It's the definitive 'beginning' that's being referenced. The only way to sneak in re-creations is through Genesis 1.2. Russell's teapot: suppose an ancient holy book didn't say there wasn't a pre-Adamic race. As ridiculous as the notion is, people would believe it so long as the holy book didn't not say there existed such a race. You can't divorce the 'absence of evidence' bit from the conclusion Russell draws, namely, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in all areas except faith! (Emphasis his.) Or it's not mentioned because it didn't happen, which would have been Russell's point.
Sure, if we look to Scripture for statements we can actually use to form a concrete conclusion we go places faster, and the places we go are more useful. Hence if we want answers to questions like "should I worship God?", "should I have an affair with my secretary?" and "should I have a glass of wine with my dinner?" we can look to Scripture and find the answers "yes", "no" and "if you want to" without too much trouble. Hence if we were wondering whether or not to worship God we can look to Scripture and get a definitive answer. If we were looking at our secretary and thinking she's kinda cute we can look to Scripture to tell us not to go there. We can learn, we can gain specific insights. An appeal to the silence of Scripture generally doesn't seem very fruitful (hence my comments about the speculation not being a useful thing to do) although, for those inclined, it might be a matter of interest. Perhaps following the speculation will lead to something that is supported by Scripture, perhaps it will lead to something that causes the whole chain to collapse (the Scriptural version of reductio ad absurdum), perhaps it will be little more than the equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Which is fine for those inclined to indulge in such things, even if others prefer not to.
From what I can see of the Hebrew reshiyth I'm not seeing anything that specifically requires it to be an absolute beginning, in the context that nothing happened beforehand. The same word shows up in Gen 10:10 where it says "and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel..." Sure, Russell is making an absurd point to highlight that we can't just shift the burden of disproof onto others as a way of avoiding providing proof for an allegation. If we go there we can claim all sorts of ridiculous things are true simply because nobody can expressly disprove them. To be clear here, I'm using the teapot as an example to make my own points, which don't necessarily align perfectly with the point Russell was looking to make. My point here isn't to claim that absurd things are true based on the absence of evidence to the contrary, my point is to say that in the absence of evidence that something is true we cannot automatically conclude that it is false. In the absence of evidence one way or the other we can do little more than speculate and form an opinion on whether the theory in question is something that sounds plausible. How much time and effort we put into such speculation will be a function of some combination of what impact it has on our lives, what we might do to identify evidence that might help us decide, and perhaps our inclination to indulge in cerebral gymnastics. Some simplistic examples here - if I claim I have wild turkeys living at the end of my garden you may be surprised at the thought but then consider that over the years you've "known" me online I don't have a habit of telling barefaced lies, and on that basis conclude it's at least possible I do have turkeys in my yard. If I claim to have seen a unicorn in my back yard you may use the same reasoning process to conclude that I probably saw something I believed was a unicorn but combine that with your (presumed) belief in the non-existence of unicorns to conclude that I was probably mistaken in what I saw, even if you did give me the benefit of the doubt and conclude that I wasn't out to intentionally mislead. On the other hand if a random person on Faceache claimed to have seen a unicorn in their back yard you'd probably write them off as some kind of internet troll. In all three situations you have no direct proof of the truth or otherwise of the claims made so you assess them using whatever other criteria appear appropriate. None of the claims make any particular difference to your life, barring the provision that if you decided to accept my account of seeing a unicorn you may need to rethink your (presumed) belief in the non-existence of unicorns (and some might say you would need to rethink your beliefs in the existence or otherwise of other mythological creatures) but even that is unlikely to have a significant impact - even if you were to suddenly accept that one or more unicorns, dragons, mermaids etc exist your day-to-day experience of never seeing them would mean they were of no more relevance than the Komodo dragons that are known to exist but only in isolated parts of the world. Russell's teapot is a perfect example of something where we can't prove the assertion one way or the other while also being a perfect example of something that has precisely no bearing on our lives. If the teapot exists its presence has no bearing on my life so I can safely shrug and file the theory under "don't know", with the subtitle "don't care". Of course if the assertion was that this teapot was somehow hostile and may rain thunderbolts down on the earth I may need to form a conclusion other than "I don't care", in which case I would consider what, if any, actions to take to protect myself from the alleged threat. In this latter case I may decide to spend countless sleepless nights worrying about what this mysterious teapot might do to me, or I may merely shrug and say it doesn't sound remotely plausible and forget about it. The idea of a pre-Adam race of men seems very much like a concept that has little to offer its supporters or its detractors much concrete evidence and so those inclined to indulge in such speculation have little to support their theories unless they manage to draw together a chain of logical conclusions that reaches something that can be explicitly confirmed or denied by Scripture. In the absence of such a chain those of us disinclined to indulge in such speculation can safely file the whole theory under "don't know" or "don't care".
Some further thoughts, looking at John Darby's synopsis on Gen 1 where he writes: He clearly doesn't make any claims one way or the other regarding pre-Adam races but points out that the revelation from God is to tell us what we need to know about God. Scripture tells us how God interacts with his creation. The lack of mention of previous creations in Scripture could be taken to mean no such creations existed or it could be taken to mean that, theologically speaking, such creations are of no relevance to us. Scripture tells us what we need to know about our relationship with God. The people who claim Scripture has the answer to every human question can be proven wrong by inviting them to find a passage in Scripture that explains how to do anything from brew the perfect cup of coffee to service a lawnmower engine. Servicing lawnmowers is of no theological significance and therefore outside the scope of Scripture. Scriptural silence on this topic cannot be taken to endorse servicing lawnmowers, nor can it be taken to prohibit servicing lawnmowers, nor indeed can it be taken as representing any particular stance on lawnmowers. For what it's worth I don't see any particular reason to believe in a pre-Adam race but at the same time I see nothing specific to use to explicitly support my stance.
You believe that people choose eternal separation from God, right? So why couldn't these beings ... demons ... whatever ... have chosen their current state? Judgment can happen by one's own choice, can it not?
I believe that people choose to reject relationship with Jesus, and as a consequence choose eternal separation. Judgment, however, is always at God's discretion, and never in the sense that we get to choose our ultimate end. What you're suggesting here would mean mean that our present day creation - called 'good', and 'very good' - is hell for a previous creation. That seems theologically significant to me, yet I don't see any Scriptural support for the suggestion; it's more John Carpenter (Ghosts of Mars) than Moses in the desert. We would also need to answer why these beings are able to interact with humanity in such destructive ways, especially if they're cursed, and under judgment (to be judged again at the end of this age?). Rather than purely speculate about the possibility, let's consider it: what is the Scriptural argument for this view? If there is none, then it didn't happen.
Reminds me of the SNL skit back in the 80's about da Bears where they discuss if it's little Bears against the Giants and whether it's a big Ditka or a little Ditka coaching da Bears.
Now I want a brat and cheese fries. And Ditka could beat 'em all by himself but he'd have to tie both hands and one leg behind his back just to make it close to fair.