Human Evolution and The Bible:

Science (genetics, age of earth,...),

Bible-Theology (Adam & Eve in Genesis,

     plus death before sin, image and soul,...).

 
This page contains:
Science and Theology
with Appropriate Humility ,
4 Scenarios for Adam & Eve ,
and Educational Resources .
 

---

 
        Science-and-Theology:  This page combines science & theology — from our studies of nature & scripture, in our efforts to better understand physical reality & spiritual reality — because our questions about human origins (as when we ask “what was the historical context of Adam and Eve?") should be examined in a Two Books of God approach (*) and because most authors include both kinds of knowledge when they write.  Also, most readers will ask both kinds of questions, and will wonder how to harmonize these two perspectives.
        * God has graciously provided us with two valuable sources of information, in nature & scripture.  For the most important things in life — for learning about God and how He wants us to live and love — the Bible is much more important.  But for other questions we don't have to make an either-or choice;  instead we can learn from both nature & scripture, and our understanding of total reality (physical + spiritual) will be more complete and accurate.

        Putting the Puzzle Together:  In a paper describing some of what we know about the science-and-theology of human origins, David Wilcox is confident that "since all truth is one and all truth is God’s truth, all the puzzle pieces can fit together."  He encourages readers to "dump the box for yourself, but don’t lose any of the pieces!"  Why?  When we assemble a jigsaw puzzle, the goal is to use all pieces — without discarding any, and not hitting them with a hammer (thus distorting their true shape) trying to “make them fit” — so we'll get the correct picture.  Similarly, in this page the goal is to use all of the pieces (everything we know about the relevant theology and science) in an effort to get an accurate picture of what really happened in the early history of humans.  Let's look at some of the puzzle pieces.
 

I.O.U. — This links-page — with my descriptions and links to other authors — was written in 2008, and it hasn't changed much since then.  But currently, a decade later in January 2019, I (its writer, Craig Rusbult, PhD) am beginning to revise it and update its educational resources.
 

---

 
Science — Human Evolution and Age of Earth, Fossils, Genetics

Let's carefully examine what our observations of nature can tell us about the natural context of early humans.

        Age of The Earth:  Almost all scientists think there is overwhelming scientific evidence from a wide range of fields — including studies of sedimentary rocks, coral reefs, fossil patterns in geological context, seafloor spreading & magnetic reversals, radioactive dating, development of stars, starlight from faraway galaxies, plus genetic molecular clocks and more — providing multiple independent confirmations strongly showing (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the earth & universe are very old, with ages of 4.54 & 13.8 billion years.
        What do proponents of a young earth-and-universe say about this scientific evidence?  They typically respond in one or more of these four ways:   A) they claim their own analysis of the evidence is better than conventional analysis (you can examine the evidence-and-logic in AGE OF THE EARTH – SCIENCE) so the logic of science should lead to conclusions that the earth is young and so are humans (*), and/or they   B) challenge the general credibility of HISTORICAL SCIENCES;   C) acknowledge the weakness in current young-universe science, but hope it will improve in the future;   D) claim the universe is young even though it appears to be old when we carefully examine the scientific evidence, because the universe was created in a mature state with a false APPEARANCE OF OLD AGE.   {note: If a link is CAPITALIZED it's a LINKS-PAGE like the one you're now reading, or is a SECTION in my OVERVIEW-FAQ FOR CREATION QUESTIONS.}

The scientific evidence also leads to specific old-earth claims about humans:

        Fossil Progression:  Scientists have discovered hundreds of human-like fossils.  When an age is assigned to each fossil, based on radiometric dating plus geological dating of the rock formation where the fossil is found, we observe that fossil anatomy and brain size gradually change from primitive hominids (5 million years ago) to anatomically modern humans (beginning around 100-200 thousand years ago) in Africa, who moved into Europe and East Asia about 40,000 years ago.
        * Young-earth creationists claim that dating of hominid fossils is wrong, and that the fossils are not from hominids but are from modern humans who were immature (to explain their smaller brains) or deformed (to explain why their anatomy differs from that of current healthy humans) or that the observed differences are within the wide range of genetic diversity in humans.  They also claim that the human genetic characteristics explained below — the genetic similarities (including nonfunctional genes) between humans & other species, and genetic diversities within the human population (in our immune system and in other genes) — were miraculously created by God, rather than naturally developing.

• Evolution — What does it mean? Did it happen?  You can learn about evolution definitions (the word “evolution” has MANY POSSIBLE MEANINGS) and principles (mutations, natural selection, genetic drift,...) and questions (re: intelligent design, with or without evolution) in BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION – PRINCIPLES and EVALUATIONS.

        Genetic Similarities:  A comparison of genomes for humans and chimpanzees shows a 98% similarity in genes, including both functional genes & non-functional pseudogenes.*  Perhaps functional genes are similar in humans and chimps because (as argued by young-earth creationists & some old-earth creationists) these genes were independently created in each species to perform similar common functions;  but for similarities in non-functional pseudogenes the better explanation seems to be common ancestry, with a common descent in which both species evolved from a shared ancestor whose originally functional gene had become a non-functional pseudogene.     {* the percent difference between genes in humans and chimps will vary, depending on the comparison criteria used for defining and calculating the differences in genomes;  when using any criteria, genetic similarities decrease when humans are compared with apes instead of chimps (which seem to be most closely related to humans), and even more in comparisons with other mammals, and birds, reptiles,...}
        Genetic Diversities:  In the human immune system, one gene has more than 150 alleles (variations of the gene) in the current human population.  But one couple, such as Adam and Eve, can have a maximum of only 4 alleles, and natural mutation rates would not produce 146 new alleles in 10 thousand years, or even 150 thousand years.  By analyzing the diversity in these genes and others, using mathematical models for population genetics, scientists calculate that the current human population has descended from a population bottleneck (the smallest group of ancestors in our history, estimated at 10,000) that occurred about 150,000 years ago;  and some of the 150 alleles in our immune systems go back to 5 million years or more.

        Unresolved Scientific Questions:  Although most scientists — based on their careful examination of evidence from a wide range of fields, including fossils and genetics — agree in most ways, and they have reached a confident consensus about their major questions, some scientists disagree in some ways about some details.  Later in this page you can learn why scientists have vigorous debates, within the broader areas of general agreement, about three unresolved scientific questions.

 
Theology — Adam & Eve in Genesis 1-4

Let's carefully examine what scripture (especially Genesis 1-4) says about the biblical context of the first humans, Adam and Eve.

        Age of the Earth:  Later, you'll see four proposed scenarios for Adam & Eve and the history of human origins.  In one of these proposals the earth was created recently (so it's a young earth), and in another proposal the first biblical humans were created recently on an old earth.  There are two main Bible-based claims for a young earth:
        • Does the Bible say “the earth is young” in the six days of Genesis 1?  Or are old-earth interpretations possible or preferable, with the days forming a non-chronological framework for history, or being long ages instead of 24-hour days?  In different CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1 the days can be non-chronological (forming a logical historical framework) or chronological (being long ages, 24-hour days, post-gap days, or proclamation days), maybe using concepts from ancient near-eastern science and certainly emphasizing the important theology in Genesis 1.
        • Is an old earth theologically impossible because it would require death before sin?  Does this young-earth claim have any theological support when we carefully study what the Bible says about ANIMAL DEATH BEFORE HUMAN SIN?   In the Garden of Eden we see a supernatural protection from death — provided by God for Adam & Eve, symbolized by "the tree of life" (available in Genesis 2-3, and again in Revelation 2 & 22) — being removed by God (in Genesis 3:22) due to sin, so Adam & Eve would begin to perish, with natural processes temporarily allowing life while gradually leading to death.  Later, the sinless life and sacrificial death of Jesus — providing substitutionary atonement for our sins, thus allowing God's gracious pardon for the death penalty earned by our sins, and the divine gift of everlasting life in Jesus — converted sin & death into grace & life.  But this supernatural Tree of Life was (and is, and will be) for humans, not for animals.

        Genesis 2-4  (where, when, and how many?)
        What was the historical and cultural context of Adam & Eve in Genesis 2-4?
        Where was the Garden of Eden located, as described in Genesis 2:8-10?
        When did the descendants of Adam & Eve live?  Two pieces of biblical evidence are:  1) the agricultural and technological context of Genesis 4, with farming (by Cain) and domesticated livestock (by Abel), and a few generations later later making tools from bronze & iron, plus sophisticated musical instruments;  2) adding the time intervals from Adam to Jesus gives a date of approximately 4000 B.C. for Adam, 6000 years ago;  but the word ‘begot’ (yalad in Hebrew) means ancestor, which is not necessarily father, so the text does not state that the initial creation was in 4004 B.C., as in the calculations of Bishop Ussher in 1658.
        How many were alive?  If no humans (or pre-human hominids) existed before Adam & Eve, then why were there so many people in Genesis 4?  (why was Cain worried that "whoever finds me will kill me"?  and how, as the first child of Adam & Eve, could he build a city?)

        Ancient Near-East Science (and culture) in Genesis?  When we look at the concepts used in Genesis to describe our world, here is one possibility:  Maybe the descriptions of nature (in Genesis 1) and culture (in Genesis 2-4) were written specifically to the original readers in their cultural context.  These chapters may have been written using their perspectives on culture, and using their scientific concepts — in familiar theories about physical reality (in their ancient near-eastern cosmology) — for the purpose of more effectively challenging false theories about spiritual reality (in the polytheistic “nature religions” of surrounding cultures).   As with other parts of the Bible, Genesis was written FOR us but was not written TO us;  instead, Genesis was written to its original readers.   Genesis 1-11 can teach true spiritual principles, whether or not its scientific theories (or cultural histories) are literally true.  These possibilities are examined in CONCORDISM OR ACCOMMODATION — ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN SCIENCE IN GENESIS?

        Type of Creation:  Does the creation of Adam & Eve, from dust & rib in Genesis 2:7 & 2:22 — "God formed the man from the dust of the ground" and "God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man" — indicate an independent new creation rather than a modification (with physical, mental, and/or spiritual changes) of already-existing hominids?  Or does creation “from dust” refer to the chemical elements that form our bodies, reminding us about our natural mortality and thus (as in the “dust to dust” of Genesis 3:19) providing a reason to be humble in our relationship with God?  And does creation “from a rib” symbolize an intimate “side by side” relationship between man and woman?
        How are the dust & rib passages interpreted in FOUR VIEWS OF CREATION that propose creation by miracles and/or natural process?  Two types of creation (young-earth, and old-earth progressive by independent creations) could be literally from dust & a rib, while in the other two creations (progressive by genetic modifications, and evolutionary) the dust & rib refer to elements & relationship.
        If Adam & Eve were instantly created from dust & rib — so they began life as adults with no memories of previous personal or interpersonal experiences, and there were no other people for them to interact with — their situations would be very different than our current situations.  Therefore we should ask, “In what ways would their initial sin be similar to, and different than, our own recurring sins?  Could they be authentic representatives for us if they began life as adults?”  But if the dust & rib refer to elements & relationships, the human process of personal development, with its associated experiences and memories, could be similar for them and for us.

        Human Evolution:  When we're thinking about the question, “DID God use a process of all-natural evolution to create humans?”, we can ask sub-questions:
        Are there scriptural reasons, as in the dust-and-rib passages, to think that God created humans instantly and therefore DID NOT use a long process of creation?
        Are there theological reasons, as in a claim that God would avoid a “survival of the fittest” process requiring many deaths, to think that God WOULD NOT use a process of evolutionary creation?
        Are there scientific reasons to think that a natural process (with mutation, selection,...) COULD NOT convert a primate ancestor into a modern human in 5 million years?  Of course, if a process of evolutionary creation was planned by God — so it would produce humans with all of the characteristics (physical, mental, emotional, social, moral, spiritual) that God wanted us to have — this process could include natural-appearing divine guidance to produce desired natural results instead of other natural results.  This bold claim, declaring that “of course this process could include natural-appearing divine guidance,” is supported by traditional Christian theology (as in our essential Bible-based faith that God responds to our prayers) strongly affirming our belief that God can guide natural-appearing events, so asking “does natural mean without God?” is one of the CREATION QUESTIONS WITH EASY ANSWERS.

        Hominids and Humans:  In three of four proposed scenarios for Genesis 2-4, Adam & Eve were preceded by human-like hominids.  How should we define hominid and human?  Maybe hominids became humans when God decided they would become human, when God established a personal relationship and spiritual connection with Adam & Eve in Genesis 2, and gave them stewardship responsibilities, holding them accountable (in a covenant relationship) for obeying His commands and obeying their consciences that were now guided by His spirit.  In this way, God defines what it means to be human, and God decided when this would happen because He made it happen.   /   Another approach, which can be viewed as a supplement or (with less humility) an alternative, is for us to define human by using our observations about anatomy (including brain size) as in defining anatomically modern humans, and abilities (mental, emotional, social, physical), technology (indicating humans' ability to make tools, or develop farming & ranching with plants & animals), and art (e.g. making paintings or musical instruments).  Or we can look at “religious” behaviors,* such as performing burials or making ceremonial altars.   {* Maybe these were just human attempts to “reach out to God” and fill the God-shaped void (created by God) in our hearts & minds, which differs from the biblical process of covenant relationship (beginning with Genesis 2) in which God “reached out to us” in the history of Israel and the incarnation of Christ.
        Humans and Sin:  In the hominid-to-human scenario described above, the first biblical human was created when God established a personal spiritual connection with Adam;  this act of spiritual creation could occur whether the physical creation of Adam was an independent ‘special creation’ with no parents, or if Adam had a hereditary history with hominid ancestors.  This spiritual action by God made Adam fully human — not just physically alive, but also spiritually alive due to the spiritual connection — with the free will to continually choose whether his conscience (and his thoughts & attitudes, decisions and actions) would be guided by the Holy Spirit.  But in contrast with Jesus — who during His life on earth "remained in perfect communion with the Father and in subjection to him, so the Father could guide him continuously (Peter Rüst)" — Adam rebelled against the guiding of his conscience by God (when he disobeyed God's command that "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil") and in doing this Adam sinned.   /   If pre-human hominids were not biblical humans because they were not spiritually accountable to God, their immoralities would be non-sinful (like the actions of cats, dogs, and other non-human animals who don't have a spiritual connection and accountability) and their deaths would be like the deaths of other non-human animals.  They had no opportunity for personal salvation or everlasting life, so their immoralities had no permanent spiritual consequences for them.   /   Is there any observable evidence for God creating a spiritual connection with humans at a particular point in time?  No.  But an absence of observable scientific evidence, either for or against this act of creation, doesn't support a conclusion that it didn't occur.  Instead it's scientifically neutral.  It doesn't provide support for or against the claim.
        Image of God:  What does it mean for humans to be created “in the image of God” in Genesis 1:26-28?  Does this refer to our abilities (physical, mental, moral, emotional, social) compared with other animals, the personal spiritual relationship established by God with each of us, and/or the stewardship responsibilities given to us (with accountability demanded from us) by God?  Similar questions are above, in Hominids and Humans:  Should we define "human" spiritually, and/or by observable criteria such as anatomy, technology, art, or religious behavior?   also: What is the role of human relationships with God and with other people, as in The Two Great Commandments?  (And we can wonder about relationships within a God who is triune, who is three persons — Father, Son, Holy Spirit — in one God, in perfect relationship.)   /   Consider these two possibilities for timings:  Maybe the "image of God" developed gradually during evolution, during a time period when biological capabilities (physical & mental) were increasing, and God was giving his creatures increased spiritual & ethical responsibilities.  Or maybe all of this happened in an instant when God miraculously provided "the image" for a newly created human, or for a human who already had a physical body, as described by Roy Clouser for one aspect of the image: "while Adam's formation out of ‘the dust of the ground’ could have been a long process, God’s gracious word (breath) in making Adam his covenant partner was not."   { Are these timing questions analogous to asking, for each of us, whether "the image of God" emerges gradually during the development of a human embryo (or in a child after birth) or whether the entire image suddenly appears at a particular instant? }   /   What parts of "the image of God" are given by God to all humans when we are born into biological life?  and what parts are given only to those humans who have been re-born into a fuller spiritual life by accepting the grace offered by God through Jesus Christ?   /   If pre-human hominids existed (in all scenarios except young-earth Recent Creation), maybe the first humans created with the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) were pre-Adamic anatomically modern humans with physical & mental abilities similar to those of Adam.  Or maybe Adam was the first human with God's image, if an essential part of His image was the spiritual connection that God first made with Adam, as in a scenario with God making Adam our Recent Representative.
        Human Soul:  How does a soul differ from image of God ?  What is a soul?  The text of Genesis teaches that we ARE souls, not that we HAVE souls.*  Maybe a soul is the essential core of who-and-what we ARE, spiritually (including our relationship with God) and mentally.  Or maybe not.  It's "maybe" because the characteristics of a soul (what it is and isn't, and the connection of soul with body) are not clearly defined in the Bible, so speculations abound.  But in the New Testament we do see clear promises that, by the power and grace of God, some souls (some human persons, those who have been redeemed by God) will be given new bodies in heaven, in the new creation of God.    /    * Actually, the Bible shows us that the Hebrew word nephesh — often translated into English as soul, especially in older versions like King James — means creature or being in English.  For example, by using BibleGateway.com to check "all English translations" of Genesis 1:21 for creation of sea-animals, when "God created... every living [nephesh]" in English we see "every living creature" (in 24 versions) or "living thing" (14) or "living soul" (3, with "soul" just meaning that the animal IS a soul, IS a nephesh) or another phrase (3), but never "living being" (0).  By contrast, there is translation bias in Genesis 2:7 when Adam "became a living [nephesh]" and we see "living being" (in 18 versions) or "living soul" (12) or "living person" (6) or "living creature" (3, including fairly-literal versions like ESV & Young's Literal) or "living thing" (1) or "nefesh chayyah" (1), or another phrase, e.g. "began to live" (3).  Do you see the frequent bias, with nephesh translated differently for non-human animals and for humans?   {3 versions have "creature" in both verses, while 3 have "soul" in both, and 1 has "thing" in both}   {note: BibleGateway has 51 English versions, but I eliminated 7 duplicates, e.g. NIVUK that usually is identical to NIV}   {nephesh in wikipedia}
        Human Immortality?  When we're thinking about the question of intrinsic immortality, a key verse is Genesis 3:22, "And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.’"  This potential immortality was lost, and at the end of Genesis 3 a cherubim "guards the way to the tree of life" but this gift of eternal life was won back for us by Jesus so the tree (symbolizing eternal life supplied by God) is again available, for believers, in Revelation 2 and 22.

        Traditional Theology and Bible-Based Theology:  If a theology (often formalized in a doctrine) has been common in church history, this should be “credited to its account” during evaluation;  but this doesn't mean that it's necessarily based on a correct interpretation of the Bible.  Before you conclude that a particular theology is the only possible theology that can be based on the Bible, you should examine the scriptural texts closely, think deeply (about what we can learn from both scripture & nature) and evaluate carefully with an attitude of appropriate humility.  For example, we can ask whether the development of a particular traditional theology was influenced by an assumption of young-earth history (that isn't clearly taught in the Bible) instead of being based on a solid foundation of things that are clearly taught in the Bible, so it's Bible-based theology.
 

An Attitude of Appropriate Humility         In science & theology, our humility should be appropriate – not too little, and not too much.  (this appropriate humility also can be viewed as appropriate confidence)    We can make some claims, but not others, with justifiable confidence.  Currently, when each of us considers everything we know about human origins, from theology and science, it seems unwise to boldly conclude that “my view certainly has all of the correct answers, so (in every place we differ) your view must be wrong.”         Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma urge us to "remember that proponents of each view [as in the four scenarios below] can be working in good faith to reconcile God's revelations in Scripture and in nature, and to maintain certain central theological beliefs.  The Bible teaches ‘as much as we need in this life’ for God's glory and for our salvation (Belgic Confession, Art.2).  The Bible does not answer every question we could ask or imagine.  That means we are left with ambiguity about the details.  This ambiguity leads to disagreements among Christians about what Scripture is really teaching."         Six members of ASA describe their own humility about human origins:         Above, Deborah & Loren explain how scriptural ambiguity can lead to disagreements among Bible-believing Christians.         John Bloom thinks "no obvious resolution of the tension between the models [for human origins] seems possible at present," David Wilcox is "willing to wait with unresolved questions," and Terry Gray is "content to remain in a state of cognitive dissonance on this issue until further clarity comes my way."  (the full concluding statements by Bloom, Wilcox, and Gray)         And from an FAQ ABOUT ORIGINS by Craig Rusbult, editor for this page:  "Even when Christians disagree about the when-and-how details of creation, we are brothers & sisters in Christ, and we can join together in our praise of the creator, as in Revelation 4:11. ...  You and I should say in public, and believe in our hearts and minds, that ‘if God created using another method (differing from the way I think He created, regarding either age or evolution), then I will still declare that God is worthy of our praise.’  But this humility (if... then...) is compatible with humbly explaining, using arguments from theology and science, why we think a particular view is most likely to be true."

 
 
Four Scenarios for Adam & Eve in Genesis 2-4

In an effort to see how "all of the puzzle pieces [re: what we know about theology and science] can fit together" we'll look at four possibilities for human origins, with Adam and Eve as Recent Ancestors, Recent Representatives, Ancient Ancestors, or Ancient Symbols.  Each scenario offers different advantages in explaining the information we see in the two books of God, in scripture and nature, as studied by theology and science.

• For each scenario, a summary of the view is followed by questions raised by critics of the view, and responses by its defenders.  These responses are not intended to be statements of fact.  Instead, each response is written as it might be expressed by a defender who is assuming the view is true.  For example, when you read that "on the 6th day of creation, the Garden of Eden had mature ecosystems," this is the claim being made in a Recent Ancestors view, and this claim may or may not be a true description of human origins.   /   There are "variations on the basic themes" for each of these four views, which are examined more deeply — with claims, responses, and counter-responses, plus more information about theology and science — in the educational resources. 

• The introductory summary in VIEWS OF CREATION provides a foundation that will help you understand these four views of Adam & Eve in Eden:

 
1. Recent Ancestors — Adam & Eve on a Young Earth

In this view, Adam & Eve were the first humans;  they were miraculously created from dust & rib, were not preceded by any pre-human hominids, and are the ancestors of all humans.  They were instantly created in a universe that was less than 6 days old, about 6000 years ago.

        The many scientific problems with this view, and four young-earth responses, are summarized earlier. 
        We can ask a related theological question about one young-earth response to scientific evidence, in a claim that God created a young world with an appearance of old age:  if the universe, earth, and humans really are young, and if the first humans were recently created "from dust" with no ancestors, why would God create nature with so much evidence (in astronomy, radiometric dating, geology, fossils, and genetics) indicating that origins of the universe, earth, and humans were not recent, and that humans had primitive "hominid" ancestors who shared a common ancestry with other primates?   /   two responses:  First, scientists are misinterpreting the evidence, which (when correctly analyzed) does not provide scientific support for an old earth, ancient hominids, or common ancestry.  Second, some appearance of old age is necessary in a recently created world that is mature so it can be immediately functional.  With apparent age, on the 6th day of creation the Garden of Eden could have mature ecosystems to provide a suitable environment for Adam and Eve, who were instantly created as mature humans instead of helpless infants or embryos.
        Also, why were so many people already alive in Genesis 4, causing Cain (the first son of Adam and Eve, the third person on earth) to worry about murder, and letting him build a city?   /   response:  It would not require a large number of people for Cain to be concerned about his own safety or to build a small "city".  Genesis 4 describes two sons of Adam & Eve, but they also had many other sons & daughters, who had their own children, thus populating the early earth with their extended family.  Marrying within the family was not a problem because God had not yet declared this to be a sin, and because genetic defects (that could cause genetic diseases due to inbreeding) were not yet present in the recently created non-defective genomes of early humans.

        As explained earlier, we should ask whether traditional theology is Bible-based theology:  Is a particular doctrine taught with certainty in the Bible, or did some theologians assume a young earth and then speculate by using logic (by thinking "the earth is young, so we can conclude that ____") to go beyond what the Bible clearly teaches?

        a variation:  A view that is similar in some ways, but not others, is the Gap Theory, which proposes that there was an initial creation (in Genesis 1:1) lasting billions of years, followed by a catastrophe (in 1:2) and a re-creation on the earth (beginning in 1:3).  The re-creation, which included a special creation of Adam and Eve, happened in six 24-hour days.  This view is much less popular now than it was a century ago, and is criticized by most proponents of both a young earth and old earth.

 
2. Recent Representatives — Adam & Eve and Others

In this view, God first created anatomically modern humans over a long period of time.*  Then, approximately 6000 years ago (which is relatively recent compared with the longer history of modern humans) God selected two humans, Adam & Eve, to be the spiritual representatives of all anatomically modern humans, to be the first biblical humans.     {* How did God create?  It doesn't really matter, for the theology of this view, so divine creation might have occurred by natural-appearing guidance of evolution, and/or miraculous-appearing genetic modification, and/or miraculous-appearing independent creation. }

        Doesn't the Bible say that Adam was the first human?   /   a response:  As explained earlier, "if the first biblical human was created when God established a spiritual connection with Adam," then Adam was the first human, as defined by God in terms of spiritual relationship and responsibilities.  Even though in Genesis 2:7 when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" this could refer to Adam becoming fully alive (and fully human) through a connection with the Holy Spirit, we do not have — and probably could not have — any direct observable evidence for God making a spiritual connection with a particular human.  However, a lack of observable evidence (to serve as scientific evidence) does not mean that this connection did not occur.
        Doesn't the Bible state that Adam & Eve were the ancestors of all humans?  For example, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20)" and "from one man [Adam] he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth. (Acts 17:26)"   /   a response:  When we're trying to understand what these passages mean, we also should consider Genesis 4:21, "he [Jubal] was the father of all who play the harp and flute."  Does this passage teach that anyone who was not a direct descendant of Jubal (born in the 7th generation after Adam, so his descendants were a small fraction of the total population) never played the harp and flute?  Or does it have a non-literal meaning?  Similarly, could these passages about Eve & Adam (in Genesis & Acts) also have non-literal meanings, with Adam & Eve being our religious ancestors in a covenant relationship with God, who — by using the descendants of Adam & Eve in the covenant history running through Abraham and Moses to Jesus — provided a way for us to be forgiven and accepted despite our sin, so He could make us fully "living" as spiritually alive humans?
        If Adam & Eve were not the ancestors of all humans, how could their sin be passed on to all humans in future generations?   /   response:  A judicial analogy is summarized in Romans 5:12-21, "The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. …  For just as one trespass [by Adam] resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act [by Jesus] resulted in justification and life for all people. (Rom 5:16b,18)"  Paul is telling us that Jesus is our spiritual representative for justification even though none of us is a biological descendant of Jesus.  In a similar way, Adam can be our spiritual representative for condemnation even if some humans are not biological descendants of Adam.   /   When we're thinking about the concept of original sin, we should distinguish between the FACT of sin, and the HOW of sin.   [[ I.O.U. - Soon, December 27-29, I will finish this paragraph with ideas about different levels of justifiable confidence -- it's very high for FACT of Sin, much lower for HOW thus lots of speculation about it -- until later, you can ignore the rest of this paragraph]] Christian theology is based on the FACT of sin:  because each of us is a sinner, we need help from God.  One way to empirically verify the fact of sin is to think about The Two Great Commandments" in Matthew 22:36-40: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself."  Even when you are wanting to obey these commandments, it's impossible for you to always fully love God and fully love people, so you are a sinner.  It's obvious that "each of us is a sinner," with the FACT of sin being empirically verifiable by observations of our "many trespasses," and the Bible clearly teaches that each of us is a sinner who needs a savior.  But the Bible does not clearly explain the HOW of sin's history — how the sin of Adam is related to our own sins, and in what ways it may (or may not) be biologically inherited or, at a deeper level, whether it's "fair" that we should receive condemnation for the sin of Adam, or justification from the grace of Jesus — so theological theories about the "how" are speculative.
        If some people are descendants of Adam, and some are not, are there two types of people now, and are some of us second-class humans?   /   a response:  No, there is only one type of human.  The anatomically modern "humans" (Homo sapiens) who lived at the same time as Adam (and before Adam) were non-human hominids, because God — not anatomy — decided when hominids became human.  God decided to make Adam and Eve fully human through relationship and responsibility;  later He also transformed their contemporaries from anatomically modern humans to fully spiritual biblical humans, through relationship and responsibility, thus making all of that generation's ancestors (the children of both Adam & Eve and the others) fully human, and this continues to the present.  The salvation history of humans began with Adam (the first biblical human) and continued with Abraham, Israel and David, Jesus and His disciples, into our present and future.  By contrast, before Adam the hominids — who were anatomically modern but were not spiritually connected with God — were part of the formative history of nature.

        There are variations within the framework of this scenario, and outside it:
        Two responses above are labeled "a response" because there are several ways to view the relationship between Adam (our representative) and the other anatomically modern humans who lived in his lifetime, and also before and after him.  You can read about these variations, which occur within the framework of this scenario (#2, Recent Representatives), in the educational resources.
        And within the framework of other scenarios, some variations propose that Adam and Eve — either as a pair (in #3) or a group (in #4) — are Ancient Representatives.

 
3. Ancient Ancestors — Adam & Eve a Long Time Ago

In this old-earth view, God created Adam and Eve miraculously — either by independent creation (so there was no hereditary relationship with previously existing hominids) or by miraculous-appearing genetic modification of previous hominids (so there was a genetic relationship with them through hereditary descent) — sometime in the moderately distant past (roughly 10,000 to 150,000 years ago) and placed them in the Garden of Eden.  Non-human hominids existed prior to the creation of Adam and Eve but these hominids became extinct, so all modern humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, who are thus our only ancestors.
    an "extremely ancient ancestors" variation:  maybe Adam and Eve were extremely ancient ancestors, living about 5 millions years ago, early in the evolutionary history leading to modern humans;  they were not modern humans (Homo sapiens) but they might have been semi-modern humans (Homo erectus or Homo habilus) who lived much earlier than the fossils that have been found for these species, or perhaps they were early Australopithecus or Ardipithecus, before the first Homo species.
    an evolutionary "founder couple" variation:  maybe Adam & Eve were an extremely narrow 2-person bottleneck in a naturally evolving population of anatomically modern humans;  they were specially chosen by God, who gave them a soul with spiritual relationship and accountability (thus making them the first biblical humans) and placed them in the Garden of Eden;  due to natural selection in which the descendants of their hominid contemporaries became extinct, they are the only ancestors of all current humans.
    an evolutionary "bottleneck group" variation:  maybe Adam & Eve were part of a small bottleneck population with more than one couple, and due to interbreeding within this group (which survived although all other groups became extinct) every human in later generations had Adam & Eve as their ancestors (so each of them inherited some genes from Adam & Eve, and so do we) but not as their only ancestors.  /  Or, in a bottleneck group larger than 2 people it's possible to have 2 people be the only people who are the ancient ancestors of every human in the succeeding generations (*).   God could have transformed these two people into the first biblical humans by giving them a soul, relationship, and accountability, thus making them ancient representatives from their group.    * Each later descendant would also have some other ancestors, in addition to Adam & Eve, but these other ancestors would vary from one descendant to another, with only Adam & Eve being shared by all descendants.

        This view proposes old-earth creation, so young-earth creationists ask questions (about the six days of Genesis 1, death before sin, and more) and old-earth creationists respond, as described earlier.
        Here is a Bible-based question about timing:  By simply adding ages of patriarchs in the genealogy lists of Genesis, we estimate that Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago;  and evidence from archaeology indicates that the cultural context of Genesis 4 (its agriculture and technology) did not occur until about 8,000-11,000 years ago, which is more recent than proposed in scenarios with Ancient Ancestors.   /   responses:  In the Bible, genealogy lists often are not complete (instead only the most prominent ancestors are listed) so the actual time from Adam to the present could be much longer than 6000 years.   Maybe the agriculture and technology of Genesis 4 occurred much earlier than 9,000 BC, but (especially if it was localized on a small scale) it didn't produce a large amount of evidence, and it hasn't been discovered by archaeologists;  due to this possibility, an absence of evidence (for the culture and technology existing in their ancient culture) isn't a clear evidence of absence.   Or perhaps Genesis 4 describes the familiar culture that was known by the author of Genesis 4 and its first readers, rather than the actual culture in the ancient time of Adam & Eve and their ancestors.   //   These questions also apply for a view proposing extremely ancient ancestors, but with a much longer time gap;  and we can ask whether these early humans would have sufficient "image of God" capabilities.   /   response:  The explanations for 6,000 years becoming 50,000 years (due to genealogy gaps, missing cultural evidence, or a reader-familiar culture) can also explain 5 million years.  And maybe early humans had capabilities (intelligence,...) exceeding the current estimates of most scientists, who are misinterpreting some available evidence and haven't yet found other evidence;  or perhaps our standards differ from the standards of God, regarding how much intelligence is necessary for Him to declare that an early Adam & Eve were created in the image of God.
        Here is a science-and-theology question:  The current scientific consensus, based on mathematical analysis of genetic diversity in the human population, is that modern humans originated about 150,000 years ago in a group (of about 10,000 people) instead of a pair, as with Adam and Eve.  If modern humans began with only two people, who could have a maximum of 4 alleles, and if this creation was only moderately ancient (about 150,000 years ago, not millions of years as with extremely ancient ancestors) then God would have to miraculously increase the genetic diversity of later generations in order to produce the genetic diversity we now observe.  This leads to a theological question, asking why God would provide a false apparent history with scientific evidence making it appear that the ancestors of modern humans were a group, rather than the actual single pair.   /   a response:  Yes, God did cause the human race to develop more new alleles than would be expected by only natural process, in the time since Adam and Eve, so there is an appearance of miracles that produced a false apparent age.  But there were practical reasons for God to do this.  For example, we see an especially high diversity (with more than 150 variations) in a gene that is part of the human immune system, because God miraculously created these variations so the human race, as a whole, would thus have more adaptive flexibility in our responses to diseases.   { This argument is weakened if we can ask similar questions for other genes with high diversity but with less of a "practical functionality" reason for apparent age. }   /   another response:  If Adam and Eve were extremely ancient, living millions of years ago, there would be more time for the human race to naturally develop the number of alleles we now observe.   /   Or perhaps Adam & Eve were part of an evolutionary bottleneck group that was large enough to include the 150 alleles, which could occur with only 75 carefully selected people.   { But scientific evidence for genetic diversity is a major motivation for some evolutionary creationists to propose that, instead of Adam & Eve being the first pair of humans, Genesis 2-3 describes what happened to a group of early humans, as in Scenario 4. }

 
• Methods of Creation — How and When
Scenarios 2 & 3 (above) and 4 (below) are consistent with a variety of possibilities for the how-and-when of creation.  In most proposals for old-earth creation, anatomically modern humans (AMH) were preceded by hominids whose physical appearance and mental abilities changed during a process lasting millions of years.  This process of creation could have been all-natural, planned and guided by God, or it could have included some miraculous-appearing genetic modification or independent creation.  During this process the image of God developed in us naturally and/or was miraculously given to us by God, and we became fully human.
        variations:  In this brief summary you can see the many possibilities for old-earth creation, with human "image of God" capabilities — physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual — developing naturally and/or miraculously (re: the how of creation) and with a wide range of possible timings (re: the when of creation).  Due to the plausibility of many alternative proposals, differing in major and minor details, humility seems appropriate when we make claims about the methods and timings of creation, about how various aspects of human development happened and when these happened.

 
4. Ancient Symbols — Adam & Eve as Symbols of Humanity

In this view, Adam and Eve were not individuals who lived in history, because Genesis 2-3 is not literal history;  instead it is an allegory that accurately describes the collective development of sinful attitudes and behaviors in humans.  This scenario claims support from the fact that in the Bible the Hebrew word adam is used in two ways, to mean all humans (mankind, adam) and also one human (a man, Adam).  Here are two variations:
    1) In one version of this view, Genesis 2-3 explains what happened to a specific group of humans (who are symbolized by Adam & Eve) rather than a pair of humans (who were a literal Adam & Eve).  This group was a population bottleneck for the entire species, so they became the ancient ancestors of all current humans;  and maybe God transformed everyone in this group into the first biblical humans, so in addition to being our Ancient Symbolic Ancestors (similar to #3) they were also our Ancient Symbolic Representatives (similar to #2).
    2) Or maybe both the creation and fall of humans happened concurrently (not independently-and-sequentially) over a period of time, in many different groups.  During a formative period when the mental and moral capabilities of humans were increasing, and God was giving them additional moral responsibilities and spiritual revelations, the humans repeatedly made sinful choices (in their thoughts & actions) by disobeying God and their own moral consciences.

        What is an allegory?  According to Haarsma & Haarsma who accurately describe each major view of human origins, from young earth to symbolic, "In an allegory, the characters and plot are references to real people and real historical events, but the historical details are not recorded or are replaced with a more familiar context," and (describing the claims of an "ancient symbols" scenario) in Genesis 2-3 "the story tells us the essential information about what happened regarding God's revelation to humanity, humanity's temptation, and their choice to disobey God's will, but the story is not intended to give the details of how it actually occurred."
        But if Genesis 2-3 isn't historical, even though it seems to describe actual history — and New Testament writers refer to Adam, who is included in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38) — how can we be confident about historical claims in other parts of the Bible?    /   response:  The Bible includes many types of literature, and each type should be correctly interpreted in terms of what it is.  Some aspects of Genesis 2-3, such as the talking snake and the two symbolic trees, seem to be allegorical.  And even though allegorical symbolic history is not literal history (it "is not intended to give the details") it is actual history because "the characters and plot are references to real people and real historical events."   By contrast, the two books written by Luke — when he describes the life of Jesus and the apostolic church — certainly claim to be accurate literal history, with most details (but not in part of the genealogy of Jesus) based on eyewitness testimony.  Even if Genesis 2-4 is symbolic history rather than literal history, it can illustrate true spiritual principles, and teach us these principles.  Genesis can also teach true spiritual principles even if it uses outdated concepts about nature and culture from the ancient near-eastern context of its readers.
        In the second variation, with a concurrent creation and fall, humans were never both fully human and totally righteous, contrary to traditional Christian doctrine.  Also, Romans 5:12 says that "sin entered the world through one man," not through a group.   /   response:  The doctrine of original righteousness is not taught in the Bible, but instead is based on assuming that Adam was the first human and he was created in a state of perfection.  And in Romans 1-5 the main goal is to explain, through contrast and analogy, how "grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:21)"
        Both variations assume human evolution, but the Bible says that God — not a random process of natural evolution — created humans.   /   a response:  If God decided to create humans through a process of divinely guided natural evolution we should humbly accept this instead of telling God that "you should have done it another way, by independent special creation."

 
• Other Views
In addition to the views above (the four scenarios with variations) some Christians have proposed, or could propose, other views.
 

 

 

Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS

  Search the Website

Whole-Person Education for Science and Faith   HOME Effective Teaching School Options Learning Skills Thinking Skills The Nature of Science Origins Questions World Views ASA