Originally, this post was scheduled for Tuesday. But, a) I decided to move this review series to Thursdays and b) I didn’t want to send the wrong message. Even though as you’ll see below, Denis Lamoureux’s view is the one I find least convincing, I didn’t think it was fair to post his position on the one day of the year it’s ok to sit on a throne of lies. So here we are.
The first view in Four Views on The Historical Adam is that of Denis Lamoureux. You may have noticed from the table of contents I presented earlier that the views run along a spectrum. We start with a view that has no room for a historical Adam, and end with a view that has no room for the majority position of modern science. In the middle are two mediating positions. Of the contributors, 2 of them (Collins and Lamoureux) have backgrounds in science. 3 of them (Walton, Collins, and Barrick) are Old Testament scholars. Interestingly, it is the three Old Testament scholars that still hold to a historical Adam, while it is the contributor with a Ph.D in biology who doesn’t believe in a historical Adam.
By his own account, Lamoureux was originally a young earth creationist (40-41). But, after he first got a Ph.D in theology (41), and then in evolutionary biology (42), he is now an evolutionary creationist. You could probably interpret his pathway as one where the seminary study made young earth creationism untenable, and then his study in evolutionary biology completely shifted his paradigm so that he can now say “I have yet to see evidence that falsifies biological evolution” (40). 1
Given that perspective, it is hard to shake the feeling that Lamoureux is interpreting Scripture to fit his scientific paradigm. If you accept biological evolution wholesale, then you cannot simultaneously accept a historical Adam, and so can’t interpret Genesis to teach that, unless you’re comfortable saying “Scripture teaches this, but it’s wrong.” Lamoureux’s essay then is focused on defending his understanding of Genesis 1-3 in particular, and Genesis 1-11 in general. Of the latter, he says that “real history in the Bible begins roughly around Genesis 12 with Abraham” (44). This would be convenient, but Lamoureux more or less just asserts this, and doesn’t really defend or prove the position.
Having de-historicized the early chapters of Genesis, Lamoureux then explains why scientific concordism, of any kind, is wrongheaded. That is, any view which seeks harmony between modern science and ancient text is out of bounds. The reason for this is that Genesis represents ancient science through and through, which we now know is wrong. God accommodated the ancient understanding to communicate big picture ideas (that He created), but not details (the manner and sequence in which things actually happened).
With this perspective, Lamoureux then provides brief commentary on Genesis 1-2, as well as Romans 5. While he acknowledges that much of what he is saying represents a “counterintuitve way of reading Scripture,” (63) it is nonetheless the best way to make sense of the text in light of his presuppositions (as well as what he thinks are the text’s presuppositions). Ultimately, God’s Word only tells us that he created, and in no way explains how he created. While I would grant that position to a certain extent, this would still seem to suggest that God directly created Adam, even if the rest of nature were allowed to unfold by “supernatural” selection. Lamoureux insists that this is not possible, and that pinning Adam on the tail end of an evolutionary sequence is “categorically inappropriate” (64).
When it comes to responses, first up is John Walton. He sees several indefensible leaps in logic and is inadequate in his treatment of the New Testament (68). He also points out that is untenable to suggest that real history doesn’t start until Genesis 12 (67). From another front, John Collins questions Lamoureux’s understanding of what concordism is when it comes to understanding the Bible and science (76-77). He sees Lamoureux as mainly reacting against an overly literal concordism (young earth creationism), and not allowing room for other varieties. Lastly, William Barrick and subtly questions Lamoureux’s salvation. 2 Beyond that, he is having none of Lamoureux’s position. Because it starts off on such a negative tone, it is hard to not read his response with disdain.
Lamoureux is allowed a short rejoinder to the responses, but for space sake, I’m not going to comment on it. In the end, Lamoureux does his best to defend the position that Adam didn’t exist. Though he presents his case from Scripture, it is hard to not see it as springing more from previously accepted scientific conclusions that now require major revisions to how we read the early chapter of Genesis. While some of his points about God’s accommodation in revealing truth, the implausibility of concordism, and the difference between modern science and ancient science may stand, his reading of Scripture does not. It would be hard to validate that you could reach the interpretations he reaches without having your presuppositions driving the train of thought there. That may be unavoidable for all of us, but in this case, if you’re not convinced of the full evolutionary story, there is not enough textual evidence to follow Lamoureux’s reading as well as the implications that follow.
Considering that Lamoureux’s view is the only one in the book that denies the existence of a historical Adam, you can see why this is necessary. Lamoureux’s view general view is called “evolutionary creationism,” and as Tim Stafford noted in The Adam Quest, the biggest problem with that view is the Bible.
- Speaking as someone who experience his first paradigm shift, but not his second, I would say “I have yet to see evidence that validates common ancestry for humans and other animals. In other words, my paradigm is still one of disbelief in the narrative of the past until more solid evidence emerges. In the case of human evolution, I don’t think it is forthcoming. However, I’ll concede there is quite a bit of evidence for evolution, even at the macro level. The question is more to what extent this happened in the past, a question I don’t think can be answered with much certainty because of the nature of scientific inquiry. ↩
- That is the way Lamoureux takes it in his rejoinder. Here is the quote: “Perhaps a born-again believer could deny Adam’s historical existence without losing his or her saving relationship to Christ and everlasting forgiveness of sins” (80). Seems way out of bounds to talk like this. Lamoureux wisely doesn’t dignify this answer with a response. I feel bad for him that it seems like his genuine faith is probably often questioned. I’m gathering that from this response, some anecdotes, and the fact that his essay opens with a long defense of his Christian journey’s authenticity, something none of the other contributors feel necessary. ↩