RE: Adam, the first man

From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 16:56:26 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "an outside opinion on Genesis 1"

    Wendee,

    Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating from the tree
    of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:5,22), which doesn't sound to me
    like the usual way that gene mutations occur, but perhaps a more detailed
    explanation of this scenario would clarify this point.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Wendee Holtcamp wrote:

    >
    > Jim wrote:
    > > At any rate, I'm going to begin the (painful?) updating of the Adam
    > > section of the Genesis in Question website. I don't always
    > > get pleasant
    > > responses when I suggest that Adam was the first "of the
    > > chosen people,"
    > > but not the first "technical human."
    >
    > This isn't what you asked, but, as I'm sure you're aware, there are a number
    > of different possible scenarios with the first Adam given an evolutionary
    > creationist perspective. You give one. Another related but not exactly the
    > same is that Adam was the first that evolved Spirit or consciousness. I
    > believe that Spirit is obviously spiritual, and consciousness is probably an
    > evolutionary relict but I see the two as related. In the garden of Eden
    > story, it speaks of Adam and Eve as becoming aware of good and evil --
    > something I think of as consciousness. In this way, we are different from
    > all other created things, and "like God." It could have happened in one gene
    > mutation, so there could literally have been one literal Adam. Personally if
    > such a thing did indeed happen, then I believe God was also behind it. Such
    > is the "punctuated equilibrium" Gould proposed. (ie major evolutionary
    > change happening in short periods of time, rather than longer, gradual
    > changes). The evolutionary leap to consciousness could have also happened
    > more gradually, in which case finding a literal Adam is more difficult.
    >
    > Adam could have been a Neanderthal man as I think Glenn proposes, or he
    > could have been a modern Homo sapiens or anyone in between. I think its
    > important that we don't know, and that there are many possible scenarios
    > each with their own theological dilemmas.
    >
    > My 0.02, Wendee :)
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 11 2002 - 16:56:38 EDT