If Christians accept Evolution, what about Adam?

I appreciate Christians being intellectually honest about accepting evolution as a fact, but what about the theological implications of the first man?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Genesis
• Adam
• Creationism
• Evolution

[apeek7]

Oops, there is a problem with the lineage of Jesus. Going back just a few generations. Matthew 1: Jesus, Joseph, Jacob, Matthan, Eleazar, Eliud, Achim… Luke 3: Jesus, Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Jannai… There have been creative excuses for this but, still, it remains...

[stevetheskeptic]

@apeek7 whoops! But for everything else, the Gospel writers MUST have gotten it right.

[pchtermino1]

Well if christians are going to believe in evolution I have a question.

When did the soul evolve?

drats, can't even spell

[stevetheskeptic]

@pchtermino1 I can't speak for all Christians, but Catholics are free to believe that Adam's body could have evolved from pre-existing animal material, but that the infusion of the soul into that being is a special act of creation (check out special transformism)

[drfoxcourt]

No historic Adam means no Fall from grace. But that's exactly what all evidence indicates. It indicates no Adam, therefore no fall. If you don't reject classic Christianity for other reasons, you should at least reject classic Christianity on this one. Maintaining Christianity as based on Paul is rejecting real testable evidence and accepting falsity as your standard. That's called insanity.

You may believe that Jesus is the redeemer, just not the way Pauline Christianity portrays it.

[stevetheskeptic]

@drfoxcourt Agreed. If Christians do reject Paul, however, they are essentially coming up with their own religion. Seems impossibly arrogant - an admission that God really has no clue how to communicate with His Church.

[itsonlymepeople]

No historical Adam means no "Fall" in the Garden of Eden which means no original sin which means no estrangement from God which means no need to be saved from sin which means no need for Jesus' sacrficial death to atone for non-existent sins which means, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain"(1 Corinthians 15:14) which means Christianity is false and worthless. And yet, brilliant scientists like Francis S. Collins and Kenneth Miller still believe.

[pchtermino1]

Well if christians are going to believe in evolution I have a question.

When did the sole evolve?

[apeek7]

@stevetheskeptic Well, not exactly… And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof… (Lev 11:6). … and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim (Lev 11:6). And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? (Num 22:28). And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people… (Num 21:6). …the viper and fiery flying serpent… (Isaiah 30:7). To list just a very few…

[drfoxcourt]

@stevetheskeptic "If Christians do reject Paul, however, they are essentially coming up with their own religion" It wouldn't be the first time. St Paul createth religion and the good science taketh away ;-)

Unitarians don't except Jesus as divine so they aren't "Christians". For this reason, although I'm an anti-theist I don't mind attending Unitarian services, which I do semi-regularly. Its more of a, you should think about this and this is what's actually going on in your community thing.

[Quintinohthree]

@stevetheskeptic

You've noticed that he also mentioned "evolutionary theology" which I personally find one of the greatest achievements of theology (=best way of making God fit in reality).

[stevetheskeptic]

@Quintinohthree Yes, and I'm thankful that ProfMTH is backing up this argument so well.