Were Adam and Eve Real? New Anthropological Evidence in 10-Year Update to Book (Interview)

Christian Post ^ | 10/26/2015 | Napp Nazworth

[SeekAndFind]

Ten years after publication of Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, 13 new chapters detail the new scientific evidence on the origins of humankind in a second edition.

Rana and Ross are scholars affiliated with Reasons to Believe, which also published the new edition of Who Was Adam? RTB works to spread the Gospel by showing how science supports the truths found in Scripture. Rana and Ross both have doctorate degrees in the physical sciences, biochemistry and astronomy, respectively.

Unlike most second editions, this one leaves the original edition alone and adds the new chapters onto the original.

During an interview with The Christian Post, Rana explained they did it that way for transparency. Readers can compare their initial predictions with the decade of scientific research that came after that. Rana and Ross also use the additional chapters to respond to the critics of their first edition.

Forget Evolution vs Creation, There Are (At Least) 6 Different Views, Evangelical Biophysicist Explains

Rana also describes where he, and RTB, fit among the diverse viewpoints of the so-called "creation versus evolution" debate, and provides his thoughts on the discovery of Homo naledi, which was announced shortly after publication of Who Was Adam?

The following is a lightly edited transcript of that email interview:

CP: When the first edition of Who Was Adam? was published 10 years ago, what was your goal, and, looking back, how have you done?

(Photo: Reasons to Believe)Fazale Rana (left) and Hugh Ross (right), authors of "Who Was Adam?" and research scholars for Reasons to Believe.

Rana: With the first edition of Who Was Adam? we wanted to demonstrate that a scientifically rigorous case could be made for the traditional biblical view of human origins.

Many people, including Christians, believe that there is overwhelming evidence for human evolution. In light of that evidence, they feel as if they have no choice but to abandon the biblical view of human origins and accept the reality of human evolution. The problem with this approach is that it's impossible to reconcile the biblical account of human origins with the notion of human evolution.

The good news is that there is scientific evidence that suggests Adam and Eve were real people, and that all of humanity arose from a primordial pair. A growing number of anthropologists embrace the idea of human exceptionalism — an idea that comports with the biblical notion that human beings are uniquely made in God's image. There is an explosive appearance of sophisticated behavior, including artistic and musical expression, that coincides with the appearance of modern humans.

CP: What's new in this new and expanded edition?

Rana: A lot has happened in anthropology over the last decade since Who Was Adam? was first published. We thought it would be a good idea to see how our original ideas stood up to these advances.

We also thought this updated edition would be a good place to respond to critics of our creation model. For the sake of transparency, we left the original book intact and added over 150 pages of content.

CP: Within the "creation versus evolution" debate, there are a variety (more than two) of viewpoints. For Christians who don't follow the debate closely, it can be confusing. What are the most important points you would like Christians to understand about your own position?

Rana: The position we espouse in Who Was Adam? is called Old Earth Creationism. We think that the days in Genesis 1 are long, finite periods of time. Because of this view, we accept the scientific dates for the Earth's age and life's antiquity.

But we are Creationists. And as such, we are skeptical that evolution can account for life's origin, history, and design. We reject human evolution and believe in a historical Adam and Eve.

CP: In Chapter 3 you write that with your model, "creation is testable. The concept of creation has entered the scientific domain." Why is that important for your readers to understand?

Rana: Whenever a scientific case is presented for God's existence and Scripture's reliability, skeptics will often reject those arguments by asserting that they are outside the bounds of science. They use this objection as an excuse to ignore the scientific case for the Christian faith. By formulating the story of humanity's origin in scientific terms, replete with testable predictions, it forces skeptics to engage the powerful scientific evidence for Christianity.

CP: After the book was published there was an announcement of a major archaeological find, Homo naledi, in South Africa. What, if anything, from that discovery would you have included in the book if the news had come before publication?

This hominid is just another in a long list of recent fossil finds that have forced anthropologists to rewrite the human evolutionary story. Every time a new hominid is discovered, it throws the evolutionary paradigm into chaos, and H. naledi is no exception.

If a scientific theory is a good one, new discoveries should provide affirmation and greater clarity. On the other hand, if new discoveries continually shake up the human evolutionary tree it is a sure sign that the evolutionary paradigm is in trouble.

[cloudmountain]

It is very interesting that evidence of written human records goes back as far as about 5000 years but no further. This says a lot about the Biblical truth of the Noah flood that wiped everything out except for Noah and his family and the animals. Doesn’t really directly point to Adam but does verify Biblical accuracy.

Perhaps Adam and Eve were just the first homo sapiens: a conscience, sense of right and wrong tuned to that conscience, awareness of death, belief in an eternal soul and an afterlife. After all there had been hominids (homo erectus) around for a long time. I think that there still are some Neanderthals, both male and female, still roaming our cities. Maybe I'm being harsh.
According to the studies of humans, there were several specials of hominids that didn't survive. I assume that the older and failed hominids didn't believe in a Higher Being or God.

[cloudmountain]

There WERE several species of hominids whose existence ended--failed hominids. That's even on Google.

As you say, that doesn't impact my life a great deal. It impacts my life not at all.

[Ann Archy]

OMG...that doesn’t mean we don’t believe GENESIS like he said!!! 6 DAYS could mean 6 SECONDS, 6 MINUTES, or it could mean 6 DAYS.......geesh....you Protestants are really something.

[ealgeone]

However, the Hebrew means six 24 hour days.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Wow! That’s news to me. And I bet the place where they grew up was in Bourbon, MO!

[Ann Archy]

Well then, that’s that!!! Just like their year of 5176 means that’s how old the earth is!!

[JimRed]

How can it be when it starts with His LITERAL father, Joseph?

His Earthly stepfather, since He is the Son of God.

[onedoug]

La Brea Woman is fairly well documented to have been thrown into the Tar Pits of Los Angeles some 9,000 years ago. Forensics note she had a tooth abscess and may have been thrown in because of her aberrant behavior to that point.

[Jim W N]

Heck no. They found out she fell in there after a wild party in Beverly hills.

[onedoug]

So much then for your “ZERO verifiable evidence”.

[Jim W N]

How so?

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

The Hebrew doesn't back it up, at all. Yom has multiple literal meanings dependent on context, and in the context of Genesis it can't mean "24 hr. day" in a literal sense because for half of the period of creation there was no sun, hence no solar time. That is why the CCC states that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days," because six yoms of labor followed by 1 yom of rest is a clear representation of a solar week.

And another thing -- the CCC does NOT say that Genesis is symbolic, only that the use of the word "day" to refer to the yoms of creation is symbolic, which is obvious by the structure of the sentence alone. It does NOT say that the act of creation is symbolic, or that the reality of creation is symbolic. To say "Catholics think Genesis is symbolic" is, at best, a massive stretch. But hey, anything to forward the old agenda, by hook or by crook. The end justifies the means, apparently, when attempting to discredit Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

And another thing -- the CCC does NOT say that Genesis is symbolic, only that the use of the word "day" to refer to the yoms of creation is symbolic, which is obvious by the structure of the sentence alone. It does NOT say that the act of creation is symbolic, or that the reality of creation is symbolic. To say "Catholics think Genesis is symbolic" is, at best, a massive stretch. But hey, anything to forward the old agenda, by hook or by crook. The end justifies the means, apparently, when attempting to discredit Catholicism.

In the past hundred years or so, the various papal writings and Councils have commented upon the matter of the historicity of certain parts of the Scriptures. Let me offer a quote from an encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII titled, “Humani Generis” (1950):

“..the first eleven chapter of Genesis...nevertheless come under the heading of history; in what exact sense, it is for the further study of the exegete to determine. These chapters have a naïve, symbolic way of speaking, well suited to the understanding of primitive people.

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=359658&language=en

The pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ per catholicism and he can't say one way or the other??

Fortunately, we have the written Word given to us by the Lord to settle the manner.

The Lord also knew they were six days as He spoke to Moses in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17

The writer of Hebrews understood it as he quoted the OT. Heb 4:4

Christ believed in a literal Adam as He noted in Mark 10:11, "but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

Paul believed in a literal Adam as he wrote in Romans 5:14.

These are the words the Holy Spirit moved the writers of the OT and NT to pen.

The weight of Scripture on this issue is against the catholilc, or anyone, who doubts in a literal creation, or that the events of Genesis did indeed occur.

The question now becomes: DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN?

[RegulatorCountry]

Not just Missouri but a specific county. Jackson County.

[Jack Hydrazine]

“Haven’t seen a shred of verified evidence of man’s existence earlier than 6000 years ago.”

How about Gobekli Tepe in Turkey? It’s an ancient site dated back between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. They don’t know who built it nor do they know why it was built and then later intentionally buried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaoakxvqHWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHG9URGDt6s

Here’s a video with Michael Cremo titled, “The Mysterious Origins of Man,” and hosted by the late Charleton Heston.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Yp0dCqfpg

[Jim W N]

Questionable. This is a relatively recent find that probably needs more examination. I don’t question the age of the stones, they’re probably older than that. But I do question the conjecture of when this thing was assembled. My guess is they are off by about 6,000 years which isn’t much when it comes to dating ancient relics.

And if man was around earlier than 6,000 years ago, there would be MUCH more evidence than this.

[Jack Hydrazine]

How about this one in Bolivia? The snail shells at the site are radiocarbon dated to 10,000 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2404383/10-000-year-old-remains-settlements-unearthed-Bolivia—making-oldest-archaeological-site-Amazon.html

[Jim W N]

That’s snails, not man. We know there were creatures like dinosaurs before the first flood recorded in Genesis 1:2 (Noah’s flood was the second recorded world-wide flood). But the re-creation which included man is recorded as happening about 6000 years ago.