describes as a new creation, eternal life, and a creation filled with the glory of God) goes beyond that. That is what is described of Adam - he is to become more than “just a man”, but a ruler of creation under God.

That Genesis 2 begins the story of such a transformation, over and above the good creation of ch1, is at the heart of my understanding. But not only mine - it was perceived in part as long ago as Iraeneus, and in today’s theology is propounded by people like N T Wright, Greg Beale and John Salehamer. Genealogical Adam just makes what is a solid strand of biblical theology closer to the scientific understanding of the world.

Incidentally, it works a lot less coherently with a non-historical view of Adam.



The specific aspect that needs to be adjusted in your abstract of Genealogical Adam is the (imagined) idea that the evolved pre-adamites of Genesis 1 are somehow inferior to the Adam lineage described in Genesis 2.

I suppose there IS some important difference in the Adam group… but it is not because the evolved humans are biologically lesser or biologically different.

Genesis 1 describes them as bearing God’s Image (however this is meant).

In fact, Genesis 2 doesnt mention this phrase at all. But in Genesis 9, God explains to Noah the Noahide Code, which includes the prohibition against murder. The reason offered is because all his descendants bear God’s image!

So, whether we have a regional or global flood, both original groups share the same priceless description: “Image of God.”

Please remind others that the charge against @Swamidass, of even incentally promoting racist ideas, is without substance:

Ham wasnt of any different stock at all… and yet he was carved out for racial stereotyping.

And the point of allowing for de novo Adam and Eve is to provide the way for genealogical machinery to make all the humans of the Earth legitimate descendants of Adam and Eve within 2000 years or so (even if there are other mated pairs that are also Universal Ancestral Pairs).

1 Like

The irony here is that I made this point too in the past, and it was used against me as evidence of racism in the GA. I’m not sure how to respond to these sorts of accusations. I’ve already been charged with uncivil behavior here. But it is not me that played the race card.

1 Like

I’ve said it before: I just don’t understand why discussions related to this topic so often have to drive into a race-card wall.

We know that there is just one human species today. Yet we also know that there have been various hominid species in the past. How does it make sense to retroactively apply modern emotions (sometimes heading towards irrational fears) to the biological realities of prehistoric times so very long ago? It’s a kind of anachronism fallacy.

I can’t help but think of the popular anti-evolution argument that basically reasons “The Theory of Evolution can’t be valid because look at all the racism it has caused!”, despite the fact that racism existed long before Darwin was born. (It is just as irrational as the popular “Religion is evil because look at all of the wars it has caused!”)

Where people groups exist, there will always be tribalism and the evils which so often develop from tribalism. So I suppose it should not be surprising that “That idea will lead to racism!” has become an easy wildcard applicable to most every situation.

1 Like

You’d think that BioLogos would be particularly sensitive to this issue. If we are going to legitimize playing the race card, they are more vulnerable than anyone else to that sort of attack. Notably, it seems that people have no problem playing the race card on me, but as soon as it gets turned into questions the other direction, they cry foul. This is not a sensible way to have a rational conversation.

The only person mentioned so far that I think has a serious problem here is Denis L., because he is trying to rehabilitate the term “polygenesis.” This is a position that puts him far outside the scientific and theological mainstream. The rest have positions that are entirely rational, whether or not they are right or wrong.

The bias is visible because polygenesis is being raised selectively against me, and no one else, even though I’ve responded to this several times before.


I think I’d be more comfortable with this kind of interpretation than the alternative. It seems like a logical reading of the text. On the other hand, I don’t think I’d be inclined to read it so literally if I were a believer (obviously I’m not so inclined now :slight_smile:). There’s evidence under the documentary hypothesis that explains the dichotomy, in a historical sense at least.