Alright, so Josh shared with me some of his story when I had him out at Crosswise this last June. I did not realize how contentious this issue of an historical adam is among the larger evangelical population, or at least among the public face of evangelical organizations promoting discussions of science and religion (RTB, BioLogos, AiG – etc). I am also learning that politics are alive and well within this larger conversation of science and religion always driving us to Pilate’s ever relevant question: “What is Truth?” Allow me to free think some thoughts as they occur upon re-reading from someone who is an outsider to this conversation in more ways than one.
This quote is from the linked article and attributed to Denis Lamoureux as evidence that he, and perhaps BioLogos generally, suggest that any links to an historical Adam will put you outside the limits of evolutionary creationism. This is due to the fact that lack of positive genetic evidence for Adam will always be the case within the genetic sciences.
Right, so Lamourex has set his definitions (including concordism) and following though with them. However, it appears he has unnecessarily limited himself to an evidence base of genetic science (a rather narrow and strong concordism one would think), at least in terms of historical Adam.
Swamidass’ Dabar paper opens up the evidence base to include genealogical sciences and universal genealogical ancestors (UGAs) including Adam and Eve. These are genetic ghosts as we can’t pinpoint specific stretches of genetic material due to any stretch being recombined/swamped/mixed/changed (proper terminology?) in future generations.
My point here, is when seeking truth or understanding, ought we consider larger sources of evidence? This is simply good epistemic practice. Why would one narrowly focus on the role of genetics? I understand that this is @swamidass point (even arguing that the genealogical and genetic need not conflict), but BioLogos has philosophers on staff. In fact, I think one of Lamoureux’s PhDs is in philosohy! They should know that putting together an explanation or argument requires evidence from multiple sources and that each decision suggests certain value judgements that could (and often should) be reconsidered? I think @deuteroKJ humorously discussed it in a different thread as a Plinko Game in relation to the decisions a linguist must make translating ancient languages.
This is why I’m rather adamant about the interdisciplinary point I keep bringing forward in various contexts. Moreover, if Lamoureux and BioLogos are so set on current genetic theory, what happens when the science changes on them? This again is what I would argue is a part of @swamidass is getting at. However, from a philosophical point of view and a scientific point of view (e.g., neutral theory of evolution vs Darwinism), science will change. Why would Lamoureux (and BioLogos?) put so much faith in current science, even a certain aspect of a certain science, remaining the status quo? In philosophy of science this is related to the pessimistic meta-induction, we aren’t necessarily discussing questions of realism/anti-realism, but why put so many eggs in one scientific basket? They must realize that their views will have to change as the science changes.
Yeah, I hear you. My job may be even more tenuous then yours on these issues! However, what is it about the current historical Adam conversation that is so worrisome theoretically? Again, I’m a philosopher, not an exegete, but the Lutheran approach to this is to start with Christ and then move backwards to an historical Adam. Meaning that Christ seems to validate the OT through constant reference to the OT, including Adam and Eve, putting a divine stamp of approval on Genesis. This seems enough to at least give me confidence, whatever the scientific mechanics of Genesis and Adam and Eve, that Adam/Eve ARE historical in some sense according to Christ. Thus I am free to play with/explore/meditate upon various models of creation (scientifically and theologically) recognizing that I will always be going beyond what was revealed to me in scripture or the world for that matter. Or, to put it another way, my identity is bound up with Christ’s death and resurrection, not whatever Plinko bounces my intellectual reflections on Christianity (and Genesis) actually take. It may even be that I have to live in tension/paradox with what I take Scripture to be saying and what science is currently revealing.
We’ve had a couple of BioLogos affiliates speak at my university and they always seem to preach at us about why we should sign onto position X. I don’t mean this as a slight, but I’ve found the speakers I’ve encountered to be more like preachers or pitchmen than presenters of arguments. On the other hand, I do often find myself linked to, and enjoying, their blog posts as I search for various topics on the net.