William Lane Craig on Historical Adam


It looks like Craig believes in an historical Adam, and will be working with @jack.collins and @Agauger to come up with an ancient Adam model since he finds your more recent Adam/GA model hermeneutically unconvincing. In his last defenders class, he says that the genealogies give Genesis an historical backbone and he quoted Walton favorably saying that we aren’t supposed to believe that any of the characters in the genealogies never existed.

It’s either in this podcast or the one before it that he says these things. Listened to them earlier this week, I apologize. https://content.blubrry.com/52716/RF_DEFENDERS_CREATION_OF_LIFE_AND_BIO-DIVERSITY_Part_16_2019.mp3

I’m a bit sad. I was partially hoping he’d follow Tremper Longman as an inerrancy affirming Adam agnostic. But it does not seem to be the case. :frowning:.

Congrats, @Agauger, although Craig probably accepts common descent, it looks like you’ve probably won over a follower to your model while @swamidass and I have lost out on a potential highly influential defender.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt it. He’s made comments all throughout this recent series indicating he believes Adam and Eve are historical people, and he’s made it quite clear elsewhere that he thinks Wright’s idea of A&E as priests leading a larger population as also unconvincing. He’s definitely stuck with an ancient sole genetic progenitor model.

I suppose it’s still up in the air though, whether he will go for @Agauger’s very ancient model or Fuz Rana’s more “recent” ancient model.

1 Like

You have wildley misread the situation. I just spent two days with him. In a few month I might have some news to announce.

@Agauger’s model is not acceptable to him, by the way.


He said in his last newsletter he doesn’t find your model acceptable. Has this changed? I’m very curious how I misread him. It seems
this leaves Hugh Ross’s model unless he has some other idea entirely. I suppose he could still think Genesis 2-3 isn’t about historical persons, but I doubt it.

Could you explain the Gauger and Ross models? How does an ancient Adam fit the genealogies at all?

@mark you misunderstanding my role in this and what is going on with WLC. It’s a good thing. You have front row seats to a really interesting conversation. It is far from over and you don’t even know what I’m arguing for.

They take the geneaologies as essentially mythical.


Ross and Gauger take them as mythical?

More like they take them as having huuuuuugeeeee gaps in them allowing for thousands, and in Gauger’s case, millions of years in between the names. This allows them to place Adam at the headwaters of humanity.

Yeah, a front row seat to modern day wannabe theologians discussing and formulating models that ALL can be wrong. :sunglasses:

Lucy is our Eve and Ardi is our Adam.



So they preserve biblical literalism by abandoning biblical literalism?


No they don’t care about literalism. Different concerns are guiding them.

1 Like


I’ve always thought that was a little nuts.

Someone rejects evolution because it doesn’t jive with Genesis… so let’s describe a scenario that puts Adam and Eve millions of years ago … there… now we still don’t jive with Genesis!


Please explain.

A book is in the works. One book at a time though…


Why are you unwilling to talk about subjects you’re writing books about?

He is writing a book. Not me. And I have my hands full this month. We might organize a meeting on his work, and we might invite you. So chill. Give me time.


Sorry, who?

It is NOT work. It is all speculation.