In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

[Frank Robert]

Christianity Today recently published its book awards for the year 2022. These are books they believe are “most likely to shape evangelical life, thought, and culture” next year. The book that won the “Award of Merit” under the category “Apologetics & Evangelism” was In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration by William Lang Craig.

"This is a bold, rigorous, original work at the intersection of faith and science. For those who wonder whether contemporary science, including evolutionary science, is compatible with the Christian faith, Craig’s book will be seen as a breath of fresh air. For the sake of argument, Craig assumes the evolutionary thesis of common ancestry and considers whether that thesis is compatible with a historical Adam and Eve. He concludes that the evidence is not only consistent with the belief in an historical first human pair, but provocatively, that the first humans ought to be identified with Homo heidelbergensis, dating back to somewhere between 750,000 and a million years ago. I don’t agree with every move that Craig makes. Undoubtedly, many within the Christian community will not agree either. But his project is not revisionary. Rather, he is seeking, with intellectual humility, boldness, and rigor, to walk the path of reason in the search of truth. —Paul Gould, associate professor of philosophy of religion at Palm Beach Atlantic University"

“Craig’s quest brings him into an ancient and growing conversation about human origins, a storied exchange between many theologians, philosophers, and scientists. In this conversation, many fear that it is only by compromising our core commitments that space is made for evolutionary science. This book demonstrates, to the contrary, an account of human origins that makes space for evolution without capitulating to a science-only view of the world. Craig shows us not only that constructive dialogue between theology and science is possible, but also that theological questions can sharpen our understanding of science.” —C. Joshua Swamidass, associate professor of laboratory and genomic medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

Note: Dr. Swsmidass is the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve



​

 

[SkyWriting]

Christianity Today recently published its book awards for the year 2022. These are books they believe are “most likely to shape evangelical life, thought, and culture” next year. The book that won the “Award of Merit” under the category “Apologetics & Evangelism” was In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration by William Lang Craig.

"This is a bold, rigorous, original work at the intersection of faith and science. For those who wonder whether contemporary science, including evolutionary science, is compatible with the Christian faith, Craig’s book will be seen as a breath of fresh air. For the sake of argument, Craig assumes the evolutionary thesis of common ancestry and considers whether that thesis is compatible with a historical Adam and Eve. He concludes that the evidence is not only consistent with the belief in an historical first human pair, but provocatively, that the first humans ought to be identified with Homo heidelbergensis, dating back to somewhere between 750,000 and a million years ago. I don’t agree with every move that Craig makes. Undoubtedly, many within the Christian community will not agree either. But his project is not revisionary. Rather, he is seeking, with intellectual humility, boldness, and rigor, to walk the path of reason in the search of truth. —Paul Gould, associate professor of philosophy of religion at Palm Beach Atlantic University"

“Craig’s quest brings him into an ancient and growing conversation about human origins, a storied exchange between many theologians, philosophers, and scientists. In this conversation, many fear that it is only by compromising our core commitments that space is made for evolutionary science. This book demonstrates, to the contrary, an account of human origins that makes space for evolution without capitulating to a science-only view of the world. Craig shows us not only that constructive dialogue between theology and science is possible, but also that theological questions can sharpen our understanding of science.” —C. Joshua Swamidass, associate professor of laboratory and genomic medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

Note: Dr. Swsmidass is the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve



​

I agree that Jesus was the 2nd Adam and God made special provisions for the First Adam just as He did for the second Adam. Estimating backwards the number of years give no real insights. If that's what God wanted, then the New Testament could easily have stated how many years ago Adam started the lineage. If that had any importance.

 

[sandman]

I have never understood the hype or argument between the evo's and Christians.
To me, the big bang theory is as ridiculous as having an explosion in a print shop and ending up with a dictionary.
Many Christians also want to argue about old and young earth...I can get you both, with a prior species....... between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

But you know, God said "in the beginning" and that is good enough for me....but I am kind of simple that way.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I started a thread about Dr. Swamidass' book The Genealogical Adam and Eve. Unlike Craig, who is a philosopher, Swamidass is a physician and scientist.

Craig accepts theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God in the creation of Adam and Eve. His Adam lived 500,000 or more years ago. This is impossible to square with Genesis, which has Adam and his immediate descendants engaged in agriculture, metalworking and city-building.

Swamidass' theory has been acknowledged by secular and even atheist scientists as scientifically sound (which doesn't mean they agree with it). In a nutshell, evolution may have produced humans as evolutionary theory proposes, but they weren't made in God's image. As recently as 6,000 years ago but possibly thousands of years before that, God specially created Adam and Eve as Genesis describes. They were the first "theological humans" made in God's image and capable of sinning. Through interbreeding, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living at the time of Jesus.

The science is sound. The theory accords with the mysterious explosion in human sophistication and advancement that occurred within a period of a few thousand years. If you're inclined to buy Craig's book, don't overlook Swamidass' effort. He's a devout Christian and his book is far from lightweight fluff.

 

[Occams Barber]

To me, the big bang theory is as ridiculous as having an explosion in a print shop and ending up with a dictionary.

Imagine there's an explosion in a print shop. As a result 476 characters are embedded in the wall opposite the typeset storage boxes. Reading left to write, top to bottom the characters are in a totally random sequence of letters, numbers and symbols, i.e.,

wh184mfgskotmvbpodfmv-2n%*krt0-7&*(j FdySasdjLIPc4)%+* >>>>etc.etc. etc.​

@sandman enters the shop after the explosion, sees the wall and immediately falls to his knees in reverent supplication.

"Why are you kneeling?" asks @Occams Barber

"Its a message from God" replies Sandie

"Howso?" says OB

"Think about it "says Sandie. " There are 26 letters in the alphabet. 52 counting upper and lower case. Add on 10 numbers and 20 symbols. Allowing for four different type sizes and three different fonts the odds of getting any particular character are 82x4x3=984 to 1.

But look - there are 476 characters stuck in the wall. The odds of getting that particular combination of letters, numbers, symbols, font and sizes, in that sequence, are 984 multiplied by itself 476 times.

That means the chance of getting that particular combination is over a million gazillion to 1.

With those odds it can't possibly be a coincidence.

It must be a message from God."

OB

 

[ruthiesea]

I have never understood the hype or argument between the evo's and Christians.
To me, the big bang theory is as ridiculous as having an explosion in a print shop and ending up with a dictionary.
Many Christians also want to argue about old and young earth...I can get you both, with a prior species....... between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

But you know, God said "in the beginning" and that is good enough for me....but I am kind of simple that way.

FYI: The Big Bang is a misnomer. It was an infinitesimal small singularity, not big, and it was an expansion not an explosion. There could not be a ‘bang’ because there was nothing to carry sound.

 

[sandman]

Imagine there's an explosion in a print shop. As a result 476 characters are embedded in the wall opposite the typeset storage boxes. Reading left to write, top to bottom the characters are in a totally random sequence of letters, numbers and symbols, i.e.,

wh184mfgskotmvbpodfmv-2n%*krt0-7&*(j FdySasdjLIPc4)%+* >>>>etc.etc. etc.​

@sandman enters the shop after the explosion, sees the wall and immediately falls to his knees in reverent supplication.

"Why are you kneeling?" asks @Occams Barber

"Its a message from God" replies Sandie

"Howso?" says OB

"Think about it "says Sandie. " There are 26 letters in the alphabet. 52 counting upper and lower case. Add on 10 numbers and 20 symbols. Allowing for four different type sizes and three different fonts the odds of getting any particular character are 82x4x3=984 to 1.

But look - there are 476 characters stuck in the wall. The odds of getting that particular combination of letters, numbers, symbols, font and sizes, in that sequence, are 984 multiplied by itself 476 times.

That means the chance of getting that particular combination is over a million gazillion to 1.

With those odds it can't possibly be a coincidence.

It must be a message from God."

OB

That is a pretty good rendition…..


However…after you left the print shop, I used my special decoder ring to decipher the message…..

It simply stated ….. ”I’ll be back”

 

[Occams Barber]

That is a pretty good rendition…..


However…after you left the print shop, I used my special decoder ring to decipher the message…..

It simply stated ….. ”I’ll be back”

You may not be familiar with the maths.

The above example demonstrates that all combinations of letters, symbols etc. are equally likely. This same example applies to your dictionary scenario.

The chances of 'ending up with a dictionary' are the same as those of ending up with any random collection of characters. The difference is that you recognise the dictionary as a familiar combination of letters etc. so you intuitively (and wrongly) assume that it is less likely than a random result.

This same concept explains why similar arguments 'proving' 'fine tuning' are not valid.

OB

 

[Shemjaza]

I started a thread about Dr. Swamidass' book The Genealogical Adam and Eve. Unlike Craig, who is a philosopher, Swamidass is a physician and scientist.

Craig accepts theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God in the creation of Adam and Eve. His Adam lived 500,000 or more years ago. This is impossible to square with Genesis, which has Adam and his immediate descendants engaged in agriculture, metalworking and city-building.

Swamidass' theory has been acknowledged by secular and even atheist scientists as scientifically sound (which doesn't mean they agree with it). In a nutshell, evolution may have produced humans as evolutionary theory proposes, but they weren't made in God's image. As recently as 6,000 years ago but possibly thousands of years before that, God specially created Adam and Eve as Genesis describes. They were the first "theological humans" made in God's image and capable of sinning. Through interbreeding, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living at the time of Jesus.

The science is sound. The theory accords with the mysterious explosion in human sophistication and advancement that occurred within a period of a few thousand years. If you're inclined to buy Craig's book, don't overlook Swamidass' effort. He's a devout Christian and his book is far from lightweight fluff.

A couple of issues with this.

Firstly is that all humans don't have a common ancestor less than a hundred thousand years ago.

The second problem is you get a very weird definition of sin and humanity.

By having anatomically identical creatures to "real" humans you end up with creatures who wear clothes, bury their dead, paint walls with representative art, craft complicated tools... and are still some kind of spiritually amoral beast?

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI: The Big Bang is a misnomer.

So is "flying squirrel."

 

[sfs]

I have never understood the hype or argument between the evo's and Christians.

If you think 'evo's and Christians are two distinct groups, no, you really don't understand the situation.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

A couple of issues with this.

Firstly is that all humans don't have a common ancestor less than a hundred thousand years ago.

The second problem is you get a very weird definition of sin and humanity.

By having anatomically identical creatures to "real" humans you end up with creatures who wear clothes, bury their dead, paint walls with representative art, craft complicated tools... and are still some kind of spiritually amoral beast?

Yes, THEY DO. That is the irrefutable science. The critical distinction is GENEALOGICAL ancestry. Genetic ancestry becomes meaningless LONG before 100,000 years. I'm not going to debate the science, because its validity is acknowledged by secular and even atheist scientists. All I can say is: Read the book.

No, the preexisting humans were not, in Swamidass' theory, "amoral beasts." They were human, but not theologically human, not in an intimate relationship with God, and not capable of sinning. The book discusses extensively the meaning of the term "human."

You're offering knee-jerk observations, not having read the book. Read the book. It has received much wider recognition than Craig's.

 

[sfs]

Firstly is that all humans don't have a common ancestor less than a hundred thousand years ago.

Yes, they do. Go back not too many thousand years and everyone who was an ancestor to anyone alive today was an ancestor to everyone. That's because the number of descendants doubles (on average) every generation.

The second problem is you get a very weird definition of sin and humanity.

By having anatomically identical creatures to "real" humans you end up with creatures who wear clothes, bury their dead, paint walls with representative art, craft complicated tools... and are still some kind of spiritually amoral beast?

It also makes humanity something that is inherited physically but not genetically, which is just odd. To me, it's a hopeless attempt to force a completely non-scientific text into a scientific understanding of the world.

 

[sfs]

It has received much wider recognition than Craig's.

As a matter of interest, how do you determine that? Being discussed in both Christianity Today and Science is pretty wide recognition.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

As a matter of interest, how do you determine that? Being discussed in both Christianity Today and Science is pretty wide recognition.

Well, of course: Christianity Today scarcely even qualifies as a Christian publication anymore, and Science is obviously going to be thrilled by a major Christian philosopher who completely surrenders to theistic evolution. No surprises there at all. Swamidass is neither anti-evolution, a Young Earther, nor a wacko. He is simply a believing scientist who attempts to do justice to both the science and Scripture. His book has been hailed as groundbreaking, and in my reading has received more favorable notice than Craig's. But I'm not his personal apologist. I just say, read the book.

 

[Estrid]

Yes, THEY DO. That is the irrefutable science. The critical distinction is GENEALOGICAL ancestry. Genetic ancestry becomes meaningless LONG before 100,000 years. I'm not going to debate the science, because its validity is acknowledged by secular and even atheist scientists. All I can say is: Read the book.

No, the preexisting humans were not, in Swamidass' theory, "amoral beasts." They were human, but not theologically human, not in an intimate relationship with God, and not capable of sinning. The book discusses extensively the meaning of the term "human."

You're offering knee-jerk observations, not having read the book. Read the book. It has received much wider recognition than Craig's.

"Irrefutable science"?

 

[Frank Robert]

A couple of issues with this.

Firstly is that all humans don't have a common ancestor less than a hundred thousand years ago.

Swamidass' A&E are genealogical ancestors not the common ancestors of humans.

 

[sfs]

Christianity Today scarcely even qualifies as a Christian publication anymore

I actually did burst out laughing at this. You have to be really deep into the conservative Evangelical bubble to think that Christianity Today scarcely qualifies as Christian.

Science is obviously going to be thrilled by a major Christian philosopher who completely surrenders to theistic evolution

What does that have to do with how widely recognized Craig's book has been? Science is (I believe) the most widely read and one of the most influential peer reviewed scientific publications in the world.

Swamidass is neither anti-evolution, a Young Earther, nor a wacko. He is simply a believing scientist who attempts to do justice to both the science and Scripture. His book has been hailed as groundbreaking, and in my reading has received more favorable notice than Craig's. But I'm not his personal apologist. I just say, read the book.

I know both Josh and his ideas quite well.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have never understood the hype or argument between the evo's and Christians.

It is not an argument between Christians and evo's, it is an argument between creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. This would not be a problem if there were not a small group of creationists pushing for their interpretation of the bible to be taught in public schools.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, the preexisting humans were not, in Swamidass' theory, "amoral beasts." They were human, but not theologically human, not in an intimate relationship with God, and not capable of sinning. The book discusses extensively the meaning of the term "human."

That sounds like theology, not science. Does Swamidass have training in theology?