ISCAST Online Journal Pre-2005, Vol. 0 Adam, Anthropology and the Genesis Record: taking genesis seriously in the light of contemporary science1. Allan John Day Allan John Day is Emeritus Professor (Physiology) University of Melbourne, Australia, a Senior Academic Fellow, Ridley College, Melbourne and a Fellow of ISCAST(Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology). Abstract Much of the perceived conflict between science and Christian belief is not due to any intrinsic disagreement between these two approaches to truth, but rather to the conflict of emerging science with entrenched interpretations of Scripture. The history of the science/faith interface attests to this fact from the time of Galileo and before. It is important therefore, in interpreting Gen. 1œ3, to take into account the findings of contemporary science. This approach should be made, not as an attempt to conform science to the bible or the bible to science, but rather as one in which science serves along with history, culture and language as one of many inputs into the interpretative exercise. The important message of Genesis and of the role of Scripture as the Word of God is not compromised by such an approach, but rather enhanced and its relevance in the contemporary scene emphasised. In this paper an attempt is made to assess the findings of modern anthropology in relation to the interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and the Fall. It is maintained, that neither a strictly literal interpretation, nor one which identifies an individual historic Adam with the Biblical Adam, is consistent with the findings of cultural and physical anthropology. On the other hand, it is proposed that an interpretation suggesting a generic (representative humanity) 1 This paper was previously published in Science and Christian Belief (1998) 10, 115œ143. It is reproduced here with permission. An earlier version of this paper was presented as a basis for the Workshop on Biblical Interpretation and Science at the ISCAST(Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology) Conference on Science and Christianity in Sydney, July 1997, and published as ZADOK Paper S90 in September 1997. © Allan John Day ISCAS T Ch r i s t i a n s in Sc ie n c e & T e c h n o lo g y w w w .is c a s t .o r g .a u Allan John Day Adam and a gradual emergence of both humanity made in the ”image of God‘ and of the Fall is consistent with a proper interpretation of Gen. 1œ3. It is maintained that the essential message of Gen. 1œ3 with its theology of humanity created in the image of God and embracing the development of a sinful human nature needing redemption is not compromised by this reading. Key words Adam, Fall, Anthropology, Genesis, Biblical Interpretation. Introduction The perception still persists, in both the Christian community and in the wider secular world, that scientific explanations of natural phenomena have rendered redundant the biblical account of origins. Such a perception is sharpened, not only by the spectacular nature of the developments in modern cosmology, but also by the findings of modern biology and molecular genetics. This is particularly evident, with regard to the dynamic nature of biological species and of the antiquity of humanity. These findings are widely publicised by the popular writings of scientific triumphalists (Atkins 1981, Dawkins 1988, 1989, 1995, Hawking 1988, Sagan 1980), many of whom mistakenly consider the findings of science and the Genesis accounts of origins to be in direct competition. Dawkins, for example, in his recent book, River out of Eden, comments: Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths do not. (Dawkins 1989 p. 37) ”Creation Science‘ also considers conventional cosmology and biology to be in direct competition with the Genesis account of origins. Their particular interpretation of Genesis, presents a ”young earth‘ position, with the cosmos being formed by a series of special creation miracles in 6, literal 24 hour days some 10,000 years ago and with Gen. 2œ3 being a literal and historic account of the special ”formation‘ of humanity and of the Fall (Whitcomb 1961, Morris 1993). Unfortunately this interpretation of Genesis is interpreted by many in the secular world, as well as many in the church, as representing the only Christian position with regard to ”Creation‘, and as such is seen by most observers to be irrelevant in a modern scientific age. In this climate it is difficult to sustain any rational claim for biblical relevance in matters of origins. If these issues are to be resolved and a proper biblical approach to creation taken seriously in the modern scientific world, it is necessary for Christians to address this problem and to address it primarily and urgently 2 ISCAS T Ch r i s t i a n s in Sc ie n c e & T e c h n o lo g y w w w .is c a s t .o r g .a u Adam, Anthropology and the Genesis Record as a hermeneutic issue. This involves re-examining the interpretation of Scripture in relation to the findings of modern science and determining what the creation accounts are concerned about and how this is expressed in a world explained by science. The issue is not a new one. It has exercised the energies of biblical expositors (both Jewish and Christian) for as long as Scripture has been studied (Jaki 1992, Sasse 1958 pp. 65œ73, Young 1995). Nor are the basic issues new – they re-emerge with each paradigm shift of culture or science. The Church Fathers struggled with Platonist and Aristotelian concepts of science as they variously interpreted the Genesis creation accounts in either an allegorical or literal way (Sasse 1958 p. 68, Jaki 1992 pp. 70œ108). In the 17th Century, the church wrestled with Copernican heliocentrism, and its implications for an understanding of the centrality of the earth as seen to be clearly expressed in Ps. 93:1 and other similar verses. The ”natural common sense‘ interpretation of such verses seemed so much in accord with the astronomy of Aristotle and Ptolemy and inconsistent with the new science (Hummell 1986, Poole 1995 pp. 99œ113, Birkett 1996 pp. 1, 13œ42). Scientists in the 18th Century struggled with the geological evidence of the age of the earth (Brooke 1991 pp. 226œ274, Rudwick 1986 pp. 296œ321) and the date of creation, calculated so neatly from biblical genealogies by Archbishop Ussher (Young 1990 pp. 26œ81), while those in the mid 19th Century struggled with the problem of Darwin's natural selection and its implications for the static special creation of Paley's ”Designer universe‘ (Moore 1979, Livingstone 1987). Some of these issues still reverberate, particularly those regarding the nature and origin of humanity. Over the last 50 years, and particularly over the last two decades considerable data has emerged from both cultural and physical anthropology and also from human molecular genetics that cast doubt on the emergence of humanity in either a physical or in a cultural or religious sense in the recent past. The elucidation of many aspects of the psychological and neurophysiological basis for mind and brain has also raised problems for a conventional understanding of the soul, expressed in terns of a dualist body/soul model, with the soul as a separate spiritual entity (Jeeves 1993 pp. 119œ 135, Jeeves 1997 pp. 98œ126). It is necessary therefore to evaluate the way in which we interpret the Genesis 1œ3 passages. These relate of course to theological humanity – made in the image of God, and stress the development of sin and the need for redemption. Some of the presuppositions about these aspects however may be influenced by an outdated anthropology and psychology and need to be reviewed in the light of modern developments in these areas. Where does the soul fit in for example? Is it still valid to consider a special act of God as necessary for the creation of a ”soul'.? The latter is often equated as the entity which conveys our possibility of relationship with God and so is identified with the image of God possessed by humanity. Should we not rather recognise and dismiss these presuppositions and with them the semi-deistic understanding of God that 3 ISCAS T Ch r i s t i a n s in Sc ie n c e & T e c h n o lo g y w w w .is c a s t .o r g .a u Allan John Day they imply, and embrace a proper theistic naturalistic origin, not just for physical humanity, but for humanity made in the image of God and capable of relationship with God. Many evangelicals however find it difficult to abandon special creation and seek to reserve God's right to ”insert a soul‘ as it were. These are some of the issues that need to be explored in this paper. It is no longer possible to ignore the progressively emerging scientific picture of man's origin and nature, and of its implications both for theology and for biblical interpretation. It is not necessary however to concede defeat and abandon the Scriptural record as outdated in the light of the findings of modern science. We must seek rather to re-examine the relevant passages with a view to reinterpretation if that seems necessary. We can learn much from the mistakes of the past, where entrenched interpretations of Scripture were seen to conflict with developing science.