Reconciling Adam and Eve with Evolution

[ALoveDivine]

After a great deal of contemplation regarding the relationship of the science of evolutionary biology and population genetics with sacred scripture, and specifically the universal descent of man from Adam and Eve, I've formulated a "theory" of how these may relate. It is essentially a Covenantal Theory of Adam and Eve. I admit it is mere speculation, but I think it effectively bridges the apparent gap between evolutionary biology/genetics and sacred scripture.

1. Throughout biblical history, God deals with man by way of successive covenants.
2. God entered into covenant relationship with Adam and Eve.
3. Population genetics reveals to a high degree of probability that the population of homo sapien sapiens has not at any time dropped below aproximately two thousand individuals.
4. The bible clearly affirms the historicity of two individual humans from whom originate all modern humans.
5. Essential Christian doctrines, such as the universality of human fallenness, necessitate the historicity of this aforementioned original pair.

So what are we to make of these five points? I would argue that the answer is to be found by way of covenant.

The basics of the theory are as follows.

1. All life on earth, including human biology, has evolved by the decree and creative guiding providence of God as per the theory of evolutionary creationism.
2. As described by population genetics, there was in fact an original population pool of anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens likely to exceed two thousand individuals.
3. These "humans" though anatomically modern, were not in fact originally ensouled.
4. God in his providence elected two homo sapien sapiens, male and female, to be heirs of a divine covenant of works.
5. God sealed this covenant by way of the mystery of ensoulment, wherein he, in supernatural power, bestowed a soul upon this covenantal pair, thereby enabling the spiritual bond and freedom of will necessary to the relational essence of the covenant.
6. All modern humans are the genetic progency of this original covenantal pair, and are thereby heirs of this original covenant, whereby we inherit ensoulment, moral responsibility, as well as fallenness consequent the original violation of the covenant.

So basically, human anatomy evolved like all other life does. Yet all modern humans are descended from two elect homo-sapiens with whom God entered into a covenant, which he sealed by means of ensoulment. So Adam and Eve were two real individuals, from whom we all descend, AND we can embrace the scientific record of human evolution.

 

[Papias]

It's a great idea!

• It solves all related theological problems.
• It is fully consistent with the evidence from God's creation, found using science.
• It affirms and supports scripture, especially Genesis.
• It makes sense.

Also - it's not new. This is what I was taught in Christian School 30 years ago, and it's supported and taught by many denominations.

Despite that, it does seem to often be unknown to many Christians, especially creationists.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[FireDragon76]

Most churches I have gone to have taught that Genesis 1-2 emphasize an allegorical interpretation, without dismissing an historical one altogether. The bottom line is, I'm neither a theistic evolutionist or a creationist. I simply don't think it matters to Christian faith either way, I don't need to believe Adam sinned to know I am a sinner.

 

[theFijian]

I like your formulation of this, and have long held to something broadly similar. The only thing slight issue I would have is with your very last point. I agree with the necessity of the historicity of an Adam and Eve (and this is something I get from Romans 5 not Genesis 2) as it's the federal headship of Adam that makes him our covenant head, rather than him being our 'genetic' head. I believe that Adam's unrighteousness is imputed to us because he is (or was) our federal head, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as he has become our federal head.

Also I had thought it was unlikely that there were just two humans who could account for our entire species as we know it, I'm not up on the biology or genetics and could be wrong, something to do with genetic bottlenecks? So, if Adam is our federal head rather than by necessity our 'genetic' head, then this has fewer implications as far as the consensus on human evolution. ie. there may have been an early community of people(s) of whom God made Adam their federal head, but at this point I'm speculating and am actually more comfortable saying "I don't know"

 

[FireDragon76]

That's an interesting perspective. I am not a Calvinist so it is not something I considered theologically, but it does work. It depends if you think the whole human race sinned in Adam or not. If you are Eastern Orthodox or a mainline Protestant, you'ld probably tend to see sin differently- as a condition we are born into rather than a deformation of our nature. I've been heavily influenced by that type of theology.

 

[Sine Nomine]

A difficulty is the existence of biological death and even murder by the suggested non-ensouled humans about 430,000 years ago. This is at odds with the traditional genesis theology, no?

Second, the genetic evidence says modern humans are the genetic descendants of pre-modern humans (eg Neanderthal & Denisovian) and much of our DNA is essentially identical to Chimps, but arranged in a somewhat different order. Ensoulment is thus a difficult distinction biologically.

Third, the notion of body and soul as distinct entities is a Greek notion not a Hebrew one. Man becoming a living soul is understood in the Hebrew worldview to be equivalent to becoming biologically alive--although I would allow for some other understanding of a unity with God's breath that makes distinctions from animal life.

 

[ALoveDivine]

A difficulty is the existence of biological death and even murder by the suggested non-ensouled humans about 430,000 years ago. This is at odds with the traditional genesis theology, no?

I wouldn't think so. Assuming you're not a young earth creationist, you would admit that animal death/predation/violence predates humanity. If this is so then those homo-sapiens prior to Adam and Eve were doing nothing outside of natural bestial violence. They were not comitting moral evil anymore than a lion comits moral evil by eating a gazelle. Moral accountibility is a consequence of the Covenant relationship God made with those two elect homo-sapiens, the first covenantal and hence truly "human" beings, Adam and Eve. It is only withthin this covenant relationship, sealed by the "image of God", that moral obligation enters into the world.

Ensoulment is thus a difficult distinction biologically.

I gave an answer for that in my OP. Two anatomically modern homo-sapiens were elected by God to be heirs of a divine covenant, and this covenant was signified and sealed by their ensoulment, or in other words, their being endowed by the "image of God".

Within this paradigm, any person studying only the natural universe would only find the evidence of common descent by evolution. This is exactly the position of science, as we'd expect. For such a covenantal ensoulment would have been a supernatural intervention in the past and would not be open to empirical inquiry or detection.

Man becoming a living soul is understood in the Hebrew worldview to be equivalent to becoming biologically alive

Do all biological organisms have souls? The historic answer of Christianity to this question is a resounding "no". Humans alone are indwelt by a spiritual essence that transencds the material universe. Though it is also understood that the definition of being "human" is this inextricable unity of body and soul, two elements in one being. Hence the imortance of the reality of bodily resurrection at the end of the age. If only souls were redeemed, and not bodies, those redeemed could not be truly "human".

This notion of the unity of body and soul as definitive in human identity in fact gives more credence to the view I presented, as in its light we can see that to be an anotomically modern homo-sapien does not suffice to make one human, if that biological form is not indwelt by the "image of God".

 

[sfs]

I gave an answer for that in my OP. Two anatomically moden homo-sapiens were elected by God to be heirs of a divine covenant, and this covenant was signified and sealed by their ensoulment, or in other words, their being endowed by the "image of God".

Within this paradigm, any person studying only the natural universe would only find the evidence of common descent by evolution. This is exactly the position of science, as we'd expect. For such a covenantal ensoulment would have been a supernatural intervention in the past and would not be open to empirical inquiry or detection.

Does this ensoulment change human behavior? If it does, then it's open to empirical inquiry, at least in principle.

Do all biological organisms have souls? The historic answer of Christianity to this question is a resounding "no".

One could say that the historic answer of Christianity (or at least the western Christianity I'm familiar with) is very much "yes". All living things have souls, specifically vegetative souls, and all animals have sensitive souls. Humans are unique in having rational souls. That view, which is straight out of Aristotle, is the one that was held for something like half a millennium. Mind you, the Aristotelian soul isn't a separate thing that can exist apart from matter; it's more like the essence of the organism. What you're talking about sounds more Platonic.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Does this ensoulment change human behavior? If it does, then it's open to empirical inquiry, at least in principle.

Assuming ensoulment occurred approx 10,000 years ago, there are some data available.

Putative non-souled humans were burying their dead (a presumed religious observance) at least 90K years prior--this hasn't changed.

Recent evidence of human homicide from >400,000 years ago suggests murder predates presumed ensoulment.

Disease and cancer likely predate the ensoulment date, but the examples are limited and some not based on fossil remains.

Recorded history, agriculture, domestication of cattle, and cities most likely post-date presumed ensoulment and would support a behavior change although there are other explanations possible. Dogs however were domesticated sometime between 4000 and 20000 years prior to presumed ensoulment.

The early chapters of Genesis paint a reasonable picture of the cradle of civilization represented by the greening of the Fertile Crescent. However, the Indus agriculture sites are older by about 1000 years.

Would similar behavioral changes at geographically distant sites suggest multiple ensoulment events?

Assuming only 1 pair of ensouled humans in the Levant, this would mean that Indus and perhaps other behaviorally equivalent humans are descended from the non-ensouled. Is ensoulment transmitted biologically, bestowed universally with a unique pair being representatives, or do both types remain? The answer may be more problematic than the difficulty ensoulment is proffered to as a solution...

 

[pshun2404]

Biology Online tells us


http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html


“As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2x10^89 humans in existence today.


In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6,900,000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.

This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Biology Online tells us


http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html


“As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2x10^89 humans in existence today.


In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6,900,000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.

This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.

Please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126589 for details on the 400,000 year old murder victim. While they don't identify the species beyond being in Genus Homo, the choices are H. heidelbergensis (built shelters and hunted with spears) or H. erectus (made hearths, ate meat, and cared for the old and weak). The genus homo is quite old, about 5 million years. There are no apes in this genus. Based on the similarity of the anatomy, behavior, and brain size of the Homo species extant 500,000 years ago, I think it is fair to call them human.

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) existed around 200,000 years ago, not only 40,000 years ago--that information is quite old now (see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7027/abs/nature03258.html). The oldest complete genome we have from a "modern" human is about 45,000 years old.

To make the ensoulment (circa 10,000 years ago) argument, it seems necessary to posit that early 'humans' were capable of both compassion for the old and killing one another prior to ensoulment (sin nature of the flesh?). This raises additional questions about what exactly ensoulment might mean....

I'm not sure exactly what your point is about human population size and evolution. The evolutionary pressures leading to humans would have already done their work by the time of the emergence of humans...

 

[sfs]

Biology Online tells us


http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about22923.html

You mean, a creationist posted that on Biology Online. Not exactly the same thing.

“As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2x10^89 humans in existence today.

In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6,900,000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.

This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.

It is true that anatomically modern humans appeared ~200,000 years ago. Other than that, it's hard to find any factually correct statements in the quoted material. It's about as meaningless a calculation as I've ever seen.

 

[random person]

First of all, Adam and Eve were never immortal. They were made of dust afterall.

They died a spiritual death and separation from God.

Jesus died to reconcile us back to God. To reconcile us back to the "Garden".

 

[Sine Nomine]

First of all, Adam and Eve were never immortal. They were made of dust afterall.

They died a spiritual death and separation from God.

Jesus died to reconcile us back to God. To reconcile us back to the "Garden".

The position of historic Christianity is that Adam & Eve were created immortal and that in sinning the penalty was physical death. This is well-known and documentable.

Are you suggesting that the reconciliation provided through Christ, eternal life, is likewise spiritual and non-corporeal because Man was created perishable?

 

[Resha Caner]

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't see how this fits the Genesis account. Tradition aside, I don't see anything in the text that suggests Adam & Eve were the result of procreation and I see a lot suggesting God formed them directly from the dust of the ground.

 

[random person]

The position of historic Christianity is that Adam & Eve were created immortal and that in sinning the penalty was physical death. This is well-known and documentable.

Are you suggesting that the reconciliation provided through Christ, eternal life, is likewise spiritual and non-corporeal because Man was created perishable?

If they were immortal, why was there a "Tree of Life"? They were formed of dust.

They died a sin-death. They died a spiritual death and were alienated from God, in essence cast out of His garden and separated from Him.

 

[Sine Nomine]

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't see how this fits the Genesis account. Tradition aside, I don't see anything in the text that suggests Adam & Eve were the result of procreation and I see a lot suggesting God formed them directly from the dust of the ground.

The OP deals with a way to reconcile A&E with the scientific evidence for evolution. It requires A&E to be procreative products, but not yet ensouled. This has problems, but has some merit as well as a synthesis. The thread has become somewhat tangential.

 

[Resha Caner]

The OP deals with a way to reconcile A&E with the scientific evidence for evolution. It requires A&E to be procreative products, but not yet ensouled. This has problems, but has some merit as well as a synthesis.

Of course the idea has problems - enough that in the end I reject it. But I like people who think and ask questions. It's worth helping them work through the implications of the idea. That's why I raised the issue I did: Does this idea fit with an honest reading of Genesis?

If they were immortal, why was there a "Tree of Life"? They were formed of dust.

They died a sin-death. They died a spiritual death and were alienated from God, in essence cast out of His garden and separated from Him.

I'd be curious to know more of the view behind these statements.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Of course the idea has problems - enough that in the end I reject it. But I like people who think and ask questions. It's worth helping them work through the implications of the idea. That's why I raised the issue I did: Does this idea fit with an honest reading of Genesis?

If by an 'honest' reading you mean a literal one, then you have a significant problem with the biological evidence that directly contradicts that reading--regardless of whether you accept evolution as a biological paradigm.

If by 'honest' you would admit a variety of potential theological or polemical readings consistent with early Semitic history, literary style, accommodative positions, or other figurative views, then there is possibly no problem with the biology, but how some important doctrinal positions are explained will need clarification. For example, Augustine's biological view of original sin which derived from his understanding that the "seed" was a microscopic human (homunculus). Long use of his position has solidified a particular view of Paul's understanding.

There are several, some longstanding, views that allow for theistic evolution positions which are more consistent with the biological evidence and others. None of these are without theological implications. The OP tries to make sense of one such view. That view has more difficult implications than some others, e.g. It would be possible that some existing humans are not ensouled because they descended from parents preceding A&E. This would give "double predestination" a strict sense where God did not ensoul a group of humans who are not even really spiritual beings--thus they have no eternal fate. God "loving the world" would mean just his ensouled. And it would become easy to say the Gospel is not available to all. This seems more difficult to support theologically than a Federal view of Adam that is consistent with a federal view of Christ.

 

[Resha Caner]

If by an 'honest' reading you mean ...

By "honest" I meant an honest reading. I wasn't suggesting any particular conclusion - mine or otherwise - other than to say I didn't see how the idea of the OP fits. One can think whatever one wants - speculate until content - but at the end of the day if it doesn't fit with Genesis it shouldn't be called a Biblical view.

So, by "honest" I was referring to maintaining as much objectivity as possible - in the sense of reading Genesis without assuming it must be either strictly literal or strictly allegorical. I was referring to approaching Genesis with a heart bent on knowing God's intent in this text - without fear of criticisms stemming from the world's scientific claims and without surrendering to theological constructs likely invented after the fact.

With that in mind, I have no qualms confessing my own view of Genesis as history - which admits both elements of the literal, the allegorical, and more. However, even if I were to consent (for the sake of discussion) to only allegorical considerations, I would still think the OP has problems in fitting with the text.