Comments

4 Jan 2008 Ideas about Darwin, Adam and Eve

[Rant] What if I was to suggest to you all that Charles Darwin had revoked his Theory of Evolution on his deathbed and that Adam and Eve were spawning kids long before The Apple Incident in the Garden Of Eden?

Last night I had helped a friend of a friend moved his things out of his house as he was being evicted. Afterwards we sat down, drank some wine and started to make small talk. Along the way I mentioned that I took the Alpha Course and, being a Christian himself, we had found a common ground to discuss deep and meaningful things. He told me many things related to Christianity and the bible, including how the length of a day in the 6 days of creation did not necessarily mean 24 human hours (after all God's perception of a minute could equate eons to mere human perception), the things that will happen up to and including The Second Coming of Jesus, and how other religions have got it wrong.

But it was two main points that came out of the conversation that really got my attention; Charles Darwin and Adam and Eve. I may not manage to write down word for word exactly what was said, but this was the general idea...

During our discussion Christian-Friend-Of-A-Friend (CFF) and I got onto the subject of evolution (as you do).CFF stated his beliefs, I stated mine. Then CFF stated that the earliest starting point of mankind according Darwin (monkey to man) does not match up with the starting point of mankind as stated in the bible; the bible dates back much further. Also CFF stated that Charles Darwin came to Christianity on his deathbed and actually took back his Theory of Evolution (or something like that). Now when you hear all this it sounds like Darwin had never been 'in touch' with Christianity and the bible has it all correct after all.

I was compelled to do some background research and I took a look at Charles Darwin on Wikipedia. The article tells the story of a man who did believe in Christianity. But over time his belief faded and had completely disappeared when his daughter, Annie, died in 1851. Later on in the article it states that the claim of Darwin reverting was refuted and dismissed by Darwin's children and historians alike. So it sounds like Carwin knew this Christian stuff and still said no. However one cannot draw conclusions from only these two sources (CFF and Wikipedia) and more cross-referencing must be done.

Still just because the evolution origin dates and the bible origin dates don't match up doesn't necessarily mean that one is right and one is wrong. Perhaps they can both be right and both have the same starting point, especially if you think about the different timescale perceptions between God and Man as stated earlier.

Now the next point that CFF made about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden I had never heard before, least of all from a Christian. It was both fascinating and refreshing.

As the story of Genesis goes Eve was tempted and ate The Apple from The Tree of Knowledge and then tempted Adam, who also ate the fruit. They realise what they have done, God casts them out of the Garden, Eve's punished with the pains of labour and periods, they give birth to Cane and Abel, Cane and Abel have their misadventures, they go off and they find other people in the world. CFF's made the following claim...

Adam and Eve lived for a long period of time in the Garden of Eden, in fact hundreds of years (which makes sense since there was no concept of death). During that time Adam and Eve would have been doing what comes naturally to them; reproduced. They would produce hundreds of offspring (and it wouldn't hurt Eve labour wise, remember that pain was a punishment for later) and their children could have gone off and populate the world. And when Adam and Eve ate The Apple the curse was passed down to all the offspring, which includes death.

So there you are, when Cane and Abel ventured out they actually met their relatives.

But there's something about this idea that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Why would immortal creature reproduce? It doesn't seem to make sense in terms of ecological balance.

One of the main points of reproduction is to keep the species alive and to replenish numbers when they die. But if the organism doesn't die then the population will just explode wildly out of control. This would mean millions, billions, even trillions of human beings that consumed the Garden's resources (food, oxygen, etc) at an alarming rate. Not to mention taking up so much space. It would be like a virus! The only possible way the Garden could have supported this was that it produced unlimited resources and space. Which I suppose is possible, what with the unlimited power of God, but it doesn't seem very practical. There's no sense of natural balance for there to be immortal human beings that reproduced.

It was a fascinating 5 hours of discussion and it certainly gave me something to think about. But it's something that I would need to do more research into.

I may even...

*gasp*

I may even have to read The Bible.

What do you guys think of all this?

Posted at: 11:15 AM

Your Thoughts

BishopBob said on Saturday 5th of January 2008 at 08:29:59 AM

Gravatar "... Churches have changed their doctrine to stay modern with the times. The RC Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe and threatened early scientists who offered proof of the contrary. The RC Church now admits that Evolution is more than just a theory and accepts it as a more plausible means than Intelligent Design - yet, in the scenario explained above, the Intelligent Design is actually a fact!! How can anyone stand true to Religion when it continues to change its doctrine? If Religion were unyielding and thus supported by the science, that fortitude to stay true to Religion would be understandable. Unfortunately, science and Religion do not stand together and the only thing bending is Religion."

GRAX said on Saturday 5th of January 2008 at 01:14:57 PM

Gravatar "How can anyone stand true to Religion when it continues to change its doctrine?"

But surely the same thing can be said about Science? It does not stand still and remain unchanged. It is being updated with every new discovery and ideas that get accepted within the community.

Besides, I'm sure we can *make* Science and Religion stand together. It's just a case of finding commonalities and thinking up a solution. For example I think it's plausible that genesis and evolution can go together.

ELYSE said on Sunday 6th of January 2008 at 08:51:58 PM

Gravatar I say screw whatever fascination there is with the past, live in the present, and party hard. Too much thought and research into the subject is going to annoy you. Worry about these things after you die. Right now, get naked and wrestle me in pudding.

Gal said on Sunday 14th of September 2008 at 07:37:38 PM

Gravatar u would like to check out:

www.drdino.com

Write your own comments


(*) indicates required field

Skins