The best way to account for both the biblical presentation of human life and our own experience in the world is to suppose that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the forebears of all other human beings. The biblical presentation concerns not simply the story in Genesis and the biblical passages that refer . . . → Read More: Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters]]> by C. John Collins

The best way to account for both the biblical presentation of human life and our own experience in the world is to suppose that Adam and Eve were real persons, and the forebears of all other human beings. The biblical presentation concerns not simply the story in Genesis and the biblical passages that refer to it, but also the larger biblical storyline, which deals with God’s good creation invaded by sin, for which God has a redemptive plan; Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations; and the church’s prospect of successfully bringing God’s light to the whole world. The biblical presentation further concerns the unique role and dignity of the human race, which is a matter of daily experience for everyone: all people yearn for God and need him, depend on him to deal with their sinfulness, and crave a wholesome community for their lives to flourish.

PSCF 62, no. 3 (2010): 147-165

The relatively new and rapidly expanding field of comparative genomics provides a wealth of data useful for testing the hypothesis that humans and other forms of life share common ancestry. Numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates. Additional lines of evidence . . . → Read More: Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes]]> by Dennis R. Venema 

The relatively new and rapidly expanding field of comparative genomics provides a wealth of data useful for testing the hypothesis that humans and other forms of life share common ancestry. Numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates. Additional lines of evidence also indicate that our species has maintained a population size of at least several thousand individuals since our speciation from the ancestors of other great apes. This article will provide an overview of genomics evidence for common ancestry and hominid population sizes, and briefly discuss the implications of these lines of evidence for scientific concordist approaches to the Genesis narratives.

PSCF 62, 3 (2010): 166-178

Recent research in molecular biology, primatology, sociobiology, and phylogenetics indicates that the species Homo sapiens cannot be traced back to a single pair of individuals, and that the earliest human beings did not come on the scene in anything like paradisal physical or moral conditions. It is therefore difficult to read Genesis 1–3 as . . . → Read More: After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science]]> by Daniel C. Harlow

Recent research in molecular biology, primatology, sociobiology, and phylogenetics indicates that the species Homo sapiens cannot be traced back to a single pair of individuals, and that the earliest human beings did not come on the scene in anything like paradisal physical or moral conditions. It is therefore difficult to read Genesis 1–3 as a factual account of human origins. In current Christian thinking about Adam and Eve, several scenarios are on offer. The most compelling one regards Adam and Eve as strictly literary figures—characters in a divinely inspired story about the imagined past that intends to teach theological, not historical, truths about God, creation, and humanity.

Taking a nonconcordist approach, this article examines Adam and Eve as symbolic- literary figures from the perspective of mainstream biblical scholarship, with attention both to the text of Genesis and ancient Near Eastern parallels. Along the way, it explains why most interpreters do not find the doctrines of the Fall and original sin in the text of Genesis 2–3, but only in later Christian readings of it. This article also examines briefly Paul’s appeal to Adam as a type of Christ. Although a historical Adam and Eve have been very important in the Christian tradition, they are not central to biblical theology as such. The doctrines of the Fall and original sin may be reaffirmed without a historical Adam and Eve, but invite reformulation given the overwhelming evidence for an evolving creation.

PSCF 62, no. 3 (2010): 179-195

Recent genomic science strongly supports the theory of common ancestry. To classical Protestants, particularly, this theory seems incompatible with Scripture, most especially with the “historical Fall,” which Protestants presume to be manifestly biblical and so have cemented it securely into their confessions and theology as a whole. Nevertheless, John Schneider proposes that it . . . → Read More: Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism”]]> by John R. Schneider

Recent genomic science strongly supports the theory of common ancestry. To classical Protestants, particularly, this theory seems incompatible with Scripture, most especially with the “historical Fall,” which Protestants presume to be manifestly biblical and so have cemented it securely into their confessions and theology as a whole. Nevertheless, John Schneider proposes that it is important for traditional Protestants to consider alternatives to this essentially “Augustinian” view. He invites readers to examine Eastern thinking (mainly in Irenaeus of Lyon) together with a minority of Protestants (such as Karl Barth and supralapsarian Calvinists), for whom the Incarnation and Atonement are the purpose of creation from the beginning. Their understanding differs from the execution of divine “Plan B,” as implied by the Augustinian western version of an unintended “fall” from utopian first conditions. Schneider appeals to a fresh reading of the book of Job in support of an “aesthetic supralapsarianism,” which sustains Protestant virtues of biblical authority, divine sovereignty, and grace, while opening avenues to compatibility with evolutionary science.

PSCF 62, no. 3 (2010): 196-212

“Peering into the brain” has a number of connotations: from directly examining aspects of the functioning of an individual’s brain and hence what that individual may be thinking, to investigating the power of neuroscience to provide insights into characteristic features of our humanity. This article picks up on these different connotations and surveys several . . . → Read More: Peering into People’s Brains: Neuroscience’s Intrusion into Our Inner Sanctum]]> by D. Gareth Jones

“Peering into the brain” has a number of connotations: from directly examining aspects of the functioning of an individual’s brain and hence what that individual may be thinking, to investigating the power of neuroscience to provide insights into characteristic features of our humanity. This article picks up on these different connotations and surveys several areas in neuroscience that raise issues of relevance for the Christian community. This is the domain of neuroethics, with particular reference to the prospects opened up by brain imaging and, in particular, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Use of this and allied imaging procedures opens up the possibilities of locating brain regions involved in religious experiences, from glossolalia to meditation, suggesting that there are neural correlates of activities central to Christian communities. This raises the issue of causation that is discussed by reference to the brain regions involved in “disgust,” altruistic acts, and religious visions.

 PSCF 62, no. 2 (2010): 122-132

The rising popularity of spirituality is accompanied by a flood of research in numerous disciplines to probe its relationships with health, wellness, and countless other topics. Initially subsumed under religion, especially Christianity, and still overlapping with it, spirituality is increasingly treated as a distinct topic that applies to all religions and to persons who . . . → Read More: Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?]]> David O. Moberg

The rising popularity of spirituality is accompanied by a flood of research in numerous disciplines to probe its relationships with health, wellness, and countless other topics. Initially subsumed under religion, especially Christianity, and still overlapping with it, spirituality is increasingly treated as a distinct topic that applies to all religions and to persons who have none with their diverse assumptions, variables, and terminology. Besides issues common to all social and behavioral sciences, spirituality research faces special challenges because of its subject matter. In the context of Christian values, it is immeasurable, yet numerous scales serve the measurement need as its indicators or reflectors. Much more research is needed, ideally with methodological and philosophical precautions to avoid reification, reductionism, and other traps. Because spirituality pervades everything that is human, its study is central to investigations of the essence of human nature.

 PSCF 62, no 2 (2010): 99-114

The idea that there is a biological basis for human spirituality is controversial to many people. There is, nevertheless, a growing body of empirical evidence coming from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and related disciplines interpreted by some as suggestive of a biological basis for belief in God or the transcendent. The purpose of this . . . → Read More: Biology of Spirituality]]> by Kevin S. Seybold

The idea that there is a biological basis for human spirituality is controversial to many people. There is, nevertheless, a growing body of empirical evidence coming from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and related disciplines interpreted by some as suggestive of a biological basis for belief in God or the transcendent. The purpose of this article is to (1) review some of that evidence, (2) address the issue of how such a biological foundation to spirituality might have developed, and (3) construct a rationale as to why, from a Christian perspective, a biology of spirituality should be expected.

 PSCF 62, no. 2 (2010): 89-98

Available neurological correlates of personal conscious experience can often be detected, identified, and measured objectively. Substituting neurological correlates uncritically for personal conscious experience per se, if unintended, would constitute the error of reductionism. If intended, such substitution reflects decisions already taken on basic and highly contentious issues concerning the acceptable nature of the human . . . → Read More: Conscious Experience and Science: Signs of Transition]]> by Thaddeus J. Trenn

Available neurological correlates of personal conscious experience can often be detected, identified, and measured objectively. Substituting neurological correlates uncritically for personal conscious experience per se, if unintended, would constitute the error of reductionism. If intended, such substitution reflects decisions already taken on basic and highly contentious issues concerning the acceptable nature of the human person, offering no middle ground. Should personal aspects of individual conscious experience be disregarded out of hand simply for not being in conformity with available standards of objective scientific measurement? This logical quandary presents a serious bifurcating challenge bearing significant implications for current research in neuroscience cum neurophysiology, as discussed in the following article.

 PSCF 62, no. 2 (2010): 115-121

This article addresses concerns that the “nonreductive physicalism” (NRP) approach to understanding human nature may lead to a new form of determinism. The principal thesis of the article is that we can retain the idea of willful and responsible action even within the NRP perspective. Three additional positions are advanced: (1) Emotional processes are . . . → Read More: Minding Emotions: The Embodied Nature of Emotional Self-Regulation]]> by Paul Moes

This article addresses concerns that the “nonreductive physicalism” (NRP) approach to understanding human nature may lead to a new form of determinism. The principal thesis of the article is that we can retain the idea of willful and responsible action even within the NRP perspective. Three additional positions are advanced: (1) Emotional processes are an essential part of our willful nature; (2) Emotions participate in the emergent nature of thought that leads to the quality of “soulishness”; and (3) We can self-regulate our emotions, even within a seemingly “closed” physical system. The article draws from current psychological theories as well as a number of studies in neuropsychology to support these positions.

PSCF 62, no. 2 (2010): 75-88

Perhaps one never knows one’s parents, really knows them. You never know their early lives and, as a kid, you are living inside your own skin, not theirs. Growing up in Chicago, I never knew my dad was famous. He was just a firm, affectionate, if too busy father figure, who loved music . . . → Read More: Arthur Holly Compton: The Adventures of a Citizen Scientist]]> by John J. Compton

Perhaps one never knows one’s parents, really knows them. You never know their early lives and, as a kid, you are living inside your own skin, not theirs. Growing up in Chicago, I never knew my dad was famous. He was just a firm, affectionate, if too busy father figure, who loved music and the outdoors, played tennis better than I could, was awfully good with tools, and could explain scientific ideas so well that I almost understood them. I knew he was a physicist and taught at the University of Chicago, and he and mother often took me on lecture or research trips, but I did not know what it was all about. During the war, when he was one of those in charge of the bomb project and we had moved to Oak Ridge, he was just a hard-working ordinary man doing a war job like everybody else

 PSCF 62, no. 1 (2010): 53–60