intellectual mecca

Calvin College has posted an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga about his return to Grand Rapids. In the last couple of years, Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and George Marsden have all retired back to their homes in GR. Do you know what this means? In 15-20 years the greatest liberal arts education in the world will be found in Grand Rapids nursing homes!

It’s usually dumb to disagree with a Plantinga, but I want to raise an issue with Alvin’s response to the question, “Was there an original Adam and Eve?” He said:  “God could have picked a pair of humans and gave them a property that allowed them the ability to discern good from evil, the freedom to obey or not, with a choice between obedience and disobedience. This seems wholly compatible with current evolutionary theory.”

I appreciate that Plantinga is attempting to square Scripture with what he believes is the settled finding of science. And I don’t here want to delve into the many biblical-theological problems with this solution (e.g., was there human death before the fall?; does a theory of evolution conflate creation and fall?).

I only want to focus on one:  while Plantinga’s approach may be logically possible, how plausible is it that this is what the Bible means in such passages as Genesis 1-3, Romans 5, and 1 Timothy 2? Did any biblical author–did Jesus himself–think that God took Adam and Eve from a pre-existent hominid race? Or is it more likely that they believed that God directly made the first man and woman?

This raises an issue that I haven’t heard discussed much. Even non-Christians can tell that our Bible does not mean to say that Adam and Eve were taken from a pre-existent hominid race (despite the suggestion that it explains where Cain found a wife and who he feared may want to kill him). Most people who read Scripture easily conclude that it teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans. So when we contort the plain reading of Scripture to fit the new discoveries of science, we leave the impression that we don’t take our Bibles as seriously as we take our scientists. And if we’re not careful, this may not only leave us with not much to believe, but it may also lead non-Christians to respect us and our faith less.

In our efforts to integrate faith and science, we must not allow the fruitful dialogue to turn into a monologue. Some Christians allow science to do all the talking–and Scripture must conform or be kicked out of the conversation, while others simply read Scripture and dismiss what the scientists say. None of us are probably as balanced as we think, but from where I stand, I wish Plantinga’s solution would include a more plausible reading of Scripture.

5 Comments

Add yours →

  1. Mike, do you know whether any one from the Intelligent Design community (for example, Jay Richards at the Discovery Institute) has offered any discussion pertaining to this? I wanted to go listen to Alvin Plantinga at Church of the Servant this fall but had a schedule conflict. I guess COS is offering the series of lectures again next spring.

  2. Is Jay back at Discovery? He had left there and gone to Acton, and then left there for somewhere I can’t remember offhand. I haven’t looked into what the ID folks are saying–there focus is a bit different. Good to know that COS is going to offer those lectures again. I couldn’t go either.

  3. It appears Jay is back at Discovery, although he seems to have been shuttling among Acton, DI, and the Heritage Foundation. Check out a book that Jay edited, which was released last year and is entitled *God and Evolution.* It’s on the shelf at Cornerstone’s library. Also, check out Discovery’s website: http://www.faithandevolution.org

    Finally, I think you’re correct – sometime in the future, Raybrook Manor may be a rockin’ place to be – theologically speaking!

  4. What the problem really is becomes clear as we consider the bill of goods that believers have been sold. A long string of successes in many fields makes science look supremely successful. When the overwhelming majority in practically every area take the bait, it becomes extremely difficult to get them unhooked. But here is the kicker: the scientific method, and I speak of the present supposedly successful method, has its flaws. One, it is too analytical. Two, it needs a more synthetical approach. Three, sometimes both the original hypothesis and the null hypothesis are true. Four, you can’t extrapolate an experimental lab method to broad realms and expect to achieve any degree of reliability, i.e., experimental method applied to past evolution. Can’t be done. What is involved in the present claims is naturalism which is a philosophy and a religion allowing for no supernaturalism, a prejudgment not allowed by experimentalism, true experimentalism, that is. Additionally, you have those who stand to profit by such naturalistic science. Just think how the Christian Faith has stood against the evils of making great profits at the expense of one’s neighbor. Now it is much weakened. No supernaturalism means no Divine law against cruel unconcern and indifference.

  5. Jonathan Shelley December 5, 2011 — 4:35 pm

    Mike,

    Didn’t you add a new book to your Sys 1 course on the importance of Adam and Eve for Christian theology? I’d look it up in your syllabus, but I’m too lazy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: