Academic Paper Gets Shredded Part Two

Kevin Harris: Are you looking for a deep dive into a philosophical systematic theology? Dr. William Lane Craig's Systematic Philosophical Theology, Volume 1 and 2A are now available. Subsequent volumes will be coming over the coming months and years, and your financial support helps make this possible. If you haven't picked up your copy, be sure to visit wiley.com, Amazon, or wherever academic books are sold. And thank you.

Let's go to this next section of the paper.^[1] They write,

. . . genetic evidence, biological evidence points to a population-oriented emergence of our species. . . . With modern genetics in hand, one no longer needs to rely on a mere comparison of the morphology of organisms to establish their descendants. . . . Considerable biological evidence rendering monogenism untenable has been already presented by Ayala and his collaborators,

Francisco Ayala is who they are talking about there. And so, Josh, they think it's a closed case.

Dr. Swamidass: Yes, this is an example where, I don't know, this is just very sloppy, because Bill and I both directly address this issue of large population sizes. We show in both of our books very clearly that they're making a logical categorical error. It's a category error by thinking that because the population was large in the past, that we can't all descend from Adam and Eve. It's just hard to read that and take it seriously. Moreover, there's major limitations on those claims that we've detailed. I think the reference to Ayala is a really clear tell. So I'm not going to get into the detail right now in Ayala's argument except to say that it's addressed directly in Bill Craig's book and an article that I've written, not in my book but definitely in Bill Craig's book by name, and he cites my work where we look at that closely. And so, if they were to say, "Ayala has presented these arguments, and this is how Bill Craig and Swamidass address it, and this is why they're wrong," that would be a valid sort of argument that we could then take and respond to. What they've done instead is they've cited people that we've engaged directly to show why they're wrong. And frankly, I'll tell you, most scientists who've studied this think Ayala was way beyond the science in that article, too. It is not consensus science what Ayala wrote. He's just cited that almost as a quote mine without addressing or acknowledging the fact that we've dealt with this in detail. This is the point where I am very tempted to call it just pseudoscience. This is not . . . at minimum, it is sloppy. It is certainly not rigorous, but I'm honestly tempted to call it pseudoscience. This is just not good scholarship.

Kevin Harris: They get into theology next,

The first line of argumentation in challenging the historical authenticity of Adam and Eve comes from theology. In particular, this concerns two aspects: (1) contemporary exegesis of the Book of Genesis and (2) reflection on the nature of the theological language . . . examples of contemporary literal interpretations of the Scripture . . . The literary style of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, often referred to as biblical prehistory, indicates its sapiential and timeless rather than historical nature. . . . The stories presented are elaborate metaphors, drawing their mythical elements from Near Eastern mythology . . .

Bill?

Dr. Craig: Let me address both the points they make here. First, the contemporary exegesis of the book of Genesis. These gentlemen think that Genesis 1 to 11 is wisdom literature. And that is a catastrophic misclassification of this literature. Moreover, they completely ignore the fact that I myself argue at length for a metaphorical and figurative reading of these narratives. I think they concern real people and events, but are described in the figurative and metaphorical language of myth. So it is beyond me. Again, I'm convinced they have not read the book.

Dr. Swamidass: I would also say there's a straw man here too, Bill. Several times they'll it's not merely conveying facts about the past. They're doing a sleight of hand. They're trying to claim that all we care about is the historical details that it's saying in some sort of chronological way and we don't actually care about any sort of theological meaning or genre or anything there. That's just not true. I don't know of any literalists . . . even Young Earth Creationists, don't read Genesis that way. What they're saying is that there is some historical content. There is also theological content, and there is all these other things too. No one is ever reducing it merely down to bare historical detailed facts. I don't know of anyone who does that. Do you?

Dr. Craig: Well, certainly we don't. Let me address their second point about the nature of theological language. These gentlemen have an anti-realist view of theological concepts. This is what they state in the article, "Concepts can never grasp the infinite Divine essence in a literal sense but by means of metaphorical language only." That implies that we could never affirm such truths as God is personal, God loves us, God created the world, God raised Jesus from the dead, etc., etc. Because those concepts cannot have a literal sense. This sort of view is not only anti-biblical but it's self-defeating because the claim that God cannot be grasped by human concepts is itself an expression of human concepts and therefore could not be true. So their view is literally self-refuting.

Dr. Swamidass: I mean, honestly, when I read that, Bill, the first thing I was thinking is like, you know, if I ever get a chance to talk to these two (I'll reach out to them with this podcast, too) . . . I honestly wonder if they affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus because it seems like their criticisms of historical Adam would apply just as directly to that.

Dr. Craig: That could be. I do not know.

Kevin Harris: They bring up the New Testament next, Romans 5 in particular, and cite James Dunn as interpreting these passages in Romans 5 as presenting Adam and Christ as typological representatives. Bill, you've written a lot in your work on Romans 5. So what do we think about this typological hypothesis?

Dr. Craig: Romans 5 is one of the passages that shows that Paul believed in and taught that there was a historical Adam. We know this because he says, and I quote, “Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” Fictional characters do not have effects outside the world of the story. Hamlet has no effect upon the world, outside of the play. But Paul sees causal effects outside the story world as a result of Adam's sin. And so even though you have a typology of Adam and Christ as the second Adam, Paul clearly thinks that Adam was a historical person who had a causal impact on the world outside the world of the story.

Dr. Swamidass: I want to make a distinction here that could be easily missed. What I think you're describing, Bill, is that there's a historical Fall, but not necessarily original sin. A lot of Christians . . . there's a lot of debate about original sin, if there should be original sin or not. Certain important traditions in the church just don't have that term in it. They don't really affirm that, but it's fair to say mere Christianity includes a notion of a historical Fall of some sort.

Dr. Craig: Yes, I'm glad for the chance to clarify that. I certainly do believe in a historical Fall. When I said that I don't hold to original sin, what I meant is the doctrine that Adam's guilt is imputed to us so that every one of his descendants is morally responsible for what Adam did. And then secondly, that Adam's . . .

Dr. Swamidass: It’s inherited guilt that what you're objecting to.

Dr. Craig: Yes, inherited guilt. That's what I'm denying. I don't see that taught in Romans 5, much less in Genesis 3. But I am affirming the reality of the Fall – that there was a primordial sin by which the floodgates of sin were opened and death came into the world and as Paul said spread throughout the human race.

Dr. Swamidass: This is an important distinction because you look at C.S. Lewis – sometimes he's put up as an example of a person who didn't affirm a historical Adam and Eve. I think that's actually a pretty strong stretch because he's very clear about a historical Fall. He's trying to make as much space as possible, but he's OK with there potentially being a larger group than a single individual that fell. But he's still affirming a historical Fall. That's actually deeply offensive to a particular strand of liberal theology, right? This idea that we're sinful and that we need a savior in that sense. That's actually what's underlying the strong opposition to it. And it really requires you to tell the story of the Gospel in a very different way. And that's why it's something that most orthodox Christians just reject.

Kevin Harris: Well, they really threw down the gauntlet in this next paragraph,

What is most relevant to the current discussion is that the metaphorical nature of biblical prehistory makes it interpretatively open. Consequently, the interpretative flexibility allows the use of science to verify which aspects of the literal text do not constitute part of the unchanging deposit of faith. Based on the presented arguments, it can be asserted that contemporary exegesis of the Book of Genesis does not support the historical authenticity of Adam and Eve . . .

So, Bill, it's pretty much ruled out.

Dr. Craig: This is the great irony of their article. They say that because Genesis 1 to 11 need not be read literally, science can rule out certain aspects as not part of divinely revealed truth. Now, I agree with them about the interpretive flexibility of the text, but I do not agree that science determines which aspects of the narrative are divinely revealed truth. That is a hermeneutical question that is to be answered by a study of the text itself. Now, in my book, I explain two reasons why I think we are biblically committed to a historical Adam and Eve. First, the genealogies that order the primeval history and include Adam and Eve meld seamlessly into the history of Abraham and the patriarchs, which are indisputably regarded by the author of the Pentateuch as historical persons. And then, secondly, as I've already mentioned, Paul regards Adam as a historical person through whom sin entered the world. And for that reason, I think we are committed to the existence of a historical Adam as part of the deposit of divinely revealed truth, even if the narratives of the primeval history are highly figurative and metaphorical. And besides that, I would also argue that science does not rule out the existence of a founding couple who were the universal progenitors of the human race.

Dr. Swamidass: I think this is ultimately why our work is so significant here because it basically calls out this sort of scientism for what it is. They're trying to make a theological argument against Adam and Eve, but it relies critically on a scientific claim that science has ruled it out, except that's just not true. If they're going to make the claim against Adam and Eve, I'd like to see them do it without these illegitimate appeals to science. Then we could actually consider it on its own terms, but at this point they have a lot to do to make it actually any sort of serious argument.

Kevin Harris: Next up they write,

This study proceeds from a faith-based theological perspective, which differs from strictly historical-critical methods . . . Concepts can never grasp the infinite Divine essence in a literal sense but by means of metaphorical language only.

Dr. Craig: I think that their claim to be pursuing a faith-based approach is one of the odd inconsistencies of their paper. Earlier, I mentioned that they are complementarians who think that science and theology are non-intersecting domains. But here they claim to be pursuing a faith-based approach to the narratives. Well, that's exactly the same thing. As Christians, we ask ourselves, "What is this text teaching us about human origins?" And having answered that question, we then ask, "Are these biblical teachings in conflict with contemporary science?" So, our approach is a faith-based approach as well. The only way I could think of making their claim consistent would be this way (I'm speaking now in their person, OK? I'm speaking for them): "We are pursuing a faith-based approach to this question. And what our faith tells us is that theology and science are irrelevant to each other. Our faith tells us that theology has no empirical content and therefore cannot come into conflict with modern science." That's the only way in which I could bring their complementarianism into consistency with their claim that they are pursuing a faith-based approach.

Kevin Harris: Scrolling down, they address your genealogical hypothesis, Josh.

Adam and Eve are not universal genetic but genealogical ancestors . . . attempts to prove or disprove Adam and Eve based on genetics misunderstand the theological focus of Genesis.

Their critique is,

While this hypothesis may help to preserve the doctrine of original sin while leaving the findings of modern genetics intact, it not only openly violates the methodological autonomy of science and theology but is unacceptable from the theological point of view.

So, can you synopsize your view for us, Josh, and respond to their critique?

Dr. Swamidass: Yeah, so I talk about Adam being fairly recent, but there were people outside the Garden. So our ancestors – there's a large number of them 10,000 years ago. Adam and Eve were two of them God might have specially created without parents. They become the ancestors of everyone. Now, what I find interesting about their response is three things. First of all, they acknowledge that that model is consistent with the findings of modern genetics. If that's true, why have they been saying that it's in conflict with science? I mean, what are they trying to say here if now they're going to acknowledge that, "OK, this is actually consistent?" Secondly, they say that it openly violates the methodological autonomy of science and theology. I think they need to explain why it violates methodological autonomy. It is legitimate to come up with a theological idea and ask, "Does science disprove it?" That's certainly what they're doing. They're looking at theological ideas and they're asking if science disproves it, and then they're going to be appealing to science and scientific methods to find out if it's disproven or not. That's all I'm doing. There's nothing in my scientific methodology that violates the scientific approach. It's starting from a theological question, but you're allowed to deal with theological questions in science that way. That's why even atheists endorse my book, because they saw that I was keeping it separate and maintaining the scientific integrity there. Now, in terms of theological methodological autonomy, I'm not sure what they're getting at, but they go on to say that it is unacceptable from a theological point of view. Well, I mean, it's certainly unacceptable to them. I grant them that. But – and I'm not a theologian and I don't pretend to be – but what I do know is that their view is theologically unacceptable to a large number of orthodox Christians. And so I just don't know what they're trying to say. So they don't like a historical Adam. A lot of other Christians do. I grant that. That's not really a criticism except for just stating what their position is.

Kevin Harris: They bring up next what it means to be human in this paper. We could do an entire podcast on this. They write,

While for Swamidass, a human counts as a genealogical descendant of Adam and Eve, for William Lane Craig, a human is an entity exhibiting human characteristics.

Their critique involves the difficulty of defining “human” scientifically and theologically. So, what about this comparison and contrast of your views and their objections? Bill, start off on this one.

Dr. Craig: I think it's a fair comparison, but they don't really respond to the enormous body of evidence that I present for archeological signatures of modern cognitive human behavior very deep in the primordial past, hundreds of thousands of years ago. They simply pass over that in silence.

Dr. Swamidass: I'd actually say this is a place where they're pretty close to being correct in representing us. Though, I would just say that when I say that human is a genealogical descendant of Adam and Eve, I'm meaning that for the purpose of understanding the doctrine of monogenesis. I think it's entirely legitimate to talk about human in other ways, too, and I would. I would say the people outside the Garden are fully human, for example.

Kevin Harris: Further down they write, quote,

Although the views of Swamidass and Craig on the origin of Homo sapiens are not explicitly opposed to science, they do not fully align with its methodological framework either. Rather than making positive scientific claims, they attempt to accommodate theological positions within existing scientific findings, arguing that a literal reading of scriptural passages remains possible.

So, is this an accusation of accommodation or concordance here?

Dr. Craig: Here is another inconsistency in the paper. They claim to be pursuing a faith-based approach to contemporary science, and yet they criticize us for taking a similar approach. They think that we need to be looking for positive evidence for a historical Adam, rather than asking whether the biblical postulation of a historical Adam is consistent with the scientific evidence. There's nothing the matter with our faith-based approach of saying, "The Bible teaches the historicity of Adam and Eve," and then looking objectively and honestly at the scientific evidence and concluding that this hypothesis is perfectly consistent with contemporary science.

Dr. Swamidass: I mean, it's also odd, too, that they seem to be thinking we're concerned about the origin of Homo sapiens. Neither of us are really talking about, are we, Bill?

Dr. Craig: I'm not.

Dr. Swamidass: I'm not, either. I think that they've really misunderstood a pretty important thing. And of course, our views don't fully align with science's methodological framework because our views about Adam and Eve, at least, are beyond just merely science.

Kevin Harris: Before we conclude, I do want to get to this accusation that you're just doing God of the gaps, the two of you. They write,

To propose that human cognitive capacities arose through supernatural intervention not only lacks empirical grounding, but also disrupts the internal coherence of scientific explanation. Such claims ultimately remove human origins from an interconnected framework and instead position theological affirmations as scientific hypotheses. This is an evident instance of a “God of the gaps” argument where theological assertions fill in the gaps of scientific knowledge rather than providing justification of why scientific knowledge is possible at all.

Bill, we've talked about God of the gaps a lot. Are you doing God of the gaps here?

Dr. Craig: I think this is nothing more than a smear tactic. Neither of us is trying to infer the existence of a historical Adam from gaps in the scientific evidence. Quite the contrary. We assume the biblical postulation of a historical Adam and Eve and then ask whether this is consistent with the best scientific evidence of paleoanthropology, genetics and paleontology. So this approach doesn't even bear a ghost of a resemblance to God of the gaps reasoning.

Dr. Swamidass: Not only that, it's exactly what they're doing. They're saying, "People think about a historical Adam and Eve, is that consistent with science?" And they think that it's not somehow, but we're asking them to show us what that evidence is. It is almost as if we don't agree that there's a conflict with science, there's going to be a big philosophical problem. But if we say, "Well, actually science doesn't really say it's consistent," then they're going to raise all these sorts of questions. It seems to be a bit of a double standard there.

Kevin Harris: Well, guys, this paper is 14 pages long, so we've been trying to hit the key points, but their conclusion is, in a nutshell,

Consequently, removing Adam and Eve from their theological context in Genesis and attempting to validate their existence through genetic science imposes an inappropriate interpretative framework on Scripture, significantly restricting its symbolic and theological dimensions. In theological discourse, decontextualization occurs when a metaphorical and doctrinally flexible concept is frozen into a rigid historical claim, undermining its ability to convey deeper theological meaning. . . . Literalizing the figures of Adam and Eve does not preserve biblical revelation but rather misreads its theological language, which was never intended as a biological or historical claim in the first place. . . . The theological drawback of defending the historicity of Adam and Eve and, thus, to preserve the literal formulations of the classical doctrines as well as of the narrative of the Book of Genesis is that such an approach to the nature of theological language is currently not a preferred option in theology.

That's a mouthful. It seems like offering anything on a historical Adam and Eve does not fit the current theological consensus.

Dr. Craig: Contemporary theology is scared to death of modern science and therefore denies that theology has any empirical consequences. In this way, they hope to prevent the falsification of their theology by coming into conflict with science. But in so doing, they have also made their theology irrelevant to the real world in which we live.

Dr. Swamidass: I'd also like to add one point to that, too. They say the consensus in theology. I think it really depends what type of theologians you're talking about. If you're talking about evangelical theologians that affirm the Lausanne Covenants or in the resurrection of Jesus, I would actually suggest that the consensus is on a historical Adam and Eve. I think they're talking about a different community of theologians, many of whom may not even be Christians, when they say that the consensus is against it.

Kevin Harris: Let's wrap it up with any further thoughts or loose ends. I must say that if I was in academia like you gentlemen are, I would find it nerve-racking for my work to be critiqued in professional peer-reviewed publications like this.

Dr. Craig: Well, what I find exasperating is not criticism, which I welcome, but rather misrepresentation. Their presentation of my views is based upon sloppy scholarship and frankly, I believe, ill will.

Dr. Swamidass: I think both Bill and I, I think we like a good argument sometimes. It's OK if they want to come at us. I learn from those arguments, too. I just would hope that they would do a better job next time. And in the end, though, I have to say I'd just want to thank them for engaging it and glad that they've seen it worth their time to do that and I hope the conversation can even continue with them.

Kevin Harris: Well, Josh, thank you for agreeing to be on this podcast today. It's been really interesting. And I'm delighted that you and I can stand shoulder to shoulder in this very interesting conversation on the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Dr. Swamidass: Happy to be here. Thanks for having me.^[2]