Bible reveals Adam & Eve’s existence. But quite a few people reject their existence. How then do we rationally defend the existence of Adam and Eve?
In August 2013, Yahoo News reported the unraveling of a genetic Adam and Eve, who lived about 135,000 years ago [1]. This report was based on papers published in Science (August 2013).
Genetic Adam and Eve are not to be confused with the Biblical Adam & Eve. Genetic Adam & Eve were supposedly two out of thousands of people with unbroken and continuing male and female lineages. On the contrary, Biblical Adam & Eve were the first ever humans created by God – our primeval ancestors.
Minimally, Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity believe in the existence of the biblical Adam & Eve [2]. Postmodern Christians consider the biblical Adam & Eve as mythological figures because they do not attribute divine inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy upon the Bible. Evolutionists and non-Christians, with the exception of Jews and Muslims, deny the existence of Adam & Eve.
Why is Adam & Eve’s existence germane to Christianity?
If biblical Adam & Eve never existed, Bible’s authenticity could be disputed. The narrative of original sin and the need for savior – the Lord Jesus Christ – could be disputed as well. Thus a conclusion that there is no salvation from Christ, and that Christians are merely walking in the dark could be reasonable.
Denial of Adam & Eve’s existence could entail Christianity’s falsity through the following assertions:
- Science proves Adam & Eve never existed.
- Adam & Eve did not disobey God (because they did not exist).
- There was no “original sin” that was passed to us – the descendants of Adam & Eve.
- Jesus’ death on the cross was in vain (because there was no original sin).
- Bible that reveals Adam, Eve, sin and Christ is thus incorrect.
- Therefore, Christianity is invalid.
Scientists denying Adam & Eve’s existence, posit humanity’s origin from a small population of individuals. This nullifies the biblical notion of humanity’s origin from one man and one woman – Adam and Eve. Studies of ancestral population size of humans based on mutation rates and independent of mutations are the dominant foundation for the denial of biblical Adam & Eve [3].
Do not worry!
Biochemist and Vice President of Research & Apologetics of “Reasons to Believe,” Dr. Fazale Rana refutes the conclusions of the studies denying Adam & Eve’s existence [4]:
(1) These studies posit estimates and not hard and fast values. Therefore, do not consider estimates as concrete values.
(2) Studies on “Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam” trace back the origin of humanity to single ancestral sequences, namely single man and single women a.k.a Adam & Eve [5]. (Mitochondria, which contain its own DNA, are inherited only from the mother. Mitochondrial Eve is the woman who was the most recent common female ancestor of all humans. Similarly Y chromosome Adam was the most recent common male ancestor of all humans because Y chromosome is inherited only from the father.)
(3) Those who deny Adam & Eve’s existence assume that they were genetically identical, since Eve was created from Adam. But the Bible does not support the notion that God created Adam & Eve as genetically identical humans. God could have introduced genetic differences into Eve while creating her.
(4) The claim for humanity’s origin from a small population of individuals, in fact, supports the existence of biblical Adam & Eve i.e. Adam & Eve procreated and had many sons and daughters. These studies could well be positing the population structure of humans some time after their creation when their numbers would have been small.
(5) As in the case of the research done on “wild mouflon sheep,” these studies could have overestimated the original numbers for the first humans. A young male and female sheep placed in Haute Island in 1957 multiplied to 700 in 1977. When mathematical models used by studies to deny Adam & Eve’s existence were applied in the instance of wild mouflon sheep, the models underestimated the genetic diversity of the population.
“Answers in Genesis” – a Christian apologetics ministry, refutes the denial of the existence of Adam & Eve through [6]:
(A) Studies on human genetic diversity are predicated on “molecular clock dating,” which is “built on series of unverifiable assumptions and circular reasoning” [7]. (Molecular clocks estimate the duration of time taken for genetic diversity to occur.)
Molecular Geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom states that secular evolutionary scientists agree with the fundamental uncertainty in molecular clocks. Dr. Fazale Rana also claims that uncertainties in molecular clock analysis are on the order of +/- 50,000 years, which is remarkably imprecise. [8]
(B) An appeal to young earth creationism (belief in six literal 24 hour creation days and that the universe we live in was created 6000-12000 years ago) rejects a notion of large genetic variation within a very short elapsed duration of time (6000-12000 years since origin of universe).
(In fact, if young earth creationism is correct, Darwinian evolution should be discarded because it is virtually impossible for evolution to occur in a short time frame as 6000-12000 years.)
Therefore, scientists’ denial of Adam & Eve’s existence need not be trusted for it is a flawed conclusion.
What do we learn from this attack against Christianity?
Intellectual attack against Christianity is rampantly escalating. Churches should respond by equipping themselves with answers to these tough yet reasonable questions. Apologetics ministry should be developed in churches that subscribe to historic Christianity.
To conclude, I submit the words of Dr. Fazale Rana, “Even though the genetic data traces humanity’s origin back to a single woman and man, evolutionary biologists are quick to assert that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were not the first humans. Rather, according to them, many “Eves” and “Adams” existed.7 Accordingly, mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were the lucky ones whose genetic material just happened to survive. The genetic lines of the other first humans were lost over time.
While this explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, it is highly contrived. It would work if only a few of the first humans reproduced, or were allowed to reproduce. If the data is simply taken at face value, the biblical model is the more parsimonious explanation.
Even though evolutionary biologists offer ways to explain away the implications of the human population genetic data, these explanations—entrenched in naturalism—are not necessarily superior to an interpretation that fully squares with the biblical account. The scientific case for the biblical Adam and Eve stands firm.” [9]
Endnotes:
Websites cited were last accessed on 20/July/2015.
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/genetic-adam-eve-uncovered-180706860.html
[2] Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons etc. also believe in Adam & Eve.
[3] http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve
[4] Ibid.
[5] Recent studies have postulated the simultaneous existence of mitochondrial eve and Y-chromosome Adam. (William Lane Craig states, “…but recently Michael Murray, who is involved in the BioLogos movement and with the Templeton Foundation, sent me an email in which he said some recent studies have just reestimated the dates of the Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam and they’ve determined that they were roughly contemporaneous.” – http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-historical-adam-and-eve#_ftn7)
[6] https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/did-we-all-come-from-adam-and-eve/
[7] Ibid.
[8] http://www.reasons.org/articles/when-did-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam-live
[9] http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve
This blog was originally published at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2015/07/why-believe-adam-eve-defending-adam.html
Do you interact with the articles over at BIOLOGOS concerning the Adam and Eve question? Venema has a series there.
http://libertyandjusticeapparel.com/
At STR there is http://www.str.org/node/42236#.WE6TKfkwigQ which is “How Does the Gap Theory Work with the Old Earth Theory?” and the thread finds its way into the question here. An attempt to consolidate some of the definitions and terms is in the “Genesis, Genetics, Dualism, Ontology, and Science” comment.
Speaking on the syntax of the term “Adam” there is the following obvious observation: “The ambiguity of the Hebrew word ʾadam in Genesis 1– 3 lends itself to this point. This word does double duty in Genesis. In 1: 26– 27 ʾadam refers to humanity as a whole. In chapters 2– 3 ʾadam refers to the individual man (either as “the man” or as a proper name “Adam”) whom God has formed from dust, who would later name the animals, marry Eve, and so forth. Clearly the two uses of ʾadam are meant to be distinguished, but what are we to make of the dual usage? The use of the same word in these stories to designate both humankind and one man is certainly purposeful, not merely an accident of the Hebrew language. (Perhaps Gen. 1 could have avoided the ambiguity by using ʾish instead of ʾadam to describe humanity.) The editors are clearly saying something significant here, although the significance is not spelled out for us. In my opinion, the editor might be signaling that the individual man Adam in chapter 2 is a subset of the humanity ʾadam in chapter 1. In other words, the individual Adam is that part of the universal ʾadam that God is primarily interested in. There is ʾadam in the universal sense outside of Eden, but inside Eden, God’s garden, there is no ʾadam but one Adam — the one human with whom he has a unique relationship, the progenitor of God’s chosen people, Israel. The question is whether this Adam will be obedient to God and stay in Eden, or join the other ʾadam outside of the garden, in exile.” (Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam, What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Baker Publishing Group.)
Now, Enns takes that in one direction while others take it in a few other directions. Linguistics and genre are elements within a growing body of knowledge (for example, see Walton, John H. below) and there are several nuances or vectors which, when unpacked, help us define this or that X more precisely.
Enns’ book (listed below) is worthwhile on many levels. Of note: If one reassigns the genre and intent of X then by definition one does not find X unreliable. We have to be careful with that fact. Linguistics and genre are elements within a growing body of knowledge (for example, see Walton, John H. below). It’s unclear if Enns conflates the ontological history of becoming constituting “Dirt To Man” (material) for the ontological history of becoming constituting “Dirt To The Adamic” (the immaterial). Given dualism neither is convertible with the other. If Man is entirely material then such can be expunged from one’s analysis. Of course, either way the Non-Theist’s untenable claim that physics *is* ontology remains catastrophic to his own definitions. The options for the Christian are many as he merely needs to follow the evidence whether wrt ancient near eastern literary techniques or wrt genetics (and etc.) and that is why it is always amazing how confused the Non-Theist’s terms often are on this front. Regarding the question of *sin*, the trio of [1] mankind being made outside of Eden followed by [2] Adam being brought into Eden followed by the fact that [3] Eden is not Heaven dissolves the Non-Theist’s hope for some sort of impenetrable wall which the Christian’s metaphysic cannot traverse. Conflating Eden for Heaven is a non-convertible duo impacting the Non-Theist’s terms just as are the two ontological histories of becoming mentioned earlier.
And:
[1] Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Zondervan.
[2] Webb, Stephen H. The Dome of Eden: A New Solution to the Problem of Creation and Evolution. Cascade Books.
And:
[3] Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.
[4] Walton, John H.; Sandy, Brent. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. InterVarsity Press.
[5] Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.
[6] Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Baker Publishing Group.
And:
[7] Four Views on the Historical Adam. Lamoureux, Denis; Lamoureux, Denis; Walton, John H.; Walton, John H.; Collins, C. John; Collins, C. John; Barrick, William D.; Barrick, William D.; Boyd, Gregory A.; Boyd, Gregory A.; Ryken, Philip G.; Ryken, Philip G. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
[8] Three Views on Creation and Evolution. John Mark Reynolds; Howard J. Van Till; Paul Nelson; Robert C. Newman. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
[9] Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. Hoffmeier, James K.; Hoffmeier, James K.; Wenham, Gordon John; Wenham, Gordon John; Sparks, Kenton; Sparks, Kenton. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
And:
[10] John F. Haught. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press. [Chap 4 is tilted “Darwin’s Gift to Theology” which echoes what many have said in various ways: the material diagram in question (in fact no possible material diagram) is not (and cannot be) ipso facto theistic nor ipso facto atheistic.]
[11] Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam, What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Baker Publishing Group.
[12] Marshall, Perry. Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design. BenBella Books. [Included here with the assumption that one has a digital / Kindle version and uses the search option for the word “Adam”]
[13] Treleaven, Carl W. The Unexpected Perspective: The Implications of Darwin and the Big Bang for Christians and Everyone Else. WestBow Press.
And:
[14] Kropf, Richard W. Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
And:
[15] Delio, Ilia. Christ in Evolution. Orbis Books. Note: There is in part some degree of John Duns Scotus’ Primacy of Christ in this particular book, which affirms that the incarnation of Logos is predestined irrespective of sin / no-sin. One can see chapter three, “Franciscan Cosmic Christology” for context.
Lastly:
The complete metaphysic compels reason into the inimitable semantics of necessity, into the syntax of gospel, into a timeless diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum:
“[The] very action of kenosis is not a new act for God, because God’s eternal being is, in some sense, kenosis – the self-outpouring of the Father in the Son, in the joy of the Spirit. Thus Christ’s incarnation, far from dissembling his eternal nature, exhibits not only his particular proprium as the Son and the splendor of the Father’s likeness, but thereby also the nature of the whole trinitarian taxis. On the cross we see this joyous self-donation sub contrario, certainly, but not in alieno. For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion.” (D. B. Hart)
And again:
“This is true in two related and consequent senses: on the one hand, love is not originally a reaction but is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, the one transcendent act, the primordial generosity that is convertible with being itself, the blissful and desiring apatheia that requires no pathos to evoke it, no evil to make it good; and this is so because, on the other hand, God’s infinitely accomplished life of love is that trinitarian movement of his being that is infinitely determinate – as determinacy toward the other – and so an indestructible actus purus endlessly more dynamic than any mere motion of change could ever be. In him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning because he is wholly free, wholly God as Father, Son, and Spirit, wholly alive, and wholly love. Even the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness.” (D.B. Hart)
This is claimed in the article:
Studies on “Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam” trace back the origin of
humanity to single ancestral sequences, namely single man and single women a.k.a Adam & Eve [5].”
The claim is false. There is not a single scientific reference at [5] there that confirms it.
Here are some facts that anyone can easily check:
Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence
of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration,[2] but her age is not known with certainty; a 2009 estimate cites an age between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago (95% CI);[3] a 2013 study cites a range of 99–148 thousand years ago.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
While estimates as of 2014 suggested the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of
thousands of years),[4] the discovery of archaic Y-haplogroup in has pushed back the
estimated age of the Y-MRCA beyond the most likely age of the mt-MRCA. As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Furthermore, even if this Adam and Eve had lived at the same time, they were certainly not the only people around then and not the only ones that had children. The mt-MRCA simply is a woman that must have lived once and distinguished herself from the other women of her time (though that observation can only be made in hindsight) in that she is the only one who has an unbroken chain of females descendants that leads to all of us human beings. No other woman of her time stands at the beginning of a chain that leads to us without at least once a man appearing in it. Likewise, the Y-MRCA is the man that once must have lived and that has an unbroken chain of males that lead to us. No other man of his time is at the root a chain of descendants without at least once a woman in it.
“Of course, anything is possible. Maybe God exists and endowed two
ancient humans with some kind of immaterial soul, calling them Adam
& Eve. Then again, maybe Allah is real and will reward devout
Muslims with virgins in the afterlife. Who knows?”
That what is possible for a believer is dictated by his/her surrounding. Seldom will a believer have the opportunity to look beyond the horizon of his/her upbringing.
We could bring christians and muslims together and have them discuss the essential differences between their viewpoints. But what it would lead to is that they part. Each of them will carry his/her ‘faultless’ viewpoint back home. Where science can change its viewpoints, due to new information, critics and discussion, religion can not. A muslim can never believe that Jesus is God. A christian cannot never believe that it is otherwise (except for some groups that were not wipes out by the church).
False. Should reason, logic, and evidence converge to present a T.O.E. that has a more robust explanatory power than the metaphysical landscape of Being Itself (etc.) and which is free of metaphysical Naturalism’s arrays of this or that painful reductio ad absurdum then as a rational agent one would press forward into whatever corridors said landscape housed. The Christian is committed only to the degree of intellectual honesty it takes to compel one to truly believe a reductio ad absurdum. The philosophical naturalist insists the sky appears to be, not blue, but polka-doted purple, orange, and green (eventual reductio etc.). And that’s fine. However, without evidence to compel the Christian to overcome the Christian’s belief, well the Christian’s doxastic experience retains logical lucidity and simultaneously demonstrates a greater explanatory power than Naturalism.
Hint: Read up on doxastic experience and forget about your blithely uninformed group-think biases and straw-men. It’s far more productive.
The ad hominem you present is not only unproductive but also it is expunged of reality. Why? Because converts into and out of Worldview X abound. Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and so on are populated by such converts both into and out of.
Hint: Interfacing with reality is better than interfacing with your demonstrable fantasy.
One wonders to whom you are talking. Probably to yourself.
“Where science can change its viewpoints, due to new information, critics and discussion, religion can not. A muslim can never believe that Jesus is God. A christian cannot never believe that it is otherwise….”
Since you were inclined to make a demonstrably false claim, pointing it out seemed appropriate.
For 200 years science knows that earth is very old. For 150 years science knows that humans are apes and that we can not possibly have descended from a single, human pair.
Instead of listening to the scientific arguments brought forward, creationists will use any means to convince themselves (and the generally not very scientifically educated John Doe) that mainstream science is wrong. So if they find a Fazale Rana and see that he has a Ph.D., they will blow up this title (‘Oh boys! He is Ph.D.! A Ph.D.! So he MUST be right!) and neglect the fact that there is an army of Ph.D.’s and professors that support evolution science.
If they do not neglect it, they will call the scientific community ‘biased’. Of course, according to creationists, Dr. Fazale Rana can never be biased…
Wait a minute. So, according to the Non-Theist God used covalent bonds to fashion the immaterial Adamic? Well, see the two previous comments, the first beginning with “[Edited] The basic problem for the Non-Theist: The story of the…..” and the second beginning with, “Going further and forcing Scripture’s definitions: The reasoning behind…….”
Indeed: you are talking to yourself.
Your claims were misguided in that your definitions seemed to turn on the premise that [A] is convertible with [B] (per the first paragraph of the above comment etc.). That’s a simple category error, which is fine as far as it goes. Of course, persisting in such an error even after such is pointed out to you would be evidence that you reject new information when it is inconvenient to your definitions.
Still no one here told you that you are mad?
Perhaps your ad hominen would be more meaningful if you picked out a part and explained how what was said is mistaken, or, if you’re not sure what something is in reference to, perhaps you can point to it and we can unpack it. Or you can just toss in another comment asserting that I have a psychiatric illness.
The basic problem for the Non-Theist: The story of the ontological history of becoming wrt “Dirt To Man” cannot — even in principle — fully account for the story of the ontological history of becoming wrt the “Dirt To The Adamic“. Covalent bonds do not and cannot constitute immaterial architecture. Whether the story of the former traverses five seconds or five billion years is entirely irrelevant to the story of the latter.
Going further:
Raj,
I don’t understand the first part of your argument where you talk about the “genetic Adam and Eve.” You yourself seem to admit that, despite the “Adam and Eve” misnomer, these ancient human ancestors were not the same as the Biblical Adam and Eve. So, how are they relevant to your belief in the Biblical Adam and Eve?
You seem to think that skeptics have a burden of disproving Adam & Eve. This is not so. We simply have zero credible evidence to believe the Adam & Eve story in Genesis, and so we don’t. Of course, anything is possible. Maybe God exists and endowed two ancient humans with some kind of immaterial soul, calling them Adam & Eve. Then again, maybe Allah is real and will reward devout Muslims with virgins in the afterlife. Who knows?
Dr. Fazale Rana is a pseudoscientist with a religious agenda.
Professor Craig M. Story of Gordon College has taken his work to the shredder.
http://www.gordon.edu/craigstory
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/143-42.0.html
I am sorry, I will not engage ad hominems on anyone. Let this be a civil discussion without ad hominems.
Pointing out Rana’s bias and incompetence is not an ad hominem fallacy. You are trying to use him as a scientific authority, but it is clear that he is an untrustworthy source and so cannot be taken as an authority in the way that you want.
Rana Fazale is indeed not a scientific authority. But creationists will always come up with the likes of him because he has a Ph.D. (as if that settles all) and says what they want to hear.
Everyone is biased, and many scientists have a humanist agenda. I suspect you’ve never complained about that. Merely alleging a bias is not the same as invalidating an argument.
Where did my post go?
What exactly do you think is a humanist agenda in science?
To make things clear: when a scientist firmly believes that the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so in his/her opinion and he/she is looking for evidence to prove that, we have a bias.
When a scientists firmly believes that the scratches on Ayers Rock in Australia were made by fighting, godlike creatures of old because his/her aboriginal creation story tells so, we have a bias.
What exactly is the bias of the humanist agenda you attribute to some scientists?
“What do we learn from this attack against Christianity?”
What attacks? Is the fact that scientists have different opinions than apologist cherish an attack on Christianity? Then what about christian scientists that do not think that a historical Adam and Eve ever existed? They attack Christianity too?
Is it incorrect to consider a militant opposition to Christianity as an attack?
It seems your reasoning is not very convincing.
Ed, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Which reasoning of mine is not convincing and why does it not convince you? No offense…but would it be correct on my part to assume that you are an atheist?