Adam and Eve vs. the Theory of Evolution

[Frank Robert]

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

You might like:
The Genealogical Adam and Eve
The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry
S. Joshua Swamidass, MD, PhD.

Evolutionary science teaches that humans arose as a population, sharing common ancestors with other animals. Most readers of the book of Genesis in the past understood all humans descended from Adam and Eve, a couple specially created by God. These two teachings seem contradictory, but is that necessarily so? In the fractured conversation of human origins, can new insight guide us to solid ground in both science and theology? In The Genealogical Adam and Eve, S. Joshua Swamidass tests a scientific hypothesis: What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution? Building on well-established but overlooked science, Swamidass explains how it’s possible for Adam and Eve to be rightly identified as the ancestors of everyone. His analysis opens up new possibilities for understanding Adam and Eve, consistent both with current scientific consensus and with traditional readings of Scripture. These new possibilities open a conversation about what it means to be human. In this book, Swamidass​

• untangles several misunderstandings about the words human and ancestry, in both science and theology
• explains how genetic and genealogical ancestry are different, and how universal genealogical ancestry creates a new opportunity for rapprochement
• explores implications of genealogical ancestry for the theology of the image of God, the fall, and people “outside the garden”

Some think Adam and Eve are a myth. Some think evolution is a myth. Either way, the best available science opens up space to engage larger questions together. In this bold exploration, Swamidass charts a new way forward for peace between mainstream science and the Christian faith.​

The Genealogical Adam and Eve

The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry

peacefulscience.org

 

[CrowCross]

Evolutionary science teaches that humans arose as a population, sharing common ancestors with other animals. Most readers of the book of Genesis in the past understood all humans descended from Adam and Eve, a couple specially created by God.

If that were the case...the evolved humans do not have a sin nature....as they are not of the fallen linage of Adam.

 

[Frank Robert]

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:

Another way to look at it without contradicting the bible is was the creation of A&E with souls that made human.

If that were the case...the evolved humans do not have a sin nature....as they are not of the fallen linage of Adam.

The humans that were not descendant from A&E are not in the linage of Adam.

 

[CrowCross]

Another way to look at it without contradicting the bible is was the creation of A&E with souls that made human.

What happens when they die?

The humans that were not descendant from A&E are not in the linage of Adam.

That's obvious...

So, what actually happened? Did God choose a man and a women from the soulless population of humans and give them souls?

 

[Frank Robert]

What happens when they die?

That's obvious...

So, what actually happened? Did God choose a man and a women from the soulless population of humans and give them souls?

According to the book God created A&E de novo.

The author is a Population Geneticist. He explains mathematically how A&E became the progenitors of everyone within a period of several thousands years.

The book has been endorsed by scientists, theologians, and biblical scholars and it holds both scientifically and theologically (by many). One surprising endorsement, published in USA Today, was by an atheist scientist Nathan Lents.

Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of 'Adam and Eve'

Christians are often taught to reject evolutionary biology. With this research, it is my hope they will attain a greater respect for the discipline.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CrowCross]

According to the book God created A&E de novo.

The author is a Population Geneticist. He explains mathematically how A&E became the progenitors of everyone within a period of several thousands years.

The book has been endorsed by scientists, theologians, and biblical scholars and it holds both scientifically and theologically (by many). One surprising endorsement, published in USA Today, was by an atheist scientist Nathan Lents.

Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of 'Adam and Eve'

Christians are often taught to reject evolutionary biology. With this research, it is my hope they will attain a greater respect for the discipline.

www.usatoday.com

You didn't answer my question....What happens when they die?

 

[CrowCross]

Genesis says Eve was the mother of all....if there was a population present when Adam and Eve were created...then the bible is wrong.

 

[Frank Robert]

You didn't answer my question....What happens when they die?

I don't think anyone can say beyond their beliefs and how we have been taught to interpret the bible. There are numerous Christian beliefs and much that is believed today has been shaped by Paul who never met Jesus had little contact with the original apostles.

My guess is that people who did not descend from A& E do not have a soul to live in an after life.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You might like The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, [the 2019 book] by S. Joshua Swamidass.

I do like it, yes. I have a copy in my library. That book was a game-changer when it came out. It is one of several books that I recommend as crucial for evangelical Christians who want to understand evolution from a biblical world-view.

Like almost everyone else, it never occurred to me that there could be a distinction between genealogical and genetic ancestry. As this book demonstrates, and as I have discovered through my own studies (e.g., redemptive history versus natural history), some distinctions are imperative and essential, the sine qua non to solving a recalcitrant paradox, such as Adam and Eve being our first parents but not the first humans. I am forever grateful to Swamidass and his tireless work not only in regard to this question but also striving to model a peaceful dialogue between faith and science. (I have been a member of the Peaceful Science discussion board for several years.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If that were the case... the evolved humans do not have a sin nature....as they are not of the fallen linage of Adam.

1. Referring to people as "evolved humans" is about as meaningful as calling them "birthed humans."

2. Since all people are by nature in Adam, all people therefore have a sin nature.

3. "In Adam" is covenantal language, not biological. Neither Adam's sin nor Christ's righteousness are heritable traits.

Genesis says Eve was the mother of all ...

No, it does not. Please quote Genesis 3:20 in full and you will see.

 

[CrowCross]

No, it does not. Please quote Genesis 3:20 in full and you will see.

I've read it....Eve is the mother of all living. Should I read it again? Do you expect it to change?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... Eve was the mother of all ...

... Eve is the mother of all living.

Ah, that's much better. Are you able to discern the difference between these two?

 

[CrowCross]

Ah, that's much better. Are you able to discern the difference between these two?

All living...as in people.

 

[Manfred]

@Manfred

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

Nope, cannot mean more than one:
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).

Would have been "their" nostrils

I believe it is obvious Adam was the first man.

How long after Adam did the rest evolve and did God breathe life into all their nostrils?

 

[Manfred]

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.

So do you think all these people evolved outside of the garden?

Well, there was only one human race.

And we all came from the union between Adam and Eve

 

[Manfred]

Another way to look at it without contradicting the bible is was the creation of A&E with souls that made human.


The humans that were not descendant from A&E are not in the linage of Adam.

If it were possible for you to trace your genealogy back, (family tree) at some point the branches will become shorter and shorter and you will find Noah and his wife to be your ancestors, unless you also deny a global flood?

It is easy to trace your ancestry back from Noah to Adam.

 

[Frank Robert]

If it were possible for you to trace your genealogy back, (family tree) at some point the branches will become shorter and shorter and you will find Noah and his wife to be your ancestors, unless you also deny a global flood?

It is easy to trace your ancestry back from Noah to Adam.

Catholics are not required to believe in a global flood. The way I understand it is that it is the flood is not a matter of faith or morals.

From what I know is that there is no evidence of a global flood. If I were brought up and been schooled in denomination that believed in the flood I would likely believe in it also.

 

[Manfred]

From what I know is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Wow.... Just wow.
Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

The RCC allows you to not believe scripture!
I knew they were corrupt, but I did not know the full extent of it...

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow.... Just wow.
Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

The RCC allows you to not believe scripture!
I knew they were corrupt, but I did not know the full extent of it...

You are interpreting the OT as literal. I am among the majority of Christians who do not for the very simple fact that it defies logic to do so. On the other hand, I have no objections to others believing that the OT is to be taken literally.

 

[CrowCross]

How long after Adam did the rest evolve and did God breathe life into all their nostrils?

From what I've heard...and here's where it get x-tra biblical....those people living (if you can call them people) at the time Adam was created were soulless. When they died they just pretty much went the way of a deer or a giraffe. BUT, some mated with A&E progeny and their half breed children received souls. I suppose currently there are no more "evolved" people around because they would have all been wiped out in the small local flood of Noah.