The description of creation in Genesis is rather vague as far as how and
when, though very emphatic as to who.
> and Christianity must fight with its full might against the theory of
>evolution.
Evolution is used to mean all sorts of things. Descent with modification
and common descent are strongly supported by the evidence from creation and
not contradicted by Scripture, so Christianity ought to accept them as our
best understanding of creation. Lots of people try to pass off
philosophical ideas as part of evolution; these are often not Christian.
>And here is why.
>In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one man, and through
>sin - death, and thus death has spread through the
>whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
>...the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the
>existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate.
>Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall
>into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what
>purpose is there to Christianity? None.
>Even a high school student knows enough about evolution to know that
>nowhere in the evolutionary description of our origins
>does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a forbidden fruit.
Evolution merely describes physical descent. Proving (or disproving) the
existence of these is probably scientifically impossible. Although
speciation is likely to involve a very small initial population,
demonstrating from physical evidence that it was two individuals is
probably impossible. The "mitochondrial Eve", for example, in addition to
being an Eve who appears in evolutionary descriptions, is not necessarily
the only woman alive at the time but merely the only one whose mitochondria
survived. If there were two women at the time, but one only had sons, the
same genetic effect would be seen. Additionally, some people long before
Darwin (at least mid-1600's) have taken the Biblical account to imply that
Adam and Eve were not the first humans but were rather selected from an
existing population, making it harder to pin down what evidence to look for
to identify them from physical evidence.
>Evolution means a development from one form to the
>next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an ever-changing nature.
>There is no fall from a previous state of sublime
>perfection.
Because it can only deal with physical evidence, and our fall, though
having physical effects, was spiritual.
>Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man
>with a mission on a wrong planet!"
>
>AND
>
>"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the
>desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly
>and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made
>necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin,
>and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take
>away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the
>redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then
>Christianity is nothing."
>G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept.
>1979, p. 30
Such a teleological interpretation of evolution has been thoroughly
discredited at the scientific end, though there are certainly scientists
who are negligent about applying this to their worldviews. As a biological
theory, evolution describes physical processes. Original sin is obviously
true by everyday observation, but it is a spiritual rather than physical
condition. Christianity asserts that, regardless of the physical means God
used to make our bodies, He endowed us with His image and that we have
marred that image by rebelling against Him, from our beginning. Fossils do
not tell us anything about that.
>YEC's usually use logic like this to stop a debate on God and Evolution in
>its tracks!!
Such "logic" stops the debate because it is illogical. Without rules such
as logic, "debates" are mere shouting matches. Also, the similarity of the
two statements should make one suspicious. As Allan and George point out,
accepting the metaphysical claims of the atheists and attacking the
physical evidence is not a good approach.
>What is ASA's position on this?
Be faithful to the Lord in your calling as a scientist. The ASA does not
take a specific position on such issues.
David C.