RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Peter and all,

I had been mulling over some new thoughts (at least for me) on human origins
this week, when your e-mail came through. I would like to outline a
hypothesis and see what holes might be poked in it, confessing my lack of
training in anthropology.

As I've seen the arguments on this list and elsewhere, the problems for
Biblical literalism are:

Anthropology/archaeology:
- Evidence exists for millions of years of biological evolution among
pre-human species, including homo africanus, homo neandertalis, homo
erectus, and homo sapiens.
- Archaeological evidence shows millions of years of pre-human species, with
some tie-in with Africa, although not entirely proven whether there was a
single African source, or whether there were multiple lines of descent.
- DNA evidence shows similarity and inheritance of homo sapiens DNA from
earlier pre-human archaeological artifacts.
- The DNA evidence thus indicates that there are problems asserting that all
mankind originated 6000 years ago, since the genetic data shows links back
to species hundreds or millions of years older.
- Pre-human remains have been found in many continents, indicating that
pre-human ancestors originated much earlier than 4000 years ago, and
descended independently of an Adamic race in a 4000 B.C. Mesopotamia or
Africa (or elsewhere).

Biblical:
- The Bible indicates that Adam was the father of all mankind, at least
those physical/spiritual beings in need of salvation.
- According to the Bible, Adam's sin was passed to "all men", death reigned
"over all" from Adam's sin (Rom 5:14,21), Jesus is the "savior of all men"
(1Tim 4:10), and all nations are made of one blood (Acts 17:26).
- Therefore, all those who are sinners are those who inherited something of
Adam's nature. If this isn't true, nevertheless the Bible gives no
indication that other *beings* could be sinners in any other way, so any
other theory is extra-Biblical.
- The "federal headship" concept would make Adam the literal ancestor of
only a portion of modern mankind, but the spiritual ancestor of all homo
sapiens. This means Adam's spiritual sin/inherited sinful state would not
apply literally to all mankind except through a sort of proxy status, making
certain homo sapiens "guilty by association" by virtue of looking similar to
their Adamic cousins. This doesn't seem reasonable to me, nor is there any
clear hint that I can find in the Bible for this concept. Why didn't Adam's
sin get applied equally to the baboons as well as the homo sapiens?
- If other *non-Adamic* humans (currently living homo sapiens) are not of
the Adamic race, they are not in need of salvation because of not inheriting
Adam's sin. Christian evangelism of the world is thrown into doubt, because
one would first have to ask which of mankind actually need the saving
message of the gospel.

Here's the hypothesis that I've been considering:

1. Assume that there were millions of years of biological evolution, by
which various pre-human *creatures* developed. I'll use the term
"creatures" to separate their identity from what we would call "mankind"
(i.e. physical/spiritual beings in need of salvation, described as "man" in
scripture). In this hypothesis, there is absolutely no need for either ooA
or MRH theories to be proven right or wrong. Simply, these species
developed over time, through natural processes, selection, adaptation, and
perhaps the directing influence of God toward greater complexity over their
monkey cousins. Over the millenia, these various "homo" species migrated,
developed, went extinct, and culminated in what science now identifies as
"homo sapiens".

2. Over time, these pre-human creatures developed greater sophistication,
including familial culture, societies, mechanical skills, perhaps even
religious-like practices. Even monkeys show signs of altruism, familial
love, emotions, concern for others' pain, and mechanical skills. These
later homo species could have developed even further; but, they were not yet
"human". Glenn has pointed out some archaeological evidence of religious
practice in Neolithic archaeology. This doesn't prove (and I would argue,
science CANNOT prove) that these creatures were made-in-God's-image humans,
with spirits, potential for sin, and a need for salvation. Their biological
and cultural development, perhaps even including some sort of religious
practice, could perhaps have been driven simply by biological self-awareness
and a growing awareness of things "beyond", and was a mere precursor to the
later religious worship instituted by God to the Adamic race.

3. At some point in time (let's argue for sake of Biblical literalism that
it was roughly 4000 B.C.) God did something new. He created a new man,
Adam, followed by his wife, Eve. Whether this was a special
divinely-directed adaptation of homo sapiens, or a completely new creation,
I don't think it matters so much for now. However, to better support a
later step in this hypothesis, it may be easier to argue that this "person"
was a homo sapiens who was given a special dispensation by God. This new
creation was given several special gifts and features: special
responsibilities to tend the garden and name the animals, the first modern
"language" (as opposed to methods of communication possessed by all
creatures), they were given to possess the image of God (a spiritual *being*
capable of true God-awareness, free will, and sin), and the opportunity to
have perpetual life through partaking of the Tree of Life. For purposes of
this illustration it matters not what that tree was, literal or spiritual.

4. This couple inevitably exercised their free will and chose to sin against
God's will. I chose 4000 B.C., but the Bible never gives a time frame for
their pre-Fall existence in the garden. It could have been thousands of
years for all we know. Suffice it to say, as long as they were without sin,
they existed in the garden without dying as physical/spiritual beings.

5. After their fall, they were forced to leave the garden, and they
therefore lost access to the perpetual life from the Tree of Life. However,
God had another plan for them to obtain salvation and eternal life through
the worship of God and the atonement of Christ, through death, resurrection
and immortality of body and soul. They now had to suffer the penalty of
eventual death, and having to labor with their hands in tilling the earth,
having pain in childbirth, etc. (It could be argued that in their pre-Fall
existence, they could not, or at least did not, have children according to
the Biblical account.) After the fall, this specially created Adam and Eve
had children, some of whom are enumerated in the Bible.

6. These children of Adam and Eve married and had children of their own. I
have previously considered that they could have married sisters who were not
mentioned in the Bible. However, for purposes of this hypothesis let's
suppose that God permitted them to intermarry/procreate with other
non-enlightened homo sapiens who existed at that time. Their genes,
whatever they were in a pre-Fall state, began to be intermingled with those
of other homo sapiens. If they were in fact a specially endowed couple of
homo sapiens origin, there might have been very little (if any) genetic
difference between them and their "creature" neighbors.

7. As is the history of mankind, this special race of Adamic humans
(including the righteous Seth line and the unrighteous Cain line) grew
strong, acquired knowledge, built strong cultures and cities, and conquered
dominions through warfare. As they spread out across the land, they
subdued, killed, raped and/or took captive the female homo sapiens, and
effectively eliminated the non-Adamic (less skilled and knowledgeable)
population. We read in Genesis 10:8-9 of Nimrod the mighty hunter, who
according to tradition established the first empire, practiced slavery,
built great cities, instituted Babylonian religion (with beliefs and
practices which later perpetuated through many cultures), and eventually the
great building project described at Babel.

8. After the scattering at Babel, it is recorded that "from thence did the
Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Gen 11:9).
Understanding that this could refer to a localized geographical area, there
is nothing to limit the scope of this statement. Josephus states that from
Babel, the people spread across the land and sea and inhabited the islands
(unspecified locations). There is evidence even from American archaeology
of influence from oceanic contact carrying both Asian and Middle Eastern
culture to the American continent in addition to Mongoloid migration across
the Bering Strait, and I suppose such places as Australia wouldn't be
outside the scope of influence of these men. In each region where these
people went, if there existed pre-human populations, they would have been
subdued and merged with the more "enlightened" Adamic populations, until all
that was left of what we would consider today "mankind" or "people" have
some genetic traceability back to Adam. Considering the evidence of
cultural conflict between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and between homo
sapiens and homo sapiens, this seems at least reasonable.

9. This theory *might* also answer the literalist problem of the long ages
in the Bible. If there was something genetically different with Adam,
perhaps as a result of having experienced perpetual life by partaking of the
tree of life, perhaps his descendents would have retained this long age span
because of some inherited genetic characteristic. As the population became
more and more merged with other homo sapiens, and as they got further away
from Adam genetically, the life spans gradually came into line with a modern
human length of life. Because this was a relatively small population which
eventually overtook the homo sapiens (with short life spans), the
archaeological evidence would be inconclusive, even if looking at certain
recent fossils, because scientists would be unable to distinguish which were
Adamic and which were not (or partial). By the time the Adamic populations
took over and dominated the fossil record, their life spans had reduced to
*normal* lengths.

10. Implications of this hypothesis:
- Genetically speaking, especially if Adam was an endowed homo sapiens, the
Adamic race and other homo sapiens would be essentially indistinguishable
from each other.
- This means that all currently living humans can be traceable genetically
to millions-year-old homo sapiens, AND spiritual/biologically to a divinely
created man, Adam. This resolves any conflicts between Biblical
interpretation and biological similarity with earlier homo species.
- Because of this, "all men" (Biblically) are under sin, because they all
inherited the capacity to sin from Adam and the tendency to sin from
environmental and/or genetic predisposition (also since we don't have clear
access to presence of God, as Adam did in the Garden, but have to proceed
through faith in the unseen). Death (spiritual) reigned from Adam, and in
Adam all (modern humans) die spiritually as well as physically; thus in
Christ, all (mankind) will be made alive.
- Long time scales of evolution and short time scales of the Biblical text
are reconciled.

I'm sure there are holes in this. One in particular is that I am not
familiar enough with the current state of scientific knowledge (or theory)
on pre-human evolution and migration. How and when did pre-humans get to
the Americas, Australia, Europe, etc. How similar were these populations,
when did they branch, and how did they evolve differently in different
regions? If (according to my theory) Adamic homo sapiens merged with and
conquered these other populations, if they had evolved differently in
Australia for instance than in Africa, is there biological evidence that
would sustain this theory, or even have any bearing on it? Would it be
possible in a few thousand years for a diaspora of Adamic humans to spread
to all reaches of the planet and overcome the regional populations of homo
sapiens? Would it be possible for some of those non-enlightened populations
to still exist today, and if so, what bearing does this have theologically?

I'll just throw out the ball and let you all kick it around.

Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Peter Ruest
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:16 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: The wrong horse in evolution education
Received on Fri Mar 31 12:39:01 2006