I recently ran across the following statement:
We should consider the possibility that Adam and Eve, though historical figures, were not literally the first parents of all present-day human beings. C. John Collins considers the suggestion that Adam and Eve may not have been the first human beings, but rather “king and queen” of a tribe. In this case, the passages referring to their special creation (Gen. 2:7; 21–22) would likely (though not necessarily) be intended figuratively, representing God’s investiture of this couple with special qualities (the image of God) and a special vassal kingship, including the covenant headship of Adam over the existing human race…On such an interpretation we would also have to take figuratively the statement in Genesis 3:20 that Eve “was the mother of all living.” Of course in Scripture “father” and “mother” do not always refer to biological parentage. Scripture sometimes refers to kings and other authority figures as fathers and mothers, and certainly adoptive parents have the right to these titles. So it is not inconceivable that Genesis 3:20 refers to Eve as the mother of the human nation, given that status and title by God’s covenant investiture.
This is in response to the current objection that Gen 1-2 (not to mention Gen 6-8) creates a population bottleneck if all humans are said to be descended from a single breeding pair. But there are serious exegetical problems with that proposal.
i) Logically, this would mean Adam and Eve were specially created, and some humans descended from Adam and Eve, but most humans preexisted Adam and Eve. Except for Adam and Eve, the human race was the product of theistic evolution. And humans died before the Fall.
Not only is that a makeshift explanation, but it swaps in a very different creation narrative. The theistic evolutionary narrative presents a very different view of how God relates to the world. Frankly, the God of theistic evolution dovetails with open theism. So haphazard. So many false starts. So many dead ends. The randomness of which species survive and which species go extinct.
Another exegetical problem is how this relates to the flood. I don't think it's coincidental that the flood account comes on the heels of Adam's genealogy (Gen 5-6). If the narrative depicts the extent of the deluge as (minimally) an anthropologically universal flood, and if the narrative depicts the causalities of the flood as including all of Adam's posterity, up to that point in time (minus the immediate family of Noah), then logically, all of humanity is coextensive with Adam's posterity.
A concordist might take the next step and deny the anthropological universality of the flood. Indeed, I assume those apply the genetic objection to Adam and Eve would say the same thing about tracing all extant humans back to three or four breeding pairs on the ark. You have slightly more material to work with, but far less time.
On that view, some contemporary humans are lineal descendants of Adam and Eve while most contemporary humans are descendants of humans produced by theistic evolution, who, in turn, descend from lower animals, extending back through the whole macroevolutionary process. And in many cases, you'd have interbreeding between the two groups. So the human race has a mixed ancestry. Part special creation, part theistic evolution. But that's another stopgap solution. It's not consistently Scriptural or consistently "scientific."
On that view, some contemporary humans are lineal descendants of Adam and Eve while most contemporary humans are descendants of humans produced by theistic evolution, who, in turn, descend from lower animals, extending back through the whole macroevolutionary process. And in many cases, you'd have interbreeding between the two groups. So the human race has a mixed ancestry. Part special creation, part theistic evolution. But that's another stopgap solution. It's not consistently Scriptural or consistently "scientific."
ii) That said, there are Christian conservatives who content themselves with defending the historical Adam on purely exegetical grounds, and leave it at that, as if all they need to do is show what Scripture teaches.
If, however, their exegetical findings seem to be in conflict with mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, then they need to say something additional to relieve the logical and psychological strain. Otherwise, there's going to be a defection rate. Getting the exegesis right doesn't obviate the need for apologetics.
iii) That becomes a question of how best to address scientific objections. One chink in the argument is that science begins with the present, then rewinds the tape. And science commonly presumes a noninterventionalist model of divine providence, where natural processes happen uniformly and automatically in a closed continuum of physical cause and effect. A hands-off deity who winds the watch, then lets it run on its own.
But in the biblical worldview, there are spiritual agents (God, angels, demons, maybe ghosts) who introduce personal agency into the course of natural history. Although nature, left to its own devices, is law-like and machine-like, it has a manual override.
iv) In addition, that's not confined to the witness of Scripture. I think responsible paranormal researchers (e.g. Mario Beauregard, Stephen Braude, David Hufford, M. Scott Peck, Rupert Sheldrake) have compiled extrabiblical corroborative evidence.
It's not just the scientific evidence, but scientific evidence filtered through methodological naturalism, that generates the conflict. Lewontin was half right: once you allow a divine foot in the door (and not just a divine foot, but any supernatural foot), then all bets are off.
Frankly, the God of theistic evolution dovetails with open theism. So haphazard. So many false starts. So many dead ends. The randomness of which species survive and which species go extinct.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't a theistic evolutionist be a Calvinist or at least have a similarly high and strong view of providence where God is so in controls of all events that the end products are exactly what He wanted? What may appear to us to be false starts and dead ends may be part of God's overall plan. Same thing with the seeming (to us) randomness at which some species survive and some go extinct. Even in the strictest form of YEC one can believe that some human ethnic groups have gone "extinct" by literal death or by interbreeding with other ethnic groups. I think it can even allow for some ethnic traits to have arisen by God directed mutation as in the possible case of blue eyes and red hair. Adam and Eve may not have been mulattos in the sense of originally having the genes for blue eyes and red hair even though it was God's intention that some future ethnic groups have blue eyes and red hair.
There's a big difference between the idea of God using evolution to achieve is ends, and the actual narrative which Darwinians tell. In principle, you could have a front-loaded process where things unfold in programmed fashion, like the acorn to the oak. That would be a goal-oriented process where the means are adapted to the ends. An efficient incremental process from simple to complex.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a fact-free abstraction. An imaginary ideal. That's not how Darwinians tell the story. They tell the story of a process that's indistinguishable from a blind, groping process of elimination that achieves unforeseen results by mindlessly experimenting with different failed combinations until, every so often, by chance, it hits on a successful combination. Exhausting all possible permutations, one by one. It's not just a matter of some species surviving while others go extinct. Rather, it's the claim that this is an intended pathway to the long-term goal.
Yes, you could take it on faith that all appearances notwithstanding, this is really guided evolution, disguised to look like naturalistic evolution. But where's the evidence to justify your faith? It's not a revealed truth. And it's not an empirical truth.
The comparison with interbreeding is fallacious. Racial differences are adaptations to climate. Those are naturally subject to change.
In addition to what Steve said, it's possible to say humans are a single species with multiple ecotypes. Different populations of humans with varying genetic traits living in diverse geographical locations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough genetically we're far more similar than different. Indeed, genetic differences between humans of different ecotypes or races are quite minor in the grand scheme of things.
As for differences in physical characteristics. Steve already mentioned climate. Adaptations to different environments and all that this entails. I think this explains much if not most of our physical differences. Like the ranges of skin color for example. Likewise high altitude acclimatization. Such as certain tribes in Tibet or the Andes mountains who were born and have lived at altitudes exceeding 15,000 feet in contrast to those who were born near the foothills of the Andes or closer to sea level. Even the best acclimatized low-landers including low-landers who later moved to and lived in higher altitudes for over a decade don't perform as well as the native born high-landers in terms of cardiopulmonary physiological measures (e.g. oxygen-hemoglobin dissociation curves).
Along with environmental factors, we could add sexual selection. Some cultures may have intentionally or unintentionally preferred certain physical features over others in their partners. Take the epicanthic eyefold among most Asians and others like Native Americans and the Sami. This could be explained by environmental factors such as inhabiting an environment with bright light and strong dusty winds. But some have argued environmental factors don't tell the whole story (e.g. some peoples developed innovations like the Inuit snow goggles). Others speculate a single eyelid was deemed more attractive in particular cultures and so partners with monolids were chosen more so than those without. Of course, it could have been a combination of environmental factors with sexual selection.