Proof That Adam & Eve Were Made ... Not Born
Good Science Gone Theologically Bad
Originally, I only wrote two parts to this particular blog. The objective was to arrive at an understanding of what is the correct interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s (A & E) creation. As an almost direct reaction to the scientific interpretations of the scientific research of Cann et al. (which shed some light on the existence of an earliest common ancestor of all hominins), theological problems began to proliferate. This female common ancestor was dubbed mtEve. Some, maybe many, Bible believers began to question the accuracy and infallible Truth of Scripture, maybe even without their realizing it; maybe even questioning their belief in God. Currently, the trend is becoming alarming.
Thus, the prudent addition of a third part to this blog series. In the first two parts, I presented positive arguments / proofs. In this, the third part will be presented negative proofs to show that the “alternative” interpretations to the literal interpretation of Adam & Eve’s creation are not simply problematic, but lead to an intellectual assent to at least two heresies. To recap: using Scripture and Magisterial documents, Part I showed that Adam and Eve were actual historical beings created in the image and likeness of God; Part II showed why the science behind so-called mtEve did not contradict the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of that creation event, and; Part III is meant to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the literal and literalistic interpretation Adam and Eve's creation are virtually identical. Furthermore, the all the alternate hypotheses are insurmountably problematic from a theological standpoint — even to the point of heresy on at least two points.
The “Born” Theory Can’t Clear the Monogenism Hurdle? So Let’s Redefine Monogenism!
It is absolutely amazing to me the great lengths sincere people will go to in order to try and force theology to fit the science — even if the scientific interpretation and/or method is wrong. To be sure, good science, performed and interpreted correctly, will not contradict correct interpretations of Scripture. Unfortunately, all too often we seem to be OK with believing that science is infallible, but not the Church. There are many alternative hypotheses regarding the creation of biblical Adam and Eve. In reality, however, most all of them have their roots firmly planted in the one “master” hypothesis. There are two prominent efforts to make individual hypotheses acceptable. They do so by redefining monogensim, instead of submitting to its correct definition (as stated in Humani Generis, n. 37). The following two hypotheses have seemed to have gained the most traction with Christians of all faith traditions.
All these hypotheses start with a root premise, which states that Adam and Eve were each born from two separate hominin (animal human) parents. The Thomistic Evolution people consist of four Dominican priests who, when taken as a group, are well versed in biology, theology, and philosophy. Fr. Nicanor Austriaco is the biologist of the group and seems to be the main spokesman. I look at Thomistic Evolution with a very skeptical eye. Fr. Nicanor seems to take the a priori position that if Scripture seems to disagree with science — then science trumps Church teaching.
He is desperately seeking a way to redefine monogenism to make Church teaching about Adam and Eve fit with the flawed scientific interpretations behind mtEve (Out-of-Africa hypothesis of rational man's common female genetic ancestor). In their entire four part synopsis of their theory, they completely ignore any Scripture passages dealing with references to Adam and Eve. Yet, they want to change the interpretation of Scripture — without actually citing any Scripture relative to the very change they are trying to make. Is that wise? Why are they attempting to do this? Could research grants be at the heart? It is an axiom of scientific research that science follows the money.
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco et al. have a vested interest in hypothesizing the way they did in regards to Pope Pius XII’s comments concerning polygenism. They are trying to get around the theological problems associated with polygenism. They are doing so by making polygenism morph into monogenism. I’m not accusing anybody of bias, but there is the potential. Thomistic Evolution is non-profit. As of July 2018, this is what their website says about their funding:
This website is supported by a grant from the Evolution and Christian Faith (ECF) Program of the BioLogos Foundation. The BioLogos ECF Program is a multi-million dollar grants program sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation.
Their current website has added Ian Ramsey Centre for Science & Religion and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. Let’s take a glance at both BioLogos and the John Templeton Foundation. As yet, I haven’t had the opportunity to look into these funds.
Let’s take a glance at both BioLogos and the John Templeton Foundation. According to John UpChurch:
BioLogos gives priority to the claims of secular scientists. Their website says, “Overwhelming scientific evidence points to an old earth,” and “The data are clear that humans have been created through an evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single first couple [In other words, no Adam and Eve, which is pretty much what Fr. Nicanor Austriaco et al. are trying to get us to accept — SML]. … According to Karl Giberson, former executive vice president of BioLogos, the strategy BioLogos employs can be described as this: Reject what atheistic scientists like Jerry Coyne and Stephen Hawking say about God, but accept what they teach about biology and cosmology."[1-B]
BioLogos’ balancing act doesn’t remove barriers to trusting Christ. It establishes new ones. By separating matters of God from matters of science, they build a wall that leaves God out of efforts to explain the real world. While the Bible claims that God is not only the Creator but also the foundation for all understanding, BioLogos takes a position that relegates Him to insignificance.
Here is another quote that informs us of the true goal of Biologos. In 2010, BioLogos president Darrel Falk wrote:
Option #1: [that Adam and Eve are actual historical people] is the standard argument put forward by those who believe in a young earth created by God in six twenty-four hour days less than 10,000 years ago. BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view from the Church. A fundamental part of our mission is to show that Option #1 is not tenable.
Biologos and The John Templeton Foundation wants to convince us accept the science that seems to indicates that biblical Adam and Eve never existed, They want us to gather around a giant wall around themselves. This wall, called Scientism, was built so that we can’t see what they are trying to accomplish. Un fortunately, it also prevents themselves from seeing the real scientific truths of Creation. Scientific Truths that God Himself has hidden in Genesis. Hidden until the right time in history for Him to reveal the fuller Truths contained within Genesis. Truths about the dust and salt of DNA. Truths about the stem cells contained in the human body — including in Adam’s ribs. Truths about epigenetic plasticity, i.e., the software which programs and reprograms the function of our DNA. Scientific Truths about how to create one Person from the genetic material of another person — one flesh, two persons.
Because of their self-inflicted blindness, they are trying to get us to accept heretical interpretations of Scripture. Don’t fall for the trap. Whether consciously or not, this is exactly what Thomistic Evolution is trying to push on the Church.
I found some rather disturbing information about the John Templeton Foundation. According to the Templeton website, they are funding projects of the World Economic Forum. In particular, they are financing the Forum of Young Global Leaders. The World Economic Forum is behind a world-wide effort to change the world via the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. Into a world ruled by Global Elites. A world without God. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, is a valued member of the World Economic Forum. Under Trudeau’s leadership, Christian Churches are suffering widespread persecution. Many hypothesize that Klaus Schwab is the Antichrist. I believe it is certainly a plausible hypothesis. Why is Templeton (who is funding the Godless World Economic Forum) also funding Thomistic Evolution?Why does a Foundation or philanthropic group give money to others? The answer. To further their own philosophical, cultural, and political agenda. Neither Biologos nor John Templeton Foundation can be truly associated with any truly Christian faith traditions. They are out to destroy true faith by introducing seeds of error into their theology. Whether realized or not, Thomistic Evolution has fallen into that trap. An example of this problem is the research concerning so-called mitochondrial Eve.
The study by Cann et al. contains assumptions that conflict with the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation. If their teachings are accepted, it will lead to several heretical conclusions. As a biologist, Fr. Nicanor Austriaco should have know the scientific problems behind the conclusions reached by Cann et al. The fact that the null hypothesis was never even tested against a literal interpretation of Eve’s creation (via a credible and valid scientific method described in Genesis) by which she could be “taken out of man” using the stem cells from Adam’s rib. Is Fr. Nicanor so blinded by Scientism that the thought of subjecting the null hypothesis to testing against the Creation account of Adam and Eve in Genesis never crossed his scientific and scriptural mind? After all, other scientists, likely much less biblically knowledgeable than Nicanor, have made the connection between science and the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib.
Reading Genesis 2:21-22, Biologists Francesco Callea and Michelle Callea, both researchers at the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children’s Hospital Bambino Gesù, marveled at the analogy between sleep and anesthesia (as would be necessary for bone marrow transplant). Also, of interest to them, the origin of the two humans involved in this episode (Adam and Eve).
In an article published in the American Journal Hematology, they wrote:
In the first book of the Bible, God fashions a woman from one of Adam’s ribs: “while Adam was sleeping, … [he] took one of the ribs… and the rib taken from man… made a woman” (Genesis 2:21–22). Were stem cells present at this ancient origin point, in Adam’s rib?The recent discovery of stem cells in bone marrow and their therapeutic application in stem cells regenerative medicine would support the hypothesis that the development of science represents a quite predictable phenomenon proceeding from the potency of Adam’s rib. Likewise, the biomedical research appears to represent a continuous discovery of historical and prehistorical milestones. …The rib, in particular, represents an anatomic type of long bone with a wide, spongious component rich in hematopoietic bone marrow, containing multipotent, pluripotent, and unipotent stem cells [AlisonMR, IslamS, “Attributes of adult stem cells.” J Pathol 2009; 217: 144–160.]. … Carefully reading Genesis 2 [Holy Bible, King James version, Genesis (2:7, 2:21–22)], one is impressed by the fact that man and woman originated via two different modalities: Man “from the dust of the ground, [God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7); Woman “from the rib he had taken out of the man [Adam]” while he was sleeping (Genesis 2:21–22).The analogy between Adam’s sleep and anaesthesia (as in surgical procedures, for bone marrow transplantation) is striking. Also striking, is that the two events—the origin of man and of woman—are not comparable [i.e., two separate events involving two separate modalities — SML]. Adam’s origin is not discussed at present, as nowadays, it seems to belong to the sphere of divinity and as such is inaccessible to scientific knowledge, whereas woman’s origin is a suitable subject for science.The recent discovery (or rediscovery) of stem cells in bone marrow and their application in regenerative medicine would seem to support the hypothesis that the development of science could be predicted from the story of Adam’s rib. Surprisingly, the progress of science, in turn, may lead us to look again into the narrative of our evolutionary ancestry.
The Pontifical Bible Commission tells us the entire Canon of Scripture must be taken into account to determine the correct interpretation of any part of Scripture. As a scientist, Austriaco’s scientific method is, itself, faulty. I’m relatively sure he has read Cann’s research. And yet, he does not even raise an objection to the fact that their null hypothesis is not even tested against the validity of the Scripture account of Adam and Eve’s creation. I can understand that with atheists, but not of a priest — and certainly not involving Scripture.
Given the pool of intellectual talent among this group, I can’t help but wonder how they could have possibly arrived at such a theologically problematic hypothesis. It is based almost entirely on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, coupled with Fr. Austriaco’s knowledge of biology. In a nutshell, they believe God breathed a rational soul into animal Adam and animal Eve (each from different animal parents) either at conception or some point thereafter. The Thomistic Evolution people are using theological contortionism to try and make polygenism fit into the definition for monogenism — at the expense of the Dogmas of Original sin and Redemption.
Kenneth Kemp proposes a virtually identical hypothesis, but relies more heavily on the evolutionary process involving a population of hominins, two of which hit the spiritual soul lottery jackpot. It is a tenet of philosophy that living organisms are only capable generating that which is the same nature as the ones doing the begetting. This is the whole concept of begetting / multiplying. My wife and I can’t beget an angel. A dog can’t generate a cat. When Jesus multiplied the fish, what was the result of that miracle? More fish. Not more beef. What two hominids generate is going to be a hominin. The animal/sensitive soul would be the substantial form of the animal body. That substance would then have to be annihilated, while holding in existence the matter of the body until a new nature could be infused. Now when you factor in a deeper understanding of what it means to “breath” in a rational soul, the ridiculousness of the hypothesis becomes apparent. The Holy Spirit is not going to dwell in an animal soul and yet, that is exactly what would be necessary in order to make the soul in the image and likeness of God. Adam and Eve lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because their original sin distorted their state of being in the image and likeness of God. Thus, the Holy Spirit could not dwell in their spiritual soul.
If one wants to chop down a large oak tree, what is the fastest (exclusive of all other considerations) way to do so? Does one start chopping off branches one-by-one from the top of the tree down, or does one lay his axe to the root of the tree? If the tree is chopped down at its root, the entire tree will fall as a result of that single cut. When this method is applied to a tree of theological hypotheses, all the theologically problematic branches will fall at the same time. In this blog, we are going after the root hypothesis. Let’s begin to turn this tree into a coffin and bury these ill-conceived scriptural interpretations.
Adam & Eve Are Saying, “OOPS! We Smell Heresy!”
Let us begin chopping down the tree of bad scientific interpretations of that which is, more or less, good science. However, the tree of bad theological hypotheses consists of negligent biblical exegesis. Here are some theological points that must be taken into account, examined critically, analyzed, and judged based on sound theology. Let's do this before we cavalierly throw out the contention that God simply breathed a rational soul into two beings (Adam and Eve) who were conceived as animals. As is the case when a statement is passed off as truth, but it is not, the devil can usually be found hiding in the details. Let’s explore some details.
1). All natures are communicated to offspring through begetting/generation. The nature of the begotten is the exact same as the nature of the one who begat. This has been well reasoned out by Aquinas himself. He wrote, “As in creatures, generation [i.e., begetting] is the only principle of communication of nature. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm#article4)” A human cannot generate a cat; a dog can’t generate a fish, a man cannot generate an angel, etc. So animal Adam and Eve would have been animals, as were their parents. They would have had sensitive/animal souls, not intellectual/rational souls.2). Sensitive souls are not even capable of knowing and loving themselves, let alone knowing/loving the God who created them. As Augustine tells us, one cannot love what one does not know (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.htm). So the Holy Spirit would not/could not develop a bond of love with such an animal soul, nor dwell in one that is not capable of knowing and loving (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 93, a. 2). Pre-fallen Adam and Eve were created perfectly in the image and likeness of God. Their corporeal and spiritual natures were in complete and perfect harmony. When they fell, their nature became corrupted. They were no longer in the perfect image and likeness of God. Thus, it was impossible for the Holy Spirit to dwell in any man (Adam) who was not a perfectly in the Imago Dei (image and likeness of God). You may be thinking that nothing is impossible for God, but you would be wrong. God cannot contradict His own essence. That would be a contradiction of Truth. God could not express/create a contradiction to His Truth. For example, God could not create evil — it is a contradiction/total absence of Truth. God would not be God if he were able to create/express a contradiction.The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a disordered nature. This is exactly why the Holy Spirit departed from our First Parents immediately after their sin. Why they lost Supernatural grace. When the Holy Spirit departed, Supernatural Grace was lost to them. Without this internal indwelling, the only type of grace available to fallen man would occur from the outside in — through Actual Grace. This type of grace is external to us, and is a result of the power of the Holy Spirit, which does not require an indwelling to communicate Actual grace. The Holy Spirit did not return to dwell in any man until Jesus redeemed him and established his Church (John 7:39). Consequently, if a fallen rational man, whose corrupted nature produced a corrupted image and likeness of God, cannot be dwelt within by the Holy Spirit, so much more the case for an animal Adam who is not even remotely in the image and likeness at all, let alone imperfectly. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Supernatural grace, a necessary prerequisite for this unnatural transformation of a hominin, could not happen. For any attempt to make this false hypothesis true, it would require one to employ circular logic, which is false logic. To suggest that the Holy Spirit could dwell in an animal, is to commit heresy.3). The Holy Spirit could not have been nonchalantly breathed into animal A & E by God because they were not generated/begotten as persons in the image and likeness of God (see #2). To assert otherwise is to engage in heresy, as was already stated in #2. It is important to note what the International Theological Commission tells us. The Imago Dei resides in the whole man, body and spiritual soul [https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html, n. 9] (See also #5a below). Consequently, both body and animal soul (the substantial form of an animal body) would either together or separately, would not be capable of receiving the gift (via the Holy Spirit) of becoming a rational human beings (possessing a spiritual soul) made in the image and likeness of God. No Imago Dei, no Supernatural Grace.4). The “breathed in” Holy Spirit does not change a pre-existing nature (pre-existing through conception/generation) into a different, higher or lower, nature. I am not aware of that occurring anywhere in Scripture. To avoid possible confusion, one must be aware of the following: unless one has a solid philosophical background, they might confuse annihilation with substantial change; transforming from actuality to potentiality in, say, prime matter. In fact, according to Aquinas, an animal soul is not directly given by God. A sensitive (animal) soul is not subsistent (able to exist independently from the animal body), the sensitive soul is communicated with the semen during the fertilization process of the animal egg (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 118, a. 1). It is NOT gifted by God upon conception. So the entire substance of the animal has its origin as an inseparable part of the conception, unlike rational human beings.Mary received the physical part her human nature entirely from her parents. The rational spiritual soul was breathed in at conception by God — not as a result of the fertilization of St. Anne’s egg by St. Joachim’s sperm. The Holy Spirit did not change her nature in any way. An Immaculate Conception was not needed to change her nature, she was already a rational human being. Using Mary’s Immaculate Conception as an example, the Holy Spirit bonded in Love with that normal rational human nature (https://saintmaximiliankolbe.com/who-are-you-o-immaculate-conception/); a bonding not possible with an animal, for reasons stated in #3 above. Consequently, what occurred with Mary could not have occurred with an animal Adam & Eve, even though that is what would be absolutely necessary for the theories at hand to work.5). To accomplish what Kemp and Austriaco are proposing, the animal nature of animal Adam & Eve would have had to been annihilated — reduced to nothingness — uncreated. After all, it would be impossible for Adam & Eve to each have two completely separate natures simultaneously. Remember, God created by fiat. All creation took form immediately when the Father said, Let it be. Thus, there can be no such thing as two separate natures existing simultaneously in the eternal now. It is a contradiction. Unfortunately, for those particular hypotheses, annihilation creates a whole new level of very serious theological problems.St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, “Grace does not destroy [annihilate] nature but perfects it.”According to Connie Rossini, “St. Albert the Great says that ‘grace builds on nature,’ they mean that grace presupposes a rational animal as the recipient.” Therefore, if through grace (and it would absolutely require the communication of grace to accomplish it), turning animal Adam into rational Adam would, in fact, destroy/annihilate the animal nature. Using Grace to elevate a rational man to the nature of an angel would, in fact, destroy/annihilate rational man’s human nature.
5a). The sensitive (animal) soul is non-subsistent (Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 118, a. 1). Therefore it is likely that the annihilation of it would have also resulted in the annihilation of the genetic material as well. It is not the same as a rational human, where the body dies but the intellectual soul (which is not subsistent) lives forever. Even if the genetic material of animal Adam were not annihilated, it would simply be a collection of dead cells with no substantial form. So, now we are absent both an irrational soul and an irrational body, within which to breathe a rational soul. Hmm! I see a problem here. Don’t forget, the image of God lies in the whole man — body and spiritual soul.
5b). As I said earlier, there is no mention in Scripture, or in any Magisterial writing, that demonstrates the annihilation of one nature, after which it is replaced by a different higher or lower nature. In fact, there is Magisterial evidence contradicting it.
Scripture tells as that God turns dust into gnats (Ex. 8:16-17). Wouldn't that be an annihilation of geological dust? No it would not. The dust is not annihilated. It is prime matter that became incorporated into the DNA of the gnat. Remember, DNA is the dust of the earth from which all organic matter is formed.
5c). Scripture and the Summa tell us that God does not annihilate anything. From the Summa we read, "Now the nature of creatures shows that none of them is annihilated … Moreover, the annihilation of things does not pertain to the manifestation of grace; since rather the power and goodness [emphasis SML] of God are manifested by the preservation of things in existence [therefore annihilation of a nature would be contrary to God’s perfect goodness--SML]. Wherefore we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated … That things are brought into existence from a state of non-existence, clearly shows the power of Him Who made them; but that they should be reduced to nothing would hinder that manifestation, since the power of God is conspicuously shown in His preserving all things in existence, according to the Apostle: ‘Upholding all things by the word of His power’ (Hebrews 1:3) … and ‘I have learned that all the works that God hath made continue forever [Ecclesiastes 3:14]. [Summa, I, q. 104, a. 4].’”
To put it another way, all of creation is the expression of the goodness and the perfections of God. God says in Genesis that all of his creation is good. In God, good means absolutely perfect — cannot be made more or less perfect. To annihilate one of his creatures (which a good God created as perfectly good) in order to replace it with something better is to imply that God needed an eraser; that his “original” creation was not good enough, so it needed to be re-made better. We would be forced to say that the power of evil is more powerful than that of a Good God. That would be an additional heresy.
6). Here is a further problem with the Kemp and Austriaco hypotheses. St. Hildegard of Bingen wrote, “When God said, ‘Let it be done!’ things were enclosed at once within their forms, just as the divine providence had seen them in an incorporeal way before time was [Hildegard of Bingen's Book of Divine Works].” It seems contradictory that, in the eternal now, there would be two different and contradictory expressions /forms of the same subject (Adam). As is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia (“Eternity”), “In them [creation] there is before and after, but not in Him, Who is equally present [in the eternal now] to them all, no matter how or when they may have come into being, or how they may succeed one another in time or in space.”
Adam & Eve: an Immaculate Conception?
In light of what I have written above and also in Parts I & II, a quick look (rather than in-depth look, which would be somewhat redundant), at the Immaculate Conception should be sufficient. Animal Adam and Eve would, of necessity, had to have been immaculately conceived (remember from above, God’s creation cannot be added to, or subtracted from, hence the method of multiplication through generation/conception), but for different reasons than for Mary. Let’s list some pertinent considerations.
1). There are only two possibilities for Adam and Eve. Either an immaculate conception occurred (which is impossible and would violate the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary which states that she is the only Immaculate Conception), or they would have to have been made from some other genetic matter— but not through conception. If the former were even possible, it would still had to have occurred through an annihilation, which would mean that a continuing succession of annihilations would be needed, because the only beings involved in the conceiving of animals are animals. Consequently, we would be faced with a never-ending circle of conception followed by annihilation.
2). The other possibility involves two sub-options. First, creation from literal geological dust. Second, formation through the use of pre-existing genetic material, such as a donor stem cell; such as I have suggested from the very beginning in my two-part blog on mitochondrial Eve and Genesis.
Adam & Eve Created as Literally Described in Genesis?
It sounds like we are back to the only possible scenario that does not conflict with true, and correctly interpreted, science and which, at the same time, does not involve heretical and highly problematic theology. Alternate scenarios, such as: 1) animals being turned into humans in the image and likeness of God; or 2) a population of animal hominins from which two hit the creation lottery jackpot by being picked to become rational, who then meet and fall in love with each other, who then get married (by whom I have no idea, since animals cannot confect covenantal marriages) and have rational children who would grow up alongside animal hominins, are just theologically untenable.
Why do people have such difficulty believing God can (and did) do what he said he did, in the way he said he did, in the Genesis account of Adam & Eve’s creation? Why do people listen to atheistic scientists who have imprisoned their intellects in a box labeled, “Big Bang and Byproducts Only, God Not Allowed,” and, as a result of their a priori assumptions about God, generate faulty interpretations of their research relative to the same God they assume doesn’t exist. Throughout Scripture, God tells us he could turn dust into organic matter. What’s more, in the New Testament, he did it at the wedding feast at Cana. The Son of God, the same Son of God through whom all things were made in the beginning, turned inorganic water (no DNA) onto organic wine (with DNA). He even created the specific genes needed to create good (perfect) wine. He did this instantly — and not from some pre-existing grape genetic ancestors (Uh-Oh, I think I see some scientists having heart palpitations).
Time for a Dogmatic Definition
Currently, the existence of historical Adam and Eve from whom we descended is a sententia certa (theologically certain) Doctrine of the Church. I believe the information is now available for the Church to confidently define the Doctrine as a Dogma. Satan, who hates all of humanity, would desire nothing more than to make all of us believe that we are nothing more than descendants of animals — intelligent animals, but animals nevertheless. Assenting to these heresies would also paint us in the corner, so-to-speak, forcing us to say that Jesus, too, descended from mere animals. The current relationship and attitudes existing between faith and reason, science and religion, authority and Authority, are leading to a climate within the Church and within the world in which it has been made acceptable for those outside of the Teaching Authority to redefine our understanding of the Doctrine of Adam and Eve.
Too see a list of all bogs with descriptions and links, go here: https://www.stossbooks.com/index.php
. Giberson, “The Precarious but Profound Middle Ground in the Struggle Between Religion and Science,”Huffington Post, November 13, 2010.] [John UpChurch, “The Danger of BioLogos: Blurring the Line Between Creation and Evolution, Answers in Genesis, (originally published in Answers Magazine), https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/, October 1, 2011 (accessed 03/02/2023).
[1-B]. John UpChurch, “The Danger of BioLogos: Blurring the Line Between Creation and Evolution, Answers in Genesis, (originally published in Answers Magazine), https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/, October 1, 2011 (accessed 03/02/2023).
. Darrel Falk, On Living in the Middle, BioLogos Forum, June 24, 2010, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY136/Evangelicals-Evolution-and-the-BioLogos-Disaster#:~:text=exact%20words.%20Quote%3A%20%E2%80%9C-,BioLogos,-exists%20in%20no, accessed Feb 5, 2014.
. Richard Fangrad, “BioLogos, theistic evolution and the Pelagian heresy: Debating an historical Adam and the destruction of the Gospel,” Creation Ministries International, https://creation.com/biologos-pelagian-heresy, March 22, 2014 (accessed 3/05/23).
. Callea, F. and Callea, M. (2011), “Adam’s rib and the origin of stem cells.” Am. J. Hematol., 86: 529. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.22005.
. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q.1, A.8, Reply 2, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm, accessed 02/01/2023.