BioLogos site cracks down – on Canadian supporter too ready to cash in on the Christianity Today “ape Adam and Eve”article

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2011

Christian Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes, this, one, on why there is no Adam or Eve. Just ancestral primates who happened to become us (and a key editor is mad at me (?) for complaining about the new spin.)

Meanwhile, Canadian Christian Darwinist Denis Lamoureux pffftt!! At BioLogos. No, really.

Here’s president Darrel Falk:

In general, our experience has been that theologians are in one of two camps. Either they work within the framework of a non-historical Adam and Eve or they believe the scientific conclusions will eventually prove to be deeply flawed and humans were not created through an evolutionary process after all.

Good strategy that. Backtrack after the damage is done.

Sources tell me Lamoureux wasn’t having any of that reasonable doubt stuff. Can’t reproduce what he wrote, as it has been sponged. So “beaglelady” wrote to ask,

Denis Lamoureux posted a very relevant comment on this thread and now it is gone! Do you know what happened to it?

Well, the answer came back:

beaglelady,Denis appeared to get carried away with demeaning or belittling comments toward Dr. Falk and his comments were removed. He apparently fares no better than the rest of us when our tone gets too edgy toward each other.

Whooo!! I remember Lamoureux trashing an award-winning science teacher on a TV program in Toronto. The teacher suffered from Doubts. Like a lot of us do.

Take heart. Real science goes on. A scientist friend wrote to say:

Of course, the denial of a historical Adam and Eve based on population genetics is a denial based purely on a questionable (and empirically uncorroborated) theory about the origin of species.

Yes, but hey, Big Guy. This row is all about BioLogos’s and Christianity Today’s “science,” not about actual science, like you do. Just go to work tomorrow and forget it.

Comments

nullasalus @ 2 has a point; for once, Biologos is showing some hesitation to adopt a radical Biblical exegesis in order to accommodate evolution. Lamoureux's treatment of Genesis as mythical is much more radical than the various "headship" models that Alexander and others on Biologos are kicking around. It requires a more radical re-reading of Paul if there never was any Adam and Eve at all, than if Adam and Eve were at least "federal heads" of the human race, even if not its biological parents. And, to be fair to Falk -- though why we should be so generous as to be fair to him, I have no idea, as he is grossly unfair to ID people, and along with his columnists willfully misrepresents them on a daily basis -- he hasn't said that Lamoureux's reading of Genesis is wrong; he has just said that Biologos should make room for readings in which there is a real historical fall of a first covenantal couple. He thus appears to be the voice of moderation on the question of historicity, whereas Lamoureux appears to have a closed mind. That said, there are still immense problems with the "headship" position. The adjustment from "parents of the human race" to "federal heads of the human race" is completely non-traditional, and externally motivated -- to harmonize with the alleged results of population genetics -- and is not the natural reading of Paul, and is almost certainly not what Paul meant. In fact, the more "moderate" position that Biologos wants to allow, just as much as Denis Lamoureux's position, implies that Paul based his theology on erroneous anthropological conceptions, and that the traditional understanding of Sin and Fall must be modified to take this error into account. Both Lamoureux and Falk, in their different ways, essentially allow "consensus science" a veto on the traditional theological interpretation of the Bible. Thus, the choices permitted by "consensus science", as represented by Falk, amount to: "The tradition, following Paul, blundered in believing Adam and Eve to be the parents of the human race; we need to face the music and recognize that Genesis is pedagogical myth" and "The tradition, following Paul, blundered in believing Adam and Eve to be the parents of the human race; but if we get really creative and do all kinds of interpretive contortions, we might be able to preserve some sort of half-baked version of a historical Adam and Eve, which would make those traditional Christians who think Biologos is becoming too liberal a little more comfortable." So yes, Falk's intentions may be good, but in the end, Biologos appears to have established the principle that only those theologies which are compatible with current consensus science can be accepted, and as long as that is the working principle, there is no limit on how far the claims of Christian theology might have to be pushed back, and how much one might have to adopted forced interpretations of the Bible and cherry-pick from the tradition in order to achieve the harmonization that Biologos demands. The Biologos statement of faith, in practice, appears to amount to: "Biologos is committed to maintaining as much of traditional Biblical faith as modern science and enlightenment will currently permit." Not exactly the uncompromising faith of the Protestant Reformers or the great American revivalists, is it? T.Timaeus_{June 8, 2011
June
06
Jun
8
08
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Is the bible the word of God? Was it taught in , especially, Protestant churches that Adam was a real man? If they want to say there was no Adam then say our protestant civilization, people, ministers, and sorce were just plain wrong! I dare you!Robert Byers_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Of course, the denial of a historical Adam and Eve based on population genetics is a denial based purely on a questionable (and empirically uncorroborated) theory about the origin of species.
Does it then follow that: Of course, the affirmation of a historical Adam and Eve based on population genetics is an affirmation based purely on a questionable (and empirically uncorroborated) theory about the origin of species.Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

I actually think Biologos' response is encouraging here, insofar as they A) stress they do not rule out a real Adam and Eve, and B) also stress that there is a line between science and religion, such that science cannot dictate belief on a question like this, or at least not by itself. As ever, I'm willing to take what I can get from Biologos, though they and CT seem to be doing an iffy job on this issue.nullasalus_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

For the Christian, who believes that the each individual soul is created by God, the creation of souls had to begin with soul #1 and soul #2 and continue from there. So for Christians the existence of Adam and Eve follows logically from a belief in the soul and is based on reason as well as faith in truthfulness of the Bible. I guess the folks at Christianity Today do not believe that human beings have souls. If so, what is the point of them calling themselves Christian?Lamont_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply