If we concede that at least pre-adamic humans are possible,
that could be a key to reconciling the evolutionary talk about humans
and what we read in Scripture, but I'd never seen anybody do it.
So, let's talk about a little bit of science.
One of the things that you said a couple times
is one thing that surprise you as you read it in my book was just
how scientists think about the meaning of human.
What was surprising about it to you and how have you been thinking about that?
I just, you know, because of the... in my amateurish diet of
the discussion of humans and human evolution,
I just thought that they landed somewhere.
That, you know, we've got Neanderthal and the Denisovans and blah blah
and of course, now with the genomic research we know these categories
as, you know, non-scientists, that confirms these categories are real,
these peoples are real and all this stuff.
So I just figured, well, they've sort of mapped out this progression
and there's some sort of chronological line here
where now we're talking about humans like us.
I thought that was just settled, like they landed somewhere.
I mean, good grief, how long have you been thinking about this?
You ought to land somewhere.
And then to read in your book that, no, not really.
I couldn't believe this was a debate.
It really was very surprising.
To read why there isn't consensus is very helpful because then you learn,
okay, I never knew they had to think about that. I never knew that was a question.
I never knew there were two ways to parse this, you know.
So once you go through, I think that's very useful
in your book to see why this is the case. You can kind of understand, okay,
I can see why there'd be a lack of certainty on this or that part of the conversation.
If we concede that at least pre-adamic humans are possible,
I mean, Scripture doesn't affirm that, but it leaves this door open,
that that could be a key to reconciling this, you know,
all the genetic talk, the evolutionary talk about humans and what we read in Scripture.
But I'd never seen anybody do it. And I'm sure I'm not going to do it
because I don't have the science background,
but it was sort of this lingering suspicion that this might be important.
You know, it would sure be nice if somebody actually did something with that.
And so, you know, when your book came along, it's like, oh, okay,
I kind of know where he's going to go with this part of it,
but how does he get away with this as a scientist?
That's the part that was intriguing.
It's one thing to say, oh, there might be other humans,
but to actually take that hypothesis and then show how it aligns with
a legitimate scientific body of knowledge, that was something different.
I mean, that was another step. Well, I bet Josh is right.
He's quoting peer reviewed literature and nobody's been able to pick at the science.
So I'm assuming his science is correct and I feel secure doing that.
So what it's going to take for me to move is somebody using science
to critique your work, like successfully, you know.
And then for you to come along, yeah, I missed that or I missed this
and now we've got to massage it a little bit.
I mean, that's normal academic enterprise in any discipline.
So I'm content to just leave that content with you
and know that biblically on the other side, it's like, yep, if it turns out
that what Josh is saying here about the genetics,
that everybody's going to agree. I mean, there's no departure from this.
Then I need to presume that that is natural world truth
that resulted from God's plan, however that's conceived.
Because there's different ways you can do that too.
And then that needs to inform how I read Scripture,
not because I need to bend Scripture to science,
but because two things can be true at the same time.
Okay, I don't need to say Scripture says something when it really doesn't,
just so that I can accommodate science.
In this case, you can go to Genesis 4 and say, well, you can legitimately read it this way.
And if you do read it this way, it is reconcilable with the science over here.
So it's a scripturally defensible position, depending on how you read this passage.
And the reading of the passage is not illegitimate.
You can do good exegetical work, pay attention to what the text says,
and that door is open. And that's fine with me. I just assume that
these things can be true at the same time.
I don't see any reason why I have to pick one.