In regard to point 5) (see the previous post) I agree with Scot that I don’t think the later Christian notion of seminal transmission of a sin nature from Adam is a necessary conclusion from what the Bible says. It is the curse that affects the whole human tribe, not Adam’s sin nature. 6) since all have sinned and lack God’s glory now, it is not necessarily the case that without the historical Adam we don’t need the Gospel of... Read more

For me, where the problem really comes in in Scot’s presentation is on pp. 107-08 where Scot says that when the adjective ‘historical’ is attached to Adam and Eve it means ALL of the following things: 1) 2 actual persons named Adam and Eve existed suddenly as a result of God’s creation; 2) those two persons have a biological relationship with all subsequent human beings; 3) their DNA is our DNA; 4)those two died and brought death into the world;... Read more

I must admit, I am less willing to critique all the intelligent design folks the way Venema does at the end of his last chapter. I think there is far more to some of their arguments than some would allow. Some of these folks are actual scientists who are also people of faith and are struggling to make sense of both the Bible and evolution. Good for them. We need more, not less efforts to bring the two disciplines together... Read more

THE THEOLOGY CHAPTERS Scot’s first chapter deals with four principles with which to read the Bible. As Scot says at the outset “Theology which is designed to investigate that nonempirical reality in some ways, can provide a map onto which we can locate science and which can challenge science.” (p. 95). Exactly my point. The empirically observable and testable world is not all there is to reality. Scot’s concern is “we will all gain clarity if Christians learn how to... Read more

Let’s consider for a moment Venema’s observation on p. 64—“These children descend uniquely from one man (for the Y chromosome DNA) and one woman (for their mitochondrial DNA), but from at least four ancestors for their regular chromosomal DNA.” Let’s have a conversation about Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam and the 10,000 other ancestors for our regular DNA. I don’t see anything in Genesis 1-5 or elsewhere in the Bible which rules out such observations. Again, what the Bible... Read more

I have no problems with scientists like Venema pursuing a theory as far as one can go with it. No problems with pushing the envelope to the limits of a theory to see if it still holds up. This is good and logical. What I do have a problem with is the globalizing of a theory to explain most everything when in fact it only explains some things. What I especially object to is the notion that ‘science deals with... Read more

Modern evolutionary science, including the science of genetics is based on the hypothesis that most if not all things can be explained in a natural way through empirical research. A theist evolutionist will simply say that evolution is the way God works things. Suppose however that God is not like a watchmaker who creates a watch, winds it up, and leaves it to the empirical parts to do their jobs their after? Suppose God is constantly involved not merely in... Read more

THE VENEMA CHAPTERS Chapter Two provides us with a useful analogy about the development over time incrementally of a language (e.g. the word treuth becomes truthe and then truth) and the development of a human genetic code…. While languages can change rather quickly, biological speciation and change takes place over thousands of years and herein lies another problem: 1) no one is around that long to observe the change, indeed whole civilizations rise and fall in the time it takes... Read more

The heart of the genomics and genetic case against an historical Adam and Eve seems to be that human beings today descend from an original group of about 10,000 hominids. But this is hardly a problem for those who realize that the Bible is not the story of the whole human race, it is the story of God’s chosen people who began somewhere in the Middle East, apparently in Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Bible only mentions... Read more

Perhaps it will be well if I first state a few personal disclaimers. I have: 1) no problem with the idea that different areas of knowledge require different methodologies to arrive at theories that explain the facts; 2) also no problem with the usual observation that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it does not teach cosmology, biology, anthropology, geology etc. 3) no problem with the observation that a proper critique of modern science cannot rest solely on pointing... Read more