Adão realmente existiu?

by Vern Sheridan Poythress

Can we still believe in a historical Adam? Vern Poythress offers a theologically and scientifically informed evaluation of the claims that genetic analyses show that Adam could not have existed.

Written to equip and strengthen laypeople in their defense of the faith, Christian Answers to Hard Questions challenges contemporary opposition to Christianity with concise, practical answers.

Genres: Science

44 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2013

About the author

Vern Sheridan Poythress was born in 1946 in Madera, California, where he lived with his parents Ransom H. Poythress and Carola N. Poythress and his older brother Kenneth R. Poythress. After teaching mathematics for a year at Fresno State College (now California State University at Fresno), he became a student at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he earned an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974). He received an M.Litt. in New Testament from University of Cambridge (1977) and a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (1981).

He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.

More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.

Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.

Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.

The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.

He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).

Reviews

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very thoughtful introductory work. There are no minced words here, and the work as a whole covers a lot of ground. If you are interested in studying this topic, you should pick this up.

[Phil Wade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can we still believe in a historical Adam? That’s the question Dr. Vern S. Poythress, professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, answers in this booklet. He talks through scientists’ claims that Adam and Eve could not have existed, starting with the claim that 99% of the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is identical. Is this accurate? What about an authoritative report that refers to both 99% and 96%? Is that a mistake? No, he observes, both figures come from an interpretation of data using a few restrictions. Without getting too deep for thoughtful readers, Dr. Poythress explains how the data is being interpreted to come up with these figures and what is being left unsaid.

Step by step, asking questions on every other page about what this bit of information could mean to the reader, Dr. Poythress gets to his main point: Darwinist evolution is a framework for interpreting scientific data, and there are other frameworks.

Scientific findings are often reported as unarguable facts, as conclusions naturally drawn from the unbiased data at hand. That simply isn’t true. If a scientist or science reporter assumes gradualism is true, interprets his data set accordingly, and then announces he has proven gradualism with his data, then he has begged the question. This kind of circular reasoning is common, and this booklet aims at tripping it up.

“[W]ithin the mainstream of modern culture, Darwinism is not seen as religious, but merely ‘neutral’ and ‘scientific’,” he writes, yet Darwinists claim to have disproven God’s existence, which is a religious and unscientific claim. Such unscientific claims are being made in the name of science all the time these days, and it falls to those who aren’t scared of religion to point this out.

Dr. Poythress doesn’t shy away from the fact that the Bible states Adam and Eve existed, but he doesn’t argue from the text or any research to prove the point. He is content to poke holes in the claims that they could not have existed as well as criticize the idea that Science sees all, knows all, and cannot be questioned.

This thoughtful, accessible booklet is part of a series from Westminster Seminary Press called “Christian Answers to Hard Questions.” I recommend it to anyone who is wrestling with how to reconcile scientific claims with biblical truths.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a poor book, not because of the content, but because of the title. This has almost nothing to do with Adam at all and the subject doesn't come up until the second to last page in this work. And when it is mentioned it essentially just answers the question with a blank yes, no explanation accompanied it. The title should have been "Is Darwinism true?" because that is the question that is addressed herein, and I agree with their conclusions. Just don't pick up this book expecting it to be about Adam and his existence.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vern Poythress is quite the Renaissance man; or more appropriately I should say he’s quite the Reformation man. With degrees in Mathematics from Cal Tech and Harvard balanced with a theological degree in apologetics from Westminster and also New Testament studies at Oxford, Poythress over the years have shown himself to be quite a capable scholar when it comes to discussion of various disciplines from the Christian Worldview. When I learned that the editors for the “Christian Answers to Hard Questions” series has selected Poythress to write in defense of the historicity of Adam, I was quite delighted. The debate on the historicity of Adam has been a source of contention the last few years in Evangelical circles and survey of the literature reveal that it involves the discipline of biology, Old Testament studies and Ancient Near East studies. Given the inter-disciplinary nature of the debate, Poythress’ ability to navigate through inter-relationship of disciplines would be helpful (for an introduction to Poythress’ view on the relationship of disciplines, see his book Symphonic Theology).
Like other works in the Christian Answers to Hard Questions series, this is a short book. The short length forces its contributors to be concise. Poythress did a masterful job of engaging for the reader in the book. I enjoyed and learned the most from his evaluation of the claim that man and Chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA. He spends a considerable length addressing this issue. Poythress’ footnotes demonstrate that he is informed and up to date with the latest peer review articles on genetic studies and I appreciate the caliber of his sources behind his effort to debunk the claim that Chimpanzees and man are 99% alike genetically. It turns out that the data has been manipulated and some of the genetic materials that are not similar between man and Chimps have been eliminated from the percentage count. I also appreciated the discussion of what one’s interpretative grid of the percentage means. One sees here how Cornelius Van Til and Thomas Kuhn influenced Poythress on the importance of one’s philosophy of science that plays a role of how one understands the evidences.
I did not disagree with the conclusion or the arguments presented in the book. However, the book could be improved in two ways. First, it would have helped to let his readers know what his conclusion is in the beginning of the book rather than the end. Secondly, I think Poythress shouldn’t have begun the book with a lengthy discussion about the genetics similarities between man and chimps. Towards the end of the book Poythress noted that the discussion of the historicity of Adam takes place in various disciplines—theology, biology and Biblical studies. I think it would have been helpful to put this in the beginning of the book as preparation for the genetics discussion. Overall the book is more theological rather than exegetical but I wouldn’t dismiss it for being so since it paves the way for the Biblical data to speak on the question of the historicity of Adam. In fact, I would recommend those who want to start understanding the debate to begin with this book first, followed by Zondervan’s recent Four Views on the Historicity of Adam.
NOTE: This book was provided to me free by P&R Publishing and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

[Thaddeus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good booklet exploring the question: Did Adam exist from a scientific and theological perspective.

The booklet helpfully asks thought provoking questions for reflection and consideration. There is also a good short select bibliography at the end for further reading. This would be a good resource to get conversation started on the topic and provoke further inquiry.

Especially geared towards those who have a scientific bent.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bom, mas nada espetacular.

[Morgana Mendonça dos Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bem específico.

[Tengxiang · Rating 4 out of 5]

I guess this is gonna be helpful to my seeker friends.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author interprets DNA to see if Adam and Eve are historical.

[Mark Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classic polymathic Poythress. He takes a consistent presuppositionalist approach to the issue at hand and yet doesn't use his faith as an excuse to avoid the science relevant to his topic. The book is so brief (I read it in one sitting) that he raises just one scientific issue, correspondence between ape and human DNA. But he adroitly explains both the facts of the matter and the unavoidable role one’s presuppositions play in his interpretation and arrangement of the “facts.”

My only complaint is that I, who am not a polymath, didn't come away with as full an understanding as I expected of the DNA-correspondence issue. But I did get good theological answers as to why there might be so much overlap. And I got this fantastic quote Poythress unearthed from a presumably non-Christian scientist:

Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood.

Poythress was also admirably brief, with cogent critical thinking questions spaced frequently throughout the text.

One more note: Poythress did argue for the possibility of gaps in the Genesis genealogy (based on the demonstrable, purposeful gaps in Matthew’s genealogy), and he did not raise the problem of death before sin. I’d be a little unclear, based on this short book alone, what he has concluded about the age of the earth.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Christian Answers to Tough Questions series from Westminster Seminary Press and P&R Publishing is a blessing to the church. These short booklets provide just what they promise, Christian answers to tough questions. Vern Poythress offers guidance to the reader on navigating the debate over a historical Adam and if humans evolved from a common ancestral group of primates.

This volume deals with the historicity of Adam but instead of offering an argument strictly from Scripture, Poythress chooses to interact with the science of the debate and interpret the science in light of Scripture. This approach is particularly appealing to those who enjoy the world of science and are convinced that the realm of the natural sciences lie as much within the scope of God’s sovereign reign as any other part of creation.

Poythress covers genetics and scientific investigation. His point about data interpretation is applicable not just to the issue of Adam and origins, but to everything. When looking at the commonly cited statistic of chimps and humans genome being 99% identical and why this statistic is often misleading and misunderstood Poythress writes that,
“(t)he data from the human-genome project and similar projects for chimpanzees and other animals has to be interpreted. It does not interpret itself.”

Not only that, but Poythress addresses well the interpretations that are made from genetic similarities.

“The most striking genetic similarities between humans and chimps lie in many of the protein-coding regions within the dnA. That is understandable from the standpoint of design because proteins are the backbone of chemical machinery inside a cell.”

Poythress continues, highlighting some flaws that show themselves in certain conclusions of naturalism and her proponents.

“(I)n the midst of rapidly expanding research, popular claims made in the name of science easily fall victim to one of three failings: they overreach or exaggerate the implications of evidence; they misread the significance of technical research; or they argue in a circle by assuming the principle of purely gradualistic evolution at the beginning of their analysis.”

This is a great booklet to engage the debate of origins and a great example of how to interact with scientific research and propositions from a Christian worldview. Read and enjoy.

I received a review copy of this work from the publisher through NetGalley.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Poythress raises several issues within the evolutionary creation viewpoint that are used by Denis Lamoureux, Francis Collins and others to support the conclusion that humans evolved. Ultimately these issues are woven into questioning whether there was a historical Adam and Eve. The first issue is noting that the data from the Human Genome Project, or any other scientific system, doesn’t interpret itself. So the individual Christian needs to keep in mind that “The reigning framework for the interpretation of genetic information and biological origin is Darwinism.” While Poythress may take a more presuppositional or Kuhnian (Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”) stance than some evolutionary creationists, it is worth reminding yourself that there is no such thing as a brute, interpreted fact—in science, religion, theology and all other systems of human thought.

Poythress also examines additional areas of scientific investigation that can lead to questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve. One is the correspondence of human and primate (especially chimpanzee) DNA. A second is how studies of human genetic variation question whether current genetic diversity allows for human descent from only one human pair. A third area looks at how studies of population genetics can position the emergence of truly human primates so far back in time that the Genesis story of human origins lacks credibility.

Don't miss that he is NOT rejecting these areas of scientific investigation outright, but raising legitimate questions on their conclusions and their interpretation of the data used to reach those conclusions. So could God have created through evolution? Poythress said: “He may if he wishes create a new species through gradual processes; he may also create in unique ways.” He is not a “prisoner of his own laws.”

But what about Adam and Eve? “We may continue to have confidence that he gave us a reliable account when he spoke about Adam and Eve. They did exist, and they were specially created—“in the image of God.”

[Mark A Powell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Launching from the oft-quoted “99% DNA similarity” between humans and chimpanzees, Poythress focuses on the scientific claims that deny the existence of Adam. He also addresses the underlying philosophical framework of Darwinism that denies the involvement of God. Poythress writes accessibly, no doubt helped by the short format of this series, yet he does not shy away from analyzing the science on its own terms. A strong bibliography and reflection questions make this a good primer.

[E · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book never should have been written. It is a mess. It's not that I disagree with what he writes, for I don't. But it's like he wrote it over a hazy weekend and they published it without another look. No flow or sense of argument. No semblance of order. Words and concept from out of left field, without explanation. Idiotic "before we move on" review questions every couple of paragraphs that make it impossible to make one's way through the book. What a disaster.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review on my blog

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

short and interesting, a DNA approach to the question

[Rick Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good for what it is. I think Poythress should have given theological considerations equal space and focus as scientific issues.