So, we need to be bigger than any single model of looking at origins. There are OECs and YECs here and atheists. There are some that love a genealogical Adam and some that insist on a genetic Adam. I’m not interested in taking sides on non-essential matters.
We will talk about evolutionary science, and pointing out the scientific problems with models we see. However, there is no reasons to limit the options we offer people. As @anon46279830 puts it:
There is no reason to promote any single model. I’m happy to point people to @vjtorley or @Agauger’s sole-genetic progenitor models (more ancient than 500 kya), all alongside the menagerie of two-creation genealogical Adam models that are growing, and even the one-creation genealogical Adam models. Why limit the party?
For that matter, even no-Adam Christians are welcome too. This not about dogmatism, but about finding what will be most helpful for other people, in the context of their values, not ours. In that type of service we can bring peace in this area. That is why I say:
And this is what I was concerned about. If we don’t call the MODEL you are working on with a distinctive phrase, people are either going to call it “Peaceful Science” (which you will mistake as a reference to this discourse page as you do above), or they will call it the Swamidass Model - - which may or may not appeal to you.
If you look at these “brainstorm starters” … they are a way of distinguishing the model from other models…
I.D. has ID
Biologos has a few phrases it likes to use. Your model needs one as well.
This group of people here, this collection of people with common community and common ground, we are Peaceful Science. As for the model that I’m putting forward, I’m calling it my version of The Genealogical Adam and Eve, but I’m also referencing everyone else when I am putting forward.
I’d call mine the “imago Dei humanity preceded Adam and Eve” model.
Or, something like the “assisted monogenism” model. I’ve always understood Joshua to want to steer a GA model through the plethora of other, partially complementary models available. That’s a pretty safe, and “big tent” approach… but I think we can still work to discern between those complementary models further, too.
I don’t get 'ya. What’s “breathless” about this phrase? It’s a reasonably short cogent descriptor… It has to do with simply interpreting the successive chapters in the text as sequential (successive), rather than recapitulatory (“flashbacks” that flesh out more details of the first account).
For folks who want to insist that Adam be the “first man ever,” it’s a misappropriation of the relevant texts, where Adam is presented as the first of a TYPE, in contrast with Jesus, the “last man” --also presented as the contrasting type, rather than “the last man ever.”
1 Corinthians 15:45 and ff.
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul .” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. - 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 NASB
I’d enjoy knowing what you mean by “this breathless phrase.” Cheers!
So while BioLogos
discusses “God-Guided Evolution”, and I.D.
talks about it’s “Intelligent Design Model”,
you are going to
introduce your “Imago Dei humanity Preceded Adam and Eve model”?
Hey, it’s your model. Do what you want. I’m thinking it would be great if we had a shorter text string for the “Swamidass Model” - - and then Joshua says: how about the “Swamidass Model”. Well, that takes care of that problem!
Perhaps you noticed my previous post that Joshua’s intention to show how GA bridges successfully between a number of different models makes him decidedly “big tent,” but doesn’t thereby derail the discussion to tune up and / or decide between those models. So, I’m not sure what it is you’re on about, @gbrooks9 . Do you have a model you’re rooting for? GA doesn’t, by itself, have enough to it, yet, to explain all that theology requires, in my opinion. Happy to be shown otherwise.