Doctrine of Creation

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,

Genesis 2:4–25

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".

5'10".

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