All righty, everybody. It is nine o'clock, so let's jump in to our class.
Let's start with a word of prayer. Father God, thank you for this time that we have to consider your word and to think deeply and hopefully learn more about you.
I ask that you would bless this time, allow us to glorify you with our thoughts, and I ask that you give me some clarity of speech as we discuss this topic.
In Jesus' name, amen.
All right. Well, we're going to continue our class on the doctrine of creation by considering human origins,
which, you know, no sweat, right?
But human origins actually, you know, it's a controversial subject for a reason.
And when you think about the controversy surrounding like evolution and Christianity,
the earlier initial sort of fundamentalist modernist controversy in the early 20th century
was really revolving around the reliability of Scripture.
And evolution was merely sort of a case study on the side.
But if we think about our modern day, really the flashpoint is over anthropology.
What does it mean to be human?
And so as we'll discuss today, anthropology touches on many primary doctrines.
And so for that reason, we must tread carefully as we consider it.
With that, let's jump into our text.
We're going to be reading Genesis 2, verses 4 through 25,
which I take in the traditional way to be an expansion of day 6 from chapter 1.
Does anybody have that open and is willing to read that for the rest of the class?
That's Genesis 2, 4 through 25.
All right, go for it.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
and the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
When no bush of the field was yet in the land,
and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up.
For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land,
and there was no man to work the ground.
And a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground.
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
And the man became a living creature.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east,
and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to sight,
and good for food.
The tree of life is in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden,
and there divided and became four rivers.
The name of the first is the Pishon.
It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havala,
where there is gold.
And the gold of that land is good.
Delam and Onyx stone are there.
The name of the second river is the Gimon.
It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush.
And the name of the third river is the Tigris,
which flows east of Assyria.
And the fourth river is the Eucrates.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
And the Lord God planted the man, saying,
You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
you shall not eat.
For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.
Then the Lord God said,
It is not good that the man should be alone.
I will make him a helper fit for him.
Now out of the ground the Lord God
named every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens
and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.
And whatever the man called every living creature,
that was its name.
The man gave names to all livestock
and to the birds of the heavens
and to every beast of the field.
But for Adam there was not a found helper fit for him.
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man
while he slept to one of his ribs
and closed up its place with flesh.
And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man
he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
She shall be called a woman
because she was taken out of man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother
and hold fast to his wife
and they shall become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
All right.
What a beautiful start to the human story.
Of course, it doesn't continue that way, as we all know.
But I believe we're meant to read this account
with a certain sense of nostalgia or longing.
You know, this is where we want to be.
You know, in this state of bliss.
We must be careful to be attentive
and do our best to be a good audience, though, here.
And part of the effort should be in considering the illocution,
if you guys remember our earlier discussion,
or the intended meaning of the text.
What are we meant to see here?
Some faithful Christians would say
that what we see is what you get.
That what we're dealing with here
is straight journalistic history,
a sort of eyewitness account.
Is that the best way for us to receive the text?
It could be.
But I think we have some reasons to think otherwise.
For one, we have a long history of major church figures
pointing out that what Moses is doing here
is communicating unique narrative events
in exalted prose
or heightened everyday speech.
You know, speech meant for the common people.
Eusebius, the great church historian, says of Genesis,
They did not think it necessary
to make known accurately to the multitude
nor teach the common people
the causes of the nature of existing things
except only so far as it was necessary
for them to know
that the universe has not been self-created,
has not been produced causelessly
and by chance from an irrational impulse,
but is led on by the divine reason as its guide
and governed by a powerful, ineffable wisdom.
Or consider Augustine.
But the scriptural style comes down to the level
of the little ones
and adjusts itself to their capacity
by putting before them each single kind of creature
one by one
and then looking back at the eternal formula
of each kind in the Word of God.
Thomas Aquinas agrees, saying,
But Moses describes what is obvious to sense
out of condescension to an uneducated populace.
That's us.
Also, John Calvin says,
Moses wrote in a popular style,
things without instruction,
all ordinary persons,
a dude with common sense,
are able to understand.
I like it best said by someone, C.S. Lewis,
who was making the same observation.
He liked to quote this guy.
This is a proto-reformer named John Collette,
relatively unknown nowadays.
But he said,
Moses arranged his details in such a way
as to give people a clearer notion,
and he does so after the manner of a popular poet,
in order that he may the more adapt himself
to the spirit of simple rusticity.
Well, what does this all mean?
Well, I think what it means
is that we're not dealing with a text
that you need a PhD to understand the point.
Or at least you didn't need one
at the time of the original audience.
We, of course, greatly benefit
from our modern scholars.
They help us to put ourselves
in the seat of the original audience.
They give us things like translations
and commentaries.
And some of the ways that we're helped
in receiving the text
with its correct intention
is learning about things like
pictorial description,
anachronisms,
and symbolic language,
which would have been obvious
to the original audience.
These are figures of speech.
So, do we have these kinds of things
in this text that we've read today?
Well, I think so.
For example,
what does it mean that man was created
from the dust of the ground?
Are we meant to understand this
as an example of sculpting
from actual mud
in the story,
like in the story of Prometheus,
how he created humans?
Anybody familiar with the myth of Prometheus?
He was tasked with the gods.
This is Greek mythology.
He was tasked with the gods
with creating helpers,
like workers,
and he forms men out of mud
and gives them...
In Greek mythology,
Prometheus is actually the one
who makes humanity.
And then he gives them fire.
We all remember this part.
He gives them fire
against the will of Zeus,
and then he's put on a rock
and his liver is eaten.
You know,
that's kind of unnecessary.
But anyways,
are we looking at the creation story
in that way,
where out of the mud,
out of the dust,
God is creating humanity?
Or could this be an example
of like pictorial description,
wherein dust is a reference
to material reality
and earthly nature itself?
Later in Genesis 3,
we learn that Adam is called...
God says,
Adam is dust,
and to dust he will return.
Language like this gives us reason
to not take the dust too literally,
right?
As Adam was not literally dust
at the time God was saying
that he is dust.
You see the point there?
We are also exposed to anachronisms.
Anachronisms are elements in the text
that are found earlier
than they actually would appear
in his history.
So for instance,
God is referred to in this passage
as the Lord,
as Yahweh.
But he doesn't reveal himself
in that way.
He doesn't reveal that name
until the time of Moses,
right?
So,
these are elements of the text
where we read it
and we think,
okay,
something,
it's not so much
straight journalistic history.
I just say there's like
all kinds of other questions
that the text presents
that we're not given an answer to.
where it's obvious
that we're being shown
the truth here,
not necessarily being told it
completely,
right?
So for instance,
what is the tree of life
and the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil?
And how do they work?
Why are they there?
Why is Adam not called
by a proper name
into like the middle
of the narrative?
How long did it take Adam
to name all the animals?
These,
among other questions,
are not answered
explicitly in the text.
Ultimately,
you know,
we should remember
that the Bible
was written
to ordinary people
like us
with language
fitting for that purpose,
but is meant
to convey divine truth
which none of us
are able to exhaust
with even a lifetime
of study.
Okay?
I mean,
there's other elements
of the text too.
So for instance,
when Adam
initially sees Eve,
right,
we have this wonderful
passage where he says,
this at last
is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.
She should be called woman
because she was taken
out of man.
Now probably
many of you have heard
that in the Hebrew,
Adam is kind of
making a pun.
Right?
He's saying,
you should be called
Isha
because you came
out of Ish.
Right?
So he's making,
he's using,
he's playing with language
there,
but he's playing
with language
in Hebrew
and I don't think
the text
requires us
to believe
that the original
language spoken
by man
was Hebrew.
Does that make sense?
I think it's capturing
the nature
of what Adam's
communication was.
So,
after all that,
let's just give up,
right?
No.
No,
the whole point
of my discussion here
is to try to explain
why our attempts
to read the text
with an eye
towards scientific detail
is often going
to be frustrated.
But,
when we look at it
with the eye
of the regular reader,
the magnificent truth
of God's work
is plainly revealed.
So,
let's recount
some of the
non-negotiable truths
that are communicated
by this passage
as it refers
to human origins.
So,
I'm going to give you
three non-negotiables.
Alright,
we're going to be
talking about,
we're going to be
referencing these
as we go along.
So,
number one
is that God
made humans.
God made us.
As obvious
as this sounds,
it has to be
emphasized
because we cannot
read this account
without ascribing
the origins
of humans
to God.
While it's true
that God
can act
through many
secondary means,
in other words,
through His providence,
I don't think
we can approach
this event
and reinterpret
the special activity
of God
that way.
Okay?
We can't really
reinterpret
the special activity
of God
away.
We need to
affirm our
common sense
intuition
that human beings
are significantly
different than
other beings
and these
differences are
not adequately
explained
by secondary
means alone.
That there
is indeed
a gulf
or gap
between what
we would expect
to occur
through natural
means and the
results we have
observed here,
which is,
in this case,
us,
humans.
There's
something
special,
unique,
or extraordinary
in God's
relationship to
humans as
opposed to
the other
animals.
Right?
I don't want
to spend too
much time on
this point
because,
one,
I think it's
pretty self-evident
if we think
about it,
that humans
are different
than other
animals,
and,
two,
I don't want
to step
on Pastor
Nick's toes
because next
week we're
discussing
the image
of God.
So,
I'll leave
that to him.
If we deny
this understanding
of humans,
that God
made us,
then we're
going to
inevitably end
up blurring
the real
distinctions
between humans
and other
created beings.
Okay?
I think you
see this
happening,
it's very
obvious when
you see this
happening,
when there's
a blurred
line between
humans and
other animals.
I think the
text today is
reinforcing something
that God
made us
different.
God made
us special.
Okay?
So that's
non-negotiable
number one.
Non-negotiable
number two
is the
historical
existence
of Adam
and Eve
and the
fall.
Okay?
So work
with me
here.
So,
I think
we're brought
to this
point through
careful reading
of the passage
that Adam
and Eve
are historical
personages.
Figures that
are included
in genealogies
are said to
move and
act as
individuals
and have
affected humanity
in ways that
exist today.
There are many
passages of
Scripture that
seem to depend
on this truth.
Not only do we
have the passage
we considered
earlier,
right, where
Adam and Eve,
Adam is walking
around saying
things, right,
but we have
the continuing
narrative of
Adam and his
family all the
way through
Genesis 5,
right, with
the Cain and
Abel narratives,
etc.
And this
narrative,
the continuing
narrative through
Genesis 5,
connects through
genealogies to
all the
subsequent
accounts of
undoubtedly
historical people
like Abraham.
So, I think
it would be a
bad reading of
the text to
wave off what
the account, I
think, is
clearly intending
to communicate,
which is that
Adam and Eve
were actual
people.
But more
importantly, the
historical existence
of Adam and
Eve,
supports the
historical event
of the fall.
And this is a
first-ranked
primary doctrine,
right?
I told you that
as we go through
human origins,
we're going to be
hitting up, we're
going to be
bumping up into
primary doctrines.
This is one of
those.
The fall is a
first-ranked
primary doctrine.
Do I say this
because I'm just
a downer on
human nature?
No,
though maybe I
am.
But, no, it's
crucial we affirm
this because the
Bible affirms it.
Okay?
Many who would
seek to minimize
the historical
import of the
Adam and Eve
narrative will
point out that
some of the
references to
Adam in the
New Testament
could be
explained by
referring to a
literary character.
Right?
So, for instance,
when Christ is
arguing for the
inviability of
marriage in
Matthew 19,
he points to
this narrative
saying, the
narrative we just
read, he
points to the
narrative saying,
he answered,
have you not
read that he
who created
them from the
beginning made
them male and
female, and
said, therefore
a man shall
leave his
father and his
mother and
hold fast to
his wife and
the two should
become one
flesh.
So they are
no longer
two but one
flesh.
What therefore
God has joined
together, let
not man
separate.
Everybody, we're
all familiar with
that passage, very
famous.
Now, the
straightforward
understanding, I
think the
straightforward way to
understand this
text is to
affirm that Jesus
takes Adam and
Eve to be real
people, and
that these real
people set the
pattern for ideal
marriage, and I
think this is the
way I would take
it.
However, some
could say that
Jesus is merely
referring to the
story of Adam and
Eve as an
authoritative teaching
on marriage, while
not really commenting
on their historicity
at all.
In this view, it
would be sort of
like saying that
since Gandalf wisely
refused the ring of
power out of his
knowledge of the
corrupting nature of
power, we should
also refuse to take
on power without
serious trepidation
and humility.
You see how that
could work?
It's like you're
talking, it's an
application from a
work of influential
literature.
Right?
This is how some
try to argue that
the references to
Adam in the New
Testament aren't
actually meant to
convey that he's a
real person, are
just meant to
refer to that
original story, which
is in some sense
authoritative.
Right?
But, maybe this
may apply to some,
this may be a way to
understand some of the
passages in the New
Testament, but I
think it's just simply
not sufficient for
some of the most
pivotal passages in
Scripture.
Take, for example, the
passage in 1 Corinthians
15, where Paul is
making this crucial
argument.
But, in fact, Christ
has been raised from
the dead, the first
fruits of those who
have fallen asleep.
For as by a man came
death, by a man has
come also the
resurrection of the
dead.
For as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ
shall all be made
alive.
But each in his own
order.
Christ the first
fruits, then it is
coming those who
belong to Christ.
Then comes the end
when he delivers the
kingdom to God the
Father after destroying
every rule and every
authority and every
power.
And then, continuing a
few verses later, Paul
says, so it is with
the resurrection with
the dead.
What is sown is
perishable.
What is raised is
imperishable.
It is sown in
dishonor.
It is raised in
glory.
It is sown in
weakness.
It is raised in
power.
It is sown a
natural body.
It is raised a
spiritual body.
If there is a
natural body, then
there is also a
spiritual body.
Thus it is written,
the first man, Adam,
became a living
being.
The last Adam became
a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the
spiritual that is
first, but the
natural, and then
the spiritual.
The first man was
from the earth, a
man of dust.
The second man is
from heaven.
As with the man of
dust, so also are
those who are of
the dust.
And as is the man
of heaven, so also
are those who are of
heaven.
Just as we have
borne the image of
the man of dust, we
shall also bear the
image of the man of
heaven.
You guys see the
parallelism here?
I hope you can
appreciate the central
importance here of the
historical Adam.
This figure has
affected the state of
the world right now.
Right?
In reality, it can't
just be a literary
device.
Right?
I wouldn't say, I
have to pay taxes
now because Gandalf
refused the ring of
power.
It's like, oh,
nope, category
mistake.
Gandalf in the
story doesn't
affect my life here
in reality.
Does that make
sense?
So, here we're
seeing a parallel
between Adam, the
real person, whose
sin and fall in
nature we all
inherit, and then
our need for the
new Adam,
in Christ.
That's the
parallel that's
being driven in
the passage.
So, like I said,
this real fall that
Adam perpetrates has
led to a real
atonement, which is
the heart of the
gospel.
Right?
This is not
something we can
reject without
doing serious
damage to the
central claims of
Christianity.
So, that's not
negotiable number
two.
That there was a
historical figure,
Adam and Eve,
figures, Adam and
Eve, and that there
was a real
historical fall.
Okay?
Non-negotiable
number three.
Adam and Eve are
our progenitors.
Progenitors.
So, I believe,
finally, I believe
that we must
affirm that Adam
and Eve are at
the headwaters of
humanity.
That they are the
progenitors of all
human beings, and
that we are all
connected in the
fact that we are
sons of Adam and
daughters of Eve.
Eve.
This seems to be
the implication of
the naming of Eve
in Genesis 3, where
Adam names her as
the mother of all
living.
Right?
I think further, this
seems to be implied in
passages such as
Romans 5, where Paul
says,
Therefore, just as sin
came into the world
through one man, and
death through sin, and
so death spread to all
men, because all sin, for
sin indeed was in the
world before the law
was given, but sin is
not counted where there
is no law.
Yet death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even
over those whose sinning
was not like the
transgression of Adam, who
was a type of the one
who was to come.
But the free gift is
not like the trespass.
For if many died
through one man's
trespass, much more
have the grace of God
and the free gift by
grace of that one man
Jesus Christ abounded
for many.
And the free gift is
not like the result of
that one man's sin.
For the judgment
following one trespass
brought condemnation,
but the free gift of
following many
trespasses brought
justification.
For if, because of
one man's trespass,
death reigned through
that one man, much
more will those who
receive the abundance
of grace and the
free gift of
righteousness reign in
life through the one
man Jesus Christ.
You guys start seeing
in the passage already
that second non-negotiable,
this feeling that
there's a real
historical Adam,
there was a real
fall.
Now, therefore, as
one trespass led to
condemnation for all
men, so one act of
righteousness leads to
justification in life
for all men.
For as by the one
man's disobedience, the
many were made
sinners, so by the
one man's obedience,
the many will be made
righteous.
You guys see there,
so in some sense,
all humans are in
Adam, are represented
and led by him.
This unifies all
humanity in solidarity
in sin, and also
unites all of us in
our need for the new
Adam.
Without this peace, we
could be left scratching
our heads over whether
Native Americans need
salvation, or whether
Aboriginals in Australia
need salvation, right?
These sort of distinct
people groups that are
separated by time and
place.
Not to mention, if we
deny this, we would
damage our conception of
the image of God and
things like universal
human rights.
If we're not all one
family, if we're all not
connected somehow in
Adam, then there are
different kinds of
humans.
Different human, you
know, different, does
that make sense?
Am I making sense
here?
Different kinds of
humans.
So this is, I think, a
crucial part of the
narrative as we receive
it today, right?
So, going over our
three non-negotiable,
God made us.
There are historical
personages, Adam and
Eve, and there was a
real fall, and three,
this Adam and Eve were
the progenitors of all
that follow, okay, in
some sense.
So, we all agree.
Good.
Let's break.
Now, so, into this
place of agreement, we
must thrust...
I have a question.
Oh, yeah, go ahead,
Richard.
So, if we invert that
third point, so my
question is, is it
invertible?
Can we say we are the
literal descendants of
Adam?
We'll get into that in a
little bit.
I think...
Oh, so it's not
converted.
I think there has to be
a sense in which we are
all in Adam, right?
Now, there is, I think, a
little bit of wiggle room
into the genealogical and
or genetic descendants
piece.
I think it'll make more
sense in a little bit.
Okay.
Yeah.
Let's see.
Okay, so we have to
actually now deal with
sort of the confounding
variable, which is what
we make of the current
evolutionary story of human
origins as we receive it.
Right?
I think we're all probably
mildly familiar with this
story.
We're in, through a long,
unguided process of
mutation and natural
selection, humans evolved
through a number of
intermediate steps from
some common ancestor of
the primates.
And this is based in part
on the fossil evidence of
hominids and hominin
groups.
Further, this changing
population of pre-humans
never could have reached a
population of less than a
thousand individuals based on
current human genetic
diversity.
These two assertions from the
sciences that humans
developed from prior animal
life in some way and that
there was a large starting
population of original humans
are the ones that we actually
need to contend with in our
thinking about human origins
today.
Of course, just like any
assertion made from any
quarter, we must think
carefully about the actual
evidence supporting the
story and not accept the
story itself as the facts.
Okay?
This story, this evolutionary
story that we have received,
is a certain kind of
inference made from the
evidence.
And it is our duty as
thinking individuals to
investigate the evidence and
test the strength of these
inferences.
Does that make sense?
I think a lot of times
scientists have a bad
habit of presenting a
story, their inference from
the data that we have,
presenting that story as if
it is the evidence that we
have.
Right?
But that's not actually
true.
It's actually we're making
conclusions based on the
evidence that we see, and
one of those conclusions
could be strung together in
this kind of story.
The story is not the facts.
So, what are we to make of
these assertions?
I think for one, the
argument for the sequence and
timing of the evolution of
humans based on fossil
evidence, in my opinion, is
spectacularly opaque.
It changes in radical ways from
the addition of new data,
which should indicate us that
we don't need to take these
pronouncements with a firm
hand.
Okay?
Anybody who has spent a lot of
time looking at the
paleontological, anthropological
data of fossil transition of
pre-humans into humans will know
that if you look at the history of
it, the branches are like
swapping all over the place, and
even currently, there are
probably five different
competing arguments over where
the branches are.
This guy's like, oh, this guy is
over here, and this other one's
like, oh, this guy's over here,
and this guy's like, I don't
think these guys exist.
I think these guys are over here.
It's like, it is very confusing.
Okay?
And as a scientist who works in
other fields, I sometimes am
like, oh, man, it's pretty
shaky stuff.
You know, no offense to any
paleontologists here, but on the
other hand, we do have to
acknowledge the existence of what
we are calling, we can call
hominins.
Hominins, it used to be hominids,
but now hominids means a more
broad thing.
Hominids includes the common
ancestor of humans and like the
great apes.
Hominins with an N includes just
the human lineage, whatever.
Anyways, the hominins, these
extinct human-like skeletons that
we find in the ground, right?
They don't have exactly the same
anatomical features as modern
humans, but they are significantly
different from the great apes.
So we have to acknowledge, like,
these skeletons exist.
So, like, what are they, what do
they do?
You know, you've probably gone to a
natural history museum and seen,
like, recreations of Neanderthal
dudes.
And I'm like, I always thought I
kind of looked like a Neanderthal,
but that's, maybe that factors
into our interpretations.
Yeah?
I've been reading recently that
there's five different types of
humans.
Yeah.
They claim there's five different
types of humans.
Yeah, you have to be...
We'll deal with that.
Yeah, I mean, for one, I think we
should, we have to be careful,
because in, depending on what
branch of the sciences you're
discussing, the word human can
mean totally different things.
Okay?
So, for instance, when we're
talking about paleontology, they
will separate modern humans, that's
us, from what they would call other
humans, which are hominins.
Another name for hominins.
So, sometimes you'll hear statements
like, well, humans were once, you
know, they did blah, blah, blah, or
their heads were this shaped, or
whatever, and you have to be like,
okay, they're using the word human in
a different way than we naturally use
the word human, right?
So, just to be careful.
And, yeah, I mean, it all depends on
how you splice or split up the
skeletons, ultimately.
You know?
At some point, you have to look at a
skeleton in the ground and say,
this is different enough from the
humans that are living here now, that
this is a different thing.
And that's a really, it's a hard cutoff
sometimes.
Yeah?
Could some of the differences be
explained away by nutritional
issues?
Honestly, I have this suspicion myself
that maybe there's just, now this is,
you know, this is just one man's
opinion while looking at the
sidelines, but it seems to me that
there's quite a lot of variation among
existing human beings.
You know, they're like really short
humans and like really tall ones and
ones that have big heads and ones that
have small heads.
I'm one of the bigger head ones.
And, you know, some people have big
prominent foreheads.
Other of us, you know, don't.
You know, some of us have big noses.
So, I don't know.
Sometimes, sometimes I look at somebody
who just pronounced me and they're like,
well, this human is way too short to
be an actual human.
I'm like, oh, I don't know.
Maybe he's just a short dude, you
know?
And, yeah, maybe nutrition had a,
and we do know over time, in our known
historical record, humans have been
getting taller.
Yeah.
Okay?
So, take that, yeah, yeah.
More than Africa.
Exactly, yeah.
And like the average height, I think,
in the medieval period was something
like five foot six or something.
Is it that, is it that the average
height?
I mean, it's less, it's less than
modern times.
I know, I'm kind of tall, so I
sometimes don't keep track of what the
average height is.
What's the average height, people?
5'10".
What's that?
5'10".
Yeah, so I think it was like something
like 5'5", 5'6".
In the medieval period.
So, you just rewind the tape, it could be
getting shorter and shorter.
I don't know.
Anyways, I think a lot of those things
are possible.
That's kind of my feeling as well.
Matt.
One of the big things 50, 70 years ago
was brain case size.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
And the leakies and others made a big deal
about, oh, this is 50 centimeters.
Yeah.
Big, cubic centimeters, bigger or smaller.
Yeah.
And current human population ranges, you
know, individuals.
Yeah.
From 700 cc's to 2,200 cc's.
Yeah, yeah.
More than a factor of three.
Yeah.
With absolutely no correlation of
intelligence.
At all, yeah.
And there are people who have what is
called microcephaly.
This is technically a developmental
disorder where they can have brain
cases that are as small as less than 500.
And other than physical features,
they are completely normal.
So, I mean, no.
Some cases of microcephaly actually come
with severe developmental disabilities,
for sure.
But there are people who have,
are way below the normal scale
and are seemingly normal.
So anyways, this is the kind of
common sense we need to be bringing
to some of this information,
some of this data.
Okay?
On the human genetics side of the,
so that's like pre,
like development from pre-existing
organisms.
On the human genetics side,
we have to be careful about
understanding our initial conditions
for a lot of these calculations
and the assumptions that we use
to produce them.
Are we counting so-called pre-humans
in the calculation?
Where are the cutoffs in biological time
that we're cutting off,
where we are deciding,
where this is start time
and this is how long we need
to explain the genetic diversity?
How confident are we in mutation rates
and whether there are any
confounding variables?
It's pretty complicated.
I mean, these questions,
among others,
will greatly affect your output.
Right?
So possibly a good way
to help parse some of this information
is with the evidence of archaeology,
which can help us date
sort of the first appearance
of human culture
in the archaeological record.
But even then,
you know,
anybody who studied archaeology
knows that there's a lot of loss
of artifacts over time.
So all this to say,
I think there is definitely wiggle room
here in the data
as someone who isn't necessarily
an expert in definitely
the paleontology side.
I come at that as a lay person,
a lay person with scientific training,
I guess.
The human genetic side,
I am more familiar with
and then it really depends
on how you set up
the initial conditions, honestly.
What hypothesis of a starting pool
are you getting?
And stuff like mutation rate,
which we can't measure over time.
So anyways,
in light of this,
instead of me coming up here
and claiming to provide
the one true way
of harmonizing
the information from the sciences
that we have
and God's special revelation
that we just read,
I think a better way
is for us to consider
different scenarios
by which we can hold on
to the non-negotiables
from the narrative
and interact
with the current state
of the scientific evidence.
Okay?
So here are a few
that are often presented
different scenarios.
So scenario one
is young earth creationism.
Okay?
Most of us are probably
familiar with this view.
This is when
we see Adam and Eve
as created de novo,
meaning from nothing,
from dust,
in a reading of the Genesis 2 account
where we see it
as an eyewitness
journalistic history.
In this view,
we would definitely satisfy
our non-negotiables,
theologically,
but we'd also have to reject
in many ways
the current scientific evidence
as we receive it,
especially as it concerns
the timing.
The hominin fossils
may be descendants
of Adam and Eve
in this view,
but they are definitely
not ancient.
Right?
Adam and Eve
are responsible
for all the genetic diversity
we observe,
but the apparent mutation rate
must be wrong
because there's not
enough time.
Ultimately,
I think this scenario
will rely heavily
on a reading of Genesis
that requires a young earth
and this new non-negotiable,
right,
is doing a lot of work
in reinterpreting data.
Right?
And I think ultimately
its strength will depend
on whether you find
arguments for a young earth
compelling
and or required
by Scripture.
Okay.
That's scenario one.
Scenario two
is what I'm calling
de novo
or old earth creationism.
Right?
This second view
is an old earth creationist view
where Adam and Eve
are still de novo creations,
but they're placed
at the headwaters
of the modern human lineage
some 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.
Okay?
And again,
I'm using the term
modern humans
in the way that
paleontologists
anthropologists use it,
which is talking about
what we would consider
normal anatomical features
of today.
Right?
So that,
so Adam and Eve
were the first
modern humans.
This would allow
for their explanation
as the sole progenitors
of all modern humans
and explain the genetic evidence
with some modifications.
Right?
We would have to fiddle,
I think,
with the timing
a little bit.
But it does reject
a connection between humans
and prior hominins
where Neanderthals
and other hominins
are considered
non-human animals
that God created.
Okay?
This requires us
to explain
what differentiates
Neanderthals
and humans
and why humans
have Neanderthal DNA
in their genome.
Right?
If this is an interesting
scenario for you,
this is, I think,
well argued
by Fazali Rana
and Hugh Ross,
if you guys are familiar.
They're from the ministry
Reasons to Believe.
So if you're interested,
you can look up
their website
or a book
called
Who Was Adam?
It's a really great book
if you want to get
their comprehensive view
of this scenario.
I just mentioned them
because
like they have a whole book
on this one scenario.
Okay.
Scenario three,
this is sort of
a similar view
to the earlier view,
the de novo
old earth creationist view,
but I call this
refurbished hominin.
Okay?
So this view
would consider Adam and Eve
to be the first
modern humans,
but they were
in some sense
related to
pre-existing hominins.
In this view,
God acts,
God's act of creation
would be refurbishing
a member of those hominins
and then they'd be,
and then the hominins
being referred to
poetically as
the dust of the earth.
With the rest
of the scenario
shared between
with the earlier
de novo creation one.
Just that there's
now a connection,
some sort of
biological connection
between Adam and Eve
and prior hominins.
The hominins are
refurbished by God
into Adam and Eve,
into modern humans,
and then the story
continues from there.
Augustine seemed
to be open
in some sense
to this view.
He asked,
but in what manner
did God make him
from the mud of the earth?
Was it straight away
as an adult,
that is,
as a young man
in the prime of life?
Or was it as he forms
human beings
from then until now
in their mother's wombs?
So there's sort of
a sense in which
there could be
a sense in which
Adam was born
in some way,
right?
This view would be
able to accept
the proposed
common ancestry
of hominins
and humans
while affirming
that modern genetics,
the modern genetic idea
of genetic diversity
with, again,
some modifications.
Other forms of this view
would be like those
of William Lane Craig.
He would push
Adam and Eve
even past
behind modern humans
into the distant past
as a refurbished member
of a hominin
that is called
Homo Heidelbergensis
around 750,000
to 500,000 years ago.
This is the last
supposed common ancestor
of both Neanderthals
and modern humans.
And so this view
would have the benefit
of making those
an explanation
separating Neanderthals
and humans
kind of moot.
They're both humans.
They just kind of
look a little different.
And it also would require
no modifications
of the human genetic data.
Scenario four
is taking us
a little bit
farther afield.
This view
I'm calling
Adam and Eve
as head of a tribe.
Okay?
This view trades
on the idea
of a continuous population
of modern humans
as proposed
by human genetics
but sees the refurbishment
of Adam and Eve
from pre-existing hominins
as involving
a whole tribe
of humans.
Okay?
When we think about this
I think it's important
to quote from C. John Collins
someone I really like
to re-center us
on the non-negotiables here.
Okay?
He says
if someone should decide
that there were
in fact
more human beings
than just Adam and Eve
at the beginning
of mankind
then
in order to maintain
good sense
he should envision
these humans
as a single tribe.
Adam would then
be the chieftain
of this tribe
preferably produced
before the others
and Eve would be
his wife.
This falls from
the notion
of solidarity
in a representative.
Right?
Some may call this
a form of polygenesis
but this is quite distinct
from the more conventional
and unacceptable kind.
Okay?
That's his suggestion.
If we're gonna say
if we must say
that there was
a starting population
of humans
then Adam and Eve
would be the heads
like the king and queen
of this population
and sort of
their representative.
Okay?
So he later
C. John Collins
later comments
in such a scenario
he says
nevertheless
a king and queen
under the arrangement
Kidner envisions
are legitimately
the father and mother
of their people.
Right?
In the ancient sense.
In the ancient world
the king and queen
were the father and mother
of the nation.
Right?
And so if you can imagine
a small tribe of humans
with Adam and Eve
as their king and queen
this can kind of explain
how all human beings
even though
possibly
not every single human being
is a direct
genetic descendant
from Adam and Eve
proper
how they're all
descendant
they're all in Adam
because all human beings
whether we're
from some other members
of that population
are all
under the headship
of Adam
as their federal head.
Right?
So in that sense
Adam and Eve
are the progenitors
of all humans
because they are
the federal
legal representatives
of all humans
and all humans
are in the same tribe
as them.
Does that make sense?
Sure.
That's kind of the idea.
So progenitors
but not ancestors.
Exactly.
What's the difference?
That would be
the distinguishing here.
Yeah.
So I think here
it would be
trading on the
the commonality
between Adam and Eve
and that single tribe
you can think of
that single tribe
as like a family
Adam and Eve
being the head
of that family
and you are not
necessarily
related to Adam and Eve
proper genetically
but you are
genealogically
related to Adam and Eve
because they are
in charge of
your whole family
and the rest of you.
They're the patriarch
and matriarch
of the family.
So I'm not familiar.
Yeah.
I'm not really
dealing with the definition
of the word progenitor.
Yeah.
It has no biological implications.
No I think it does.
I think it does.
I think that's the implication
of the text
but I'm saying
in this view
we would be kind of fiddling
we'd be fiddling
with that third
non-negotiable
and saying
well Adam and Eve
can be
our sort of
legal and federal
progenitor
while not being
our biological progenitor
but we're maintaining
the sense that
we're all in Adam
which is what
the progenitor-ness
is trying to protect
right?
We're all in Adam
and all human beings
are justly considered
represented by Adam
in the fall.
Right?
Peter.
Doesn't Noah
make all this move?
Yeah.
So again
that would depend
on whether you
take the
the Noah story
to be a local flood
killing all humans
or just regional humans
or versus all humans.
Right?
So that also
goes into it.
Some of these
so for instance
the de novo
old earth creationist view
from reasons to believe
they factor in
the flood
into their calculations
and stuff
so that actually
is relevant
but depending on the model
depending on the scenario
a global flood
or a local flood
doesn't really come into it.
So
if
we must infer
that there was
in original populations
of humans
I think this is really
the only way
to maintain
our non-negotiables
is in this way.
This warning
will help us consider
I think the last scenario
we're about to talk to you about
but this scenario
as we understand it here
as the head of a tribe
would have some
narrative benefits
as it would help us
understand the
sort of perplexing
exclamation of Cain
in Genesis 4
where he's like
hey
I might
what if somebody
finds me and kills me?
and I know
most of us
reading the text
are like
who?
Your mom and your dad?
Like
they know.
So like
yeah
oh and then also
yeah
where did Cain's wife
come from?
It's like
the text doesn't tell us
it just tells us
that he has a wife
right?
Now of course
there's obviously
traditional
and
perfectly I think
adequate explanations
of these things
but if we have
an original tribe
of humans
then these questions
just kind of
become
unnecessary
right?
Okay
scenario five
what I'm calling
man in the mists
of time
okay
this final scenario
is actually taken
from C.S. Lewis
in his
problem of pain
where he posits
a myth
or what he would call
a not unlikely
story
he says
for long centuries
God perfected
the animal form
which is to become
the vehicle of humanity
and the image
of himself
he gave it
hands
whose thumbs
could be applied
to each of the fingers
and jaws
and teeth
and throat
capable of articulation
and a brain
sufficiently complex
to execute
all of the material
motions
whereby rational
thought is
incarnated
then in the
fullness of time
God caused
to descend
upon this organism
both on its
psychology
and physiology
a new
kind of
consciousness
which could say
I
and me
which could
look upon
itself
as an object
which knew
God
which could
make judgments
of truth
beauty
and goodness
and which was
so far above
time
that he could
perceive time
flowing past
we do not know
how many of these
creatures God made
nor how long
they continued
in the paradisical
state
but sooner or later
they fell
someone
or something
whispered that
they could become
as gods
they wanted
some corner
in the universe
of which they
could say to
God
this is our
business
not yours
but there is
no such
corner
they wanted
to be nouns
but they were
and eternally
must be
mere adjectives
we have no
idea in what
particular act
or series of
acts
the self
contradictory
impossible
wish
found expression
for all I
can see
it might have
concerned the
literal eating
of a fruit
but the question
is of no
consequence
so that's
C.S. Lewis
as you can see
I think we're
starting to get
pretty far afield
from the biblical
story
right
but we still
have seemingly
kept a hold
of our non
negotiables
God is making
us
right
there is a
real historical
human beings
and a real
historical fall
and that in
some sense
they're the
progenitors
of all
humans
however
it's not
really clear
from this
how we are
all in
Adam
in this
story
right
whether we
are all
descended
from him
or how
he's the
representative
of all
humanity
well we
may have
the elements
of sort
of a
bare
minimum
view
I think
this is a
good example
of sort
of the
edge
or the
limit
of the
kind
of
opaque
scenarios
that could
actually work
in our
overall
world view
right
I think
this is the
kind of
story
that
we're
starting
to
exit
from the
narrative
as we
receive it
in the
Bible
does that
make sense
so I
think
this is
a good
example
of sort
of the
edge
so
how do we
end
I think
we finish
by reiterating
that the
issues here
are enormous
right
this isn't a
question of
just whether
humans have
in some sense
developed from
earlier life
forms or
whether Adam
had a belly
button
right
this issue
is whether
we can
affirm the
non-negotiables
central to
the gospel
that humans
were made
by God
were real
progenitors
of all humans
in some sense
and were
the architects
of our
current fallen
state
a state
that Christ
comes to
answer in
the atonement
okay
the gospel
that our
rejection
of God
needs to
be mended
in a very
real sense
depends
on this
discussion
but as
we've seen
there is
some wiggle
room
in the
different
scenarios
we've
considered
as it
relates
to the
scientific
data
so as
usual
humility
in our
discussion
is paramount
right
how different
Christians see
the strength
of the
evidence
and how
best to
reconcile it
to the
narrative
we've
received
is a
complex
issue
okay
but I
think
hopefully
ultimately
no matter
which scenario
you find
compelling
you can
stop and
glorify God
for humanity
saying in
the words
of Psalm
8
O Lord
our Lord
how majestic
is your name
in all the
earth
you have
set your
glory above
the heavens
out of the
mouth of
babies and
infants
you have
established
strength
because of
your foes
to steal
the enemy
and the
avenger
when I
look at
your heavens
the work
of your
fingers
the moon
and the
stars
which you
have set
in place
what is
man that
you are
mindful
of him
and the
son of
man
that you
care
for him
yet you
have made
him a
little
lower
than the
heavenly
beings
and crowned
him with
glory and
honor
you have
given him
dominion
over the
works of
your hands
you have
put all
things under
his feet
all sheep
and oxen
and also
the beasts
of the
field
the birds
of the
heavens
and the
fish of
the sea
whatever
passes
along the
paths
of the
sea
O Lord
our Lord
how majestic
is your
name in
all the
earth
all right
that is
it
that's all
I have
to talk
about
please
questions
if you
have any
about
human
origins
you guys
seeing where
the
tensions
are
yeah
it's
complex
and I
think
ultimately
how
strong
you think
the
scientific
evidence
is
going to
depend
on
which
of
these
scenarios
you find
most
compelling
yeah
!
yeah
I
think
you're
right
I
think
those
categories
are
actually
helpful
there's
a book
I haven't
actually
gotten around
to reading
that I just
got for
Christmas
about
the
reformation
theology
and evolutionary
I think
that's one
of the
arguments
they make
but I
think
we
have to
be
careful
because
I don't
think
we
want
to
say
is
that
there
was
some
dude
in the
Middle
East
right
named
Adam
and he
did
something
and he
fell
and God
sort of
put that
on some
Native American
in America
you know
I feel like
there's some
we feel
that there's
a disconnect
there
in terms
of like
yeah
technically
we have
those legal
categories
but I
think
there's a
sense
where we're
like
I don't
know
if that's
really
in what
sense
is
all
of
humanity
in
Adam
in that
sense
so I
think
there are
limits
to that
but I
think
you're
right
I
mean
I
think
if
we
can
think
of
God
as
electing
a
group
or
population
of
humans
and
saying
and
making
Adam
the
federal
head
then
some
of
those
like
biological
restraints
are
kind of
mitigated
does that
make
sense
yeah
but not
like
there's
not
completely
a way
there
yeah
Matt
I'm
not
I
don't
hold
to
this
view
yeah
but
one
might
say
hey
you know
some
dude
in the
Middle East
died and
rose and
dead
and now
we can
be part of
it
yes
Native
American
can
be
part
of
his
spiritual
family
yeah
that's
true
I mean
I think
in that
situation
there's
sort of
a
mechanism
by which
in faith
we
are grafted
into
the new
Adam
Adam's
family
right
I think
in the
earlier view
the difference
there would
be
there really
doesn't seem
to be a
mechanism
by which
the Native
American
would say
I'm
with that
guy
and why
would he
say that
you know
honestly
I mean
I think
in that
situation
I think
the
proponent
would probably
try to go
the way
of saying
well
there is a
fall
every
generation
like
every
human
being
falls
individually
but
again
I think
that
does
it
does
violence
in some
way
to the
storyline
that
scripture
is trying
to
communicate
right
which
there
was
initially
a
sense
in which
human beings
were good
and now
we're not
good
and it's
not just
a matter
of us
doing bad
things
there's
something
about our
nature
that seems
to have
been
changed
some way
right
and if I
think
you make
the argument
that every
generation
falls
then we're
just really
just saying
human beings
have always
been this
way
and it's
just a
matter
of
you know
getting
up the
pluck
and will
to just
not sin
which as
all of you
know
by the time
you're four
you've already
given up
on that
okay
alright guys
thanks so
much
yeah
hold on
let's see
yeah
hey