As an aside from my juxtaposition of C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins I want to mention a couple of blog posts that I have read with interest. Also, I want to draw attention to some of the concerns raised in our recent discussions.

First, someone left me a link to Michael Flynn’s “Adam and Eve and Ted and Alice” that seeks to explain how Adam may remain connected to the entire human race even if the genetic data cannot trace humanity back to a single couple. He comes from a Roman Catholic perspective, so his interest isn’t biblicism, per se, but rather the traditional view of Rome. Yet it is worth reading for the rest of us Christians.

On the other side of the spectrum is the non-denominational Michael Heiser. In his post “The Evolution of Adam: Additional Thoughts” he explores the possible problems with the current evolutionary paradigm as well as the possible consequences of reading Romans 5.12 with a dehistoricized Adam.

Both posts made me think, but my brain is much too small to process these ideas alone. Thoughts anyone?

Second, Bobby Grow raised some interesting questions about Christian theistic evolution (or even the BioLogos approach which gives more attention to God’s active role in the process of evolution):

(1) What does this paradigm do to Christology: i.e., the idea of Jesus as the image of God and the “recreation” of humanity in Christ (see his comment here).

(2) What does this paradigm do to Eschatology: if recreation is the restoration, renewal, and advancement of “the beginning” how can we understand the Christian eschatological vision of a redeemed cosmos if we can’t trust the creational vision of a earth made “good?”