Last week NPR did a story on the debate occurring among evangelical Christians over whether Adam and Eve were historical figures.
But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."
Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.
To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
The story points out that Venema is a senior fellow at the BioLogos Foundation, which
later clarified:
All science can say is that there was never a time when only two people existed on the earth: it is silent on whether or not God began a special relationship with a historical couple at some point in the past.
The Mormon angle on this is very traditional, and yet progressive at the same time. (I previously posted some of my own thoughts in
this series of posts.) I've never seen any Church leader question the historical reality of Adam and Eve. Further, with Adam having been equated with Michael the archangel by Joseph Smith, identified as the great patriarch and presiding priesthood holder of the human family in scripture, and singled out in Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world, I think his historicity is safe with us.
But beyond maintaining the credibility of modern prophets, many Mormons see the existence of Adam and Eve as integral to the gospel message, which is something they share with many evangelicals. This has led some commentators to adopt an argument expressed by BYU religion professor Joseph Fielding McConkie.
How literally do we take the story of the Garden of Eden? This we know: Adam was real. He was as real as Christ. For if Adam was not real the Fall was not real; and if the Fall was not real the Atonement was not real; and if the Atonement was not real Jesus the Christ is not and was not necessary....Had there been no Eden there could be no Gethsemane; had there been no Eve there could be no Mary; if we have not inherited death from Adam, we have no claim on everlasting life through Christ [1].
If I can digress for a moment, this strikes me as a big non sequitur. What? If Adam was not real then I don't need the resurrection or forgiveness of sin? Nonsense. Death, sin, and separation from God exist independent of however we explain their origin. Although ostensibly presented as a defense of the Atonement, in my opinion the above argument is more like taking the Atonement hostage in defense of Adam. It's like saying, "Leave Adam alone or the Atonement gets it!"
At this point someone will object and point out that the scriptures speak of the Atonement as overcoming the effects of Adam's fall. And here is where we get to the progressive side of Mormonism. Although individual judgments of where to draw lines may vary, there is clear support from several Church leaders for taking at least some of the story of the Fall with a big grain of salt. In fact in the very same essay by McConkie quoted above, he wrote:
What, then, do we conclude of the Eden story? Was it figurative or literal? We answer by way of comparison. It, like the temple ceremony, combines a rich blend of both. Our temples are real, the priesthood is real, the covenants we enter into are real, and the blessings we are promised by obedience are real; yet the teaching device may be metaphorical. We are as actors on a stage. We role-play and imagine. We do not actually advance from one world to another in the temple, but rather are taught with figurative representations of what can and will be [1].
Speaking of the temple, the endowment used to be specific about this. As then Elder Boyd K. Packer put it,
What is said in the revelations about the Creation, though brief, is repeated in Genesis, in the Book of Mormon, in Moses, in Abraham, and in the endowment. We are told it is figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned [2].
Make no mistake. Joseph Fielding McConkie and President Packer see no truth in evolution whatsoever in the history of this world, and in the history of humans in particular. And yet, when it comes to the Garden of Eden things become figurative.
So we are left with a historical Adam and Eve and, paradoxically, an essential but figurative story that we call the Fall. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and, it would seem, for science.
Before ending, let's look at one more thing from the NPR story.
"Evangelicalism has a tendency to devour its young," says Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, a Christian Reformed school that subscribes to the fall of Adam and Eve as a central part of its faith.
"You get evangelicals who push the envelope, maybe; they get the courage to work in sensitive, difficult areas," Harlow says. "And they get slapped down. They get fired or dismissed or pressured out."
Harlow should know: Calvin College investigated him after he wrote an article questioning the historical Adam. His colleague and fellow theologian, John Schneider, wrote a similar article and was pressured to resign after 25 years at the college.
The article that got Harlow in trouble is "
After Adam," and it's an interesting read. Mormons will not agree with all of his arguments, but they may be surprised how often they do agree with him. Particularly interesting are the parallels between the story of the Garden of Eden and other ancient stories. Reading the article provides another example and a reminder of how interestingly Mormonism is positioned on some issues. Schneider's article is "
Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins." I've only skimmed it, but these sentences from the summary should catch your attention.
[Schneider] invites readers to examine [thinkers] for whom the Incarnation and Atonement are the purpose of creation from the beginning. Their understanding differs from the execution of divine “Plan B,” as implied by the Augustinian western version of an unintended “fall” from utopian first conditions.
The Atonement planned from the beginning? Now there's a thought.
Notes:
1. Joseph F. McConkie, "The Mystery of Eden," in
The Man Adam.
2. Boyd K. Packer, "
The Law and the Light," in
The Book of Mormon: Jacob through Words of Mormon, To Learn with Joy.
Continue reading...
Posts
