Adam`s Rib
By Wilton H. Bunch, MD, PhD
Beeson Divinity School, Birmingham, AL
I was quietly reading one evening when I encountered a statement claiming that many evangelicals believed that men had one fewer rib than women because of the story of Eve`s beginnings (Gen 2:18-23). I laughed until I thought I would cry. My wife looked up from her book and said, "What`s so funny?" I read the passage to her and she responded, "Your niece arrived at nursing school believing that!" I stopped laughing.
The next day I promptly inquired of all the students I could find. I posed the question to each of my classes at the beginning of the semester. I have queried about 75 students. Those students who had grown up in the so-called mainline denominations, or were from other countries had never heard of gender differences in the number of ribs. Almost every other student or staff member queried had heard it, been taught it, or still believed it. Growing up in the south was not the issue, it was the religious tradition.
What does this have to do with ethics? Among the virtues taught by philosophers and prophets in pagan documents and Holy Scripture is honesty. The virtuous person is honest. Among the duties enumerated in Scripture is honesty; "you shall not bear false witness" (Exodus 20:16). No matter what ethical system a Christian chooses to use, one cannot be dishonest and moral.
One is always under obligation to learn the truth. Both philosophical and scriptural based ethics affirm that the virtuous person is expected to search for wisdom and truth with the expectation they will find it. Merely saying, "Well, someone told me, so I can pass it on," is not good enough for the virtuous, honest person.
Many Christians worry that there is a conflict between science and religion. In this case, there is no conflict. The problem is that persons misunderstand basic biology and then go on to construct beliefs that Scripture does not teach. Believing that there is a gender difference in the number of ribs is not necessary for a literal, inerrant understanding of the Genesis story.
The first error is to believe that acquired characteristics are inherited. This theory was first advanced by Lemarck, about sixty years before the time of Darwin and rapidly forgotten everywhere except in Russia, where it was held as communist party dogma into the 20th century. The definitive experiment was simple. The tails were cut off rats and they were allowed to mate. All their offspring had tails! No matter how many generations were observed, every rat had a tail. Acquired characteristics are not inherited.
The second error is to fail to understand the body`s ability to regenerate. As a pediatric spine surgeon I have removed ribs from many children and teenagers in order to reach the front of the spine. If the bed of the rib is protected and closed carefully, and the person is under the age of twelve, the rib will regenerate. Within a year the child has the same number of ribs as they started with, despite my surgical interference.
Assuming that Adam was still a young person, despite the fact he appears on the scene as an adult, it is perfectly consistent to conclude that he grew back his rib and so went though life with the normal number of ribs as well as having the companionship of Eve. Even the person who reads Genesis as literal and inerrant does not need to imagine that Adam was handicapped in any way by the origin of Eve.
Is my small survey representative of the larger evangelical community? I don`t know, and I sincerely hope not. But every evangelical I questioned had been exposed to the idea. To whatever extent it is suggestive, some church educational programs need to be changed.
In one respect, the widespread exposure of evangelical students to this foolish misunderstanding of science is harmless and even amusing. But it is not an isolated event. At the present time there is great turmoil concerning the topics of conception and contraception. There may be moral issues present, but having a false understanding of the physiology and pharmacology and then building moral dogma on this misconception is neither ethical nor helpful to the evangelical mission.
