t f p g+ YouTube icon

Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Part 6

Bookmark and Share

March 30, 2012 Tags: Pastoral Voices

Today's entry was written by Tim Keller. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Part 6

Note: This is the last of a six-part series considering questions lay people raise with their pastors when introduced to the teaching that biological evolution and biblical orthodoxy can be compatible. So far, Dr. Keller has addressed the conflict between evolution and a literal reading of Genesis, argued that an evolutionary account of origins does not necessarily diminish human dignity, and worked through the problems that surround our understanding of sin, suffering, and salvation if we do not accept an historical Adam. Today, Dr. Keller concludes the series by outlining one of several possible ‘models’ for harmonizing an historical Fall and an evolutionary biological origin of humans.

A Model

If Adam and Eve were historical figures could they have been the product of EBP? An older, evangelical commentary on Genesis by Derek Kidner provides a model for how that could have been the case. First, he notes that in Job 10:8-9 God is said to have fashioned Job with his ‘hands’, like a potter shaping clay out of the dust of the ground, even though God obviously did this through the natural process of formation in the womb. Kidner asks why the same potter-terminology in Genesis 2:7 could not denote a natural process like evolution.1 Then, Kidner goes on to say that:

“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less….The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…”2

So in this model there was a place in the evolution of human beings when God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God’. This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life’. On this view, then what happened?

“If this…alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind it would be of course quite untenable. God…has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26)….Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s vice-regents (Gen 1:27,28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.”3

Here Kidner gets creative. He proposes that the being who became Adam under the hand of God first evolved but Eve did not. Then they were put into the garden of Eden as representatives of the whole human race. Their creation in God’s image and their fall affected not only their offspring, but all other contemporaries. In this telling, Kidner accounts for both the continuity between animals and humans that scientists see, and the discontinuity that the Bible describes. Only human beings are in God’s image, have fallen into sin, and will be saved by grace.

This approach would explain perennially difficult Biblical questions such as--who were the people that Cain feared would slay him in revenge for the murder of Abel (Gen 4:14)? Who was Cain’s wife, and how could Cain have built a city filled with inhabitants (Gen 4:17)? We might even ask why Genesis 2:20 hints that Adam went on a search to ‘find’ a spouse if there were only animals around? In Kidner’s approach, Adam and Eve were not alone in the world, and that answers all these questions.

But there is another question that looms over the others. In this model, how could there have been suffering and death before the fall? Some answer may be in the second verse of the Bible, where we are told that ‘the earth was without form’ and was filled with darkness and chaos. Most traditional interpreters believe that God initially made the world in this ‘formless’ state and then proceeded to subdue the disorder through the creative process of separation, elaboration, and development depicted in Genesis 1.4 However, even this traditional interpretation means that there was not perfect order and peace in creation from the first moment. Also, Satan seems to have been present in the world before the Fall. What makes us think that Satan and demons were not in the world before the moment the serpent appears? One of the biggest unanswered (and unanswerable) theological questions is—what was Satan doing there? By definition, if Satan was somewhere in the world, it was not all a perfect place.

Traditional theology has never believed that humanity and the world in Genesis 2-3 was in a glorified, perfect state. Augustine taught that Adam and Eve were posse non peccare (able not to sin) but they fell into the state of non posse non peccare (not able not to sin). In our final state of full salvation, however, we will be non posse peccare (not capable of sinning.) Eden was not the consummated world of the future. Some have pointed out that in the Garden of Eden that there would have had to be some kind of death and decay or fruit would not have been edible.

It could be that Adam and Eve were given conditional immortality and, in the Garden, a foretaste of what life in the world would be like with humans in the image of God living in perfect harmony with God and his creation. It was offered to them to work with God to ‘subdue’ the earth (Genesis 1:28.) On any view, the idea of ‘having dominion’ and ‘subduing’ the earth meant that creation was at least highly undeveloped. Even before the Fall, the world was not yet in the shape God wanted it to be. Human beings were to work with God to cultivate and develop it.

The result of the Fall, however, was ‘spiritual death’, something that no being in the world had known, because no one had ever been in the image of God. Human beings became, at the same time, capable of far greater and far worse things than any other creatures. We now die eternally when we die physically. And since we are now alienated from God, the world is under the power of the forces of darkness in a way that would not have occurred without the fall. The physical world now ‘groans’ under disintegration because human beings have failed to be God’s stewards of creation. Greater ‘natural evil’ is combined with human, moral evil to create a dark, chaotic world indeed. The world will finally be renewed, and become all it was designed to be (Romans 8:19-23), only when we finally become all we should be through the work of the Second Adam (1 Cor 15:42-45.)

Other Models

Is this the only model possible for those who believe in an historical Fall yet who believe God used evolution to bring about life on earth? No. Some believe in theistic evolution—that both Adam and Eve were the products of evolution and given the image and breath of God.5 Others think it makes more sense theologically and philosophically to believe in ‘progressive creation’ that while God used evolution in general to bring about life, he created both Adam and Eve through a special act, and that the thesis of common ancestry with other animals is completely false.6 Kidner’s model is a kind of hybrid between theistic evolution and old-earth, progressive creationism. Whatever one’s ‘model’ for working out the relationship of the Bible to science, however, Kidner insists:

“What is quite clear from these chapters in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by one act of disobedience; and these things are as strongly asserted in this understanding of God’s Word as on any other.”7

Concluding Thoughts

How do we correlate the data of science with the teaching of Scripture? The simplest answer for scientists would probably be to say ‘who cares about Scripture and theology?’ but that fails to do justice to authority of the Bible, which Jesus himself took with utmost seriousness. The simplest answer for theologians would probably be to say ‘who cares about science?’ but that does not give nature its proper importance as the creation of God. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 teach that God’s glory is revealed as we study his creation, yet in the end both of those passages say that it is only Scripture which is the ‘perfect’ revelation of God’s mind (Psalm 19:7). We must interpret the book of nature by the book of God. “It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is the perfect vehicle for God’s revelation…its bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power. To read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its wisdom.”8

My conclusion is that Christians who are seeking to correlate Scripture and science must be a ‘bigger tent’ than either the anti-scientific religionists or the anti-religious scientists. Even though in this paper I argue for the importance of belief in a literal Adam and Eve, I have shown here that there are several ways to hold that and still believe in God using EBP.9

When Derek Kidner concluded his account of human origins, he said that his view was an “exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.”10 That is the right attitude for all of us working in this area.

Notes

1. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP, 1967) p.28 n.2.
2. Kidner, p.28.
3. Kidner goes on to write: ‘With one possible exception *Gen 3:20+ the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity.” (p.30.) Kidner comments on this one possible exception--Gen 3:20, which calls Eve ‘the mother of all living.’ He considers that the translation could be instead something like ‘the mother of all salvation’ since salvation will be coming to the world through her ‘seed’ and that is the context of the name.
4. Another popular view of these verses is the ‘Gap’ theory, namely, that God created the heavens and the earth to be a place of order and light, and then verse 2 tells us that the world became chaotic and dark through some struggle or disaster, and that Genesis 1 is the story of how God re-created the world. Grammatically, the ‘Gap’ theory is not likely, but there have been at least four different ways of reading the relationship of the clauses of Genesis 1:1 and 2. See Gordon Wenham’s summary of this debate in Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary, 1987), pp.11-17.
5. See Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
6. See the September 1991 issue of the Christian Scholar’s Review for articles by Alvin Plantinga, Howard Van Till, and Ernan McMullin. See a summary of these arguments in W. Christopher Stewart, “Religion and Science” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray (Eerdmans, 1999), p.331.
7. p.30.
8. Kidner p.31.
9. Denis Alexander (Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Monarch Books, Oxford, UK, 2008) speaks of several ‘models’ by which we can relate the teaching of Genesis 2-3 with evolutionary biology. ‘Model A’ sees Genesis 2-3 as parabolic about every individual human being. (i.e. we all sin.) ‘Model B’ sees Genesis 2-3 as a figurative account of something that actually happened to a group of early human beings. ‘Model C’ sees Adam and Eve as real historical figures, but fully accepts the fact that human life came from EBP. ‘Models D’ is old earth creationism, and ‘Model E’ is young earth creationism. (See chapters 10 and 12.) Even though Alexander lists these five, I’m not sure this exhausts the possibilities. The proposal by Derek Kidner doesn’t really fit into any of Alexander’s categories.
10. Kidner, p.30.


Timothy Keller is the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. The “Influentials” issue of New York magazine featured Keller as “the most successful Christian evangelist in the city” for his engagement with the young professional and artist demographics. He received his bachelor’s degree from Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Penn., his Master of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hampton, Mass., and his Doctor of Ministry from Westminster Theological Seminary. He is the author of such New York Times bestselling books as The Reason for God and Prayer. He is also Chairman of Redeemer City to City, which has helped start over 250 churches in global cities worldwide. He lives in New York City with his wife Kathy.

< Previous post in series


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
beaglelady - #68789

March 30th 2012

“Here Kidner gets creative. He proposes that the being who became Adam under the hand of God first evolved but Eve did not.” 

That’s an understatement if I ever heard one! It just serves to illustrate the drunken tap-dancing one must do to have a concordist view of Genesis.


Darach - #68798

March 31st 2012

“My conclusion is that Christians who are seeking to correlate Scripture and science must be a ‘bigger tent’ than either the anti-scientific religionists or the anti-religious scientists. Even though in this paper I argue for the importance of belief in a literal Adam and Eve, I have shown here that there are several ways to hold that and still believe in God using EBP.”
Tim Keller is not quite clear here. Is his ‘bigger tent’ broad enough to hold those who interpret Adam and Eve metaphorically, or is it limited to those who hold the historicity of Adam and Eve? It would be sad if it were the latter. There needs to be room for those who see Adam and Eve as an ancient parable and for the Tim Kellers to argue passionately for their historicity.


D.U. Litz - #68802

March 31st 2012

I would assume his “tent” includes all who profess Chrsit in that middle ground, I just think he’s focusing on the one issue (historical Adam) in this article to say that there is a middle ground.


Donald Byron Johnson - #68834

April 3rd 2012

What is EBP?  Where is this acronym defined?


Donald Byron Johnson - #68840

April 3rd 2012

It is first used in part 1 or 2, this is part 6.


Donald Byron Johnson - #68841

April 3rd 2012

Is there a way to get the whole article as a PDF?


Darrel Falk - #68900

April 6th 2012

For those of you who are just joining the series at this point, please note that “EBP” stands for evolutionary biological processes.  As indicated in the first part, this series has been excerpted from http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf, a paper given by Dr. Keller at the first BioLogos “Theology of Celebration” workshop in November, 2009. We deeply appreciate Dr. Keller’s role in hosting all three of the BioLogos “Theology of Celebration” workshops, even though he himself would likely not buy into all that BioLogos stands for as it relates to human evolution.  

Remember we are a family.  The most important thing we have in common is our commitment to follow Jesus—together—with a spirit of oneness.  Still although we are agreed on that which is most important, we, like members of any family, don’t all see matters in the same way.  Because of that, we need a place to talk about our different perspectives and to begin to work through them.  The Forum provides that space.

So, in keeping with the Editorial comment at the top of this page, note that the BioLogos Forum is a place for conversation.  This section has a distinctive color and a format that differs from the rest of our website.   I emphasize though that we do have a set of commitments which govern all that we do.   If you are interested in knowing the specifics regarding our beliefs about evolution and Christian faith click on the “Our Beliefs” tab at the top, or examine the “The Questions” section by clicking on that tab.


johannesargentus - #69448

April 22nd 2012

Even when accepting that biological beings were created by means of EBP, we have not still dealt with the creation of true human beings as such, not just their biological layer, because essential to a true human being is a SPIRITUAL soul which can only derive from a DIRECT (“de novo”) creative act from God.  Again: a true human is not a purely biological being, and its spiritual soul does not arise from its biological layer, but involves a direct creative act from God.

Having settled that point (at least for Christians), the question becomes: How did direct divine creation of spiritual souls START? With only two beings-made-truly-human, a man and a woman, as Genesis says? Or with a few thousand beings-made-truly-human (at the same time), to accomodate the fact that genetic data suggests that there has never been a population bottleneck of fewer than a few thousand individuals, humans or hominids?

And even more importantly: Does Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-19, which speaks of “Adam”, “one man” and “one trespass”, still work with the second alternative above?  This question is an issue of biblical interpretation, and for me the answer is in the negative, as I am a member of a Church that holds that the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, and that teaching office has thus spoken on the subject in consideration:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

Therefore the issue for any scientifically-minded Christian who - whatever his or her denomination - agrees with that specific interpretation becomes: Can the first alternative (a historical Biblical Adam as patrilineal ancestor of all true human beings) be reconciled with current scientific findings?  After studying the issue, I have developed a plausible conceptual framework whereby it can, which I expound at:

http://defeyrazon.blogspot.com.ar/2011/09/creation-of-man-concordance-between.html

(There are actually two possibilities, but one involves that, after the creation of Adam Eve, there was divine intervention at the biological level to miraculously provide genetic diversity to the germinal cells of Adam and Eve and the first n generations of their descendants.)


Page 1 of 1   1