Yes. In the conference in St. Louis that I attended we had people from different fields, people who disagreed with him. One of Josh’s most admirable qualities, I think, is his non-defensiveness. He doesn’t get his back up when he’s criticized. He’s genuinely open to criticism and objections and wants to learn from his critics. There are actually atheists that participate in these dialogues. He said it’s been shocking to him how sympathetic the atheist biologists have been to his genealogical Adam proposal since they don’t really care whether it coheres with biblical teaching or not. They weigh it purely scientifically, and they say it’s unobjectionable to say that there was this human pair created 10,000 years ago de novo by God whose descendants interbred with other hominids, that had evolved and from whom every human being alive on Earth today is descended. They have no problem with it.
There are actually atheists that participate in these dialogues. He said it’s been shocking to him how sympathetic the atheist biologists have been to his genealogical Adam proposal since they don’t really care whether it coheres with biblical teaching or not. They weigh it purely scientifically, and they say it’s unobjectionable to say that there was this human pair created 10,000 years ago de novo by God whose descendants interbred with other hominids, that had evolved and from whom every human being alive on Earth today is descended. They have no problem with it.
The part that concerned me was that he said he usually makes up his mind on these things fast, but then takes a long time (like 2 years) to confirm his initial suspicion.
Based on his prior newsletter comments, it seems like he has too many theological concerns with GAE, but that’s my take reading the tea leaves.
And he keeps talking about ancient pagan myths that are guiding his thinking. Wha? I don’t get that part. It seems to me if an atheist in a debate with him said, “well, your bible is just a bunch of rehashed myths…” he would likely proceed to discredit those myths fully.
Yet now they somehow provide some essential backdrop to learn about Adam and Eve?
I understand he’s saying that Moses and OT presented a radical new view of a single Creator/Diety, in contrast to the myths, but why are the myths meant to support an Adam and Eve view and/or provide cause not to support GAE?
I think I can say no one really knows where he will end up.
If he comes to GAE, great. That is a big win for us.
If he comes to something else, that is also great. It is a different big win for us. Maybe I will co authors some work with him, showing it is biologically plausible.
Well yes, but if he comes to the conclusion (as seems the trend in his correspondence with me) that the science is fine, but that Adam and Eve are non-historical, then there’s not a lot of scientific plausibility to discuss.
This seems like it would alienate a lot of WLC’s base?
Here’s what he said 4 years ago:
“I am inclined to stick with the literal Adam and Eve until absolutely forced by the evidence to abandon that view. I think we are far from that point.”
Seems he went from “until being forced” to do so and “far from that point” to abandoning it in favor of giving weight to “pagan myths.”
I confess I haven’t followed Craig on this matter (I just punted my new book to him!), but he’s no YEC AFAIK, and if he favours an historical Adam, I’m not sure what alternative exists to Genealogical Adam that does any justice to the science (by which I mean not just population genetics, which might conceivably have loopholes, but the less deductive sciences like archaeology, palaeontology, history, linguistics, and so on).
Walton also seems too inclined to allow “pagan myths” to set the stage for delineating the narratives in early Genesis, while the actual text notoriously rejects theogony, theomachy, a bald utlitarianism towards humans as “slaves of the gods,” personified forces in nature, and instead speaks of a single, transcendent Creator.
Some have concluded it was thus written as a deliberate polemic to pagan views, while I’m inclined towards the view that the early Genesis narratives, whether in oral or written form, far predated the pagan corruptions of the truth given to Adam in the garden by the Angel of the LORD directly.
That’s an interpretive paradigm which is less often considered.
@jongarvey, Wouldn’t it be fair to say that a sequential reading of the first two pericopes simply suggests the GA&E scenario is the most likely logical entailment of the progression of the narrative?
And if not, why not?
It certainly seems to make sense of the other data…like the existence of, and merely presumed presence of, other “imago Dei” humanity outside the garden right from the beginning of the second pericope.
When he changes his mind on something, I guess it takes him 4-5 years to communicate it to his followers. Maybe he wants to break it to them gently, dropping reasons for it along the way like trial baloons, before slipping in the change somewhere…
The problem is, Genesis doesn’t really talk about transcendent God. Rather, it speaks about a god similar to that of Hellenistic or Egyptian polytheism. Mono polytheism, as DBH likes to call it.
Genesis 2. Good walking around the garden. And ‘mono polytheism’ doesn’t have anything to do with whether God created. or if He’s the only God, the world or not. It has to do with characteristic, or nature, of God. God described in Genesis 2 has the same, or similar characteristics to the gods of polytheism, thus ‘mono polytheism’. Belief in multiple gods but worship of one is called monolatry.
As far as I know, he is inclined to an ancient Adam, allowing for interbreeding, perhaps a modification of the RTB model. He has no problem with common descent, nor does he feel compelled to have de novo creation. There is need to develop the scientific plausibility of this.
Do you know the truth about Adam and Eve? If so, let us know as it would save everyone on this board a lot of time. Then I guess we can all go home.
Sounds like he’s wrestling with what he believes to be most likely true, but he has probably learned through the years to take his time about communicating this until after more thorough research and planning.
