Re: Dating Adam

Pat Pun (
Thu, 9 May 1996 17:36:17 -0500 (CDT)

On Thu, 9 May 1996, Dick Fischer wrote:

> Personally, I believe it was theologians primarily who got us into this
> mess and it won't be theologians, sitting in their ivory towers, who
> will get us out. For every one Scripture verse that could be
> interpreted that Adam may have started the human race, I can sight three
> that suggest just the opposite.

We have to contend with Paul, no the theologians. If we accept the
inspiration of the Scripture, what Paul says is inspired. No other
Scriptures have contradicted him, as far as I know.

> Since ancient history and science agree with the majority of Scripture
> verses I'll acquiesce to the data and state that Adam of Genesis appears
> in history too late to be Homo number one. Just as the "last Adam"
> (Christ) was not the last of our species, neither was "the first Adam"
> the start of our species. The parallel is preserved if such is the
> case, and jeopardized if one wishes to argue that this phrase places
> Adam at the apex of humanity.
Should we find our meaning of life from Science or from Theology. Of
course we would like to find it from both. But ultimately, our meaning of
existence depends on knowing who we are. Calvin pointed it out succinctly
that without knowing God we cannot know ourselves.I submit that our ultimate
meaning can only be derived from Special Revelation in the Scripture and
Science is only a SERVANT in helping us to find ourselves in God. (Rm. 1:

> Please ask your theologian colleagues to explain processed pseudogenes
> and a retroviral sequence in man's DNA that is shared with our biological
> cousins, and then explain how Adam was specially created, as stated in the
> Bible, and then have Adam start the human race. It's a no go pure and
> simple.
There are many examples of molecular sequence data that group human
beings into many other lineages. If we take them to be indicators, we can
claim many more cousins than the chimps. Please see a synopsis of my
brief reasoning from moloecular biology that I sent to Kwyleung in answer
to an evolutionist James Valentine's blind faith in moleclular biology to
explain the EVOLUTION BIG BANG in the Cambrian Explosion and I am
forwarding to you. I am planning to write a paper to justify POLYPHYLETIC
PUNCTUALISM according to molecular biology.


Pattle Pun,
Dept. Biology,
Wheaton College,
Wheaton, IL 60187