Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Did Adam and Eve Literally Exist?


After converting from agnosticism to Christianity I at times felt that Adam and Eve are not to be taken literally since I have long believed in some form of evolution. I especially questioned them when I learned that genetic records show that the human population was never below 10,000. However, after learning about Hylemorphic dualism from reading Edward Feser’s work I have come to take them literally.

I view the first few chapters of Genesis much as I do Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” as both have elements of poetic form. Tennyson’s poem is about a real British cavalry unit in the Crimean War, and discusses their real ill-fated charge. In much the same way Genesis poetically deals with the heart of the Creator as he forms the universe and life. This is not a science textbook that explains how God did it—it is science’s job to write that book. Much like Tennyson’s poem deals with a real cavalry unit, Genesis deals with a real Adam and Eve.


The idea of Hylemorphic dualism is that God used evolution to form proto-humans. These proto-humans are genetically identical to humans and have the highly evolved nervous systems that we do. Then God took two proto-humans, Adam and Eve, and gave them human souls which enabled them to do higher order thinking and use rational inference. The combination of the proto-human body and the human soul made the first true humans—the rational animals. The progeny of Adam and Eve began reproducing with the proto-humans and God gave their offspring a human soul to make them humans. Since humans have the ability to do higher order thinking they had a selective advantage over proto-humans and eventually the proto-humans were assimilated into humans.

Hylemorphic dualism explains how deistically driven evolution and Genesis can be compatible. It enables us to take elements of the Genesis to be literal so we can take the fall of man as a literal explanation for the state of mankind and the reason for evil in the world. This means that Jesus did not die for a metaphor. Hylemorphic dualism also explains why humans have an absolute monopoly on rational inference—a monopoly that seems implausible under naturalism.

16 comments:

  1. Why bother trying to reconcile the Bible with science?

    It would be simpler to just say that science is wrong whenever it contradicts the Bible. You are just taking a longer route to arrive at the same "truth".

    Did Adam and Eve literally exist? Yes, because the Bible told you so. It is that simple. Millions and millions of Christians cannot be wrong. Can they?

    genetic records show that the human population was never below 10,000.

    Instead of just accepting the Bible and ignoring scientific evidence, you have added proto-humans to the creation story. And there is absolutely no reason for God to have proto-humans that the sinful humans can assimilate other than you must somehow reconcile the Bible with science.

    If there were proto-humans, why didn't Adam find a suitable helper in Gen 2:18-20? Can you even take those verses literally since they say all the beasts and birds were formed out of the ground?

    And if the human population was never below 10,000, is the flood to be taken literally? How many pairs of proto-humans did Noah take on the ark? Do the genetic records for the animals on the ark also require a population larger than two?

    If you want to accept some of the Bible, doesn't it make more sense to abandon reason and just accept the entire Bible?

    And if you can't accept the entire Bible, what does that tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Lowell,

    Welcome to Intellectual Feast! Thanks for your comment.

    “Did Adam and Eve literally exist? Yes, because the Bible told you so. It is that simple. Millions and millions of Christians cannot be wrong. Can they?”

    Be careful of the fallacy, argumentum ad populum, because an Islamic apologist could argue that their beliefs are true because millions of Islamic people believe it. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t necessarily make it true. However, in this case I do, essentially agree with you because the Bible is backed by historical evidence that shows that it is true, such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    How do you know that the Bible is true? It sounds like you are saying that the Bible is true because it’s true, which is circular reasoning. How can you know that any holly book is true or false? You must evaluate the book using reason, science, history and archeology. If the book repeatedly fails to match up with reality then we should consider questioning the veracity of that book.

    “Instead of just accepting the Bible and ignoring scientific evidence, you have added proto-humans to the creation story. And there is absolutely no reason for God to have proto-humans that the sinful humans can assimilate other than you must somehow reconcile the Bible with science.”

    Hylemorphic dualism says that the only difference between a proto-human and a human is the addition of the human soul in humans. We could take God raising man out the dust to be a poetic device that describes the evolution of proto-humans and then God giving Adam a human soul at a later time to make him fully human. If there are no proto-humans in the Bible then where does Cain’s wife come from in Genesis 4:17, when he is banished to Nod, if only Adam, Eve and Cain are the only people that exist?

    “If there were proto-humans, why didn't Adam find a suitable helper in Gen 2:18-20?”

    Perhaps God wanted to bring in a proto-human into Eden and give her a soul so that Adam could have the best companion possible. As fantastical as it seems, we could also take Eve’s being formed out of Adam’s rib to be literal because God, as the creator of the universe, could do this if He wanted to.

    “And if the human population was never below 10,000, is the flood to be taken literally? How many pairs of proto-humans did Noah take on the ark?”

    That is a good question. I’m not sure how to answer it at this point.

    Lowell, I get where you’re coming from. Amongst fellow believers we can agree that the truth of the Bible and the Christian God’s existence is a properly basic belief. However, I’m attempting to engage wider audiences that include skeptics and questioners as well as believers who want to learn how to rationally defend their faith. This means that I can’t just assert that the Bible is true because it is. It means that I must use reason, science and natural theology to show why it rational to be a Christian. God gave us these tools for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is my fault for not being clear.

    I am an atheist, and I don’t understand the point of modifying the Bible to agree with the scientific evidence.

    You must evaluate the book using reason, science, history and archeology. If the book repeatedly fails to match up with reality then we should consider questioning the veracity of that book.

    That is a fine thing to say, but you are not questioning the veracity of the Bible. When the Bible fails to match up with reality, you dismiss parts as poetic devices and add parts so the Bible can match the scientific evidence.

    Genesis was intended to be a true historical account of our beginnings. And for thousands of years, believers had no trouble accepting that Genesis was literal in its entirety. Because of scientific evidence, you see problems with Genesis. But instead of coming to the conclusion that Genesis is wrong, you search for a way to make the Bible right.

    God wouldn’t have needed proto-humans. The only reason you need to add proto-humans to Genesis is so you can reconcile the Bible with the scientific evidence.

    What you are doing is more ridiculous than just accepting the entire Bible and declaring that science is incorrect. You can’t just select which parts you want to believe. Otherwise heaven and hell and all the rest can just be metaphors and poetic devices.

    It is a worthy goal to use reason and science to show why it is rational to be a Christian, but if you have to alter the Bible, you have failed at your task.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I must say that I’m intrigued by you, Lowell. Were you a Christian at some point in your life? You do a fantastic fundamentalist Christian impression; you really had me fooled there. You must have come from DC. I guess I shouldn’t make assumptions about people. If you were a Christian, did you reject Christianity because you believed that it isn’t compatible with science?

    Genesis must be one of the most highly debated books in the world. Even as far back as 400 A.D. St. Augustine questioned the literal interpretation of the Hebrew word for day (yom) which can be read as a 24 hour day or an era because he saw that 2 Peter 3:8 explains that God is outside of time. When you look at Genesis it really isn’t surprising that people have had different views of it. It is a text that is thousands of years old and is written as history in different literary forms, particularly the near Eastern hero story form. Add that the creation story doesn’t go into great detail about how God is formed the universe and omits details such as where Cain’s wife came from. Genesis just feels different than other parts of the Bible. This is why I think that I’m justified in ascribing some poetic devices to Genesis. I do take Genesis to be a true history, packaged in epic poetic form, of how God formed the universe and the first two humans. I think that the fall of Adam and Eve explains the human condition. I don’t think my reading alters the Bible, as the text left blanks that could be filled by philosophy and science. I believe that science tells us how God does what he does.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wasn’t trying to do an impression of a Christian fundamentalist. I just did a poor job of communicating. However, I do think the anti-science Christians have a more defendable position than Christians that reinterpret the Bible to match the scientific evidence.

    Keith, is it possible that Genesis has been falsified by the scientific evidence that shows the human population was never below 10,000?

    Genesis has humanity beginning with two people and says there were only eight people that survived the flood. It seems to me, that if one were to accept the scientific evidence, one would have to reject Genesis.

    You seem to have grasped onto proto-humans just to avoid concluding that the Bible is wrong about our origins.

    Even as far back as 400 A.D. St. Augustine questioned the literal interpretation of the Hebrew word for day (yom) which can be read as a 24 hour day or an era because he saw that 2 Peter 3:8 explains that God is outside of time.

    Interesting. Before 2 Peter was written, did anyone question if yom meant anything other than a 24 hour day? I don’t know.

    Add that the creation story doesn’t go into great detail about how God is formed the universe and omits details such as where Cain’s wife came from.

    I wonder if anyone thought the creation story didn’t go into great detail before science began revealing some of our origins.

    Even if you interpret yom as an era, the sea creatures and the birds are formed in the fifth era, and land animals are formed in the sixth era. If you accept evolution, why does Genesis get the order wrong? Or do you accept the order of events in Genesis and reject the order of events according to science?

    Regarding Cain’s wife, I always thought she was Cain’s sister. Gen 3:20 states that Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living. Not all of Adam and Eve’s children were specifically mentioned. However, Genesis is clear that Adam and Eve are the first two humans and are everyone’s oldest ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you were a Christian, did you reject Christianity because you believed that it isn’t compatible with science?.

    I was raised Jehovah’s Witness. I questioned religion because I was constantly around people that had a different religion. I wanted to know which religion was true.

    As my third-grade teacher talked about Native American mythology, I realized we can look at the beliefs of past cultures and agree it is all a myth, but at the same time our religious beliefs are a mythology to future cultures.

    Science had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You have a very different background than me. I was raised in an atheist family and really embraced atheism in high school. I held a naturalist view. I have been fascinated by the question of if there is meaning in life for as long as I can remember, and I read atheist existentialist books. My confidence in atheism was shaken when I learned about the big bang and fine tuning in physics class, so I gradually became an agnostic.

    When I got to college I was still searching for meaning in life. I gradually became very disappointed with atheist existentialism, as it seemed like people pretending like their brief, insignificant life has meaning even though all traces of their existence will soon be wiped out as the universe slowly dies of entropy. In my junior year I met a Christian guy that eventually witnessed to me. The whole idea of the Gospel was pretty foreign to me, but I thought about it. I studied the life of Jesus and was impressed by him. I became convinced of the historicity of his death and resurrection. I then believed and became a Christian. It was a decision that has brought me a lot of joy.

    That’s interesting that your atheism came from the problem of many religions. I’m used to dialoging with new atheist types that are strong proponents of naturalism. You must really appreciate John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith. Since you don’t believe in God, how do you explain how the universe came into being uncaused?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, I don’t think that science has falsified Genesis, but it has affected how some people interpret it. I’m quite satisfied with the Hylemorphic dualism explanation of how Adam and Eve came to be the first humans. The broad brush strokes that Genesis uses to convey the heart of the creator leave room for science and philosophy to flesh out the story and explain in greater detail how God did what he did. I think the Hylemorphic dualism theory reconciles science and faith while holding onto the sinful state of mankind that is solved by Jesus.

    After further researching the flood story in Genesis 6-9 it seems to me that that the story is a parabolic legend that God transmitted to Moses to explain more about his character. I think there was some serious flooding in Mesopotamia and that people did die, but there is no geologic evidence that there was a worldwide flood that killed everyone but Moses’ family. It seems like Moses was not aware that the story was more a legend than true history. To people in Moses’ time, with less knowledge of geography, massive local flooding would appear to be worldwide.

    Even though the story seems to be a parabolic legend, God is still transmitting important information about his nature. He conveys the fact that he is a powerful God that is control of his creation. The story shows that he is righteous in that he deals with out of control evil. It also shows that God has compassion for righteous people and wanted Noah’s family to flourish.

    At this point you’re probably saying, “Keith, isn’t this a slippery slope? Hasn’t the whole Bible been invalidated by science?” I don’t think so. I view science as another way we can learn about how God does what he does. Science can flesh out the creation story. It can help us to learn how to better interpret the flood story. I think we can say that the flood story is a parabolic ledged without it having a great impact on the rest of the Bible. Also, there are later events in the Bible that are backed up by history and geology.

    That’s funny that you mention your old interpretation of Cain’s wife being his sister because a friend and I were talking about the same thing a few days ago and she said she had the same interpretation as you did. We talked about the idea of incest, and she said that she saw our DNA as being more pure back then so there wouldn’t be the same inbreeding genetic problems that we would have today. I thought it was an interesting idea, but I don’t know why the text wouldn’t have said that Cain had a sister and that she went with him to Nod. I think the Hylemorphic dualism theory is better :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would you agree that if we were to follow the same process, we would arrive at the same conclusion?

    I don’t mean just skeptically examining our beliefs. I mean if we asked the same questions in the same way, focused on the same areas, and (most importantly) followed the same rules, would we arrive at the same conclusion about God?

    I don’t focus on explaining how the universe came into being uncaused. I wouldn’t even phrase it that way. But I do see that the Judeo-Christian god is a flawed explanation. Even you agree that the details in Genesis are not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    I find it unacceptable to change the Bible to keep it from being falsified. However, you follow different rules that allow you to reinterpret the stories, add to the stories, and dismiss parts as “parabolic” legends. We do not agree on this point, and that is a reason as to why we arrive at a different conclusion.

    As to the story of Adam and Eve, you seem to think you have some wiggle room to add soulless proto-humans. You even said, “but I don’t know why the text wouldn’t have said that Cain had a sister and that she went with him to Nod.”

    Genesis 5:4 states that Adam had other sons and daughters, so Cain had sisters. And don’t forget Eve is described as mother of all the living. But I find it odd that you question why the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that Cain married his sister (though it is the logical conclusion), yet you do not question why the text didn’t mention soulless proto-humans. If Genesis is the Word of God it could and it should tell of our actual origins not myths.

    ReplyDelete
  10. [I think we can say that the flood story is a parabolic ledged without it having a great impact on the rest of the Bible.]
    I can’t. If the flood story is a not true, then it is just another example that from the very beginning Judaism was untrue.

    But you can dismiss the flood story as a parabolic legend because it doesn’t have a great impact on your Christian beliefs. However, your Christian beliefs require that the Fall actually happened so you cannot dismiss the story of Adam and Eve in the same way. Hence the only reason you must change the Adam and Eve story.

    [Even though the story seems to be a parabolic legend, God is still transmitting important information about his nature.]
    Genesis seems to be written with the limited knowledge of the times instead of the Word of an omnipotent god.

    [ He conveys the fact that he is a powerful God that is control of his creation. The story shows that he is righteous in that he deals with out of control evil. It also shows that God has compassion for righteous people and wanted Noah’s family to flourish.]
    But the story never happened, so God never actually dealt with out of control evil or displayed any of those other qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I don’t focus on explaining how the universe came into being uncaused. I wouldn’t even phrase it that way. But I do see that the Judeo-Christian god is a flawed explanation."

    Really what you are saying is that you’re rejecting the creator God. To do that you need to deal with these arguments:
    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

    1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
    2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
    3. The universe is an existing thing.
    4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

    1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance or design.
    2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
    3. Therefore it is due to design.

    1. If God exists then objective moral values and duties exist.
    2. Objective moral values exist.
    3. Therefore God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I find it unacceptable to change the Bible to keep it from being falsified. However, you follow different rules that allow you to reinterpret the stories, add to the stories, and dismiss parts as “parabolic” legends."

    Do you take everything in the Bible literally? In Proverbs do you think that Wisdom and Folly are to be taken as literal women? In The Song of Solomon 2:2 is the man’s beloved supposed to be literally seen as a lily among brambles? The text of Luke 15:11-32 doesn’t specifically say that The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a parable, so should we view this text as a historical account?

    The problem that you have with Genesis is that you are reading it like a modern day history book even though I don’t think it should be viewed this way.

    "Genesis 5:4 states that Adam had other sons and daughters, so Cain had sisters. And don’t forget Eve is described as mother of all the living. But I find it odd that you question why the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that Cain married his sister (though it is the logical conclusion), yet you do not question why the text didn’t mention soulless proto-humans."

    I really don’t think that the logical conclusion is that Cain married his sister. First of all, the text only mentions the existence of three humans when Cain gets banished to Nod. Those people are Adam, Eve and Cain. The text does not say that Cain had a sister or that she travelled with him to Nod.

    Secondly, Genesis 4:17 is before Genesis 5:4. Genesis 5:1-5 are an overview of Adam’s life and so just because it days that Adam had daughters doesn’t mean that he had them around the time that Cain was banished to Nod. In fact the text says that he had Seth who followed Cain and Abel, and then the text says that he had other sons and daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "If the flood story is a not true, then it is just another example that from the very beginning Judaism was untrue."

    Why is the possibility that the flood story is a parabolic legend mean that Judaism is untrue? If Moses misunderstood that the flood story was to be taken as parable and not a literal worldwide flood then there is no problem. I think it could be quite easy for Moses to misunderstand the story as it was being transmitted to him. When the story was being transmitted to him maybe it seemed like the local flooding was a global flood as he likely wasn’t very familiar with the true size of the earth. Also, just because it seems like there wasn’t a worldwide flood doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a real Noah, some sort of real flood; and real evil people being wiped out in the flood.

    I think that the only way to show that Judaism is untrue is if there were no Jewish people or that the creator God is logically impossible. Clearly there was and are a Jewish people and the creator God that the Bible talks about not only logically possible, but is an excellent explanation for why the universe came into being in a singularity 14 billion years ago and why we humans exist.

    "However, your Christian beliefs require that the Fall actually happened so you cannot dismiss the story of Adam and Eve in the same way. Hence the only reason you must change the Adam and Eve story."

    I didn’t change anything. I’m just filling the blanks left in the text.

    "Genesis seems to be written with the limited knowledge of the times instead of the Word of an omnipotent god."

    If you’re expecting Genesis to read like a modern day science/history book then I could see how you could come to this conclusion, but if you read it as an ancient near Eastern hero story, as you should, then you won’t have this problem.

    "But the story never happened, so God never actually dealt with out of control evil or displayed any of those other qualities.

    Not necessarily. As I said, there very well could have been a real Noah and real local flooding, as well some literal evil people dying in the flood.

    Even if there was no literal Noah we can still learn about God’s qualities. Are you saying that because the Parable of Prodigal Son is only a parable we can’t learn anything from it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting post and interesting dialogue. When I consider these kinds of questions, I always think of Jesus Christ. That is, I ask myself what He thought about such things. Particularly when it comes to Scripture, I want to know how He viewed it. This does not help me understand science per se or even reconcile science to the Bible. Nevertheless, it does communicate to me what is necessary to please God - and that is to me the most important issue.

    I should add that I am not a scientist. Therefore, I do not take it as my responsibility to reconcile the Bible to science. Many people seem to want me to accept scientific "facts" about the pre-historic past, but I am surprised that people will speak so definitely about such things because there is no eyewitness testimony to such times. Why then do people speak so definitively about conjecture?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for your comment. Welcome to Intellectual Feast! I do get where you’re coming from Mike. I view evolution as a pretty well supported theory. There are fossil records and genetic data that support evolution. I think we can all agree that micro-evolution is fact, as we see evidence of it all the time in viruses and bacteria that have evolved to immunity against certain medicines. I agree that that some leaps from micro-evolution to macro-evolution could have been made, and that someday evolution could be proven wrong, but there seems to be much evidence in favor of evolution for this to be likely.

    Mike, I view science as a gift from God that helps us to understand how he does what he does in the universe. I believe that what we observe in the world should accord with our faith. I also believe that faith and science can be reconciled.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Keith,

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have no problem with the scientific-minded taking a positive view of evolution theory insofar as it goes. However, it often seems to be taken as ipso facto discrediting the Bible. Thus, even though I'm not a scientist, I have a favorable view of science for the reason you gave - but an unfavorable view of science-as-religion which seems to be the extreme to which so many believers of evolution have taken it.

    ReplyDelete