> I agree with you on the need for a real, historical Adam. I would
> disagree that there is no possibility of explaining the source of
> sin in the fashion that the Bible describes.
I don't understand the latter statement.
> The Mantra that evolution is incompatible with special creation is
> due to the fact that Christians haven't tried very hard to united
> the two views. Conservatives repeat the mantra; liberals don't
> believe the creation account is anything but allegory. But it is
> possible to unite these views. What I have suggested, gives some
> people indigestion but it does unite both the evolutionary and the
> creationist views into one account.
Perhaps I need to explain my position. I recognize the existence of
fossils, I have even read some of the justifications of evolution,
although I am not an expert in it. I also recognize and believe the
Bible is the literalistic Word of God. I know Jesus is the truth,
hence all truth must be from God. The Bible and the existence of
fossils must agree, somehow.
I am also an engineer. I have difficulty accepting much of the
tenets of evolution because they fly in the face of the laws of
thermodynamics (for evolution to work, God had to be in it). On the
other hand, I am not totally convinced of a young Earth theory
because, as I have already mentioned, there is a difference between
the concept of day recorded in Genesis 1 and our modern concept of a
day.
Nevertheless, no matter what position a person takes, they have to
be consistent in their position. I point out Scriptural problems to
Christians who hold to the evolutionary model because there are
potential problems that must be resolved for a person to be able to
claim that they believe in the Bible. These problems involve
defining the origin of sin and the need for a Savior, and the
creation of woman (see below). To the young earth theorists, I point
out the necessity of reconciling the concept of day with the creation
of the sun on the fourth day.
By the way, one point I have not seen mentioned in these discussions
is the evidence from mythology and anthropology. I wrote a paper
while I was a student at a liberal seminary, showing that an aspect
of the documentary hypothesis didn't wash. That aspect, that Moses
copied the creation and flood accounts from the Babylonian epic, is
refuted by strikingly similar accounts in Polynesian and North
American Indian legends. This, of course, is evidence of a
collective (non Judean/Christian) memory, hence the stories must be
true. In fact, only the Bible has an explanation of this in the
story of the tower of Babel. No other ancient source (that I know
of) records the fact that humanity was initially united (hence, the
collective memory) yet dispersed into various sects, cultures and
languages. What is interesting is that many myths and legends around
the world parallel the Biblical accounts until a certain point and
then diverge, indicating the truth of the tower of Babel. Any
comments?
> I suggest that God took such a still born, miraculously fixed him
> up, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and created
> Adam. In this way you have a partially, evolutionarily generated
> body, and a special creation of God. This allows one to take into
> account the Biblical account, which is important to me, and allows
> me to explain the pseudogenes we share with the apes.
>
> Once Adam was created, the rest of the story can unfold as the Bible outlines.
> This includes your source of sin via the Fall.
Perhaps, but doesn't this still constitute special creation, not
evolutionary derivation of humanity from lower organisms? Even if
you explain Adam, what about Eve? The Bible is very specific that
Eve was formed out of Adam, not from another semian (Genesis
2:21-23).
Let me ask another (maybe stupid) question. We are told humanity
descended because of the presence of the pseudogenes that, I suppose,
became functioning because of a mutation/God's intervention/etc.
Could an equally likely interpretation be that apes descended from
humanity, because the genes became disfunctional?
> Theologically, if a living body can be dust and upon death, you
> are dust, then it is at least possible for God to have taken a
> cadaver an converted it to a living being, an evolutionarily
> derived body a specially created spirit, resulting ultimately in a
> fallen being like us.
Even better, John the Baptist said that God doesn't even need a
cadaver to create people (Matthew 3:9).
William M. Frix
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
Box 3021
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Phone: (501) 524-7466
FAX: (501) 524-9548
EMAIL: wfrix@engr.jbu.edu