YECs and the GAE

What in your previous experience of me suggests that I would indulge in such a transparently dishonest “gotcha”?

I don’t think you were engaging in a gotcha. I thought you had some unreasonable standard of evidence, perhaps that was not visible to you.

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Comments on Nelson’s Review of GAE

I’d like to know how you define “scriptural realism.”

1 Like

Good question. I explain in this article, and include a reference too: S. Joshua Swamidass: The Rejoinder for the Sapientia Symposium.

Thanks! I see it here: “This finding makes space for “Scriptural Realism;” the impression of most Christians in history that Genesis 1–11 intends to teach a real history of real people in a real past. This is a central concern of the historical-grammatical approach to Genesis held by young earth creationists, like Marcus Ross and others.”

I still haven’t finished your book, eek - but I will and give a review. Since the book posed this question about literalism, I did have to ask myself why would I not consider GAE to be an option. It isn’t just literalism, as I explained in an earlier thread. It’s also about Jesus’ character and I think, maybe this sounds odd for a Christian to say - Occam’s razor. It would force me to read into new testament passages as well as into Genesis, meanings that aren’t simple or obvious. Spiritually there’s a tug: I can make science complex because human interpretations are flawed and not inspired, but I can’t in scripture because it is inspired. I think you’ll run across this in a debate too. But I’ll give you a full review once I finish the book.

Btw, all the arguments I see here seems to be saying that you can’t debate or dialogue with another Christian because the only thing up for interpretation or debate is the Bible. The biggest thing I’ve learned about science in the last few months is that’s an absolutely ridiculous idea. Otherwise we’d still believe the sun revolved around the earth. :joy:

1 Like

@thoughtful

GAE is all about dialogue with other Christians. Where did you get the idea that it was the other way around?

1 Like

Now that is true. It is all about dialogue, and that is what has made it so threatening to some camps.

I don’t believe a man or woman alive denies evolution. We see change over time with our own eyes each and every moment they are open. It is clear to me that many of these young earth creationists believe in evolution and even biological evolution. They simply seem to believe that it started with the fall of man into sin. So calling people anti-evolution is simply beside the point. You could prove the reality of biological evolution time and time again and that would in no way speak to how or when this condition arose. I thus do not believe the arguments of those who doubt the genealogical Adam and Eve are anti-evolution. Instead I see them more as philosophical arguments against Naturalism. In this way I don’t think the concept of the genealogical Adam and Eve opens the door to discussion with all Christians in doubt. There still remains that old problem that if naturalism is true then our cognitive abilities would be selected for survival until child bearing age and perhaps through child rearing and not specifically for the ability to detect truth. I’ve seen someone on this site saying that they don’t trust the Doctor for example. And while I find him quite credible myself I can see how it could be hard for some to accept truth from a position that in and of its self draws into question the very existence of discernible truth. This is why I find it hard to fully acknowledge that naturalism and Christianity can not be in conflict. Given the incredible roll truth plays in Chistian theology. The Christ is the Truth after all.

1 Like

That makes very little sense. The GAE is not naturalism.

@Jeshua welcome to the forum.

1 Like

thank you for that clarification. I was unsure considering the idea that pre Adam and Eve peoples shared common ancestry with the animal kingdom.

1 Like

What I am emphasizing by “evolution” is common descent of humans and the great apes. Quite a lot of people dispute this. I do not mean “naturalism” at all.

Well sure, but the GAE is not naturalism, as we discussed.

This is merely a statement about how God created. It is not a statement that this common ancestry took place by natural process alone or without God’s intention or purpose. Why does common ancestry signal naturalism to you?

My thoughts are all over the place on this topic. Part of me says that if chapter one can be squared away as simply grand language used to describe incredibly longitudinal processes then I have no objection to chapter two being viewed in that same way. Evolution in one instance then the Gollum routine for the next really catches my attention. As if it could imply that Adams creator it’s self underwent some evolution of its own. Which in my mind could potentially render the entire process as more naturalistic in nature than theistic.

1 Like

God can work through and in evolution.

2 Likes

I agree but then don’t see the need to imply any other process in appearance of Adam and Eve. Not to say I am not interested in the idea. It’s certainly intriguing. I’ve only seen a couple of your interviews. Looking forward to reading your book to get a better idea of the full scope of your proposition.

2 Likes

@Jeshua

There are some Christians (denominations as well as individuals) who reject millions of years of evolutionary evidence because they think Romans 5 requires an historical (a real) Adam and Eve. The GAE book shows that a few one-off cases of super-natural creation is not enough to warrant overturning all the evidence for Evolution.

De novo creation of Adam and Eve has nothing to do with “naturalism”.

Romans 5 points to Adam (as historically real) in regard to the origin of sin, not the origin of life…just want to be clear (trying to clarify, not refute your statement). So, agreed that it is not a basis for rejecting evolution, but this is because it is a separate argument regarding mans nature (since day one).

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-

On a base level, it is not complex at all.

  1. Evolution is consistent with Scripture,
  2. I see a lot of evidence for evolution.

If you dispute 2, you can still agree with:

  1. There a lot of people who are convinced evolution is true.

So, at minimum, it is valuable to explore how evolution can be consistent with Scripture, even if we personally disagree with it.

I don’t think any one thinks evolution is true based on scripture alone, for the same reason no one learns of heliocentrism or electricity through Scripture. It just wasn’t important enough for God to communicate to us in his written word. More important things are the subject of Scripture.

2 Likes
  1. Although I think the evolution of species can be without conflict concerning scripture I don’t see how it could be considered consistent with scripture as there is absolutely no evidence as far as I have been presented that the authors had any idea what evolution is or even the basic scientific understanding required to grasp its mechanisms. Prior to 1847 I believe it’s unclear that anyone had even heard of evolution.

  2. Yes it seems like a reasonable explanation.

  3. Yes it is a very visually appealing and widely accepted theory.

And this is directly addressed by my book, which I know you are just starting to read. :slight_smile: