As we noted in our response to the June article in Christianity Today “The Search for the Historical Adam,” the evidence for gradual creation is overwhelming, with more studies supporting the evolutionary process being published each year. We’ve looked at many of these evidences: from fossils, from comparative anatomy, from genetics. Today, we’d like to highlight for our readers a compelling video from the annual TED Conference featuring geneticist Svante Pääbo. You may remember Pääbo from his efforts to extract and sequence DNA from 30,000(+) year old Neanderthal bones (we mentioned his work here).

In this eighteen minute video, Pääbo covers a lot of ground, noting several lines of genetic evidence for the evolution of modern humans from earlier hominids in Africa, as well as for the interbreeding between early humans and Neanderthals. We’ve covered some of this data before, but it’s particularly compelling to hear it described by one of the scientists leading the field of study.

However, our goal at The BioLogos Foundation isn’t just to make the Church aware of the fascinating and convincing scientific evidence for gradual creation. As we have said before:

BioLogos exists to help Christians think carefully about the ramifications of these new data in light of long-standing traditional ways of viewing human creation. We have some re-thinking to do, but it can be done and will be done within the context of a Christian faith that is fully orthodox and thoroughly evangelical. Any time we draw closer to truth, to God’s truth, we have nothing to fear. There is still much to learn, but we can look back at what we have learned with awe—absolute awe.

It is truly amazing that we know so much now about our early days. For example, Africans do not have DNA which is specifically derived from Neanderthals, whereas people in the rest of the world do carry a small amount. This confirms the picture of human history derived from studying fossils. Neanderthal bones have not been found in Africa, so it isn’t surprising that their DNA is not there either. The fact that non-Africans have some of the DNA found in Neanderthal bones confirms that which geneticists knew from other studies: we have two distinct groups of human ancestors—those who left Africa in ancient times and those who stayed.

God chose to reveal himself and to begin working with a distinct sub-group of ancient humans, those descended from Abraham and Sarah. To Abraham, God made a marvelous promise. Drawing his attention to the stars above, God said that someday Abraham’s descendents would outnumber the countable stars in the universe. And so it came to be. Indeed through our adoption into the family, we are all children of Abraham. The God of Abraham is our God too and each one of us is one of those stars too numerous for Abraham to count.

Sometimes, it seems that we are uncomfortable with the notion that God made us through a gradual process that included apes in our family tree. It is almost as though we would prefer dirt to apes. Perhaps, in at least some cases, this is due to an inadequate appreciation for the fact that God loves, really loves, all of creation, not just us. As special as we know we are, we can’t read Psalm 104, Genesis 1, Genesis 9 (where the covenant is not just with Noah but with all living creatures), or Job 38-41 without being reminded that all living creatures are God’s creation (see here). The Neanderthals, the Denisovans, Homo erectus, and the australopithecines were God’s creation too! Still, we modern humans have been singled out. We’ve been called out.

True our family tree, as Pääbo shows here, is intriguing. But let us never forget, that the most important thing about this tree is that God is the vine which exists at its core, and we are called to be the branches which bear fruit. The fact that many of us have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, some of us have Denisovan DNA, and others have neither is interesting, but it is really just a side issue for people of faith. As a result of God’s visit to Abraham, followed eventually by God’s taking on flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, we can all know God as our heavenly Father. We are children of God and as such, we are God’s representatives. We are called to image God. We are called to love God. And we are called to love each other and to deeply respect all that he has made.

As we have seen, speciation (the events that lead to reproductive isolation between populations of organisms) can be a prolonged and complex process. Populations can become isolated geographically (e.g. through migration) and begin to accumulate genetic differences that may raise a barrier to reproduction between them. This barrier may only be a partial barrier, however. The stickleback populations we discussed previously are an example: the first event leading to speciation was physical separation when some marine fish colonized new freshwater habitats. Even after significant differences accumulated between the marine and freshwater forms, a second wave of colonization of fresh water by the marine form brought the two groups into contact again, leading to some genetic exchange even as the two groups remained largely distinct. At the point of the second colonization, whether one or two species is/are present is a point of discussion: the case can be made for either. A scientist arguing for one species would point out that the two groups can still produce fertile offspring, whereas a colleague might argue for two based the distinct characteristics and ecological niches of the two populations, as well as the observation that the hybrids resulting from interbreeding are not as well adapted to either niche. The point is clear: speciation, as a slow process, is a gradient, and a clear line of demarcation cannot be drawn on a gradient. To return to our flip-book analogy, every adjacent page is only slightly different from the pages on either side. If we compare widely separated pages, the differences are clear. The point is that there is no single page in between them that we can identify as the point where the images “became different.”

While this discussion might seem a little academic and uninteresting (perhaps because one might discount such events as mere ‘microevolution’ of sticklebacks), we have recently learned that similar events shaped human speciation. As far as we can tell, sticklebacks are not aware of, nor concerned about, the theological implications of how they came to be, but we certainly are for our own species (and perhaps even for sticklebacks). What was once an area of interest mainly for specialists is about to become a topic of intense discussion among evangelicals: we have only recently learned that a portion of the lineage leading to modern humans interbred with other hominid species they encountered as they migrated out of Africa ~50,000 years ago. In order to explain what happened, let’s pick up the tale at an earlier point, around 450,000 years earlier.

Out of Africa, twice over

Somewhere between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, the ancestors of the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) left Africa and migrated into the Middle East region, and from there on to Europe and parts of Asia. (Recall that human ancestors, at this point, are all still in Africa, and will stay put until around 50,000 years ago). Neanderthals persisted in the Middle East and Europe until ~30,000 years ago, meaning there was a time where the humans leaving Africa about 50,000 years ago could have interbred with them before they went extinct. This remained an open question until techniques improved to recover and sequence ancient DNA. It is now possible to obtain and sequence DNA from Neanderthal remains, and the complete genome sequence of Neanderthals was published in early 2010. The results were fascinating: DNA sequence comparisons between the two species indicates that modern, non-African humans have about 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. This variation, however, is not present in sub-Saharan Africans, since they are descended from humans that did not leave Africa and and thereby, because of geographical separation, never had the opportunity to interbreed with Neanderthals. We also know that the group that left Africa went through a reduction in population size to a about 1200 individuals (a genetic bottleneck), whereas those that stayed behind maintained a larger population size (about 6000) over the same period.

New details

In addition to this information, we have recently discovered a new hominid species from Asia, as Darrel Falk recently highlighted here on BioLogos. This species, named the “Denisovans” is known to us only from a few bone fragments and one molar, but - wonder of wonders in this age of paleogenomics - this was enough for us to determine its complete genome sequence. The results were, again, fascinating: the Denisovans are relative of Neanderthals that split off from them after their common ancestor left Africa. The Neanderthals went west to Europe, and the Denisovans colonized Asia (and evidence suggests they were quite widespread). Even more interesting is that comparing Denisovan and human DNA indicates that some humans (modern Melanesians) have about 5% Denisovan DNA in their genomes. This variation is not found in Europeans or Africans.

Putting the story together

Assembling all of this information reveals the following tale: the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Denisovans migrated from Africa to the Middle East between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, leaving a population behind that would eventually become modern humans (at around 200,000 years ago). In the Middle East, the populations destined to become Neanderthals and Denisovans part ways, with their differences accumulating over the next several hundred thousand years to make them distinct species. When a population of modern humans leave Africa around 50,000 years ago, they encounter, and breed with, Neanderthals shortly after. This genetic exchange is small, since there are partial reproductive barriers in place, but a small fraction of Neanderthal DNA becomes established in this lineage. Groups from this population then part ways, with some migrating into Europe and others into Asia. This latter group then encounters the Denisovan hominids, interbreeds with them, and a fraction of Denisovan DNA takes hold as a result. This population goes on to colonize southeast Asia, Oceania and Australia, where we see this variation today in Melanesians. Modern humans thus have different evolutionary trajectories: Melanesians have both Neanderthals and Denisovans in their lineage, Europeans have Neanderthals, and Africans have neither.

New data, new questions

Even as I stand amazed in what God has revealed to us about our origins through science, I know that this new information will be difficult for some within the evangelical community to accept. Moreover, it is almost certain that some Christian groups, unfortunately, will misrepresent this data to their constituents (whether intentionally or not), and thus spread confusion that hinders the needed theological conversation. Still, I have reason for hope: God has seen it fit to reveal this information to us, and that suggests that He believes the evangelical Christian community is ready for this conversation to happen. As Darrel mentioned at the end of his recent piece, we at BioLogos want to assist our evangelical sisters and brothers in this conversation in any way we can, in full confidence that it can be done in an edifying way:

BioLogos exists to help Christians think carefully about the ramifications of these new data in light of long-standing traditional ways of viewing human creation. We have some re-thinking to do, but it can be done and will be done within the context of a Christian faith that is fully orthodox and thoroughly evangelical. Any time we draw closer to truth, to God’s truth, we have nothing to fear. There is still much to learn, but we can look back at what we have learned with awe—absolute awe.

Many scientists think that evolution is a directionless process, one in which humans are merely an accidental byproduct. In a recent episode of the award-winning radio program “To the Best of Our Knowledge” (produced by Wisconsin Public Radio, and reposted above, with permission), however, esteemed paleontologist Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University explains a different view of evolution. Conway Morris has catalogued plentiful examples of evolutionary convergence, in which different organisms arrive at the same function through different evolutionary pathways, including the trait of intelligence. He examines the ability of the octopus to gaze, learn and play, and compares it to the intelligent behaviors of dolphins and the tool making ability of certain crows. Given enough time and resources, he says, every ecological niche will be filled up by some kind of life form. One of these niches is that for highly intelligent life, a niche occupied by us, Homo sapiens. If the tape was rewound and evolution started over from scratch, Conway Morris says, the evolutionary details would be different, but the end result would be similar: a species characterized by intelligence and complex civilization.

While several esteemed scientists, including atheist Richard Dawkins, and Brown University cell biologist, Kenneth Miller, agree with Simon Conway Morris, most (according to Dawkins) do not accept that evolution can have this sort of directionality. Sean Carroll, leading evolutionary biologist and Vice-President of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, says that animals merely “exploit what’s available,” with no necessary end. Little, he believes, is inevitable. “With a few other rolls of the dice”, he says, evolution would have resulted in a significantly different assortment of organisms. Noted philosopher of science, Daniel Dennett, agrees with Carroll. Just as the origin and wide-spread diversity of creatures like marsupials (mammals with a pouch) was not inevitable, he says, so the evolution of intelligent human-like beings was not inevitable either. Dennett goes on to say:

The idea that this whole great universe was in some sense designed or intended for us strikes me as just bizarrely self-involved (chuckles)—one of the most stunningly narcissistic visions that I’ve ever encountered. It seems unlikely, don’t you think?

In complete contrast Conway Morris says:

The universe from a theistic viewpoint, from a Christian viewpoint, is utterly contingent. It needn’t exist at all, more particularly it could be anything which God so chose. Science is an open-ended adventure; we don’t know where it’s going to end. People who think religion is simply a set of answers to keep you comfortable are, I’m afraid, sadly mistaken—it is an open-ended adventure. We don’t know, really, what the nature of the universe is. We don’t know why we have our moral, ethical, intellectual and poetic capacities. I know they come from an evolutionary basis, I have no quarrel with that. But so far as I’m concerned, we are going on to completely new territory and my view would be that in fact the religious instincts and the religious teachings actually tell us something real about the world. They’re not simply fairy stories.

So is the near-certainty of human life front-loaded from the beginning? Was it predetermined from the Big Bang that human beings would eventually arise? Was it predetermined that God’s natural activity—that activity which upholds the universe and maintains all that is within it—would be sufficient for the eventual development of humans? Alternatively, was supernatural activity required for the creation of the human body? Does the Bible dictate one way or the other? Is it somehow less God’s creation if it took place through God’s natural activity? Is it somehow more God’s creation if supernatural activity was required? These are questions for theologians. Science is taking us up to edge as Conway Morris brilliantly shows. There, we meet the theologians, and there, we begin the journey’s next phase.

I encourage you to listen to the above recording. The deeper we explore creation, the more we see and appreciate its beauty. So also, and even more significant, the deeper we embed ourselves in God's written and Living Word, the more confident we become of “Romans 8:26-39”. We are loved. More than we can possibly imagine, we are deeply embedded in the love of God. This, truly, is "Life's Solution."

]]> Thu, 11 Aug 11 02:15:51 -0700 Darrel Falk http://biologos.org/blog/nprs-adam-and-eve-story?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication http://biologos.org/blog/nprs-adam-and-eve-story?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication All science can say is that there was never a time when only two people existed on the earth: it is silent on whether or not God began a special relationship with a historical couple at some point in the past. This subtle but extremely important point was missed entirely in the NPR story. The conversation regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve, described so clearly in the cover story of the June issue of Christianity Today, continues in an unlikely place—at National Public Radio. If you haven’t already heard it, you’ll want to listen to this story. BioLogos Senior Fellow Dennis Venema does a beautiful job summarizing the genetic data in a non-technical way, and Karl Giberson addresses the serious danger to the Church if we ignore this data. While we at BioLogos appreciate many aspects of the story, we need to make one all-important clarification: the debate over the historicity of Adam and Eve is primarily a theological debate, one that is more complex than the story lets on. All science can say is that there was never a time when only two people existed on the earth: it is silent on whether or not God began a special relationship with a historical couple at some point in the past. This subtle but extremely important point was missed entirely in the NPR story. It is a consideration that we raise repeatedly at BioLogos. See, for example this article by Daniel Harrell and this series by Denis Alexander.

Evangelical Christians have long suspected there are allegorical components to the Genesis story—a talking snake, for example—but as to whether Adam and Eve were not real people, there has been much more hesitancy--and for theologically important reasons. The science itself is silent—the most it can say is that there were never just two individuals who were the sole genetic progenitors of the entire human race. Several independent lines of genetic evidence unambiguously point to this conclusion. Science also make it very clear that humans developed through an evolutionary process. As Christians, we interpret all this in light of our belief in God as Creator.

It is important for Evangelicals to know that science is silent on the historicity of two people named Adam and Eve, just as it is silent on the existence of persons named Abraham, Isaac, and Moses. Adam and Eve may well have been two real people, who through the grace of God entered into a paradisiacal relationship with him, until—tragedy of tragedies— they allowed their own self-centered desires to reign in their hearts, instead of their love for God. Although genetics convincingly shows that there was never a time when there were just two persons, the Bible itself may even provide hints of the existence of other people—likely we’ve all wondered about those hints since we were children. “Did Cain marry his sister?” we want to know. “Who were the people that Cain was afraid of as he wandered the earth after killing Abel? If they were his brothers or nephews, why didn’t the author refer to them that way?” The author doesn’t seem to be as puzzled by this as we are. We’ve always known about those little pointers—in fact, ancient interpreters wrestled with them too, long before Darwin or modern genetics appeared on the scene. So it ought not to necessarily surprise us for genetics to come along and confirm that, sure enough, there were others around at the time of Adam and Eve.

The NPR story, as much as we appreciate it, implies that, according to science, there are only two options for Christians—dismiss the conclusions of science, or dismiss the notion of a historical couple named Adam and Eve. This is simply not the whole story. Any dismissal of a historical couple, who entered into relationship with God only to sin and break that relationship, is going to have to come from theology. There is no scientific reason to upset that theological apple cart. Indeed as scientists, we must respect the theological diversity of Evangelicalism.

Science is an amazing tool that gives insight into our world, one which is so effective that it is allows us to become virtually certain about some things. The earth does revolve around the sun. The universe was created over 14 billion years ago. All species came about through a gradual process that included natural selection, genetic drift and sexual selection. Christians should see all of this as the product of God’s masterful plan and ongoing activity. Christians should also see that science is silent on the existence of a specific first couple who enjoyed a special relationship with God. Exploring that is beyond the purview of science.

As I wrote last week, the data are clear that humans have been created through an evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single first couple, two people who were the progenitors of the entire human race. Within that framework, BioLogos does not take a position on the existence, in history, of two unique individuals, Adam and Eve. This is a theological question, not a scientific one. We recognize that now that the scientific consensus is clear, having become substantiated even further through genetics, there will be many fine theological minds on both sides of the historicity question. Our task is to help the Church come to appreciate that mainstream science and Christianity can co-exist in harmony. We’re happy to stand back and watch as the theologians work through the historicity question. Indeed, some of that conversation may well take place on these pages.

What pleases me most about the C.T. editorial is that it shows the willingness of the C.T. editorial staff to pay close attention to scientific consensus. Look at what they say:

Sometimes, Christian ways of thinking must adjust. Two famous names—Copernicus and Galileo—tell that tale. Other times Christian thinkers adopt some of what scientific research suggests, but hold firm on key aspects of biblical knowledge. The name B.B. Warfield tells that tale…

As the article goes on, the editors also make this statement:

Now we come to another great moment of tension between Christian readings of Scripture and science…

Christians have already drawn the line: there must be an original pair of humans endowed with soul—that is, the spiritual capacity to relate to God in the special way Genesis describes.

Having explained why the line must be drawn at a first couple, the editorial goes on to briefly discuss ways of bringing harmony between the science and traditional Christianity:

Hebrew thought offers one clue to resolving this tension: The corporate nature of humanity. Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head. Israel is an obvious example. So are Canaan and Cush.

At times, Scripture also holds groups of people morally responsible for the actions of some of their members.

Thus some have suggested—as does John Collins in “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population.

Finally, and all importantly:

At this juncture we counsel patience. We don’t need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth.

The C.T. editorial, in other words, has shown that in their view mainstream evangelical Christianity and mainstream science can co-exist in harmony. There are still many details to be worked out and much conversation lies ahead, but there is reason for optimism. The findings of science and the evangelical approach to Christianity need not be at dead end anymore, and we are thankful that the editorial staff of “Christianity Today” is clearing away the barriers and beginning to pave the way.

As we move forward, the conversation ought to focus on matters about which we can all agree. This is part of the reason that BioLogos has begun a Saturday sermon series, which currently focuses on a set of sermons delivered by Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. I have now listened to the second sermon in this series four times and every time I hear it, I glean some new truth that leaves me in complete awe of our Creator and the never-ending depth of a theology thoroughly grounded in Genesis. Each week we post a four minute excerpt, a brief summary, and then a link to download the entire sermon. We are encouraging people to come back after listening to the whole sermon to “talk” about it if they so desire. So far, it has largely been the atheists who have been chomping at the bit to enter into conversation. That’s not what we want though, especially when I suspect that they have not even listened to the sermon. We hope that a large group of fellow believers will listen to these sermons together as we are all drawn into a spirit of celebration for the beauty of the creation story as fully revealed in Genesis, Romans and Revelation.

The reason that I am advocating Pastor Keller’s messages as the rallying point around which we can all gather is that as one listens to what he has to say, there is very little with which any of us Christians would disagree, regardless of our perspective on details. As I listened again to last Saturday’s sermon, The First Word, I thought to myself that if I were a young earth creationist, I could embrace almost everything he said and grow richly closer to God in the process. However, that would be equally true if I was a Reasons to Believe, old earth creationist, or a William Dembski I.D. theorist, or, of course, a BioLogos evolutionary creationist. The fact is that we are all one. We can all rally around the Word as expounded by pastors such as Dr. Keller. Sure we’ll look at some parts differently—but when we are all hearing the Word together, we can all celebrate its message as it speaks to the heart and soul of who we are as Christians. As we do that—together—we will all, with one voice be able to cry out in unison—“Christ in you—the hope of Glory!” The atheists will look on and wonder what is happening, but what they will see as we all celebrate and worship together is the radiant face of Jesus—the Body of Christ in unison celebrating the beauty of the Creation story as it is completely fulfilled in our Lord.

Editor's Note: Please see Darrel's follow up comment below (#62248) for some clarification on the piece and BioLogos' position on Adam and Eve. Also the first two sentences of the second paragraph have been modified slightly to ensure that the BioLogos position is clear.

Today we post the final installment in our four-part "Distinctions" series. This video was directed by Loretta Cooper, President of Clarity Media Strategies and was scripted by Loretta Cooper and BioLogos Program Director, Kathryn Applegate.

Narrator: What does it mean to be human? For the Christian, the answer is complex. In part, it is a reflection of being created in the image of God with free will and common values. But does the science of human evolution pose a threat to that uniqueness?

Lee Strobel: But in the last 150 years, science has failed to substantiate Darwin’s claims of macro-evolution.

Mike Riddle: The Bible teaches that God created all creatures after their kind; there was not one common ancestor everything evolved from.

Ken Ham: You know, through this nation, whole generations of young people are being taught in the public schools that there is no God, life evolved by natural processes, and that very much determines their morality, how they view themselves, their purpose and, meaning in life, and so on.

Narrator: Not all Christians view evolutionary science as a threat to their faith, and not all scientists see human evolution as a strictly materialistic process. There are those in both communities who believe the explanation is much more complex, including Dr. Rick Potts. Dr. Potts is one of the world’s leading paleoanthropologists, and the curator of (anthropology at) Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History.

Rick Potts: What we’ve found is that part of our message is that an aspect of being human has been the process of becoming human that scientists have been able to uncover, and that includes the amazingness, if you will, of the fact that human beings today are connected to all other living creatures. There is this vast kinship that all creatures share on earth, and that is a beautiful thing.

Narrator: But the idea of common ancestry is anything but beautiful to many conservative Christians. It’s a prospect that has caused consternation among American evangelicals dating back at least to the Scopes Trial in 1925. Others, however, insist that there is nothing in common ancestry that should alarm those who have observed nature and who study the character of creator God.

Denis Alexander: When we talk about common ancestry, we don’t mean we are descended from the apes, we mean that we shared a common ancestor with the apes about six million years ago, plus or minus a little bit. And so the apes have been evolving their own particular way and we have been evolving our way. But the fact that we are all linked up in this evolutionary, historical way, I think is a just wonderful drama, a theater. And to me, anyway, I find it a privilege that I should be connected up to all these wonderful creatures.

Greg Boyd: And on the one hand I want to fully acknowledge that we human beings are in a class by ourselves, and that we are radically unique in God’s plan because we are to have dominion and to be the stewards of the planet and things of that sort. So I want to totally affirm that. On the other hand, if you totally separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, then you miss the beautiful continuity that is there, and part of the fear, I think, for people in thinking that we in any way came from apes is that it undignifies us. Well, it doesn’t. On the other hand, if our dignity has to be all at their expense then we have all the dignity and they have none, if we are in competition with them, and then we exploit them. There is a dignity to human beings that animals don’t have, but on the other hand, there is a worth and a value there that we need to respect.

Narrator: Any honest dialogue about the origins of humanity must acknowledge that some scientists and some Christians will never find common ground on this issue. But for those willing to engage in the conversation with prayerful hearts and open minds, the dialogue can lead us to glimpses of our Creator that inspire awe and worship.

As detailed extensively on these pages over the past two years, there is now little doubt that God has created all life forms, including human beings, through an evolutionary process. God could have created in an instant. After all, in the supreme divine act of all time Jesus was raised from the dead—in an instant. However, it now seems certain that this is not the way He chose to create the human body. God’s process was gradual, not instantaneous.

We are fully aware that interpretation of scientific data changes and this fact causes some to be skeptical about the scientific consensus regarding human creation. True, scientific revolutions do occur. However, the data with regard to human creation has been accumulating for 150 years, and the conclusions have been substantiated through a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Astronomy shows that the universe is billions of years old. Geology independently shows that the earth, though a little younger, is also billions of years old. Paleontology poignantly lays out the parade of created life forms and graphically documents the species-changes over hundreds of millions of years. Comparative anatomy and developmental biology show feature after feature in living bodies, each with its distinctive trademark pointing to gradual alteration from that which came before. And, with the sequencing of the human genome, genetics provides the final confirmatory lynch pin. Creation through a gradual process is not a hypothesis that emerges from a peripheral scientific sub-discipline. To show it wrong would involve overturning principles that independently lie at the very core of the findings of most of the natural science disciplines. True, they all together cry out in unison with a loud voice—“Created!” However, they also, in a subtle, but persuasive whisper, add the all-important qualifying phrase—“…slowly and not in an instant!”

The Christianity Today cover story is important because it engages the Church in one of the most important questions of all: was there a historical Adam and Eve? There has been much discussion of this point on these pages and although we strongly encourage ongoing discussion, BioLogos does not take a position on the issue. Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute and a frequent contributor to the BioLogos conversation says ‘yes’ in this BioLogos article, and Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City affirms it in this one. Denis Lamoureux and Peter Enns believe otherwise and have expressed their views here and here, for example. The scientific data are silent on the possibility of a federal headship—two unique individuals singled out by God from all others to enter into relationship with him and to bear his image. Similarly, science is silent on the veracity of the alternative possibility— that the story of Adam and Eve is not a story of two unique individuals. According to this latter view, the story of Adam and Eve is in a very real sense the story of all humankind—we have all sinned and we are all in need of redemption.

These are theological questions, not scientific ones. Science makes it abundantly clear, we believe, that God has created through an evolutionary process and that there was never a time when there were just two individuals on earth. It goes no further though. Beyond that, we are in a different realm, one deeply steeped in the traditions and creeds of the church, and in theology, biblical scholarship, and philosophy.

Although The BioLogos Forum has raised the issue and encouraged discussion, we also urge caution. The “Federal Headship” model that accepts the scientific findings while at the same time holding to the historicity of a real first couple has not yet been carefully worked out by theologians. The reason that we haven’t had many articles of that sort is because we haven’t been able to identify theologians who are looking at the question from that perspective. In general, our experience has been that theologians are in one of two camps. Either they work within the framework of a non-historical Adam and Eve or they believe the scientific conclusions will eventually prove to be deeply flawed and humans were not created through an evolutionary process after all.

The purpose of BioLogos is to show that there can be harmony between mainstream science and evangelical Christianity. We are in complete agreement with Richard Ostling (the author of the aforementioned article) and the Editors of Christianity Today that working through the historicity question is of the utmost importance to the Evangelical Church. Within the framework outlined above, it boils down to theology not science, and we urge the Church to reserve judgment for a while. Let’s keep both possibilities before us. Here’s hoping that some of our greatest theological minds will work on the question of what a model based on “Federal Headship” would look like. Here’s also hoping that some of our finest theologians will continue to work on how the view of a non-historical Adam would address some of the issues that puzzle and concern most evangelicals. Communication is key. This must move beyond theologians speaking to each other in language that is not readily accessible to the rest of us. Let’s figure out pastorally-responsible ways of putting the issues before the Church in a manner which is respectful of all views, while not shying away from the challenges that lay before us.

This is an exciting time for the Church because there is much interesting work to be done. Personally, I reserve judgment and I urge that all of us proceed with caution. Let’s see what emerges. Let’s see what our theologians and philosophers come up with, especially those who hold to a historical Adam and Eve. The Church is 2,000 years old. It has been guided by some of the sharpest minds that have ever lived and it has done so under the guiding wisdom of Emmanuel—God with us. This is God’s Church and we must proceed prayerfully, lovingly, and solemnly. We must listen intently to the wise voices of our deep past while following the Spirit’s guidance into a future where we have not yet been. We are not alone though. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses whose lives and work remind us of the faithfulness of God through the millennia. This is still God’s Church and we are still God’s people. We are not alone. Emmanuel—God is with us!

More Pieces on the Historical Adam from BioLogos

• The joint statement from our second "Theology of Celebration Workshop"
• Evolution and the Fall
• Daniel Harrell: A Pastor Deals with Adam and Eve (Video)
• Denis Alexander on Understanding Genesis and the Fall (Video)
• N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve (Video)

Today’s post is adapted from an editorial introducing the September 2010 volume of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF), the peer-reviewed journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA).¹ The issue contains several articles of interest to the BioLogos Community, including one by BioLogos Senior Fellow Dennis R. Venema on the evidence from genomics for common ancestry between apes and humans.

Two other papers in the volume, by Calvin College Theologians Daniel C. Harlow and John R. Schneider, examine the historicity of Adam and Eve and original sin. Both authors suggest that the traditional Augustinian understanding of these doctrines must be reexamined in light of the many strands of scientific evidence pointing to the gradual creation of human beings through an evolutionary process.

While there is much food for thought in these two papers, we caution against pronouncing judgment too quickly, either for or against the ideas they contain. Certainly BioLogos supports accepting scientific conclusions where the science is clear. It is clear, for example, that the whole human race did not come from a single ancestral pair. What is not clear, however, is whether acceptance of an evolutionary view of creation requires rejection or substantial revision of these doctrines. (Denis Alexander’s recent BioLogos paper, while not the final word on the matter, demonstrates that historicity may, in fact, be embraced within an evolutionary framework.)

Harlow and Schneider’s papers have caused no little stir in some Reformed circles. Importantly, the question is not whether their ideas are heretical or even whether these doctrines should be open for discussion in the first place. Rather the question is how a given Christian tradition, the Reformed faith in this case, may determine the range of views consistent with its own creeds and confessional statements. As BioLogos is not affiliated with any single Christian tradition, we do not have identical concerns. Our interest is two-fold: we want to protect the integrity of both science and Scripture and create a place for Christians to engage in healthy dialogue on these difficult issues.

Dr. Leegwater’s editorial is important in the conversation for several reasons. First, he humbly admits that in reviewing new data in genomics and evolutionary science, some of his most cherished beliefs were challenged. It is a good reminder that encountering facts that conflict with our deepest beliefs is painful and disorienting, if not downright frightening. We should thus be charitable with those who disagree with us. At the same time, wrestling together is good for the church—iron sharpens iron—and it should not be avoided, for failing to seriously consider new data is not a satisfactory option for truth-seeking Christians. Second, Leegwater recognizes that we tend to oversimplify the issue of interpretation. Too often, he notes, a false dichotomy is presented: “Should science be interpreted by Scripture or Scripture by science?” Neither simple approach gives full integrity to the entirety of God’s Two-Book revelation. Finally, Leegwater observes that we are embedded in a rationalistic Western culture that elevates the methods of science in ways that invite unhelpful responses to Scripture. In reaction to the positivist edicts of science, he says, we tend to reduce Scripture to a collection of infallible intellectual assertions. In doing this we forget the richness of faith, for “faith has to do with promises and expectations, with the certainty of our identity as God-related creatures.”

Introduction written by Kathryn Applegate

Dr. Leegwater's Editorial

On a late April 2010 visit to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, I viewed a diversity of exhibits, particularly those in the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins. To move from panel to panel describing and detailing the evolution of humans from primate forebears to modern humans, one is taken on a journey of over seven million years. This mind-boggling experience, coupled with a recent Science issue detailing the mapping of the Neanderthal genome and its genomic heritage in modern humans, and reading this issue of PSCF, devoted to the historicity of Adam and Eve, genomics, and evolutionary science, challenged some of my long-cherished positions. Such encounters call for a serious examination and reconsideration of certain crucial matters.

Speaking personally, it was a hard lesson to digest, as I suspect it may be for many readers of PSCF. What should we make of all the diverse anthropological evidence collected from several continents as well as the recently acquired detailed genomic data? Should we sweep it under the rug, considering it to be the result of a shameful misguided investigation, since it assumes a view that calls into question the “plain straightforward reading of Scripture”? Or should we dispute the science and suggest the data is open to multiple concordist interpretations? Neither of these positions would be fair to the nature of scientific practice. “Science in God’s world has its own proper task of giving joy, its own peculiar ministry of healing, its own God-given gift of serving up nuanced insight for one’s neighbor” (Calvin Seerveld). Nor would either position honor the role of hermeneutics in interpreting biblical literature.

Parenthetically, as an editor of PSCF, I have often hoped that I could keep these matters at a studied distance, because, in my opinion, there are many other pressing and important issues which the Christian community needs to address and which, due to the ferocity of the debates, frequently become emasculated. And secondly, and for perhaps far too long, a discussion of origins has functioned (for many) as the self-identity or touchstone of the ASA.

But, back to the matter at hand. If we accept the long-drawn-out saga of the evolution of living forms in creation, how must we then understand ourselves? Where and how do we humans “fit” in this development? That question is often the dominant theme in discussions about origins. As someone has perceptively remarked, “It is not the ‘fourth day,’ but rather the ‘sixth day’ that is in question.” To hold that the center and meaning of our life lies outside ourselves may be a posture that many persons and different religions share. But to honor this position as a Christian confession takes one on an eccentric and peculiar journey. In his Institutes, Calvin raised the classic question of human self-understanding, the question of how humans can know themselves. The answer that Calvin gives points us away from our desire to first examine ourselves: “Again it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself” (I.i.12). We, as humans, are essentially God-related creatures (Homo religionis).

While recognizing our human condition, we also need to tread carefully. The intense debates often assume the stage is set by positing “hard scientific data” to be in tension with our (systematic) theologies. In simple terms, the scene is portrayed as a battle between believing science and believing Scrip-ture. Should science be interpreted by Scripture or Scripture by science? We desire simple satisfying answers. To a large extent, however, we have simplified the issues. Putting the matter in this way, I think, will cause us to lose sight of the integrity of both the Bible and of science. If the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God is wedded to its scientific reliability, the “scientific” battles for an infallible Word of God have been lost from the start. We have then placed both on the same (scientific) level, and in the process, we will lose the reliability of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not written as a historical research report, nor do they give a scientific account. Rather, they are a testimony of faith, albeit in the form of God-inspired literature. The Bible is part of creation which bears witness to the Word of God who was present at Creation. The Bible points us to Christ. The Bible is divinely inspired, but it is not divine. The Holy Scripture in its entirety is revelation, but it is not the whole of revelation. Reducing the Word of God to the Scriptures can be a form of bibliolatry. The revelatory Word of God for creation speaks to its reliability and trustworthiness.

Stating it differently, the Bible speaks in prescientific language and pictures. It employs the language of the day, reflecting the world-picture of the original audience. The language of the Bible is accommodated to the cosmological and historical awareness of the day. In our eyes, these cosmological world-pictures may seem hopelessly scientifically naive, but the Word and Spirit are able—the church confesses—to penetrate our hearts, regardless of our local customs and situations, or of the world-pictures we hold.

In addition, we often discount the philosophical and historical contexts that undergird many of our procedures of interpretation. We live in a westernized rationalist culture which probably reached its zenith in the Enlightenment, but is still clearly regnant in the practice of the natural sciences and the theological sciences. This historical context has shaped our view of the Bible and its interpretation: we like (or deem it necessary) to compare the scientific propositions of science with the propositional revelation (teachings) of Scripture. In an effort to counteract the rational infallibility of scientific propositions, Christians respond with the rational infallibility of revealed propositions. Consequently, employing the term “inerrancy” to describe the character of the Scriptures seems inherently tied to a rationalistic and positivistic position and plays into the hands of higher criticism. Our intellectual instincts tend to treat faith as basically an intellectual matter. But faith is much richer in its purview. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, RSV). Faith has to do with promises and expectations, with the certainty of our identity as God-related creatures.

Notes

1. ASA was established in 1941 as a fellowship of those in science and related disciplines who prize both faithfulness to the Word of God and integrity in science. ASA members benefit from a robust dialogue about wide-ranging and pressing issues in science and faith through multiple blogs, publications like PSCF and the new God and Nature e-zine, and both regional and national events such as the upcoming 66th Annual Meeting, “Science-Faith Synergy: Glorifying God and Serving Humanity.” Interested in connecting with fellow Christians in science? It’s easy to join online.

Revisiting the Retelling and Homo divinus Models

The comments so far are really by way of introduction so that we can get going again with the main topic. But a few more general points still need to be highlighted in the context of comparing these two particular models:

First, it should, I hope, be clear by now that I don’t think there is any problem with using the language of “data” and “models” in this context, providing that we don’t start thinking that we’re using the terms as they’re generally used in everyday science. Since such terms are used, as we have seen, in a wide range of disciplines, there seems no particular reason not to use them here. If pressed, then I would say that their use in our present context is somewhat akin to the various models posited to provide evolutionary explanations for the origin of music.¹ In other words, it is quite possible to generate plausible models for things which are consistent with various kinds of data and argument, including in this case a good deal of aesthetic insight, yet without any realistic hope of deciding between different models in the foreseeable future. If someone would prefer to label the Retelling Model and the Homo divinus Model, ‘informed speculations’, then I have no problem with that at all, except to say that in the end even speculation A may be more plausible than speculation B, so it comes to the same thing in the end. Carrying out thought experiments is the way that human knowledge expands.

Speaking of knowledge takes me to a second point, this one for the positivists. In many ways this particular discussion is one internal to the Christian community, a point that will become even more apparent below. Clearly models that discuss the possible ways in which humans first came to know God are not going to gain much traction in the minds of those who do not believe that God exists. So I wouldn’t blame atheists at all for thinking that even discussing such models is a bit of a waste of time. If I was trying to present arguments to atheists for belief in God, then this is certainly not where I would start! But my intention here is not to present arguments for belief in God, but instead to present some reflections for the world-wide community of around two billion Christians, who do as a matter of fact believe in God and, in their various ways, do believe that God can be known, and who, one presumes, do believe that theological knowledge counts as real knowledge.

Thirdly, it is important in discussing models to make it clear what they are trying to explain, and what they are not. The temptation in generating models is to try and make them do too many things all at once. The models that work best are those that that try and join up a few points reasonably clearly rather than lots of points less clearly. Having said that, it is certainly not the case that the simplest model must by definition (due to its simplicity) be the best one. In science the best explanations are often provided by models that are actually quite complex, especially in the biological sciences. It all depends what you’re trying to explain.

What the Models are Not About

So let me emphasize here what I don’t think the present Models under discussion are about. In his recent article posted on the Huffington Post site, Michael Ruse was having a bit of a go at Alvin Plantinga’s views on original sin and, en passant, took a swipe for good measure at my BioLogos paper. Now Plantinga is well equipped to defend his patch, so I will leave that to him, but Ruse’s passing comment concerning the Homo divinus Model was, as it happens, based on a wrong assumption. Personally I do not believe, as Ruse seems to assume, in Augustine’s theory of original sin, which suggests that somehow we inherit the guilt of Adam’s original act of disobedience (but I suspect that Ruse has not read my Creation or Evolution – Do We Have to Choose?, so there is no reason why he should have known that). I find such a notion nowhere in Scripture, which is insistent that whilst it is certainly the case that, as a matter of fact, all do sin (Romans 3:23), yet each person is responsible for their own actions and their own sin (Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:18-20; Matt. 12:36; Rom. 14:12; Hebr. 4:13 etc.). Romans 5:12 makes it clear that death came to all people by them actually sinning, not by inherited guilt.

This is why I mentioned above that I do not think any basic Christian doctrines hang upon the outcome of the various models under consideration. Christ’s atoning work upon the cross was for the redemption of all sinners (John 3:16) who repent of their own sin and put their trust in Christ for their salvation (Acts 2:38). Christ died for our sin, not for inherited sin. So when Michael Ruse calls the idea that there was an original human couple who sinned and whose sin was then inherited by the whole of humankind “silly” (thank you Michael), I am inclined to agree, although there might have been a politer word to express the disagreement that turns out not to be a disagreement after all.

Having cleared one misunderstanding out of the way, we now have to deal with one other. Since I agree with 90% or more of Loren Wilkinson’s two helpful articles (part 1 | part 2), I am somewhat relieved to find the odd point where I disagree, otherwise the discussion might have got boring. Wilkinson seems to think that the Homo divinus model is about the notion of when humankind first started being made in God’s image. In practice I have been careful not to try and include that important theological notion within the model; otherwise I fear that we might be trying to make it do too much work. Now it is certainly the case that commentators such as Prof. R.J. Berry – someone who was certainly promoting the Homo divinus model long before I started writing anything about it – have gone much more in this direction, so I don’t blame Wilkinson for not picking up on the distinction.²

The reason for not trying to include the notion of ‘image of God’ in the model is just that I don’t think it works very well. The language of ‘image of God’ first appears in Genesis 1, a chapter which I see more like manifesto kind of literature that lays down the principles and framework within which the rest of Scripture must be understood. ‘Image of God’ theology is a rich and diverse vein that runs like an undercurrent through the Old Testament, but which becomes much more explicit in the New, where we find that it is Christ who is the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4) and as we clothe ourselves with the “new self” we find ourselves being renewed in that image (Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18). For me a key point in the concept is that it is humankind that is made in God’s image – the whole of humankind – “male and female He created them” – without exception (Gen. 1: 26-28). The manifesto provides a basis for the way in which we should treat all people, irrespective of color, creed or nationality. Everyone has a value that is independent of their genetic or other endowments.

So personally I don’t think it’s so easy to conceptualize such a profound doctrine as being like a ‘thing’ that can suddenly be bestowed upon someone, though I certainly respect those who wish to build the model in that direction. I suppose I see it as more akin to the phrase “All men are created equal” in the US Declaration of Independence. They are endowed by their Creator with “certain unalienable Rights” and it seems to me that belongs more to manifesto literature. It is not that “unalienable Rights” began with Jefferson, just that this declaration encapsulated something deemed to be true for humanity in general, but (hopefully) to become especially relevant for this nation in particular.

What the Models Are About

Instead I start with a somewhat different set of questions when thinking about models such as the Retelling and Homo divinus models. Taking the corpus of Biblical literature as a whole, here we have a ‘grand narrative’ of creation, alienation from God due to human sin and disobedience, redemption through Christ, and a new heavens and a new earth. We have the possibility of fellowship with God through freely willed choice. Our nearest cousins, chimps and bonobos, to the best of our knowledge, do not. So the curious Christian is likely to ask at least some time during their lives, “Well, when did that possibility first begin? When did people first start knowing the one true God in such a way that they could pray, walk with God, and be responsible to God? When could they first be judged by God because they had sinned?” It is those kinds of questions that the Retelling and Homo divinus type of models are interested in addressing. Did all this happen rather slowly, as in the first model, or rather fast, as in the second? Notice that the questions raised are not to do with the origins of religion (however defined), which is another kind of discussion altogether, but with the origins of spiritual life, knowledge of God, the time when humans first became answerable to God for their actions. Notice also that the questions would still be there even if we had in our hands only the New Testament. It is not Genesis that poses the questions, though Genesis is clearly relevant, but rather the Christian theology of creation, sin and redemption. The themes of creation, sin and redemption keep replaying like a musical répétitif through the biblical symphony. The early chapters of Genesis is where the répétitif is first introduced, and so attracts our attention, but let us not forget the répétitif in the rest of the biblical texts.

There is another point where again I rather part company with Wilkinson’s view, because he seems very clear that one type of model must be right (the Retelling Model) and the other wrong (the Homo divinus Model). But I just don’t think it’s that clear. I have often remarked that I maintain the first Model on Mondays and Tuesdays, and the second Model the rest of the week. I think it’s a bit like libertarian and compatibilist views on free-will. I know in which direction I lean on that particular question, but at the same time I could give a pretty strong defense of the position I personally don’t believe. And when Wilkinson says he doesn’t like the Homo divinus Model because it’s “too complicated”, to an immunologist that’s like a red rag to a bull! All the best immunological models are actually rather complex because what they’re seeking to explain is rather complex and, as mentioned already, the best models are those that provide the best explanation, not necessarily the simplest. I realize that we’re not talking about immunology here, but life is complex.

Furthermore, when Wilkinson speaks of the ‘Retelling Model’ I don’t think we’re really talking about the same thing. Wilkinson wishes to draw attention to the non-historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis and remind us that they recount the story of ‘every man’. We are all God’s earth-keepers who have fallen short of caring for God’s earth properly due to our sin and failure to listen to God’s commands. That’s fine, we’re all agreed on that. But it’s not what the Retelling Model is about (and its label may not be helpful at this point). Instead the Model is seeking to speculate about when and how humans first came to know God. I can easily see how that question might not even interest those whose days are filled mainly with literary pursuits, but it does interest those of us who spend our days reading evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, cognitive psychology, and so forth. Models that fail to at least take this literature into consideration don’t really count as models in my book.

So the only commitment that I’d recommend is to be committed to the strengths (and weaknesses) of both positions – or you can simply kick the ball into Barthian touch and refuse to ask the questions. However, I do think that most Christians find themselves asking these kinds of questions at some point in their lives, even though they might not think (as I don’t think) that the fact that we don’t know the answers is that important (and for the foreseeable future we’ll never be sure either way, though you never know when unexpected data might come along in the far future, so the golden rule is “never say never”).

Since either model can be incorporated equally comfortably within the current understanding of human evolution, preference for one model or the other is likely to be made on theological and aesthetic grounds, and on one’s own sense, informed by Scripture, of their plausibility/implausibility, coupled with one’s reading and understanding of the various scientific disciplines already mentioned. Contra Wilkinson, I do not think discussion of predestination is going to help us much here. Think of the Retelling Model. Here in this context it is imagined that a population of early humans at some unspecified time come to an awareness of God as creator and of (at least some of) their responsibilities toward God, but reject the light that they have received. This is perceived to happen as a process over a long period of time, maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of years. In the case of the Homo divinus Model, such ‘spiritual enlightenment’ is seen as occurring less as a process, more as a saltation, again in a small human community or even in a single couple. In either case, it is clear that God at some stage begins to hold people responsible to Himself. So is that ‘predestination’? That hardly seems to be the best description for what is going on here. Throughout the Old Testament God calls people for particular tasks to fulfill His will – Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and on the list could go. Is that predestination? I don’t think that’s the right language. God can call whom He wants. And whatever Model you may hold to regarding the origins of spiritual life, you have to accept that the people coming before that did not experience such spiritual life of whatever kind you envisage. And here is where the biology comes in useful, because it simply won’t do to identify your ‘spiritual life model’ with the first group of Homo sapiens, because the emergence of a new hominin species most likely takes tens of thousands of years. So where are you going to draw your before/after line? ‘Saltations’ might work in spiritual experience, but they certainly don’t work in mammalian evolutionary biology.

Comparing the Two Models

Once you understand that these Models represent faith seeking understanding as to the origins of real human spiritual life, with its attendant responsibilities towards God, then you can see why I tend to lean more towards the Homo divinus type of model. For it is easy to conceptualize beings that have no moral responsibilities toward God, so cannot be judged. Likewise it is easy to comprehend that beings have been given sufficient knowledge of God and His claims upon their lives such that they are now truly responsible to God. What is less easy to conceptualize is some kind of half-way house between the two, which is what a lengthy process would entail. Either you’re responsible for something or you’re not. Now the fact that we find the half-way house position difficult to conceptualize doesn’t rule it out of court; we might just be limited in our comprehension (and you can always invoke the partial responsibility of young children in the spirit of Irenaeus), but in my book it does make the Retelling Model look less coherent.

Since it happens to be a Friday as I write this, and not a Monday, let me also say that I think the Retelling Model doesn’t do a very good job on the biblical notion of sin. Now there is no one single biblical definition of sin, but rather an ensemble of key ideas that together comprise the notion. But certainly important elements of sin include the idea of broken fellowship with God and alienation from His presence, consequent upon failing to give God the glory and placing oneself in the position that only God can rightfully hold, the creature seeking to become like the creator, a story vividly recounted for us in Genesis 3. This is difficult to conceptualize with the Retelling Model, much easier so with the Homo divinus Model. I think it is no accident that as versions of the Retelling Model (although it may not be called that) gain traction, so the tendency is to think of sin more as unfortunate sociobiology, poor humans in thrall to the dictates of their genes, but fortunately ‘saved’ by evolutionary theories of altruism. I have a feeling that Michael Ruse would like Christians to go in that direction because it makes it easier to ‘naturalize’ the language of sin. But I think such accounts are profoundly deficient from a theological perspective. In biblical thought, sin is a theological concept which only makes sense in relation to God and to God’s will. If there is no God then there is certainly no sin, and what you’re left with is human misbehavior, certainly not ‘evil’ except as a socially convenient label.

Whichever model you hold to (if any!), you still have the problem of interpreting how the first reality of sin impacts upon humankind as a whole. This is where I don’t think Wilkinson has really grasped the nettle. In the Homo divinus Model I have the first sin impacting upon the world not through inheritance (as in Augustine), but via the theological notion of Federal Headship, involving a lateral rather than a linear fall-out. This is an aspect of the Model that is somewhat arm-waving, I freely admit, but I don’t think the Retelling Model does much better, unless you want to push the Model right back to the emergence of Homo sapiens somewhere around 200,000 years ago and locate spiritual life and its subsequent rejection within a community of a few hundred breeding pairs, their innate rejection of God’s purposes then becoming the pattern for all who were to follow. The problem with that scenario is the uncertainty about the linguistic and creative capacities of the first humans, about which we know nothing. Some anthropologists continue to highlight the ‘cultural revolution’ in human tool-use and, possibly, linguistic and other cultural capabilities, that appear to have occurred during human development about 50 thousand years ago as part of the so-called Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Others prefer to highlight the continuity in cultural development over this period and before. Whatever the outcome of that particular discussion, it does impact to some degree on the Retelling Model. If humanity did not yet have a sufficiently developed theory of mind, together with other cognitive capacities, to be in a position to be responsible to God for their actions until the era of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, then the Retelling Model has to cope with the fact that there were many different communities of humans within Africa by that stage, and humanity was already well on its way in the Great Trek out of Africa to populate the rest of the world. So at the least Retelling Models have to take such factors into account in their discourse on sin, and, to be frank, at this point in the discussion the notion of the transmission of sin – either lateral or vertical – becomes as arm-waving as in the Homo divinus Model. In other words, it is not that the Homo divinus Model has a problem on this point which the Retelling Model does not – both Models are in the same boat; both Models have to give account as to how/why/when sin entered the world and in what sense sin ‘spread’ or ‘became relevant’ to the rest of humanity.

It is also worth pointing out that the notion of Federal Headship has not been arbitrarily invoked to help in this context, but has a long and respectable theological lineage stretching back to Calvin and before.³ We can also think of it as involving corporate responsibility, which is a difficult concept if you happen to have been raised in the individualistic West. Having lived in the Middle East for 15 years, one becomes acutely aware of how one is deemed to represent one’s perceived leader, however much (as an individualistic westerner) you might like to be perceived as just yourself. I was reminded of this during one of our many crossings over the ‘Green Line’ that separated West from East Beirut during our time spent in the Lebanon in the early 1980s. The usual bearded militiaman holding the usual Kalashnikov put his head through the car window, checked my papers and then gave a big friendly smile with golden teeth shining: “Breetish!” he said “Margareet Thaatcher!” and then laughed uproariously. In his eyes I was the representative of the whole of Britain, the country headed up by a female Prime Minister, which must be some kind of joke. The point in the present context is that in Middle East culture Federal Headship is an ever present reality, even though you might not be that pleased (as in this case) to be identified with the ‘Head’ in question. Talk about corporate responsibility!

If talk of Federal Headship and corporate responsibility is not really helpful to you on this point (and for people not pre-soaked in a culture with different assumptions, it is a difficult notion), then why don’t we think of a metaphor based on cricket? I have deliberately chosen cricket because its rules are as arcane to most Americans as the rules of American football are to most Brits. Cricket was certainly being played in England by the mid-sixteenth century, although its roots go back much earlier. But for this thought experiment I want you to imagine two scenarios. In scenario one (which happens to be correct, but let that pass) the present rules of cricket develop slowly over a period of centuries. In scenario two, let us imagine that the present rules of cricket were created de novo all at once in the sixteenth century. Either way, notions such as “getting runs”, “losing a wicket” or being “run out” only make sense within the particular game labeled “cricket”. The terms have no meaning out of that context. Now imagine that in China at the same time (either for scenario one or two) there were people in Shanghai who had certainly never heard of cricket, but who regularly started playing around by throwing a ball at each other and trying to hit it with a stick, and were even judged to be “out” when the ball was caught. Were they playing “cricket”? Well, not really, because you can only play cricket if you play according to the rules, even though there might be some accidental similarities between the two games.

The point here is that the concept and status of being “caught out” (and therefore no longer being in the game, as a batsman at least) has to begin somewhere, in scenario one as a consequence of slow development, in scenario two rather abruptly. For the first time on planet earth, a new system has come into being that sheds a new light on the meaning of hitting balls with pieces of wood, and then catching the ball, a meaning that didn’t exist before. In analogous manner, the notion of “sin” only begins to be theologically meaningful once a new framework for its meaning has been established, at least somewhere in the world. Certain concepts, with their attendant language, only make sense once the framework is in place.

Now I have deliberately set up the story with two scenarios so that it can fit either the Retelling Model or the Homo divinus Model, because both Models have to face up to the same questions. And like most metaphorical stories it can only achieve maybe making one point at best (so please do not start blogging about Adam and Eve playing cricket…), but hopefully it might help on this one point, the idea that certain concepts only have meaning once the framework is in place that provides their meaning.

In terms of biblical theology, I do think that the Homo divinus Model does greater justice to New Testament teaching, in particular to the understanding of the first and second Adam as expounded in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. As already mentioned, it is the aim of Models to take into account the overall corpus of Biblical teaching, and I find it ironic that people think that the Homo divinus Model draws its inspiration from the early chapters of Genesis, when the reality is that it depends more on New Testament narratives. I realize that not all commentators think that the parallel between the ‘second and first Adams’ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 needs to be taken too stringently, but I have to say that the parallel looks pretty stringent to me.⁴ This for me is certainly an important factor providing a nudge in the direction of the Homo divinus Model. But do we really know what happened? Absolutely not! It is “tempting to speculate…”, but all we can be quite sure about is that the person who is quite certain they know the answer must definitely be wrong! As I said at the beginning of these comments, for me the discussion itself scores only 1, maybe a maximum of 2, on a scale of 1-10 in the list of items that Christians should be concerned about. And when it comes to writing about it, I’m quite sure that the number of words I’ve written on the topic is far less than 1% of all the words that I’ve written on other topics. But scoring 1 on a scale of 1-10 is not zero, and it’s fun to bat these ideas around with the hope that, one day, people might come up with much better models.

In the interim I do hold to one model more than another, and that not for merely utilitarian reasons, as I’ve already emphasized. And it is really important that Bible-believing Christians realize that there are conceptual resources that enable them to preserve essential Christian doctrines that are important for their faith without the need to worry that some new scientific findings are going to come and snatch them away. And passionate Christian Darwinians can go on happily being passionate Christian Darwinians, just as they have been since 1859.

Notes

1. See, for example, Stephen Mithen’s entertaining book The Singing Neanderthals - The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body, Harvard University Press, 2007

2. e.g. Berry, R.J. and Jeeves, M. ‘The nature of human nature’, Science & Christian Belief 20: 3-47, 2008 – plus much earlier citations

3. Grant, J.A. & Wilson, A.I. (eds.) The God of the Covenant, Leicester: Apollos, 2005

4. On this also see the forthcoming article: R.J. Berry, ‘Adam or Adamah?’, Science and Christian Belief 23: 23-48, 2011, In Press

The question in the title of this paper raises an initial question: in general how should we go about the task of relating theological truths to current scientific theories? Theological truths revealed in Scripture are eternal infallible truths, valid for the whole of humanity for all time, although human interpretations of Scripture are not infallible and may change with time over issues that are not central to the Gospel.

Scientific theories, by contrast, represent the current ‘inference to the best explanation’ for certain phenomena as judged by the scientific community based on criteria such as the interpretation of observations, experimental results, mathematical elegance and the ability of theories to generate fruitful research programmes. Scientific theories are not infallible and will certainly change. However, change does not necessarily imply replacement. Usually scientific theories are not replaced, but modified. In this respect they are often likened to maps that incorporate many different types of data: the maps are revised, as required, to incorporate new data and are improved in the process.

Scientists sometimes use the word ‘model’ to propose one big idea, or a cluster of ideas, that together help to explain certain scientific data. To the despair of philosophers of science, the use of such words in scientific discourse can lack precision. The word ‘model’ is a case in point, its use sometimes overlapping with the term ‘theory’. Usually, however, ‘model’ has a more focused meaning: the way in which certain sets of data can be rendered coherent by explaining them in terms of a physical, mathematical or even metaphorical representation.

During the early 1950s there were several rival models describing the structure of DNA, the molecule that encodes genes. Linus Pauling proposed a triple-helix model. But Jim Watson and Francis Crick had the huge advantage that they obtained the X-ray diffraction pattern results of DNA in advance of publication from another scientist called Rosalind Franklin. The double-helix was in fact the only model that would incorporate all the data satisfactorily, as Watson and Crick published in their famous one-page Nature paper in 1953. Since that time everyone has known that DNA is a double-helix, it’s really not a triple-helix or some other structure. In science models are very powerful.

Not all scientific models win the day so decisively. For many years in my own field of immunology there were endless discussions about how the class of white blood cells known as ‘T cells’ are educated within the body to attack foreign invaders but not (usually) to attack ‘self’, meaning our own tissues. Those discussions are now virtually over because the general model that has emerged explains most of the data quite well, bringing in to the story research results from many different laboratories. But the successful model that prevails is far more ‘messy’ than the exceptionally elegant double-helical model for DNA. The most successful models are not necessarily the simplest. The best models are those that explain the data adequately.

Sometimes rival models exist for long periods of time in the scientific literature because they explain the data equally well. In that case a given model is said to be ‘under-determined by the data’. Everyone agrees with the data that do exist - the disagreement is about how to fit the data together to create the best model. Eventually new data emerge that count in favor of one model rather than another, or that decisively refute a particular model.

When we come to the question as to what ‘Biologos model’ might best address the relationship between the Adam of Genesis and the anthropological and genetic account of a humanity that did not have a single couple as the source of its genetic endowment, then we need to keep in mind these various ways in which the term ‘model’ is deployed in scientific discourse. We will start with an initial ground-clearing question: “Is model-building appropriate in relating theological and scientific truths?” and, having given an affirmative answer to this question, we will then go on to consider what model might be the most appropriate for relating the theological and scientific narratives.

Is model-building appropriate?

There are some who would maintain that the truths presented by the early chapters of Genesis are theological truths that are valid independently of any particular anthropological history. The purpose of the Genesis texts is to reveal the source of creation in the actions of the one true God who has made humanity uniquely in His image. The Genesis 3 narrative of man’s disobedience is the ‘story of everyman’. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and this passage presents this truth in a vivid narrative style that is about theology rather than history.

Those who adopt this position may also point to the dangers of a ‘concordist’ view of biblical interpretation. The term ‘concordism’ (in its traditional sense) generally refers to the attempt to interpret Scripture inappropriately using the assumptions or language of science. Calvin famously countered such tendencies in his great Commentary on Genesis, remarking on Chapter 1: “Nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” But the term ‘concordism’ is also sometimes stretched to include virtually any attempt to relate biblical and scientific truths. Such a critique appears to be a step too far, for in that case our theology becomes too isolated from the world, contrasting with the famous ‘two books’ analogy in which the Book of God’s Word, the Bible, and the Book of God’s Works, the created order, both speak to us in their distinctive ways about the same reality. This powerful analogy has held sway for many centuries in the dialogue between science and faith, and the challenge is to see how the two ‘Books’ speak to each other, for all truth is God’s truth.

Building models to relate biblical texts to science requires no concordist interpretations of the text (in the traditional sense of the word ‘concordist’). The disciplines of both science and theology should be accorded their own integrity. The Genesis texts should be allowed to speak within their own contexts and thought-forms, which are clearly very distant from those of modern science. We can all agree that the early chapters of Genesis exist to convey theology and not science. The task of models is then to explore how the theological truths of Genesis might relate to our current scientific understanding of human origins.

The models that we propose are not the same as the ‘data’. On one hand we have the theological data provided by Genesis and the rest of Scripture, true for all people throughout time. Uncertainty here arises only from doubt as to whether our interpretations of the text are as solid as they can be. On the other hand we have the current scientific data that are always open to revision, expansion or to better interpretation. Nevertheless the data are overwhelmingly supportive of certain scientific truths, for example that we share a common genetic inheritance with the apes. The role of models is to treat both theological and scientific truths seriously and see how they might ‘speak’ to each other, but we should never defend a particular model as if we were referring to the data itself. The whole point of any model is that it represents a human construct that seeks to relate different types of truth; models are not found within the text of Scripture – the most that we can expect from them is that they are ‘consistent with’ the relevant Biblical texts. Let us never confuse the model with the truths that it seeks to connect to each other.

In practice any western reader of the Genesis text, raised in a culture heavily influenced by the language and thought-forms of science, can hardly avoid the almost instinctive tendency to build models or pictures in their heads as to what they might have observed had they been there when ‘it’ happened. This is the case irrespective of whether someone comes to the text as a young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, or some kind of theistic evolutionist. Given that we all tend to build models anyway, we might as well ensure that the model we do maintain has been thoroughly subjected to critical scrutiny. This is important not only for own personal integrity but also in the pastoral context in which we seek to avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance in the minds of those under our pastoral care.

The tenth anniversary of the human genome has been marked by some striking new genetic insights into human evolution and diversity. Do these new discoveries have any significance for the dialogue between science and religion in general, or for our sense of human uniqueness in particular?

The publication of the Neanderthal genome sequence in May 2010 set the pace. Not surprisingly -- given that our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee was around 5 to 6 million years ago, compared to a mere half a million years for our last common ancestor with the Neanderthal -- it turns out that we are genetically far closer to the Neanderthals than to the apes. In all, only seventy-eight changes in the genetic letters ('nucleotides') that would change the amino acid sequence of particular proteins were found in the Neanderthal DNA that were the same as the chimpanzee sequence but different in the human. Amongst other differences, 111 duplications of small DNA segments were found in the Neanderthal but not human sequence. Genetically we are closely related twigs on the great evolutionary bush of life.

But we knew that already. More surprising for many was the provocative finding that non-African humans are genetically closer to Neanderthals than African humans. In fact, the European and Asian genomes that were sequenced appear to contain one to four percent DNA of Neanderthal origin, and the gene flow that occurred appears to have been almost entirely from Neanderthal to human, rather than vice versa. How come? The most likely scenario is that there were a few instances of sexual reproduction between Neanderthals and human individuals belonging to the population that is thought to have emigrated out of Africa to populate the world sometime after seventy thousand years ago, explaining why the Neanderthal DNA sequences are not found in African genomes. The contribution of the Neanderthal genome has remained in European and Asian populations ever since.

To put this in perspective, most of our genes are very similar anyway to those found in Neanderthals and chimpanzees, and to other mammals like mice. We all share a "how-to-build-a-mammal" instruction manual, and the relatively minor genetic differences between us (minor relative to those we share in common) are the icing on the cake, as it were, that make us a human rather than a mouse, a chimp or a Neanderthal.

The year 2010 saw yet another twig appear on the hominin branch of the evolutionary bush, this time one even closer to the Neanderthals than our own. This story begins with the discovery by a Russian team of a sliver of finger bone from a remote Siberian cave in the Altai Mountains, known as the Denisova Cave. The team stored it away, thinking it was from one of the Neanderthals that frequented the cave between thirty thousand and forty-eight thousand years ago. But when DNA extracted from the bone was eventually sequenced, the results -- published just before Christmas -- revealed a population distinct from both humans and Neanderthals.

The finger appears to belong to a novel hominin population that shared a last common ancestor with Neanderthals more recently than humans, and overall is genetically closer to Neanderthals than to humans. It is too early to say whether the so-called 'Denisovans' represent a separate species and fossil data will be required to clarify that question. But what the results do suggest is that Melanesians -- the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea and islands northeast of Australia -- have inherited as much as one-twentieth of their DNA from the 'Denisovans', indicating that some limited inter-breeding took place between these ancient populations. Most fascinating of all is the idea that multiple hominin lineages were coexisting in Europe and Asia, along with modern humans, as recently as twenty-thousand to forty-thousand years ago.

Do these findings have any particular theological significance? It is difficult to know why this should be the case. In the Judeo-Christian tradition humankind uniquely is made "in the image of God". The suite of capabilities that emerged during human evolution is necessary but not sufficient to do justice to this much discussed theological insight. Our particular genetic instruction manual generates large frontal lobes, advanced cognitive abilities, rationality, language, consciousness and the ability to choose between right and wrong. It is this suite that gives us the ability to pray, worship and engage in communal religious practices.

But the idea of being made "in the image of God" is not encompassed simply within a static list of such human qualities. Theologians have drawn attention to the dynamic, relational aspects of the concept. It is humanity-in-relation-to-God, together with God-given responsibilities to humans in relationship with each other, that are thought to be more central to the idea. When did such spiritual capabilities and responsibilities first come into being? It is really difficult to know, but the answer certainly seems more rooted in God's intentions and purposes for humankind than in genetic change per se. Students can spend a long time being trained in the finer points of drama, but the play only gets off the ground when the actors are finally given their lines.

It seems quite likely that more twigs will continue to appear on the hominin branch of the bush of life as genomics continues to extend its reach. Such discoveries as such do not appear to raise any new theological questions. But other 2010 discoveries did highlight two genomic insights that do have relevance for religious views of human identity. The first insight comes from further Genome Wide Association studies that continue to subvert any lingering commitments to genetic determinism, for example the idea that there are genes "for" a particular human trait. The second insight comes from the finding that we are all more genetically different from each other than we realized even a few years ago. Genetics is underlining the uniqueness of each human individual. By the end of 2011 it is estimated that more than 30,000 human genomes will have been sequenced. Watch this space. Theological reflections on these findings will be the topic for Part 2.

The beginning of each new year seems to present a distinctively creative moment—a transition when we look to the past as the foundation for the future we will have a part in building. But while we pay more attention to this sense of connection and possibility when the calendar turns, sculptor and teacher Gregg Luginbuhl recognizes that such is always the character of our experience of and place in the Creation.

Pictured above is the culmination of Luginbuhl’s “The Creation Series” of eight raku-fired earthenware plates, on permanent display at Bluffton University’s Yoder Recital Hall: the “Creation of Humankind.” While based on the Genesis 1 account of God’s creative work, the series and this plate in particular are not merely re-tellings or illustrations of the Biblical story, but are the way the artist gives physical form to his meditations on the unfolding nature of human identity and engagement with the world, and with the creative God whose image we bear.

Luginbuhl speaks of his own creative process this way:

“Creative acts begin with an idea and intuitive direction. As an artist, I am most successful when . . . I allow ideas to develop and grow as I proceed. I allow my materials to interact with my ideas and participate in the outcome. I seek surprises. I try to set up an environment where good things might happen. To over-plan, or to force the outcome, results in art which is static and stilted.”

He does not claim that God works in precisely this way, but his words and work do suggest that our own experience as creative beings can help us understand this aspect of the Lord and our relationship with him and with the rest of the material world. Luginbuhl notes that, “in the Genesis story, humankind is created last. The most complex and difficult element in the composition is the result of knowledge and insight acquired in earlier creative acts. Each creative act nourishes the next. In each creative act are the seeds of the next. The implications of this simple observation are enormous for artists, art students, and art teachers at every level.” In other words, we are both the culmination and the agents of an ongoing process that is beautiful in its improvisatory quality—in the way freedom interacts with the constraints of what is and what has come before, something at the literal heart of the artist’s own ceramic work.

At the visual center of the piece is a play on the most famous image of Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel decorations (and arguably the most famous image of the Creation in all of western art), and Luginbuhl is making a nod to the way we draw upon the work, the images of others as “raw material” for our own creative process and activities—though those materials are not truly “raw,” but are themselves indebted to the creativity of those who have gone before, all the way back to the Beginning. What Luginbuhl seems to find of most interest about the “moment” of creation is not an imagined instantaneousness but its relational quality: surrounding the iconic human/divine touch are other human hands and faces that place us (still) in the middle of the processes we seek to understand.

In the artist’s own description of the plate, “God’s hand reaches from a swirl of clouds and passes the spark to three hands:

1. A negative hand print similar to those early “signatures” found in Paleolithic cave paintings, representing the earliest evidence of mankind’s self-awareness. (If we are to mark the moment of the creation of humankind, it might be here.)
2. A fist, with a weapon and trailing a strip of cloth, representing the rebellious nature of humankind, and sin against God. (My plate series was based on Genesis Chapter 1, but this is a foreshadowing of Chapter 2 and the Fall.)
3. A small beckoning hand beneath these two indicating a reluctant willingness to accept the challenge and responsibility of the gift of life. (As opposed to the confident hand of Michaelangelo’s Adam, it is indicative of human weakness, but also of a positive spirit.)

“Faces—life casts of two of my children—emerge from the raw material of earth. (They are my personal experience of the miracle of creation of human life. The life casts were taken from my daughter Alison at age 10, on the right, and my son Ben at age 8, on the left.) A footprint (my own in clay) represents the mere trace that we leave behind, the ephemeral impact of our creative efforts in light of the magnitude of God’s Creation.”

In Michaelangelo’s version of the creation of humankind, a very human-like God reaches across from heaven to touch a very God-like man—the epitome of Renaissance humanism in his physical perfection. But Luginbuhl offers us not one unified and idealized sense of the human person, but a ceramic rendering of the complicated process of living out the imago dei, encompassing the way the divine relationship, inaugurated freely by God sometime in the ancient past of our biological species, meant a new awareness of ourselves as selves as well as an awareness of the God who sustains all life.

This is the handprint—the first evidence of selves in art. It is also the faces that we recognize as specific human persons (and the artist recognizes as his own children), the most “natural” yet profound example of how we share in God’s creation, even of the human race. Here again, we have an intrinsic meditation on the relationship between the creator and the created, as Luginbuhl in his process as a sculptor has literally “formed from the earth” beings in his own likeness, a recasting of the biological genesis of creatures that share in his identity and with whom he enjoys a deep and abiding relationship.

But, as any parent knows, children also resist our claims on their selves even as they seek identity in their relationships with us. Indeed, Luginbuhl’s entirely Biblical implication that with self-awareness, or awareness of our relation to our creator, comes rebellion, is given form in the second human hand emerging from the world at the lower left: the clinched fist makes it clear that this resistance to God’s sovereignty is part and parcel of the Natural Man.

Thus, perhaps it is all the more remarkable that Luginbuhl’s central image for our reaction to the God who reaches towards us is the smallest, and it’s position tentative and questioning rather than strong and self-contained. The size of this third hand—the one actually “in touch” with the Divine—does not imply that this attitude (or our relationship with the Father) is unimportant or trivial, but rather indicates that the proper relationship with God is one that recognizes its asymmetry in both power and goodness and allows God to do the reaching, us the opening of our selves to the touch of the maker. That posture is the foundation of a life rightly lived; may it be the one we adopt together as we enter the coming year.

Gregg Luginbuhl received the Master of Fine Arts degree in Ceramics from the University of Montana in 1975, following a B.A. in Art from Bluffton College in 1971. Now in his 35th year of university art teaching, he is Professor of Art and Chairman of the Art Department at Bluffton. He has exhibited pottery and ceramic sculpture in more than 100 regional and national exhibitions, and is included in many public and private collections. More on the Creation Series and his other work may be found here.