At lunch the other day, the question of evolution came up. It occurred to me that some Christians toss out the plausibility of Adam and Eve because of that -- they do not see it as plausible that God would create a man out of virtually nothing, and then a woman from the rib of that man.
What, then, we wondered, was the most preposterous of God's movements as described in the Bible, the one least able to be explained by the most cynical as a natural act?
Could it be Noah's Ark? How could Noah cram so many animals into one boat? I don't know, but a cynic might reduce that question to one of logistics. Same with the 40 days of rain. That's not too far of a stretch. The end of the Ice Age? A cynic might tell that tale.
What about the parting of the Red Sea? A cynic might boast that a windy day opened it wide, or that water was actually more shallow than we think of seas being.
Prophecies that have not yet happened can't be considered since they haven't happened. No one, even the most devout Christian, will claim tomorrow is today.
What about Jonah's big adventure? That's gotta be on the list. Breathing, food, as well as the fish's digestive process all are hard to explain, given Jonah eventually left the fish alive.
Most obviously is Jesus Christ's resurrection. That's huge. A dead man rising into life after three days wrapped up in a cave? A lot of Christians give a nod to this as massively impressive, but forget this is not just a story told at CCD or Sunday School. If God can raise a man from the dead, and that the dead man was God's own son, how dare we suggest that Adam and Eve are not plausible?
If God exists, all things are possible. All things. An omnipotent God can imagine, and what He imagines will be true. This will not prove to the evolution believer that God actually created Adam and Eve directly, and not from primordial soup over a million years, but if that evolution believer claims a faith in the God of Abraham, then this miracle must remain possible.
There is an awful lot of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that is hogwash. Any portion of it which denies Adam was born a complete man is, per Scripture, heresy. It implies the Bible's lying, that God is not capable of doing what He claims, and that the entirety of the Bible is not to be trusted. That the Bible claims God created Adam is not debated. There are minor text translation issues that can be debated, but this is not on the list. If Adam was not created, how can we believe Jesus was raised from the dead? And if we cannot believe Jesus was raised from the dead, how can we believe anything about God?
To my Christian friends claiming Adam was the result of a murky liquid that worked its way into a fish, and so on, I respectfully say, "I'm sorry, but that's not true."