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

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Isnt the faith made up of multiple minority sects?
Their are hundreds of denominations that make up the Christian faith but I referring to those that hold to a literal reading so I would expect that would be a fair amount of crossover.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Their are hundreds of denominations that make up the Christian faith but I referring to those that hold to a literal reading so I would expect that would be a fair amount of crossover.

Sure.
I wonder about the Christians in 3rd world countries.
South America, Africa

Our Filipina maid is working on an epiphany but came here
certain that its all literal.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,256.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
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.

I'm curious and I'll keep an eye out for it, it's a little expensive to pay for my casual interest. (Over $20 for an ebook).

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."

I said spiritually amoral beasts, because they are able to craft, to imagine, they were capable of abstract thought of some kind... and were capable of reproducing with a sinful human.

Does this mean that real-humans and ur-humans interacted for many generations until the the sin nature of Adam and Eve filtered through?

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

Obviously I haven't read the book... but it seems an unusual narrative from your description.

Intelligent hominids called Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, then a divinely cursed pair of them was added to the population who passed on their curse to every offspring until the whole of the species was affected.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,256.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
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.

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.
I think I understand the concept of genealogical ancestry... but I'd have thought it would be difficult to get the entire population of humans given how far they spread and how isolated some remote populations in Asia, Africa and Australia can be.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think I understand the concept of genealogical ancestry... but I'd have thought it would be difficult to get the entire population of humans given how far they spread and how isolated some remote populations in Asia, Africa and Australia can be.
The key paper on the subject is a modeling study from 2004: Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans | Nature
There may have been other studies recently, but I haven't read those. The most isolated population was likely the Tasmanians, who aren't around any longer.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You write well, @sfs
Thank you. I certainly work hard enough at it.
ETA: Interesting to note that if all that is correct (and how would I judge), A&E would have existed ~450K to ~350K years before language is supposed to have arisen: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=when+did+language+arise+in+humans
It's not my field, but I do know that that's a highly controversial conclusion. Craig goes into this question in some detail in his book and concludes that Neanderthals almost certainly had language, even if their phoneme repertoire was different or smaller than modern humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frank Robert
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
Thank you. I certainly work hard enough at it.

It's not my field, but I do know that that's a highly controversial conclusion. Craig goes into this question in some detail in his book and concludes that Neanderthals almost certainly had language, even if their phoneme repertoire was different or smaller than modern humans.
Not Craig's field either!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
Certainly not, but he cites the relevant literature, which I haven't read.
Having been a Christian, I am curious as to your reaction to this.

I appreciate that your article said something like (forgive me for not checking) that geneticists/researchers don't generally find this question important however interesting.

1) I think your article and writing style implies that this is your attitude as well?
2) As a non-believer, the endeavor seems a bit ridiculous as a means to reconcile science to the Bible. I mean really, go back 1/2 million years to justify a story that takes place 6000 years ago that ALSO includes people living 939 years (Adam). How do you as a Christian process this?

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,647
11,691
54
USA
✟293,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
and Science is obviously going to be thrilled by a major Christian philosopher who completely surrenders to theistic evolution.


The reference in Science is a *book review*.

AAAS

It is relatively friendly and evenhanded. I'm sure the editors would have no problems finding someone who could have written a more biting review, but they chose not to.

I do find myself sympathetic to Criag's timeline (if not his A&E claim) of several hundred thousand years before the splitting of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Africans for the definition of "Human" since when the groups met again after a half-million years of separation, they promptly mated with each other.

I don't think the editors of Science are particularly "thrilled" about theistic evolution. Theistic evolution isn't science, it's divine intervention that *looks* like natural processes. It would not be welcome in the research section of the journal.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1) I think your article and writing style implies that this is your attitude as well?
2) As a non-believer, the endeavor seems a bit ridiculous as a means to reconcile science to the Bible. I mean really, go back 1/2 million years to justify a story that takes place 6000 years ago that ALSO includes people living 939 years (Adam). How do you as a Christian process this?
These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.

More generally, tying anything important -- humanity, or sin -- to physical descent but not to genetics (as Swamidass does) strikes me as misguided. Making it dependent on physical descent puts it in the realm of science, while divorcing it from genetics removes the only plausible physical mechanism available. It also strikes me as terrible theology, as it cuts against the entire New Testament emphasis on spiritual descent and adoption as being far more important than physical descent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.

More generally, tying anything important -- humanity, or sin -- to physical descent but not to genetics (as Swamidass does) strikes me as misguided. Making it dependent on physical descent puts it in the realm of science, while divorcing it from genetics removes the only plausible physical mechanism available. It also strikes me as terrible theology, as it cuts against the entire New Testament emphasis on spiritual descent and adoption as being far more important than physical descent.
Thank you for answering. Were I still a Christian, I'd answer similarly.

WRT Paul's reference to A&E requiring them to actually exist, again I agree. It seems like a silly argument. I can say that my friend is as tall as Paul Bunyan without believing that Paul Bunyan existed. Jesus can point at Noah without believing in his literal existence and as long as people get the point, his mission is accomplished.

As to sin, I believe it was an Eastern Orthodox who said we don't need Christ's salvation because A&E sinned but because we sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As to sin, I believe it was an Eastern Orthodox who said we don't need Christ's salvation because A&E sinned but because we sin.

He's wrong.

We're not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Isnt the faith made up of multiple minority sects?
I almost said that there are so many minority sects that there is no majority. I would have been almost right. Catholics make up 50.1% of all Christians, so I would have been barely wrong. The rest are a whole slew of 'minority sects'.

Christian population growth - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nathan Lents, atheist and evolutionary biologist, reviews William Lane Craig's new book.

"I am aware that few in the skeptical community will share my enthusiasm for this wave of evangelical Christians embracing modern evolutionary science. Like Craig, I may even be risking my standing in my own community. But as I see it, the chance for peace between science and religion just got a boost, and the big winner here is science. Research has shown that refusal to accept evolution is connected to larger science denial including that of climate change and vaccine safety. By leading more Christians away from their mistrust of science, Craig’s work helps to undercut science denialism and to avoid the global calamities that could result. While many skeptics and atheists seem to be holding out for nothing less than the complete dismantling of organized religion, those of us that live in the real world prefer to focus time and energy on bringing together as many people as possible to face the immediate threats facing our society, such as pandemics and climate catastrophes. By working to resolve conflicts over science, Craig, Swamidass, Collins, and others are striking at one of the biggest planks that divides us.

For this reason, I applaud Craig for the courage it took to stake his position so publicly. As he explains so well, Christians can feel safe and secure in celebrating the fascinating science of human evolution. They may even see it as divine."

Full review
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.

More generally, tying anything important -- humanity, or sin -- to physical descent but not to genetics (as Swamidass does) strikes me as misguided. Making it dependent on physical descent puts it in the realm of science, while divorcing it from genetics removes the only plausible physical mechanism available. It also strikes me as terrible theology, as it cuts against the entire New Testament emphasis on spiritual descent and adoption as being far more important than physical descent.

Hoping its not taken as a derail-but to me, the original sin / fallen
world thing makes God out to be the most cruel vengeful and unjust
sort of monster one could readily imagine.

But I think I see why the church had to invent it,
to explain the horrors of real life in a world made by
a perfect god.
 
Upvote 0