In the long run, however, I am not convinced that all—or even most—of these readers will feel comfortable following Collins. Collins's synthesis requires an ad hoc hybrid "Adam" who was "first man" in the sense of being either a specially chosen hominid or a larger tribe of early hominids (Collins is careful not to commit himself to either option). Although I am sympathetic to Collins's efforts to blaze such a path (and he is not alone), I do not see how such an ad hoc Adam will calm doctrinal waters, since the Westminster Confession of Faith leaves no room for anything other than a first couple read literally from the pages of Genesis and Paul, and therefore entails a clear rejection of evolutionary theory.
Further, this type of hybrid "Adam," clearly driven by the need to account for an evolutionary model, is not the Adam of the biblical authors. Ironically, the desire to protect the Adam of scripture leads Collins (and others) to create an Adam that hardly preserves the biblical portrait. Evolution and a historical Adam cannot be merged by positing an Adam so foreign to the biblical consciousness.
I happen to agree with the general thrust of what Enns is saying here. But his criticism is ironic. His objection doesn’t cut against either old-earth or young-earth creationism.
What he’s doing, intentionally or not, is to dynamite the harmonistic strategies of Christian theistic evolutionists. There are ingenious ways of combining a “historical Adam” with macroevolution and common descent. But the result is an artificial construct. The “Adam” it yields is not the Adam of Genesis (or Romans or 1 Corinthians).
So his criticism leaves both young-earth and old-earth creationism intact. What it discredits is the mediating interpretations of theistic evolutionists. In that respect, his objection is nearsighted. A case of friendly fire, where he’s shooting his comrades.
I don't think Enns quite gets Collins correct. Collins was attempting to lay out scenarios that could accommodate an historical Adam. Collins' own view is spelled out in an intereview here: http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/the-case-for-adam-and-eve-our-conversation-with-cjohn-collins
ReplyDeleteHe states: "Now, I hold to a scenario that is simple, namely that God formed Adam by scooping up some loose dirt and fashioning it into the very first man, and then God formed Eve using a part of Adam's body; there are no other humans around when they sin."
"Further, this type of hybrid "Adam," clearly driven by the need to account for an evolutionary model, is not the Adam of the biblical authors. Ironically, ... that hardly preserves the biblical portrait. Evolution and a historical Adam cannot be merged by positing an Adam so foreign to the biblical consciousness."
ReplyDeleteIt's odd that so many TEs are blind to this. My atheist friends can see it quite clearly, and I think the general culture is able to see what a false exercise this is.
I remember reading a science fiction book, Mass Effect: Revelations, which was developed into a hugely popular video game trilogy. The book is set far into the future when humans discover alien technology on Mars that allows them to travel faster than light across the galaxy. Humans discover they are not alone in the universe and there exists an entire galactic community. But as part of the lore it describes how all the human religions scramble to stretch their Holy Books and doctrines to accommodate these new facts. An ad hoc rush to show how all this was really taught or at least really compatible with the facts all along.
This is how the general public perceive TEs, in my experience... And rightly so.