The Historicity of Adam

A hotly debated topic among evolutionists, creation scientists, and evangelicals is the historicity of Adam. These people’s views can be summarized into four basic positions [1]. The most liberal view, evolutionary creationism, holds that there was no historical Adam. This view has been expounded upon by Denis Lamoureux, a well-known professor who has lectured widely on the topic of evolutionary creationism. Evolutionary creationism posits that God used evolution to create man and used ancient views of science to impart specific inerrant truths [2]. This idea of using ancient science to give truth is called the “Message-Incident Principle” [3]. The second position is the archetypal view. Those who hold this view, such as John Walton, an influential scholar who has written several books on the topic, believe that Adam was a real man, but was used biblically as an archetype, or a representation of humanity as a whole. According to this view, Adam may or may not have been the father of mankind, and that the Bible should not be used as an argument against scientific evidence about human origins [4]. The third position, old-earth creationism, suggests that Adam was the real “[headwater] of humankind” but argues that the Bible does not limit the timeline of history to a young-earth perspective. This view has been vocally promoted by a seminary professor named C. John Collins, who has also written a famous book on the subject entitled Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care [5,6]. The fourth view, young-earth creationism, proposes a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1. According to this view, Adam was supernaturally created by God and was the father of the entire human race. Supporters of this view, such as William Barrick, a professor at the Master’s Seminary, insist on the critical nature of the historicity of Adam to doctrinal accuracy. These four views have been hotly contested over the last several decades and require both biblical and scientific examination. Current scientific research on the origin of man is concentrated in two areas: phylogenetics and archaeology. In phylogenetics, scientists currently theorize that man descended from the same common ancestor as several primates; in fact, the phylogenetic groupings would be incomplete without humans. According to these phylogenies, starting approximately eight million years ago, the first hominid evolved. The phylogeny branches off, with one branch leading to apes and another to humans. These phylogenies are most often inferred from an evolutionary perspective. However, molecular evidence is conflicting with these phylogenies. The main issue with current phylogenies is “discordant data.” In other words, several data points do not fit the Darwinian model; discordant data is typically called “incomplete lineage sorting” or ILS. Several studies have encountered ILS, including a recent study of thirty-six mammalian genomes. Additionally, ILS isn’t limited to just data across taxa, but rather is also found in gene types and DNA elements. Evolutionary science has yet to have a conclusive answer for this dissimilar data. More interestingly, “the many new genome sequences being produced… is not supportive of universal common ancestry, but rather the distinct creation of separate kinds of life as depicted in the Genesis account of origins [7].” This discovery has led to a new biosystematic, called baraminology. In an extensive article written by Todd Charles Wood in Creation Research Science Quarterly, baraminology is summarized, and this summary is both scientifically accurate and consistent with the biblical account of supernatural creation of both animal and man. In archaeology, the general consensus among scientists is geological finds to be consistent with the evolutionary story that australopithecines, a chimpanzee-like genus, evolved into Homo habilus, which evolved into Homo erectus. However, scientists have yet to find a clear example of Homo habilus. Instead, many fossils have been mistakenly identified as Homo habilus in a fervent attempt to prove evolutionary theory. For example, three fossils reported in 2012 were said to “confirm the presence of two contemporary species of early Homo” [8]. It was later proven that these fossils were australopithecines. With many cases similar to this one, current archaeological science seems to be most consistent with the creation of man without evolutionary means. Biblical evidence is dependent on two factors: one, what the Bible states, and two, how those statements are interpreted by the reader. There are six main passages that reference Adam in the Bible. The first, and most intuitive, is Genesis 1:26-5:5, which discusses Adam’s creation, sin, and following life on earth. The four views discussed previously all examine this passage differently. Evolutionary creationism interprets the passage using the Message-Incident Principle described previously, resulting in the conclusion that God used ancient views of science (such as the de novo creation of humans) as a means to communicate certain inerrant spiritual truths. The archetypal view interprets the passage, especially Genesis 2, as a symbolism of all mankind. Old earth creationism uses literary interpretation of Genesis 1 that assumes the passage was written with a historical base, but with major portions including symbolism as well. Young-earth creationism literally interprets the passage. The second and third major passage that references Adam, 1 Chron. 1:1 and Luke 3:38, are portions of genealogies. A literal interpretation of these passages establishes Adam as the father of mankind as well as linking him to Jesus Christ. These two verses tie in with Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor. 15:22. These two verses tie Adam with the necessity for Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. Additionally, the last two passages, 1 Cor. 15:45 and 1 Tim. 2:13-14, use phrases such as “first man” and “first created” to describe Adam. Evolutionary creationism and the archetypal view both interpret these verses figuratively, whereas old-earth and young-earth creationists interpret them literally. In examining both the scientific and biblical data, I have concluded that the correct view of the historicity of Adam is the young-earth creationist view. Scientifically, the evidence clearly points to Adam being the literal father of mankind. Views that include an evolutionary mechanism, such as evolutionary creationism, have the problem of molecular inconsistencies in phylogenies and lack of fossils of Homo habilus. Biblically, a literal interpretation clearly points to a historical Adam. Other hermeneutics leave the interpretation to the reader instead of letting the text speak for itself. Personally, the most compelling evidence is the direct statements in 1 Cor. 15:45 and 1 Tim. 2:13-14. Describing Adam as the “first man” makes it very clear who Adam was. He was the first man God ever created in His image and was the father of the human race. The three remaining views each have different errors. Evolutionary creationism is at fault in two areas. First, the evolutionary mechanism that God supposedly used is not only scientifically inconsistent, but it also does not match the character of God. Even a secular evolutionist recognized this: “The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain, and horror….[Theistic evolution’s God] is not a loving God who cares about His productions. [He] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray” [9]. Secondly, the Message-Incident Principle is a poor hermeneutic. The principle is based on a man’s supposition of the intentions of God rather than the Word itself. The archetypal view’s main error is in its hermeneutic. The interpreter assumes that the text is symbolic without any specific evidence as to why its symbolic. Obviously, a hermeneutic based strictly on the whim of the interpreter is flawed. Old-earth creationism also has a faulty hermeneutic. The literary interpretation of Genesis 1 is based on methods of literary criticism and textual linguistics that, while having more of a framework than the archetypal approach, still allow the interpreter to determine the meaning of the passage rather than letting the word speak for itself. Furthermore, all three of these views do not have an adequate explanation for New Testament references to Adam as the “first man.” In summary, because of scientific inaccuracies and biblical interpretative fallacies, these three views are faulty; science and the Bible point to a historical Adam who was created supernaturally by God and was the father of the human race.

Works Cited: 1. Challies, Tim. "'Four Views on the Historical Adam' - A Review." Banner of Truth USA. Banner of Truth USA, 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/book-review-resources/2014/four-views-historical-adam-review-tim-challies/>. 2. Stump, Jim. "Interpreting Adam: An Interview with Denis Lamoureux, Part 1." BioLogos.org. BioLogos, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://biologos.org/blog/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-denis-lamoureux-part-1>. 3. Stump, Jim. "Interpreting Adam: An Interview with Denis Lamoureux, Part 2." BioLogos.org. BioLogos, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://biologos.org/blog/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-denis-lamoureux-part-2>. 4. Stump, Jim. "Interpreting Adam: An Interview with John Walton." BioLogos.org. BioLogos, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://biologos.org/blog/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-john-walton>. 5. Stump, Jim. "Interpreting Adam: An Interview with Jack Collins, Part 1." BioLogos.org. BioLogos, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://biologos.org/blog/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-jack-collins-part-1>. 6. Stump, Jim. "Interpreting Adam: An Interview with Jack Collins, Part 2." BioLogos.org. BioLogos, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. <http://biologos.org/blog/interpreting-adam-an-interview-with-jack-collins-part-2>. 7. Tomkins, Jeffrey ; Bergman, Jerry. “Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life.” Journal of Creation 2013, 27(3), 84-92. 8. Wood, Todd Charles. “The Current Status of Baraminology.” Creation Research Science Quarterly 2006, 43, 149-158. 9. Hull, D. L. “The God of the Galápagos.” Nature 1991, 352 (6335): 486.