The Topeka (Kansas) Capitol-Journal’s online site, cjonline.com, has a religion column called Genesis Station, written by Floyd Lee. Today’s column, “So how would you respond to this atheist?” takes up a question raised in an essay by preacher-turned atheist Mike Aus, and which I discussed on this site.

Lee says this (emphasis is his):

Aus used to be a Christian pastor, but now he is an atheist. In fact, as evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne mentioned at his WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog, “Aus was, as far as I know, one of the first public ‘successes’ of Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola’s “Clergy Project,” a sort of electronic halfway house to help non-believing clerics leave their faith behind.” At any rate, Coyne quotes Aus thusly. Consider this carefully: “Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. “If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homosapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. “So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. “The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed. “…If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless.” Ouch. No wiggle room, and no escape hatches. Period. Especially notice that Aus’s point derives DIRECTLY from the theory of evolution. No escape, baby.

Indeed, and if you want the scientific data showing that the human lineage could never have been smaller than 1200 people in the last few million years, see the Li and Durban paper referenced at the bottom. It simply uses well established population-genetic theory to show that the amount of genetic variation in modern humans could not have existed (even with mutation) had the ancestral population been very small, like TWO. Ergo no literal Adam and Eve, ergo no original sin, ergo no need for Jesus.

This is so vexing to Christians that BioLogos refuses to take a stand on whether or not Adam and Eve were the literal ancestors of humanity: a shameful and cowardly position for an organization supposedly dedicated to converting evangelical Christians to good science.

Lee then puts a poser to his audience:

So when evolutionist Coyne saw Mike Aus’s argument, Coyne’s reaction was a direct “I don’t see any way around this.” And that’s where you and I come in. If you are a believer in the theory of evolution, and especially if you are a Christian or other religionist/nonreligionist who believes that “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith,” (as the late Pope John Paul II wrote), here’s the question: How would you refute Mike Aus’s argument? Are you able to?

Well, first of all, if you believe that “there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith,” why are Christians in a tizzy about Adam and Eve? Why does the Roman Catholic church still embrace a literal Adam and Eve; why do many American Christians see their literal existence as irrefutable; and why is BioLogos tying itself in knots trying to reconcile evolutionary genetics with scripture? Of course there’s a conflict! All the readers can do is make up reasons why one doesn’t exist for them.

It will be fun to see the answers roll in, but already some are humorous. Lee calls himself “Contra Mundum” in the comments, and he poses the question more directly. To hiscredit, he doesn’t whitewash the implications of evolution:





And two of the several responses (I haven’t seen a good one yet). The first appears to convey some cognitive dissonance, resolve at the end by a simple declarative sentence that comes out of nowhere.

And I love this one:

Now really, can you tell me that we’re going to win Americans over to evolution by simply teaching them the facts that support it? I don’t believe that for a minute. First you need to remove the God-colored blinkers over their eyes.

I have half a mind to go over there and stir up trouble . . .

_____________

Li, H., and R. Durban. 2011. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475:493-497.