Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.

First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.

Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.

Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.

All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.

My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.

Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?

Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.

This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.

This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: mlb45

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Job and his three friends seemed to believe that there was one man first.

My model does in fact affirm that Adam was the first man. If you carefully read what i said about the anthropology behind the model you'll see that I draw a dinstinction between anatomical homo sapiens and humans. My model allows for the past existence of non-human anatomically modern homo sapiens.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I don't see your model explaining God removing a rib from Adam and forming Eve out of it.

Yes, as I had mentioned I do not accept that the early chapters of Genesis explain events in a literal way. I believe it does describe historical events, but non-literally, using figurative language.

I would say that the picture of Eve being formed out of Adams rib serves to reinforce the idea of woman as "bone of my bone flesh of my flesh" and teaches us something of the spiritual relation of man and woman within covenantal marraige. And such covenantal relation is itself, as the new testament teaches, a type or figure of Christ and the church.

So i see a dual typology here. The picture of Eve being formed from Adams rib is a figurative literary construct illustrating the spiritual union ("one flesh") of man and woman in the context of covenant union (marraige) while this union representsd by the imagry is itself a type of the relationsip of Christ and his Church.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
What you wrote is very confusing to me. You had as to both Adam and Eve came from another existing population. Adam was created and from him - came Eve.

The key to understanding this is to affirm that Genesis is historical, but that it does not necessarily describe historical events in a literal way. Regarding Eve coming from Adam i put forth my view of that in my last post.

As for the preexisting population, remember that the demarcation line between Adam and Eve and the population from which they emerged biologically is the infusion of a spirit or spiritual nature, in other words the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Yes, as I had mentioned I do not accept that the early chapters of Genesis explain events in a literal way. I believe it does describe historical events, but non-literally, using figurative language.

I would say that the picture of Eve being formed out of Adams rib serves to reinforce the idea of woman as "bone of my bone flesh of my flesh" and teaches us something of the spiritual relation of man and woman within covenantal marraige. And such covenantal relation is itself, as the new testament teaches, a type or figure of Christ and the church.

So i see a dual typology here. The picture of Eve being formed from Adams rib is a figurative literary construct illustrating the spiritual union ("one flesh") of man and woman in the context of covenant union (marraige) while this union representsd by the imagry is itself a type of the relationsip of Christ and his Church.

I guess if your plan is to make something up out of your imagination and regard the scriptures as figurative where it doesn't fit, then your story is as good as any other tale.

The other approach is that what you are told concerning evolution is a complete fabrication from those who are vested in and proclaim it as science.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HenryM
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The other approach is that what you are told concerning evolution is a complete fabrication from those who are vested in and proclaim it as science.

Each Christian is certainly welcome to their own view on this matter and its not a salvation issue, but we ought not to be immediately dismissive of science just because it doesnt fit with our preconceived interpretive framework. God is the creator of the universe as well as the author of scripture, so the two cannot legitimately be in contradiction. I don't think anyone who seriously and objectively looks at the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, especially the genetic evidence, can simply reject it as false.

I should also note that not even young-earth creationists take Genesis 1 completely literally. Ive yet to hear anyone insist that the sky is a solid-dome firmament where both stars and birds exist, with water existing above it. But thats what the text says. The text is putting forth a primitive cosmology that even yec believers reject. So even young earthers dont take the text strictly literally. If it cant be taken strictly literally, what is the issue with affirming that it speaks of historical events using figurative language?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Better argument than most for theistic-evolution. It's difficult for me to reconcile Scripture with "a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth" and "those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair [Adam and Eve] were rendered extinct."
 
Upvote 0

CrystalDragon

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2016
3,119
1,664
US
✟56,251.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't see your model explaining God removing a rib from Adam and forming Eve out of it.


It says in Genesis that the waters of the Earth existed before light/the sun/stars, etc. I don't see too many people bringing up that point. I think similarly to @ALoveDivine, that the story of Adam and Eve is more figurative, especially since I was passed down from generation to generation orally before being written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cearbhall
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
It says in Genesis that the waters of the Earth existed before light/the sun/stars, etc. I don't see too many people bringing up that point. I think similarly to @ALoveDivine, that the story of Adam and Eve is more figurative, especially since I was passed down from generation to generation orally before being written.

I didn't bring up that point because he started his tale with the timeline assumption that a form of man already resided on earth. Had it been more comprehensive in scope, I would have also brought up the earth existed prior to the sun, moon, and stars, the exact opposite of the evolution story.
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I should also note that not even young-earth creationists take Genesis 1 completely literally. Ive yet to hear anyone insist that the sky is a solid-dome firmament where both stars and birds exist, with water existing above it. But thats what the text says.

While I don't believe in YEC, I can assure you that this is NOT what the text literally says. There are many very significant problems with the "hard dome theory" that are not easily reconciled with the biblical texts.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Each Christian is certainly welcome to their own view on this matter and its not a salvation issue, but we ought not to be immediately dismissive of science just because it doesnt fit with our preconceived interpretive framework. God is the creator of the universe as well as the author of scripture, so the two cannot legitimately be in contradiction. I don't think anyone who seriously and objectively looks at the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, especially the genetic evidence, can simply reject it as false.

Evolution isn't science. It can't be observed, tested, or repeated. It's a storyline created around the same evidence that creationists use.

And yes, the two can't be in contradiction, which is why it's stunning that so many just follow it blindly and force the scriptures to bend to its will.

I should also note that not even young-earth creationists take Genesis 1 completely literally. Ive yet to hear anyone insist that the sky is a solid-dome firmament where both stars and birds exist, with water existing above it. But thats what the text says. The text is putting forth a primitive cosmology that even yec believers reject. So even young earthers dont take the text strictly literally. If it cant be taken strictly literally, what is the issue with affirming that it speaks of historical events using figurative language?

You might be surprised just how many hold that cosmology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Evolution isn't science. It can't be observed, tested, or repeated.
Thats simply dead wrong. It is science and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The genetic evidence is especially overwhelming.

That said it is important to distinguish between the science of evolution and he philosophy of darwinism. Darwinism asserts the emergence of biological complexity from random genetic variattion in a fundamentally unguided process. I reject the very existence of randomness and would assert absolute determinism in all physical phenomena.

Dont confuse the science of evolution with the naturalistic philosophy so often built upon it.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Thats simply dead wrong. It is science and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The genetic evidence is especially overwhelming.

That said it is important to distinguish between the science of evolution and he philosophy of darwinism. Darwinism asserts the emergence of biological complexity from random genetic variattion in a fundamentally unguided process. I reject the very existence of randomness and would assert absolute determinism in all physical phenomena.

Dont confuse the science of evolution with the naturalistic philosophy so often built upon it.

No worries. I won't ever confuse evolution with any form of science.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟11,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No worries. I won't ever confuse evolution with any form of science.
Well, I think you and I are at a dead end here. We're going to have to agree to disagree. That said, my thread is primarily addressed to those Christians who do accept the scientific record, mainly those who hold to Old Earth Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Well, I think you and I are at a dead end here. We're going to have to agree to disagree. That said, my thread is primarily addressed to those Christians who do accept the scientific record, mainly those who hold to Old Earth Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism.

You have no idea what I hold to, and I do accept science. But I don't believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise, simply because it isn't science. Rather just a fable in a science-like wrapper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HereIStand
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago
This starts off right away with this error, directly contradicting all that God's Word says.
There is really and honestly no way to reconcile this, and no reason to.
 
Upvote 0