[Taliesin]

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

That's all I want to know..

Taliesin

[Atheist]

It's called "Faith". Pure and simple.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

It's called "Faith". Pure and simple.

What faith? Faith in evolution or faith in Adam/Eve?

If you think evolution of humanity from one-cellers over animals... were fact , and you think the story of Adam and Eve to be real and not just some symbolic tale, how do you reconcile them?

Taliesin

[BLAZE_MkIV]

You don't. One is a theory based on evidence the other a myth based on an oral history.

[- - e r i k - -]

You can take my beliefs in Adam and Eve, the Toothfairy and Santy Claws from my cold dead hands.

[wolfen]

If the Garden of Eden is not entirely earthly, and if the physical universe is a "real-time" correlate of the thoughts and energies in that primary realm/dimension/plane, then a concurrent evolution of a physical universe and earth system to catch them when they fall makes sense. It would be an inevitable product of the development of these souls.

But there are more interesting and detailed explanations, as well.

[OreoCookie]

You could reconcile it by accepting Genisis (as the rest of your holy book of choice) as a collection of parables instead of taking everything literally.

[RAILhead]

I can't wait to see this evidence of which you speak.

[design219]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You could reconcile it by accepting Genisis (as the rest of your holy book of choice) as a collection of parables instead of taking everything literally.

Dead on. It is a neat story, but it is only a story. Take something from it, whether you are a devout believer or not.

[Big Mac]

Various theories propose to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the modern scientific model, if that's what one is interested in. Genesis contains an overview of creation with a focus on its purpose and end result, human beings; it's not supposed to be taken as a comprehensive text book guide to all life. Prior to the creation of humans, time was noted only by God, so it's possible (and theologically supported) for one to contend that His days of creation were much longer than the 24 hour day we know. But it's quite impossible to discuss this topic in a place like this one, where the doctrinal belief in evolution is so strongly ingrained.

[Luca Rescigno]

If I were religious, I'd think of it this way. The Bible is supposedly the "Word of God" but it was written by men, correct? Therefore, God didn't tell us literally what was happening, because it would be too complex for our limited brains to handle. Instead, he told the writers of the Bible stories that served as lessons that would be easily understandable by humans.

If God had given the original writers of the Bible a (theoretical) unified theory of physics, would they have known what to do with it? No. What if he told us he magically imbued some early proto-humans with souls, and referred to the ones he had selected as Adam and Eve? I'm not sure people would have accepted it, given the extremely limited knowledge of anthropology at the time. He tried to give us information we could actually use.

I don't actually believe in God, but if I did, this is how I think it would have happened. At this point I think we're beyond the point of needing to use the Bible as a scientifically accurate text, though some people can still derive spiritual meaning from it.

[Chongo]

one group of Christian astrophysicists and other scientists web site
Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

[MacosNerd]

Personally I don't
The Bible clearly states that we were created in the image of God. There's no way you can reconcile that theology with the theory of evolution.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

If I were religious, I'd think of it this way. The Bible is supposedly the "Word of God" but it was written by men, correct?

Many good points, but I wanted to comment on your premise. Christians believe Genesis was given through divine inspiration (I think). Jews believe Genesis was literally given, word for word, from God.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

it's not supposed to be taken as a comprehensive text book guide to all life. Prior to the creation of humans, time was noted only by God, so it's possible (and theologically supported) for one to contend that His days of creation were much longer than the 24 hour day we know.

Or that the method of creation was mere `pottery', I think we can agree that something more sophisticated is needed to make a human, but possibly beyond the grasp of human understanding.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But it's quite impossible to discuss this topic in a place like this one, where the doctrinal belief in evolution is so strongly ingrained.

Evolution is not a `doctrinal belief,' but a scientific theory that is supported by facts.

[RAILhead]

Personally, I'm still waiting for all those skeletons of mid-human/apes to surface. I mean, there has to be what, millions of them somewhere, right? We can find dinosaurs six ways to Sunday, but we can't find the mid-evolution creatures?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You could reconcile it by accepting Genisis (as the rest of your holy book of choice) as a collection of parables instead of taking everything literally.

Originally Posted by design219 

Dead on. It is a neat story, but it is only a story. Take something from it, whether you are a devout believer or not.

FTW.

It's easy to "reconcile" (although I don't see the need) if you don't take the Genesis account literally.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Personally, I'm still waiting for all those skeletons of mid-human/apes to surface. I mean, there has to be what, millions of them somewhere, right? We can find dinosaurs six ways to Sunday, but we can't find the mid-evolution creatures?

Tons of proto-humans have been found. Ever hear of Lucy? Neanderthals? Homo erectus? Homo habilis? Ever hear of the Leakeys?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Tons of proto-humans have been found. Ever hear of Lucy? Neanderthals? Homo erectus? Homo habilis? Ever hear of the Leakeys?

Apes, mostly (Neanderthals should not be on that list), and heavily distorted by those with strongly preconceived notions.

[RAILhead]

Tons? How many Australopithecus skeletons have been found?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

What faith? Faith in evolution or faith in Adam/Eve?

If you think evolution of humanity from one-cellers over animals... were fact , and you think the story of Adam and Eve to be real and not just some symbolic tale, how do you reconcile them?

Taliesin

If God got fed up with humanity tomorrow and picked one boy and one girl to start fresh with, smiting all the rest, they would be the next go-round of Adam and Eve wouldn't they? God would probably not tell them that his last attempt at humanity was dissatisfying, he would probably spin it in another way like "I created you from the clay." Arguably not a lie, since God created evolution in the first place, and humanity evolved from organisms that lived in clay. More poetic than the literal tale too. I think God would value a touch of poetry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Personally, I'm still waiting for all those skeletons of mid-human/apes to surface. I mean, there has to be what, millions of them somewhere, right? We can find dinosaurs six ways to Sunday, but we can't find the mid-evolution creatures?

You must be joking. You're expecting more skeletons from a single species which scraped by for 4 million years max, than from the collection of all 700-odd dinosaur species which, as they say, "ruled the earth" for about 200 million years. Maybe we'll catch up to dinos, fossil-wise, after humans have "ruled the earth" for another hundred million years or so. I'm sure we'll get there at a faster rate than dinos, all it takes to get fossilized is stupidity, and you know what they say, our only hope is to harness the power of stupid

[Luca Rescigno]

I know it's from Wikipedia, but still, whoever wrote this has a good point:

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record.

To state that there are "tons of dinosaur fossils" but "very few humans fossils" is entirely misleading. This might have something to do with dinosaurs consisting of an entire taxonomic superorder spanning over a hundred million of years and encompassing some 700 different species. By contrast, humans and proto-humans span only about two million years and you're looking at a mere handful of species. The conditions have to be just right for something to be fossilized. Furthermore, we know quite a bit about dinosaurs from what may be considered a rather small number of fossils. Take Tyrannosaurus, for instance. There are about 30 specimens of it, and that's one of the best-documented dinosaur genera in existence. I don't know exactly how many specimens we have of early humans, but if that number is 15-20 fairly complete specimens I'd say we're doing well. That doesn't mean we're going to know everything about them, but you can't just throw out that data.

EDIT: Beaten.

[RAILhead]

So that's evidence?

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apes, mostly (Neanderthals should not be on that list), and heavily distorted by those with strongly preconceived notions.

So basically what you're saying is that you have the authority to dismiss any and all "transitional" species between apes and humans as being simply "apes," thus winning you the argument?

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So that's evidence?

No, if you had actually read my post I didn't claim that the extraordinary conditions that must exist for the formation of fossils was evidence. I was just refuting your obviously incorrect claim that we don't know anything because there aren't enough fossils.

Where's your evidence anyway? What are you even arguing? Do you dispute the existence of species of which fossils have been found? Were they placed there by God as a test of our faith in the Genesis story? If you want to claim that then I suggest you leave the debate since you have nothing to contribute.

I'm not saying we know everything about these species, but there's certainly some information that the earth has preserved.

[Chongo]

platypus

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

So basically what you're saying is that you have the authority to dismiss any and all "transitional" species between apes and humans as being simply "apes," thus winning you the argument?

I dismiss it only for myself, based on my studies of the topic. I'm not asking anyone else to blindly accept my conclusion.

[SirCastor]

As others have said, it's easy to connect Adam and Eve and Evolution if you don't take Genesis literally. I have never considered the days discussed in the creation account to be literally 24 hours as we reckon them.

I'm still under the impression that Macro-Evolution (or moving from simple proteins to human beings) lacks significant evidence beyond a fossil record where people are just trying to connect dots (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no doubt that evolution occurs. We see it happen in labs with fruit flies. I think part of the trouble with this discussion is that either side is deep seated in mis-understanding. The religious right constantly points fingers at Charles Darwin for claiming that humans came from apes, but IIRC, Darwin never made such a claim. The supporters of the science community (I think very few scientists actually get involved in the discussion) claim irrefutable evidence, but as far as I know, we still have never seen a significant transformation of a species into another species. At best we have sub-species branching off.

As for Adam and Eve, the only clash we run into is if we assume that the creation was the end of development rather than simply a starting point. As I see it, God created the earth in one state, and set animals down upon it. The goal was not to destroy the animals, but to allow them to thrive. I don't see any reason that animals would not be able to adapt and change to their environment.

If we're talking about single-cell to modern human, I think most people have a problem with it because they don't like the idea of being associated with apes. We see apes as wild, without discipline, dumb, and ugly. We don't want to be told we come from dumb, crazy, ugly ancestors. At the end of the day though, I don't think it makes much difference. If God chose to place human beings down on the Earth fully formed, that's His prerogative. If He wanted to create humans through a different means, it is also Prerogative.
Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human story, and at the very least the relevant part.
If macro-evolution is the method, it doesn't make Christ any less the Savior. It doesn't make God any less God. The only thing that changed was your understanding of the way the universe works. If tomorrow you learned and understood how Christ could walk on water, it wouldn't make Christ any less than what He is, you just understand greater, and I think that's the whole point. To gain a greater and fuller understanding of what we've been given.

For the record, I do believe that Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth as human beings. If I'm incorrect, I hope I have the courage to understand and accept the reality.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I'm still under the impression that Macro-Evolution (or moving from simple proteins to human beings) lacks significant evidence beyond a fossil record where people are just trying to connect dots (correct me if I'm wrong).

You'll definitely draw the ire of most forum participants for that view, as I have many times before.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

We see apes as wild, without discipline, dumb, and ugly.

Funny, that's how I see most humans too.

BTW, even the Catholic Church doesn't believe Genesis literally.

Have a look at this guy, too.

Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[lpkmckenna]

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

Also, most Christians don't need to reconcile Adam and Even with evolution, since most of the religion doesn't require it. The proportion of Christians that are required by their chosen version of the Christian faith to absolutely and strictly believe Genesis represents the minority.

ie. There's lots of wiggle room in most forms of Christianity.

P.S. I think there is this myth out there, even amongst some Catholics, that Catholics must believe in Genesis literally. I know that some Catholic Sunday schools do teach it literally, but that doesn't mean it's actually the doctrine of the Catholic Church. And as you know, most Protestants don't necessarily believe in Genesis literally either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I'm still under the impression that Macro-Evolution (or moving from simple proteins to human beings) lacks significant evidence beyond a fossil record where people are just trying to connect dots (correct me if I'm wrong).

As you wish:
Chromosome fusion
This page draws out how we have found in one of our chromosomes the combination of two chimp chromosomes, including non-functioning now-extra telomeres and centromeres, showing that our 23 chromosomes came from the chimp's 24.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So that's evidence?

Good response.

I'm going to use this anytime someone points out some evidence against something I am arguing. "So that's evidence?" Perfect.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

Not to mention frogs falling from the sky, rivers turning to blood, seas parting, a worldwide flood, a giant boat that carried two of every animal, people turning to salt, etc., etc.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Tons? How many Australopithecus skeletons have been found?

I don't know what you require for tons, but thousands of pre-human hominid fossils have been found.

Are you in Texas? "Lucy" is doing a US tour right now, and I believe she's in Houston. You ought to go see her.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. I think there is this myth out there, even amongst some Catholics, that Catholics must believe in Genesis literally. I know that some Catholic Sunday schools do teach it literally, but that doesn't mean it's actually the doctrine of the Catholic Church. And as you know, most Protestants don't necessarily believe in Genesis literally either.

It's certainly out there, because my sense is that the vast majority of religious people believe that evolution is inconsistent with their religion. Otherwise it's hard to explain why a solid majority of Americans reject evolution. You're right that it's not doctrine in the Catholic church or any of the mainline Protestant churches, which makes it all the harder to understand why people believe it is. But they certainly seem to, that's for sure.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's certainly out there, because my sense is that the vast majority of religious people believe that evolution is inconsistent with their religion. Otherwise it's hard to explain why a solid majority of Americans reject evolution. You're right that it's not doctrine in the Catholic church or any of the mainline Protestant churches, which makes it all the harder to understand why people believe it is. But they certainly seem to, that's for sure.

Let's not forget that a "solid majority of Americans" would also fail a High School science test. Trying to omit the teaching of evolution from science classes doesn't help the matter either.

[RAILhead]

What I'm saying is that there doesn't seem to be much proto-fossil anything, and I can see how it could be crazy hard to find those short-lived (in Earth terms) species among the layers of the planet (as was posted earlier).

Personally, I do not believe we "came from the water" mainly because the odds of that happening are so infinitesimal that I cannot believe it possible without Divine intervention. Couple that with absolutely no proof that we came from single celled organisms, and there you have it. As for Adam and Eve, who said God placed them here tall, white, blonde, and blue-eyed? I have always felt God created Man separate from the animal kingdom, and part of that separation was that He gave us souls. What did we look like at that time? SImple-minded knuckle-draggers for all I know.

I believe Man has adapted to our environment just like we see adaptation today -- but I don't buy flat-out evolving from one species to another.

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What I'm saying is that there doesn't seem to be much proto-fossil anything, and I can see how it could be crazy hard to find those short-lived (in Earth terms) species among the layers of the planet (as was posted earlier).

Personally, I do not believe we "came from the water" mainly because the odds of that happening are so infinitesimal that I cannot believe it possible without Divine intervention. Couple that with absolutely no proof that we came from single celled organisms, and there you have it. As for Adam and Eve, who said God placed them here tall, white, blonde, and blue-eyed? I have always felt God created Man separate from the animal kingdom, and part of that separation was that He gave us souls. What did we look like at that time? SImple-minded knuckle-draggers for all I know.

I believe Man has adapted to our environment just like we see adaptation today -- but I don't buy flat-out evolving from one species to another.

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

Out of interest's sake, what do you make of our genetic similarities to our animal friends?

God is reusing design templates?

P.S. While it may be argued that it is reasonable to be a skeptic of much of evolutionary theory, one point that has to be considered is that "divine" intervention is not the only other conclusion. For example, someone may say it means that we must have been seeded here by another human race a la Star Trek or Stargate. Etc.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

Count me in as one of those faithful.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What I'm saying is that there doesn't seem to be much proto-fossil anything, and I can see how it could be crazy hard to find those short-lived (in Earth terms) species among the layers of the planet (as was posted earlier).

Personally, I do not believe we "came from the water" mainly because the odds of that happening are so infinitesimal that I cannot believe it possible without Divine intervention. Couple that with absolutely no proof that we came from single celled organisms, and there you have it. As for Adam and Eve, who said God placed them here tall, white, blonde, and blue-eyed? I have always felt God created Man separate from the animal kingdom, and part of that separation was that He gave us souls. What did we look like at that time? SImple-minded knuckle-draggers for all I know.

I believe Man has adapted to our environment just like we see adaptation today -- but I don't buy flat-out evolving from one species to another.

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

You make some valid points. But you have to remember that evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years. Who's to say that, given that amount of time, a prokaryote could not evolve into a eukaryote and that eukaryote could not evolve into a complex organism which then evolved into something else? It's hard to understand because we humans cannot comprehend this kind of time period. How do you know what the odds of something happening over hundreds of millions of years would be? How does anyone know?

Personally, I take the Genesis account as a story, nothing more. It's sole purpose is to try and give meaning to human existance and to try and incorporate diety into the origin of life, just like many other stories from other religions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

That's all I want to know..

Taliesin

It's allegory, much like the "wheels within wheels" spoken of in Ezekiel 1:15-17.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Personally I don't
The Bible clearly states that we were created in the image of God. There's no way you can reconcile that theology with the theory of evolution.

Yes, you can.

"Created in the image and likeness" refer to the formation and manifestation of the human soul (neshama) within a self-aware being.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

Or, you can set aside prejudice and understand how the Bible is constructed.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

And lets not forget all those pesky dinosaurs, oil and scientific tests.

But uh... ya... god did it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

And lets not forget all those pesky dinosaurs, oil and scientific tests.

But uh... ya... god did it.

**woosh**

[design219]

Facts and Faith.

Sounds like a good song title.

Could be a big hit.

Or not.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by design219 

Facts and Faith.

It's a good thing they aren't mutually exclusive.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or, you can set aside prejudice and understand how the Bible is constructed.

Oh yeah, this is so helpful...

What are the different valid methods used to interpret the Torah?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

Torah is G-d's wisdom. Intellect, by its very nature, allows for – and indeed demands - different avenues of understanding; how much more so when we are dealing with the infinite wisdom of the Infinite G-d.
Thus our sages tell us that the Torah can be interpreted in four different ways: peshat, remez, drush and sod.

1) Peshat is the simple interpretation of the Torah. When the verse says (Genesis 1:1) that "In the beginning G-d created the Heaven and Earth," it means exactly what it seems to mean.

2) Remez are the different hints and allusions which are contained within the Torah. One of the ways the Torah hints at something is through "gematryia (the numerical value of the Hebrew letters)." The gematriya of "beraishis bara (in the beginning He created)" is the same as "b'Rosh Hashanah nivra ha'olam (on Rosh Hashanah the World was created)!" (Baal Haturim on the verse).

3) Drush (or Midrash) expounds upon the deeper meaning of the verse. The Hebrew word for "in the beginning" is "beraishis." The midrash tells us that this word, can be split into two words - b' raishis. The Torah is telling us that the world was created for two ("b'") "raishis"es - which are the Jews and the Torah (see Rashi on the verse). Although this is not the simple interpretation of the word, nevertheless it is a true and valid way of understanding the Torah.

Torah is G-d's wisdom. Intellect, by its very nature, allows for – and demands - different avenues of understanding; how much more so when we are dealing with the infinite wisdom of the Infinite G-d
4) Sod (secret) is the esoteric, mystical part of Torah. The Tikunei Zohar says that the word beraishis can also be split into "bara shis (created [with] six)." This is because the world was created through G-d's six emotional powers: kindness, severity, beauty, victory, splendor and foundation.
Within these four methods of understanding Torah, there exist countless possible avenues of understanding. For example: There are many different ways to understand the Torah according to Peshat. That's why there are many Torah commentators who concentrate on Peshat (Rashi, Iben Ezra, Rashbam and many more) and they will very often (it seems, more often than not) disagree on the meaning of a verse. In fact, according to Kabbalah there are 600,000 ways to understand Peshat, 600,000 ways to understand Remez, 600,000 ways to understand Drush, and 600,000 ways to understand Sod!

However, when it comes to the Halachah, there is only one truth. For whereas Torah is G-d's wisdom which, as abovementioned, allows for different opinions, Halacha is (not intellect, but rather) G-d's will. And will is absolute, there are no two ways to look at things.

Any insight in Torah is acceptable as long as it (makes sense and) does not contradict any of our fundamental beliefs.

Our sages tell us that "any chiddush (novel idea) which a reputable disciple will ever come up with was already given to Moses by Sinai." Moses might not have heard this specific idea which the rabbi living thousands of years later has just thought of, but the basis of this idea was already given by Sinai.

G-d gave us the tools to delve into the words of Torah and reveal the divine wisdom hidden therein.

So I'm "prejudiced" because I validly interpret the Torah at the "peshat" level? I think you're confused.

Regarding the "esoteric" interpretation: an 14th century book like the Zohar doesn't shed any light on the meaning of the Torah. It merely tells us what a 14th century Jew thought about the Torah.

For a more rational viewpoint, here's the opinion of a 1st century Jew with more credibility: Philo on the Creation.

BTW, I have a pretty good idea about how the Bible was constructed: different oral traditions were assembled and redacted over time. The JEPD theory is pretty well known.