Who was Adam? Four Views
By his own account, Lamoureux was originally a young earth creationist (40-41). But, after he first got a Ph.D in theology (41), and then in evolutionary biology (42), he is now an evolutionary creationist. You could probably interpret his pathway as one where the seminary study made young earth creationism untenable, and then his study in evolutionary biology completely shifted his paradigm so that he can now say “I have yet to see evidence that falsifies biological evolution” (40). 1
Given that perspective, it is hard to shake the feeling that Lamoureux is interpreting Scripture to fit his scientific paradigm. If you accept biological evolution wholesale, then you cannot simultaneously accept a historical Adam, and so can’t interpret Genesis to teach that, unless you’re comfortable saying “Scripture teaches this, but it’s wrong.” Lamoureux’s essay then is focused on defending his understanding of Genesis 1-3 in particular, and Genesis 1-11 in general. Of the latter, he says that “real history in the Bible begins roughly around Genesis 12 with Abraham” (44). This would be convenient, but Lamoureux more or less just asserts this, and doesn’t really defend or prove the position.
Having de-historicized the early chapters of Genesis, Lamoureux then explains why scientific concordism, of any kind, is wrongheaded. That is, any view which seeks harmony between modern science and ancient text is out of bounds. The reason for this is that Genesis represents ancient science through and through, which we now know is wrong. God accommodated the ancient understanding to communicate big picture ideas (that He created), but not details (the manner and sequence in which things actually happened).
With this perspective, Lamoureux then provides brief commentary on Genesis 1-2, as well as Romans 5. While he acknowledges that much of what he is saying represents a “counterintuitve way of reading Scripture,” (63) it is nonetheless the best way to make sense of the text in light of his presuppositions (as well as what he thinks are the text’s presuppositions). Ultimately, God’s Word only tells us that he created, and in no way explains how he created. While I would grant that position to a certain extent, this would still seem to suggest that God directly created Adam, even if the rest of nature were allowed to unfold by “supernatural” selection. Lamoureux insists that this is not possible, and that pinning Adam on the tail end of an evolutionary sequence is “categorically inappropriate” (64).
When it comes to responses, first up is John Walton. He sees several indefensible leaps in logic and is inadequate in his treatment of the New Testament (68). He also points out that is untenable to suggest that real history doesn’t start until Genesis 12(67). From another front, John Collins questions Lamoureux’s understanding of what concordism is when it comes to understanding the Bible and science (76-77). He sees Lamoureux as mainly reacting against an overly literal concordism (young earth creationism), and not allowing room for other varieties. Lastly, William Barrick and subtly questions Lamoureux’s salvation. 2 Beyond that, he is having none of Lamoureux’s position. Because it starts off on such a negative tone, it is hard to not read his response with disdain.
Lamoureux is allowed a short rejoinder to the responses, but for space sake, I’m not going to comment on it. In the end, Lamoureux does his best to defend the position that Adam didn’t exist. Though he presents his case from Scripture, it is hard to not see it as springing more from previously accepted scientific conclusions that now require major revisions to how we read the early chapter of Genesis. While some of his points about God’s accommodation in revealing truth, the implausibility of concordism, and the difference between modern science and ancient science may stand, his reading of Scripture does not. It would be hard to validate that you could reach the interpretations he reaches without having your presuppositions driving the train of thought there. That may be unavoidable for all of us, but in this case, if you’re not convinced of the full evolutionary story, there is not enough textual evidence to follow Lamoureux’s reading as well as the implications that follow.
