THE SECOND REASON
In my last post I described in a little more detail why Christians should love both Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as the Big Bang Theory. Now I'd like to turn to the second reason: the implications for the reality of the Garden of Eden.
From the time the Bible was first compiled in the early 4th century AD until the 18th century, pretty much anyone who believed in the Bible also believed that the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden really happened. Christians, Jews and Muslims, all believers in the Garden of Eden, had no reason to suggest otherwise. Since that time, the reality of the event has come into question. This is particularly true when one considers some of the more recent scientific data that appear to contradict the idea that a single pair of humans, named Adam and Eve, were the first to inhabit the Earth, and all humans are descendants of that original pair. Let's consider the evidence:
Daryl Domning
Daryl Domning is a paleontologist at Howard University in Washington, DC. Domning has found considerable evidence that non-human mammals display the very same kind of bad behavior that we call sin in humans. For example, chimpanzees are known to steal and deceive. If Adam and Eve committed the original sin and passed it along to their descendants, how can one explain "sinful" behavior in non-human primates? Surely, no one is suggesting that Adam and Eve were the parents of non-human mammals!
Mitochondrial Eve/Chromosomal Adam
In recent years genetic evidence has been found that traces humans back to an original man and woman. The man has been referred to as Chromosomal Adam and the woman as Mitochondrial Eve. Unfortunately, there is also evidence that these individuals did not live either at the same time or close to the same place, thus undercutting this as evidence of a real Garden of Eden.
The Evidence of Francisco Ayala
Francisco Ayala is an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Irvine. Ayala has identified what is called the DRB1 gene, one found not only in humans but in our genetic near-cousins such as the chimpanzee and gorilla. Ayala's research shows that all of these mammals appear to have a single common ancestor about 60 million years ago. At various points along the way, different groups split off. The reason Ayala's research is important is that it shows that at no point could there have been only two humans. In fact, according to Ayala, at no point could there have fewer than 16 humans, but more likely the minimum number of humans was from 5,000 to 100,000. This suggest that there never could have been just an Adam and Eve.
The Evidence From Genesis
Even the Book of Genesis seems to call into question the idea that there were just two humans. If there were just two humans, then were Adam and Eve not only the parents of Cain but also of his wife? If so, that would imply an incestuous relationship. Really?
How the Proposed Theory Helps the Argument
Many have taken the scientific arguments presented above to mean that Adam and Eve could not have been real people. But for many evangelical Christians, making Adam and Eve allegorical seriously undercuts the Christian message. If the price of Darwin and other modern science is an allegorical Garden of Eden, many of these Christians say they'll take the real Garden of Eden and reject Darwin.
My proposed theory presents a solution to this problem. Assume, for a moment, that both Darwin and Ayala are correct. That would mean that humans did descend from precursor species, and it would also mean that when humans first appeared on Earth, there were likely at least 5,000 of them, possibly as many as 100,000. Even in this circumstance, I would argue, there could easily have been a Garden of Eden scenario. Let me show how.
The Garden of Eden story includes the following core elements: a) two creatures called humans, with mental capabilities never before seen in any living creature; b) sufficient mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong; c) the capacity make a conscious decision; d) the ability to make a bad choice even when the person knows that it is the wrong choice; and e) a God who is willing to respond to the decision they made. Let's look at each of these.
First, Adam and Eve could easily have been two people selected by God for a test. They were amongst the original group of humans, so their actions could have been representative of all humans at that time. Darwin's theory posits that creatures would slowly evolve the capability for independent thought at judgment. Adam and Eve, therefore, could have been amongst the first two with the capability. Presumably, though, all or nearly all of the humans in this original cohort had evolved similar mental faculties: all would have gotten to the point that they understand the difference between right and wrong, yet could make a bad decision. Thus, Adam and Eve's behavior would simply have served as a convenient proxy for the entire cohort of humans.
Second, Darwin suggests that humans evolved higher mental faculties. Eventually, creatures would emerge with sufficient capability to understand the difference between right and wrong, as well as the capacity to make decisions.
Third, according to the theory, creatures could eventually emerge who could think and act sufficiently independently that they would dis-regard what someone else wanted. That sounds exactly like what Adam and Eve did.
Finally, God responded to what Adam and Eve did. What we often forget is that God could have simply ignored Adam and Eve, then redirected His attention elsewhere in the universe. After all, given the size of the Universe, God could easily have said, I don't have time for these people! But, of course, Christians believe He made a different decision, one to be actively involved in the world.
Now I know I can't prove that this was the scenario. The important thing, however, is that Darwin's theory creates a very practical way for this to have been the actual scenario. Further, this scenario very neatly fits the actual description of Genesis 2 and 3. Thus, Darwin creates a way to have a literal Garden of Eden. In other words, Darwin provides a means to reinforce a second fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the concept of a real Garden of Eden where real humans willingly and knowingly dis-obey.
