Re: [asa] promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution for Adam)

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Fri Dec 12 2008 - 12:12:35 EST

Hello again George,
"the model of original sin developed in an earlier article and summarized here does not require that there was no historical Adam." - G. Murphy
It seems to me that you are leaving enough room for variation in your position, George, so as not to commit a 'gap' argument. This most recent post of yours brings our perspectives closer together (they were less close after reading the two articles you again linked to that are in PSCF), though perhaps you are more liberal-scientistic leaning and I am more traditional-philosophistic leaning. It is enough to acknowledge that you leave room for a historical Adam and do not dismiss the possibility entirely. Perhaps is this one reason why you don't wish to carry the label 'theistic evolutionist', that is, evolutionary biological theories only rarely speak of Adam and Eve as any kind of 'reality'? I know that you are not a biologist, so this may not even be a relevant question...
George writes: "Of course evolution is a phenomenon of populations, not individuals, but mutations that spread through populations can begin with an individual.  You hear geneticists talk about when the gene for red hair, e.g., arose.  We don't know when the first group of hominids that should be considered human in a theological sense arose."
As you are probably well aware, George, there is much debate amongst biologists, naturalists and other natural scientists about whether evolution is focussed thoretically on individuals or on groups. The notion that a mutation, variation or adaptation *can* 'begin with an individual' sounds loose to me as a sociologist, since most human-social changes begin with individuals (the *most* makes my claim also soft! ;-). The gene-centric in biology model for example differs from the populations-first approach. You seem to be suggesting there is no debate or that it was already settled in biology-genetics fields. Is this a fair assessment of your position? (cf. D.S. and E.O. Wilson, "Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology," 2006)
Later you write:
"More generally, it's a mistake to tie theology to any particular scientific theory - the mistake many scholastics made with Aristotle."
Yes indeed, and this should lend credence to leaving open the *possibility* that a 'single couple' was indeed the source from which all present-day humans asended - a 'unified humanity' perspective, if you like, rather than a disunified 'multi-regional model' (see link below). Does this mean that you do not necessarily tie your theology to a group of first humans rather than to a pair of first humans? 
Personally, I'm fine with the latter such position (i.e. a single human original pair) as it seems to me theologically responsible to tradition and consistent with Scripture. Also, it is not only the Judeo-Christian tradition (including all three major branches, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant), but also the Islamic tradition and Baha'i. A bid to 'de-emphasize' Adam and Eve from the historical record is a bold move that 'science' moreso than 'religion' seems intent to make. Is it not the scientist in you speaking George about the 'almost certain group origin of humans' (my phrase) and not the theologian?
and also a less academic contribution on 'unified humanity':
Warm regards,
  __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 12 12:13:22 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 12 2008 - 12:13:22 EST