Right now a number of professing Christians are redefining Christian theology to eliminate a historical Adam and Eve as the forebears of the human race. They do this in light of scientific objections.
I’ve addressed that issue before. Now I’d like to make a different point. The objection is one-sided. Even if we assume (arguendo) that Adam and Eve are scientifically problematic, it’s not as if the would-be alternatives are scientifically unproblematic.
For instance, evolution is a theory about biodiversity, not a theory about the origin of life. Given life, evolution postulates a theory of how extant life-forms diversify over time and space. But to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists haven’t made any significant process on a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Nothing beyond just-so stories. Why are there preexistent life-forms to evolve in the first place?
Therefore, it’s not as if we are forced to choose between an “unscientific” Biblical account of origins and a scientific alternative.
There are compromise solutions like theistic evolution. God originates life, then natural selection and random mutation take it from there.
However, it’s unclear why that’s scientific, but Gen 2 is unscientific. For both invoke divine agency to initiate natural kinds of one sort or another. Both invoke divine agency to bridge the gap between organic and inorganic matter.
Another version of theistic evolution has God intervening at key junctures in the evolutionary process to do what a stepwise process cannot (e.g. “irreducible complexity”). Again, though, it’s not clear how that’s scientific, but Gen 2 is unscientific. It’s not consistently naturalistic. It just relocates divine agency.
You know, it's such a good thought you have here. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI used to have a relationship with an atheist from Great Britian thru blogging. He was very bright, and yet he could not explain where life came from.
Two things this man said to me were telling.
1. Mallie said, when I asked him did not there have to be something eternal; an eternal Stone, or Gas, or something?,- "Well, we don't understand that yet, but we shall in another 1,000 years perhaps."
2. I asked him: "I know of a man named Peter, who had a Friend named Jesus. And his Friend was killed. And Peter wrote also about this Friend, that He rose from the dead three days later, and that he touched Him. What do you say to this?"
Jim said: "Peter loved this friend so much, that he halucinated. For no one can live again once dead."
I always look to Jesus, and see what He says about things, like creation. He also is the One responsible for the Scriptures. He created this most awesome Book for us.
hanks for all your good posts, and letting me air out my pea-brain. Lord's greatest blessings upon you Steve. You're a good Christian.
I think you may be misreading what's considered "scientifically problematic".
ReplyDeleteThe issue for some theistic evolutionists doesn't seem to be the invocation of God. It's specifically the supposed evidence that the population of humans never dropped down to a single pair. And some people accept this, but still hold to an Adam and Eve (A&E were two members of said population, endowed with souls/a relationship with God/etc, who then interbred with the unensouled, etc.)
I would agree, however, that if the complaint was simply "any explanation of history that involves God is not allowed", then any TE who posited God working at the Origin of Life or at points in evolutionary history (or anywhere at all) would run afoul of that standard.