Fusion: Convergence in Biology

In the previous post, I wrote to Nate, “The truths revealed in the cosmos, the fossil record, and our own DNA may at first be jarring to Christian faith. But when we stop resisting these truths, and begin the work of combining them with the revealed truths in the Bible, the exciting journey toward a fuller understanding of truth begins. And I am jazzed about that journey.” I have been on this journey for several years. However, most of my OutsideTheBox posts have concentrated upon the issue of evolution. The question of our evolutionary history is a settled issue for me. To me, the theological implications of evolution are of much greater interest and import. A friend recently encouraged me to post more on the impact evolutionary cosmology and biology have upon Christian theology. This I will do in a new series of posts under the heading of “Fusion”, with an open invitation for readers to join in with comments and questions. Many Christian sites are responding to apparent contradictions between science and faith. My purpose in this Fusion series of posts is to step beyond these problems to ask the question, “If science and the Bible are both revealing truth, what happens when we combine them? What new insights result from the fusion of growing natural revelation and special revelation?”

In a recent online discussion, a Creationist explained to me the problem he has with evolutionary science: "So God did not create man in his own image? ...in a old universe with macro-evolution ... we are not special .."

In his view, anything other than the special creation of mankind would mean that we are nothing more than an evolutionary accident. And so, along with many other Christians, he opts for a Creation that is precisely engineered and micromanaged by its Creator. 

However, there are serious problems with a micromanaging God, not the least of which is vulnerability to the challenge of Epicurus (see my recent post on Epicurus and the Problem of Evil). Is there a way out of this dilemma? Is it possible that God could create a universe that evolves on its own, without his constant interventions, and still have a predictable outcome: Man, created in his own image? The answer may be found in the principle of Evolutionary Convergence.

First, a little background: Convergence, is defined by Wikepedia as “the approach toward a definite value, as time goes on.” The term has various technical and mathematical applications, and is used in many social sciences. Of interest to our discussion is the principle of convergence as it is used in evolutionary science. 

Convergent evolution is based upon several observed phenomena. Here are a few fascinating examples:

1) Wings, with similar aerodynamic construction, have developed independently in birds and in bats, suggesting that the wing itself is a predictable outcome, a natural adaptation waiting to be “found” by natural selection.

2) Camera-like eyes, with similar characteristics, but with significant design differences, have developed independently in mammals and cephalopods (squids and octopuses, e.g.). Interestingly, the eye of the cephalopod is of superior design. Instead of the internal wiring from the retina which results in the blind spot in our eyes, the cephalopod’s eye has external wiring, eliminating the blind spot. Still, the eye is another example of an advantageous adaptation waiting to happen!

3) Adaptive Spaces: perhaps the most compelling example of convergence in evolution is the remarkable correspondence in the fauna that developed in Australia and that which developed in the rest of the world. That is, the array of marsupial animals in Australia bear many similarities to the array of placental mammals elsewhere. It is clear that the geographical separation of these two animal groups happened very early in the evolutionary tree. And yet, within the two groups, many of the same types of animals emerged over time, suggesting that certain “adaptive spaces” or “ecological niches” were waiting to be filled, and that the random processes of natural selection were predestined to find them.

In fairness, this principle of convergence is still a matter of debate among evolutionary scientists. American evolutionary biologist Steven J. Gould famously defended the principle of contingency: he claimed that if we could turn back the clock to the beginning of evolution and start the process over, an entirely different set of living things would emerge, that every new random development is “contingent” upon those that preceded it. British paleontologist Simon Conway Morris leads the charge for the other side, making the case for convergence. He claims that our observations of phenomena suggest that if we turned back that clock and started evolution all over, a very similar set of living things would emerge. The random processes might vary, details could be different, but the ultimate outcomes might be substantially the same. The result of the process would be a set of organisms bearing remarkable similarity to that which we observe today.

I have been reading a fascinating anthology on convergence, edited by Conway Morris (and recommended to me by Isaac, a frequent OutsideTheBox commenter) which outlines the current state of convergent evolutionary science. This science suggests that the process of evolution quite naturally will find itself moving toward certain predictable outcomes, including sentience (perception, subjectivity) and intelligence.

Back to our Creationist’s objection to evolution. How does convergence impact his claim that in evolution, man is not special, that we are mere accidents, and certainly not the intended image bearers of the divine which the Bible declares us to be? Convergence suggests to me that God could create man “in his image” through unguided random natural processes; that without knowing, or needing to control, every detail of the process, the outcomes were from the very beginning quite predictable; that God used a remarkable plan to forge mankind by creating an awesome DNA language, stepping back, and watching his spectacular handiwork unfold. It suggests that it was not necessary for God to micro-manage the creative process we call evolution, or step in from time to time to tweak it, or add certain design elements into the mix. 

Since I started my quest for a deeper understanding of God and his ways, I have been looking for that principle that could wed the seemingly contradictory ideas of randomness and design. Such a principle would profoundly effect theology. The answer may lie in evolutionary convergence.

In future posts, I will seek to understand how a non-interventionist God effects theodicy (the problem of evil), and why God might have chosen such a non-interventionist approach in the first place.

Comments?

Behind the scenes ...

How it Happened


Isaac Asimov (?)

My brother began to dictate in his best oratorical style, the one which has the tribes hanging on his words.

“In the beginning,” he said, “exactly fifteen point two billion years ago, there was a big bang and the Universe–”

But I had stopped writing. “Fifteen billion years ago?” I said incredulously.

“Absolutely,” he said. “I’m inspired.”

“I don’t question your inspiration,” I said. (I had better not. He’s three years younger than I am, but I don’t try questioning his inspiration. Neither does anyone else or there’s hell to pay.) “But are you going to tell the story of the Creation over a period of fifteen billion years?”

“I have to,” said my brother. “That’s how long it took. I have it all in here,” he tapped his forehead, “and it’s on the very highest authority.”

By now I had put down my stylus. “Do you know the price of papyrus?” I said.

“What?” (He may be inspired but I frequently noticed that the inspiration didn’t include such sordid matters as the price of papyrus.)

I said, “Suppose you describe one million years of events to each roll of papyrus. That means you’ll have to fill fifteen thousand rolls. You’ll have to talk long enough to fill them and you know that you begin to stammer after a while. I’ll have to write enough to fill them and my fingers will fall off. And even if we can afford all that papyrus and you have the voice and I have the strength, who’s going to copy it? We’ve got to have a guarantee of a hundred copies before we can publish and without that where will we get royalties from?”

My brother thought awhile. He said, “You think I ought to cut it down?”

“Way down,” I said, “if you expect to reach the public.”

“How about a hundred years?” he said.

“How about six days?” I said.

He said horrified, “You can’t squeeze Creation into six days.”

I said, “This is all the papyrus I have. What do you think?”

“Oh, well,” he said, and began to dictate again, “In the beginning– Does it have to be six days, Aaron?”

I said, firmly, “Six days, Moses.”
_____________________________________________
A tip of the hat to David McMaster, my brother-in-law. Though I have not been able to verify the author, this site credits this vignette to Isaac Asimov. Can anybody confirm?

Was Malaria designed?

"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve's children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.



"What sort of designer is that? What sort of 'fine-tuning' leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain?

"Maybe. Maybe not. A torrent of pain indisputably swirls through the world—not only the world of humans but the world of sentient animal life as well. Yet, just as undeniably, much that is good graces nature. Many children die, yet many others thrive. Some people languish, but others savor full lives. Does one outweigh the other? If so, which outweighs which? Or are pleasure and pain, good and evil, incommensurable? Are viruses and parasites part of some brilliant, as-yet-unappreciated economy of nature, or do they reflect the bungling of an incompetent, fallible designer?" 

Who wrote those words? The first person to identify the author of this quote wins ... well, my praise and kudos!

How do you respond? Do you share the view that malaria is designed, crafted and carefully constructed by a Creator? Or did it slip in by accident? Creation books often explore the beauty and grandeur of the earth and its inhabitants. It is easy to credit a wise and wonderful Creator for Victoria Falls, apples, giraffes, and sequoias. Rarely do Creationists acknowledge the darker side of Creation with its shadowy, sometimes monstrous aspects. What about Malaria?

Inspiration: Is the Bible inspired?

Questions about the Inspiration of the Scriptures, Inerrancy, troubling texts, contradictions in the Bible, etc., keep cropping up here at OutsideTheBox. Today’s post will be the first in a “sometimes series” on the Bible entitled, “Accurately Handling the Word of Truth.” In this series, I will state my own views on the Bible, and perhaps help some of my readers to sort out their honest and troubling questions about the Scriptures.

Today's post looks at the question of Inspiration. It was written 18 months ago in the aftermath of controversy surrounding my views on the sciences of cosmology and evolution in the local church to which I belong. I wrote it originally to dispel concerns that I no longer "believed the Bible." Not at all certain that I accomplished that purpose, I offer it here anyway in hopes it may, at least, clarify my views for my readers.

As I was preparing this post, I happened upon this excellent post on “Negotiating Tensions in the Bible” which Chris Tilling posted over at Chrisendom earlier today. Those interested in a deeper, more scholarly approach to these issues may wish to read his essay, which he recently penned for some of his own students grappling with these difficult questions. Happy reading!

As always, I invite your comments.

Inspiration of the Scriptures

By Cliff Martin

What was the process of the inspiration of the Scriptures? How did it happen? To what degree are the Scriptures without error? How dependable are they? Can we safely base our lives on their teachings? These are fair and responsible questions. As I am being asked to clearly state what I believe about these questions, I have chosen to declare in writing my views on the inspiration of the Bible.

__________________________________________

Three issues swirl about the larger question of inspiration. Every Bible believer who desires to maintain a reasonable and viable faith is obliged to face three issues honestly and thoughtfully. The three issues are:

1. How does the Bible square up with external evidences? When we place the Bible alongside the findings of history, geology, cosmology, and biology, how much agreement or disagreement do we find? And if we find discrepancies, what do they tell us about Inspiration?

2. How does the Bible square up with internal evidences? Are there contradictions? Do we find teachings in the Old Testament, for example, that do not align well with the nature of God as we understand him from the life of Jesus, and the New Testament? If the Bible disagrees with itself in matters of history and/or theology, what does this tell us about Inspiration?

3. What does that Bible say about itself, both explicitly, and inferentially? Does the Bible declare itself to be without error? What can we glean from the writers themselves? For many Christians, the starting point must be this third set of issues. It is argued that if the Bible makes certain definitive claims about itself, issues one and two must be laid aside. So I will begin this discussion with this question: What does the Bible itself declare about itself?

First, we must recognize that the Bible says nothing about itself. The Bible as we have it had no “self identity” until the process of canonization, hundreds of years after the last words were penned. To construe any claims within the texts about the “Scriptures” as encompassing all of the texts contained in our Bible ignores this fact. Or we must use an unlikely premise that the authors who made the claims were doing so in anticipation of the defining of Scripture which was not to occur for some 300 years or more.

However, New Testament writers did look back upon a defined set of the Hebrew Scriptures. And many of these writers, and Jesus himself in his spoken words, clearly regarded Old Testament texts which they quoted to be the words of God (though we must be careful not to press this point too far—often they quoted the textually corrupt Septuagint). They might, for example, quote an Old Testament Scripture with the words “the Holy Spirit says ....” Neo-orthodox thinkers like Karl Barth [1], and many others who do not believe in plenary verbal inspiration, confess their belief that God’s Holy Spirit does indeed speak to us through the Bible, through the very words. But it requires a deductive leap to conclude that these New Testament authors therefore regarded all of the O.T. as the very words of God, without error. Such a claim is never made anywhere in the Bible. But Paul does declare that the Scriptures (however he might have defined them) were inspired. Let’s examine this clearest of all Biblical claims about its composition, from 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB)

The Greek word translated “inspired” is theopneustos. It occurs only this one time in the New Testament, and it is absent from other Classical Greek literature of the era. So beyond this one verse in the Bible, we are left with no clues as to its usage. But the word itself refers to the breath of God. While some might argue that “God-breathed” can only mean verbal (word for word) inspiration, the term may mean no more than its Latin corresponding word, the root of our English, inspired, which means “breathed in”. An artist or a hymn writer might be moved to paint or compose by some stirring expression of nature, and properly claim that they were inspired of God to produce their work. Of course theopneustos, may mean more than that, but we are not obliged to conclude that it does. Therefore, the Scriptures themselves seem to leave those of us who believe in Inspiration with considerable latitude for our understanding of the meaning of Inspiration. Charles Pinnock, a respected evangelical leader, has concluded,

The Bible does not give us a doctrine of its own inspiration and authority that answers all the various questions we might like to ask.  Its witness on this subject is unsystematic and somewhat fragmentary and enables us to reach important but modest conclusions. [2]

When we turn our attention to the text of the Bible itself (issues one and two, above), we are confronted with many inaccuracies and discrepancies. I will not point them all out in this essay. But no honest Bible scholar denies them. John Piper [3] (a leading Evangelical defender of inerrancy), readily admits that there are “hundreds” of such discrepancies, and that “we dishonour the text not to see them ....” He holds out the hope that all these problems will find solutions, but he suggests we might not get those solutions “in this life” [4]. I do not share his optimism. The list of discrepancies is not getting shorter. Instead, the list keeps growing as our knowledge of the earth and the cosmos expand. It boggles the mind to understand how some of those discrepancies could possibly be solved. And it borders upon intellectual dishonesty to dismiss them in such a cavalier fashion as Piper does.

Perhaps the problem isn’t with the Bible. Perhaps the fault lies in our definitions of Inspiration, and our insistence that the Scriptures are verbally (word for word) inspired in their totality. If the Scriptures do not expressly claim this for themselves, and if the mounting evidence is to the contrary, should we not at least give consideration to other views of Inspiration? The modern day doctrine of inerrancy together with the importance bestowed upon the doctrine, was born in the fundamentalist reaction to modernism at the turn of the 20th Century. Many consider it to be the lynchpin of orthodoxy. But the early leaders of the fundamentalist movement were not unanimous in their acceptance of inerrancy. One of those early leaders, James Orr, warned,

It is urged...that unless we can demonstrate what is called the inerrancy of the biblical record down even to its minutest details, the whole edifice of belief in revealed religion falls to the ground. This, on the face of it, is the most suicidal position for any defender of revelation to take up. [5]

Suicidal, in Orr’s opinion, because he viewed inerrancy as impossible to defend. And thus, the inerrantist inevitably paints himself into a corner.

Rather than spending any more time discussing what the Bible is not, I would like to make clear what I believe the Bible is.

I believe that the Bible is a unique book, inspired from Genesis to Revelation. I believe it is the very book God wanted us to have. I hold to the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice. I believe the Bible provides a solid and dependable foundation for Christian living. I read it. I study it. I love it. I teach it. I find that it is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB). I believe all the Scriptures are infallible. Infallibility, as I use the term, means that the Bible, in its totality, does not mislead on issues of faith and practice, though it may not be without error in all respects, e.g. in history or science. In my years of reading and studying the Bible, this view of the Scriptures is more consistent with the Scriptures themselves than what I consider a forced claim of inerrancy.

[Though my view of Inspiration has shifted as I have gained a more thorough understanding of the issues, this shift has not affected my core beliefs. I believe in the Incarnation; I believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus; I believe in his Bodily Resurrection; I believe in the reality and power of prayer. I believe in the indwelling, empowering Holy Spirit.]

I believe that in the process of inspiration, God did not override any author’s memory or knowledge base. [Paul, writing the inspired book of 1 Corinthians, included a little misinformation, then corrected himself, then said he was uncertain because he could not remember (1:14-16); the variations in the reporting of events during the life of Jesus which are found in the Gospels are best understood as resulting from inexact recall of events]. It was not God’s intention to produce a supernatural perfect book. Many have wondered why it is that the leader of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ himself, never wrote a book [6]. The answer is quite simple for me. If Jesus had a written a book, the church would have fallen into worship of that book. It would be venerated. It would be legalistically applied. God has chosen not to give us “the perfect book” because our faith is not about words on a page, but about a growing, dynamic relationship with the Lord of the Universe! However, the Bible does give a faithful and accurate account of this growing relationship with God from Abraham through John, the Apostle.

My understanding of the mechanics of inspiration is perhaps best expressed in how I view the early chapters of Genesis, especially chapter one. Here, we see God inspiring Moses to convey remarkable new truths even as he wrote out of his mistaken Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) concept of the universe which included a firmament, with “waters above”. [7] The cosmology of Genesis 1 is quite clearly based in these concepts. We read similar accounts of Creation in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature that predates Moses. But Moses offered some rather earth-shaking revelations about the one Creator-God, and the nature of God’s relationship to mankind. This is the essence of the revelation of these chapters. [8] It is a message which is today obscured by an insistence that Genesis 1 be understood literally. When the world hears Christians defending literalist interpretations of the Biblical account of Creation, this powerful message of Moses is marginalized, and the voice of the Church is, sadly, muted.

I believe that once Moses had these understandings about Creation, that God “inspired” him to write down his understandings. Moses then supplied the context in terms of ANE cosmogeny [9]; these misunderstandings did not bother God, nor did they detract from the revealed truths being conveyed. God knew that as man’s relationship to Him progressed, further revelation would build upon these writings of Moses. He knew that, in time, man would get the science right. Through this process of progressive revelation, truths about God would come into clearer and clearer focus. I believe this is exactly what we see happening through the whole course of Scripture, culminating in the person of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.

When I read through the Bible, I am so thankful that God inspired Moses to write down what he was learning about God, even when his understandings were incomplete, or inaccurate. But God, as I have come to know him, is better represented in the writings of David, than Moses. Better still in Isaiah, Jeremiah. Better still in the Gospel records, and finally, in the writings of Paul, and John. Each new layer of inspired writing builds upon the earlier revelation. Like the process of zeroing a telescope in on a distant star, the person and character of God comes into clearer and clearer focus as we move through the Scriptures. In the end, we are equipped with a faithful journal of the history of the one true and living God with a people who sought him, and found him. The net message of the Bible, taken as a whole, comes through loud and clear! It is the revelation of God.

The fact that the Biblical authors did not have their cosmology down pat (no one did until the 15th Century A.D!) does not detract from the power, life-flow, and personal impact the Scriptures convey to me. To push the issue of inerrancy, to insist upon a woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis 1, obscures the real truth of the Word, robs it of its life, and sets up an easy target for the skeptics.

The conflict that has grown up between science and the Bible is an artificial one. It should never have happened. Christian faith was the driving force for science up to and including Darwin. Believers were highly motivated to explore Creation, the handiwork of our Friend! When a strong anti-evolutionary bias linked to Fundamentalism’s defense of the Bible (a linkage which James Orr, and his friend B.B. Warfield both warned was a mistake), an unhealthy distrust of science developed in the Fundamentalist wing of the church. Bible-believing Christianity ceased to be a major player in the advance of science. Lamentably, we deeded that territory largely over to the secularists, who today use science as a club to beat up on Christian beliefs.

There is no conflict between the true scientific exploration of Creation, and the inspired revelation of the Creator. (And contrary to the popular notion among some believers, there is no anti-Christian conspiracy among scientists today, many of whom are Bible believing Christians.) Truth about God and his Creation is truth, whether it is found in the pages of Scripture, or in the lenses of Hubble’s telescope. It is all truth. It is time for this tired, misguided warfare to come to an end.

___________________________________
Endnotes:

1 Neo-orthodoxy, a 20th Century movement, is distinct from both Liberal Protestantism and Fundamentalism. This can be seen in Barth's understanding of the Bible. He rejected the Fundamentalist claim that the Scriptures are inerrant. He rejected the modernist Liberal Christian claim of that time, that God could be known primarily through human scholarship (science and reason). He believed that the Bible was the primary place where God is revealed to human beings, but he did not hold the Bible to be without error.

2 The Scripture Principle, Charles Pinnock, page 80

3 These excerpts come from Piper’s book, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, page 77

4 I have never understood how the inerrant Bible Piper holds, reads, and teaches from is any different from Barth’s neo-orthodox Bible. Both scholars hold a book riddled with errors. The known errors admitted by both men number in the hundreds. Piper and Barth have an identical problem: how to read and discern the Bible which has known errors, and may contain other errors we have not yet identified. There is no difference. Those who hold to inerrancy and cast aspersions upon those who do not, claiming that they can “pick and choose” what to believe are not being fair or honest. They have the ability, and the responsibility to do the same! Piper and Barth are both utterly dependent upon Holy Spirit illumination, without which the Bible is nothing more than dead words on a page. (And isn’t this how God intended us to regard the Bible?)

5 Revelation and Inspiration, James Orr, page 197.

6 Christians seldom ask this question, but in my experience, it is among the most common questions raised by nonbelievers.

7 See Gordon Glover’s Beyond the Firmament, chapter 3 and following.

8 Steve Martin has written an excellent post on this subject which can be found here.

9 a cosmogeny (or cosmogony) is any view of how the universe came into being.

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 ...