Three Reviews at BioLogos

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michelle

I agree. I read Deb Haarsma’s statement as being very conciliatory, conceding that the BioLogos organization had made erroneous claims in their Common Questions articles, and has now corrected them. I applaud the organization for that concession and for those corrections.

It is a step in the right direction. Hopefully more to come.

@Michelle

@swamidass, I found your discussion of monogenesis versus polygenesis in your book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve to be extremely helpful.

Thanks.

@Michelle

So I thought the GAE theory stood in contrast to the sole progenitor (single couple) model, but still provided the helpful clarification that it would be possible to have a de novo creation of Adam and Eve, and that A&E would be universal ancestors , even if not sole progenitors.

GAE stands in contrast to sole-genetic progenitor models, but it is a sole-genealogical progenitor model. It stands in contrast with genetic monogenesis models, but it is a genealogical monogenesis model.

@Michelle

I am not familiar with Loke, Opderbeck, Kemp and Feser’s understandings of sole progenitorship. I guess I should do more reading on that.

It is covered in the book. Two great articles to start with are here, and ironically one of them was published in 2010 at BioLogos. Kemp explains that Monogenesis does not preclude interbreeding between AE and others. Opderbeck explains the same regarding sole-progenitorship. Both of them are not scientists, approaching this from a theological point of view.

I made space for their definitions of these terms. Hardin’s discomfort cuts to the heart of the issue. He seems uncomfortable letting theologians use their own definitions of these terms, and that is the problem. Theologians have the right to define these terms how they like, and scientists don’t have the right to enforce a scientific meaning of these words.

kemp-monogenism.pdf

A “Historical” Adam? - BioLogos

@Michelle

Is it theologically important that we call Adam and Eve sole progenitors ?

It is important for many Christians. In my view and understanding, the term is linked tightly to monogenesis. My book does discuss sole-progenitors this way. The difficulty arises because of particular passages in Scripture (e.g. Acts 17:26) and from historical doctrine.

Of course, Hardin’s (and others’) scientific understanding of the term monogenesis is threatened by the evidence. But that shouldn’t matter much, because scientists misunderstood the theological meaning. That misunderstanding is not a valid reason to stick with it going forward.

@Michelle

Perhaps you have all discussed this already at length elsewhere on this Forum, in which case you could just point me to that location.

We discussed at length over the last 2.5 years the many ways that sole-progenitorship can be understood. Most recently, we discovered that sole-genetic progenitorship does not preclude interbreeding as we had thought. At the moment, I am unaware of any old earth creationist that absolutely rules out interbreeding between AE’s lineage and others.

Let that sink in. None of the Old Earthers (e.g. @Agauger and other Catholics, @AJRoberts and RTB) rule out absolutely interbreeding between AE’s lineage and others. They may not like it and seek to minimize it, but they wouldn’t say it disproves their understanding of AE. At the same time, they say they hold to sole-genetic progenitorship.

Any how, some of the early discussions on this were here:

Three Stories on Adam

This is an important post, and I encourage everyone to read it. The first story is the most technical, and it is about sole-genetic progenitorship (discussion). If Adam and Eve were more ancient than 500-700 thousand years ago, they could have been our sole- genetic progenitors. This would mean all “humans” would descend directly from Adam and Eve, and their offspring never interbred with others. The second story is the most recent, and it is about genetic-interbreeding progenitorship (discussion). If Adam and Eve were about 200 thousand years ago, it might be possible they were the genetic progenitors of Homo sapiens , as long as their offspring interbred with other hominids like Neanderthals. This finding is not settled yet , and will be looked at more closely with Reasons to Believe this Fall The third story is the most surprising, and it is about sole-genealogical progenitorship (discussion). As recently as 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve could have been created d…

That was a long time ago, when I wasn’t even sure if I’d be writing a book. Since then a lot has clarified.

In this end this comes down to achieving what Collins commends me for here:

to sum it up, I would say that he has offered a way to state a scientific case without using that improperly to pronounce on important theological categories. I have no doubt that all relevant sources should be taken into consideration when formulating beliefs; the trick is to do it well, and carefully. (More on this below.)
Theological Response to Joshua Swamidass, The Geneological Adam and Eve - BioLogos

My concern is with illegitimate pronouncements about theology. A safeguard of highest importance in achieving this goal is resisting efforts to force narrow/scientific meanings of words into the theological discourse. That is an uncomfortable rule for scientists who want to force narrow/scientific meanings into theology, but they don’t have the right to do so.