POST #16: Evolution, What about Adam?

As I resume my main post series, the next step is an open discussion of evolution. If you have followed this blog for long, you already know that the host accepts the vast array of evidentiary confirmations of biological evolution streaming in from such fields as biology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, medicine, and most significantly, DNA science. I am confident that any of my readers who have read even a smattering of the books I have recommended over the last 8 months (see the “Book Reviews” sidebar in the column at right) will agree that the science of evolution is now well-established.

When faced with the question of evolution, Bible-believing Christians are often troubled. The possibility that Adam might not have been historical, or special created, raises significant theological questions. When I have discussed evolution with my Christian friends, invariably the first question is “What about Adam?”

The assumption on the part of many YEC people is that a belief in Evolution leads inevitably to an atheistic and relativistic worldview. The simplistic cartoon at right typifies this assumption. It is simply not true. Thousands of Christians, including scientists and deep thinking theologians, are also evolutionists. Most, if not all, would profess that God created man, that we live in a world in which God sets the rules. Most, if not all, would disavow the juvenile implications in the cartoon that “Apes” are in our past (they are not) and they would reject relativistic morality.

A number of related questions typically follow “What about Adam?”; among them:
1) How can there be billions of years of living and dying organisms on our planet prior to Adam’s sin?
2) Does evolution relegate the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 and 3 to myth status?
3) What about the many New Testament references to Adam, and the theological groundwork for Christology which is laid in Paul’s understanding of the “The first Adam”?
4) It seems that Jesus regarded Adam as an historical person. Did he? Was he mistaken?

Such questions have been dealt with at length on various websites and in numerous books. Ultimately, they lead to issues of how we interpret the Bible, whether the Bible is inerrant, to be understood literally, etc. Because these issues could fill volumes, I will not attempt to deal with all of them in this post. Rather, I will simply present three possible “Adam scenarios”, any of which could be true. Maybe you could add other possibilities. To varying degrees, they remove many of the theological “problems” associated with evolution and Adam.

Scenario 1: “Adam” could be a type of mankind. Indeed, the Hebrew word means “man” or “mankind”, and is used in this generic sense hundreds of times in the Old Testament. The story of Adam and Even would, in this case, be an accurate, albeit fictional, representation of the story of our race. The Fall would have been a collective rebellion of the developing human race. The story of Adam and Eve would depict this Fall in the form of a parable, a common literary device in the Old and New Testaments.

Scenario 2: Adam and Eve could have been historical creatures, selected out of the thousands of developing humanoids. God might have taken these two non-spirit beings, and removed them to a garden, and breathed upon them spirit life. In this scenario, Adam and Eve would be representatives of an existing race; and their Fall would pass on to that race. After the Fall, God may have endued the rest of their species with spirits. The effects of the Fall would be passed on to the race. The Genesis account seems to suggest that outside the Garden there existed cities already filled with people (Genesis 4:14-17), a situation consistent with this picture. This scenario, with its literal Adam and Eve, would solve the riddle of Cain’s wife.

Scenario 3: It is possible that evolution progressed to a point where God chose to begin to relate to mankind in a personal way. It is possible that he took the genetic material, which had developed naturally, and specially created Adam and Eve out of the dust of the earth in a garden he had planted. This scenario preserves a very literal Genesis 2 and 3. While I do not personally favor this view, nor find it necessary, it certainly may have happened. Those who reject evolution because their hermeneutic insists upon a literal Adam and Eve story might well consider this possibility.

Of these three possibilities, I personally favor #1. However, I am open to all three. And I may be open to others which my readers may suggest. It is not important to me that a literal Adam and Eve be preserved. What is important to me is the view that Genesis 2 and 3 accurately tell the story of the Fall of man. In that sense, they are true. Whether myth, or parable, or literal history, the essential truths of the Fall of Man, and the resulting conditions (including spiritual death) are preserved for us accurately in the story.

What about Jesus? Did he accept a literal view of Adam and Eve (as, no doubt, most of his contemporary Jews did)? or did he “play along”, as I might do in retelling the story to my own children? Again, these questions are of little import to me. Believing, as I do, that Genesis 2 and 3 are full of significant truth, they will not lead us into error. Whether understood literally or allegorically, the message is unchanged. Man was given an opportunity to live in close fellowship with his Creator; he was offered a spiritual life of holiness and righteousness which could grow and prosper over time. Instead, man chose the path of rebellion, and forfeited the opportunity which God had offered. Sadly, this same choice is confirmed over and over by an entire race of human beings.

The good news, of course, is that God is filled with grace. He is a redeemer. And he values mankind too much to let us wander off indefinitely. Through his Son, Jesus, he makes a way for us to return to the favored status he always had in mind for us. And the pathway into that favored status can begin with every choice we make!

Please comment ...

Book Review: Paradigms on Pilgrimage

I received my copy of Paradigms on Pilgrimage (Clements Publishing, 2005) this week, and finished it in a couple of sittings ... which is to say that I found it hard to put down. The authors, Stephen J. Godfrey and Christopher R. Smith write of their personal pilgrimages out of a YEC paradigm which they were taught earlier in life, and into an understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth. The two men, brothers-in-law, have backgrounds in different disciplines. Godfrey is a trained paleontologist, and Smith is a student of the Biblical interpretation and literary science. Each describe the succession of understandings as they struggled to integrate what became for them undeniable — evolutionary science — with their Biblical faith. Any believer who struggles with this huge shift in paradigms would benefit from the personal accounts of their respective journeys.

Stephen Godfrey writes the opening five chapters. His style is engaging and, at times, entertaining (chapter one is entitled, “The Dog Skeleton and My Grandmother’s Toothbrush”). As Godfrey receives his training in descriptive paleontology, and as he becomes proficient in the science of fossils, his long-held assumptions of Young Earth Creationism and Flood Geology are rocked again and again. He entered the field, in part, hoping to find evidence in the fossil record to support his YEC views. But instead he finds that the fossil record renders Flood Geology wholly untenable, and that it strongly supports the evolutionary hypothesis. What I found interesting is that, even in the facing of this mounting evidence, Godfrey clings to a literalist view of early Genesis, and he continues to look for something, anything, some shred of data that might be used to discount Darwin and/or substantiate a literal reading of Genesis. He describes the chronology of his personal discoveries and his ensuing struggle, and leads the open-minded reader to understand why his ultimate acceptance of evolution was the only reasonable conclusion.

These chapters are filled with illustrations and fossils that tell amazing stories of the history of life on earth; I found them fascinating. The chapters dealing with trace fossils should forever put to rest the idea that the Flood is responsible for laying down our fossil rich geological strata. At one time, I found the notion of so-called “polystrate fossils” (fossilized trees which are said to pass through multiple strata of sedimentary deposits suggesting that all these layers were the result of a single catastrophic event) quite convincing. Still looking for that shred of evidence for Flood Geology, Godfrey describes his disappointment when he personally observed this phenomenon: “Some young-earth creationists ... were claiming that places like Joggins, where fossilized trees were seen to pass upright though the surrounding sedimentary rocks, provided powerful evidence that the world had been overtaken suddenly by a global flood. I had once believed this to be true. However, after visiting Joggins, I knew first hand that this could not be. The tree stumps lined up along clearly visible, once horizontal, beds” (page 49).

Christopher Smith takes up his pilgrimage in the second half of the book. Trained in theology, Biblical languages and literary studies, his shifting paradigm travels along a slightly different course from Godfrey’s. Like his co-author and brother-in-law, Smith was taught a YEC perspective as a young person, and he tenaciously stuck to his views even during his years at Harvard University where he was among an extreme minority. Not until the time of his graduation did he begin to experience doubt about his literalist/creationist understandings. He describes the processes involved in the ultimate merging of his Biblical faith with what he was learning about his world from the various fields of scientific inquiry. In short, he develops a hermeneutic which not only accommodates good science, but is far more in keeping with the internal evidence of the Bible itself. Far from undermining his confidence in the Bible, this new paradigm has opened new vistas upon the Biblical truth, and given him fresh insight into what God is really communicating through the inspired scriptures.

Some believers may struggle with some of Smith’s methods of understanding and interpreting Scriptures. Paradigm shifts in theology and Biblical interpretation are never easy. Smith’s views do not entirely line up with my own. But I appreciate his honesty in dealing with Scriptures with intellectual honesty.

The final chapter of the book returns to the first chapter of the Bible, in light of the Ancient Near-eastern Cosmology context in which it was written. Genesis 1 can only be understood in light of its historical context. The authors help us to see that, read properly, Genesis is not in conflict with evolution.

I wish every evangelical and fundamental believer could read this book. Making the journey from a YEC perspective into an acceptance of evolutionary science can be a painful and difficult experience. But in light of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is a journey believers must be willing to make. This book can be very useful in smoothing that path. I recommend it to my readers.

Dr. James Kennedy on Science

Earlier today, in the Colorado motel in which I stayed the last few days, someone had tuned the breakfast room TV to a Christian station, and I was treated to a Coral Ridge diatribe against Darwin and evolutionary science. Dr. James Kennedy was featured in a posthumous appearance in which he confidently presented his Intelligent Design view, quoting Michael Behe liberally. Some of the inaccuracies astonished me, and I felt like jumping up in the room to declare to the breakfast crowd that not all Christians think this way. But it occurred to me that whoever tuned in this broadcast was likely still in the room, and I restrained myself.

Among Dr. Kennedy’s assertions was this one: the scientific enterprise, for hundred’s of years led by God-fearing scientists, was “hijacked” by atheists in the middle of the 19th century, and that since that time science has been the domain of godless naturalists and materialists.

My take on this bit of history is quite different, as readers of this blog already know. It is my observation that, toward the end of the 19th Century, many Christians chose to retreat from science, and largely deeded over the scientific enterprise to non-believers. As I have noted elsewhere, Charles Hodge saw Darwinism as a threat to his theology, and chose to include the evolution issue in the already brewing fundamentalism—liberalism wars. His friend and associate B.B. Warfield, and other early fundamentalists (e.g. James Orr) saw this as a mistake. They accepted much evolutionary science, and saw no reason to oppose it. But in the end, Hodge won out, and the result was that the 20th Century saw the conservative wings of the church opposing the vast majority of scientists (among them, many Bible-believing Christians.)

Which of these views is correct? How do you see the last 150 years? Did the atheists wrench science away from Christians? Is science now held hostage by non-believers who use it as a club to attack belief? Or did Christians largely abandon science and deed much of it over to atheists? Please comment ...

Personal Note: Toledo Christian Fellowship

For those of you who do not know me personally, I have for the last 17 years provided leadership for a small fellowship in Toledo, Oregon. Toledo Christian Fellowship (TCF) is an all-volunteer church; I derive my personal support from my business. I have greatly enjoyed serving my friends as an elder and as the main teacher over these years. These pictures were taken three weeks ago at our Resurrection Day dinner, where we reenacted the Jesus story with a candle ceremony. The pictures might help to give you a feel for TCF, my church fellowship. 

In October of last year, I declared my acceptance of evolutionary biology to the TCF body, and spent some time explaining why Genesis 1 must be read in light of its Ancient Near Eastern cosmological context. I knew that many of my TCF friends were committed to YEC (I had taught YEC over the years!), I mistakenly believed that, on the strength of my endorsement, these friends would be open to considering the possibilities of evolution. However, for many of them, their commitment to YEC was much stronger than I had thought. I had hoped that TCF might be a place where various views could be openly discussed, where we could think suppositionally (asking the "what if" questions), and that we could serve as a model of how a church might deal with the difficult issues raised by science today, even if we did not all agree. Instead, I found that my revelations served mainly to inflict pain on my friends. Many, perhaps most of them, felt a sense of loss and betrayal, and a deep emotional wound which has still not healed. I now deeply regret the manner in which I presented my view on that day, a manner which, in retrospect, could be characterized as almost cavalier. I regret the deep pain I caused. Over the last six months, I have become convinced that it will be impossible for me to continue to lead this fellowship.

There is no question of my love for these friends, nor of their love for me. But when so many of my brothers and sisters believe that a YEC position is vital to Christian faith, it is too much to ask them to follow a leader who rejects YEC in favor of an Evolutionary Creationist model. So, last night, I laid down my place of leadership, and officially resigned from our eldership.

As the now well-established science of evolution settles down upon the fundamental and conservative evangelical wings of the church, the resulting paradigm shifts in Biblical and theological understandings are bound to be extremely stressful. I fear that the inevitable struggle will result in many broken relationships, and divided churches. Much evidence of this painful battle can already be seen and has been noted elsewhere. It was my hope that TCF could navigate these waters successfully, and help others to do the same. I still have hope this might happen; but it will not be under my leadership.

Geocentricism: alive and well in America!

In a recent Washington Post article (February 17, 2008), The Dumbing of America, author Susan Jacoby laments the rise of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism in America today. This is a major theme in Ms. Jacoby’s writings, and she approaches it from her own atheistic assumptions. Nevertheless, some of the data she reports is alarming. For example, she writes that “according to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made.” Americans' understanding of galactic geography gets a similar score: “Consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth.” One in five Americans are geocentric!

Ms. Jacoby is mainly concerned about the geo-political consequences of the America’s dumbing; and she identifies her culprit: video! While I share her outrage at the dumbing of America, I am concerned about other consequences, and I would identify a different set of causes. From my observations, the rise of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism which is so evident today stems from two sources:

1) The postmodern rejection of science in general. Josh McDowell has aptly defined postmodernism as “a worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.” (Wikipedia article on Postmodernism). From the same Wikipedia article, Noam Chomsky comments that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."

2) The rejection of science by the fundamentalist church. Fundamental Christianity turned its back on science during the last 100+ years, largely a reaction to the perceived threat of Darwinism. The leading fundamental theologian of his day, Charles Hodge, concluded that Darwinism and Christianity were completely incompatible. In 1874 he wrote, “Religion has to fight for its life against a large class of scientific men” (What is Darwinism page 142). And thus were the terms set for the ensuing fundamentalist warfare with science. The general distrust of science which now permeates much of our culture percolated out of this warfare. Sadly, I place much of the blame for 20% of Americans being cosmological cretins at the feet of the church.

I have outlined my view of the role of science in Christian epistemology in an earlier post on general revelation. I have been criticized by some friends for my attempts to give rationalism a stronger role in my theology. The fact that I find allies in the likes of Susan Jacoby and Noam Chomsky may not help the perception that I lean too heavily upon science and rationalism. But unless we inside the church are willing to view ourselves and our culture through the eyes of unbelievers like Jacoby and Chomsky, we will remain ignorant of how conservative Christianity has marginalized itself. (This is why I am currently reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Most of Dawkins arguments are built upon a faulty caricature of Christianity. But it is a caricature which has been fostered by the church itself.)

Many Christians today are choosing to fight back. They are striving to restore rational belief, and to weave the undeniable findings of science into our Biblical understandings. I happily count myself as part of this movement. I hope and pray that it finds traction within the evangelical church. Steve Martin recently set off an interesting exchange of comments with his post (which you can read here) on how various church groups are responding to believers who embrace evolutionary science. Judging from the experiences of the respondents, we are fighting an uphill battle.

Hodge had it wrong. I would restate his challenge in this way: “Religion has to fight for its life against a large class of anti-scientific Christians.”

Agree or disagree, I’d love to hear your comments.

Book Review: Random Designer

In September of last year, Olivet Nazarene University Professor Richard G. Colling found himself embroiled in a controversy over views expressed in this book. Random Designer (Browning Press, 2004) had been used as a textbook in some of his science courses, and recommended by other professors at the university. When certain church members and pastors learned of the content of Random Designer, they objected to Colling’s views on evolution loudly and persuasively. Despite the support of the administration and faculty at Olivet, several of these denominational leaders wielded their influence (read “threatened to withhold their financial support”) to intervene and compel the removal of Colling from the biology department.

One unintended consequence of their action is that I picked up and read Colling’s work. Hopefully, the controversy will spur many such new sales, because I believe that many will benefit from reading Random Designer. The book targets some of those very pastors that led the charge against Colling, as indicated on this slip cover blurb:

"Written in easy-flowing personal narrative for working professionals, pastors, religious leaders, public school teachers, college students, and people of all faiths, Random Designer is a story of a loving and caring Creator who miraculously harnesses the random and chaotic forces of nature to accomplish his ultimate purposes. And now, after faithfully laboring for billions of years to bring His creation to an awareness of Himself, He calls to us from the deepest recesses of our minds. Will we hear His voice?"

Random Designer is divided into two sections. Section I deals with the science of randomness. Randomness is the necessary consequence of the laws that govern our cosmos, particularly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Colling shows how entropy works as a randomizer, and how this same law suffuses the earth with a constant flow of energy which in turn serves to being order to randomness. Hence, in Colling’s view, the natural rise of life on earth through evolutionary processes. Randomness becomes the necessary fodder for natural selection, and it is apparently the Designer’s tool of choice. If like me, you have contemplated the place of randomness in Creation, you will benefit from Colling’s descriptions of these processes.

In Section II, Colling turns from science to the theological and practical considerations of randomness. I want to highlight two of the chapters. One seeks to answer questions that surround Adam. Is Adam an historical figure? Is he a metaphorical “stand-in” for the human race? Colling explores these and other possibilities. A chapter which fascinated me is entitled “The Ultimate Creation”. Colling cites science which suggests that the human race may have arrived at the pinnacle of evolution. The same processes of randomness that increase complexity must also serve to maintain complexity. The complexity of the human genome may have reached a balancing point. Or to put it another way, the human genome may be nearing full capacity. If this is true, as genetics suggests it may be, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that we are the ultimate creation of the Random Designer!

Random Designer is written for undergraduates, and as such is an easy read. If you are seeking understandings which bring purpose and order to a world of apparent randomness, you may find Colling’s book helpful.

Post #15 Addendum: DVD in Pocket Saves a Life

Please read Post #15 for the context of this news story and the following questions...

DVD in Firefighter's Coat Blocks Bullet
Feb 19, 11:05 PM (ET)

WALTERBORO, S.C. (AP) - A South Carolina man is thankful for a DVD that ended up taking a bullet for him. Colleton County Fire and Rescue Director Barry McRoy says he was leaving a Waffle House restaurant in Walterboro on Saturday morning when two men ran in fighting over a gun. Police say a bullet hit one of the struggling men, shattered a window and then hit McRoy.

The bullet hit a DVD McRoy was carrying in his pocket. He suffered a bruise but didn't realize he had been shot. As he told a police officer what happened he noticed a bullet hole in his jacket, the shattered DVD case and a piece of the bullet.

"I was saved by a DVD," McRoy says. "How lucky can you get?"
One man was arrested on assault and battery and gun charges.
The DVD was nicked. It was a gift from an employee who had recorded a TV show about fire extinguishers.

Questions:

• Was Mr. McRoy one very lucky man? or was this divine providence?

• Would you first need to know if McRoy is a believer? or if he prayed for protection that morning?

• What about the thousands struck by stray bullets which were not deflected by a wallet or DVD case or other object?

• Random stroke of luck? or Divine Will in action?

Feel free to comment ...