(Photo: Reasons to Believe)Fazale Rana (left) and Hugh Ross (right), authors of "Who Was Adam?" and research scholars for Reasons to Believe.Posted on 10/26/2015 8:33:29 AM PDT by 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.
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.
Correct. Genetically perfect human beings didn’t have to worry about the birth defects typical of incest nowadays. But by the time Moses came along, God gave him laws against consanguinity.
Bishop Ussher also mentions a lot of terrible birth defects in ancient Egypt, with all their continued brother-sister, etc., marriages.
RE: Catholics will have a problem with this as they view Genesis as symbolic.
How does that work?
I’m sure Catholics ( the devout ones at least ) believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If Genesis is symbolic, then Jesus’ statement about marriage, which refers to Genesis, can be taken as symbolic as well.
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6
Then we have the genealogy of Jesus mentioned in the gospel of Luke, which traces Jesus’ ancestry all the way to Adam.
Those are symbolic too?
How can it be when it starts with His LITERAL father, Joseph?
CCC 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p5.htm
I have no problem with reading Genesis as literal text. In fact, I believe it happened just as recorded. God created everything in six 24 hour days. The Hebrew backs that up.
Do you believe that Jesus literally turned the bread and wine into His body and blood?
Regarding your quote from Jesus, Catholics do not believe in divorce and remarriage. Catholics also interpret this literally, unlike most Protestants.
But we Catholic are allowed to interpret some passages symbolically. The moral messages of the creation story in Genesis we must believe in of course. This includes believing we were made in God’s image and likeness, that God created the world ex nihilo (from nothing), that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and so on. We also must believe that there was an original man whom we all descended from and an original woman whom we also descended from.
But if the seven days was poetic language and exactly how God created the first man and woman, we can believe in evolution or not.
Hope this helps!
Look at Michael Cremo’s evidence. Plenty of videos on the GoogTube you can watch.
How does something come from nothing?
How does life come from lifelessness?
Science cannot answer those two questions.
God, however can as He declares....I AM.
Seems the only people who read the CCC around here is the Evangelical/Protestants.
Thanks for playing.
Jos. Smith thought it was in Missouri.
With respect, I think you are misinterpreting my position and that of Catholics.
So as to your two questions of how something came from nothing and how life came from lifelessness, we believe that God created the Heavens and the earth, out of nothing. We believe He created life. But as to how life changed, we believe that evolution is compatible with God’s creation. I agree, science cannot answer those two questions.
We are not deists who think that after God created the universe, He sat back and did nothing.
RE: But if the seven days was poetic language and exactly how God created the first man and woman, we can believe in evolution or not.
So, were Adam and Eve LITERALLY the ancestors of all mankind? Or were they symbolic? That’s the bottom line question.
The Hebrew backs it up....but hey, thanks for playing.
In the current debate between creationism and evolution, evolution removes God from the equation.
It presumes humans are not created in the image of God, but rather, we've "worked" our way up from little microbes to where we are today.
However, the catechism of the catholic church, which is the "official" teaching of the catholic church says Genesis is symbolic regarding the six days of creation.
CCC 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.
I'm not sure how you can square away a literal adam and eve with symbolic days as the NT testifies to the accuracy of Genesis.
Evolution would have to deny Genesis.
There was a first man, an Adam, who all people descended from.
There was a first woman, an Eve, who all people descended from.
We may believe that Adam and Eve were preceded by millions of years of evolution, or not. Catholics can believe in evolution or not, but we must believe in a first man and woman who we all descended from.
RE: We may believe that Adam and Eve were preceded by millions of years of evolution, or not.
So, Soul-less Humanoids existed before Adam and Eve then?
Are you kidding me?
The image of God most strongly speaks to our souls, not our bodies nearly as much.
We believe God was guiding things along the way. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Catholics are not deists who believe that God created the world and then sat back and did nothing from them on. So if evolution is true, God would have to be guiding it. (And remember, Catholics can believe in creationism too!)
Actually the word for soul in Latin is “anima.” The word in Latin for animal, is the same as English, “animal.”
So no soul less humanoids were roaming the earth. As to when Adam and Eve existed, was it when homo sapiens came into being, or homo sapiens sapiens, or earlier or later, I do not know, and that does not impact my life a great deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.