Adam and Eve vs. the Theory of Evolution

[DialecticSkeptic]

My intent is to discuss in this thread the various ways that a historical Adam and Eve conflict with the scientific theory of evolution. Some argue that they were the first humans, created directly by God a few thousand years ago. Others believe that original sin is hereditary, which means human origins had to begin with them (as those who are not descended from them would otherwise be sinless). These discussions can follow a number of directions but, basically, if the issue in some way involves Adam and Eve versus the science and history of evolution, then it has a home in this thread.

I want to begin the discussion by engaging a critique that @Manfred raised elsewhere. He said (June 25, 2023):

Eve throws a big spanner into your evolution theory—unless you want to speculate that Adam slept for a couple of billion years whilst the female of the species evolved to allow procreation to take place.

Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth (and by human I mean Homo sapiens). In other words, if there were millions of humans living throughout the world a few thousand years ago, then the absence of Eve is not a problem for evolution—since the human species was reproducing just fine up to that point.

It seems to me that, time and time again, the issue always to reduces to the question, "Were Adam and Eve the first humans to exist on Earth?" If they were, then evolution has a big problem. But if they were not, then this approach is a dead end.

Relatedly, the fact that Adam and Eve were specially created de novo by God directly (from dust and a rib) likewise disproves evolution only if they were the first humans. In other words, it is not enough to point to their special creation, because if they were created de novo in a world populated by lots of other humans, then evolution is unaffected.

 

[CrowCross]

My intent is to discuss in this thread the various ways that a historical Adam and Eve conflict with the scientific theory of evolution. Some argue that they were the first humans, created directly by God a few thousand years ago. Others believe that original sin is hereditary, which means human origins had to begin with them (as those who are not descended from them would otherwise be sinless). These discussions can follow a number of directions but, basically, if the issue in some way involves Adam and Eve versus the science and history of evolution, then it has a home in this thread.

I want to begin the discussion by engaging a critique that @Manfred raised elsewhere. He said (June 25, 2023):



Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth (and by human I mean Homo sapiens). In other words, if there were millions of humans living throughout the world a few thousand years ago, then the absence of Eve is not a problem for evolution—since the human species was reproducing just fine up to that point.

It seems to me that, time and time again, the issue always to reduces to the question, "Were Adam and Eve the first humans to exist on Earth?" If they were, then evolution has a big problem. But if they were not, then this approach is a dead end.

Relatedly, the fact that Adam and Eve were specially created de novo by God directly (from dust and a rib) likewise disproves evolution only if they were the first humans. In other words, it is not enough to point to their special creation, because if they were created de novo in a world populated by lots of other humans, then evolution is unaffected.

Where does the bible say there were other people?

 

[Fred]

In terms of the manner of time, doesn't Genesis 1:14 specifically differentiate between days and years?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Where does the Bible say there were other people?

Complex question fallacy. I cannot answer your "where" question because it presupposes an answer to the "does" question that I don't accept.

Question: Does the Bible say there were other people on Earth?

Answer: No.

Question: Does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth?

Answer: No.

(However, an argument could be made that the Bible does say there were other people on Earth. We read in Genesis 1 that God created humankind in his image, sometime after which he made Adam and Eve. In other words, the humanity created in chapter one exists at the time he creates Adam and Eve in chapter two. Such an argument takes for granted that Genesis 2 does not revisit Genesis 1 but rather follows it, an idea for which some people would need justification.)

 

[Manfred]

My intent is to discuss in this thread the various ways that a historical Adam and Eve conflict with the scientific theory of evolution. Some argue that they were the first humans, created directly by God a few thousand years ago. Others believe that original sin is hereditary, which means human origins had to begin with them (as those who are not descended from them would otherwise be sinless). These discussions can follow a number of directions but, basically, if the issue in some way involves Adam and Eve versus the science and history of evolution, then it has a home in this thread.

I want to begin the discussion by engaging a critique that @Manfred raised elsewhere. He said (June 25, 2023):



Eve represents a problem for the theory of evolution only if she and Adam were the first humans to exist on Earth (and by human I mean Homo sapiens). In other words, if there were millions of humans living throughout the world a few thousand years ago, then the absence of Eve is not a problem for evolution—since the human species was reproducing just fine up to that point.

It seems to me that, time and time again, the issue always to reduces to the question, "Were Adam and Eve the first humans to exist on Earth?" If they were, then evolution has a big problem. But if they were not, then this approach is a dead end.

Relatedly, the fact that Adam and Eve were specially created de novo by God directly (from dust and a rib) likewise disproves evolution only if they were the first humans. In other words, it is not enough to point to their special creation, because if they were created de novo in a world populated by lots of other humans, then evolution is unaffected.

Not Possible From Scripture

A close investigation of the Bible shows that it does not allow for the possibility for pre-Adamic humanity.

Adam As The First Man

The Bible says that Adam was the first man. The Book of Genesis says:

Then God said, Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Genesis 1:26, 2:7).

The Apostle Paul wrote:

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

According to these verses, there were no humans before Adam and Eve. The first created humans were Adam and Eve. The Bible gives no hint that any pre-Adamic race was created before them.

No Death Before Adam
We are also told that there was not any human death until after the creation of Adam.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:12,14).

Because there was no death of human beings until after Adam, this seems to rule out any race existing before him.

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_697.cfm

I agree with Don Stewart

The Bible excludes the possibility of other humans existing before Adam.

If other humans did exist before Adam the following should be answered by those who hold such a view:
What did they look like: Did they evolve into the image of God and where does this leave Adam?
Did these people have a soul: God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul. Were these humans who pre-existed Adam soulless.
Did Christ die for their sins: Through Eve and her offspring. Now we have another lineage. How were these redeemed?
What happened to them when they died: Why isn't there any specific information in Scripture about them?

All these questions have no answer for those who believe there was some pre-Adamic race.

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_697.cfm

 

[CrowCross]

Complex question fallacy. I cannot answer your "where" question because it presupposes an answer to the "does" question that I don't accept.

Question: Does the Bible say there were other people on Earth?

Answer: No.

Question: Does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth?

Answer: No.

(However, an argument could be made that the Bible does say there were other people on Earth. We read in Genesis 1 that God created humankind in his image, sometime after which he made Adam and Eve. In other words, the humanity created in chapter one exists at the time he creates Adam and Eve in chapter two. Such an argument takes for granted that Genesis 2 does not revisit Genesis 1 but rather follows it, an idea for which some people would need justification.)

Question: Does the bible say the moon isn't made of cheese?

Answer. No.

.....A father told his daughter who was going out on a date...."be back home by a quarter of 12."

She came home at 3 in the morning thinking she had done no wrong because 3 is a quarter of 12.

 

[EarlyActs]

Not Possible From Scripture

A close investigation of the Bible shows that it does not allow for the possibility for pre-Adamic humanity.

Adam As The First Man

The Bible says that Adam was the first man. The Book of Genesis says:



The Apostle Paul wrote:



According to these verses, there were no humans before Adam and Eve. The first created humans were Adam and Eve. The Bible gives no hint that any pre-Adamic race was created before them.

No Death Before Adam
We are also told that there was not any human death until after the creation of Adam.



Because there was no death of human beings until after Adam, this seems to rule out any race existing before him.

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_697.cfm

I agree with Don Stewart

The Bible excludes the possibility of other humans existing before Adam.

If other humans did exist before Adam the following should be answered by those who hold such a view:
What did they look like: Did they evolve into the image of God and where does this leave Adam?
Did these people have a soul: God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul. Were these humans who pre-existed Adam soulless.
Did Christ die for their sins: Through Eve and her offspring. Now we have another lineage. How were these redeemed?
What happened to them when they died: Why isn't there any specific information in Scripture about them?

All these questions have no answer for those who believe there was some pre-Adamic race.

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_697.cfm

Yes, first, but not only. The Hebrew expression is a swarm of swarms to fill the earth.

There was a time of innocence between creation and the decision to revolt. We don't know how long. You write as though it was the first thing he thought of doing.

 

[Manfred]

Yes, first, but not only. The Hebrew expression is a swarm of swarms to fill the earth.

There was a time of innocence between creation and the decision to revolt. We don't know how long. You write as though it was the first thing he thought of doing.

Your response is meaningless and does not speak to the refutation posted.
Adress the refutation and the questions posed.

 

[Carbon]

@Manfred

Then God said, Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Genesis 1:26, 2:7).

This verse does not say "a man", but "man". Which could mean more than one.

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

I believe it is obvious Adam was the first man.

 

[Carbon]

No Death Before Adam
We are also told that there was not any human death until after the creation of Adam.

Yes, but says nothing about animal or plant death.

But I think the fall was speaking about spiritual death. Physical death came because God removed Adam and Eve from the garden and the Tree of Life.

Because there was no death of human beings until after Adam, this seems to rule out any race existing before him.

Well, there was only one human race.

 

[Carbon]

Your response is meaningless and does not speak to the refutation posted.
Adress the refutation and the questions posed.

Adam, the animals and trees, and such were created before Adam was placed in the garden. And how long Adam and finally Eve, were in the garden before the fall? We don't know. It could have been quite some time.

 

[CrowCross]

But I think the fall was speaking about spiritual death. Physical death came because God removed Adam and Eve from the garden and the Tree of Life.

I think Adam and Eve would have died physically that day...but God spared them. God took an innocent animal, killed it, and used the skin as a garment for Adam and Eve....Gen 3:21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.
This was a foreshadow of Christ Jesus...innocent, died in our place, was a covering for our sins.

 

[Carbon]

I think Adam and Eve would have died physically that day...but God spared them.

Brother, respectfully I disagree. God does not say something and then change His mind. If God said, if you eat of it, you shall surely die. Then guess what? They died. Spiritually.

God took an innocent animal, killed it, and used the skin as a garment for Adam and Eve....Gen 3:21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.
This was a foreshadowing of Christ Jesus...innocent, died in our place, was a covering for our sins.

Yes, okay. I agree. But how does this relate? Do,t you believe this is spiritual?

 

[CrowCross]

Brother, respectfully I disagree. God does not say something and then change His mind. If God said, if you eat of it, you shall surely die. Then guess what? They died. Spiritually.

No problem with your disagreement.
I simply see the innocent animal as a type of Christ.

Yes, okay. I agree. But how does this relate? Do,t you believe this is spiritual?

I believe A&E did die spiritually....would have died physically but God provided a type of Christ sacrifice and that day they did began to die.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think Adam and Eve would have died physically that day, but God spared them.

We can all agree that God said Adam and Eve would surely die "in the day that you eat of it." And we can all agree that they did not die physically that day.

We now have two options: (1) We can persist in thinking God meant death in physical terms and try to explain away the fact that they didn't die that day—and in fact lived for a few hundred years more. (2) We can consider that God meant death as spiritual separation and accept that Adam and Eve did really die that very day.

 

[CrowCross]

We can all agree that God said Adam and Eve would surely die "in the day that you eat of it." And we can all agree that they did not die physically that day.

We now have two options: (1) We can persist in thinking God meant death in physical terms and try to explain away the fact that they didn't die that day—and in fact lived for a few hundred years more. (2) We can consider that God meant death as spiritual separation and accept that Adam and Eve did really die that very day.

In post 12 I said

I think Adam and Eve would have died physically that day...but God spared them. God took an innocent animal, killed it, and used the skin as a garment for Adam and Eve....Gen 3:21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.
This was a foreshadow of Christ Jesus...innocent, died in our place, was a covering for our sins.

 

[Sereni-tea]

We can all agree that God said Adam and Eve would surely die "in the day that you eat of it." And we can all agree that they did not die physically that day.

We now have two options: (1) We can persist in thinking God meant death in physical terms and try to explain away the fact that they didn't die that day—and in fact lived for a few hundred years more. (2) We can consider that God meant death as spiritual separation and accept that Adam and Eve did really die that very day.

I have heard that the verse might be better translated as "on the day you eat of it you will be doomed to die". Would you consider that an accurate translation?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In post 12, I said ...

Uh, I know. That is precisely the post I quoted and was responding to.

Wow.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have heard that the verse might be better translated as "on the day you eat of it you will be doomed to die". Would you consider that an accurate translation?

To be honest, I don't like that translation because it doesn't seem to convey the meaning of the original text. It smacks of the translation "dying you will die." As I understand it, God was not warning them of natural consequences but rather juridical penalty. Throughout the Old Testament, most of the texts in which this expression appears (מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת, muwth–muwth) are from kings or communities pronouncing a death penalty (e.g., Judg 21:5; Jer 26:8; 1 Sam 14:39, 44; 22:16; 2 Sam 12:14; 14:14; 1 Kings 2:37, 42), as has God through prophets (e.g., 2 Kings 1:4, 6, 16; 8:10; Ezek 3:18; 18:13; 33:8, 14). Over and over again, the phrase constitutes a juridical penalty.

Compare this to 1 Kings 2:37 (cf. v. 42) where King Solomon encourages Shimei to make his home in Jerusalem but gives him this stern warning against ever leaving: "For on the day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you will surely die; your blood will be on your own head" (vv. 36-37). It uses language remarkably similar to that found in Genesis 2:17. In both cases, we have an authoritative decree accompanied by a juridical penalty for violating it. In both cases, as in most others where it is found, the phrase announces judicial penalties, not natural consequences.

 

[CrowCross]

Uh, I know. That is precisely the post I quoted and was responding to.

Wow.

Did you ever cut a flower?