I have been hoping to post some of my own thoughts on recent questions of science and faith, but time escapes me. The question of the historical Adam and Eve has become a major issue just in the last decade or so. Organizations like biologos.com and even Christianity Today have brought this issue to the fore. Peter Enns, of biologos, recently critiqued Dr. Al Mohler’s theory of “apparent age.” Dr. Jon Barlow raises some very important issues in response to Enns’ critique See here, as well, for second iteration of the dialogue between Enns and Barlow.
Dr. Barlow’s thoughts are excellent and I strongly commend them to those interested in this issue. Among other things he has highlighted a particular element in this issue: all current proposals concerning the creation of world (6 day, framework, analogical days, day-age, etc.) and humanity (special creation of Adam and Eve, “upgrading” pre-existing hominids, theistic evolution, etc.) run into problems with a) the biblical text, b) science, and c) theology. It is a mistake to assume that any one proposal solves all problems or even every problem in one of the three categories. For instance, Christian theistic evolutionists must depart from their secular colleagues at some point and 6 day creation runs into a few textual problems, as well. Thus, for each proposal, one must ask, “How many problems does this solve and how many does it create?” In Barlow’s opinion, theistic evolution creates far more problems than it solves.
This is an issue that is unlikely to go away in the near future. We, here, at For Christ and His Kingdom have different opinions, but can hopefully discuss this issue with charity, clarity, and conviction. Barlow has done just that, and so I recommend that you read his post, both for the thoughts he offers and for the way in which he offers them.