I liked was interested by was inspired by absolutely loved didn't like completely disagreed with this article. Facebook it Tweet it. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Please visit our new website for the latest Evangelical Alliance content. The Evangelical Alliance. All links to external websites and non-webpage documents open in new windows - To open PDF documents you will need the free Adobe Acrobat reader.
We have launched a new website and this page has been archived. Find out more. Evangelical Alliance Join us.
Oxford: Clarendon Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Boston, MA: Blackwell Science; Grafen A: Optimisation of inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 3 — Article PubMed Google Scholar. Leigh EG Jr: The evolution of mutualism. Journal of Evolutionary Biology , 23 12 — MacArthur RH: Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology , 39 4 — Margulis L: Symbiosis in Cell Evolution.
Freeman; Mayr E: Systematics and the Origin of Species. Journal of Molecular Evolution , 43 3 — Midgley M: Animals and Why they Matter. Midgley M: Evolution as a Religion. New York, NY: Routledge; Chapter Google Scholar. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion; Pittendrigh CS: The ecotypic specialization of Anopheles homunculus and its relation to competition with A.
Evolution , 4 1 — Polkinghorne J: The inbuilt potentiality of creation. Wilson DS: Evolution for Everyone. Wright S: Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics , 16 2 — Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press; Grand Rapids, MI: W. Eerdmans; Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Correspondence to Egbert Giles Leigh Jr.
Reprints and Permissions. Leigh, E. Does evolution compromise Christian faith? Evo Edu Outreach 6, 15 Download citation. Received : 18 February Accepted : 18 February Published : 18 April Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative.
Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Google Scholar Bernanos G: Nos amis les saints. Google Scholar Darwin C: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Google Scholar Grafen A: Optimisation of inclusive fitness. These reasons included:. These scientific theories were first put forward in the 19th century, when Christianity was an important influence on people's lives and the way they thought.
Many people saw them as a direct attack on their faith. Charles Darwin faced criticism from people who could not accept what they saw as his 'anti-religious' ideas.
The Genesis creation story is at least 2, years old and was written when people lived completely different lives in an undeveloped environment. Answers to very difficult questions, such as how human life began, usually involved God because God was seen as the source and explanation for everything. The study of science was then largely unknown. It does , however, tell us about genealogical ancestry. We can ask: Does this mean genetic ancestors or genealogical ancestors?
It has to be talking about genealogical ancestry. That recognition really opens up an immense amount of space for theology. But these conflicts are based on what science says about our genetic ancestors. If we focus on genealogical ancestors instead, there might be far less conflict than we first imagined. Can you outline what evolutionary science has suggested about Adam and Eve up until your research? The two starting points are: Humans share common ancestry with the great apes. It really looks like God created us through a providentially governed process of common descent.
People have taken those starting points and concluded, first, that the human population never gets down to a single couple; and second, that Adam and Eve, if they existed, must have shown common ancestry with the great apes.
And what exactly do we mean by ancestor? If we keep straight what the science is actually saying, the story of Genesis could be true as literally as you could imagine it, with Adam being created by dust and God breathing into his nostrils and Eve being created from his rib.
In the book, you write on what it means to be human according to science and what it means to be human according to theology. What are some of the possible answers to these questions? In science, there are a whole range of answers. Some scientists use the term Homo sapiens to refer to our species, or they expand the Homo genus to include other species like Neanderthals, too.
Thinking about humans in that way might just hide the most important part of the conversation under a false sense of certainty. Scientists cannot agree on a precise definition of our species or our genus. As we look back into our past, our vision grows murky. In theology, sometimes human beings are defined as those made in the image of God. But those simple categorizations hide a lot of complexity and disagreement.
Theologians are just as unsettled on the meaning of the image of God as scientists are on the meaning of human. In my book, I suggest that one valid definition, from the point of view of Scripture, is to define human beings as Adam, Eve, and their descendants. There might be biological humans, fully human, outside the Garden, but Scripture is bound to the story of Adam, Eve, and their lineage.
It is not talking about others, even if they have the same degree of biological humanness as us. This leaves open lots of questions about the meaning of the image of God, the essentials of humanness, and how we think about the possibility of people existing outside the Garden.
This possibility has been the subject of conversation for centuries. What lessons have you learned from wrestling with this personally?
0コメント