Creationist Wisdom #115: The Serpent & Lamarckism

Adam, Eve, & the Serpent

WE herewith continue our review of a fascinating series of articles on the Serpent in the Garden, which appears at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom.

Background: Our first post in this foundational study of creation science was here: Do Creationists Think?, dealing with the question of whether the Serpent had legs. That was followed by Creationist Wisdom #110: The Serpent, which addressed the anomaly of a talking snake. Then there was Creationist Wisdom #113: The Serpent Revisited, about whether Satan was the actual serpent in the garden.

Today we present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from AIG’s latest contribution to this important series: Why Do We Get Punished for What Adam Did? To improve readability, we’ll omit most scriptural references. You will, however, want to consult the original article in order to study that data for yourself. Here we go:

When Adam sinned his punishment was death. Because of Adam’s sin, death came upon all men. Some have said that it is harsh for God to punish all of Adam’s descendants for something Adam did. But is it?

A most interesting question! It’s especially interesting to evolutionists, because death is a factor inherent in the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection. Let’s read on:

The answer is simple — we are without excuse since we sin too, and we all deserve death before a perfect Holy God. To assume Adam’s descendants are innocent is a false assumption. Due to the sin nature received from Adam, death is coming for all since all have sinned.

Therefore Darwinian evolution? We continue:

It is illogical to think that two imperfect people could produce perfect offspring. Since Adam and Eve had both sinned and been cursed then it would be impossible for their children to be perfectly free from sin. So the real question is why would God permit sin nature to pass along to Adam’s descendants? Doesn’t that seem harsh?

The article then cites Hebrews 7:9-10 for a bit of biological data of which we weren’t aware:

Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

What does that mean? AIG tells us:

If this applies to each person being “in” their ancestors, then we could say Abraham was in the body of Noah before the Flood. And Noah was in the body of his ancestor Adam when he sinned! In a sense, we were all in Adam when he sinned! This explains why we inherit a sin nature. When Adam sinned, a sin nature came over them and since we were in them and our life came from them, we inherit this nature as well.

You didn’t know that, did you, dear reader? The article doesn’t specifically say this, but we understand the scriptural mechanism to be Lamarckism — the theory that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.

Here’s more:

So far, this all sounds like bad news — and it is — but there is good news.

What follows is a scriptural message which you already know, so there is no need for us to provide additional excerpts. Our principal purpose here was merely to give the scientific underpinning for the AIG creationist doctrines. Now you know that creation science isn’t Darwinian, it’s Lamarckian.

But our learning process isn’t yet complete. At the end of the AIG article they promise this:

Christian scholars have wrestled with the exact process by which Adam’s sin is passed on (this will be in an upcoming article). The two major views are the federal headship and seminal headship views. This raises issues that should be discussed in the future article and is beyond the scope of this article.

We eagerly await that future article.

Update: See Adam, Eve, and the Forbidden Fruit.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #115: The Serpent & Lamarckism

  1. here’s another take on the whole "adam & eve" thing…

  2. Gabriel Hanna

    Huh, creationists are preformationists, who knew? I thought they all believed that “life begins at conception”. Instead, they believe in an infinite regression of tiny homunculi.

  3. Gabriel Hanna says: “Huh, creationists are preformationists, who knew?”

    I am pleased to enhance your understanding.

  4. Adam was not my Father……… some other ”Monkey” was………. So I’m ‘Original sin’ free!!! And that’s the real problem with Krixstains….. When you believe you were born “Damaged” then your whole life is lived with the TERROR of ETERNAL PUNISHMENT! That sure can color the way you see the World.

  5. Abraham was in the body of Noah before the Flood. And Noah was in the body of his ancestor Adam when he sinned! In a sense, we were all in Adam when he sinned!

    Sweet! For some strange (?) reason this piece of scientific study instantly brought to my mind the image of humanity as an überlong array of Matryoska dolls…

  6. Armand K. says:

    For some strange (?) reason this piece of scientific study instantly brought to my mind the image of humanity as an überlong array of Matryoska dolls.

    It left me wondering why, if Adam’s sin affected all those who were “in his body,” then how do we explain Noah? Genesis 6:9 says:

    These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

    Anyway, if we’re all descended from Noah, why didn’t we inherit his righteousness?

    Afterthought: If we’re still sinners after the Flood, what was the point of the Flood?

  7. “The article doesn’t specifically say this, but we understand the scriptural mechanism to be Lamarckism”

    Wait what
    Being ‘in’ one’s ancestors sounds more like preformationism (o hi there gabriel) than lamarkian evolution
    But lamarkian inheritance suggests a form of evolution so they probably mean preformationism
    But they also talk about inheriting ‘sin nature’ which sounds like there is some sort of inheritance instead of everybody being made beforehand

    So as near as I can tell they’re not lamarkists or preformationists because those are slightly more coherent positions.

  8. Isn’t GUILT a WONDERFUL THING??? Good for controlling almost everyone…

  9. If we’re still sinners after the Flood, what was the point of the Flood?

    Well, you see, God had this anger management problem. His son got him into a program and the big guy is a lot better now but he still pops off when doing the “last judgment” thingie so its best to take his son on as a consultant … for a small fee …

  10. John Pieret says: “Well, you see, God had this anger management problem.”

    It’s too difficult for me to figure out. I’ll just have to take it on faith.

  11. Michael Fugate

    Given that Adam appeared only 6000 years ago, most humans would have already migrated out of the Middle East by then (~90,000 ybp) and would in no way be descended from Adam. I think most of us are off the hook.

  12. The hypocrisy is so thick I need a snorkle.

    Look fundies, here’s a very simple rule of thumb: if its immoral for us or the state to do it, it doesn’t get more moral when God does it. If you think its unjust for the state to punish you for something your mother did, or if you think its despicable to kick a puppy because its sire pooped on the floor, then its equally unjust for God to pass on sin to Adam’s descendents. And it doesn’t matter who was in who, or in what “sense” we share bodies.

  13. Yeah, AiG is attempting to introduce more medieval thinking into science. I suppose that here soon we’ll be hearing sperm is a bunch of little people. The funny thing is that this really isn’t a morally acceptable answer any way. Even if we were “there” since we had no active participation holding us accountable is still wrong. Fail on so many levels.

  14. Albanaeon says:

    Even if we were “there” since we had no active participation holding us accountable is still wrong.

    Ah, but we must take advantage of this new teaching. The next time you talk about evolution, and some creationist asks “Were you there?” you now have a good answer for him.

  15. You’re a genius!

    Sure, they’ll find some “explanation” or other. They’re certainly not gonna swallow their own poop, and they’re specialists in ignoring and explainign away contradictions… But it should be funny, nevertheless, to see some mental gymnastics over this one.

  16. Curdge, I have to bow to your wit there. And admit that Armand K is probably right. Even turning their own logic against creationists fails to phase most of them for even a moment.

  17. Albanaeon says: Curdge, “I have to bow to your wit there. And admit that Armand K is probably right.”

    Thanks, guys, but you’re making way too much of this. It’s just a matter of paying attention to what creationists say — especially things they say rather often — and then trying to connect the dots. The dots don’t connect, because everything they say is ad hoc squirming, but nevertheless, there is a corpus of creationist doctrine out there.

  18. “There is a corpus of creationist doctrine out there.”

    Sure, everything about the Theory of Evolution is wrong. Every point comes back to this in some way.