Critiquing: #012 — Genesis, Evolution, Adam and Eve and The Fall

April 24, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Interpretation of Genesis — Adam and Eve — Suffering and Death — Evolutionary Process — The Fall

---

Episode Assessment:

Metric	————	Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	The episode provides a balanced discussion of the reconciliation between Genesis and scientific findings, yet some statements lack rigorous backing.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The arguments are generally coherent, but occasional digressions and assumptions weaken the logical flow.
Absence of Fallacies	C	Some logical fallacies are present, including appeals to tradition and authority without sufficient evidence.
Degree of Evidence	D+	Evidence presented is often anecdotal or based on interpretations without robust empirical support.
Degree of Testability	D	Many claims, especially theological ones, are not easily testable, which limits the empirical strength of the arguments.
Rational Confidence	C-	Confidence is moderately high in theological interpretations, but the basis for some claims is not well substantiated by evidence.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence The episode frequently references theological interpretations and historical context without providing sufficient empirical evidence to support these claims. For instance, when discussing the literal interpretation of Genesis and its reconciliation with scientific findings, the argument heavily relies on theological tradition rather than empirical data:

“The phrase ‘the findings of science’ is always in fact fluid. Every scientific finding is a hypothesis in need of verification…”

This approach, while valid in a theological context, does not provide the necessary empirical evidence to substantiate the claims made about the nature of scientific findings and their relationship to biblical texts.

2. Absence of Fallacies There are instances of appeals to tradition and authority that undermine the logical strength of the arguments. For example, the reliance on long-established theological interpretations as a basis for understanding Genesis without critically examining these interpretations can be seen as an appeal to tradition:

“Much of American Christianity seized onto that in a false war, a phony war between people saying it’s all rubbish, it’s all myth, it’s all just made up and other people saying no it’s all literally true…”

This appeal to the historical conflict between literal and metaphorical interpretations of the Bible does not address the need for a critical and evidence-based examination of these interpretations.

---

Formulation of Arguments:

1. Reconciliation of Genesis with Scientific Findings

Premise 1: The findings of science are fluid and subject to change.
Premise 2: The literal interpretation of Genesis has been historically contested.
Premise 3: Theological interpretations can provide a framework for understanding Genesis.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is possible to reconcile the findings of science with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Counter-Argument:

The claim that scientific findings are fluid does not inherently support the reconciliation of Genesis with science. Scientific theories, though subject to refinement, are based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing. Theological interpretations, while valuable in a religious context, often lack empirical support and are not subject to the same standards of evidence. Thus, relying on theological frameworks to reconcile Genesis with scientific findings does not adequately address the empirical discrepancies between the two.

2. The Role of Death in Evolution and the Fall

Premise 1: Evolution implies the existence of death and suffering from the beginning.
Premise 2: The Bible teaches that death entered the world through sin.
Premise 3: There are different levels of understanding death in theological terms.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is possible to reconcile the existence of death in evolution with the theological concept of the Fall.

Counter-Argument:

The assertion that death existed before sin creates a significant theological dilemma. If death is a result of sin, as traditional Christian doctrine suggests, then the existence of death before the Fall contradicts this doctrine. While proposing different levels of understanding death provides a nuanced perspective, it does not resolve the fundamental contradiction between the biblical narrative and the scientific understanding of evolution. A more robust approach would require re-evaluating the theological interpretations in light of empirical evidence, rather than attempting to fit empirical observations into a pre-existing theological framework.

3. Theological Interpretation of Genesis

Premise 1: Genesis can be understood in layers and as a poetic narrative.
Premise 2: The creation narrative in Genesis aligns with ancient Near Eastern cosmology.
Premise 3: The literal interpretation of Genesis is not necessary for a strong Christian faith.
Conclusion: Therefore, Genesis should be interpreted metaphorically and contextually rather than literally.

Counter-Argument:

Interpreting Genesis metaphorically and contextually is a valid approach within theological studies, but it does not necessarily address the empirical questions raised by scientific findings. The metaphorical interpretation, while providing a richer theological understanding, can be seen as an evasion of the empirical challenges posed by science. For a more comprehensive reconciliation, it is crucial to engage with scientific evidence directly and integrate it with theological insights, rather than relying solely on metaphorical interpretations to bridge the gap between science and faith.

These syllogistic formulations and counter-arguments aim to rigorously examine the major arguments presented in the episode, highlighting potential weaknesses and areas for further critical inquiry.

◉ Addressing the Implications of Argument #2:

The Incoherence of a Genetically Transmitted Sin Nature

The proposition that a specific point in human history marked the entry of sin into the world, as posited by Argument 2, invites significant scrutiny, particularly regarding the claim that a sin nature is genetically transmitted. Whether this pivotal moment involves Adam and Eve or another figure in human history, the notion of a sin nature being passed along biologically is inherently illogical and lacks empirical support. This essay will argue that accepting a biological mechanism for transmitting a spiritual condition demands an untenable level of credulity and cannot be substantiated through observation or testing. Regardless of whether Genesis is interpreted literally or figuratively, the concept of a genetically inherited sin nature remains logically absurd.

Firstly, the idea that sin, a fundamentally spiritual or moral failing, can be transmitted genetically conflates distinct categories of existence. Genetics pertains to the biological and physical attributes of organisms, whereas sin, as traditionally understood in theological contexts, is a moral or spiritual condition. The assertion that sin can be inherited biologically implies that moral and spiritual qualities are encoded in DNA, which contradicts the principles of genetics. DNA determines physical traits and predispositions to certain health conditions, but it does not and cannot encode moral or spiritual states.

Additionally, the concept of a genetically inherited sin nature resembles a “just-so” story—an untestable narrative that explains a phenomenon without empirical evidence. This type of reasoning lacks scientific rigor and cannot be subjected to the same standards of observation and testing as biological theories. For a claim to be scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable; that is, there must be a way to test it and potentially prove it wrong. The idea of a sin nature being transmitted through genetics is not falsifiable because it pertains to metaphysical rather than physical phenomena, making it impossible to observe or measure.

Moreover, accepting the genetic transmission of a sin nature requires an extraordinary leap of faith that surpasses reasonable belief. To propose that spiritual conditions can be passed down biologically suggests that moral and ethical states are inherent and immutable, undermining the concept of free will and personal responsibility. This perspective reduces individuals to mere carriers of inherited moral defects, stripping them of their agency and capacity for moral decision-making. Such a deterministic view of human nature is incompatible with the notion of moral responsibility central to most ethical systems and religious teachings.

In examining the theological implications, even if one interprets Genesis literally, the introduction of sin through Adam and Eve does not necessitate a genetic transmission. The narrative of the Fall can be understood as a symbolic or allegorical representation of the human propensity for moral failure and disobedience to divine command, rather than a literal account of genetic inheritance. This interpretation aligns more closely with the symbolic nature of ancient religious texts and avoids the logical pitfalls of asserting a biological basis for sin.

Furthermore, establishing the dynamics of sin through observation and testing is inherently problematic. Sin, as a moral and spiritual concept, operates within the realm of subjective human experience and ethical evaluation. Unlike physical phenomena, it cannot be observed or measured using scientific methods. Any attempt to do so would be fraught with methodological challenges and ethical considerations, rendering the endeavor impractical and philosophically dubious.

In conclusion, the proposition that a sin nature can be transmitted genetically is logically incoherent and unsupported by empirical evidence. This concept conflates biological and spiritual categories, resembles an untestable “just-so” story, and requires an unreasonable level of credulity. Whether the Genesis account is taken literally or figuratively, the idea of a genetically inherited sin nature remains fundamentally flawed.