
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
and
Jon Garvey on William Dembski’s Being as Communion
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:
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.
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.
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:
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:
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,
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.”
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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”,,,
And as the following 2017 article states, “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.”
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.”
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,
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.
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:
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.
Supplemental note:
“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
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’:
On my facebook post, Mark Moore commented thusly,
I have not yet read Garvey’s book, but here is a parallel view of how the Adam & Eve story may be understood: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/06/thoughts-on-genesis-1-4.html
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:
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 Amazon.com 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: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/jon-garvey-offers-suggestions-to-mark-moore/613.
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:
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,
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.
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.
Hi Jon, it is good to see you posting on UD again. Good luck with your new book.
Hi, Upright Biped. I may even post again on BioLogos someday!