BioLogos has been slowly evolving their statement on Adam and Eve. This is an important shift for them, as they have defined themselves for a decade as anti-“traditional” understanding of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, they have only adjusted their statement when publicly pressured. They, unfortunately, have not acknowledged our work in clarifying the science in this statement.
This thread documents these changes as they are made.
For about a decade, this has been their statement, reported here (Were Adam and Eve historical figures? - Common-questions - BioLogos). As I was asked to leave BioLogos, this statement quoted to me several times as their official position. “BioLogos opposes the traditional account of Adam and Eve.”
At BioLogos, we are passionately committed to taking the Bible seriously and to seeking a scientific understanding of God’s creation. How do the Bible and science inform our understanding of Adam and Eve?
In one traditional view, Adam and Eve were created de novo—they were created by God as fully formed humans with no ancestors. God made them quickly and completely as fully formed humans with no biological ancestors. Advocates of this view also typically maintain that all humans who have ever lived are direct descendants of this original pair. The Genesis account is taken to be a record of real events similar to the way a journalist would record them today.
However, some features in the biblical text suggest that there are other layers of meaning that this traditional view does not account for. Genesis 4 refers to other people (in cities, Cain’s wife) who do not seem to be descended from Adam and Eve. And some elements of Genesis 2-3 indicate that at least on some level, the text is describing Adam and Eve as archetypal figures—statements about all of us.
When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there. At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that human beings evolved, sharing common ancestors with all other life on earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two individuals in the past, but a population of thousands.
Traditional interpretations of Scripture should not be lightly dismissed, but neither is it responsible to ignore or dismiss the results of scientific inquiry simply because they conflict with traditional interpretations.
There are several options open to those who desire to remain faithful to Scripture and take science seriously. Some Christians, such as Alister McGrath and C.S. Lewis have suggested a non-historical model. In this view, the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. In this view, Adam and Eve were not historical figures at all, and the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. They convey important and inspired theological truths about God and humanity, but they are not historical in the sense people today use the word.
Other Christian leaders (such as Billy Graham and Tim Keller) are open to models that see evolution as compatible with Adam and Eve as real historical people. In one version, John Stott suggests that God entered into a special relationship with a pair of ancient representatives of humanity about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Genesis retells this historical event using cultural terms that the Hebrews in the ancient Near East could understand.
In another version (defended by Denis Alexander) Adam and Eve are recent representatives, living perhaps 6000 years ago in the ancient Near East rather than Africa. By this time humans had already dispersed throughout the earth. God then revealed himself specially to a pair of farmers we know as Adam and Eve—real people whom God chose as spiritual “recent representatives” for all humanity.
While the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation, the other views outlined here are consistent with both sound biblical interpretation and current scientific evidence. Of course there is further theological work to be done on this and other important doctrines such as original sin. BioLogos is actively promoting dialogue and scholarship on this issue. While Christians may disagree about how and when God created the first humans, we can all agree that God made humanity in his image, all people have sinned, and that salvation is found in Christ alone.
In April 2018, in response to this article (The De Novo Creation of Adam and BioLogos) they made these changes. This was a year after they had first been notified, that their position was in error.
At BioLogos, we are passionately committed to taking the Bible seriously and to seeking a scientific understanding of God’s creation. How do the Bible and science inform our understanding of Adam and Eve?
In one traditional view, Adam and Eve were created de novo—they were created by God as fully formed humans (Homo sapiens), roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. with no ancestors. God made them quickly and completely as fully formed humans with no biological ancestors. InAdvocates of this traditional de novo view, Adam and Eve are “sole progenitors”: they were the first two also typically maintain that all humans, and they alone gave rise to all other humans who have ever lived are direct descendants of this original pair. The Genesis account is taken to be a record of real events similar to the way a journalist would record them today.
However, some features in the biblical text suggest that there are other layers of meaning that this traditional view does not account for. Genesis 4 refers to other people (in cities, Cain’s wife) who do not seem to be descended from Adam and Eve. And some elements of Genesis 2-3 indicate that at least on some level, the text is describing Adam and Eve as archetypal figures—statements about all of us.
When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there. At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that human beings evolved, sharing common ancestors with all other life on earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two individuals in the past, but a population of thousands.
Traditional interpretations of Scripture should not be lightly dismissed, but neither is it responsible to ignore or dismiss the results of scientific inquiry simply because they conflict with traditional interpretations.
There are several options open to those who desire to remain faithful to Scripture and take science seriously.
SomeOther Christian leaders (such as Billy Graham and Tim Keller) are open to models that see evolution as compatible with Adam and Eve as real historical people. In one version, John Stott suggests that God entered into a special relationship with a pair of ancient historical representatives of humanity about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Genesis retells this historical event using cultural terms that the Hebrews in the ancient Near East could understand.
In another version (defended by Denis Alexander) Adam and Eve are recent historical representatives, living perhaps 6000 years ago in the ancient Near East rather than Africa. By this time humans had already dispersed throughout the earth. God then revealed himself specially to a pair of farmers we know as Adam and Eve—real people whom God chose as spiritual “recent representatives” for all humanity.
Other Christians, such as Alister McGrath and C.S. Lewis have suggested a non-historical model. In this view, the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. In this view, Adam and Eve were not historical figures at all, and the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. They convey important and inspired theological truths about God and humanity, but they are not historical in the sense people today use the word.
While the traditional de novo creation of Adam and Eve described above is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation, the other views, including those outlined above,here are consistent with both sound biblical interpretation and current scientific evidence. Of course there is further theological work to be done on this and other important doctrines such as original sin. BioLogos is actively promoting dialogue and scholarship on this issue. While Christians may disagree about how and when God created the first humans, we can all agree that God made humanity in his image, all people have sinned, and that salvation is found in Christ alone.
Then in February of 2019, they made these changes after reading a draft of my book on the GAE, which features them prominently in the first chapter. This change took place nearly 2 years after they were first notified.
At BioLogos, we are passionately committed to taking the Bible seriously and to seeking a scientific understanding of God’s creation. How do the Bible and science inform our understanding of Adam and Eve?
In a commonone traditional view, Adam and Eve were created de novo—they were created by God as fully formed humans (Homo sapiens), roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. God made them quickly and completely as fully formed humans with no biological ancestors. In this traditional de novo view, Adam and Eve are “sole progenitors”: they were the first two humans, and they alone gave rise to all other humans. The Genesis account is taken to be a record of real events similar to the way a journalist would record them today.
However, some features in the biblical text suggest that there are other layers of meaning that this traditional view does not account for. Genesis 4 refers to other people (in cities, Cain’s wife) who do not seem to be descended from Adam and Eve. And some elements of Genesis 2-3 indicate that at least on some level, the text is describing Adam and Eve as archetypal figures—statements about all of us.
When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there. At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that Homo sapienshuman beings evolved, arising about 200,000 years ago and sharing common ancestors with all other life on earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two Homo sapiens individuals in the past, but a population of thousands.
Traditional interpretations of Scripture should not be lightly dismissed, but neither is it responsible to ignore or dismiss the results of scientific inquiry simply because they conflict with traditional interpretations.
There are several options open to those who desire to remain faithful to Scripture and take science seriously.
Some Christian leaders (such as Billy Graham) are open to models that see evolution as compatible with Adam and Eve as real historical people. In one version, suggested by theologian Henri Blocher and others,John Stott suggests that God entered into a special relationship with a pair of ancient historical representatives of humanity about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Genesis retells this historical event using cultural terms that the Hebrews in the ancient Near East could understand.
In another version (defended by Denis Alexander) Adam and Eve are recent historical personsrepresentatives, living perhaps 6000 years ago in the ancient Near East rather than Africa. By this time Homo sapienshumans had already dispersed throughout the earth. God then revealed himself specially to a pair of farmers we know as Adam and Eve.—real people whom God could have chosen themchose as spiritual “recent representatives” for all humanity. Genealogical science suggests that a pair living at that time and place could be part of the genealogies of all humans living today.
Other Christians, such as Alister McGrath and C.S. Lewis have suggested a non-historical models. While in these models Adam and Eve are not historical in the sense people use “historical” today, the Genesis accounts convey important and inspired theological truths about God and humanity.model. In onethis view, the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. In another, the early chapters of Genesis are a compressed literary depiction of a long historical processIn this view, Adam and Eve were not historical figures at all, and the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic stories in the genre of other ancient Near Eastern literature. They convey important and inspired theological truths about God and humanity, but they are not historical in the sense people today use the word.
Therefore, multipleWhile the traditional de novo creation of Adam and Eve described above is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation, other views, including those outlined above, are consistent with both sound biblical interpretation and current scientific evidence. Of course, there is further theological work to be done on this and other important doctrines such as original sin. BioLogos is actively promoting dialogue and scholarship on this issue. While Christians may disagree about how and when God created the first humans, we can all agree that God made humanity in his image, all people have sinned, and that salvation is found in Christ alone.
There still remain several major problems with this statement. Perhaps most unfortunate is the claim here, obviously troubled by the evidence:
BioLogos is actively promoting dialogue and scholarship on this issue.
This links to an article from 2012, where I quote Ken Keathley here:
The status of Adam and Eve: Evolutionary creationists appear to disagree among themselves about whether or not Adam was a historical figure. Some, such as Denis Lamoureux, declare Adam to be a mythical character. Others (Denis Alexander comes to mind) view Adam as representative of the first Neolithic farmers with whom God entered into a relationship.
For most Southern Baptists, including me, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a litmus test. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals why we believe this way. The New Testament authors treat Adam as a historical figure, and they interconnect the mission and work of Jesus with the first man. Paul repeatedly presents Christ as the last Adam—succeeding where the first Adam failed and redeeming fallen humanity in the process. C. John Collins has written an excellent book on the subject entitled Did Adam and Eve Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care . He gives three criteria for an orthodox understanding of Adam and Eve (pp 120-21), and I believe they are worth repeating here.
- The origin of the human could not have come about by mere natural processes.
- Adam and Eve were “at the headwaters of the human race.”
- A historical fall must have occurred very closely to the beginning of the human race.
Evolutionary creationists still have a great deal of work to do in this area. If no evolutionary theory can be found that can reasonably incorporate above three criteria, then that would be a deal killer.
Southern Baptist Voices: Expressing Our Concerns - BioLogos
Of course, the GAE answers these questions, and BioLogos has been resistant to it from the beginning. Ken Keathley has expressed support the GAE now, finding alternate way to affirm evolutionary science, distinct from BioLogos.
More seriously, the current version of the statement still implicitly argues that the traditional de novo view is challenged by science. The removal of the explicit statement against it is a step in the right direction, but the absence of acknowledgement of the GAE or of myself communicates their values and priorities here.
Hopefully more change are coming. I was surprised that BIoLogos was not enthusiastic about a recovery of a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve within evolution. Even these changes came without notice, downplayed, and out of touch with the longstanding objections to evolutionary creation. Why? Over the last 2 years it has been clear that they oppose a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve for reasons other than science. That is their right, but I have come to understand them as a theological advocacy group, not a science advocacy group. There is no reason to be anti-traditional. Science does not all ways give us the answers we want.
I hope they continue to evolve, giving credit where credit is due. For now, I give them credit for the small movements in the right direction. It will be worth watching the evolution of evolutionary creation from here.