Human evolution Intelligent Design theistic evolution

Jon Garvey’s new book argues that Adam was one among many early humans

Spread the love

The Generations of Heaven and Earth

It’s The Generations of Heaven and Earth Adam, the Ancient World, and Biblical Theology. Readers may remember Jon Garvey from his blog Hump of the Camel.

Joshua Swamidass endorses his book, which argues that Adam was one among many early humans:

New science has surprised many by showing, contrary to received wisdom, that a real Adam and Eve could have lived amongst other humans in historical times and yet be the ancestors of every living person, as traditional Christianity has always taught. This theory was first published in book form in 2019, but Jon Garvey, familiar with it from its early days, believes it helps confirm the Christian account of reality by giving it a solid foundation in science and history.

In this book he argues that the long existence of other people before and alongside Adam was in all likelihood known to the Bible’s original authors. This conclusion helps build a compelling biblical “big story” of a new kind of created order initially frustrated by Adam’s failure, but finally accomplished in Christ. This “new creation” theme complements that of the “old creation” covered in his first book, God’s Good Earth. The two together contribute to a unified, and fully orthodox, understanding of the overall message of the Bible.

Wipf and Stock, “About

Swamidass: “Summarizing a decade of contemplation, Garvey makes a provocative, must-read contribution to a new conversation about Adam and Eve. After 150 years of mistaken conflict, we now know that traditional readings of Genesis can be entirely compatible with evolutionary science, as long as there are people outside the garden. Garvey presses one step further, arguing that allowing for people outside the garden is helpful to theology, recovering the original understanding of Genesis. Evolutionary science, in this way, encourages a coherent and grounded synthesis of traditional theology and mainstream science.”

Are these claims really being made to help the theology or to help theistic evolution?

See also: Jon Garvey On Michael Denton’s Evolution Still A Theory In Crisis


Jon Garvey on William Dembski’s Being as Communion

12 Replies to “Jon Garvey’s new book argues that Adam was one among many early humans

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    First, “Traditional Christianity” has never taught a “real” Adam and Eve could have lived “amongst other humans in historical times”. Christianity has always taught that the creation of man was a de novo act of creation by God:

    Genesis 2:7
    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Secondly, Theistic Evolutionists, like Darwinists, simply have no empirical evidence that it is even remotely feasible to change one species into a brand new species.

    Scant search for the Maker – April 20, 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.

    Shoot, Theistic Evolutionists, like Darwinists, don’t even have evidence that it is possible to gradually change one protein of one function into a new protein of a brand new function, much less do the have evidence that it is remotely feasible to change one species into a brand new species.

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.

    With such a poverty of empirical evidence you may wonder just how Theistic Evolutionists, like Darwinists, can be so confident that a “real” Adam and Eve could have lived “amongst other humans in historical times”. Well, that false confidence of theirs arises from the mathematics of population genetics.

    Yet that confidence that Theistic Evolutionists and Darwinists have placed in the mathematics of population genetics to prove evolution has been a severely misplaced confidence.

    Dr. John Sanford has done yeoman’s work showing how the mathematics of population genetics actually falsifies Darwinian evolution rather than confirms it.

    First off, natural selection itself has now been cast by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics:

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.

    Secondly, regardless of whether Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists ignore this falsification of natural selection, and appeal to random genetic drift and gene flow, Dr. Sanford has now shown that. when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into consideration, then the mathematics of populations genetics falsifies Fisher’s assumption that fitness must always increase:

    Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down – December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
    A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it.
    Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,,
    The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,,
    The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes.

    On top of that, the mathematics of population genetics is based on the philosophical assumption of reductive materialism. That is to say, it is assumed within the mathematics of population genetics that you can gradually change one species into a brand new species by randomly mutating DNA.

    Yet Darwinists, and Theistic Evolutionists, simply have no empirical evidence that this assumption of theirs is true,

    Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014
    Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.

    In fact, directly contrary to the reductive materialistic assumptions of Darwinists, and Theistic Evolutionists, it is now known that “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
    The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
    In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
    ,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
    I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
    I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.

    On top of that, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinists, and Theistic Evolutionists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video

    On top of all that, the genetic evidence and fossil evidence is not nearly as conducive to Darwinian presuppositions as many people have falsely been led to believe:

    Refutation of human-chimp genetic similarity, i.e. alternative splicing, dGRNs- October 2019

    The Missing Link is still missing – October 2019

    Thus in conclusion, as far as the empirical science itself is concerned, I certainly see no reason to compromise my Christian belief that God created Adam and Eve de novo.

    Matthew 19:4
    “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’”

  2. 2

    Good find, News! I’ve ordered the book already. Last year Garvey published “God’s Good Earth” where he argues that “Natural Evil” is an entirely modern concept with no Scriptural or patristic or medieval support. Therefore when Young Earth Creationists argue that their theology is a better answer to the problem of Natural Evil (e.g. mosquitoes, tornadoes and plagues are a consequence of the Fall), Jon’s reply is that solving a non-problem, like extracting a tooth that isn’t decayed, is more likely to make things worse than better.
    Bit by bit, the recent foundations of YEC are being examined and found to be constructed of Enlightenment bricks. In my book, “The Long Ascent”, I argue that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have been wrongly conflated since the Septuagint in 200BC. When they are properly exegeted and separated, then the people of Genesis 1:26, are the co-inhabitants of the Earth with Adam in Genesis 2:7, some 30,000 or 50,000 years later. So I’m looking forward to Garvey’s take.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    I like Dr. William Dembski’s, who has a PhD in Theology as well as in mathematics, solution to the problem of natural evil preceding the fall of man. Dr. William Dembski’s solution does not deny that natural evil existed prior to the fall of man, as YECs deny it existed, nor does his solution hold that natural evil is basically just an illusion that is “an entirely modern concept”, as Jon Garvey has tried to argue.

    In his book “Finding a Good God in an Evil World”. Dr. William Dembski’s solution to the problem of natural evil preceding the fall is to simply say that, “just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward.”

    Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski – Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011).
    Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity” is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,,

    Did God Create Evil? (William Dembski) – video

    William Dembski Interview – Finding A Good God In An Evil World – (2011) video interview (death preceding fall – 25:30 minute mark)

    Finding a Good God in an Evil World – William Dembski

    And as Dr. William Dembski readily admitted in the preceding interviews, his rather straight forward solution to the problem of evil (Theodicy) requires that some sort of ‘backward causation’ be possible in the universe. That is to say Dembski’s solution to Theodicy requires that our present choices must have some ability to effect events in the remote past.

    Yet this solution of ‘backward causation’ seems to fly in the face of what many consider to be consider to be a ground rule of science in which it is held that no effect can precede its cause. That is to say, many people hold a deterministic view of reality to be strictly and undeniably true as a starting assumption in science.

    Yet, although ‘no effect can precede its cause’ seems like an entirely reasonable assumption in science, someone forgot to tell quantum mechanics that determinism is strictly true and that ‘backward causation’ is simply not possible in empirical science.

    As Eric Holloway recently noted in his article on quantum mechanics and final causality, the physical world is shown not to be immune from ‘final causality’ in that “particle A can cause an effect in particle B after the effect has already occurred.”

    Excerpt: Recent open-access research on quantum physics adds an interesting new wrinkle to this dilemma: Not only can two physically separated particles influence each other, they can influence each other through time. That is, physicists can extend entangledness through time.
    In other words, two particles that are chronologically separated can influence each other such that particle A cannot be strictly said to have acted before or after particle B. Scientists believe that this result can be extended to causal entanglement. That means particle A can cause an effect in particle B after the effect has already occurred….
    This state of affairs looks very similar to the final causality we discussed above. If the finding holds up, the scientists will have demonstrated that the physical realm is not immune to final causality.

    Here are a few more experiments along that same line,

    As Anton Zeilinger stated in the following article, “quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”,,,

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.

    And as the following 2017 article states, “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”

    Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past
    July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.

    And to drive the point further home, in the following 2018 article Professor Crull provocatively states “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,,
    Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,,
    The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Dr. William Dembski’s rather straight forward solution to natural evil preceding the fall of man, i.e. Theodicy, finds resolution in that, in quantum mechanics, it is now found that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    It should be noted that this solution for Theodicy also comports to the traditional ‘free will’ defense that has been given by Christians to the problem of evil,

    “God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.”
    – Plantinga

    The (Plantinga’s) Free Will Defense – video

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”

    Some people, despite what the empirical evidence is telling us from quantum mechanics, may hold that it is simply insane to believe that an effect can precede its own cause. But I hold that to hold to a strictly deterministic view of reality, in which the reality of free will is simply denied altogether, and all effects, including my own thoughts, are held to be determined by a preceding material cause, is far more insane than believing that my free will choices in the present may have an effect on the state of particles in the past.

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    That is to simply say, to hold to a strictly deterministic view of reality is to deny the reality of free will. And to deny the reality of free will is to unwittingly undermine all reason, rationality, and is to therefore undermine all of science itself.

    In short. in order to preserve rationality in science,, strict determinism, especially in regards to my own thoughts, must be false, and some form of ‘backward causation’ in the physical world, and even in our own brains, must be possible in order for the free will of the immaterial mind to even be possible.

    Moreover, besides the evidence from quantum mechanics showing us that “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”, evidence from neurology also shows that determinism is false and that we do indeed have free will:

    Do Benjamin Libet’s Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion? – Michael Egnor – January 15, 2014
    Excerpt: Materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they deny free will.,,,
    (Yet) Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious “decision” after the readiness potential appeared.
    ,,,”The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as ‘bubbling up’ in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.” – Libet
    Libet even observed that his experimental confirmation of free will accorded with the traditional religious understanding of free will:,,,

    Thus in conclusion, with these recent advances in quantum mechanics, (and neurology), I am quite satisfied with Dr. Dembski’s solution to ‘Theodicy’ in that it is far more theologically and scientifically coherent than the either of the solutions that have been put forward by YECs and by Jon Garvey.

    Genesis 3:6
    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

    Supplemental note:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video

  5. 5
    Jon Garvey says:

    “Are these claims really being made to help the theology or to help theistic evolution?”

    Hi. The simple answer to that question is that it’s to do conservative biblical theology, as my book makes very clear. Nothing in it favours theistic evolution (though since that’s irrelevant to the book, it’s not precluded either). But the case is made in detail that the author of Genesis very probably did know there were people outside the graden, and constructed his theological case on that knowledge.

    So zilch to do with evolution. However, as Rob Sheldon astutely points out (thanks for the order, Rob!), Genealogical Adam makes it no longer necessary to pit Genesis against the history we have from both the whole gamut of historical sciences and history itself, and instead to place the Eden account firmly within history, like the Exodus and the death and resurrection of the Lord.

    The Bible therefore shows God’s new creation project to be his action within the public history of mankind, beginning the transformation of the natural (psuchikos) creation to the spiritual (pneumatikos). There’s a glorious view from the summit!

    Blessings – Jon

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Might I just suggest that the two-population scenario for humanity (Adam and Eve inside the garden and others outside it) is not nearly as Theologically sound as you seem to have convinced yourself it is?

    On facebook, in response to your book, Mark Moore recommended his book, “Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology”, to counter what you are trying to claim about Genesis, i.e. ‘two populations’:

    Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology by Mark Moore

    On my facebook post, Mark Moore commented thusly,

    Mark Moore: “The idea of a Two-population scenario for humanity (Adam and Eve inside the garden and others outside it) is not going away folks. I have been saying it in a creationist context for three years now. This year two books which use the idea to promote an evolutionary viewpoint have been published which have the same idea. And in part because they are proponents of evolutionary origins for humanity, they are more widely acclaimed than mine. Regardless, you better figure out what you believe on this and WHY if you want to do apologetics. You need an opinion on the issue, and of course that cannot be an informed opinion unless you look at the case which both sides present.
    I have been pretty much begging people here to read “Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology”. So far as I know only two people here have done so, David Durham and Robert Hawes. One of them was kind enough to leave a five-star review on Amazon, and the other was from a nation which was not on the list of Amazon countries to post reviews but gave a very positive quote which I used on the back-cover of the new edition. I understand that it is not an easy read. I just think its an important one and more important day-by-day as the same scenario is advanced by those with more evolution-friendly models.”

  7. 7
    Fasteddious says:

    I have not yet read Garvey’s book, but here is a parallel view of how the Adam & Eve story may be understood:

  8. 8
    Jon Garvey says:

    On facebook, in response to your book, Mark Moore recommended his book, “Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology”, to counter what you are trying to claim about Genesis, i.e. ‘two populations’

    BA – are you sure you’ve fully understood Mark’s own position? His review of Josh Swamidass’s book (which sets out the science on which mine builds) says:

    I too, for scriptural reasons having nothing to do with evolutionary origins questions, believe there was a population of humans inside the garden and outside the garden.

    Doesn’t sound like he’s arguing against my position at all, but supporting it.

    Mark is a creationist. Josh proposes a specially created Adam and Eve (and has been No. 1 in “Creationism” at for several weeks now). I’m indifferent to human evolution (tending towards guided transformism), but think the Genesis text will support either Adam as a new creation or as drawn from the existing population, patterning Abraham in this.

    Either way, since I contributed ideas to Josh’s book, what Mark says about that (very positively) is likely to resemble what he would say about mine, if he should read it or review it.

    PS: you can find some interaction I had with our brother Mark back in 2018 here:

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Well thank you very much for clearing that up Jon Garvey. That mistake was totally on me.

    I certainly do not want to be advancing a Theistic evolutionary view point that I do not agree with in the least,

    Perhaps I would have done much better to recommend this book:

    Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

    I am certainly no theologian and certainly cannot get into the nitty gritty details of the Greek and Hebrew. All I can rely on is the plain reading of the text to make my case for the de novo creation of man by God,

    Genesis 2:7
    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    But., on the other hand, as far as the science itself is concerned, I can say with certainty that the scientific evidence purported to support human evolution is far from being as conclusive as Darwinists and Theistic evolutionists try to claim that it is. (See post 1). In fact, in my view the science unambiguously refutes the Darwinian view of gradual evolution of life on earth, especially man.

    But what irks me the most about Theistic Evolutionists is that, in the 12 of so years I have been following this debate, they have spent far more time attacking Intelligent Design, and defending Darwinian evolution, than concentrating on the actual science at hand that refutes Darwinian evolution. For all practical purposes, and in my experience, debating a Theistic Evolutionist is exactly the same as debating a Darwinist, save for the flowery theological language that is thrown in from time to time by some of the Theistic Evolutionists.

    On top of that, their theology is, from what I can tell, compromised to such a point that their god ends up functioning more as one of the dead idols of old, rather than as the living God of the bible Who created the universe and all life in it.

    Theistic Evolutionists may object to that characterization, but as the book I referenced above makes clear, I am far from the only Christian who has a severe problem with the theology and science of Theistic Evolutionists.

    But anyways, thanks again for correcting me on my mistake on Mark Moore’s book. I should have definitely paid more attention to what he was actually saying in his blurb on my facebook post. Again, the mistake was all mine.

  10. 10
    Jon Garvey says:

    Perhaps I would have done much better to recommend this book:

    Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

    It’s on my shelf (like a thousand or so other tomes of varying viewpoints!). The book’s dedication is to a member of my former house group, whom I’ve know for forty years. Like I said, my book has little or no connection to theistic evolution, but a lot to traditional theology.

  11. 11

    Hi Jon, it is good to see you posting on UD again. Good luck with your new book.

  12. 12
    Jon Garvey says:

    Hi, Upright Biped. I may even post again on BioLogos someday!

Leave a Reply