A couple months ago I posted a short review of Jack Collins’ book on Adam and Eve. I was largely positive about the book, but offered some criticisms at the end. Several weeks later Jack raised some concerns with my critiques. We exchanged several emails which add clarity and correction to my original post.
In the end, I would not make the tent of acceptable interpretation on Adam and Eve as wide as Dr. Collins, but that doesn’t mean he has personally moved away from the “traditional” view. I’m thankful for this kind of conversation which can clarify differences and point to areas of agreement. Read our exchange and see what you think.
I am posting these emails below with his permission.
[Note: The first couple emails were through a mutual friend so we are speaking of each other in the third person.]
*******
Collins #1
Not sure if it is worth correcting, but I consider Kevin’s cautionary note to contain several factual and logical errors, which I think should be corrected or at least challenged.
For example, I do not “follow Stott,” I offer a critique of him! Second, I specifically say that Kidner’s view is not polygenesis, it is rather a modified monogenesis. If he thinks otherwise he should defend his position. Third, he calls the view of Adam as the first member of Homo “traditional”: this is a bit of a stretch, given (1) the recent nature of thinking about other members of Homo; (2) the arbitrariness of genus assignments in fossils. Besides, I don’t “dismiss” it, I offer a reason why it has problems.
He gives the impression that he is uncomfortable with my setting out of guidelines as opposed to offering a specific scenario as if that would decisively affirm the historical value of the Bible.
*******
DeYoung #1
I respect Jack a lot and have benefited from his books. And I am very thankful for his defense of the historicity of Adam and Eve. If I’ve made any mistakes I’ll be happy to correct them.
Jack mentions four areas where he thinks I’ve made factual or logical errors.
1. He doesn’t follow Stott; he critiques him.
2. He doesn’t call Kidner’s view polygenesis but a modified monogenesis.
3. It’s a stretch to say that Adam as homo is the traditional view.
4. He doesn’t dismiss this view; he only offers a reason why it has problems.
For ease of reference, here’s the paragraph of mine that Jack objects to:
As much as I appreciated this book—its scholarship, its honesty, its pastoral touch–I have one caution. I was surprised to see Collins quickly dismiss (in one paragraph) the traditional view that Adam and Eve were the first members of the genus Homo (122). Although he believes Adam and Eve were historical persons and the result of “special creation,” he seems very open to the idea (following Stott and Kidner) that Adam and Eve were created from existing hominids and somewhat open to some form of polygenesis (i.e., the original population size of the earth included more than just Adam and Eve). In the end, Collins leaves a number of important questions unanswered, which made an otherwise good book less satisfying.
Let me try to respond to his four concerns.
First, Jack is right: he mainly offers a critique of Stott, concluding that his proposal is “less attractive” (124). But in my defense, I mentioned Stott to give Collins some “cover.” I wanted the reader to see that Collins openness to refurbish existing hominids is not original to him. Collins talks about Stott’s view of “pre-Adamic hominids” (123; see 124 for a reference to Kidner and refurbishing hominids). What Jack objects to is the Neolithic setting Stott suggests. I could have been clearer that Collins does not approve of Stott’s overall proposal, but I think it’s fair to say he is open to the idea that Adam and Even were created from existing hominids like Stott was.
Second, I do not call Kidner’s view “polygenesis.” Rather, I conclude that Collins, following Kidner, is “open to some form of polygenesis.” It’s true that Collins calls Kidner’s view “a modified monogenesis” (130). I can correct my paragraph to reflect this preferred nomenclature. But in my opinion what Collins calls “a modified monogenesis” is still a form of polygenesis. Even in the modified form, the original population size of the earth included more than Adam and Eve. Collins considers it “modified monogenesis” (I think) because Adam would still be seen as the representative of a single tribe (121). He says that “some may call this a form of ‘polygenesis,’ but this is quite distinct from the more conventional, and unacceptable, kind” (121). So it appears that Collins (and Kidner before him) is open to a form of polygenesis but in order to distinguish this view from unacceptable versions of polygenesis, he’d rather call in “modified monogenesis.”
Third, my point was simply that almost all Christians have considered Adam and Eve to have been humans like us and the first humans. They were not fashioned out of hominids or one of many original persons on the earth. Of course most people in history were not familiar with scientific classification of genus and species, but most people did not see any reason to consider Adam anything other than the progenitor of our race and the first man (Latin: homo) on the earth. This, it seems to me, can safely be called the traditional view.
Fourth, this is what Jack says about the “traditional” view:
An obvious scenario has Adam and Eve as the first members of the genus Homo. Some young earth creationists have favored this, as have some old earth creationists. A major difficulty with this proposal is that the earliest Homo is dated at two million years ago, and this leaves a very long time without any specific cultural remains in the paleontological record; this makes the alternatives more attractive. (122)
As far as I can tell, this is the last time he interacts with this view. It feels like “dismissing” to me. Maybe “dismiss” carries connotations of flippancy or arbitrariness. I didn’t mean to convey this, only that Jack quickly moves on to other options. He doesn’t just point out problems, he rejects the traditional “obvious scenario” by saying the “alternatives [are] more attractive.”
I hope this explanation is helpful and doesn’t sound defensive. I appreciate Jack’s comments and want to understand if I’ve made any mistakes.
Kevin
*******
Collins #2
Dear Kevin,
Thanks for the opportunity to interact a little on your remarks about my Adam & Eve book. And thanks too for the quick initial response. Here is the longer set of comments that I promised, although for both your sake and mine I will stay brief.
First, here is the paragraph in your brief review that drew my attention:
As much as I appreciated this book—its scholarship, its honesty, its pastoral touch–I have one caution. I was surprised to see Collins quickly dismiss (in one paragraph) the traditional view that Adam and Eve were the first members of the genus Homo (122). Although he believes Adam and Eve were historical persons and the result of “special creation,” he seems very open to the idea (following Stott and Kidner) that Adam and Eve were created from existing hominids and somewhat open to some form of polygenesis (i.e., the original population size of the earth included more than just Adam and Eve). In the end, Collins leaves a number of important questions unanswered, which made an otherwise good book less satisfying.
The reasons I considered this paragraph problematic revolve around (1) my own program for the book; (2) my purpose in setting out scenarios; and (3) the nomenclature of “monogenesis” and “polygenesis.” I am sure I could think of a few other things, but these will suffice.
(1) In the opening chapter I describe my program as advocating, not my own particular position (which I do reference, albeit in a footnote: p. 122 n. 31), but a broader mere-historical-Adam-and-Eveism. This is why I wanted to draw up some criteria for evaluating scenarios (pp. 120-21). I deliberately put aside a number of other issues, not because I don’t have opinions on them but because I intended to focus on what I saw as vital (pp. 13-14).
(2) On pp. 121-22 I explain what I am hoping to accomplish by laying out the various scenarios. I certainly have not endorsed any of them. Instead I am interested in fostering conversation. Certain folk have, in my opinion, been much too hasty in simply writing off any possibility of correlating Adam and Eve with science.
(3) The term “polygenesis” has historically been taken to imply separate origins of the different kinds of human beings. There have been “purely evolutionary” theories of this sort, as well as “creationist” versions — which have been used to endorse racial discrimination. In the John Starke interview I explained very briefly why I don’t go for any of them. Hence I would prefer not to be taken as supporting anything by that name.
I do not know whether I am “very open to the idea (following Stott and Kidner) that Adam and Eve were created from existing hominids.” I documented these positions, and gave ways for those who think the evidence points that way to keep within the bounds. You might not be aware that people like the folks at Biologos use DNA evidence that they think supports common ancestry between us and the chimpanzees as an argument for a purely natural origin of mankind. My goal is to show that, even if someone thinks that the DNA evidence pushes us to the common ancestry thesis (and I issued some cautions, p. 118), that does not entail a purely natural derivation of the first humans. And elsewhere in the book I offer reasons for thinking a purely natural origin is not worth considering anyhow. That is why I spend time refuting Denis Alexander, and rescuing C. S. Lewis from Francis Collins’ misuse of his ideas.
Derek Kidner (and John Stott under his influence) decided that the question of where the material for Adam’s body came from is far less important than the metaphysics of the process that produced Adam. I have no idea what motivated him to offer his own little scenario, since the population size approach was unknown in his day, so far as I know. But I documented the position, and explained what I see as some of its drawbacks, but also showed why it might help those genetically trained people who think that the initial population size of two is unlikely. Again, it is not my preference, but I thought it might help some people.
I do not equate the genus Homo with the Biblical “adam” (humankind). This is a point that I share with a number of writers, including Fuz Rana (Reasons to Believe) and John Bloom (Biola University), who are persuaded that Adam and Eve were most likely fresh creations with no animal forbears.
Let’s look at my paragraph that you cited in your note:
An obvious scenario has Adam and Eve as the first members of the genus Homo. Some young earth creationists have favored this, as have some old earth creationists. A major difficulty with this proposal is that the earliest Homo is dated at two million years ago, and this leaves a very long time without any specific cultural remains in the paleontological record; this makes the alternatives more attractive. (122)
It is true that I did not pursue any detailed scenarios that have Adam as the first member of Homo. I have heard of one or two, but these have come orally, and not in writing. In fact, I attended the Mere Creation conference back in 1996, and I heard a German researcher mention this; but when I looked at the published version of her paper, I could not find it. But I haven’t dismissed such scenarios; if someone can come up with one that overcomes the difficulties, let’s hear it.
In sum, I am sure I can be criticized for making my tent too big. But I can live with being called “too generous”!
With every best wish,
Jack Collins
********
DeYoung #2
Dear Jack,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. You know much more about all these debates and scholars than I do. So I’m happy to learn from you. I can see why you want to distance yourself from the term polygenesis.
Here’s how I see things:
When most people in the church look at Genesis 1-3 they understand that God created Adam as the first human being. God did not create him from some other kind of pre-human being or with some kind of quasi-human beings roaming the earth. Neither did God create Adam as a precursor to what we now call human beings. Adam was a human being who would have been very much like us (save for obvious ethnic, cultural, linguistic differences). When God created Adam and Eve they were the only two human beings on the planet. He created Adam from the dust, then Eve from Adam. Everyone else that has ever lived can trace their lineage to this pair.
This simple account of creation, without all the scientific terminology, seems to be what most Christians now believe and have believed through history. It sounded to me like your understanding of Adam and Eve would be different. But maybe you were just saying it COULD be different and still be biblical. Have I misread your position? I’m not trying to put you on the spot. And I’m not looking to post some “smoking gun” on the internet. I’m sincerely trying to understand. And I want to make sure I don’t misrepresent what you believe.
Thanks again for your scholarship. The church certainly needs men like you who are committed to the biblical text and the well versed in the scientific discussions.
Kevin
*******
Collins #3
Ah hah!
You wrote:
It sounded to me like your understanding of Adam and Eve would be different. But maybe you were just saying it COULD be different and still be biblical. Have I misread your position?
My understanding of Adam & Eve (at least my preference) is pretty much what you describe as the ordinary one. That is why I find John Bloom’s analysis of the paleontological record helpful (evidence of human culture). But yes, I am saying, “it COULD be different and still be biblical.”
