at variance with the Genesis sto ry of Adam and Eve. Moreover, the Scriptures teach elsewhere that all men have descended from a single pair.2Here, then, theistic evolutionists who hold to this scriptural requirement—and most all of the modified positions do— must insert another special act of God by which God permitted only two animal bodies, a male and a female, to evolve. 3. Origin of Woman Theistic evolution holds that woman developed from the ani mal realm as well as man. But Genesis presents Eve as brought to existence in both body and soul after Adam was created. Adam appears as a mature, intelligent person prior to Eve’s formation, even naming the animals before that occasion (2:19). It was fol lowing that action that God took a “ rib” from Adam’s side while he slept and from it formed wo man to be his companion and helper. This means that Eve had no existence before that time. Further, since God employed a physical “ rib” of Adam in effect ing Eve’s existence, special stress is made that her body was formed as well as her soul. Had a female body already existed by evolution from animals into which God merely had to insert a soul, there would have been no reason to employ a physical “ rib.” There could hardly be a more definite way of demonstrating that Eve, in both body and soul, was not a product of evolution than the manner by which God chose to effect her creation. 4. Casual Relation Between Sin and Death Theistic evolution must logical ly deny any casual relation be tween sin and physical death. If man’s body evolved from animal bodies which according to theis tic evolutionists had long experi enced death, it follows that man was physically mortal from his first existence rather than later as a result of sin. But the Bible teaches that death is God’s penal ty for sin. Adam was immortal as
ter molds clay. The noun “ potter” (yotsar) is formed from this word. The word “dust” ( ‘aphar) refers simply to the material ele ments o f the earth. Theistic evo lutionists argue that it can mean “ living dust,” that is, dust in the form of preexisting animals, and so allow for God to have formed man by evolution from them. Two matters in particular make this view untenable. One comes from the latter half of Genesis 2:7 where we are told that as a result of God breathing into this body the “breath of life,” it became a “ living soul” (nephesh hayah). The force o f this closing term is that the body then be came alive for the first time. The same term ,nephesh hayah, is used regarding marine creatures (Gen. 1:21) and animals (Gen. 1:24), both created before man, to indi cate also their initial endowment with life. That it was employed again in respect to man’s crea tion shows that man had not been alive in some prior, animal-type form. The other matter comes from Genesis 3:19 where man is again said to have been taken from the “ dust.” The context here requires that “ dust” means physi cal components of the ground. God tells Adam that he had been taken from dust, for dust he was, and to dust he would return. Ob viously Adam could not return to “ living dust” or preexisting ani mals. As used here, “ dust” can mean only the inert material of the ground. Second, the Bible teaches that all men have descended from a single pair of parents, which fact is out of keeping with the idea of human bodies having developed from animal bodies. Evolutionists hold that man descended from an ancestor common with the gibbon, chimpanzee, orangutan and goril la. They see no reason for believ ing that only one pair o f each o f these animal-types evolved from that ancestor. Why should there have been only one human pair? But if there were more than one, God would have had to create souls for each, which is totally
lar seed and designed to remain distinct in that it had this “built- in” capacity. There is reason for the phrase only if each “kind” was original and non-crossable. 2. Origin of Man a. Theistic evolution holds that man is a product of development through the animal kingdom and is himself a member of that king dom, possessing its highest pow ers. The Bible, however, is in dis tinct conflict with this presenta tion. First, man is immortal while animals are mortal. Once bom, man never ceases to exist. Physi cal death is only the separation of body and soul, the latter of which lives on. As created, man was not subject even to physical death, for death was the result of man’s fall (cf. Gen. 2:17; 3: 19; Rom. 5:12-21). On the other hand, animals die and cease to exist. This is a fundamental dif ference. It alone is sufficient to place man in a category different from that of animals. Second, man was made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26, 27) while ani mals were not. God’s image in man involves especially that man was made a personality, having self-consciousness and self-deter mination, and that he was made originally righteous, being pat terned after God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). Genesis 1:26- 27 teaches also that man was giv en dominion over lower creation. All three factors place man in a category different from animals. b. In view o f such difficulties, some theistic evolutionists have modified their view, as noted earlier, to hold that man’s soul came directly from God, main taining only that the body evolved. However, the Bible is in conflict with this modification also, for Genesis teaches that the body as well as the soul came by direct creation. First, Genesis 2:7 states that God formed man’s body from the dust o f the ground. The word “ fo rm ed ” (yatsar) means to “ shape” or “mold” as when a pot
THE KING'S BUSINESS
25
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter