Bible, Darwin are not worlds apart
The following is a Counterpoint column:
By Ernie Sawyer
The writers on evolution in the Ideas section (May 15) do not expound on a modern interpretation of creation in Genesis. The biblical version is much more in tune with evolutionary evidence than creationists admit.
Today, we know that all life is made from "dust" -- that is, the natural elements, according to its kind (determined by DNA). One senses a plan, a determinate link to the past.
In Genesis, we learn that a plant had seed "within itself," the earth "brought forth" grass, and plants and animals were made after "his kind" or "their kind." Man was made from "dust," in God's "image" (a homologue for mankind). Listen carefully. The first note of evolution is soft but clear.
And then comes an inspired chord. In the Garden of Eden, God planted several trees. Some were unlike ordinary trees from which one might pluck a pear, peach or plum to please one's palate. One tree in particular bore a "forbidden fruit." Adam was instructed by God that he must not eat the fruit thereof lest he "die." By eating, he would also become "like a god" with "the knowledge of good and evil." Obviously, we must ponder the meanings in the symbolism.
So a "serpent" tempted Adam's wife, Eve, to eat the forbidden fruit. Reading the verses carefully, it's clear, before eating, she did not know right from wrong, was not wise, and was not present when God forbade Adam to eat the fruit. Neither did she, nor Adam, feel shame for their nakedness.
Then she ate, gave to Adam, and he ate.
This tree symbolizes man's transition. An evolutionist might offer this interpretation: Before eating the fruit, man lacked moral sensitivity and felt no embarrassment for his nakedness. He was like animals or the early hominids. After eating the fruit, man, the innocent, "died." He evolved to a higher state, with wisdom, responsibility for his moral behavior, and a desire to clothe his body (initially with "fig leaves"). These were uniquely human attributes.
And finally the crescendo. To destroy the evil among men, God caused a Great Flood, which ended most life on earth. It was a mass extinction of life except for the pairs of species Noah boarded on the ark. After the flood, both man and animals began to multiply once more on earth.
Genesis is not the song of Darwin, but it does have several notes that resonate with today's fossil record.
The writer lives in Greensboro.
Comments (13)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If Dorothy had returned from OZ, landed in Greensboro and picked up a copy of today's N&R and read this column she'd think she was indeed back in Kansas.
Posted on June 2, 2005 8:54 AM
I don't have the time and would hardly know where to begin to critique his "train of thought"
Posted on June 2, 2005 9:30 AM
"If Dorothy had returned from OZ, landed in Greensboro and picked up a copy of today's N&R and read this column she'd think she was indeed back in Kansas."
Oh I don't know. Kansas is getting ready to establish fundamentalism as the king of the science class. This note is at the opposite end of the apologetics world, isn't it?
Posted on June 2, 2005 9:39 AM
Eric V Ecuman in Manilla, part 236
Posted on June 2, 2005 10:23 AM
Dude! I didn't say ANYTHING to antagonize him. Not on purpose, at any rate...
Posted on June 2, 2005 10:41 AM
I never have felt antagonized by Eric. I enjoy the debate. I just don't have the time for it today.
Posted on June 2, 2005 1:52 PM
How could it have been a sin for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit if they didn't know right from wrong? It's only possible to sin if you knew it was wrong to do so.
Posted on June 2, 2005 5:19 PM
Paul,
Great point!
Posted on June 2, 2005 6:19 PM
It's an interesting reading of Genesis, you have to give him that. He's really working some angles and some timing issues that I haven't seen discussed before. Can you assume that Adam passed on the restriction of eating from The Super Tree?
So it's another example of finding an interpretation that you happen to like where others have found so many other interpretations. And there is no more support for one over the other.
But, in the end, I think it's obvious that the author of Genesis was the first to chronicle Man's emergence into the world of specialization and mass agriculture, what Daniel Quinn calls "totalitarian agriculture."
Here's another interpretation (from Quinn's Ishmael) that I think is very interesting. Consider the eating of the fruit to represent the discovery of agriculture: no longer do bands of humans hunt and share, grow sporadically, live a life of subsistence, hand to mouth, as it were. Now Genesis looks like a polemic against against the new agriculture: God is displeased; people have to do work to get along; the most prominent farmer, Cain, kills his brother, who is still offering meat gifts. Yeah, I know, it doesn't quite hang together perfectly, but what the heck, Genesis is pretty old.
Posted on June 2, 2005 11:22 PM
one commentary writes " How could it have been a sin for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit if they didn't know right from wrong? It's only possible to sin if you knew it was wrong to do so." and another states " good point ". it's like one guy lies and the other guy swears to it. simply because one commentary states "it's clear, before eating, she did not know right from wrong" does in no way support what the bible says, so why are they so quick to jump on that point ? possibly because it's easier too argue rhetoric than truth.
would someone please point me to the scripture that states that either adam or eve did not know right from wrong. clearly those who choose to focus on the actual eating of the apple as the original sin, do err. adam was given the order by God not to eat that fruit and even though eve was not yet brought forth, it is apparent that she knew she was not to eat of the tree ( see her conversation with the serpent in genesis). the sin was not eating the fruit , it was disobeying the command that God gave. but it is so much easier for some to jump on any comment that supports their point of view. i hope you guys don't knock yourselves over with your own pats on your backs.
the one who states that sin is not sin unless you know right from wrong is correct in his assertation, however he misapplies that observation to support his unbelief. some do not so easily have the wool pulled over their eyes ! you gotta try harder !
Posted on June 2, 2005 11:28 PM
Buz,
I think Genesis is pretty clear about my point. It calls the forbidden tree the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It says that after Eve and Adam ate from it, "their eyes were opened..." and then later, God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil," which means that beforehand, they didn't know good and evil.
Therefore, like I said, it couldn't have been a sin for them to disobey God, for they didn't know good and evil, meaning they didn't know it was wrong to disobey God.
To point out further absurdity in the Genesis account, consider the nakedness thing. If God created them naked and said "it was good," why, then, were they ashamed of the fact that they were naked, and why did God clothe them? Obviously nakedness is proper since that's how God created humans. And even if sin were introduced into the world, how would that change the fact that nakedness was good?
Posted on June 3, 2005 12:59 AM
If you go to the text from Chapter 2 of Genesis, you will find that God TOLD them not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Also, you will find that Adam was farming BEFORE the fall in Chapter 3. Reading the text sometimes resolves some of these "deep" theological questions.
Genesis 2 (NASB)
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Posted on June 3, 2005 7:49 AM
paul,
if i were to understand it your way, i would of necessity believe God intended to set up adam and eve in hopes they would fail. if we try to apply human logic to God and all He has said and done, then logically why would God create these two people with no ability to understand and obey His commands ? another things that puzzled me with your understanding of this story, is what kept adam from that tree before eve came along ? perhaps he really did understand (have the knowledge) the consequences that God explained to him. should we believe that adam had no capacity to understand,comprehend and thus reason the consequence of his actions ? if we believe that, then it would have been mute for God to even take the time to warn adam, for adam had no reasoning power. it is clear that eve was deceived, mislead, lied to by the serpent, but all of a sudden she had enough reasoning power to make a decision on his lie? can't have it both ways. it is that same exact deception that keeps many blind to God's plan.
don't misunderstand, i am in no way trying to 'convince' you that God exists, rather just discussing the finer point(s) of this particular story.
Posted on June 3, 2005 9:07 AM