Was Adam a real person? Free online TV show now available.

by Bernie Dehler, 5-3-08

Awhile back I conducted a phone interview with two Christian authors, Richard Fischer and George L. Murphy. Richard is the author of "Historical Genesis: from Adam to Abraham" (click here to view at Amazon.com). George is the author of "The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross" (click here to see it). George is particularly impressive to me, as he has a Ph.D in science (theoretical physics from Johns Hopkins University), an M.Div. in theology (Wartburg Seminary), and is also a Lutheran pastor (click here to see his church). Click here for George's website.

Both of these guys are strange Christians, as they believe in Christ, yet also believe that evolution was the means that God used to create everything, including man. However, Richard believes that Adam (from the Adam and Eve creation story) was a real person that really lived, but George believes that Adam was not a real person (the Adam and Eve story is not literally true with real people, but instead is there to teach theological truths).

Listen and/or watch along as I ask them various questions about how to interpret Adam, and also about the creation/evolution debate in general. Most Evangelical Christians will be shocked to hear that some Christians accept evolution, as these two do. It seems to me that most Evangelical Christians are "Young Earth Creationists" or "Old Earth Creationists," but don't know much of anything about "Theistic Evolutionist." The more I study on the subject, the more I turn into a "Theistic Evolutionist." I'm doing this kind of research because I think that Evangelical Christianity, on the whole, is off-track in rejecting evolution. Instead, I think we need to understand how evolution was used as one of God's design methods.

View this TV special anytime on YouTube (click here) or GodTube (click here) or Google Video (click here). It will also be played throughtout the Portland Oregon Tri-Met area on cable TV ch. 11 on 6-3-08 at 10 pm (show length is 1 hr.).

I made this TV show a few months before Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie was released, but you'll see that many of the same topics and questions are covered.

By the way, does what you believe about science really affect your theology? It sure does! As I become more of a "theistic evolutionist," a big part of my work that lies ahead of me is trying to understand theology with this new scientific understanding. Lots of theology is built upon the "origin's question" regarding Adam and Eve. Much of this is also discussed in the video.

Comments

[Daniel]

Theistic evolution? Are you saying God created man slowly from an ape? I thought the bible said "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Can't we just stick to the bible rather than using the figmant of our imaginations.

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi Daniel-

The bigger question is to ask what science has discovered. If there is overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened, then we must embrace that and adjust our theology as necessary for this new info. The church has been through this before. At one time the church (both Catholic and Protestant) said the sun revolved around the earth- and persecuted Galileo when he discovered otherwise. Now we know better. I think the DNA evidence in the genome (human, as well as animal and plant) is overwhelming in support by showing that evolution actually happened. The "pseudogene" argument is overwhelming, in my judgment.

Please watch the show and tell me something more specific as to your question and/or concern.

...Bernie

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

By the way, CS Lewis who wrote "Mere Christianity" (an evangelical Christian book favorite) was open to evolution. In fact, read his last chapter in "Mere Christianity" (Ch. 31). He supplies a beautiful picture/poetry of how evolution can be an analogy with spiritual matters.

...Bernie

[JW]

Bernie,

I see you are investigating evolution. Evolution is real, creation is fiction. I have a Latin phrase which I use now,
vera causa est natura non Deus
(true cause is nature not God)

According to the magazine "Newsweek", in the June 29, 1987 issue, titled Keeping God Out of the Classroom, page 23,
By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly."

That means the overwelming majority, 479,300 of the 480,000 scientists believe in evolution, or 99.85% of those scientists
believe in evolution. Based on research done by A.E. Hoerl and H.K. Fallin2, where subjective probabilities were shown to be
extremely reliable, the 99.85% of scientists who believe in evolution could not possibly be wrong.

Keep up the good work Bernie...
-JW

[BW]

Hi Bernie,

Christian evolutionist is an oxymoron. (There is absolutely no biblical evidence that man was created by [Darwinian] evolution.).

Regards, BW

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi BW-

There's also no Biblical evidence that the earth goes around the sun. Even today, some still think the sun goes around the earth because of the bible. Click here to see.

...Bernie

[MS]

Thanks Bernie.

First let me say when discussing this issue with others (less read than ourselves) I take a similar approach to Paul. If one believes the earth is old I talk old earth. If one believes the earth is young I talk young earth. That is because this is not a salvation issue and our salvation does not depend on it. For those who will not stumble I enjoy a great discussion without limits on views.

Basically I’m an old earth person. That is because my father worked at Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, CA (part of NASA) and I’m somewhat familiar with science. There is a lot of evidence with regard to the age of the universe and the earth that support this position. What many Christians fail to bring to the table, but I find significant, is that the predominant scientific position since the 1990s is that the universe is expanding. They believe at one time the universe was compressed so small we could not observe it and suddenly it expanded into what we have today.

The verification of background radiation by the COBE satellite convinced most scientist of this point of view, which is a wind fall to Christians. It makes the argument that there was a beginning and what is seen came from that which was not observable (very Biblical – Hebrews 11:1-3). Scientists also believe in cause and effect, so they are searching for the cause. This can open a great dialog with scientific people, which was impossible before (because most believed the universe was infinite thus eliminating the need for God). However, many Christians tell scientific believers they are fools because they believe in an old earth model and throw away the opportunity to open the door which is now ajar.

The literal interpretation from an old earth point of view is this. Genesis says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” not the earth and the heavens. It is a broad overview that encompasses about 10 billion years. Scientists believe the universe came first (about 14 billion years ago) and then the earth (about 4.5 billion years ago) – literally the heavens and the earth. Then it goes on to say that God was hovering over the waters and scientist believe that the earth early on was covered with water. Evidence of this is found in ancient rocks, found on land, believed to be formed under water because they are similar to lava formed under water in places such as Hawaii. This is the setting at the beginning of the creation account.

The rest of Genesis 1, if taken from the perspective of one being on the earth’s surface, is in the correct order and fits very nicely into what scientist believe happened during earth’s history and development. A Christian could show a scientist that the Bible is the only ancient religious text and belief system that properly describes the order of creation, as they understand it, and therefore is the one true religion.

Literally, in English, the word day has several meanings (daylight hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, an age and others) many of which are used in various “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1. The Hebrew word used in the text has similar meanings, so interpretations vary. They become more diverse when people step outside the literal interpretation and go various directions. I don’t waste much time discussing the word day because there are so many opinions, most of which are passionately held by the believers and end any meaningful discussion.

With regard to evolution, in the Darwinian sense, I don’t believe it. Darwin was a smart scientist and his observations revealed much, but his random selection and believe that the initial cell structure was extremely simple does not stand up. Mathematically, given the old earth or scientific time frame, there is not enough time to cover all of the possibilities for random selection to develop to where it is today. Observations indicate the basic cell structure is not simple, but quite complex contrary to what Darwin believed.

My current view with the DNA information we have today is that it is possible cells began in a less complex collection and progressed to what we observe today. This could have been an actual design component that God used. If so, it is not random selection or evolution, but rather progression. In this case I believe the scientists are currently incorrect and have not fully developed their theories.

So I believe that evolution is incorrect and not a viable theory. However, I believe in the near future someone will develop the theory of “Progression”, as I call it, in which God designed into the cell the ability to develop and progress into more complex structures and relationships with other cells. When this theory hits the streets Christians will have another great opportunity to witness to the scientific community, although I don’t know how until the theory is developed.

I enjoy new information as it is revealed and the new understanding of our ancient texts in light of what we now know. Also, the first observations of new information often promote erroneous speculations that are brought into a reasonable understanding with the scriptures over time. I think as long as we don’t get locked into old understandings of the texts we can find new opportunities to reach people that previously never considered God and creation.

That is the exciting thing to me. I will check out the information you sent.

Thank you,

MS

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

MS said:
"However, I believe in the near future someone will develop the theory of “Progression”, as I call it, in which God designed into the cell the ability to develop and progress into more complex structures and relationships with other cells."

That sounds like Michael Behe's belief (he's one of those "leading lights" at the Discovery Institute that accepts evolution from apelike animals to man). Probably most of the others at the Discovery Institute and promoters of ID strongly disagree and believe in a special creation for man... but ID is not developed enough to even know their position on it.

I think the evidence of pseudogenes in the DNA record for man and animal is overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened. Whether that evolution was God-guided, or God designed evolution to work naturally, I don't know... yet.

...Bernie

[C]

Thanks so much Bernie - well done - if I can understand all - I will give you feedback - but well done in all you do.

With love, in Christ

-C

[MZ]

How sad that you take so much of your time on things such as this.

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Why do you say that my time spent on this subject is sad, MZ? I think it is sad that Christian kids are taught young earth creationism, then go to college and lose their faith because of their false theology.

...Bernie

[MS]

There is another component that needs to be addressed in this whole discussion. That is the spirit. What makes man different from and ape or other early human type creatures is the soul. I need to do more research on this, but I think it may be an important key to this puzzle.

Early man, scientists believe, came into being 100,000 years ago. These were probably beings, much like dogs, cats and apes, that had bodies and souls sophisticated enough for us to interact with. Modern man, scientist calculate appeared 10,000 years ago, has these same two components. However, modern man has a spirit which sets him apart.

When God made Adam he said he would be made in His image. Other creatures already had our basic shape and size, but none had the eternal spirit. This does not show up in the DNA record or the fossil record. Perhaps to understand the story one needs to dig down another level which isn’t being considered by scientists and isn’t yet found in the physical record.

Thank you,

-MS

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

MS said: "When God made Adam he said he would be made in His image. Other creatures already had our basic shape and size, but none had the eternal spirit."

There is a lot of speculation as to what "being made in God's image" means, theologically. It is far from being a no-brainer. If evolution is true, then the conscience would have also slowly developed over time. I think it would be unrealistic to think that at one time there was a non-human then a second later there was a human... if evolution is true, the changes are gradual and impossible to see. And to me, it looks like there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

...Bernie

[MS]

Bernie,

I have to disagree with your assumption regarding the spirit. The spirit is not physical, so no physical evidence is to be found. I’m suggesting the meaning of the creation story regarding Adam may be with regards to creating and implanting the spirit into man at a certain point.

This is all very speculative and I really haven’t thought the concept through. If the “Progression” theory holds water God, during creation, built a component into cells so they would progress as scientist see in the fossil record and DNA record. The progression they see is roughly in the same sequence as described in Genesis, which makes the Bible quite a remarkable document.

But it is after God created mammals that he said let Us make man in our image. If He introduced the eternal spirit into a mammal type being, a new creation or a progression from another type, there would be no physical evidence for scientist to find (no smoking gun, if you will). However, it could explain how scientists may be correct regarding the progression of physical beings and theologians may be correct regarding the creation of Adam.

It is similar to two witnesses observing an event from different points of view. When they give testimony of the event it may at first sound different, but as you look from each perspective you find that both are accurate accounts.

At any rate, this is all very academic and good discussion, but it is not a matter of salvation.

Thank you,

MS

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi MS-

We'll need to more fully discuss "what is a spirit" of man and how is it different than animals. According to your theory, there are a bunch of pre-humans, then God picks 2 (Adam and Eve) and then gives them, only, the spirit, which is somehow able to pass down through the parents. Then what about all the kids of Adam and Eve- could they inter-marry with the other pre-humans? Biologically they could, but you would have to have them not interbreeding or else you'd have humans with spirit breeding with pre-humans (no spirit)?

I think it is easier to abandon all of the Genesis creation story from science. Then it all makes more sense. Those who do that, and also consider the Bible to be inerrant, call that interpretation "The Framework View" because Genesis is now seen as a story as a framework for teaching theological truths (not scientific truths at all).

...Bernie

[BJ]

Dear Bernie,

I have to admit that I am a bit concerned when making the allusion that science is the "meat". There is plenty of spiritual meat to be had in the scriptures. I don't think that pastors are called to teach science any more than I want a scientist teaching me theology. I want to grow in the Lord and that is the purpose of the gift of the pastor.

Creation in the sacred writings of Moses must be taken on faith and the fact of inspiration of God is also to be taken on faith. I don't understand why we have to argue over lengths of time and evolution and all when the bible clearly states that God created all things and He did it in six days. In the Hebrew it reads day one, day two and the day is defined by evening and morning. Now if one seeks to stretch that to millions of years I think he is short changing God. Miracles were quite instanteneous when Jesus performed them even though the results might litigate for a longer period from the onset of the healing to the final product. God can do anything He chooses without the restrictions of time and He said that creation took six days...what is so hard to understand about that?

What then will happen when He creates a new heavens and a new earth? Will it take another several million or perhaps billions of years? Possibly...but I don't think He's going to keep us hanging that long.

C.S. Lewis has written many things that are quite suspect as far as true Christianity goes I would not read any of his writings as divinely inspired holy writ.

BJ

[Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com]

Hi BJ-

You misunderstood me when I wrote in the newsletter about "meat." I did not mean that "science is the meat." I meant that it seems to me that most pastors teach "milk" instead of "meat." I mean by that, that they are forever explaining the very basics (love, repentance, faith, etc.) and hardly ever opening God's second book, called "God's Works." There is "God's works" (general revelation) and "God's Word" (specific revelation). without getting into science ("God's works"), you are only getting half the story... only reading one of the 2 "required textbooks" for life.

...Bernie

[JW]

Bernie,
You must look at
http://lava.net/~brainy/evolution.html
This should be the evidence you need to establish evolution.

J. Charles "Darwin" Widdoes, www.lava.net/~brainy www.eskimo.com/~brainy