Adam and Evo?

“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may have even been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upont this organism, both on its psychology and its physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgements of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past….”

Perhaps to the astonishment of many people, the above quote is from none other than C.S. Lewis himself, as recorded in his book “The Problem of Pain.” In searching for a satisfactory synthesis between the scientific and Christian worldviews, I have encountered major difficulties when it comes to reconciling what is known about human evolution with the Christian understanding of “the fall” of man, or rather simply the notion that something is fundamentally wrong with ourselves and our world. In this sense, the words here of C.S. Lewis rang forth as music to my ears, as I had not yet considered the metaphorical proposition put forth here by Lewis regarding the creation of goodness and the subsequent rapid unraveling of such. However, ideas that sound good are often not as pleasing once probed deeper- this is no exception. Although a metaphorical reading of the Garden creation account may shine on the surface, I do think much grime resides beneath the glitter.

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould is widely known for his “rewind the tape” statement that basically says, rewind the tape of time, and given the chance nature of selection and environmental conditions, evolution would have proceeded much differently, probably not even giving rise to intelligent, self-conscious beings. Whether or not this is the case, one thing is clear: the rise of modern man was the result of a long and winding road. That said, from a theistic perspective, an evolutionary view of the world can be quite a beautiful thing- it’s as though the entire universe and, later, world prepared itself for hundreds of millions of years for our arrival. When humans came, we were met with a hospitable oasis of vibrancy and life. As Lewis indicates in the above quote, although our bodies may have originated as a result of natural processes, perhaps our “souls” didn’t. Maybe this is where the metaphorical Genesis story comes into play.

But, maybe not. Despite the beauty and grandeur in this harmonized view, for many reasons, an evolutionary view of the world tends to be in conflict with specific understandings of traditional Christianity. I will proceed to lay out what I see as the major points of contention:

1. Human evolution wouldn’t have stopped with the physical body, but would continue to shape the mind, or rather brain, which yields what we deem the mind. If the mind is subject to selective pressures as well, then every emotion and desire we feel has a natural source. Many people don’t have a great problem in attributing hunger, lust, and fear to evolutionary causes; however, bring faith, hope, and morality into the evolutionary framework and prepare for a public backlash. Yet, if some emotions are products of selection, then others must be as well- we can’t selectively pick and choose which are God-given and which are natural.

2. To declare evolution present in every realm of life, it seems odd that religion alone, specifically the religion of Israel, escapes the trend. The logical understanding of an evolutionary view is to say that religion doesn’t escape; rather, it too is a product of evolutionary underpinnings, commonly thought to have proceeded along the path from primitive animism (everything is god) to pantheism (there are many gods) to henotheism (there are many gods, with one supreme, especially in a tribal/territorial sense- a position often seen in the Hebrew Scriptures and even upon which the entire covenant of Israel resides: that Israel will not recognize the other gods but rather will worship the one true God) to finally, monotheism (there is only one God).

3. An evolutionary view of the world makes the possiblity of a literal Adam and Eve nil. This is the largest of all barriers between an integrated acceptance of modern science and Christianity. I have referred to Collins’ book “The Language of God” a lot recently in my postings. It is a great book that I would highly recommend to anyone. In fact, I was very pleased to learn that a contempory issues sunday school class in a local Presbyterian church even did a study on this book! However, despite the clarity Collins shares regarding issues of origins, he falls prey to a fallacy that everyone before him, even Lewis, has committed. Put simply, if the “fall” was not a literal historial event, there is no existing problem among us that requires a solution.

 If Adam and Eve didn’t exist in actual history, then there is no means by which to establish a “curse” upon humanity. Despite what Lewis says in the above quote regarding a possible non-literal eating of the fruit, if that event didn’t actually happen, then Christianity has lost a basis. Viewing this action as a metaphor is something that Paul certainly did not do; rather, he insisted that this actual event by an actual man was the very disease that another actual man, Jesus, came to remedy. Of course, I think it a problem to assume Paul’s work inerrant- something he probably never intended to become of his occasional letters- and find it amazing that Christianity has allowed Paul’s writing so much authority, even to a level equal with the words of Jesus himself. Yet, this idea of an actual disobedient Adam was, as far as we know, a common view held at the time of Christianity’s origin. At any rate, if Adam didn’t literally eat a fruit in disobedience, everything about sin crumbles. It pisses a lot of people off to be told that they are a sinner- totally depraved- all based upon a man that never existed commiting an action that never happened against a God that didn’t (?) exist.

So many individuals say that we only have to start with the cross and then proceed to warn of the foolishness of getting too bogged down with subsidiary complications of evolution and such. They say that it’s all about Jesus. Yet, the question of our origins is of supreme importance. Evolution makes an actual Adam in an actual Eden all but impossible. And, if there was not a first Adam, we certainly didn’t need a second one.

No one among us can dispute that something seems to be fundamentally wrong with our world, but more primarily with ourselves. I certainly feel like we are “fallen” in that we aren’t living up to our full potential as humanity- indeed, the earth even groans as in pain. And too, we all desire to be made new, we thirst for redemption. But all of this is just spiritual fluff if it can’t be tied down to an actual happening. Without a historical basis, we are forced to seek another reason and solution for our current state. I think that much of the Bible is written metaphorically to deal with the very reality that we find ourselves in. Yet, metaphors are tricky. If we are to claim the Garden story as metaphorical, what else in the Bible might be so? The flood? The exodus? The resurrection? This is a problem, but a problem that is not to be dealt with by uncritically dismissing the evidence of science. Transform, harmonize, or divide.