Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[mindlight]

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.

You are very trusting of what you think is the established scientific view. In practice the theory of macroevolution is not properly scientific e.g. demonstrable by repeatable scientific experiments. It is an example of analogous rationalisation based on things which we can demonstrate.

That said the biblical question in the background of your essay from my perspective is who did Adam and Eves children marry and why is there not any evidence of a single genetic ancestor 6000 years ago. If God had created a broader number of humans outside Eden at the same time as Adam and Eve (Genesis 2) as is implied by Genesis Chapter 1 then that would resolve this problem.

But then as you say we would have to look at what was special about Adam and Eve, what did it mean for them to be made in the image of God. You suggest a theological model for this which you can then superimpose onto what you regard as the biological evidence. The possibility exists that some kind of spark of intelligence originated in this special relationship which included language and conversation with God and each other which Adam and Eves children then more widely propagated throughout mankind.

Of course you realise this theory given what I said above could even be a young earth creationist reading and does not have to lend itself to an affirmation of evolution or even an Old earth as in Theistic Evolutionist or Old earth creationist accounts.

The problem I have with the view is that Genesis 1 clearly states that men and women plural were also made in the image of God. So there is something inherent to their makeup that distinguishes them from the beasts. It seems to me then that Adam and Eves history with God and in effect in-house training in the presence of the Divine might be the extra quality that they then brought to the rest of the human race if these were created separately and outside Eden. They also brought death and the fall with them.

If Adam is the first man because He was the first to be created, the first to know God and also the first to fall. He would be the one who in a sense activated the dormant humanity in the wider humanity that God had created in his image. This theory would then spare Adam and Eves children from the charge of either incest or bestiality.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1 doesn't exactly qualify. Can you not see the vast stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and, say, Genesis 12?

Genesis 1 is a straightforward linear account of the creation of the world. It is short, very concise and unambiguous.

Who says God even intended to teach science or give a literal chronological account of creation?

You realize that one thing doesn't have a blasted thing to do with the other, right? The Bible is not a science book.

And who exactly are you to pronounce what is or isnt heresy?

I do have my opinion, and in that opinion teaching contrary to the Scriptures is heresy. Or you could call it false teaching. Or you can call it expressing a wrong opinion in an authoritative manner. It all comes out the same. The Bible says one thing, you say another.

 

[KWCrazy]

I absolutely believe the fall was a literal historical event. That doesnt mean a talking snake seduced Eve into eating a magical fruit from a magical tree. The fall was a real historical event described in a non-literal way.

So what is your unbiblical story of the fall of man?

 

[hedrick]

Genesis 1 is a straightforward linear account of the creation of the world. It is short, very concise and unambiguous.

And wrong. I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology, global warming, vaccines. (Of course not all conservatives reject them all.) There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is. It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them. By turning it into a history textbook you miss its actual content. If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian. I don't think I'm alone.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

And wrong. I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology, global warming, vaccines. (Of course not all conservatives reject them all.) There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is. It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them. By turning it into a history textbook you miss its actual content. If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian. I don't think I'm alone.

I'm with you. Allegorical interpretation renewed my faith.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Curious: the name 'Adam' in the BIble can mean 'red, ruddy.' Apparently, beginning in the Upper Paleolithic period, humans began coating the bones or bodies of their dead with red ochre, a practice which became widespread for thousands of years. The biblical account says that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. Makes me wonder if this isn't rather a memory of earlier burial practices in connection with a RETURN of the body to the earth.

Adam was a gatherer at first. Gather cultures began to disappear in the Neolithic era. Adam's sons were farmers and shepherds, vocations that did not appear until the Neolithic Revolution. Adam himself became a farmer after the expulsion from Eden.

Jewish legends of Adam make him a fantastical character of mythologic proportions.

These elements are among some that lead me to the hypothesis that Adam was not a single historical person but an archetype of paleolithic humanity.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Certain things are taken for granted in the Biblical narrative of Genesis 1 thru 10.
Naming animals requires abstract thinking and language.
Loss of innocence presupposes conscience.
The sacrifices of Cain and Abel imply domestication of grains and animals. Cain's son, Enoch, built a city. This requires domestication of grains and resulting population increase.
Five generations after Cain we have the creation of metallurgy, musical instruments. The Bible indicates that copper and iron were smithed.
The building of the Ark would have required a means of measurement and some degree of mathematics.
Noah planted a vineyard. This requires the domestication of grapes.

Most of these things can be dated. Some are harder to date and rest on best guesses.

Domestication of grains and livestock occurred during the Neolithic Revolution, about 12,000 years ago (Cain and Abel could be no earlier than this IF they were the first.) In the Near East, this started in the Zargos Mountains, between the Black and Caspian Seas. The Indo-European language groups have their roots in that region. Anthropologists believe that animal husbandry and agriculture spread from here to Europe, India and parts of Africa spread from here. Egyptologist David Rohl believes 'Eden' was also in that region.

The first cities were built in Mesopotamia about 9500 years ago. If Cain was the first city builder, he would have lived this long ago.

Viticulture appears to have originated in the region of Georgia and Armenia about 7000 years ago. If Noah was the first, he could have lived no earlier than this date.

The earliest use of metal in the Near East appears to have been about 7000 years ago in Armenia. The earliest man made iron artifacts in the Middle East are from about 4500 years ago in what is now Turkey. This is the same region as the other developments above, but it much later than any of the others. Hard to see how Tuval-Cain would fit into this timeline. BTW, it has been suggested that the name of the Greek god of the forge, Vulcan, is derived from the Hebrew 'Tuval-Cain.'

Archbishop Ussher and many Christians believe that Adam was created about 6000 years ago. As you can see, there was already a lot goin' on by that time.

Now, doesn't Genesis appear to be 'general history' without being literally true? I am speaking specifically about the first 10 chapters.

 

[hedrick]

I'm with you. Allegorical interpretation renewed my faith.

What worries me is that it's like we live in different worlds. It's beyond just theological opinion. It's different history, laws of nature. The problem is that there really aren't separate worlds. The one we're actually living in is the one explained by actual science, actual history, actual medicine, etc. There can't be separate Christian science and history, without conspiracy theories.

 

[Job 33:6]

I did not want to explain Humphrey's explanation as it took a whole book to explain it. The issue of creating something with age is biblical. God did not make Adam and Eve as infants, but they were fully mature adults.

1Co_3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Again, I am astonished by the number of Christians who put more stock in the wisdom of the world instead of God.

You arent bothering with Humphrey's explanation, as no explanation can be given. And viewing Adam and Eve, created not from birth, but from clay and the other from rib, is an independent topic from whether or not the earth was created as an already aged planet.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think part of the real problem is that evolution doesn't need to be reconciled, it needs and deserves to be mocked, relentlessly.

It starts out with a guess that there was just some dense speck of matter that poofed itself into a nothingness then nothing acted on it and it blew up. It doesn't get any more logical from there. For some reason some of the matter collected in certain areas and started collecting and decided to spin. Some of those spit out other matter which also collected and started spinning themselves. Then somehow, on a ball of sterilized rock, there came forth the interaction of chemicals, and *POOF* magically, goo life began. Eventually, the goo became monkeys and those monkeys became us. After all, we are 98% genetically identical to monkeys, or so we're told. What we aren't told is that's 98% only if one ignores a large percentage of both human and monkey DNA and compares only a subset (in other words, another lie).

God doesn't need a matter speck to create. He spoke the loaves and fishes into existance to feed the masses, just as He spoke the heavens and the earth into existance. Evolution says no.
He says the earth was made before the sun and stars. Evolution says no.
He says the plants and trees were made before the sun. Evolution says no.
He says the animals were formed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first man was made fully fomed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no.
He says the first woman was formed out of the rib of the fully formed man. Evolution says no.

Let's face it, not only is it completely absurd, it's an idea designed to contradict God's word directly. It cannot be observed or replicated. It can only be inferred and then assumed to be accurate. In other words, taken on faith. It's a religion, and you can't serve both.

As Paul states, "Let God be true and every man a liar".

Biological evolution is covered in completely different fields of science than the big bang or even abiogenesis. Theyre independent fields of study. And with that, 99% of this post is irrelevant.

"Then somehow, on a ball of sterilized rock, there came forth the interaction of chemicals, and *POOF* magically, goo life began."
"He says the first man was made fully fomed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no."

What is dust but chemicals? Regardless, this again is independent of biological evolution. Biological evolution pertains to evolution of life that already exists. It does not speak on how life originated.

 

[Job 33:6]

Evolution is false! Evolution can only explain about matter and matterial but not about soul. There is no chance that process of evolution brought existannce of animals on this earth. God has created first soulful creature whose name is Adam, and God created him in his own image.

If evolution could create human from matter, then human is made up of matter and energy. If that is true, modern science would have created human with matter.

Evolution will not explain soul. Hence, it is false theory

The theory of evolution regards evolution of life (descent with modification) after life already exists. It does not speak on how life first came to be. It amazes me how many people have this misconception and conflate biological evolution with the big bang or abiogenesis.

 

[KWCrazy]

I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology,

It's funny that you include a theory of origins with actual fields of science.
I haven't seen any Christians who deny cosmology or archaeology. In fact, archaeologists have benefited greatly from the history recorded in the Bible.

global warming,

News flash: It's called climate change now, since there hasn't been warming in 17 years.

vaccines.

Only Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I know,

There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is.

Only the actual text, which I can quote and you cannot.

It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them.

I get it. You don't believe the Bible is the word of God. You believe that Jesus, whoever He was, was obviously mistaken in believing that its words came from the mouth of God.

If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian.

Oh, I think you would be more like Christ, because Christ quoted Genesis and said "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" Nobody told Christ, who knew Adam personally, that Adam and Eve had evolved.

 

[Purity Clarity Parkes]

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.[/QUOTE]

I beg your pardon, however, God put mankind over animals (Genesis 1:26).
Would it make sense to make the ruler of animals an animal him/herself.
Besides, God made humans separately. From memory, Genesis 2:7 states that 'man' was formed from the dust of the ground. Symbolic or not, the dust of the ground would not refer to the womb of and ape.
Just food for the mind.
Purity

 

[AlexDTX]

You arent bothering with Humphrey's explanation, as no explanation can be given. And viewing Adam and Eve, created not from birth, but from clay and the other from rib, is an independent topic from whether or not the earth was created as an already aged planet.

The creation of Adam and Eve is the central topic. First, I used that example to show that God can and did create fully mature entities. Second, evolution is a direct refutation of the creation of Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve being the first created people, there is no need for God to become the man Jesus Christ. It is because of their sin that we all sin because we are all Adam and Eve. The perfect life of Christ creates a new humanity, one that is a partaker of the divine nature, and all who receive the new birth are Christ. For Christians who have the new birth to embrace theistic evolution shows a lack of understanding of the basics of salvation. Unless, of course, they are Christians in name only and do not know the Living God through the new birth. In that case they remain in their sins and their faith is vain.

 

[hedrick]

Symbolic or not, the dust of the ground would not refer to the womb of and ape.
Just food for the mind.
Purity

Changes between generations are small. They cumulate over time. So we don't have something like a modern ape having something like a modern human as a child. I agree, however, that trying to interpret Genesis as being somehow consistent with actual history is not possible. As you say, forming a human from the dust of the earth is inconsistent with what happened.

We have to face the fact that the Bible's account of that period isn't history.

 

[Job 33:6]

The creation of Adam and Eve is the central topic. First, I used that example to show that God can and did create fully mature entities. Second, evolution is a direct refutation of the creation of Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve being the first created people, there is no need for God to become the man Jesus Christ. It is because of their sin that we all sin because we are all Adam and Eve. The perfect life of Christ creates a new humanity, one that is a partaker of the divine nature, and all who receive the new birth are Christ. For Christians who have the new birth to embrace theistic evolution shows a lack of understanding of the basics of salvation. Unless, of course, they are Christians in name only and do not know the Living God through the new birth. In that case they remain in their sins and their faith is vain.

If the central topic is about Adam and Eve, then you shouldnt be bringing up time dilation and theoretical physics.

You are arguing from a perspective of scripture, in a way that is purely independent of any scientific understanding. I give you credit for standing up for Christ in a way which you feel is righteous. But if you arent fighting that fight on scientific grounds, then you are not in a position to challenge science.

Everyone in this room wants to fight for Christ. Everyone wants His truth to be known. If you arent familiar with the science, you need to be careful in how you speak for it. And likewise, for those who are not familiar with scripture, they need to be careful in how they speak for it as well.

As a scientist though, and as someone who is interested in representing Christ in a righteous way, for those who are boldly standing against modern geology and biology without an understanding of it, im telling you that youre going about representing Christ in the wrong way. Earth and life are Gods creations, and just as we ought to be careful in how we approach our understanding of scripture, so too should we be careful in our approach to understanding and representing Gods creation.

 

[AlexDTX]

As a scientist though, and as someone who is interested in representing Christ in a righteous way, for those who are boldly standing against modern geology and biology without an understanding of it, im telling you that youre going about representing Christ in the wrong way. Earth and life are Gods creations, and just as we ought to be careful in how we approach our understanding of scripture, so too should we be careful in our approach to understanding and representing Gods creation.

Yes, and scientists are not God. The creation is more than just the physics we can perceive with our senses. Science ignores God and the spirit world. Instead they come up with nonsense such as string theory and multiverses.

The title of this thread is "Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation". The topic is Adam. The poster of the thread, ALoveDivine, is trying to reconcile evolution with the creation of Adam. I am on topic. The topic is not about science. The writer is trying to incorporate the thinking of the world into Scripture. They are antithetical.

But I really have no more interest in this discussion. I am done with it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, and scientists are not God. The creation is more than just the physics we can perceive with our senses. Science ignores God and the spirit world. Instead they come up with nonsense such as string theory and multiverses.

The title of this thread is "Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation". The topic is Adam. The poster of the thread, ALoveDivine, is trying to reconcile evolution with the creation of Adam. I am on topic. The topic is not about science. The writer is trying to incorporate the thinking of the world into Scripture. They are antithetical.

But I really have no more interest in this discussion. I am done with it.

And you are not God either. You are the one who is ignoring God in ignoring His creation and thinking you know His creation based purely on a personal interpretation of His word.

 

[Job 33:6]

And wrong. I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology, global warming, vaccines. (Of course not all conservatives reject them all.) There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is. It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them. By turning it into a history textbook you miss its actual content. If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian. I don't think I'm alone.

Exactly

 

[4x4toy]

So you DO believe God has fingers? Funny how you refuse to plainly answer the questions.

Shall we try again?

1. Does God have fingers?

2. Are the stars lights affixed to a solid dome firmament, above which is water?

There is no doubt in my mind , who/what carved the original 10 commandments , who/what wrote Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin on the wall of the Babylonian King . Who wrote on the ground while waiting on the Samaritan womans accusers and who formed/molded man out of the dust ?

2. God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and they are still being stretched out, can't you understand plain scripture ?