The author
Dr. Vincent J. Torley is an Australian Catholic philosopher. His PhD thesis was broadly on the topic of animal neuroscience and philosophy, specifically- he investigated a bunch of questions that might otherwise appear intractable, like- what are the properties associated with a "mind"? What are the feature that would characterize the most rudimentary ("minimal") mind? What creatures can be said to possess such a minimal mind? I read his thesis earlier this year, and found it to be extremely interesting- especially the parts on the forms of sense and memory bacterial cells can be said to possess.
Beyond his immediate academic expertise, Dr. Torley has written extensively on other topics in neuroscience, consciousness, human uniqueness, evolution, and so much else besides. His essay on human evolution, when it came out, was one the most nuanced treatments of the topic I ever saw. His conclusions about the identity of the historical Adam are now echoed by William Lane Craig, which speaks to the strength and prescience of his analysis. Also, on a personal note, Dr. Torley's writings have been deeply influential in the development of my own thought process as an apologist.
The essay and how it changes things
Recently, Dr. Torley has posted a mammoth 50,000+ word essay on The Skeptical Zone, where he argues for the proposition that the scientific evidence precludes the possibility of a historical Adam, or more generally- the possibility of a first generation of Adam's descendants coming into being at a "fixed point in time". In the essay, he has amassed an extensive body of scientific evidence to attempt to construct an extremely robust case against the possibility of a first such "Adamic" generation. I think this essay is an incredible service to apologetics: since it's essentially an aggregation of the most powerful lines of evidence against Adamic origins, this basically cuts out the work for all future effort in this avenue. I was both excited and relieved when reading this essay, as it manages to effectively crystallize the shape my human evolution project would need to take in the coming days.
Specifically: there are only a few shapes an Adamic origins model can take. You construct these models, flesh them out adequately, and then dip them individually in the acid of Dr. Torley's essay to observe the extent of damage. It might be that some models are burned beyond recognition, some others come up damaged but are still salvageable with modifications, while some others emerge unscathed. That's the exercise I'll be engaging in in the days to come.
A typology of Adamic origin models
Reading through Dr. Torley's essay, I realized there are five ways an Adamic origins model can be constructed, in terms of how they define Adam's uniqueness:
1. Adam's constitution is ontologically identical to other humans on earth. What makes him special or unique is not his ontology or capacity, but the fact that he has a unique honor bestowed on him. This is the view espoused by David Solomon Jalajel (see his essay here, and my evaluation here). I specify that Adam's "constitution" is ontologically identical to other humans because, Adam and his children's experience with God was profoundly different from these other humans. It's plausible to believe that Adam and his descendants, who had repeated, intimate encounters with God and His angels would be profoundly different from any other creature on earth, in terms of how their lives were shaped by these unique experiences. However, this is not qualitatively different from the sort of difference we see between two tribes or nations, where their overall constitution might be similar/identical but they might still have profoundly different views of the world because of their collective experiences.
2. Adam has unique capacities, different from any other creature on earth, but these differences are, in the grand scheme of things, subtle and not biologically tractable. This is the view defended by the Christian philosopher Andrew Ter Ern Loke, who characterizes the uniqueness of Adam and his descendants as
[A] unique kind of dominion that could extend to the whole world and over all kinds of creatures, and the potential for a sense of responsibility towards God for this kind of dominion, as aspects of the uniqueness of human beings.
Having read through Dr. Torley's assessment of the gradual evolution of different features usually associated with Adam, I don't think the sort of ontological uniqueness Dr. Loke talks about can be biologically tractable. For one, it doesn't say that every children of Adam would actualize this potential, but that his descendants, as a group, would collectively manifest a heightened sense of moral responsibility towards God and the rest of the world (and the dominion it entails). Again, it's difficult to see how such a subtle cognitive shift would leave a mark on archaeological and behavioral remains. Does a heightened sense of moral responsibility necessarily reflect more sophisticated tools? Or larger game hunting? Or any other interesting social innovation? It's difficult, at least for me, to see how. This is especially true given the fact that Dr. Loke's model doesn't even require that these features be completely absent among other creatures, because
[D]ifference in degree is a significant ontological difference beyond a certain threshold, and the threshold here is the capacity for the unique dominion and responsibility towards God mentioned above.
Again, all this model requires is that Adam's descendants, as a group, have a greater potential for a sense of responsibility (and the dominion it entails) than any other creature, without even defining how great a difference this would have to be. I'm using Dr. Loke's example, but of course- one can think of other such unique functional features of Adam that are nonetheless still too subtle to be detected by 21st century biology.
3. Adam has different functional capacities, and these differences are significant, but they are not biologically tractable. This is a rather unique view that I haven't really seen defended anywhere.
I mention this model as one possible option that we can pursue, not to endorse it (not at this point at least, until I've researched more). The motivation for this view comes from the realm of paranormal phenomena. Certain sorts of out-of-body experiences, particularly near death ones, give the impression that the human "soul"- however you may define it- is radically independent from the brain. Of course, we do require the brain for the mind to function in our embodied forms, but these experiences- if veridical- would show that the soul has faculties of its own, that becomes functional independent of the brain in at least certain circumstances.
 |
| A stereotypical portrayal of Near Death Experience |
There's definitely a lot to unpack here in terms of the evidence, coherence and interpretation of such a view- but it's not difficult to see how this view of the human constitution furnishes another model. Humans might be significantly different from other creatures, but only in terms of special faculties of the soul, which might not be biologically tractable (or might not even leave their traces in archaeological and behavioral remains).
4. Adam has different cognitive capacities, and they are biologically tractable. I guess the best example would be Chomsky's "merge" theory of the origin of human language. From reading Dr. Torley's essay, the view is somewhat like the following: human language has a feature- an "infinite variety of hierarchically structured expressions"- that's absent from the rest of the biological realm. This feature is brought about by a single mutation that Chomsky et al call Merge, and it's an "un-decomposable computational innovation" (an atomic ability, in the words of one researcher). Some Adam-sympathetic researchers took Chomsky's view to suggest that this shift occurred in one individual overnight.
Without commenting on the plausibility of this view- Dr. Torley suggests it's not plausible- this is how the shape of a "cognitively unique" Adam(ic descendants) would take. But again, I mention Chomsky as an example- but it's possible that this sort of uniqueness would be exhibited by other cognitive features as well.
5. Adam is unique in terms of cognitive capacities, and also because he had a unique physical form, significantly different from all other creatures. This is the most popular view on Adamic origins, found among Creationists of all stripes- both Young and Old earth ones, and proponents of Intelligent Design who are involved in human origins research. I also think this is the view that we normally, perhaps unreflectively subscribe to when prompted. We think of Adam's descendants as being unique from the rest of the creation in obvious ways: we look different, think and act different, don't interbreed with them, etc. Popular dichotomies like "man and beast" encapsulate this view quite well.
Of course, each model down the column can accommodate the former measure of uniqueness. A cognitively unique Adam is still unique in terms of the honor bestowed by God on him, for instance.
The further down the column you go, the more robust and substantial the "uniqueness" requirement of Adam's descendants become. In the process, the more falsifiable the Adamic origins hypothesis becomes, and Dr. Torley's criticisms get all the more acute.
Going forward
In the coming days, I'll be attempting to investigate each of these models in detail, moving from 1 to 5, paying special attention to the criticisms presented in Dr. Torley's essay. My overall project goal would be to see how many of these models can be satisfactorily defended given the weight of the scientific evidence. At the end of this analysis, I plan to present a list of scientifically viable models that a Muslim (or a Jew or a Christian, depending on the specifics) can plausibly adopt. I've always felt it necessary to have multiple solutions to a problem in apologetics, so you can fall back on one if others fail.
I'm willing to admit that not all five of these models would come out unscathed (or at least, scathed but still viable), but I'm optimistic that at least two would fare well.
