Re: The wrong horse in evolution education

On 12 Apr 2006 (14:35:12 +0200) I wrote:
"Yet the problem of the 'archeological-cultural big bang' around 40,000 years
ago remains if you place Adam in the Neolithic where he belongs."

Phil Metzger wrote (Apr 14 2006 - 17:13:46 EDT):
"I guess my question wasn't so much about the meaning of the expression
['archeological-cultural big bang'] as it was to know why this is a problem."

Jack Syme wrote (Apr 14 2006 - 22:39:47 EDT):
"[Rana & Ross] want Adam to be early enough to try to make him the predecessor
of all human beings, and late enough to fit the biblical evidence for when Adam
existed. And that is the problem, there is no model that is going to satisfy
both conditions."

Dick Fischer wrote (Fri Apr 14 2006 - 23:29:36 EDT):
"That's absolutely the case. I discovered that about twenty years ago."

So this is the central problem:

We define the first humans in a biblical way, as being "created in the image of
God". If we try to determine - from archeology and genetics - the approximate
time and place where they have to be put, we arrive at something between 100,000
and 50,000 in the Near East, or at the latest at around 40,000 in Europe (in
"Who was Adam", p.249, Rana opts for about 50,000).

If we do the same thing for Adam, archeology and ancient texts converge at no
more than 10,000 years ago (in the Neolithic) in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer).

Jack (and Dick) is right in saying that there is no model that can bring these
two requirements together. But does Adam have to be the first human created in
the image of God? Many would think so, and some denominational confessions have
said so explicitely. They refer to Rom.5:12, which is taken to teach the
biological inheritance of "original sin". This seems to be the crucial point why
a separation between the first humans (in the biblical sense) and Adam is
conceived to be impossible.

Now Janice Matchett (14 Apr 2006 20:55:28 -0400) has copied for us (an extract
from?) J.P. Holding's "A Look at the Doctrine of Original Sin". As Rom.5:12
emphasizes that we all die because we all sinned, not because of any inheritance
from Adam. And Holding, following Henri Blocher, points to the
pattern-connection between Adam and us. Just as Adam's sin was imputed to him,
and he died, so our sin is imputed to us, and we die, after the same pattern
(modified by the amount of knowledge of God's law). There is no question of God
being unjust or of our not being guilty of death.

A question of time, of before and after, of inheritance, does not enter. Abraham
(John 8:56) was saved through Christ, although he lived 2 millennia earlier, and
all OT saints were saved through Christ. So why can't pre-Adamites be
responsible before God, and therefore sin, after the pattern of Adam (modified
by their amount of knowledge of God's law), and die - and some be saved through
Christ? Christ is the pattern of the new humanity (both before and after his
time on earth), and Adam is the pattern of the old humanity (both before and
after his time).

At least for the time being, I see this as the most probable solution of the
time problem mentioned. It implies the rejection of the dogma of the inheritance
of an original sin. And I believe this dogma is not biblical, anyway. But of
course, I retain the teaching that all humans are sinful, lost, and in need of a
Savior.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)