Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 23, 2012

Home > 2011 > JuneChristianity Today, June, 2011
Where We Stand
No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel
The historical Adam debate won't be resolved tomorrow, so stay engaged.




Science as we know it grew from pagan, occult, and biblical roots.

Christianity Today likes to emphasize the biblical sources. The story of creation, told in Genesis and elaborated in the New Testament, pictures a rational intelligence creating an orderly and predictable cosmos.

Without that predictability in the natural world, neither Newton nor Einstein would have been possible. There are times, however, when a careful reading of the natural world seems to conflict with our reading of Scripture.

Sometimes, Christian ways of thinking must adjust. Two famous names—Copernicus and Galileo—tell that tale. Other times, Christian thinkers adopt some of what scientific research suggests, but hold firm on key aspects of biblical knowledge. The name B. B. Warfield tells that tale: The Princeton theology professor (d. 1921) taught in the wake of the Darwinian revolution. He and fellow evangelical leaders saw good reasons to believe that humanity's physical form was descended from other animals. However, two key biblical teachings kept these theologians from eating the whole Darwinian apple.

First, in Darwinian thought, pure randomness was the engine of evolution. But randomness denies the divine Reason (the Logos in the language of John's Gospel) behind the creative process. Christians must root for intelligence over chance.

Second, Darwinian evolution challenged the belief that human beings were created in the image of God. This doctrine was a hedge against racist theories that would be used to subjugate, exploit, and eradicate undesirable people. Warfield rightly saw the dangers in Darwin, while trying to learn from the biological science of his time.

Now we come to another great moment of tension between Christian readings of Scripture and science. This issue's cover story, "The Search for the Historical Adam," reports the claims of recent genetic research that the human race did not emerge from pre-human animals as a single pair, as an "Adam" and an "Eve." The complexity of the human genome, we are told, requires an original population of around 10,000.

Christians have already drawn the line: there must be an original pair of humans endowed with souls—that is, the spiritual capacity to relate to God in the special way Genesis describes. In 1996, John Paul II stressed Pius XII's dictum that "if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God." And institutional statements of faith, such as Wheaton College's, set limits by affirming that original couple's existence: "… God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race … in his own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness."

The complexity of the human genome, we are told, requires an original population of around 10,000.

What is at stake?

First, the entire story of what is wrong with the world hinges on the disobedient exercise of the will by the first humans. The problem with the human race is not its dearth of insight but its misshapen will.

Second, the entire story of salvation hinges on the obedience of the Second Adam. The apostle Paul, the earliest Christian writer to interpret Jesus' work, called Adam "a type of the one who was to come" (Rom. 5:14, ESV), and wrote that "[j]ust as we have borne the image of the man of dust [Adam], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [Jesus]" (1 Cor. 15:49, ESV). He elaborated an "Adam Christology" that described a fallen humanity, headed by Adam, and a new, redeemed humanity with Christ as its head.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 118 comments

fundamentalist

June 16, 2011  2:15pm

Preston, evangelicals have been dealing with genetics for a very long time. Check out Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Also, keep in mind that evolutionary scientists ignored completely the work of the devout believer Mendel because he demonstrated the fallacies of Darwin's work. Much later they had to scramble to catch up to Mendel.

Debra H

June 16, 2011  12:02pm

Could it be that God wrote into the DNA a process for adaptation? This is not the same as evolution, for Man was perfect when first created. Could what science calls evolution actually a de-evolution from that perfection as Man continued to lose countenance with God. It is far more believable that Man can "fall" into animal (see Nebuchadnezzar's story in Daniel) than for Man to evolve from an animal.

Preston Garrison

June 16, 2011  1:26am

Another clarification is needed due to some unfortunate phraseology in the editorial. It states that it is the complexity of the genome that leads to the conclusion of a certain minimum population. It is not the complexity of a single copy of the human genome that leads to this inference. It is the amount of genetic variation that is present in the current human population. Since the first two genome sequences (the public project and the Celera project) were announced (2001), the technology has improved and a number of near-complete sequences of individuals have been done. A lot of work has focused on characterizing the nature and extent of genetic variation in the human population. Is is that data that is the basis for the claim of a minimum ancestral population. But I'm not an expert in population genetics, so I won't attempt to defend that claim.

Charles Pugh

June 16, 2011  12:12am

Interesting that you brought up the influence of B.B. Warfield from Princeton. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider the work of the preeminent and humble theologian, Dr. John C. Whitcomb, who was gloriously saved many years ago as a student at Princeton. It is a bit disconcerting (though somewhat understandable with less than academic responses out there) that there is this prejudice against a "fundamentalist" response. Christian fundamentalists are not the enemy (though, granted, some sometimes act as such). The spiritual forces underpinning evolutionary Darwinism are our enemies with strongholds needing to be pulled down through Truth in love!

Preston Garrison

June 15, 2011  10:32pm

I commend CT for running the article, although it has stirred up the predictable hornet's nest in these comments. Most of us who have spent our careers in biochemical and genetic research have known for a long time that eventually evangelicals would have to deal with these issues. However, it is unfortunate that the editorial used the phrase "an original population of ~10,000" - it has obviously been misunderstood by many here. The population in question is not an origin. It is just an estimate of the minimum population at any time since the most recent common ancestor with apes, i.e. there never was a population bottleneck of 2. Finally, it is clear that evangelicals are not going to reach a consensus on how to deal with the results of genomics any time soon. It would be a good thing for the gospel if we could agree to treat the people who disagree with us with respect, and refrain from impugning their motives.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]

Rod and Reel, or Net?

Rod and Reel, or Net?

What it means to catch in community.

A 'Move' in the Right Direction

A 'Move' in the Right Direction

A new book takes a closer look at how churches foster spiritual growth.

more | current issue

Kyria

I Gave Up Worry for ...

Consider taking 40 days to give up a deep...

Books & Culture

Coming to Terms with Our Inheritance

Coming to Terms with...

Slaveholders, segregationists, all of us...

Small Group Dynamics

Recognizing a Blind ...

Learning from the introverts among us

Building Church Leaders

Coaching the Full Life

Coaching the Full Life...

Use the principles of coaching to lead people...

Managing Your Church Blog

Congress Extends Payroll...

Churches must verify employee withholdings...

Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper