Not to be argumentative but just so I understand: is your belief that Adam and Eve were created " de novo" from soil or "from nothing" instead of thru evolutionary sequence? [For me, the story is not about the science of how man came to be].


My "stand" on this is that I do not know. I am agnostic on the specifics of the origin of the first "homo divinus." When I teach on this subject, I present both the "de novo" view and the theory that God put his soul and spirit into an evolved creature. In fact, that is exactly what I did in a class this past weekend in Detroit. In any case, what we have from the evidence is that there were clearly advanced, seemingly intelligent, highly evolved hominids already around before Adam and Eve made their appearance. I believe that God could, literally, have made Adam and Eve from "the dust of the earth." I also believe that God could take an intelligent, evolved primate, and impart his image, a soul, a spirit and so forth to that creature. In fact, with John the Baptist, I believe that God could raise up children of Abraham from inanimate stones. Both as a scientist and as a student of Christian scripture and theology, I cannot absolutely decide between the two, so I present both views. I believe both views are consistent with Christian theology and scientific knowledge. I agree with your perspective that Genesis 1-2 is about the theology of how man came to be more than the science, but, as a Christian apologist I cannot completely escape the scientific issues which surround the question of origins. I hope this provides more clarity than confusion.

John Oakes

Comments are closed.