No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel
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."
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.
The Latest in Movie News, May 20, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).












Comments
Displaying 13 of 118 comments
See all comments
fundamentalist
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
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
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.