John Bloom from Biola University reports that some theistic evolutionists are questioning whether Adam and Eve were historical. He asks, why are they questioning the Bible when the evidence for Darwinianism is getting weaker?
Darwinists do not have a clue how life first got started “by itself,” as was well documented in the recent movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The genetic code, “the language of life,” turns out not to be a “frozen accident” in DNA, as Francis Crick proposed, but is designed to minimize the mutational change in proteins. We recently discovered that the male Y chromosome between humans and chimps is only about 50 percent similar, and that overall, human and chimp DNA are only about 75 percent similar, not the 98 percent value which we have heard for decades. An explosion of biochemical data over the past 10 years showing the unimaginable complexity of living things has overwhelmed the Darwinian story that somehow everything gradually mutated and was somehow selected, so that here we are. For example, Darwinists did not predict that “junk DNA” and “pseudogenes” — long held to be useless leftovers from the evolutionary process — play critical roles in cell regulation, nor did they anticipate the sheer genius of alternative gene splicing.
A second issue is whether this new, radical theistic evolution view makes theological sense. If God did not even guide the evolutionary process, how is God sovereign over his creation? Did God intentionally make us in his image? If humans gradually evolved, and our sinfulness is merely the inherent selfishness resulting from a Darwinian process, then human history is progress, not corruption, so shouldn’t humans ultimately be good enough not to need a savior? Given Psalm 19:1–3 and Romans 1:20, why must we assume that God’s actions and attributes are absolutely undetectable by science? And if we think that Adam and Eve are mythical, who else is? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Samuel? David? Such skepticism towards the historical accounts in early Genesis (and elsewhere by extension of the same methods) is typical of liberal theology, which historically evangelicals opposed. In fact, many of these same issues began poisoning mainline seminaries a century ago, and led to Biola’s founding.
This is not the time to be deciding what beliefs we should give up in order to help prop up a failing vision in science.