The OEC and YEC Reception of a Genealogical Adam

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

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:

Literal Interpretations and the Genealogical Adam

From a YEC scholar:

Daniel Deen and Joel Oesch: The Lutheran Voice and Crosswise Institute

The second question is whether a pre-Adamic doctrine would violate the Rule of Faith. In other words, is any part of the clear and universal doctrines of historic Christianity contradicted by a belief in a pre-Adamite humanity. This is more difficult to answer because the idea is so new to me that I have not yet traced out all of its implications. I know that @swamidass takes great pains to show that the possibility of pre-Adamic human beings does not necessarily undermine the historicity of Adam or the doctrine of original sin. If he had not done so, then I would have certainly rejected the notion. I would be very interested to hear the reflections of others on this question.

From a leading OEC scholar with a great deal of influence:

Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist’s Hope

What are the main takeaways from the Dabar Conference? What are the things that those unable to attend should know?

Joshua’s paper generated significant conversation at the Conference. This is because practically everyone realized that his proposal provided helpful insights, and perhaps even a helpful corrective, in several areas. He makes the important distinction between genetics and genealogy. If I’m understanding his argument correctly, he makes two points: 1) We have little or no discernible genetic evidence of most of our ancestors beyond, say, 1000 years ago. So most of our ancestors are “genetic ghosts.” And 2) if someone in the ancient world (i.e., before the time of Christ) had any children at all, then he or she probably is the direct ancestor of all.

For scientific laypersons like me, this is extremely helpful. It means (I think) that I shouldn’t get too distracted by attempts to locate a common genetic ancestor (i.e., a Mitochondrial Eve or a Y-Adam), nor should I wonder if it is possible if an ancient couple could be the genealogical ancestors of all living humans.

From a historian who is “undeclared” in the origins position (@rcohlers, what is your position?):

Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist’s Hope

What struck me as extremely important in @swamidass 's analysis both last summer and again at Dabar this year was primarily two things – let me call them patterns of correction – that seem to recur in the history of science and Christianity. The first is that a scientific discovery and its seeming implications are treated as settled science and demands are made for a radical departure from recognizable Christian theology. The second is the appearance of a more sober corrective that recognizes the legitimacy of the discovery, but clarifies the real implications and in so doing provides breathing room for real theological reflection, development, and genuine intellectual progress. This second pattern is what I see Joshua’s analysis contributing, what made it so significant then, and why it generated such energy and engagement at the Dabar conference.

And, also, this is part of an in-depth analysis by William Lane Craig, a very influential apologist: William Lane Craig on Historical Adam .

[Patrick]

The implication is that no one cares.

No one care because it is unimportant in their lives.

[Dan_Eastwood]

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!

[Patrick]

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.

[Dan_Eastwood]

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.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

The implication is that no one cares.

No one care because it is unimportant in their lives.

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.

I’ve gained a healthy respect for “good” theology, because people making bad scientific arguments are generally basing it on a bad theological arguments.

So true.