@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:
- everyone outside the garden could be in the image of God. (Why would you say otherwise?)
- 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:
- Adam and Eve were chosen (or specially created) in a larger population.
- Everyone at that time was in the image of God.
- 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]
- Denis believes that Sapeins and Neanderthals are biologically distinict (just like polygenesis)
- Tha Sapiens and Neanderthals are not the same types of human (just like polygenesis)
- 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. https://discourse.biologos.org/t/venema-says-human-homo-sapien-really/37081
So, is Denis Venema’s position polygenesis?
Just for the record:
- Venema still believes that the GA is polygenesis.
- 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:
- Eve was specially created in a larger popopulatoin (perhaps with Adam too).
- We do not all descend from Adam and Eve (in scientific error)
- 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:
- Humans arise from multiple or single sources in the distant past.
- Humans are separated into distinct lineages (species or sub-species), with differences in biological abilities.
- These distinct sub-species persist to current day (denial of monophylogeny)
- 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:
Looking at Walton, Venema, Kidner, Haarmas(s), and Lamaoruex, which of these people are putting forward ideas associated with polygenesis?
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?
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.