• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I do accept science
Does that include geology and cosmology? If you believe in a 6,000 year old universe you are in fact rejecting many interrelated fields of science.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
the scientific record
This "record" has never been correct, in terms of human or mankind's attainments.
As long as it violates God's Word, it is not even acceptable as a so-called "argument" for anything, other than the waywardness (wickedness) of men everywhere, scientific and otherwise.

The true and honest faithful scientists, if you care to search for a while for them,
can fill you in on the proper chronology of the earth,
and
it perfectly fits with all God has told us.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Remember I am only claiming to reconcile modern science with a literal Adam, not with a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.
Modern science, i.e. as society has it, is worse than a myth - untrue and used to confuse, deceive, and oppress the populations of the world.

The description of modern society in Galatians is very accurate -
that all the atmosphere in which evil society today dwells in and moves and has its thoughts, dreams, hopes, etc etc etc
is pernicious (deadly, seeking death for all/every one/) ....
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Compromising between the truth and a lie always results in a lie.
The Bible says that God created man on the sixth day of creation, evolution says that man evolved over millions of years. They can both= be wrong, but they cannot both be right.
Any acceptance of evolution is a rejection of the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Any acceptance of evolution is a rejection of the Scriptures.
Nonsense. Even Augustine didn't take Genesis 1 literally. In fact he gave a scathing critique of those who reject scientific knowledge on the basis of scripture, arguing that those people did much to hinder the gospel and by causing unbelievers to see christians as ignorant.

Im confident that if many of the greatest minds of Christian antiquity were alive today, they'd overwhelmingly reject yec and land within the spectrum of OEC and EC.
 
Upvote 0

ALoveDivine

Saved By Grace
Jun 25, 2010
972
228
Detroit, MI
✟26,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Yes. All modern humans are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Ive explained how that is feasible within an evolutationary framework.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
if many of the greatest minds of Christian antiquity were alive today, they'd overwhelmingly reject yec
haha, 'greatest minds'..... right...

All the ones in the Bible totally refuted what you've posted.
< shrugs >
Oh well.... believe the Bible, believe God's Word,
or not.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟391,083.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your suggested framework is a fairly common approach among Christians who accept the evidence for evolution. If you look at the forum at biologos.org, you'll find a thread right now on genealogical Adam and non-Adamic beings.

Two technical comments:

1) You might want to investigate "the image of God" in more depth. In particular, take a look at J. Richard Middleton's The Liberating Image, in which he makes the case (based both on the Bible and ancient Near East parallels) that the image of God means primarily an assigned function rather than an attribute. It's not a view that has to be in conflict with your proposal, but it might provide a different perspective.

2) There's nothing really special about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Every piece of our genomes has a most recent common ancestor, typically longer ago than the origin of anatomically modern humans. The only unique feature of mtEve and Y-Adam is that we know their sex, because of how those bits of the genome (a tiny fraction of the total) are transmitted.

3) The most recent genealogical ancestor -- the most recent person from whom all living humans are descended, regardless of whether we inherit any DNA from him or her -- is much more recent than the most recent common ancestor of parts of our genome. The most recent genealogical ancestor probably lived within the last few thousand years.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟391,083.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Evolution isn't science. It can't be observed, tested, or repeated. It's a storyline created around the same evidence that creationists use.
Perhaps you could start your own thread, in which you explain to scientists why what they do for a living isn't science. Your comments seem to be off-topic here.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,817
✟351,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

2Co_6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,818
7,835
65
Massachusetts
✟391,083.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
2Co_6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
What does that have to do with anything? You do realize that many of the scientists who have studied human evolution are Christians, right?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Well, you're wrong on that point. Evolution happened, and it is a field of science. Your belief in it is not necessary.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,487
10,855
New Jersey
✟1,337,962.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Mitochondrial Eve isn't a candidate for the Biblical Eve, even if it were possible that Gen is literally true (which it isn't). From Wikipedia:

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve.[10] This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as the Eve maternal mtDNA lineage becomes extinct. Her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, no longer have an unbroken female line of ancestors (daughter's daughter's daughter's … daughter) connecting them to living people.
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
930
Brighton, UK
✟137,692.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are a number of flaws with this. The biggest one being your acceptance of science's version of timescales. Did you know that carbon dating is based on the half life of carbon being 5730 years. Scientists got this figure by taking various sources of carbon and the age archaeologists said these items were, using those dates as a way of determining the level of decay of carbon. So for example, they took fossils and said these are 250 million years old so this is the state of carbon after 250 million years and that then became the state of carbon that they date as 250 million years old.

A few years back I saw an report on the accuracy of carbon dating. They took some wood that was known to be 250 years old, it was from something like a piece of furniture that was dated and the source of wood known. Samples of this were sent to 3 labs who returned results of 20,000, the second of 250,000 and the final one 250 million years. Carbon dating can only work if we have the dates right for determining the state of carbon were correct. It also assumes that carbon deteriorates at a consistent rate, but we have not been able to measure the radioactive isotope in carbon accurately enough to be able to prove this is the case. And I will only touch on the fact that god could have created carbon in different states but man has tried to falsely put their own meaning on why it is different.

So the whole basis of evolutionary evidence you are basing your made up theory on is based on flawed assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,772
✟138,525.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense. Even Augustine didn't take Genesis 1 literally. In fact he gave a scathing critique of those who reject scientific knowledge on the basis of scripture, arguing that those people did much to hinder the gospel and by causing unbelievers to see christians as ignorant.

Im confident that if many of the greatest minds of Christian antiquity were alive today, they'd overwhelmingly reject yec and land within the spectrum of OEC and EC.

How did Augustine die ? Did he know something Jesus didn't ? 1 Corinthians 1:25-30
There is a way Proverbs 14:12
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
930
Brighton, UK
✟137,692.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, you're wrong on that point. Evolution happened, and it is a field of science. Your belief in it is not necessary.
Show me one mutation in any living creature that is beneficial for that creature.

You cant because there are no proven examples of mutations that have ever been found. That is why we have the missing link, or in reality 1000's of missing links. For evolution to work mutations are required which benefit the animal, but scientists have never found one and every mutation ever found is bad for the animal and usually results in it dying or needing special care to be kept alive (but wouldnt survive in the wild). Instead what they have is a number of different species and they link them together in an order they have devised and say one became the next with no evidence of the mutation that caused the DNA to change from one species to the next. Maybe rather than evolution it is just a sign of a common creator.

I have also met a geneticist who is highly regarded in the field and has been asked at times to speak at conferences addressing the top 100 scientists in the world in his field. He says he can prove evolution as its currently taught doesnt work but you need to be an expert in DNA to understand it. He uses the words that he can prove it is false.
 
Upvote 0