Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Journal , Vol 62, Number 3, September 2010

92 Pages·1.56 MB·English

by  American Scientific Affiliation

PERSPECTIVES on Science
P
E
R
S
P
E
C and Christian Faith
T
IV
E
S
O
N
S
C
IE
N
C
E
A
N JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION
D
C
H
R
IS
T
IA
N
Theme Issue:
F
A
Reading Genesis: The Historicity of Adam and Eve, Genomics, and
IT
H Evolutionary Science
Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters
Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape
V
O Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes
L
U
M
E After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science
6
2
,
N Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins:
U
M An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism”
B
E
R
3 Collins and Dembski Offer Their Views of Theodicy and
God’s Creative Plan
“The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of Wisdom.”
Psalm 111:10
S
E
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
2
0
1
0
VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 2010
(USISSN0892-2675) (CPM#40927506)
Manuscript Guidelines
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
©2010bytheAmericanScientificAffiliation
ThepagesofPerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith(PSCF)areopen
Editor tooriginal,unpublishedcontributionsthatinteractwithscienceandChristian
faithinamannerconsistentwithscientificandtheologicalintegrity.Published
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege)
papersdonotreflectanyofficialpositionoftheAmericanScientificAffiliation.
1726KnollcrestCir.SE
GrandRapids,MI49546 1.Submit all manuscripts to: Arie Leegwater, Editor, Calvin College,
[email protected] DeVriesHall,1726KnollcrestCircleSE,GrandRapids,MI49546-4403.
E-mail:[email protected]
ManagingEditor 10daysoftheirreceipt.
LYNBERG(AmericanScientificAffiliation) 2.Authorsmustsubmitanelectroniccopyofthemanuscriptformattedin
POBox668 Wordasanemailattachment.Typically2–3anonymousreviewerscritique
Ipswich,MA01938-0668
eachmanuscriptsubmittedforpublication.
[email protected]
3.Useendnotes forall references.Each notemust haveauniquenumber.
BookReviewEditors FollowTheChicagoManualofStyle(14thed.,sections15.1to15.426).
LOUISEM.FREEMAN(MaryBaldwinCollege) 4.WhilefiguresanddiagramsmaybeembeddedwithintheWordtextfileofthe
PearceScienceCenter manuscript,authorsarerequiredtoalsosendthemasindividualelectronic
Staunton,VA24401 files (JPEGorTIFFformat).Figurecaptions should beprovided as alist
[email protected] attheendofthemanuscripttext.Authorsareencouragedalsotosubmit
asampleofgraphicartthatcanbeusedtoillustratetheirmanuscript.
JAMESC.PETERSON(McMasterUniversityDivinity
CollegeandFacultyofHealthSciences) ARTICLESaremajortreatmentsofaparticularsubjectrelatingsciencetoa
1280MainSt.West Christianposition.Suchpapersshouldbeatleast2,000wordsbutnotmore
Hamilton,ONL8S4K1Canada than6,000wordsinlength,excludingendnotes.Anabstractof50–150words
[email protected] isrequired.Publicationforsuchpapersnormallytakes9–12monthsfromthe
timeofacceptance.
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege)
1726KnollcrestCir.SE,GrandRapids,MI49546 COMMUNICATIONSarebrieftreatmentsofawiderangeofsubjectsofinterest
[email protected] to PSCF readers. Communications mustnotbelongerthan2700 words,
excludingendnotes.Communicationsarenormallypublished6–9monthsfrom
EditorialBoard
thetimeofacceptance.
CHARLESC.ADAMS,DordtCollege
HESSELBOUMAIII,CalvinCollege NEWS&VIEWSareshortcommentariesoncurrentscientificdiscoveriesor
WALTERL.BRADLEY,BaylorUniversity events,oropinionpiecesonscienceandfaithissues.Lengthsrangefrom200
WARRENS.BROWN,FullerGraduateSchoolof to 1,500 words. Submissions are typically published 3–6 months from the
Psychology
timeofacceptance.
JEANNEBUNDENS,EasternUniversity
HARRYCOOK,TheKing’sUniversityCollege,Canada BOOK REVIEWS serve to alert the readership to new books that appear
JANELM.CURRY,CalvinCollege
significantorusefulandengagethesebooksincriticalinteraction.Guidelines
EDWARDB.DAVIS,MessiahCollege
for book reviewers can be obtained from the book review editors. Note
KARLV.EVANS,Lakewood,CO
respectivesubjectareas:
LOUISEM.FREEMAN,MaryBaldwinCollege
OWENGINGERICH,Harvard-SmithsonianCenterfor (cid:2) LouiseFreeman([email protected]):anthropology,biology,environment,
Astrophysics neuroscience, origins, and social sciences.
JOHNW.HAAS,JR.,GordonCollege (cid:2) JamesC.Peterson([email protected]):apologetics,biblicalstudies,
WALTERR.HEARN,Berkeley,California bioethics, ethics, genetics, medical education, philosophy, and theology.
D.GARETHJONES,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand (cid:2) Arie Leegwater ([email protected]): cosmology, engineering, history of
CALVINJONGSMA,DordtCollege science, mathematics, non-bio technologies, and physical sciences.
CHRISTOPHERB.KAISER,WesternTheological
The viewpoints expressed in the books reviewed, and in the reviews
Seminary
themselves,arethoseoftheauthorsandreviewersrespectively,anddonot
H.NEWTONMALONY,FullerTheologicalSeminary
reflectanofficialpositionoftheASA.
SARAMILES,EasternUniversity
KEITHB.MILLER,KansasStateUniversity
GEORGEL.MURPHY,TrinityLutheranSeminary, LETTERStotheEditorconcerning PSCFcontentmaybepublished unless
Columbus,OH marked not for publication. Letters submitted for publication must not be
ROBERTC.NEWMAN,BiblicalTheologicalSeminary longer than 700 words and will be subject to editorial review. Letters are
JACKC.SWEARENGEN,SantaRosa,CA tobesubmittedaselectroniccopies.Lettersacceptedforpublicationwillbe
WALTERR.THORSON,Calgary,Alberta,Canada publishedwithin6months.
DAVISA.YOUNG,CalvinCollege
ADVERTISING is accepted in PSCF, subject to editorial approval. Please
ESTHER MARTIN,ManuscriptEditor address inquiries for rates or further information to the Managing Editor.
The ASA cannot take responsibility for any orders placed with advertisers
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith inPSCF.
(ISSN0892-2675)ispublishedquarterlyfor$40
per yearbythe American Scientific Affiliation, AUTHORIZATION TO PHOTOCOPY MATERIAL for internal, personal, or
55 Market Street, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668. educationalclassroomuse,ortheinternalorpersonaluseofspecificclients,
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; is granted by ASA, ISSN: 0892-2675, provided that the appropriate fee is
[email protected];www.asa3.org paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Periodicals postage paid at Ipswich, MA and Danvers, MA 01923 USA forconventional use, orcheck CCConline at the
at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: followingaddress:www.copyright.com/.NoregistrationwithCCCisneeded:
Send address changes to: Perspectives on simplyidentifythearticlebeingcopied,thenumberofcopies,andthejournal
Science and Christian Faith, The American title (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). For those who wish to
ScientificAffiliation,POBox668,Ipswich,MA request permission for other kinds of copying or reprinting, kindly write to
01938-0668. theManagingEditor.
Editorial
A Hard Lesson:
Interpretation, Genomic
Arie Leegwater
Data, and the Scriptures
O
n a late April 2010 visit to the Smithsonian pressing and important issues which the Christian
National Museum of Natural History in community needs to address and which, due to the
Washington, DC, I viewed a diversity of ferocity of the debates, frequently become emascu-
exhibits,particularlythoseintheDavidH.KochHall lated. And secondly, and for perhaps far too long,
of Human Origins. To move from panel to panel a discussionof origins has functioned(for many) as
describing and detailing the evolution of humans the self-identity or touchstone of our affiliation.
from primate forebears to modern humans, one is
But, back to the matter at hand. If we accept
taken on a journey of over seven million years. This
the long-drawn-out saga of the evolution of living
mind-boggling experience, coupled with a recent
forms in creation, how must we then understand
Scienceissue(328[7May2010]:710–22)detailingthe
ourselves? Where and how do we humans “fit” in
mappingoftheNeanderthalgenomeanditsgenomic
this development? That question is often the domi-
heritage in modern humans, and reading this issue
nantthemeinourdiscussions.Assomeonehasper-
ofPSCF,devotedtothehistoricityofAdamandEve,
ceptively remarked, “It is not the ‘fourth day,’ but
genomics,andevolutionaryscience,challengedsome
rather the ‘sixth day’ that is in question.” To hold
ofmylong-cherishedpositions.Suchencounterscall
that the center and meaning of our life lies outside
for a serious examination and reconsideration of
ourselves may be a posture that many persons and
certain crucial matters.
different religions share. But to honor this position
Speakingpersonally,itwasahardlessontodigest, as a Christian confession takes one on an eccentric
as I suspect it may be for many readers of PSCF. and peculiar journey. In his Institutes, Calvin raised
What should we make of all the diverse anthropo- the classic question of human self-understanding,
logicalevidencecollectedfromseveralcontinentsas the question of how humans can know themselves.
wellastherecentlyacquireddetailedgenomicdata? The answer that Calvin gives points us away from
Should we sweep it under the rug, considering it our desire to first examine ourselves: “Again it is
to be the result of a shameful misguided investiga- certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge
tion, since it assumes a view that calls into question of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s
the “plain straightforward reading of Scripture”? face, and then descends from contemplating him
Or should we dispute the science and suggest the to scrutinize himself” (I.i.12). We, as humans, are
data is open to multiple concordist interpretations? essentially God-related creatures (Homo religionis).
Neitherofthesepositionswouldbefairtothenature
While recognizing our human condition, we also
of scientific practice. “Science in God’s world has
need to tread carefully. The intense debates often
its own proper task of giving joy, its own peculiar
assume the stage is set by positing “hard scientific
ministry of healing, its own God-given gift of serv-
data” to be in tension with our (systematic) theolo-
ing up nuanced insight for one’s neighbor” (Calvin
gies. In simple terms, the scene is portrayed as
Seerveld). Nor would either position honor the role
a battle between believing science and believing
of hermeneutics in interpreting biblical literature.
Scripture. Should science be interpreted by Scrip-
Parenthetically, as an editor, I have often hoped ture or Scripture by science? We desire simple
thatIcouldkeepthesemattersatastudieddistance, satisfying answers. To a large extent, however, we
because, in my opinion, there are many other have simplified the issues. Putting the matter in
Volume62,Number3,September2010 145
Editorial
AHardLesson:Interpretation,GenomicData,andtheScriptures
this way, I think, will cause us to lose sight of the “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the con-
integrity of both the Bible and of science. If the reli- viction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, RSV). Faith
ability of the Bible as the Word of God is wedded has to do with promises and expectations, with the
to its scientific reliability, the “scientific” battles for certainty of our identity as God-related creatures.
an infallible Word of God have been lost from the
Arie Leegwater, Editor
start. We have then placed both on the same (sci-
[email protected] (cid:2)
entific) level, and in the process, we will lose the
reliability of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not
written as a historical research report, nor do they
giveascientificaccount.Rather,theyareatestimony
offaith,albeitintheformofGod-inspiredliterature.
The Bible is part of creation which bears witness to
the Word of God who was present at Creation. The
BiblepointsustoChrist.TheBibleisnotdivine.The
Holy Scripture in its entirety is revelation, but it is
In This
not the whole of revelation. Reducing the Word of
God to the Scriptures can be a form of bibliolatry.
The revelatory Word of God for creation speaks to
Issue
its reliability and trustworthiness.
Stating it differently, the Bible speaks in pre-
scientific language and pictures. It employs the lan-
As mentioned in the editorial, this special theme
guage of the day, reflecting the world-picture of
issue of PSCF, increased to eighty-eight pages, is
the original audience. The language of the Bible is
devoted to a discussion of the historicity of Adam
accommodated to the cosmological and historical
and Eve, genomics, and theological reflection in the
awarenessoftheday.Inoureyes,thesecosmological
light of evolutionary science. I owe a debt of grati-
world-pictures may seem hopelessly scientifically
tude to Walter Bradley (Baylor University) who
naive,buttheWordandSpiritareable—thechurch
organized a symposium on these topics at the
confesses—to penetrate our hearts, regardless of
64th ASA Annual Meeting held at Baylor University
our local customs and situations, or of the world-
in 2009. The authors of the four main articles have
pictures we hold.
greatly refined their lectures since they were first
In addition, we often discount the philosophical delivered. I consider it important to publish this
and historical contexts that undergird many of our quartet in the same issue of PSCF. The articles are
procedures of interpretation. We live in a western- written by three theologians, C. John (Jack) Collins
ized rationalist culture which probably reached (CovenantTheologicalSeminar),DanielHarlow(Cal-
its zenith in the Enlightenment, but is still clearly vin College), and John Schneider (Calvin College);
regnant in the practice of the natural sciences and and a geneticist, Dennis Venema (Trinity Western
the theological sciences. This historical context has University). The issues discussed are of perennial
shaped our view of the Bible and its interpretation: interest to the evangelical community. The reader
welike(ordeemitnecessary) tocomparethescien- will encounter a number of diverging and challeng-
tific propositions of science with the propositional ing views. As is tobeexpected,thisdialogue is con-
revelation (teachings) of Scripture. In an effort ductedwithChristian civility and sensitivity.
to counteract the rational infallibility of scientific
This issue concludes with an essay book review
propositions, Christians respond with the rational
written by Michael Keas (College at Southwestern).
infallibility of revealed propositions. Consequently,
It is a comparative evaluation of two recent books
employing the term “inerrancy” to describe the
authoredbyJackCollinsandWilliamDembski;both
character of the Scriptures seems inherently tied
werespeakersattheASAmeetingatBaylor.Several
to a rationalistic and positivistic position and plays
book reviews and letters complete the issue.
into the hands of higher criticism. Our intellectual
instinctstendtotreatfaithasbasicallyanintellectual Arie Leegwater, Editor
matter. But faith is much richer in its purview. [email protected] (cid:2)
146 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
Article
Adam and Eve as
Historical People, and
Why It Matters*
C. John Collins
C. John Collins
The best way to account for both the biblical presentation of human life and our own
experience in the world is to suppose that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the
forebears of all other human beings. The biblical presentation concerns not simply
the story in Genesis and the biblical passages that refer to it, but also the larger
biblical storyline, which deals with God’s good creation invaded by sin, for which
God has a redemptive plan; Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations; and the
church’sprospectofsuccessfullybringingGod’slighttothewholeworld.Thebiblical
presentation further concerns the unique role and dignity of the human race, which
is a matter of daily experience for everyone: all people yearn for God and need him,
depend on him to deal with their sinfulness, and crave a wholesome community
for their lives to flourish.
T
hroughout most of the church’s Some of the factors thatlead to ques-
history, Christians, like the Jews tioningarealAdamandEveincludethe
from whom they sprang, have perceivedimpossibilitythatwecouldbe
believedthatthebiblical Adamand Eve affectedatourdeepestlevelbyanything
were actual persons, from whom all donelongago;theparallelsbetweenthe
other human beings are descended, and themes in Genesis and what we find in
whose disobedience to God brought sin storiesfromotherAncientNearEastern
into human experience. Educated west- cultures (which lead some to conclude
ern Christians today probably do not that Genesis is just as “mythical” as
grantmuchweighttothishistoricalcon- these other stories are); and advances
sensus. After all, they reason, for much in biology that seem to push us further
of the church’s history, most Christians away from any idea of an original hu-
thought that creation took place in the man couple through whom sin and
recent past over the course of six calen-
JackCollinsisprofessorofOldTestamentatCovenantTheologicalSeminary
dardays,andeventhattheearthwasthe
in St. Louis, Missouri. He was a teen-aged herpetologist, and went to MIT
physical center of the universe. We are forhisSBandSM(computerscienceandsystemsengineering,1978),toFaith
righttoarguethatwedonotchangethe LutheranSeminaryforhisMDiv(1985),andtotheUniversityofLiverpool
basiccontentofChristianityif werevise for his PhD (Hebrew linguistics, 1989). He has been a research engineer,
these views, even drastically. Effective a church-planter, and, since 1993, a teacher. His early work focused on the
grammarofHebrewandGreek,buthehasbranchedoutintostudiesinscience
revisions are the ones that result from
andfaith,inhowtheNewTestamentusestheOld,andinbiblicaltheology.
acloserreadingoftheBibleitself—when,
HewasOldTestamentchairmanfortheEnglishStandardVersionBible,
after further review, we no longer think
andOld Testamenteditorfor theEnglish Standard VersionStudyBible.
that the Bible “teaches” such things. He is the author of The God of Miracles: An Exegetical Examination
Well, then, may we not study the Bible of God’s Action in the World (Crossway, 2000); Science and Faith:
more closely and revise the traditional Friends or Foes? (Crossway, 2003); Genesis 1–4: a Linguistic, Literary,
understandingofAdamandEveaswell, and Theological Commentary (P&R, 2006). He and his wife have been
married since 1979, and have two teenaged children.
withouta threattothefaith?
Volume62,Number3,September2010 147
Article
AdamandEveasHistoricalPeople,andWhyItMatters
death came into the world. Evolutionary history It is entirely possible that some killjoy has used a
shows that death and struggle have been part of traditional view of the first sin of Adam and Eve to
existence on Earth from the earliest moments. Most quell all delight in pleasure and beauty. But that is
recently, discoveries about the features of human a misuse, and the possibility of misuse is not a logi-
DNA seem to imply that the human population has cally valid argument against the traditional view.
alwayshadatleastasmanyasathousandmembers. Supposewedofindsomedifficulties.Thismaymean
Prominentamong the Christianbiologists is Francis thatweshouldtrytomakesomeadjustmentstothe
Collinsandhis“Biologos”perspective,whichagrees traditional view, but it does not, of itself, mean that
that traditional beliefs about Adam and Eve are no we ought to discard the traditional view altogether.
longer viable.1
Critical thinking also requires us to be careful in
Inthisstudy,Iaimtoshowwhyweshouldretain how we approach some of the terms traditionally
a version of the traditional view, in spite of these used, such as “the Fall” and “original sin.” When
pressures. I will argue that the traditional position peopledenyahistoricalAdamandEvefortheologi-
on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the cal reasons, they are commonly objecting to these
bestjobofaccounting,notonlyforthebiblicalmate- ideas. I cannot always tell whether they object to
rials,butalsoforoureverydayexperienceashuman some version of these ideas, or to every one of them.
beings—an everyday experience that includes sin AsIhavejustobserved,though,evenifweareright
as something that must be forgiven (by God and in rejecting one version, that does not mean we are
by our fellow human beings) and struggled against rightinrejectingallversions.Further,itsimplywill
as defiling and disrupting a good human life. notdotoarguethatsincetheBibledoesnotusethese
terms, therefore they are “unbiblical.” Most people
We look first at the shape of the biblical story—
havebeenwellawareoftheabsenceofthesetermsas
from creation to Fall to redemption and final con-
a philological fact, and have still used the terms as
summation—and the worldview that rides on that
a theological shorthand. To the extent that I use the
story,andseewhetheritrequiresahistoricalAdam
termsmyself,Iemploythemasashorthandaswell.
and Eve and a historical Fall. Second, we consider
Iimply,notsimplythathumansare“sinful”(which
the biblical view of human uniqueness and dignity,
issomethingweallcansee),butthatsinfulnesswas
andrelatethesetoeverydaymoralandreligiousex-
not part of our original make-up, and derives from
perience, asking whether these, too, favor the tradi-
some primal rebellion on the part of our first ances-
tionalposition.Andfinally,welookatsomesample
tors. I am not developing a “doctrine” of original
scenarios for a scientific understanding of human
sin, since I am not trying to explain how that primal
origins. Due to space, I must save a great deal of
rebellion comes to affect all of us.3
detail for another venue—namely, a book-length
treatment of these questions. Thisisimportanttoclarify,becausesomeauthors
suggest that we only hold on to Adam and Eve be-
Admiring the way that C. S. Lewis used “mere
causeofwesternand“Augustinian”viewson“origi-
Christianity” as his stance, I will christen my posi-
nal sin”—views not shared by sectors of the church
tionhere“merehistoricalAdam-and-Eve-ism.”Iam
that do not consider Augustine (AD 354–430) reli-
notenteringintodistinctionsbetweenvariousChris-
able. Now it is true, for example, that the eastern
tianpositionsonsuchtopicsastheoriginofAdam’s
churches donottalk aboutoriginal sinthe way that
body,orhowlongagohelived;themeaningof“the
Augustinedid;butitdoesnotfollowthattheythere-
imageofGod”;howthesinofAdamandEvecomes
fore have nothing to say on the subject. As a matter
to affect us; how Genesis 1–2 came to be part of
of fact, it is common for eastern writers (speaking
the same book.2 In fact, even though I will critically
Greek and Syriac) and pre-Augustinian western
examinesomeofthespecificviewsthatCollinspres-
writers from the early church to accept Adam and
ents, I am not here offering a general critique of
Eve, and their first disobedience, both as historical
the Biologos perspective.
and as having consequences for us their children.
Ihavesaid“aversionof”and“somevariationof” ExamplesofsuchwritersincludetheGreekspeakers
the traditional ideas. One of the basic principles of Irenaeus (d. 202), Origen (185–254), Athanasius
criticalthinkingisexpressedinLatinasabusususum (293–373), John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), and Theo-
non tollit, “Abuse does not take away proper use.” dore of Mopsuestia (350–428); the Syriac speaker
148 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
C.JohnCollins
EphraemtheSyrian(306–73);andtheLatinspeakers thenlookingforawayofreadingourstartingpoint
Tertullian (c. 160–220) and Cyprian (d. 258).4 into the Bible.
Wheneverwereadsomething,wemustpayatten- The Shape of the Biblical Story
tion to what kind of literature it is. Certainly, the
Story and Worldview
bookofGenesisincludesAdamandEveinitsstory,
usinganarrative,whichis“history-like”initsform. A number of developments in biblical studies over
Butjustidentifyingthatformdoesnot,ofitself,settle the last several decades have deeply enriched our
anything; there are at least four possible ways of abilitytoreadtheBiblewell.Oneoftheseistheway
taking the material in Genesis: we have come to appreciate the literary qualities of
the biblical books, and the rhetorical purposes that
1. The author intended to relay “straight” history,
may governtheway theauthors tell their stories.5
withaminimumoffigurativelanguage.
Another development is that we pay more atten-
2. The author was talking about what he thought
tion to how the biblical writings function to shape
were actual events, using rhetorical and literary
a worldview in the people of God.6 I am using the
techniquestoshapethereaders’attitudestoward
term “worldview” in the way students of ideology
thoseevents.
usetheterm,forthebasicstancetowardGod,others,
3. Theauthorintendedtorecountanimaginaryhis- and the world that persons and communities hold.7
tory, using recognizable literary conventions to It has further become clear that a worldview is
convey“timelesstruths”aboutGodandhumans. instilled by means of the grand story, which tells
acommunitywhereitcamefrom,whatwentwrong,
4. The author told a story without even caring
what has been done about it (whether by gods or
whether the events were real or imagined; his
by humans, or some combination), where it now is
main goal was to convey various theological and
in the whole process, and where the whole world
moraltruths.
is headed. One missiologist suggests that tribal
Ithinkoption2bestcaptureswhatwefindinGenesis, peoples learn their worldviews through the sacred
and best explains how the Bible and human experi- stories their culture tells; but this is true of all
encerelatetoAdamandEve.Option1isironic:itis peoples, not just of tribal ones.8
held both by many traditional Christians, especially
A number of theologians have argued that the
young-earthcreationists,andbymanybiblicalschol-
Bible presents us with an overarching worldview-
arswhoendorsewhatiscalled“historicalcriticism.”
shapingstory,andnotsimplywithabunchofedify-
The difference is that the young-earth creationists
ing stories.9 We will take up the specific contours
thinkthatGenesiswastellingthetruth,andthecritical
of this story shortly. Albert Wolters and Michael
scholars think that Genesis is largely incorrect in its
Goheen have shown why this is a crucial insight:
history. Mind you, this does not mean that critical
scholars find no value in Genesis; they commonly TomissthegrandnarrativeofScriptureisaseri-
resort to something like option 4. ousmatter;itisnotsimplyamatterofmisinter-
pretingpartsofScripture.Itisamatterofbeing
Criticalbiblicalscholarsoften(thoughnotalways)
oblivioustowhichstoryisshapingourlives.Some
deny that Adam and Eve were real people, though
storywillshapeourlives.WhentheBibleisbro-
they agree that the author of Genesis intended to
ken up intolittle bits and chunks—theological,
write of real people. Those who follow option 3
devotional, spiritual, moral, or worldview bits
say that the author never intended for us to think
andchunks—thenthesebitscanbenicelyfitted
of Adam and Eve as real, while those who follow
intothereigningstoryofourownculturewith
option 4 say that it simply does not matter. When
allitsidols!Onecanbetheologicallyorthodox,
aparticularscholardeniesthatAdamandEvewere devotionally pious, morally upright, or maybe
historical, I cannot always tell which interpretive evenhaveone’sworldviewcategories straight,
option he or she has followed; sometimes I wonder and yet be shaped by the idolatrous Western
ifthescholarknows!Ofcourse,allofus,traditional story.TheBiblelosesitsforcefulandformative
and otherwise, run the danger of starting with the power by being absorbed into a more encom-
affirmation or denial of a real Adam and Eve, and passing secular story.10
Volume62,Number3,September2010 149
Article
AdamandEveasHistoricalPeople,andWhyItMatters
People who write about the relationship between that did not have him in mind.”16 This is, in fact,
worldviewandoverarchingstorydonotalways use astory,albeitableakone,thatputsourlivesinper-
thesameverbsfortherelationbetweenthestoryand spective. If it is the true story of the world, it is
the worldview. Does the story carry the worldview, a heightened version of what Macbeth said when
equate to it, communicate it, or something else? How- he discovered that Lady Macbeth had committed
everwearticulatethis,thereisonecommonaffirma- suicide:“Life’s…ataletoldbyanidiot,fullofsound
tion:theworldviewisnotanabstractionderivedfrom and fury, signifying nothing.”17
the story; one cannot treat the story simply as the
We are comfortable applying the word “myth”
husk,whichwethendiscardoncewehavediscovered
to the stories from Ancient Near Eastern or Graeco-
the(perhapstimeless)concepts.Ofcourse,theremay
RomanpeoplesotherthantheJewsandChristians—
well be transcendent truths (such as moral norms);
becausewedonotacceptthemasfactual.However,
but they gain their power from their place in the
theevidenceisthat,atleastinMesopotamia(whose
story—thatis, they equip themembersof a commu-
tales are the closest correlate to Genesis 1–11), the
nity to play their parts in the story meaningfully.11
storieswerefelttobetrue:true,thatis,inthesenseof
It is the worldview story that, if well told, captures
talkingaboutrealevents.18AsEgyptologistKenneth
theimaginationsofthosewhoownit,therebydriving
Kitchen has observed,
them on and holding their loyalty.
The ancient Near East did not historicize myth
(i.e., read it as imaginary “history”). In fact,
History, Myth, and Worldview Story exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather,
This notion of a worldview story ties in with the a trend to “mythologize” history, to celebrate
senseof“myth”inC.S.Lewis’essay,“TheFuneralof actualhistoricaleventsandpeopleinmytholog-
aGreatMyth.”12HereLewisisdescribingthestoryof ical terms … The ancients (Near Eastern and
Hebrewalike)knewthatpropagandabasedon
“developmentalism,”apurelynaturalisticevolution-
real events was far more effective than that
arytaleofhowwegothereandwherewearegoing.
based on sheer invention.19
He distinguishes this story from the theories of the
particular sciences: the story uses the theories to the Kitchen further argues,
extentthesetheoriessupportthestory.13Whatmakes As to definition [for the flood story], myth or
this “myth” attractive is its imaginative appeal; as “protohistory,” it should be noted that the
Lewis said, “I grew up believing in this myth and Sumerians and Babylonians had no doubts on
Ihavefelt—Istillfeel—itsalmostperfectgrandeur.” that score. They included it squarely in the
middle of their earliest historical tradition,
Could it be that “myth” is the right category for
with kings before it and kings after it.20
the kind of stories we find in the ancient world,
Thus, if we try to see those peoples from the inside,
whether from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, or
we can say that they thought they were telling the
even the Hebrews? The difficulty is that the word
“myth” has so many different meanings;14 in popu- truth, of which history is a part. The function of the
stories is to present life in terms of a coherent story,
larusage,thetermimpliesajudgmentthatthestory
that is, the stories serve to convey a worldview and
isnottrue.Further,considerhowtheOldTestament
to equip the hearers to live in the world.21
scholar Peter Enns defines “myth”:
It is an ancient, premodern, prescientific way Now,Genesis1–11hassomanypointsofcontact
ofaddressingquestionsofultimateoriginsand withMesopotamianstoriesoforigins,ancientkings,
meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? theflood,andsubsequentkings,thatweshouldfind
Where do we come from?15 thosestoriesastheproperliterarybackclothagainst
whichtheGenesisstorieswerewritten.Genesis1–11
One problem (among several) with Enns’ definition
aims to provide the true pre- and protohistory of
is that telling stories to explain origins and meaning
the Bible’s alternative worldview story, whose
is by no means limited to “ancient, premodern, pre-
“purposeistoshapeIsrael’sviewofGod,theworld,
scientific”cultures.ModernWesternculturedoesex-
and mankind, and their place in it all.”22
actlythesame.Forexample,GeorgeGaylordSimpson
drew this conclusion from his study of evolution: This leads us to the question of the relationship
“Manistheresultofapurposelessandnaturalprocess between “history” and the worldview story; but to
150 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
C.JohnCollins
addressthisquestion,wemustfirstdecidewhatwe 2. “historical”isnotthesameas“completeindetail”
meanbytheword“history.”Theword“history”can or “free from ideological bias,” neither of which
be used in a variety of senses, and when writers ispossibleordesirableanyhow;
are not clear on what sense they attach to the word,
3. “historical”isnotthesameas“toldinexactchro-
wecangetconfusion.Atextmightbe“historical”in
nological sequence,” unless the text claims that
one writer’s sense but not “historical” in another’s.
foritself.26
For example, some scholars use the word “histori-
cal”foranaccountthatistoldinproperchronologi- Thismeansthatweshouldthinkof“history”lessas
cal order, with few imaginative elements. Others aliterary genre(anotherwordthathasmultiple,and
restrict the word “history” to the kinds of accounts unregulated,meanings),andmoreasawayofreferring
that trained historians write, or even to accounts toevents.Thatis,ifwesaythatsomethingis(orisnot)
that leave out all references to actions of God or historical,wearedescribing,notthekindofliterature
the gods—and this could lead to the odd assertion, itis,butthewayittalksabout(ordoesnottalkabout)
“This narrative is not historical, but that doesn’t real events. Differing literary genres refer to events
mean it didn’t happen”!23 indifferentwaysfordifferentpurposes—ormakeup
fictitious events.
Some connect “historicity” very tightly with “lit-
eralism” in interpretation, assuming that if a story The conclusion to which this discussion leads us
is“historical,”itmustnotmakemuchuseoffigura- is this: If, as seems likely to me, the Mesopotamian
tive elements. This connection is common ground origin and flood stories provide the context against
between the strict young-earth creationist Douglas whichGenesis1–11aretobeset,thentheyalsopro-
Kelly and the evolutionary creationist Denis Lam- videuswithcluesonhowtoreadthiskindoflitera-
oureux. Kelly apparently reasoned thus: since the ture.Thesestoriesincludedivineaction,symbolism,
creation story of Genesis is “historical,” it therefore andimaginativeelements;thepurposeofthestories
must be read in what he calls a “literal” fashion.24 is to lay the foundation for a worldview, without
I think this leads to a poor interpretation of the cre- being taken in a “literalistic” fashion. We should
ationstory,butthatisnotmypointhere.Lamoureux nevertheless see the story as having what we might
comes to very different conclusions from the same calla“historicalcore,”thoughwemustbecarefulin
startingpoint:sincethecreationpassageisnot“true” discerningwhatthatis.Genesisaimstotellthestory
whenreadliteralistically,thereforeitisnot“histori- of beginnings the right way.27
cal.”25 A proper reply to this assumption would
NooneknowswhatmaterialstheauthorofGene-
require discussion of what happens when people
sis used in composing this story. Probably he had
communicate, drawing on speech act theory and
accesstosomeversionsoftheMesopotamianstories;
rhetoricalcriticism.Ihopetotakethatupelsewhere;
but beyond that, God alone knows what else he
for now, I simply observe that there is nothing in
might have had. Maybe there were Hebrew stories
the meaning of the word “history,” nor in common
of the patriarchs, beginning with Abraham; some
humanbehavior,thatrequiresthistightconnection.
of them might even have been written. Perhaps
I use the ordinary language sense of the word Henri Blocher’s suggestion is best, that the author
“history.”Astoryis“historical”iftheauthorwanted of Genesis “reconstructed” the past, working back-
his audience to believe that the events recorded wards from ordinary human experience to what
really happened. This definition does not settle must have caused it, giving us a tale that provided
everyquestionofhowweshouldcorrelatetheliter- a contrast to the other stories:
ary statements with the way we would describe Genesisaimstosupplythetruereconstruction,
things, since we have to take into account the com- guided and guaranteed by divine inspiration,
municative purpose of the text we are considering. over against the fantasies and errors recon-
In particular, structed by the others. There is nothing in that
1. “historical,” in this sense, is not the same as whichallowsustotaketheeventasasymbol.28
“prose,” and certainly does not imply that our
Blocher also points out that “the presence of sym-
accounthasnofigurativeorimaginativeelements;
bolic elements in the text in no way contradicts the
Volume62,Number3,September2010 151
Article
AdamandEveasHistoricalPeople,andWhyItMatters
historicity of its central meaning.”29 Another obser- have approached the stories; often these preachers
vation from Blocher is also helpful: andwritershavetreatedthetalesasinstantiationsof
The real issue when we try to interpret Gene- some “timeless” moral or spiritual truism. I do not
sis 2–3 is not whether we have a historical deny a place for this approach; we find something
account of the fall, but whether or not we may likeit,forexample,inHebrews11.Butthehistorical
read it as the account of a historical fall. The elementshouldalwaysbethere.Thecommondevo-
problem is not historiography as a genre nar- tional approach among Christians and Jews, how-
rowly defined—in annals, chronicles, or even ever, usually loses the historical element altogether,
saga—but correspondence with discrete reali- infavorofthe“timeless.”Thisapproachhasatheo-
tiesinourordinaryspaceandsequentialtime.30 rist, Aristotle, who wrote (Poetics, 9.1–3) about his
preferenceforwhathecalled“poetry”(fictionalnar-
If we recognize this, then we can see that authors
rative) over “history” (a tale of things that actually
whosaythingslike,“Genesis1–11aimstotellus,not
happened, even if told in verse). For Aristotle,
history or science, but theology,”31 are trying to say
“poetry” deals with the universal and thus is more
somethingworthsayingaboutGenesis1–11,butthey
“philosophical,” while “history” is too particular.
areindulginginaproblematicdisjunction.Thetheol-
ogyisnotseparablefromthestory,aswecanseefrom The recent Genesis commentary of Leon Kass
the fact that one of those “theological truths” is that stronglyadvocatesthatwereadGenesis“anthropo-
theOnewhocreatedtheworldisthegoodGodwho logically” and “philosophically” (intentional echoes
revealedhimselftoIsrael,andnotthecapriciousgods of Aristotle?) rather than “historically”: as a record,
of the other peoples—a historical assertion! not of what did happen, but of what might happen,
andwhatalwayshappens.33This,hecontends,gives
Some authors go even further, and propose that
us a much richer way of reading. Literary scholar
themaingoaloftheearlypartofGenesisistoconvey
AlanJacobs,however,seesclearlythatGenesisitself
“timelesstruths.”32Idoubtwhetherthesetruthsare
does not invite this kind of reading, since its audi-
really as “timeless” as supposed. Besides the “time-
enceistheheirofitsevents.Jacobs,reviewingKass’
less theological truth” that “God created,” which is
book, observed:
actually historical (and therefore not “timeless”),
scholars thinking along these lines might suppose Philosophicalreadingstrivestolocateinthetext
whateverisuniversaltohumanexperience,and
thatGenesis3teachesthat“humansaresinful.”But
tofindwaysofdescribingtheparticularexperi-
thisisnotatimelesstruthonitsown.Soonerorlater
ences of particular people in the most broadly
someonewillwanttoknow,didGodcreatehumans
relevant terms possible …
withatendency(oratleastanopenness)towardsin-
ning,ordidhemakethemgood,onlyforhumansto From one who belongs to a covenant com-
become sinful? If they became sinful, how did that munity, then, the appropriation of the biblical
happen? Do not our innermost intuitions favor the narrative must be done by historical rather
explanation that humans have somehow declined thanwhatKasswouldcallphilosophicalmeans.
from a prior state of goodness and health? In other Ourtaskisnottofindaconceptualvocabulary
words,thesupposedtimelesstruth,onceitinteracts that will allow us to build analogical bridges
between the biblical text and our experience;
withactualhumanexperience,demandsanswersto
rather, we must understand that we dwell in
historical questions.
thesamehistorythatthepeopleofIsraelrelate
If we recognize that these stories serve to convey in the Pentateuch … Genesis is not analogous
a worldview, then that also guides us in how to to our experience, it is our experience, in its
receive these stories as Scripture. The stories tell us historical aspect.34
whatcombinationofchoicesandactions,onthepart
Against Kass’ claim that Genesis is primarily about
of God and humans, have led up to where we are
whetheritis“possibletofind,institute,andpreserve
now. They call on us to learn from those choices,
a way of life that accords with man’s true standing
and they enlist the faithful to play their part in the
in the world and that serves to perfect his godlike
ongoing story.
possibilities,” Jacobs replies,
Now,thishasnotalwaysbeenthewaythatChris- Genesis,andtheculturefromwhichitemerges,
tian and Jewish preachers and devotional writers doesn’t seem to give a damn about our “true
152 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith