Re: [asa] Introducing Sin (once again)

From: Keith Miller <>
Date: Wed Oct 07 2009 - 12:23:35 EDT

Bernie asked:

 Important: Suppose we grant that humans biologically evolved from an
> apelike creature (I don’t care if either God-guided or fully gifted
> evolution is assumed).
> Step 1. Therefore: There was no ‘first human.’ (This is because evolution
> works over populations over time in a continuum.)
> Does any biology expert want to debate this (Dr. Campbell)?

 The question is whether it is appropriate to define "human" in biological
terms, sociological terms, or something else.

From a biblical perspective I think that the proper context is the meaning
of the "image of God." I do not think that this has anything to do with
biology, sociology, or even psychology. I understand the "image of God" as
fundamentally relational. It has to do with our relationship to God, to one
another, and to the rest of creation. It is these relationships with which
the Bible is concerned, and it is these relationships that are damaged in
the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

Now it is entirely consistent with all scientific evidence to argue that God
was revealed to a single pair of individuals to whom the "image" was
imparted (who were first placed consciously in relationship to God.) This
is not a position that I think is demanded of the text, nor one that I
currently hold. However, it can be held without doing any violence to the
scientific evidence. In this case there would be a first "human" in the
theological sense.

I really think that this is fundamentally a theological questions not a
scientific one. That which makes us in the image of God is not something
accessible to science - again, it is relational.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:23:35 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 07 2009 - 12:24:15 EDT