Tag Archive: Genesis


Flirting with Evolution – The Christian Alternative Considered

In order to try and satisfy the “science” of evolution and hold onto the Bible at the same time, some people attempt to fit in multiple generations to the Adam that is spoken about in the very beginning of Genesis. They do this, despite the fact that the book does not suggest it. However, suppose it was possible to do so, let’s consider this idea from a logical perspective.

It has been purported that the process to humanity over millions of years was so gradual that the first humans may not have even observed their differences to the previous generations. Now, if you will, indulge me with your imagination. During the proposed transition in evolution, the first men and women must have had their pre-human predecessors, presumably multiple in numbers, living around them. If the person, whom the Bible called Adam, and who it states singularly brought sin into the world, was in such a scenario, then he was either among many that became human, or he and Eve were the only two who evolved into humanity.

In the case that there were other humans around, when Adam existed, then he would have had to have influenced them all to sin too, because the Bible says that “all have sinned.” However, this would leave us with another problem. None of them would be included in salvation, because they are not direct descendants of Adam’s family tree. The virgin birth and the genealogy of Jesus show the necessity for the Savior to be both sinless and a blood descendant of Adam.

Now, in the scenario where Adam and Eve were the only two who evolved into humanity, we still have incompatibility with Scripture. The Bible allows us only approximately 6000 years of human history and gives no evidence of any pre-humans existing prior to or simultaneously with the first of mankind. Also, congruent with the stories in Genesis, the Bible shows that humanity had an immediate singular beginning. Jesus’ genealogy reads, “Jesus…the son of Joseph…who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God” (Luke 3:38). The Bible also says, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). And also, “The first man Adam was made a living soul…” (1 Corinthians 15:45).

The logic of Scripture leaves us no other reasonable option but for a literal view of a singular first person called Adam, from whom all of humanity descends. Also, we have no historical literary evidence of mankind’s beginning that is as historically corroborative as that of the Bible. It has proved itself to be God’s word in countless ways. Why would it not be accurate in this too?

Flirting with a scientific theory that not only is clearly in argument against all of Scripture, but also has no proof, is absurd! Scientifically, macro-evolution, the changing from one species to another, will remain a theory and will ultimately dissipate as the broad opinion of science and culture. Not only is there no proof for this idea, it is also being shown more and more to be a scientific impossibility.

Go here for The Fact of Adam vs. the Fancy of Evolution – Part 1

Rob Morley

Hand of God

Without Biblical Compromise

In the next two posts, I’ll be commenting on the Bible with regards to the persons of Adam and Jesus in order to show that belief in the entire Bible as God’s inspired inerrant word and the idea of evolution cannot reasonably be held simultaneously.

To begin, let’s consider two popular views that Christians hold onto regarding who Adam might be. Firstly, there are those who believe in a literal Adam, a real person, and also the first person, as stated throughout scripture. Then there are those who, in order to accommodate evolution, believe that Adam (& Eve) are only mythical figures in the Biblical story of creation, representing mankind that evolved out of a former evolutionary state. Some who believe this suggest that the opening stories in Genesis start with a mythical Adam and possibly continue with an account of a real person. And, along these lines, some say that Adam was not necessarily the first human.

I’m sure that the variations of thought are numerous, but I would like to show that, under fair scrutiny, only the first view stands as a literary possibility and in harmony to what the various authors in the Bible intended. To do so, I’m going to reflect on how Adam relates to Jesus in the Scriptures.

The Adam to Jesus Connection

Reflection on the texts found in the Bible concerning Adam show that he is spoken about throughout as one and the same real-life person. This is clearly seen both through the type of literature used and logically through the argument of the literature. Previously, I made an argument focusing on the type of literature. This time I want to consider the logic of the Biblical texts. (For a list of texts, see my first post on this theme, Some Biblical Considerations Refuting the Theory of Evolution.)

In the opening book of the Bible, Adam’s sin brings about the curse of death and an inherited sinful nature for all his future descendants. (Notice that you never have to teach a child how to misbehave. It comes naturally.) Later the New Testament states, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to everyone, because all have sinned.” (Rom 5:12) and “But God’s free gift is not like Adam’s offense. For if many people died as the result of one man’s offense, how much more have God’s grace and the free gift given through the kindness of one man, Jesus Christ, been showered on many people!” (Rom. 5:15). Here the Bible speaks not only of the impact of Adam’s sin on each subsequent generation, but also of God’s solution.

The Bible also shows that the solution had to be someone in Adam’s bloodline. And Jesus was that Someone, a Savior to break the curse! Notice that the New Testament gives careful account of Jesus’ own genealogy, showing it to go all the way back to Adam. He was born of God and of a virgin in order to bypass the transmission of the sinful nature passed on through the male descendants. He then died on the cross, carrying the sin of all who have come from Adam, so that we could be free from the power of sin and death and be restored in our relationship to God. “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, an innocent person for the guilty, so that he could bring you to God” (1 Peter 3:18 ISV).

Go here for The Fact of Adam vs. the Fancy of Evolution – Part 2

Rob Morley

When considering God’s revelation given to us in the Bible, it is correctly argued that He only gave us what He intended to communicate. It wasn’t His intention to give us further details and information that we often enquire about.

With this in mind, some who wish to keep a faith in both the Bible and the idea of evolution, argue that instead of passing on all the details of evolution in Genesis, God created a simple story with a representative character for the beginning of mankind and called him Adam. And, this was so that God could focus on the main messages that He wanted to communicate like Him being the Creator, and later about Abraham and the promise of a Seed. According to this argument then, Genesis is part literal and part fiction with the creation stories of Adam & Eve (and probably the story of Noah) the most difficult to swallow as altogether factual.

In effect, what they are saying is that in the Book of Beginnings, commonly known as Genesis, where we are told about our beginnings, starts out with a simple fabricated story. Doesn’t it seem absurd for God to go against the intention of His book and start us off with poetic vagueness about our beginnings? And, what’s more, with a story that in the light of evolutionary science hardly explains the beginnings properly at all. Or perhaps this sounds plausible to some, thinking God wouldn’t want to leave someone with the long-winded details of “Your dad was a Neanderthal and before that…all the way back to dust (or whatever their version is).”

Some suggest that the evolution story, with the complexities that it involves, wouldn’t have been grasped by early man. (No doubt! We still don’t grasp it today!) However, putting sarcasm aside, if you don’t need all the details of modern science to teach the basic story of evolution to little kids, then these are no arguments as to why it couldn’t have been communicated back then either. Who can’t grasp the “Land Before Time” level of communication!? You don’t need the understanding of the modern man to believe basic ideas. For example, the book of Leviticus is full of laws on hygiene that would not have been completely understood until modern advancement in medicine. Yet they believed and obeyed a message that modern medicine only now fully understands.

Believing God’s written word that has been inspirationally flawless for thousands of years seems far more logical than following a theory that for all its noise and influence has absolutely no real evidence and runs contrary to God’s word. Now, had the theory of evolution produced proof, we would have needed to reconsider our understanding of the Word of God. Because, make no mistake, God’s word would remain flawless. Yet, despite no proof for evolution we have many today who would want to marry the two.

Next time I hope to show how the Bible demands a view that makes evolution a Biblical impossibility. Interestingly, Jesus is our proof. Whatever you believe, I hope I’ve got you thinking! (See The Fact of Adam vs. The Fancy of Evolution – Part 1)

Rob

%d bloggers like this: