Over the past several years, I have focused on whether or not there was an historical Adam. To aid my study, I conducted a very unscientific survey limited to Christian theologians, biblical scholars, pastors, and scientists/engineers who have published their view on an historical Adam in a book, essay, blog, or .blog comment since 1859. I developed a Word table listing their name, occupation, and year of birth, along with a short quotation giving their view, and my assessment of their view and the primary reason for their view.
The current score on views, as nearly as I can discern it, is: Yes (61), Yes but not the first human (20), Maybe (9), and No (48).
The current score on reasons for their view, as nearly as I could discern it, is: Literal Genesis (26), Non-literal Genesis (34), NT references to Adam (10), Doctrinal necessity (19), Adan not doctrinally required (12), Evolution with an historical Adam (15), and Evolution without an historical Adam (22).
Theologians, biblical scholars, and scientists/engineers were split fairly evenly between Yes and No. Pastors and philosophers tended more toward Yes. The age of the writer made no noticeable difference.
The primary reasons for the Yeses were: Literal Genesis (26), NT references to Adam (9), and the doctrinal necessity of Adam (17). The primary reasons for the Nos were: Genesis not literal (21), Adam not doctrinally required (10), and evolution without an historical Adam (17).
So what have I learned: that there is no consensus on an historical Adam, that knowledgeable people have different reasons for their views, and that the age of the writer doesn’t matter (which surprised me a bit).
If anyone is interested in the “data” in either Word or PDF format, you can email me at paul.bruggink1 at gmail.com. If you do, I would appreciate any additions or corrections.