Re: [asa] No Adam?

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Mon May 04 2009 - 16:58:51 EDT

> Since I accept evolution, I think it follows there was no Adam- no first
> human.  No fall from grace- the sin nature we have was inherited- it is
> surely the “sins of the flesh.”  Our flesh needs to be redeemed.

It's been thoroughly gone through fairly recently on the list, but
evolution does not automatically entail no Adam. I agree that the
most important point is that we are fallen and need to be redeemed,
rather than the exact details of how we got there. However, it is
possible to posit an Adam (or multiple ones) in an evolutionary

Not asserting that Bernie's model is bad, just that it's not the only one.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 4 17:01:26 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 04 2009 - 17:01:26 EDT