Q. One of the more interesting parts of your scientific discussion is the mention that scientists are not clear about how to define human. By “human,” scientists might mean anything from ancient homo sapiens to the homo genus. And these definitions may not line up well with how philosophers and theologians think about human. Explain for my audience what difference this sort of discussion makes and why it is important.   A. There is a great deal of uncertainty in... Read more

Q. Let’s talk about interbreeding between Adamites and those outside the garden for a moment. You seem to assume that over time, this interbreeding is so vast and successful that by the time we get to 1 A.D. all those outside the garden who didn’t interbreed but kept to themselves died out, or am I misreading your argument? Please clarify. And speaking of interbreeding, the majority opinion not only among Biblical scholars but also apparently in the eyes of the... Read more

Q. Is it enough to have peaceful dialogue with such folks, or do they need to be shown the error of their ways in a kinder gentler approach? A. Dialogue or show people the error of their ways? This is a false dichotomy. All of us, including me, need to be shown the error of our ways. It is only in true dialogue, across real disagreements, that we have any hope that any of us can do better. The most... Read more

Q. One of things I most appreciate about your book is that you take seriously the historical substance of the text of Genesis (and other Biblical texts) without compromising on the science. Science, in the first place was practiced all the way back to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton etc. by Christians. It is thus hard to understand to some degree the animus about science in general among many devout Christians, even to the point of rejecting helpful vaccines during a pandemic.... Read more

Q. I must confess that one of the things that has always bothered me is the absolute confidence many scientists and anthropologists, including Christian ones, place in their methods of dating. Even carbon 14 dating has a plus or minus that can be considerable, and furthermore, dating of stone objects is very iffy, especially if it is decided on the basis of: 1) the technology used to produce say a spear head (a technology which could have developed much sooner... Read more

Q. You have a very odd use of the word periscope throughout your book. For a while I thought your spellcheck was doing the same thing mine has done—changing pericope into periscope. Can you explain what you mean by the term when you talk about the periscope of Scripture, for example?   A. A pericope is an excerpt of text. A periscope is limited view of reality that comes with tunnel vision, like the periscope of a submarine.  So no,... Read more

Q. It sounds like you are arguing that there are several ideas that might need to be reassessed by scholars. What sort of reassessments are needed? A. That is right. If we are following the conversation in historical theology, The Genealogical Adam and Eve should provoke a reassessment of key revisions to historical doctrine by several scholars over the last century. To engage with science, many scholars rejected monogenesis by openly embracing the idea of co-Adamites in the present day.... Read more

Q. One of the ideas which is flagged as problematic throughout your book is ‘polygenesis’. Now I understand the problems with a certain view of that, which led to racist speculations about Ham, Shem etc. as the origins of different races, but I don’t see any problem with the notion of polygenesis if by that we mean that human beings were created in his image by God in various places on earth both inside and outside Eden. Why is this... Read more

Q. If you disagreed with William Lane Craig on such a significant point, why did you endorse his book? A.  Despite these real disagreements, Craig’s work is important. He is pushing back on overreach by theological revisionists at BioLogos. As a scientist, I helped Craig. He had good faith questions about human origins, and really wanted to understand. In response, Biologos claimed, falsely, that his understanding of evolutionary creation conflicted with the evidence. When the ruse was found out, they... Read more

Q. So why will some scholars still see value in an ancient Adam and Eve? Why do you think they take this path?   A. In view of reception history, an ancient Adam and Eve seems like a “wrong-turn.” It seems to have arisen only in response to an erroneous understanding of science. The monogenesis tradition focused on original sin and Romans 5:12-14. The doctrine is not grounded in the Image of God, but rather about humanness in the distant... Read more