Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Nomo Robo]

That's all.

[jimwalton]

Both. According to evolutionary theory, life evolved from non-life and eventually made its way to hominids. What I believe is that at a particular point in time, hominids evolved to the point that they were both spiritually capable and morally culpable. At that time, God revealed Himself to a particular couple, whom he chose out from among the others (Gn. 2.15). He gave them souls (Gn. 2.7), and they became representatives of all humans (homo sapiens).

[Dude]

Do you think all humans descend from these two people?

If so, do you think that the genealogy of the Bible is accurate?

Also, do you imagine that these two people had souls and therefore their offspring had souls, but the other hominids did not have souls?

[jimwalton]

> Do you think all humans descend from these two people?

No. Adam and Eve were selected out from among the other humans to represent the human race. Modern genomics indicates not only that we arose through an evolutionary process, but also that we did so as a population. There is no common line of biological descent from them to all humanity. Dr. Joshua Swamidass has an interesting theory that a single couple in about 6000 BC are the genealogical ancestors of all living humans, but not genetic or biological ancestors.

> If so, do you think that the genealogy of the Bible is accurate?

Yes. But it is well known that in the ancient world genealogies are never complete. They are often if not always telescoped for societal or theological purposes. In the same sense that Jesus is the son of David, the ancient genealogies don't include every generation. You can never just do the math and arrive at the dates. No ancient genealogy works that way. That the biblical genealogies work this way is very well established through the biblical record.

> do you imagine that these two people had souls and therefore their offspring had souls, but the other hominids did not have souls?

No. When God ensouled Adam and Eve, there's reason to believe He ensouled the other humans. When the Genesis text has the definite article in front of "adam," it is speaking not of an individual, but of the human race. And that is the case in Genesis 2:7.

[Jeweler]

What function does a soul provide to a human that they couldn’t develop through evolution?

[jimwalton]

The soul is how we connect to God. It's that non-material, spiritual aspect part of us. There is nothing material or physical, and therefore evolutionary, about it.

[Libber]

why do so many christians not believe in evolution then?

just misinformed, i suppose?

[jimwalton]

I think there are several reasons. Some Christians have been taught that it can't be both — you have to choose creation or evolution, God or science. I think it's a false dichotomy, obviously, but some Christians think that if you choose evolution you are saying God doesn't exist or that God didn't create. Secondly, some Christians have been taught that evolution is a Satanic tool used by atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. It's also a false claim, but some people have been taught that, and it is ingrained in them that evolution is of the devil. Third, some Christians have been told that evolution is false science — atheists trying to perpetrate a lie on the population.

There is a website (http://www.biologos.org) of Christian scientists who believe in evolution—some of the most accomplished and recognized scientists of the world, such as Dr. Francis Collins (Director of the human genome project and current director of the NIH) and Dr. Jennifer Wiseman (the astrophysicist in charge of the Hubble telescope). There are hundreds of them who write articles there, who are university professors, and who are well published in their fields.

[Dude]

> Dr. Joshua Swamidass has an interesting theory that a single couple in about 6000 BC are the genealogical ancestors of all living humans, but not genetic or biological ancestors.

What is the difference?

[jimwalton]

Swamidass explains it in an interview:

"There’s been a lot of conflict about how science expresses its understanding of Adam and Eve. It has to do with misunderstanding the word ancestor. We can understand it in the genetic sense, meaning someone we get our DNA from. Or we can mean it in a genealogical sense, meaning someone whose lineage we descend from.

"Genetics works in a very nonintuitive way. For example, my parents are both equally 100 percent my genealogical ancestors, and the same is true with my grandparents and great-grandparents. But my parents are each only one half of my genetic ancestry; my grandparents are one quarter; my great-grandparents are one eighth. Genetic ancestry just dilutes to the point where the majority of our genealogical ancestors pass on no DNA.

"Why is that important? Scripture doesn’t tell us about genetic ancestry. It does, however, tell us about genealogical ancestry. Historically, we’ve believed that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of everyone. We can ask: Does this mean genetic ancestors or genealogical ancestors? Well, Scripture can’t possibly be talking about genetic ancestry. It has to be talking about genealogical ancestry.

"That recognition really opens up an immense amount of space for theology. As Christians, we’ve had a lot of anxiety over what science is telling us about Adam and Eve. But these conflicts are based on what science says about our genetic ancestors. If we focus on genealogical ancestors instead, there might be far less conflict than we first imagined."

There are some reviews of his book on this Amazon page if you care to read them: https://www.amazon.com/Genealogical-Adam-Eve-Surprising-Universal/dp/0830852638