Re: Origins and the Fall

Glenn R. Morton (
Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:15:04 -0500

At 09:36 PM 6/30/98 +1000, Jon Warren wrote:
>As I understand it, you believe that Eve was created miraculously
>from one of Adam's ribs? Why do you go half-way in accepting that
>up until Adam evolution could happen 'naturally", but then at that
>point have God step in and act miraculously, firstly to resuscitate
>Adam and then to create Eve. What is to stop me from assuming that
>mankind evolved in the same way that all other creatures did, without
>divine intervention?

I will be real honest here about this. Much of what I wanted to do with
this is to give the Young-earth creationists what they want, i.e. a
historical Bible, but at the same time give them what they need--acceptance
of modern science. One of the most effective objections against evolution
as far as the antievolutionists are concerned is (Maatman is not a YEC

"The description in Genesis 2 of the creation of Eve provides two
indications that the first human beings did not descend from animals.
First, no animal could be a helper for Adam. Second, Eve came from the
body of a male, not a female, as would have been the case if she had
descended from animals. The priority of Adam in time indicated by this
passage cannot be merely a symbolic priority. This priority was certainly
not symbolic for Paul, who said, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve"
(ITim. 2:13).
"Another indication that Adam and Eve did not have animal forebears is
the fact that they died because of their sin. All animals are mortal. If,
as theistic evolutionists claim, God transformed animals into Adam and Eve,
then they, too, would have been mortal even before they sinned." ~ Russell
Maatman, The Impact of Evolutionary Thought: A Christian View, (Souix
Center: Dordt College Press, 1993), p.197

Thus, I wanted a way to answer that objection, because I felt that the
anti-evolutionists were honoring the Biblical data better on this issue
than theistic evolutionists. And I agree that the Bible clearly presents
something special in the creation of man.

>Secondly, how does the Fall fit in to your scenario? As I see it,
>if we evolved from animals then surely it is reasonable to expect us
>to behave like them too? This doesn't mean that the law of the jungle
>prevails - Frans de Waal has written an excellent book about the origins
>of morality among apes. Why do we have to propose a Fall to explain the
>behaviour of the human race?

I think that the Fall was like any sin we commit. When we sin we are
making a choice to behave like spiritual men and women or to behave as
animals. Animals have little ability to delay satisfaction. So stealing
is just fine. They have no reason not to lie to avoid punishments (and
animals have been seen engaging in what we would call lying. They have no
qualms about satisfying any sexual desire at any time.

Adam's choice is the same as ours. Behave like men or behave like animals.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information