The OEC and YEC Reception of a Genealogical Adam

Continuing the discussion from Literal Interpretations and the Genealogical Adam:

Christy, at BioLogos asks @gbrooks9 for evidence that YEC and OEC leaders care about a Genealogical Adam (Were we defending Evolution?, not Hermeneutics 'Per Se'? - Open Forum - The BioLogos Forum). The implication is that no one cares. This is false. It was a key discussion point at the Dabar Conference (Adventures in New Places —Ann Gauger on the Dabar Conference).

Of course, she could just ask us here, but BioLogos is not big on dialogue now days. Regardless, here are four examples:

No one care because it is unimportant in their lives.

Oh don’t be such a grump. We live in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, and it has real cultural and historical significance. Don’t think God is measurable, but we can certainly measure the impact of religion. People value their beliefs.

Or think of it like this: 60 years ago there was no such concept as a Geneological Adam, and now it is receiving serious theological debate. Religion is evolving before our eyes!


Oh, I will play along. It is somewhat entertaining.


I’ve gained a healthy respect for “good” theology, because people making bad scientific arguments are generally basing it on a bad theological arguments. Most people of the YEC persuasion are unprepared to defend the theological basis of their scientific arguments. :wink:


It was important enough to you that you came in guns blazing @Patrick. And it ended up exposing you to genealogical ancestry, which was surprising. Even for people who have no need for Adam and Eve, that is the sort of science I am going to include here.

So true.

1 Like