Last week in my post 3 Reasons Why Science Will Never Disprove God, commenter Jim Williams questioned how I reconciled my belief that God could have used biological processes to “physically” create humans, 
while still believing Adam and Eve to be a literal couple. Jim writes:
I have no idea how you reconcile a literal Adam and Eve (modern humans) being created, when the scientific record shows many steps on the road to Homo Sapiens.
As I’ve said elsewhere, conceding evolutionary process is a tactical move on my part. I’m just not sure anyone can claim with absolute certainty what happened a long, long time ago. And I don’t believe the Bible specifies. So I try to remain agnostic on certainty either way. Nevertheless, I don’t think conceding biological evolution contradicts the biblical record or undermines its central message in any way.
I wanted to take a minute to answer Jim’s question and explain why I believe this.
There’s no logical contradiction between believing that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), and the claim that, when this earth arrived, species evolved by natural selection. As I responded to Jim, the important issue is that
Man is not an accident formed by random biological processes. The real bottom line issue is not the earth’s age, but the earth’s origin.
Let’s be clear: The reason many Christians reject evolutionary assumptions is because of HOW evolutionists wield them. Evolution (both the term and the process) is often used to explain not just how species developed, but how the universe came into existence. What many Christians hedge against is not that apes and humans might be somehow related, but the idea that
- Men are still apes, and
- Men and apes are products of pure Chance.
But back to my main point. The real issue isn’t HOW the human body came into existence, but how the human soul did. Peter Kreeft writes,
“…there is no logical contradiction between the Bible’s claim that the human soul (the “image of God”) is “breathed” (“spirited”) into us from God, and evolution’s claim that our body evolved from lower forms.” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p. 219)
In fact, Scripture might even suggest such a “dual origin.” In Genesis 1:24, God is recorded as commanding, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures.” Question: How does “the earth” bring forth living creatures? However you choose to answer that, don’t miss the main point of that account:
Humans are both dust and divinity, made of earth and heaven.
God formed man from the earth and then breathed into him the breath of life. Man became something that natural processes could NEVER make him. Something inherently unique, light years beyond elks and orangutangs. Might I suggest, this is the biggest problem for the naturalist.
G.K. Chesterton lays out this argument in classic fashion in his book The Everlasting Man. He notes that the sudden appearance of art sets Man apart from animals:
“…the simple truth is that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man.”
However one wants to conjecture we became human (whether through biological evolution or divine fiat), we must concede a great “division and disproportion” between humans and animals. Or as Chesterton puts it
“…the more we really look at man as an animal, the less he will look like one.”
We appreciate beauty. We instinctively know what’s Right and Wrong. We create great works of art. We build machines for exploration. We develop medicines to heal. We erect hospitals and museums and observatories. We establish charities. We contemplate the origins and existence of the Cosmos. We fall in love.
Humans are as far away from simians as ants are to archangels.
Darwin famously speculated a “Missing Link” to bridge the divide between apes and men. Truth is, that bridge may not be a species at all, but a Being. A benevolent Superior Intelligence who reached into the explosion of flora and fauna and did something to change the course of cosmic history — He infused His image into clay.
As I often do while reading your blog, Mike, I find myself nodding and neatly storing away in my brain the very efficient and descriptive turns of phrase that you use. I only wish I had a blog of my own that I could cross-promote!
I have closely examined in my life all the things you point out here. One doesn’t have to be a philosopher to wonder WHY we have the capacity to consider our place in the universe, if our lives here are random and brief and pointless.
I’ve been pretty open about the fact that I am not “saved”. I also have tried to separate myself out from the athiest crowd, because:
1. It’s not accurate, as I understand atheism.
a. I am not convinced that Man has no Soul.
2.It’s important to me, since I share myself publicly with so many people.
You have put your finger on the issue, and your examples resonate. One only needs to look into the eyes of a child to feel close to the “magic” that is being human. I have 4 of them in my house. It is their love that prods me on my “search”.
In a conversation with you once, I told you that I see evidence of spiritual influence literally EVERYWHERE I look in my life. I remain skeptical, and sarcastic (as is my nature), but ultimately I believe my eyes. Science is real. The relationship between species on our planet is real. Spiritual influence is ALSO real. I don’t mean to use that term as some kind of weaselly Unitarian motto. I simply don’t know how else to describe my own experience.
Thanks, Mike, for reassuring me (and everyone else) that science is not a true barrier to finding a belief in God.
That’s very kind of you. While reading your comment I thought about a quote in my sidebar: “The doubts of some are more indicative of a love for truth than the beliefs of others.” Even though we disagree on a lot, Jim, I trust that “a love for truth” will be what continues to drive both of us.
All I’m gonna say is I so need to blog on this…
When I started writing, my husband assumed I was going to write a book about Creation science. Yep, I was that into researching it. (But without the PhD and the giant platform…)
Anyway, again, Mike, I need to recommend the book “Darwinian Fairytales” by David Stove. It is not biological/geological/scientific–it is sociological and I think you’d really enjoy it. I think much of it twists the same ways your mind does :).
Well done, Mike. Among other good points, I agree that no one really knows exactly what happened “in the beginning.” God has told us all we need to know. And I like your distinction between body and soul. A very important distinction with respect to our being “in the image of God.”
Are you familiar with Hugh Ross and the crowd at reasons.org? Much good material there, usually well documented and presented.
Again, well done.
Humans are divinity? No.
To further clarify, being made in the image of the Divine means that we have a soul eternal and a spiritual hunger to converse with the divine.
We are not divine. That is hubris.
“dust and divinity” – poetry KC, poetry
Sorry, but no. Poetic license doesn’t extend to covering major heresy.
Then what is the “breath of God” breathed into Adam? I can think of nothing else other than divine life, true life that Jesus promised all who come to Him, the abiding Holy Spirit of God.
Note, this does not make us divine like God and equal to him, but if He lives in us and us in Him as Scriptures proclaim, then the image means we were created to also, as it says, to have His likeness, His divine life in us. Which was lost at the fall and Jesus restores. It is that divine life in us that makes us different from the animals. Only man, of all the created beings, received the breath of life from God.
God’s image wasn’t lost at the fall. Sin doesn’t mar God’s image. What is your textual support of this idea?
http://blogginoutloud.blogspot.com/2012/10/sin-did-not-mar-gods-image.html
As to your question, yes, when God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life it is indeed a way of separating us from the beasts, but that isn’t what made us “living beings.” This English phrase is often interpreted to mean “eternal” – but that’s not right, the “living being” of 2.7 is the same phrase as “living creature” of 2.19. That is, we share with the beasts of the field a creaturely status. The breath of life is simply an idiom that points to our animation – but what’s different is that we got a divine mouth-to-mouth and the beasts simply come alive at God’s command.
Now as to our potentially eternal status, Adam and Eve were in the garden with the tree of life but didn’t eat of that tree before getting kicked out. They/we are potentially eternal, not ontologically eternal. The Holy Spirit wasn’t permanently indwelling them (or anyone in the OT). It is only through Christ that we have the offer of the tree of life again (and it will be in the new garden giving life to the nations). With God’s Holy Spirit we will live eternally.
No, it doesn’t mar the image, but it did lose the likeness. We were created in both the image and likeness of God. God told Adam, “The very day” he ate of the tree, he would die. What life died when Adam ate from the tree? Spiritual life. And the loss of that spiritual life would have ended biological life as well had it not been that God allowed all of creation to fall with Adam. Otherwise as one man put it, the very air around Adam would have fled from him.
But something really did die on that “very day.” True life. It is very much that the life God breathed into man is what made him different from the animals. Yes, we are different in other ways as well, image wise. But just as the plants created on day 3 had one foot in the inanimate life, and another in biological life, man’s image was created on day 6 to have both created life and divine life, and by God we’re considered “dead” without it.
The Hebrew word for the “breath of life” is the same word for spirit. God breathed into them His spirit, is a valid translation and what else is God going to breath into them? It is one thing to give biological life, another to bring the life of God into a person. It was this life that Adam and Eve lost at the fall. They lost the likeness to God, but not the image. But they were dead. Which is why Jesus could say to the people that He had come to give them true life, divine life, abiding in them. Not only restoring what Adam lost, but granting eternal life. Which is why the Tree of Life makes a reappearance in the New Jerusalem in Revelations.
The Tree of Life is Christ. We were created to have immortal life, but not eternal life. IOW, people in Hell will still live of a sorts forever, but be totally separated from true life that Christ gives. They will live in death.
And is why St. Peter can say, “whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust.” (2Pe 1:4 ASV)
It is because of that lack of partaking of the divine nature that we escape corruption. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.
Good discussion. I simply disagree with you on certain points and this in turn leads to our different views. I don’t believe we were created as immortal beings – potentially immortal, yes. Adam & Eve would certainly die…but I’m not sure the text requires that death be that day. It was merely a consequence of their disobedience…they would not get to eat of the tree of life. And even now, if we don’t eat of this tree (Christ) we will die – ie, we are not immortal. Those who reject heaven are ultimately destroyed, imo. On our Christology, we agree so I know our differences aren’t deal breakers (I wouldn’t think so). I enjoy the dialog; we’ll have to carry on these thoughts in a different forum, I imagine.
“species evolved by natural selection”
Have to make a comment about this statement… Evolution is a change on a biological level, while natural selection is a change on an environmental level.
This seems to be a point that is often misstate and confused.
Natural selection is a process we can scientifically prove today. Evolution, not so much.
And as far as I know, natural selection is not the cause of evolution, which was thought to be so many years ago.
Sorry to be nit picky.
JQ
“Natural selection is a process we can scientifically prove today. Evolution, not so much.”
Yes! Thank you! 🙂
The latest book I have read from Evolution’s pedestal child, Richard Dawkins, does not draw this distinction. The terminology of evolution has evolved a great deal since Darwin’s Origins. He even emphasizes that Christians believe in natural selection and isolated genetic mutation, but reject evolution only because they “don’t truly understand” how they are ultimately the same thing.
He makes me shake my head a lot.
“The reason many Christians reject evolutionary assumptions is because of HOW evolutionists wield them.”
Yeah, this is the big problem. It’s not just a matter of scientific integrity. Too often evolutionists seek to build a counter-religion based off of it, extending the idea of natural selection into areas and places where it doesn’t belong. Like evolutionary psychology. Less a description of things and more an explanation of everything.
Another great post, Mike. And let’s not forget that fossilized, human footprints have been discovered along with dinosaur footprints. Many so called anomalies have been discovered, which suggest humans have been around nearly as long as the dinosaurs.
Nothing of the sort, Bob. That, to me, is simply “head in the sand” wishful thinking. It’s exactly what Mike and I have been discussing. Sorry to be so artlessly sarcastic.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
I’m surprised not more people have called you on your saying that humans are divine. Although I believe you simply used unfortunate phrasing, it’s still is far more troubling than arguments on evolutionary creationism.
I just assumed people were allowing me to play my frequent Curmudgeonly Editor Is A Cranky AssBasket role.
Yeah. I don’t believe humans are gods, but that that they bear the stamp of divinity.
I was pretty certain you didn’t mean that humans are divine. But it is a bold/highlighted sentence.
I just assumed that it was either an attempt to be poetic that erred theologically (might I suggest Humans are the dust engraved into eternity by the Divine…or similar) or the influence of your Mormon relations. Either way, I couldn’t let it pass. Especially following hard on the heels of our Gnostic Mystic Luciferian conversation, since Human Divinity is a favourite football for them to spike in the Heresy Touchdown Follies.
Well then, someone needs to explain. I feel like I do when physicists begin to talk about string theory. Why is it heretical to imply that humans are made of Earth and Heavens. Earth is our body, and Heavens is our soul.
This kind of reminds me of an almost-argument I read recently when someone posted JESUS IS LOVE on facebook. There was a spirited debate about whether that saying was grammatically, spiritually, and/or biblically correct.
I took it poetically.
I think Mike is being poetic, too, as Katherine said above. It was the “divinity” word that tripped me up. In Christianity, humans aren’t considered to be divine. They are considered to be made in God’s image and have a great need for God because they lack divinity. This sets Christianity apart from many other (especially earth) religions. But, as Christians do, they view the made-in-God’s-image differently. Some say humans are utterly depraved w/o even a spark of God in them; others believe humans can’t be utterly depraved, or how would they recognize the goodness of God? That parts really just a semantic argument–and as I said, I’m pretty sure Mike was being poetic about man being made in God’s image. But there are some issues that will get you ostracized from mainstream Christianity, and claiming humans have the potential for divinity is one of them because it turns humans into idols. I don’t go around ostracizing people. I just want to know what they mean and where they’re coming from–hence, I ask. And, btw, thank you for asking, Jim. p.s. Jesus is love is just an extension of the Bible verse that says God is love (as far as I’m concerned). But, yeah, Christians will argue.
I think that’s why it popped out to me–because of the gnostic conversation from earlier.
I don’t think it’s so easy to dismiss the divinity claim. It’s a scary claim, but Scripture very distinctly indicates that in the new heaven and new earth that humans will share in the inheritance of Christ – will be His bride – will be, themselves, the body of Christ, being made one flesh with their heavenly Groom. And yet, this is impossible unless we, so to speak, vanish into Christ, fully submitting ourselves into Him. A sort of Divine absorption. I think the mystery of our relationship with Christ is as inexplicable as the God Man – God who is not contained being walled into flesh – God who is eternal dying on a cross – God who is omnipresent walking muddy roads 2,000 years ago to get from one place to the next.
Above all, Jesus “being” is impossible on so many levels and yet he “was.”
His own words along with passages in Revelation also suggest impossible things for the divine destiny of man. While we may be destined for a type of “divinity” it isn’t one that is unique from God, it only happens when we are IN Christ. He makes his divinity our own.
And that’s the part where my head blows up.
In traditional Christianity, man does not become a god, does not take on the divine nature replacing the human nature. But he becomes like God. The old analogy is the sword in the fire. Hold the sword in the fire for a while, and it takes on the characteristics of light and heat like fire. The fire’s energy “lives” in it, and it can burn and glow like fire. But the sword is still the sword, and the fire is still the fire, and the two cannot be mixed, despite the fact that the sword is in effect participating in the fire. So man participates in the divine, by Christ being in us and us in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But no, we don’t become, by nature, god either.
So a lot depends on how you interpret that phrase as to whether it is wrong or not.
Not sure why I pluralized Heaven, but I did it twice. (?)
Because it’s pluralised in Genesis’ creation account, prolly.
I’ve always wondered why it’s assumed that when the creation of Adam is told in Genesis chapter two, it’s a backtrack to the six day when God created man.
“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.” Gen 1:27
From Genesis Chapter Two.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
First of all, if God created the earth mature, as some argue, then shouldn’t there be vegetation. This is the account of Adam’s creation, and this seems to imply that the seeds of vegetation are there, but no vegetation, except for maybe what’s in the garden.
Perhaps the creation of Adam was a separate distinction than the creation of man referred to in chapter one. Perhaps that distinguishing factor occurred when this happened, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
I’m not trying to argue one way or the other, but just to point out that there is room to keep one’s mind open.
And Mike you’re right, evolution in its most basic meaning, to change, does not disprove God. Its a complete misapplication when its suggested so. It’s like saying that the transformation a cake makes while baking in the oven disproves the existence of a baker.
>>Perhaps that distinguishing factor occurred when this happened, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
I don’t believe this is a distinguishing feature of humanity. In fact, I think it’s the opposite – the point is that God makes human beings from the same stuff as cattle and beasts: dirt (2:7 and 2:19). We’re all “creatures” – the term that’s translated as “living being” in 2:7 is the same term rendered “living creature” in 2:19. God’s breathing into us is not a reference to our spiritual nature, imo.
“It’s like saying that the transformation a cake makes while baking in the oven disproves the existence of a baker.”
Love that!
(Hi, Shawna!)
Man is of heaven and earth…what a great opening sentence… gives me the shivers. I’ll let you keep it. lol Looking forward to reading your books, whether I win or not.
This article desperately needs some fact checking on your behalf mike. In no way shape or form is natural selection random. Another false statement you was something to the effect that evolution explains or sometimes trys to explain how the universe came into existence. Evolution strictly deals with life after it came into existence andif you claim otherwise i would live to see a peer reviewed scientific journal that states this.people like you are the reason why ignorance is passed down.people like you, relate to you and are fans of your writing so of course they’re going to believe your lies. I have no problems with evolution being contested, but it’s wrong and annoying when people do it in a dishonest way.