Potential candidates for acceptance of Genealogical Adam

[PaulB (Paul Bruggink)]

I have a collection of 166 published statements relating to belief in historical Adam and Eve that I have categorized as yes, yes but not the first humans, maybe, or no, based on my interpretation of their statements.

Seventy-one theologians, pastors, and scientists expressed belief that either a literal or literary Genesis, New Testament references, and/or doctrinal necessity requires accepting an historical Adam and Eve. These are probably not candidates for acceptance of Genealogical Adam.

However, the following thirty theologians, pastors, and scientists have expressed belief in an historical Adam and Eve who were not the first humans. Those still living either are or could be amenable to accepting Genealogical Adam:

Denis Alexander, Kathryn Applegate, Gleason Archer, Craig L. Blomberg, Roy Clouser, C. John Collins, Gregg Davidson, Darrel Falk, Gary N. Fugle, Jon Garvey, Bruce L. Gordon, Terry M. Gray, Daniel M. Harrell, Carol A. Hill, Timothy Keller, Kenneth W. Kemp, Derek Kidner, Gavin Ortlund, Alvin Plantinga, Harry Lee Poe, John Polkinghorne, Peter Rüst, Jeffrey Schloss, John Stott, Antoine Suarez, S. Joshua Swamidass, Carl W. Treleaven, John H. Walton, N. T. Wright, and Anthony Zimmerman.

The following 59 theologians, pastors, scientists, and others do not accept an historical Adam and Eve. Those still living could be candidates for possible future acceptance of Genealogical Adam:

Joel Edmund Anderson, Francisco Ayala, Karl Barth, Mike Beidler, John J. Bimson, Peter C. Bouteneff, Emil Brunner, Scott Buchanan, Ted Burge, Ron Cole-Turner, Richard G. Colling, Francis S. Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Greg Cootsona, Oliver Crisp, Conor Cunningham, Allan J. Day, Daryl P.Domning, James Dunn, Denis Edwards, Peter Enns, David Fergusson, Karl W. Giberson, John Goldingay, Morgan Guyton, Adam Hamilton, Daniel C. Harlow, Mark Harris, John F. Haught, Christopher M. Hays, Colin J. Humphreys, Luke J. Janssen, Luke Timothy Johnson, William G. Joseph, J. R. Daniel Kirk, Robert C. Kurka, Denis O. Lamoureux, Gregory J. Laughery, Jack Mahoney, Alister McGrath, James F. McGrath, Scot McKnight. J. Richard Middleton, Daniel L. Migliore, George L. Murphy, Thomas Jay Oord, Arthur Peacocke, Michael Roberts, John R. Schneider, Raymund Schwager, Paul H. Seely, Christopher Southgate, Kenton L. Sparks, John E. Toews, Dennis Venema, Edwin Walhout, Keith Ward, Patricia A. Williams, and Kurt Willems.

And here are six who were on the fence about an historical Adam at the time of their writing:

Gregory A. Boyd, Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, Tremper Longman III, Ernest Lucas, and David L. Wilcox.

I am open to any additions or corrections (with references).

[DarrenG]

@PaulB

Those still living either are or could be amenable to accepting Genealogical Adam:
…S. Joshua Swamidass…

Outstanding detective work!

@PaulB

Those still living could be candidates for possible future acceptance of Genealogical Adam:
… Dennis Venema…

I look forward to that.

[John_Harshman]

I think you have it exactly backwards. Christians who consider that Adam isn’t historical have no reason to be attracted to GAE. It’s the believers in a literal Genesis who are the target market. “First humans” is an ambiguous term subject to considerable massage.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@PaulB

Those still living either are or could be amenable to accepting Genealogical Adam:

Denis Alexander, Kathryn Applegate, Gleason Archer, Craig L. Blomberg, Roy Clouser, C. John Collins, Gregg Davidson, Darrel Falk, Gary N. Fugle, Jon Garvey, Bruce L. Gordon, Terry M. Gray, Daniel M. Harrell, Carol A. Hill, Timothy Keller, Kenneth W. Kemp, Derek Kidner, Gavin Ortlund, Alvin Plantinga, Harry Lee Poe, John Polkinghorne, Peter Rüst, Jeffrey Schloss, John Stott, Antoine Suarez, S. Joshua Swamidass, Carl W. Treleaven, John H. Walton, N. T. Wright, and Anthony Zimmerman.

It is important to not that many of the people in this group either:

1. Affirm a genealogical Adam and Eve already.

2. Affirm a recent Adam and Eve, but didn’t know that they would be ancestors of everyone.

That second group, essentially, already affirms a genealogical Adam and Eve.

[PaulB (Paul Bruggink)]

Good one, Darren!! In my defense, I was merely listing everyone in this category.

[PaulB (Paul Bruggink)]

In order to accept a genealogical Adam, believers in a literal Genesis would have to also accept biological evolution. That seems to me to be highly unlikely.

[T.j_Runyon]

Where can you find Conway Morris’ views on Adam?

[John_Harshman]

@PaulB

That seems to me to be highly unlikely.

The theory is, again, exactly backwards. In order to accept biological evolution, believers in a literal Genesis would first have to accept a genealogical Adam. It’s supposed to be the main hurdle keeping creationists from accepting evolution. I don’t believe it either, but that’s the main point of GAE, that it reconciles Genesis with science.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@PaulB

In order to accept a genealogical Adam, believers in a literal Genesis would have to also accept biological evolution. That seems to me to be highly unlikely.

I’m not sure we understand the GAE the same way.

@John_Harshman

That seems to me to be highly unlikely.

The theory is, again, exactly backwards. In order to accept biological evolution, believers in a literal Genesis would first have to accept a genealogical Adam.

This is much closer. But not really.

@John_Harshman

I don’t believe it either, but that’s the main point of GAE, that it reconciles Genesis with science.

The thing is we have already seen people change their view on this. Not sure why you would not believe it.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

The thing is we have already seen people change their view on this.

Any YECs?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Yes, absolutely. I thought you knew this already?

[John_Harshman]

I’m going to need specifics.

[PaulB (Paul Bruggink)]

Simon Conway Morris’s view was tough to pin down. This is what I used:
“In his [Simon Conway Morris’s] understanding of evolution, God’s creation is incredibly rich and fertile, producing not just life but human life. He doesn’t claim any proof of the existence of God, but he does think belief in God is congruent with what evolution reveals.” [Tim Stafford, The Adam Quest: Eleven Scientists who Held on to a Strong Faith while Wrestling with the Mystery of Human Origins (Thomas Nelson, 2013), p. 180]

[PaulB (Paul Bruggink)]

@swamidass

I’m not sure we understand the GAE the same way.

That’s easily possible. I’m only on p. 27 of your book.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Chapter on the splintered tradition will make more sense of it, especially the figures.

[Patrick]

@John_Harshman

I don’t believe it either, but that’s the main point of GAE, that it reconciles Genesis with science.

GAE doesn’t reconcile Genesis with science. Genesis has more than enough issues with science (talking snake) to be reconcilable. GAE is formulated to be unreachable to science. That is far from reconciliation. GAE is not a testable conjecture so its not even part of science.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

I increasingly feel like terms like “literal”, “mythical”, “harmony”, and “reconcile” are mostly pointless. What does it mean to “reconcile Genesis with science” as @Patrick put it? Or take Biologo’s mission statement. What does it mean for there to be “harmony between science and biblical faith”? These terms are loaded and subjective.

A literal reading of Genesis doesn’t actually mean literal. There are translations, figure of speech, etc. that mean we have to actually interpret the text. How about “reconcile” and “harmony”? Does that mean that everything the Bible says can be backed up with scientific data? Does that mean there are no inconsistencies whatsoever between the ancient text and early 21st century science? I doubt that’s what most people mean when they affirm it.

So I think the point of GAE is to expand the options for a group of people who want to affirm both that science is an excellent way of knowing things about the world and the Bible is an authoritative written revelation from God. In that way I think it can appeal to all the Christian “camps” that have developed around the origins of the universe, the earth, and us (YEC/OEC/EC/TE).

GAE seems to me to essentially set up a hypothesis formed from asking, if I look at what the scientific community tells us about where we came from, and I look at what the Bible says about where we came from, is there reason to believe that both could be accounting for and describing the same reality? In other words, are both science and Genesis describing the same thing, but with different tools, language, and concerns? Then the GAE model as @swamidass has laid out goes about exploring that question from a traditional doctrinal perspective. I think there is broad appeal there, certainly for Christians, but perhaps also for non-Christians as well even if it’s just to enable them to understand and discover common ground.

I think a significant number of people who would describe themselves as YEC would be open to GAE as it does relieve some of the theological tension.

I think a significant number of people who would describe themselves as EC/TE would be open to GAE, not because they believe a recent historical Adam & Eve are required but it’s certainly a helpful model when working with more conservative Christian communities.

I think the biggest appeal would be for OEC, who seem to be more open to mainstream science, but are concerned about the ramifications/implications of human evolution.

In the end, I believe it’s important that the broader Christian community see GAE as a viable option, even if they don’t think it’s necessarily the correct option. To put it bluntly, I’d love to see YEC parents and grandparents being able to have fruitful conversations with their EC/TE college students. That isn’t really happening right now because the trust-gap between YEC and EC/TE is often too high.