Still planning on responding to your earlier post, but this deserved a response first.
I agree that we do not know for sure how they will respond. I will be curious to see.
However, this is not a pre-Adamite proposal, as has been condemned by the Catholic Church. In the past every pre-Adamite proposal was also a polygenesis proposal that denied the unity of all mankind. For this reason, I do not consider it a pre-Adamite proposal. This is not what it is. Likewise, Kemp’s proposal is not a pre-Adamite proposal, because it is not a polygenesis proposal. A few of the key differences:
-
Pre-Adamite proposals deny that we all descend from Adam right now, while a Genealogical Adam asserts the opposite, that we do all descend from him.
-
Pre-Adamite proposals teach that Adam was biologically better than others around him, while a Genealogical Adam affirms monophylogeny, affirming alongside modern science and theology that we are the same biological type.
-
Pre-Adamite proposals teach that Adam was theologically better than others around him, while a Genealogical Adam teaches (at least in some proposals) that he was the first one Fallen; it would be better not to be in his line.
-
Pre-Adamite proposals necessarily deny sole-progenitorship and monogenesis, while Genealogical Adam affirms theological sole-progenitorship and monogenesis by way of genealogical descent from Adam.
-
Pre-Adamite proposals usually (if not always) presume that Adam is the first person with the Image of God, and that those before and alongside Adam are not in God’s image, while a Genealogical Adam (at least as I personally put forward) emphasizes that those outside the garden are in God’s image too.
With this in mind, we can see that Kemp’s proposal is just an adjustment of the polygenesis model. He takes (alongside the pre-Adamite models), #2, #3, #5. Kemp does not make a distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry (most likely conflating the two), so his notion of descent is genetic.
So, it should be clear that we are talking about a very different proposal with a Genealogical Adam. It is neither polygenesis or a Kemp proposal. I should also add that I am encouraging multiple ways to work this out.
Here are some modifications that could be interesting to consider. Here is just one. The origin of the Image of God in an ancient sole-genetic progenitorship 2 mya (as @agauger suggests) but a couple that is not the Adam and Eve of Scripture, followed by a recent Genealogical Adam 10 kya who falls, and is the Adam and Eve of scripture. It is not clear, for example, how this could conflict with Catholic theology.
All this is to say that I agree we should take a stand against polygenesis, and for the unity of mankind. That, I think, is what is interesting about a Genealogical Adam. It actually strongly scientifically and theologically disputes polygenesis, and affirms the unity of mankind. It just does it in a way that is different than biological monogenesis or genetic sole-progenitorship.
And that is a key reason why I do not use the terms “pre-Adamites” or “non-Adamites”. Instead, I would say that we are talking of “those outside the garden” who are the same biological type as Adam, and (in this sense) Adamites too. I also go to lengths to emphasize that they are not less human or sub human or not fully human. Rather, they are human in a different way than us, and in a way that does not exist any more. We can just as easily say that Jesus is human in a different way than us, even though he is fully human.
I’d point out again that “human” is a loaded term, and we do not have to designate these people out side the garden as the “humans” to whom theology refers. So there still may not be “humans” before Adam (in a theological sense).
And I do believe this is substantially different. I think it solves the key problems of polygenesis in a better way, preserving much more of traditional doctrine in a manner consistent with science.
Curious your thoughts @vjtorley.