Re: Clarification needed

Allan Harvey (aharvey@boulder.nist.gov)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:33:14 -0600

At 04:29 PM 7/23/99 +1000, Richard Kouchoo wrote:
>
>Note the following two statements:
>
>"Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the special creation as
>described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its
>full might against the theory of evolution. And here is why.
>In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one man, and through
>sin - death, and thus death has spread through the
>whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
>...the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the
>existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate.
>Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?

<Similar statements from an atheist publication snipped>

>YEC's usually use logic like this to stop a debate on God and Evolution in
>its tracks!! I really can't reconcile this statement with
>my evolutionary beliefs and my Christian Faith?? I need help. I am still
>searching for answers.

4 observations:

1) The issue of a young Earth is completely independent of the issue of a
"literal" (by which I mean two historical humans as ancestors to all
current humans) Adam and Eve. Even if you think a literal Adam and Eve
is theologically necessary, that does not in any way require a young Earth.

2) One can even have quite a bit of evolution (of plants and animals and
even of humans) and still have a literal Adam and Eve. Many people on
this list (Glenn Morton and Terry Gray, for example) have such views.

3) [Here's the part where many on this list may not agree]
The theologically important part is our fallenness (which is so obvious
that it almost needs no verification). Whether Adam was a "real" person
who got this started or a figurative representation of our turning away
from God, the basic theological truth is that we are all "in Adam" as
human sinners and need to be restored into a right relationship with God
(exactly how the relationship ended up wrong not being all that
important). Christ is the "second Adam", but that does not *necessarily*
mean the "first Adam" had to be a historical individual (though I grant
that, in isolation, that would be a more straightforward reading).

4) Just because some atheist *thinks* the theory of evolution destroys
the need for our redeemer doesn't make it so. We should not be getting
our theology from atheists. Unfortunately, many in the "creationist"
camp seem to unthinkingly accept atheist assertions as to the
metaphysical consequences of evolution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------