Guest Post: Paul Bruggink
I am writing this as a Christian layman who would prefer to believe that Adam and Eve were historical. But with the rapidly mounting scientific evidence indicating that they might not have been historical people, I then would like to find a way to reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with my Christian faith and beliefs. I would like to present the current status of my efforts.
Given that the Bible does not specify and age for the Earth or an age for the universe, does not specify the total interval of time required for the creative times (yom), does not specify the means and steps by which God’s creative actions were brought to completion, does not teach that God’s creation was perfect, only that it was very good for God’s purposes, and does not teach that there was no death of plants and animals before the Fall, I believe that an evangelical Christian can accept the Big Bang and biological evolution without giving up anything in the Bible.
It gets somewhat more difficult to reconcile the Bible and the evidence of science when it comes to the references to Adam & Eve and the Fall in the New Testament. The best that I have seen so far are:
1) Robin Collins, “Evolution and Original Sin,” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Keith Miller, Editor, William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 2003, pp. 475-479],
2) Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, Wipf & Stock, 2008, p. 324-328)
3) R. J. Berry, “Did DarwinDethrone Humankind?,” in R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble (Eds.), Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges, (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), pp. 63-65.
They all essentially say that Paul is not trying to inform his hearers that Adam and Eve are literal individuals; but that Paul’s real interest in this passage is about Christ, and that Paul’s theological point in Romans 5 does not depend on Adam being a historical individual or on his disobedience being an historical event as such. Such an implication does not necessarily follow from the fact that a parallel is drawn from Christ’s single act: an act in mythic history can be paralleled to an act in living history without the point of the comparison being lost.
On the other hand, there are a number of ways that an historical Adam and Eve could be fit into biological evolution:
1) God could have specially created a pair of humans named Adam and Eve from dust but made their bodies and their genes consistent with hominids alive at the time.
2) God could have selected a pair of existing homo sapiens to represent all of humanity.
3) God could have revealed himself in a single event to a large group of humans.
These options and others are discussed in Denis Alexander’s Creation or Evolution: Do we have to Choose? (Monarch Books, 2008), pp. 234-243 and in Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma’s Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution (Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2007), pp.215-230.
We have to keep in mind that God gave us both Scripture and nature, which therefore cannot be in conflict. Man’s interpretations of Scripture and nature can of course be in conflict, but only because they are both man’s interpretations. And I am not claiming that nature (science) is greater than Scripture, only that it can sometimes be helpful in interpreting Scripture. I still accept the creation, the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ascension as miracles of God; hence, no slippery slope for me.
the archives near Emmaus 
I can’t help thinking that the theological issue would be solved if Adam and Eve were just one couple among a larger population of hominids to whom God revealed himself, and who had some kind of inheritable characteristic, possibly but not necessarily genetic, which has been passed on to all humans now alive. After all the old problem of Cain’s wife suggests that there were other beings around with which Adam and Eve’s descendants could mate. But the descendants of Adam and Eve, or perhaps only the half of them who inherited a particular gene, might have had a distinct survival advantage, perhaps simply consciousness (in other words they were distinct from their contemporaries in not being philosophical zombies). In that case these descendants would quickly have become dominant and any lineages (such as Neanderthals?) not descended from Adam and Eve would have died out, while leaving their genetic traces.
Two options here: the characteristic is inherited either through either parent, or in the male line only. In the former case it could have spread more quickly. In the latter case our putative Adam would have to be at least as old as “Y-chromosomal Adam”, who may have lived 142,000 years ago. But I don’t think either option goes against current biological thinking. After all this is in effect the same mechanism by which any beneficial mutation could spread through a nascent species.
Paul, I understand where you’re coming from. I respect your ability and rational sense of need to reconcile “science” and the bible as you do. Having said that, I would like to offer encouragement to continue searching and perhaps consider (if you are not already) expanding your reading material to include authors who hold the young earth position as well. Some of these include Duane Gish, Russell Humphreys, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, James C. Whitcomb, Gary Parker, and Bill Cooper to name a few.
With regard to your post, I’d like to address certain statements directly.
“Given that the Bible does not specify and age for the Earth or an age for the universe, ” – Genealogies in scripture, both in Genesis and in later books, are very specific and provide us enough detail to know, at least to within about 2 to 3 centuries, about when the earth and universe were created.
…”does not specify the total interval of time required for the creative times (yom),” – One has to make a leap to insert time between creative days that is not suggested or warranted by the scripture. The use of ordinal numbering (ie second day, third day, etc) combined with specifying evening and morning and it being a day for each day strongly implies the text means a day is one ordinary day followed immediately by the next day. It is almost as though the author wants to remove any wiggle room – nowhere else in scripture, nor any other ancient writings that I’m familiar with, is such precise language used to make such a clear point. Also, the use of the Hebrew yom has little other potential meaning in this passage than one individual and specific day, not a period of time, as with the phrase “day of the Lord” or the like. Once again it takes rationalizing and deliberately ignoring both the immediate context and the greater context of usage in scripture to make the yom in Gen 1 mean anything but an ordinary day.
…”does not specify the means and steps by which God’s creative actions were brought to completion,” – Agreed. Consider here Job 38-42, esp. 38:4 in context. How is not directly addressed and ultimately is not what’s important, though we can figure out a lot and we are encouraged and even commanded to know nature and caretake it as best we can (Gen 1:28).
…”does not teach that God’s creation was perfect, only that it was very good for God’s purposes,” – Gen 1:31 does say God saw everything and deemed it very good. All that is, is for God’s purposes. So, technically, I agree with that part. Saying that it doesn’t say perfect may be splitting hairs, and it may just be how we use our English words to try and capture understanding of the original language, but let’s move on for now.
“and does not teach that there was no death of plants and animals before the Fall,” – Actually it does teach plant death before the fall (Gen 1:29-30), though it does not say with clarity about animals. The first animal to die that we know of was the one God Himself skinned to make clothing for Adam and Eve (Gen 2:21). Prior to fall man and animals alike ate only vegetation (Gen 1:29-30). We also know man was not given explicit permission to eat animal meat until after the flood (Gen 9:3), however we know animal death along with human death did occur after the fall. Ro 5:12 only refers directly to human death being the result of sin, however we know that death was the result of sin. We also know the whole earth was cursed because of Adam’s actions (Gen 3:17), so it stands to reason that all animal death followed along with human death as a result of the curse. If you read the first several verses of Gen 9 you can see the relationship between man and animals changed after the flood such that animals were given an instinctual fear of man that apparently did not exist previously. Note that just as you mentioned the bible does not say there was no animal death before the fall (can’t disprove a negative), it also does not say there was death before the fall. If in fact the earth was actually created in 6 days and all life, human and animal alike, was fresh and new at the time of the fall, there’s no reason to assume there would have been animal death before the fall unless you add that meaning to scripture. Of course you can use the same argument against me, and that’s fair, but your argument is just as empty and so it should not be used.
…”I believe that an evangelical Christian can accept the Big Bang and biological evolution without giving up anything in the Bible.” – The big bang theory requires a completely different ordering of events as those described in Gen 1. Does that matter? You may say it does not, and I do not mean to throw a wrench into your line of thinking (or maybe I do), but if the scripture gets such basic things wrong why trust any other part of it? Or do we now get to pick and choose which parts we will believe just because such faith requires a step beyond science dogma. Consider what all the bible must get wrong in order for Big Bang (BB) and Evolution (BB/E) to be true:
Bible – creation complete; BB/E – creation still in progress.
Bible – matter spoken into existence and gave it original organization; BB/E – nothing exploding chaotically into everything which then organized itself.
Bible – Oceans first, then land; BB/E – land first, then oceans.
Bible – Earth then sun & stars; BB/E – Sun and stars then earth.
Bible – Life arises only from life; BB/E – Life arises from non-life.
Bible – Life created in distinct kinds; BB/E – life is a continuum.
Bible – Natural selection is a conservation process; BB/E – Natural selection is a creative process.
There are many more examples, but the point is pretty simple – either the opening chapters of Genesis are true revelation from God and actual history or false revelation from God if not actual history or its completely invented by men. The first conforms to God’s character as revealed throughout scripture. The second makes God out to be a liar, or at least very poor at giving revelation – not much of a God if you ask me. The last is not an option for the faithful which is why so many who put their faith in human interpretation of natural evidence are drawn away from scriptural revelation.
I don’t doubt your genuine faith, but I would encourage you to consider carefully what you’re doing when you suggest reducing the first chapters of Genesis to mere metaphor.
Can someone please explain to me the purported scientific evidence that compels us to reject the historicity of Adam and Eve?
As a professional mathematician I can’t think of any good reason to believe that our understanding of the natural world has advanced to the point where we can speak authoritatively about human origins or even the development of life more generally. Seriously, if we have yet to figure out how our own bodies work how can we hope to speak about the origin and development of these bodies with any confidence?
I tend to think that a lot of what comes out of the academy in terms of an overall theory of how life developed on this planet is just so much bluster and can be safely dismissed.
I am aware of that there are arguments to the effect that the observable genetic diversity within mankind today contravenes the possibility of mankind descending from a primal couple, but I don’t find these arguments very convincing as they very much contingent on the present state of our understanding on such matters, which is still in its infancy.
NW,
Take a look at some of the evidence from geneticists over at BioLogos. I’m certainly not a scientist, but they do at least give some basic explanation for why it’s very difficult, in their minds, to affirm that all humans came from a single pair.
Lance,
I would like to make the following points in response to your well-written comment on my guest blog entry:
1) I am quite familiar with the young earth creationism position. I have books by Walt Brown, John Byl, Donald DeYoung, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, David Hocking, Douglas Kelly, John MacArthur, Andy McIntosh, Henry Morris, Terry Mortenson, Jonathan Sarfati, John C. Whitcomb, and Kurt Wise, to name a few.
2) Regarding the use of the genealogies to deduce a creation date, there are a number of reasons why that does not necessarily work well, including:
A) The Hebrew word for father can also mean grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather, or ancestor; and the Hebrew word for son can also mean grandson, great-grandson or descendent.
B) In contrast to western genealogies that presume meticulously complete records, ancient Hebrew genealogies included just heroes or particularly notable descendents, not every single individual
C) Commentators have pointed out that many of the genealogies have been deliberately structured to achieve numerical symmetry, such as the exactly ten generations between Adam and Noah, and the ten generations between Noah and Abraham, not to mention Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus Christ, which is divided into three groups of fourteen names apiece. But in order to achieve the desired fourteen names in one of the groups, Matthew omitted the names of three of the kings of Judah: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah.
3) I would like to point out that the Hebrew word yom has four different uses in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4. In Genesis 1:5, yom first refers to the daytime part of the day, then later in Genesis 1:5, yom refers to a 24-hour day. The seventh day in Genesis 2:2 is arguably different from the first six. Finally, Finally, in some translations of Genesis 2:4, we read “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” (NKJV). Clearly the author has something other than a 24-hour day in mind. There is no end of possible interpretations of the “days” in Genesis, including day-ages, analogical days, intermittent days, visionary (revelatory) days, and days of divine fiat (proclamation days).
4) The fact that there are a number of differences between the biblical accounts of creation and the Big Bang/biological evolution account of creation is irrelevant, since the Bible does not nor was it intended to teach science.
5) Your penultimate paragraph presents a false trichotomy. True revelation/actual history, false revelation, and completely invented by man are not the only options. God could have accommodated his message to the audience of the time. In addition, there are numerous other ways to interpret the early chapters of Genesis.
I have no problem with Christians choosing to believe in a young earth. What I have a problem with is people like Ken Ham, John MacArthur, and Albert Mohler saying that young earth creationism is the ONLY way to interpret the Bible.
There wasn’t a single pair of originals created as complete humans? Why then don’t we find any evidence of:
Frogmen
Dogmen
Batmen
Catmen
Buffalo Soldiers…*; )
etc. ad infinitum
These are really good discussions, and give much to consider, but with the state of things left unexplained we are still left having to choose which report to believe. As for me, my choice will fall on the side presented in scripture. Some place beyond our understanding to date, science and scripture will both end with yes and amen because God is author of both.
Nancy,
Because biological evolution doesn’t work that way. If you’d like to learn about evolution, I would suggest one or more of the following books, all but the last two by Christian authors:
1. G. R. Davidson’s “When Faith and Science Collide: A Biblical Approach to Evaluating Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Age of the Earth”
2. Joel W. Martin’s “The Prism and the Rainbow: A Christian Explains Why Evolution Is Not a Threat”
3. Darrel R. Falk’s “Coming to Peace with Science”
4. Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma’s “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution”
5. Stephen J. Godfrey & Christopher Smith’s “Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation”
6. Kenneth R. Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution”
7. Karl W. Giberson’s “Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution”
8. John C. Lennox’s “Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science”
9. Francis S. Collins’s “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”
10. Kark W. Giberson & Francis S. Collins’s “The Language of Science and Faith”
11. Jerry A. Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”
12. Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body”
Thank you Paul, I really do appreciate the reference material. Inquisitive/imaginative minds always want to know how things work. I will always love to chase the wind; it’s how God made me!
Paul,
I think you place too much weight on the canons of speculative science; the things that you seem to presume as proven are still, at least, at the theoretical stage with some triumphant horn tooting by consensual communities of scientists. There are certain philosophical assumptions being made to allow scientists to make the claims they are about the data. Just because this is the best we have at the moment does not justify the scientist in asserting that what they say is so in the way they say it is so (this is really arguing from silence).
Anyway, you already know what I think; and I already knew what you thought about this stuff.
Bobby,
My thoughts in a nutshell are that no matter what science has or will come up with and whatever changes occur in the prevailing scientific consensus, I believe that it does not need to affect our fundamental Christian beliefs and faith, which are not centered on scientific issues anyway, since miracles are outside the purview of science. The changing scientific consensus may, however, keep theologians occupied for a long time to come!!
My personal interest in the creation-evolution-historical-Adam discussion is my belief that Christian leaders like Albert Mohler and John MacArthur, and other spokespersons like Ken Ham, are doing a disservice to Christian evangelism with their insistence on only one literalistic* way to interpret the Bible, in which they pick and choose what to interpret literalisticly and what to ignore or to interpret some other way anyway.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I guess we will just continue to agree to disagree. May God bless you in your ongoing studies.
* Pete Enns’ preferred word (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/10/al-mohler-and-the-apparent-age-of-the-cosmos/ see his reply to comment 1)