The June 2011 issue of “Christianity Today” features a provocative report about the churn among Christians over whether Adam & Eve were historical individuals as portrayed in the Bible. Francis Collins who currently is director of a Senate-approved agency (National Institutes of Health) considers himself Christian and favors theistic evolution. As director of the Human Genome Project (completed in 2003) Collins and colleagues mapped out gene sequencing in humans. Collins has concluded from this study, as reported in a book he recently co-authored (The Language of Science and Faith), that “Adam & Eve as the literal first couple and ancestors of all humans do not fit the evidence”.
This assumption is disturbing on two accounts: First of all, those who support the findings and support theistic evolution minimize the impact of their assertions. Second and more fraught with potential harm, is the implication for much of Biblical Theology and directly the trustworthiness of the Bible. I will address the second of these issues.
The author of the “Christianity Today” article, Richard Ostling, correctly articulates what is at stake:
– Humans’ unique status as image bearers of God
– The doctrine of original sin and the fall
– The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3
– Jesus’ teaching that all of the Old Testament points to Him (Luke 24)
– Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ
This issue is different from the debate among evangelical Christians who argue Old Earth vs. Young Earth. In that arena, it is clearer that there are at least two possible interpretations. The Bible refers to days (yowm) spent in creating the world. In Hebrew ‘yowm/Strongs H3117’ can mean 24 hours, a year or a long period of time. So the creation account is open to discussion without raising the trustworthiness of the Bible as an issue.
But if there is not a literal and historical Adam, then here are the implications:
-God did NOT decide as a Trinitarian unit to make man in His image, male and female (Gen 1:27)
-God did NOT have a conversation with Adam in Gen 2:16-17
-Eve did NOT talk with Satan as serpent in Gen 3:1-5
-Eve did NOT sin in Gen 3:6
-No sudden guilt, shame and cover-up happened in Gen 3:7
-No face-to-face encounter between God and the first couple took place in Gen 3:8-9
-Adam & Eve did not try to pass the buck, playing the blame game in Gen 3:11-13
-Gospel Hope was not first preached in Gen 3:15
-No penalty for sin was announced in Gen 3:16-19, thereby explaining what is wrong with our world
Given the above, I spent a sleepless night this past weekend. I had to contemplate what it would mean NOT to trust that every word of the Bible is sovereignly breathed out by God. For 12-15 hours, I floated in a nightmarish free-for-all. In that land, Jesus is no longer my living Rock (Psalm 18:46), no longer my reliable/faithful/true shield and bulwark/defending fortress that protects me (Psalm 91:4) If I can’t count on God’s word as true, there is no truth.
But wishing doesn’t make it so.
How do we determine that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy as it is written? What about scientific discoveries that seem to point to other conclusions? I have no scientific background, but I am a bit more equipped to reason philosophically. And that is the approach I want briefly to try out. It is not enough to just say, “The Bible claims to be the true word of God, so it must be so.” That is circular reasoning. We are trying to prove why the Bible is trustworthy.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am starting with the pre-supposition that God exists. Here is how it goes from there:
For God to be God, He has to be supernatural. He has to be all-powerful and all-knowing. And from everything I have witnessed in life, He is also all-good. What is my evidence? : my life, the lives of Christian friends, the accounts of dead ‘saints’ and the historical events of Biblical characters. In all of these, there is evidence of God working through ‘bad’ circumstances in lives to bring about amazing results. Having established that He is supernaturally all-good, He also has to be completely truthful and dependable. For someone who is good cannot lie or be wishy-washy.
So, if a transcendent god with these qualities were to ordain that a document be written for the benefit of his creation, would it not follow that this document would be a reflection of his character? In our everyday life, what we say and do springs from who we are. It is only logical that the same would pertain to this god. It is therefore ‘reasonable’ ( in the true sense of the word, i.e. logical) to assume that the Bible reflects the character of God. If God is trustworthy and faithful and true, then so is His Word. At this point, we can then add what the Bible says about itself. There are many verses, but here are two that come to mind:
– Psalm 19: 7-9 gives many adjectives about God’s written word. It is PERFECT, SURE, RIGHT, PURE, ENDURING, TRUE and RIGHTEOUS
– Hebrews 4:12 says that God’s word is ALIVE, ACTIVE, EFFECTUAL and FULL OF POWER.
Finally, Jesus who is God, Himself validated the entire Old Testament when He explicitly taught some of the disciples who had been walking to Emmaus. Over a meal, He showed them how the Pentateuch (includes Genesis) and the Prophets all pointed to Him. (Luke 24:27)
Thinking this through settles the issue for me. God’s Word IS true and reliable and worth centering my life on. What about the Human Genome Project? I don’t know. I will trust God to sort that out. I don’t dismiss scientific inquiry. Neither do I default to submitting to science. I don’t have to have all the answers to trust God, to rely on the Bible completely. I can take my concerns to God and lay them at His feet and trust that He will instruct me. God is my lodestar. That is the decision I have to make daily, hourly.
PS: bereft of my bedrock for those few hours has had the sweet benefit of making me love the Bible all the more. How precious are its words! May we taste and see that He who is the Word is good.
Reflections on God's Word 
Jun 15, 2011 @ 17:04:52
Jun 15, 2011 @ 20:23:42
Great article, I was directed here by a mutual friend–Adam Powers. I do not want to minimize the great points you made above but I also wanted to give a little perspective on Dr. Collins’ statement/opinion. I hope that this will encourage you in that you not only make a good Biblical and philosophical argument but that the scientific data are not against you.
Dr. Collins is truly a Christian, I believe, though I disagree with him about theistic evolution. One thing we must keep in mind with people like Collins who look at the genetic evidence is that they are looking at it with evolutionary presuppositions already in mind.
There are many studies that have emerged recently (like these: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/abs/nature06611.html, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100.abstract, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5323/176.short) that indicate the mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) of all humans can be traced back to one single sequence on the order of about 100,000 years ago. (We all get our mDNA from our mothers only so even though I am a male my mDNA still came from only my mother.) Other work done on the Y chromosome (Y-c) shows that all males can be traced back to a single Y-c (studies like this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6555/abs/378379a0.html) on the order of about 60,000 years ago.
Collins looks at this data and, because of his evolutionary presuppositions, thinks that this one sequence was just the “one lucky mother” whose DNA was passed on, while all the other DNA from the first “evolved” females died out. He interprets the Y-c data the same way. However, there is no evidence to favor this interpretation over one that looks at the data and says, “All humanity can be traced back to a single man and a single woman.” The second interpretation is simply much more difficult for Collins to fit into his evolutionary presuppositions, so he chooses the first. It is not the data that demands Christians throw out the idea of a historical Adam, it is Collins’ interpretation of it based on his presuppositions. The data equally support a historical Adam and Eve interpretation.
One might look at the dates and think, “Wait, how could the historical Eve be 100,000 years ago and the historical Adam be 60,000 years ago?” Scientists have asked a similar question. You might hear a geneticist say, “Did Adam know Eve?” and by that he means, “Did the woman who we get our mDNA from know the man we get our Y-c from?” I think the Bible can easily fit well with this data. For us men, biblically who is the oldest male ancestor we could possibly trace our lineage back to? You might be tempted to say, “Adam” but is that really right? Actually, the oldest male we could possibly trace the Y-c back to is Noah. Why? Because of what is called a “population bottle neck”–the world’s population dropped to 8 people and then started over again. Noah and his three sons all had the same Y-c so there is no way to trace the Y-c beyond Noah farther back to anyone else. However, since it is reasonable to assume that Noah’s wife and his son’s three wives came from four different lineages, geneticists can trace the mDNA beyond Noah. So, of course the dates would be different. In fact, the Bible (indirectly) predicts that these dates would be different!
Now, I am not trying to start an argument on your blog about the length of creation days or whether (as you said, that can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible) or not the biblical genealogies are complete (which I also think can be debated without questioning the trustworthiness of the Bible). What I am trying to do is show that Collins’ interpretation of the data is not the only valid interpretation. It is equally valid, and I think more supportable, to say that human origins can be traced back to one man and one woman–Adam and Eve. So, far from ruling out a historical Adam, the genetic evidence supports it as one of the valid interpretations of the data.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Jun 15, 2011 @ 21:01:00
Taylor – thank you for taking the time to explain some of the science background. I now recall reading (actually skimming) in the recent popular about these findings.
But what helps me the most is your assessment that Collins’ presuppositions are what guide his conclusions (same for all of us). I should know that. Your spotlighting it sharpens my way of thinking about this. And I should be more generous about people I label as only ‘sogenannte’ (so-called) Christians because they affirm theistic evolution. I really had pigeon-holed them into the category of those who THINK they are Christians but are not (how I was in my younger years).
So are you a seminary classmate of Adam’s ?
May we grow equally in grace as in Truth!
Maria
Jun 16, 2011 @ 01:14:19
Glad you found it helpful. You are right, we are all guided by our presuppositions. I readily admit that my interpretation of the genetic data coming in from all these studies is guided by my belief in what Scripture says about Adam. With all due respect to Collins, whose intellect far exceeds my own as does his expertise (my background is physics, not genetics), the point is that both of us are guided by our biases and his interpretation of the data is not the only one possible and is no more valid than my own (and it is not just my interpretation, there are plenty of Christian scientists who agree with me or, more appropriately, I agree with them. One of my favorite “think tanks” is Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org.)
Adam and I were seminary classmates (he has made it out!) as well as fellow interns at St. Paul’s Pres in Midtown Atlanta. I am going to miss serving with him when he heads off to Maryland soon.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Jun 16, 2011 @ 10:01:21
That’s a good point about biases..a nicer word for presuppositions! I do know Reasons to Believe..I listen to their weekly podcast. Do you know the ministries of Stand to Reason and Please Convince Me? They are tangentially similar.
I”m sure you & Adam will keep up with each other. May God continue to make you fruitful. And thanks again for taking the time to comment.
Maria