Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.
[Extensive biblical and scientific evidences are presented on this page. For the scientifically inclined, after examining the many published, peer-reviewed scientific research studies cited on this page, readers may wish to examine similar scientific evidence presented on ASND’s Human Ancestry page as well.]
“A growing number of evangelicals are accepting theistic evolution, generally without considering the weight of biblical theological evidence against evolution. However, important theological considerations strongly count against the common descent of Adam and Eve, and so count against theistic evolution.”
Twelve Ideas You Must Embrace to Affirm Theistic Evolution
1) Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, and perhaps Adam and Eve never even existed.
2) Adam and Eve were born from human parents.
3) God didn’t act directly or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground.
4) God didn’t act directly to create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side.
5) Adam and Eve were never sinless human beings.
6) Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sins because human beings were doing morally evil things long before Adam and Eve existed.
7) Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin because human beings existed long before Adam and Eve and they were always subject to death.
8) Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve for there were thousands of other human beings on the earth at the time that God chose two of them and called them Adam and Eve.
9) God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, and land animals.
10) God did not rest from his work of creation or stop any special creative activity after plants, animals, and human beings appeared on the earth.
11) God never created an originally very good natural world — a safe environment, free of thorns, thistles, and other harmful things.
12) After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural world, making it more hostile to mankind.
Embracing Evolution: But Which Model?
A New Critique of Theistic Evolution
“The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting.“
Theistic Evolution Is Nearly as Problematic as Atheistic Darwinism
Is There Enough Time For Humans to have Evolved from Apes?
Ann Gauger, Ph.D. (Developmental Biology) Answers
On New Model for Human Ancestry, Mathematician Ola Hössjer Responds to Critics
Why Do Theistic Evolutionist Theologians All Seem to Have Exactly the Same Misconceptions About Intelligent Design?
“The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall.”
“… [neo-Darwinism] can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.”
— David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber (2012), “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Volume 6, Number 1 (2011), 89-102.
[ASND reminds readers that yes, Biological Theory is a peer-reviewed research journal published by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.]
[ Also , “… the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of ‘how major forms of life evolved.‘”]
“It makes no sense to talk about a purposeful process that is nevertheless purposeless, or to talk about God directing an undirected process.”
Adam & Eve:
The claim that humans *had* to have originated from a population of thousands rather than a protogenic pair of two is simply, scientifically, false
Were Adam & Eve Scientifically Possible Or Not?
“None of the [genomic linkage numeration] methods that Venema cites are able to address the problem of the existence of a first pair.”
Ruling Out Originating Human Pair, Theistic Evolutionist Venema Oversteps — Geneticist Responds
“Absolutely ruling out a first couple is ‘asking for more than science can deliver.’”
Former BioLogos Fellow Backs Down
Dennis Venema Finally Concedes That Genomic Science Does NOT Preclude A Literal Adam and Eve
Evolutionary Biologist Pushes Back on Claim that Humans Did Not Descend from a Single Human Pair
Did They Really Exist?
A Biblical and Scientific Defence of Adam and Eve
Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve: A Primordial Pair or a Population?
Adam & Eve
When Did God Create Adam and Eve?
Theologian Peter Enns argues that science and Scripture shouldn’t be harmonized with one another
“This isn’t a trivial debate.”
The Search For The Historical Adam
Bioinformatics and a Literal Adam and Eve
What Depends Upon An Historical Adam?
Adam versus Claims from Genetics
The Loss of Historical Adam and the Death of Exegesis
Theological Consequences of Rejecting the Literal Existence of Adam
New Videos: Did a Historical Adam Really Exist?
How the Bodily Resurrection of Christ Indicates a Historical Adam
Is Theistic Evolution possible?
IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
BioLogos & Francis Collins:
“BioLogos’s EC [evolutionary creationism; a.k.a. theistic evolutionism (TE)] harmony suffers from an internal problem due to its rigid commitment to methodological naturalism, the philosophical constraint that says only natural causes may be invoked in science. This is unproblematic in the physical sciences, but BioLogos is defending the mainstream evolutionary picture of origins and gradual evolution by natural mechanisms as the way all life came about. Within methodological naturalism, there is no possibility of detecting or inferring divine agency. And so, there lies at the heart of this model an intractable impasse between belief in a supernatural Creator God and commitment to an epistemology that says he is not in the picture.
EC thinking reduces to fideism—the epistemological theory that says faith is independent of reason. By definition, science searches for natural (and only natural) mechanisms to explain biological life. And then the evolutionary creationist, for his own personal, completely subjective reasons, professes the biblical God as the creator and designer of whatever the search has turned up. [Deborah] Haarsma’s [EC/TE-affirming] two truth claims are parallel, but the tenets are utterly divorced — one never reaffirms the other, and they are held for separate and often inharmonious reasons.
Scripture tells us that some knowledge about the Creator can be “clearly seen” in creation (e.g., Romans 1:20). But ECs insist, No, it can’t — at least not in any empirically detectable way. This stance effectively surrenders the whole debate over origins to the atheists’ “no God needed” postulate.“
[Yes, that article resides behind a paywall, but the totality of those essential, and entirely factual, points is provided above.]
Francis Collins and BioLogos seek a different story of our origins than the one told in Genesis
Thoughts on: Is Genesis History?
‘Is Genesis History?’: Revisiting an Age-Old Debate
The New Theistic Evolutionists: BioLogos and the Rush to Embrace the “Consensus”
No God-of-the-Gaps Allowed: Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution
Review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins
Why Is BioLogos, a Christian Organization, Promoting Darwin-Only Science Education?
At BioLogos, Theistic Evolutionists Fall Out Among Themselves
Radio Debate on Theistic Evolution, Stephen Meyer Meets Deborah Haarsma of BioLogos
CREATION: FULL OF BAD DESIGN AND POINTLESS WASTE?
Designed by Chance? Why the Pope is Wrong about Theistic Evolution
Chromosome 2: The Best Evidence for Human Evolution?
“Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes”
Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash
What the Literature Says about Chromosomal Fusion and Why It Says It
Horizontal Gene Transfer Masquerades as Common Ancestry
Assumptions, Circular Reasoning, and a Literal Adam and Eve
A Burgoo of Human Origin Discoveries
Orangutan Genetic Diversity Sheds Light on Humanity’s Origin
The Functional Significance of Gene Location: Countering the Case for Biological Evolution
Inability to Repeat the Past Dooms Evolution
Will the Real Human Ancestor Please Stand Up?
Paleoanthropologists Fail to Find Common Ancestor to Modern Humans and Neanderthals
“If human beings evolved from ape-like creatures, what were the transitional species between ape-like hominins and the truly human-like members of the genus Homo found in the fossil record?“
Examining Critiques of
Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique,
a Year After the Volume’s Publication
“For years, [theistic evolutionists] have proven incapable of meaningfully challenging the substance of the core design arguments [leveled against theistic evolutionism]. So in responding to written works by ID proponents, they have often misrepresented the authors’ meaning, distorted the underlying science, and misdirected the public’s attention away from the actual evidence… The failure to make this distinction is the basis for standard arguments that generating new information is not a hurdle for evolutionary processes. For instance, counterexamples cited by Dennis Venema involve the formation of very small quantities of information, such as that associated with the immune system or the creation of a new binding site in an existing protein. Venema’s other arguments involve circular reasoning or misinterpretations of cited literature, particularly relating to the rarity of protein folds. All such critiques collapse when the actual ID arguments and relevant research are properly understood.”
Book Reviews of…
“Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science”
By Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight
A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome
Adam and the Genome fails to make a convincing case against Adam and Eve.
But perhaps of greater interest, it fails even more so to make a case against intelligent design.
Rumors of Adam’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Some Thoughts from Ken Keathley
“Readers will need to look elsewhere… for a more careful account of how biblical authority functions across the ancient/modern worldview divide, a fuller engagement with the ANE literature and a more balanced one with the Jewish literature, and a more responsible delineation of biblical claims regarding Adam and Eve.”
DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps: A Response to Dennis Venema’s Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model
Part 1 and… Part 2 and… Part 3 and… Part 4 and… Part 5 and… Part 6 and… Part 7
“Nylonase did not have a frameshifted new protein fold. It was a pre-existing fold with activity characteristic of its fold type. No novel protein fold had emerged. And no frameshift mutation was required to produce nylonase… The data described in the Negoro et al. and Kato et al. papers build a brick wall right across the path of Venema’s [theistic evolution] argument. And sadly, that roadblock pre-existed Venema’s posts. If he had looked carefully he would have seen it.”
Evolution as Mythology
Part 1 and… Part 2 and… Part 3 and… Part 4 and… Part 5
“… the lateral frontal pole [is] unique to humans…“