Venema & Falk, Peter Enns, Michael Heiser, Swamidass, Todd Wood

• Dennis Venema and Darrel Falk, Deleted: Does Genetics Point to a Single Couple?, from peacefulscience.org

• Peter Enns, Conclusion, from The Evolution of Adam

  NOTE: Enns was (is still?) a defender of Venema’s position that there could not have been a historical Adam and Eve. Both are evangelicals, and Venema’s is an evolutionary creationist. Enns is in the reformed tradition, so he is among those (the majority) that take Romans 5:12 as teaching original guilt - that the guilt of Adam extends to all humans born thereafter. If you do not have a historical Adam, that idea is impossible, and so Enns concludes “Paul was wrong about Adam but right about Jesus.”

• Michael S. Heiser, The Evolution of Adam: Additional Thoughts, from drmsh.com

  NOTE: Only read the first page, a few paragraphs. The article by Venema that “started it all” was removed from the Biologos website in 2020. You do not need to read the linked items, but the ones by Todd Wood are of special interest since Wood is a young earth creationist who is well versed in genetics. He openly notes that evolution is not a theory in crisis. There is good evidence for it. Wood’s PhD is in biology and his dissertation was on a comparison of the chimpanzee and human genomes for sameness (“homology”). Wood’s position is basically “I’m going to wait until science and a literal reading of Scripture can be aligned.” He is great to read because he is so forthright.

• S. Joshua Swamidass, The Overlooked Science of Genealogical Ancestry, from the Perspective on Science and Christian Faith
• S. Joshua Swamidass, Chapter 8 excerpt, from The Genealogical Adam and Eve

Romans 5:12

Here is the series of posts on Romans 5:12. I do not take the traditional view — that the verse is about the transmission of Adamic guilt. I think it is inserted into the text. However, all humans are sinners (presuming they are allowed to live) and in need of Christ for salvation (i.e., salvation is only through Christ and is not merited in any way). For my reasons and what I think, see the list.

1. Romans 5:12 – What it Says and What it Doesn’t Say, Part 1

2. Romans 5:12 – What It Says and What It Doesn’t Say, Part 2

3. More on Romans 5:12, Part 3

4. Romans 5:12, Part 4

5. Romans 5:12, Part 5: A Few More Replies to Replies

6. Back to Romans 5:12 – Replies to Reader Comments

7. Some Brief Thoughts on the “Sin Nature” and Reader Follow-Up

8. Romans 5:12 and the Fate of the Unborn, Infants, and Other Human Beings Who Cannot Believe From Birth

9. A Brief Note on Contextualizing the Bible (Especially OT)

10. Adam’s Sin and Old Testament Theology

11. Paul, Original Sin, and Rabbinic Theology

12. A Side Note on “Corporate Solidarity”

13. Romans 5:12 and Universalism: Applying My Take on Romans 5:12 to the Problem