Yet in order to arrive at this conclusion, Craig has to make the following arguments:įirst, Genesis 1–11 are “mytho-history.” Taken literally, Craig believes, what Genesis 1–11 claim would not be compatible with this standard of science but interpreted metaphorically, a Christian can find an Adam that is reasonable to believe. Notice that Craig did not phrase the question the other way: “Are scientific conclusions compatible with biblical revelation?”Ĭraig’s answer to his question is a qualified “yes”-he argues that, submitting to “scientific evidence” as an unquestioned authority, Christians may still reasonably believe in a historical Adam. The structure of Craig’s statement here reveals his primary authority: “scientific evidence.” Scripture’s claims, Craig assumes, must answer to science.

” 1 William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021), 33. Notice carefully the structure of Craig’s purpose statement in his book: “We need to consider how Scripture’s teaching that there was a historical Adam is or might be compatible with the scientific evidence. Rather, Craig is attempting to explain how belief in an actual historical Adam and Eve as parents of the human race is compatible with evolutionary science.

To be fair, it is actually incorrect to claim that Craig is denying the historical Adam in this book-sort of. This past week at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I had the opportunity to hear Craig further explain and defend his views concerning what some claim to be a denying of the historical Adam. Over the past couple months, Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has stirred up quite a bit of controversy surrounding the release of his book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration.

William craig reasonable faith