Following a glass or two of wine, my female friend raised an interesting question. "About that Garden of Eden Story," she said, "at the creation of our birthing kind, which would a Rational Intelligent Being create first, one who could birth or one who could not? You don't have to answer", she cautioned, "because in reality, in this Patriarchial world, it really doesn't matter , does it? Because that's what happens when men write history--especially when history masquerades as religion, or worse, masquerades as the word of God!"
Nevertheless, it was an interesting question, not the same as but not far removed from the one that asks which came first, the chickes or the egg. But it was much more than that, too. Aside from the notion that human were created as part of an evolutionary process, if the creation of the male-female dyad were seperate event in the absence of the evolutionary process, we can, at best, merely speculate.
But those who regard the Christian bible as the "word of God", "know" that Adam, the man, was created first. They also "know" that God saw that the man was lonely; that God took a rib from the man and created a companion and helpmate, whom he called woman because "she was taken out of man."
But "that's what happens when men write history", especially speculative history. "Everthing is about men, men being first, and, more importantly, about men's superiority over women. Men are convinced that women were created for the singular purpose of attending to the needs of men."
"Is that really intelligent design?"
The implications are many. However, Some are more poignant or more absurd than others. Here are just a few.
1. Without the man, the woman would not exist--no rib, no woman.
2. The woman is less than the man because she was created from a part of him--obviously a part he did not need.
3. God created the woman because the man was lonely and needed a companion and helpmate--not an equal partner, but a companion to help the man and provide solace to his loneliness.
4. Without the creation of the woman, sin would not exist. As the biblical story goes, it is the women who was seduced by a beautiful serpent and convinced to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit. She consummated the sin for all of humankind by enticing the man to eat the forbidden fruit.
5. At the introduction of "sin" in the Garden God created "eastward in Eden", the man and woman, Adam and Eve, realized they were naked and were ashamed of being naked. Why they were ashamed was never explained. However, their shame was determined to be the reason they covered up themselves, not because they desired protection from the elements.
6. Because they had sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and there upon denied them the previous gift of eternal life on Earth.
Of course, number 5 may have been a good thing. (Written, tongue firmly planted in cheek) Without realizing that they were naked, they may not have realized their sexual differences and the human species would have become extinct since human sexual reproduction apparently wasn't in the picture as a part of human creation.
The last paragraph oviously isn't true. All mammals are blessed or cursed with some form of sexual reproduction, But suppose that the male-female dyad necessary for sexual reproduction, per the human design, were not created concurrently or that the sexes did not evolve during the evolutionary process. Which would a Rational Intelligent Being create first, one who could give birth or one who could not?
It's an interesting question; but not when men write history.