[Moderator] Now Dr. Craig, it seems that you would allow for some measure of evolution,
given that you've said that, I've heard you give kind of three stages of human development,
if you want to call it human development, of the development of those made in the image
of God, I can't remember what the first one was, but then it was neanderthal and then
homo sapien [right], so it seems that you would allow for some degree of evolution.
But then the fact that you believe in a historical Adam and Eve would suggest to me that you
believe the Genesis account that they were directly created by God, not sort of evolving
from apes or something like that. Am I representing your view accurately? [Craig] Yes, I think
that it's perfectly possible scientifically that Adam and Eve were de novo creations out
of inanimate materials rather than out of pre-existing hominins. But given that we're
dealing here with a mytho-history, I'm not at all confident that that's true; in fact
quite the opposite. I think that the creation of Eve out of Adam's rib is almost undeniably
figurative language rather than describing an actual surgery that took place with this
rib floating in the air and then being formed into a woman, and even God's creating Adam
out of dirt and then blowing into his nose again seems to be very very anthropomorphic
and figurative. So I think that the narratives of Genesis 1, given their genre, leave it
open as to how God created Adam and Eve, and that makes it a scientific question. And when
I look at the question scientifically, I think that the similarities that human beings exhibit
genetically to chimpanzees, particularly broken genes that we and chimpanzees both seem to
have inherited from a last common ancestor that has no function anymore suggests that
we do share an evolutionary origin with human beings, and that God used a pre-existing hominin
who was non-human and merely animal, not in the image of God, as the stuff, as it were,
out of which then he created the first human beings. And this probably involved some sort
of regulatory, genetic mutation induced by God in these hominins, and the creation and
infusion of a rational soul into them to make them truly human, so there would be both biological
and spiritual renovations required in order to have a genuine human being. [Moderator]
So that sounds like theistic evolution, is that a position that you are comfortable with?
I'm comfortable with it biblically; I think that biblically you can't rule it out. The
way in which it might differ from theistic evolution is the degree to which I want to
appear to miracles. Theistic evolution often tries to provide a purely naturalistic account
of how God brought about biological complexity, whereas what I'm suggesting is miraculous
intervention on God's part to bring about a biological and spiritual renovation of the
hominin form that would never have occured naturalistically if left to its own devices.
[Moderator] And to you point earlier, when you said it's improbable that you see the
removal of Adam's rib forms Eve, this is probably just language; you're not saying that God
couldn't do that. I mean you're say that God can use some kind of, I apologize, I'm not
a scientist here, some early monkey ancestor and breathe life into this thing and allow
it to evolve. [Moderator] That sounded pretty scientific! [Moderator] Thank you, I appreciate
that. But I mean you believe that God created the heavens and the earth [sure], so God can
do whatever he wants [absolutely]. He spit in some guy's eye and made him see, but you
just see the language as suggesting that this is probably a little bit more mythological
[that's exactly right] than it is impossible for God? [Craig] Exactly right, Josh, and
I hope that our listeners who are young earth creationists today don't take the easy way
out of accusing me of anti-supernaturalism and being against miracles, because that would
be a gross misrepresentation of my position. Of course God can do these things. My claim
is that when you do a sensitive genre analysis of Genesis 1-11 it suggests that we're not
dealing here with a straightforward historical narrative, but with a mytho-history.