Jason Lisle, William Lane Craig, and the Historical Adam Walk into a Bar… (Part 1)

Last month, Jason Lisle of the young earth creationist organization, Biblical Science Institute, began a blog series in which he critiqued William Lane Craig’s recent book, The Quest for the Historical Adam. To date, he has written two parts in his series with more to come. Now, I haven’t written that much lately on either the creation/evolution debate in general or the specific topic regarding the historicity of Adam, but WLC’s new book (of which I have not yet read), has clearly caused an uptick in discussions online regarding the question of the historical Adam. Consequently, over the past few weeks, I’ve found myself reading a number of new online articles, as well as a few books, on the topic again. And, being me, it was only a matter of time until I decided to write a few more blog posts myself on the new material I’ve been reading.

In these next couple of posts, I’m going to focus on Jason Lisle’s take on WLC’s book. Like I’ve already said, I haven’t yet read WLC’s book, but I have read a number of articles on it and have watched a number of interviews he has done about it. I thus feel that I have a pretty good general idea regarding what he argues in his book. As for Lisle, I’ve read quite a few articles he wrote while at Answers in Genesis, and thus already had good idea of what his criticism of WLC’s book would be. He didn’t disappoint. In Lisle’s initial article critiquing WLC’s book, he lays it out in the following way: (A) He provides a quotation from WLC’s book, then (B) He provides his own response to that WLC quote. The article thus consists of six WLC quotes and six responses by Lisle. I’m going to follow that pattern by (A) giving the WLC quote in bold, (B) summarizing Lisle’s response in italics, then (C) providing my own reaction to what Lisle has said. Let’s begin!

QUOTE #1
Craig: What historical claims does the Bible make about Adam and Eve? And is belief in a historical Adam and Eve compatible with the scientific evidence?

Lisle responds by stating up front that the Scriptures clearly take Adam and Eve to be real historical people based on the fact that the various authors make reference to them. He then (correctly) notes that WLC’s second question is a bit odd. For example, if one was to ask if Socrates really existed, one would ask if his existence was proven by the historical evidence, not scientific evidence. Nevertheless, Lisle implies that WLC is really evaluating the Bible based on what is scientifically possible and then brings up the example of Jesus’ resurrection to show that WLC is being inconsistent. Presumably WLC believes Jesus rose from the dead, despite the fact that such a thing goes against science, so why does he treat claims of the historicity of Adam differently? Lisle then says he knows why—WLC already has accepted the secular story of origins, which really isn’t scientific at all.

ME: Lisle actually makes a good point up front, in that it is odd that WLC seems to be seeking scientific evidence to substantiate a question of historicity. In fact, this is similar to something that irks me a bit when I read Evangelical books that wrestle with the historicity of Adam—the starting point always seems to come at the question through the lens of science. Now, obviously, there is nothing wrong with science, but when you ask questions about the historicity of a figure in a given text, asking scientific questions is an odd place to start. I think there are two more basic questions to ask: (1) Are there clear historical indicators within the text that can be substantiated historically? And (2) What is the genre of the given text?

Of course, my response to those two questions is polar opposite to what Lisle’s answers will be. Case in point—Lisle’s attempt to equate the question of the historicity of Adam with the resurrection claims of Jesus in the Gospels. Lisle’s logic is along the lines of, “If we should question the historicity of Adam based on modern scientific findings, then why shouldn’t we question the reality of Jesus’ resurrection?” To that, I’d say two things. First, modern science and genetics has convincingly shown that the entire human race did not descend from a single couple a mere 6,000 years ago. Second, the claim of Jesus’ resurrection is found in the Gospels which are in the genre of ancient historical biography—it is presented as history, and there are a host of items throughout the Gospels that are provably historical. By contrast, Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of ancient Near Eastern myth (something Lisle will contest) and there simply isn’t much (if anything) in Genesis 1-11 that is provably historical.

QUOTE #2
Craig: In order to avoid the pitfalls of reading contemporary science into the biblical texts, it is best to treat these questions separately.

Lisle says he actually agrees, but then says that WLC isn’t really doing this. Lisle says there’s no question that the authors of the Bible (and God, the Divine Author Himself) thought of Genesis anything other than literal history. And then he says WLC is wrong for not seeing that “contemporary science” is nothing more than “secular, materialistic speculation about the past,” and goes on to claim that the kind of science one can do in a lab actually is “consistent with the literal history recorded in Genesis.”

ME: Here in Lisle’s second response, we find the start of a recurring claim he makes, over and over again. Yes, WLC, Lisle, and me are all in agreement: the proper reading of the biblical text is a separate question than the scientific question of origins. But when Lisle then simply asserts that Genesis is literal history once, and then a second time that literal history is recorded in Genesis, I have to say that repeating that assertion does not make it true. Not only that, but Lisle (and I see a lot of YECists do this) immediately conflates the genre of Genesis 1-11 with the genre of the rest of Genesis 12-50. Any competent reading of Genesis will see a tremendous difference between the two sections, and for Lisle to conflate the two is either shockingly ignorant or purposely misleading (and I don’t think Lisle is trying to mislead).

What’s more, Lisle also goes out of his way to denigrate modern science and evolutionary theory by disparaging it as “secular, materialistic speculation about the past.” Since you “can’t prove it in a lab,” evolution is just a “speculative story” made up by atheists. Of course, I know a few scientists who will say you actually can prove quite a lot of evolutionary in a lab. On top of that, I can’t help but notice how Lisle, immediately after he agrees with WLC that we shouldn’t try to “read science” into the biblical texts, comes out and does that very thing by claiming that laboratory science is consistent with the literal reading of Genesis. Obviously, he doesn’t explain how (because he can’t, because it’s not true).

QUOTE #3
Craig: Only after having determined what the Bible actually says about the historical Adam shall we be in a position to judge whether those claims are compatible with what we know of human origins from contemporary science.

Lisle immediately jumps on WLC for assuming that modern science can tell us anything about the past to begin with. He says that science studies the repeatable way God upholds the universe today and that since the scientific method requires testability and repeatability, it cannot be applied to past events. Sure, it can be used to make educated guesses about the past, but we can’t really know for certain. In any case, those educated guesses, even if they are informed by science, “are not in a position to judge God’s Word.  The Word of God is inerrant by nature and is therefore superior to our best educated guesses about the past.” 

ME: Lisle’s response is why it is so easy to say that YECists are anti-science. When you immediately dismiss almost two centuries of scientific exploration, discovery, and evidence of the earth’s past and basically say, “Nu-uh! Modern science can’t say anything about the past!” what do you expect people’s reaction is going to be? Even when Lisle begrudgingly concedes that, okay, maybe science can give a little bit of an educated guess about the past, he immediately shuts that down by claiming the Bible is inerrant, thus implying that God gave us an eyewitness account and that Genesis 1-11 is history, and that settles it. I’m going to count this as the third time Lisle makes this assertion—and again, repeatedly asserting something doesn’t make it true. If you are going to say Genesis 1-11 is literal history, you have to point to something—something provably historical in the text or some indicator in the text that suggests its genre is history—to back up your claim. You can’t just continually assert it.

QUOTE #4
Craig: The stories of Adam and Eve are largely confined to the second and third chapters of Genesis. They are part of the pre-patriarchal narratives, often called the primaeval history, which make up Genesis 1–11.

Lisle’s response is quite short: Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, written exactly the same way as all the other history books in the Bible. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the author of Genesis 1-11 intended it to be read as literal history.

ME: We’re up to the fourth assertion without any evidence to back it up. Again, repeatedly saying that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative doesn’t make it true. And, sorry, but no—no competent reader thinks that Genesis 1-11 is written in the exact same way as the other clearly historical books in the Old Testament. So to be clear, the one thing that Lisle points to in order to try to show that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative actually shows the exact opposite.

QUOTE #5
Craig: Old Testament scholars have long remarked on the resemblance of Genesis 1–11 to the religious literature of the ancient Near East.

Lisle responds by saying it has only been over the recent couple of centuries that those claims have been made, so that it really hasn’t been “long remarked” by scholars. Besides, Lisle says, it is not true that Genesis 1-11 resembles other ANE religious literature—Genesis is historical narrative, and that’s different from pagan myths, and the details of events in Genesis don’t match the details of the pagan origin myths.

ME: We are up to the fifth assertion without evidence to back it up. Merely asserting Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative doesn’t make it true. Not only that, to deny the literary similarities between Genesis 1-11 and other ANE myths is beyond ignorant. Put the story of Noah’s flood in Genesis 6-9 next to the flood story of Gilgamesh—Genesis 6-9 is written like Gilgamesh! We can go through the rest of Genesis 1-11 and point to literary similarities with other ANE myths. Therefore, when it comes to the way and style in which Genesis 1-11 is written, if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck—it’s a duck! Now again, we are simply talking in terms of literary style and genre. That doesn’t mean Genesis 1-11 isn’t true. It simply means something that should be obvious—it’s written in the same style as those other ANE stories we commonly call myths. And of course, the details in Genesis 1-11 don’t match many of the details in the ANE myths—it is those different details that shape the vastly different theology found in Genesis 1-11. Simply put, the genre is the same, but the message and theology is vastly different.

By the way, the reason why scholars have only started noting the similarities between Genesis 1-11 and these other ANE myths over the last two centuries is because it has only been over the last two centuries that archaeologists have found these ancient writings of ANE myths. Basically, do you know why Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther never claimed that Genesis 1-11 was similar to the ANE myths? Because they didn’t have them.

QUOTE #6
Craig: Grand themes such as the creation of the world, the origin of mankind, and the near destruction of humanity in the cataclysmic Flood are present in both the ancient myths and Genesis 1–11.

Lisle begins by saying that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, written just like all the other historical books in the Old Testament and that it doesn’t have symbolism or poetic/literary devices. He then points out that in pagan myths, there is a primordial chaos monster, but that the Genesis creation account doesn’t have that. Pagan myths are polytheistic, while Genesis is monotheistic. Sure, those pagan myths and Genesis talk about origins, but Genesis is historical narrative, while the ANE stories are myths. Lisle then says WLC is confusing genre with content and proceeds to say that the big bang theory and evolution try to explain the origins of the universe and mankind in a way that is more like ANE mythology than the Genesis creation account. He even says the big bang theory is similar to the “yin and yang in Oriental origin mythologies.”

As for Noah’s flood, Lisle (again) says that Genesis 6-9 is historical narrative—God told Moses the details about it on Mount Sinai. The flood happened about 1,656 years after creation and when the people were dispersed from the Tower of Babel, they all took with them variations of the historical event of the flood—but historically accurate account was preserved in Genesis. We know the Epic of Gilgamesh isn’t right because the dimensions in the boat in that story don’t work, and besides, it was written as poetry, and Genesis is historical narrative. Besides, since Noah’s sons Shem, Japheth, and Ham were still alive at that point anyway, people could have gotten eyewitness accounts from them. Not only that, but the fact that we are given details like the ages of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) when their children were born further shows that Genesis is written as historical narrative.

ME: First, we have the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth instances of assertion that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative without evidence. Second, to say that Genesis 1-11 doesn’t have symbolism or literary devices in it is astoundingly ignorant. Third, again, of course many of the specific details in Genesis 1-11 are different than pagan myths. The reason why there is no chaos monster in Genesis 1 is because that author is stating that there is only one God and that no one is His equal. That difference in theology does not mean the genre of Genesis 1-11 isn’t myth. Fourth, do I have to state how ludicrous it is to say that the big bang theory is similar to ANE myths? And does Lisle even have any idea about the yin and yang in Taoist thought? No, he obviously doesn’t. Fifth, I’ve never heard the claim that the flood account was passed down by Noah’s sons who were at the Tower of Babel. Finally, I fail to see how the mention of the ages of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph prove that the flood story is historical narrative—but then again, perhaps Lisle is purposely conflating Genesis 1-11 with Genesis 12-50.

There You Have It!
Lisle’s conclusion simply restates the points he makes in his article. There isn’t much more I can say, other than this: It is a very silly article. In my next post, I’ll guide you through more silliness in Part 2 of Lisle’s critique of WLC’s book. By the way, do you feel you’ve really learned anything about what WLC actually argues in his book? I don’t. I’ve learned about WLC’s book from other articles and interviews, but certainly not from Lisle’s critique. When you offer a critique of a book or article, but fail to articulate what that book or article actually says, it’s not a good critique.