An Evolutionary Adaptation of the Fall
(2014) In New Blackfriars 95(1057). p.295-307- Abstract
- According to John Polkinghorne, the Fall is the major Christian doctrine that is the most difficult to reconcile with contemporary science. Like him, however, I believe it is vitally important, even in this regard, to try to pinpoint the extent to which taking science seriously requires us to modify traditionally held beliefs. In this paper I focus on two problematic ideas associated with the Fall: (i) the idea of a primordial human couple (Adam and Eve), and (ii) the idea that this couple was subjected to bodily death as a result of their original misdeed. I argue that, contrary to appearances, it is possible to harmonize these beliefs with contemporary science – at least if one presupposes some kind of soul-body dualism. I also try to... (More)
- According to John Polkinghorne, the Fall is the major Christian doctrine that is the most difficult to reconcile with contemporary science. Like him, however, I believe it is vitally important, even in this regard, to try to pinpoint the extent to which taking science seriously requires us to modify traditionally held beliefs. In this paper I focus on two problematic ideas associated with the Fall: (i) the idea of a primordial human couple (Adam and Eve), and (ii) the idea that this couple was subjected to bodily death as a result of their original misdeed. I argue that, contrary to appearances, it is possible to harmonize these beliefs with contemporary science – at least if one presupposes some kind of soul-body dualism. I also try to show that this dualism, although philosophically non-fashionable nowadays, is yet to be refuted or made redundant by current evolutionary theory or neurophysiology. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/3771810
- author
- Lembke, Martin LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2014
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Evolution, Adam and Eve, John Polkinghorne, Assumptions into Heaven, Cartesian Dualism
- in
- New Blackfriars
- volume
- 95
- issue
- 1057
- pages
- 295 - 307
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- ISSN
- 0028-4289
- DOI
- 10.1111/nbfr.12026
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Centre for Theology and Religious Studies (015017000)
- id
- 7eeba75a-b161-4eff-8c99-4975f3a594d9 (old id 3771810)
- alternative location
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12026/abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 10:51:35
- date last changed
- 2025-04-04 15:13:54
@article{7eeba75a-b161-4eff-8c99-4975f3a594d9, abstract = {{According to John Polkinghorne, the Fall is the major Christian doctrine that is the most difficult to reconcile with contemporary science. Like him, however, I believe it is vitally important, even in this regard, to try to pinpoint the extent to which taking science seriously requires us to modify traditionally held beliefs. In this paper I focus on two problematic ideas associated with the Fall: (i) the idea of a primordial human couple (Adam and Eve), and (ii) the idea that this couple was subjected to bodily death as a result of their original misdeed. I argue that, contrary to appearances, it is possible to harmonize these beliefs with contemporary science – at least if one presupposes some kind of soul-body dualism. I also try to show that this dualism, although philosophically non-fashionable nowadays, is yet to be refuted or made redundant by current evolutionary theory or neurophysiology.}}, author = {{Lembke, Martin}}, issn = {{0028-4289}}, keywords = {{Evolution; Adam and Eve; John Polkinghorne; Assumptions into Heaven; Cartesian Dualism}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{1057}}, pages = {{295--307}}, publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}}, series = {{New Blackfriars}}, title = {{An Evolutionary Adaptation of the Fall}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12026}}, doi = {{10.1111/nbfr.12026}}, volume = {{95}}, year = {{2014}}, }