The creation of Adam

1. I've discussed this before, but I'd like to explore a variation. If I stepped into a time machine and went back to Eden, just before God created Adam, what would I see? We can't say for sure since the narrative is sketchy, so there's more than one way to mentally pencil in the details, but here's one way.

2. I see a man standing in the garden. I'm not saying the figure is a man. I'm just referring to what he looks like. In reality, the "man" is God, who assumed angelic form to create Adam. In Scripture, some angels are seraphim/cherubim. But we wouldn't expect God to assume cherubic form. They are symbolic guardians of the divine throne room. 

Other angels are luminous beings. It's possible that God was luminous. 

At other times, angels appear to be indistinguishable from human males. Suppose that's the case. 

In that event, Adam was literally made in God's image. He was made in God's image when God assumed human form to create Adam. 

3. So let's say I see a man in the garden, although he's God in the form of a humanoid angel. Suppose he reaches down and scoops a lump of clay from the ground. He begins shaping the clay. At the same time, he multiplies the size of the lump. Like a sculptor, he creates a life-size clay figurine of a human male. He then brings it to life by breathing into its nostrils. The clay is transformed into a human body, and the human body is animated. 

4. I don't mean animated in the sense of ensoulment. I'm referring to biological life. The narrative is silent on the question of dualism. The primary biblical witness to dualism occurs in eschatological texts concerning the intermediate state.     

Answering Swamidass on Theistic Evolution

Ann Gauger has a 3-part series responding to Joshua Swamidass' review of the book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique:

1. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: A Religious Agenda?

2. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: What Do Theistic Evolutionists Believe?

3. Answering Joshua Swamidass on Theistic Evolution: Sketchy Science, and a Swerve into Metaphysics

I don't agree with everything, but I still think the entire series is worth reading. Gauger lands several solid punches. Here are a few excerpts:

Swamidass on human evolution

A Christian physician-scientist named Joshua Swamidass published a book at the tail end of last year (Dec 2019) called The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. Granted, I haven't read the book, but I've heard reliable summaries of its main argument. Indeed, from the mouth of Swamidass himself (e.g. see Swamidass' interview with Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity and Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy).

Swamidass' main argument is it's possible Adam and Eve were created de novo in the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, but at the same time there are hominids outside the garden of Eden. These hominids evolved through standard evolutionary processes. This includes hominids like Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and so on. However, after Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, they interbred with these hominids. Modern humans are their descendents. This in turn explains, for example, why there is a certain percentage (1-5%) of Neanderthal DNA in humans today. That's Swamidass' central argument.

This position raises several questions:

1. For one thing, are these hominids human like us? Were they created in the image of God?

2. If the answer is yes, how could there have been humans made in the image of God outside the garden of Eden? Did God create multiple humans in his image, two in the garden, but many others outside it? Yet these humans outside the garden evolved, but can one evolve from non-human to human (made in the image of God)? How would that work?

3. If the answer is no, which is presumably the answer, then these hominids were highly sophisticated primates closely resembling humans, but not human. So would Adam and Eve and their descendents have been committing bestiality by interbreeding with these hominids? Would Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah have been interbreeding with them?

4. Taking a step back, could these hominids even produce viable offspring with humans? Swamidass would have to say yes because that's how he explains the presence of Neanderthal DNA in humans today. So, are we part human and part beast? If one parent is human, but the other parent is a non-human hominid, then what would that mean for the child? Would they still be human made in the image of God?

5. Swamidass argues he believes the imago dei is not the best way to understand what it means to be human if the imago dei is taken to refer to something like a rational soul or human exceptionalism. Instead, Swamidass argues, he believes we need to take a "vocational" view of what it means to be created in the image of God. By this Swamidass means we might regard the imago dei as a God-given calling or role to represent God in the world. In addition, Swamidass talks about a third view of the imago dei known as the relational view, but he says this is the least common view.

In any case, it seems to me Swamidass hones in on the vocational view for the imago dei. I think he does this because that makes room for the fact that humans interbreeding with hominids could still be human. If what it fundamentally means to be human is a matter of "calling", then God can call hominids to be human too. I think that's roughly speaking Swamidass' reasoning. By contrast, if we say there's something unique or exceptional about humans, then that would not apply to non-human animals like Swamidass' hominids.

I don't know that I agree with these three ways of looking at what it means to be created in God's image. However, suppose we agree with this way of looking at the imago dei at least for the sake of argument. Why does Swamidass single out the vocational view? Why not all three at the same time? These could be three different perspectives of looking at the imago dei, all of which have some merit to them, but none to be favored over another.

6. If the hominids outside the garden are not humans, then they're akin to animals. They may have a soul, but would they be able to go to heaven? Perhaps only in the sense that God might allow some animals (e.g. pets) to go to heaven. But it's not as if they could be tempted, sin, and fall. Yet if we interbreed with these animals, and have offspring who are part hominid, then how would that influence Christian soteriology? Did Christ die for people who are half-hominid?

Look at it this way. Suppose humans could breed with other animals. Suppose humans could breed with dogs. We'd have dog-men. If so, then did Christ come to die for dog-men too? Did Christ take on dog-man flesh? Is Christ fully God, fully man, and fully dog? That seems absurd if not blasphemous.

7. Given Swamidass' argument, it's possible there are some humans living today who are not human at all. It's possible they could be fully hominid. Who were not made in the image of God. Nevertheless they look, think, talk, and behave indistinguishably from us. In fact, Swamidass mentions that's possible but it'd only apply to less than 1% of all humans. Nevertheless, they would still exist! And if so, then it wouldn't necessarily be immoral to kill them. At least no more immoral than killing a dog or horse or other animal if it must be done. Yet we couldn't distinguish between them and us.

8. Importantly, if we're the descendents of Adam and Eve interbreeding with these hominids, then we are not exclusively descendents of Adam and Eve. Rather we are descendents of Adam, Eve, and other hominids. This would have tremendous theological ramifications, no matter how much Swamidass wishes to underplay it.

9. All this relies on Swamidass' interpretation of the scientific evidence. Swamidass makes it sound like he's the only one who has the correct understanding of the scientific evidence. Despite the fact that there are other scientists who look at the same scientific evidence but draw different conclusions. Swamidass knows many of these scientists in person. He's well aware of their work. I'm referring to people like Ann Gauger, James Tour, Michael Behe, and Doug Axe.

Point being, there's debate over the scientific evidence. There are reasonable arguments to consider that some hominids could be part of humanity. For example, many have argued some hominids may in fact be human. This includes Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. See the book Science and Human Origins for starters.