The buzz generated by the Christianity Today article examining recent questions about Adam and Eve apparently caught the attention of NPR. They produced a segment that used many of the same sources, condensing much of the same material into eight-minutes of audio.
Both stories cover the dialog taking place among some evangelicals concerning whether or not there was a historic Adam and Eve from which the entire human race descended. The traditional understanding of a fallen first pair has been critical to many theological doctrines, particularly original sin, but it’s called into question by fossil evidence and genetics. These are issues Augustine didn’t know about, but modern scholars cannot ignore. Some argue with the data, such as Dr. Rana of Reasons to Believe. Some discard the data and point out the theological consequences, such as Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Others have accepted the scientific conclusion and are reexamining their theological constructs in light of the new evidence. An increasing number of evangelical and conservative theologians have come to accept that the human race cannot be traced back to a population of two people at any point in history – let alone a mere 6,000 years ago. It’s kind of a big deal, so some sparks have been flying over the issue.
Both NPR and Christianity Today mention a recent controversy involving two professors form Calvin College, Daniel C. Harlow and theologian John R. Schneider. They had recently taken part in a journal series examining the theological implications of recent genetic discoveries for the American Scientific Affiliation – an organization of Christians in science. Their interesting articles drew the ire of their employers and college president, so they were investigated. This isn’t the first time Calvin has done this.
Albert Mohler continues to suggest that Harlow and others have adapted the traditional view of Adam and Eve to gain the respect of secular scholars. When interviewed for the NPR piece, Mohler said:
“The moment you say ‘We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,’ you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of the world.”
RJS, a Christian working in science, responded to the accusation on the theology blog Jesus Creed:
“I agree with Dr. Mohler that if we say we have to abandon theology to have the respect of the world we will have neither. But that is not really the issue. This ongoing discussion is not to retain respect for the sake of respect, but to remain engaged in a sincere search for truth – God’s truth.”
She went on to list other Christian scholars and theologians who have recently risked their jobs (and often lost them) to deal with these issues, such as Peter Enns, Richard Colling, Darrel Falk, Bruce Waltke, and Tremper Longman. Accusing each of them of compromising the faith to gain popularity is an unfair attack on the individuals that ignores the need to honestly examine the evidence. If they didn’t find the evidence so compelling, I don’t think they would have jeopardized their careers and disrupted their lives.
That’s definitely the case with me. If I didn’t find evolutionary biology so convincing, I wouldn’t take a position which many of my loved ones consider heretical, unchristian, and dangerous. Some may call it a slippery slope, but I would argue that shunning genetics, geology, astronomy, and biology doesn’t exactly put you on solid ground, either.
There comes a point when the empirical evidence is so strong that it’s foolish to doubt it. This is the case with heliocentricity. One would never think the earth was a sphere that orbited the earth without advanced human observations and reasoning. Although there are lots of Bible verses that clearly state the earth is firm on its foundation and cannot be moved, nearly all Christians today have simply reinterpreted these statements given the strength of the evidence against a stationary earth discovered through man-made methods.
I agree with Dr. Rana that Adam and Eve are a bigger deal, but the theological consequences don’t change the facts. Early theologians, and even Biblical authors such as Paul used observation and reasoning in their writings. The Reformers reexamined essential doctrines and even demoted and eventually discarded several books of the Bible using human reasoning. The Galileo affair helped highlight the importance of using our senses and intellect to read the general revelation found in nature. There are times when we find harmony, and there are times where there is some tension to resolve. Some of us are already working on resolutions.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sources and further Reading:
Christianity Today’s article
An excellent summary of the current state of the issue.
NPR article
Transcript and audio. Features many of the same sources as Christianity Today article.
Dan Harlow’s ASA article
After Adam: Reading Genesis In An Age Of Evolutionary Science
John Schneider’s ASA article
Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism”
A Search For Acceptance by RJS
Challenging Mohler’s claim that scholars are seeking acceptance over truth.
False Start by Albert Mohler
Pointing out the theological consequences.
The Beginning Of The Gospel by RJS
Answering Mohler’s question about how the Gospel message could begin without a historical Adam.
Clarifying Again What’s At Stake by Albert Mohler
Again, the consequences. It appears he missed RJS’s point, but it’s a response nonetheless, so you can judge for yourself.
Truth or Consequences
A previous post I wrote about consequentialist objections to evidence.
mod synthesis 
Darlene Harper
September 16, 2011
Tony, as I have read the Bible this past couple of days, and have focused my thoughts on Adam and Eve, the fall of man, and Paul’s references to Adam, I can’t help to have some feelings about all of this. You ended your blog with “There are times when we find harmony, and there are times where there is some tension to resolve. Some of us are already working on resolutions.” The tension that I find difficult to resolve is that when I read the bible it seems pretty clear to me (especially in Paul’s writings) that Adam (the man) actually did exist, and that Paul believed that he was the first man, as is recorded in Genesis. I read Peter Enn’s blogs (the link you referred me to) and I like him —- like the book that Cherie had given me to read by him (don’t remember the title). But, in these blogs he talks so certain of specific scientific findings, as if there is not any possibility of any error, and then tries to fit the bible (specifically Paul’s view of Adam and Eve) into this scientific data. I have always seen the bible pretty plainly and strongly believe that it was meant to be understood by common people — that we don’t have to be scholars and/or pastors, etc. It seems that Enns is stretching things quite a lot to say that Paul had something else in mind so deep that no one could ever plainly see. The bible is very specific about Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel, Seth, and so on, and so on, down to Noah and the flood, and then on from there. Why were we given all the names, etc. if all of this was written to simply make some kind of spiritual point? Why wasn’t it recorded just like Jesus told the parables (and he made it clear that they were stories to make a spiritual point). These accounts in Genesis appear to be written as literal truths and it seems like one would have to stretch the imagination to see it another way. It just doesn’t fit. Half the reason the old testament was never really that interesting to me is because it is so historical, with all the genealogies, etc. I think it is so cool that you are interested in science and history and are searching out these matters. For me, there is so much conflicting with this, in my mind it seems like it makes more sense to doubt some of the science rather than what is written plainly in the bible. Love you !!!
modsynth
September 17, 2011
Thanks, Darlene. Peter Enns isn’t saying that Paul only used Adam symbolically. He and I agree with you that Paul viewed Adam as a historic figure. One problem with some of us suggesting that Paul could have been “wrong” about Adam is the challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy. You also mentioned the doctrine of perspicuity – that the Bible can be plainly understood by anyone without help. Using these assumptions and disregarding science would certainly lead to the conclusion that Adam is our real-life ancestor. I find the Bible reliable for the purposes Paul described in Timothy, but it seems clear that God did not reveal an advanced cosmology beyond the human understanding of the time (see my reply to Tracy below) and He did not hand us the solutions to questions of canonicity and textual variants – so inerrancy as some people understand it may be claiming more than the Bible claims for itself and may run into some serious conflict with the facts. Examining the history of the canon, and comparing the texts against each other and among other writings of the time have led me to challenge those assumptions. I’m therefore willing to accept that a writer may have gotten a particular fact wrong, he may have misquoted the OT (there are quite a few examples of that in the NT), and he may have thought the earth was flat. I don’t try to reinterpret what they said to fit modern theologies and cosmologies – I try to stay true to the original authors intent and study their culture and contemporary writings to gain as much perspective as possible. I’m working on a series explaining my view of scripture, and hopefully I’ll answer some of your questions – even though you may not agree. There’s a lot to study, and lots of assumptions that need to be examined. For example, we don’t know for certain who wrote the first 11 chapters of Genesis or when it was written. Even if the traditional view of Mosaic authorship is correct and no later compiling or editing occurred, how was the history received? Was it dictated by God? Were oral histories used? Perhaps written documents, such as the kinds cited by the author of Chronicles? The Bible itself doesn’t answer these questions, so further research is necessary, and the findings could help determine the proper view of scripture. I’ve often found that people choose a doctrine of scripture and then try to fit the facts into that view, but I try to keep an open mind and not lock myself into a view before examining the facts as impartially as possible. I also dealt with some of Paul’s statements in a previous post and pointed out that since Adam and Eve didn’t literally die on that day, perhaps Paul didn’t mean physical death and maybe some take it too far when they say he was also dealing with animal death. There’s a lot to explore, and it’s not always as clear as it seems. You can doubt some or most of the science. No one is arguing that science is complete and inerrant. The problem is that there are some Bible statements that are wrong when read plainly. It takes a lot of effort to try to explain away the plain differences in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, to name one internal example, and then there’s the external challenges of heliocentricity that have forced reinterpretation rather than affirmed perspicuity. There’s conflict in every view. I wish it were easier. But as I mentioned in a previous discussion, the big points are agreed on, and I don’t think salvation depends on our theological skill. I think all of these issues will disappear when we meet God face to face. Those silly questions that we thought we would ask Him may fade away in the inspiring revelation of His glory. Until then, I’m trying my best to understand what I can.
Tracy Harper
September 16, 2011
Tony,
I read through some of the links and Collins’ book, but I don’t see the conclusions as facts as you do. Certainly, I think there is more credibility to the evolutionary position based on the genome project; but I don’t see any of it as conclusive. I don’t agree that we “must” have come from a population of 10,000 instead of two or many of the other “facts” that espoused. I’m inclined to believe that Paul was correct instead. Too many assumptions are made for me in the name of science. I will grant that most of those appear logical but I’m a little more open to the idea that we still know very little about simple things.
modsynth
September 17, 2011
Tracy, I appreciate that you have spent so much time on the subject and your dedication to a Biblical view of history. Population genetics may not be “conclusive” and complete, but I used the word “convincing” because that’s how I see it. So many independent lines of data point to a consistent timeline. I don’t see any reasonable doubt to the claim that the earth is very old and that species have emerged slowly over time – but I would never say that every detail is completely understood and explained conclusively. There’s no data or scientific discipline that I’ve found which presents any challenge to those claims, but there are serious challenges to claims of a young-earth and a recent global flood. I find some of those to conclusively rule out certain frameworks proposes by Hovind, Ham, DeWitt, and other YECs. I find the case against that understanding to be overwhelming, so I’ve immersed myself in the study of where these texts came from and how they were understood by ancient writers and theologians up until today. I’ve found examples where Biblical authors reveal ancient cosmologies which neither you nor I agree with (flat, stationary earth, solid firmament…) . I’m inclined to agree with Enns, RJS, John Walton, and others in their interpretation that God’s message condescended to be understood within a certain time and culture and in human language and therefore contains some human baggage, particularly when read as translations in foreign cultures. I think God used established genres, worked within the scientific views of the writers at the time, and used Israel and their history to reveal important truths to us – but I’m not sure that publishing a book was His ultimate goal. I believe that the Word is Jesus, as explained in John 1. He is God’s revelation, and it was His work on the cross that mattered. Our efforts to understand how and why this took place has been an ongoing process. I wish God would have given us every answer. I wish He would have revealed things to 1st century christians that go beyond the most advanced science found today, but that does not seem to be the case.
Tracy Harper
September 17, 2011
I need some help in understanding what the major conflicts are. It might seem obvious to you with all the reading you’ve done, but I’m not sure what the evidence is against a “recent” flood or why an older earth necessarily equates to evolution.
modsynth
September 17, 2011
(reply to Tracy) An old earth doesn’t equate to evolution, but it does call into question the plain reading of Genesis. The slow diversification of life strongly suggests evolution, and clearly doesn’t agree with a plain and literal interpretation of Gen 1 (all lifeforms made in two days). The real evidence for evolution emerges when looking at comparative anatomy and genetics, not just the age of the earth. They make predictions that are captured in the fossil record. We’ll never know every detail, but it seems science is on the right track or we shouldn’t expect to find such stunning agreement. That’s why I don’t say evolution is conclusively confirmed and totally understood, but I do say that certain young-earth models are quite thoroughly refuted. There are lots of Old Earth creationists that deny common descent – Stephen Meyer and Lee Strobel, for example. They tend to focus on debating Darwin rather than proposing a complete Old-Earth model. Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe is an OEC that actually does try to work out the details and harmonize his model with Genesis. He still stands condemned by YEC orgs like Answers in Genesis since he doesn’t take the plainest reading, but he’s trying and I can respect that more than Strobel’s method of casting doubt on Darwin without trying to affirm his own, unstated view. Lots of creationists who question mainstream biology are unwilling to follow Ken Ham into the literal, young-earth view since it runs into so many problems in astronomy and geology. The book (which you own and I’m borrowing) “The Bible, Rocks and Time” deals in depth on the flood and other geological data. I addressed it in a previous post, but that’s not enough treatment for such a weighty issue.
Darlene Harper
September 18, 2011
Tony, thanks for your response — looking forward to more of what you have to say, and more of what you have read and researched 🙂 I’m surprised that you don’t mind translating some of the info. in simple terms for me, but you’re always willing to answer my questions and respectful of my feelings and opinions. I also am respectful of yours, even if I don’t fully understand or fully agree. Thanks again !
Vielsa Harding
September 15, 2013
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Isaiah 40:22
Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for “nothing” (beli-mah′) used here literally means “without anything.”7 The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, “on empty space.”
Toni, I just want to make sure people knows the rest of the story.
tony-c
September 16, 2013
You’re always welcome to comment, Vielsa. I think the “rest of the story” completely dominates Christian media. Those of us who have found creation science to be unsound and are dealing with the theological implications of modern science do so after having heard these explanations and finding them lacking.