Chapter 10
WHEN CHRISTIAN STUDENTS ASK ABOUT MANÕS ORIGIN
Was Adam the first homo Sapiens?
The modern human race is
one interbreeding species: homo Sapiens.
If, according to the Bible, the sin of Adam has been imputed to all
mankind, then mankind constitutes this single interbreeding species. It then follows that Adam must have
been the first member of the homo Sapiens species. (If we knew how long the homo Sapiens species has existed,
then we should also know when Adam lived.)
However,
paleo-anthropologists have collected a large number of fossilized skulls and
other skeletal bones of non-homo Sapiens species (that they collectively refer
to as being humanoid). These humanoid remains have been found
in geologically datable upper strata of the earthÕs crust. Some fossilized humanoid skulls are
shaped quite differently than any (non-pathological) homo Sapiens skulls known
to exist.
Some
evangelical Christians believe that physical anthropologists cannot be trusted
to be good scientists. But today,
it is surprising how much information can be obtained from the study of even a
single jawbone. In this context it
should be noted that it was the community of 20th century
anthropologists themselves who exposed the hoax of Piltdown man (rather than a
non-anthropologist with an axe to grind).
A
number of Biblical scholars (Green, Orr, Warfield, and Allis) say that it is a
mistake to attempt to use Genesis genealogies to determine the time at which
Adam and Eve (or the first homo Sapiens, for that matter) actually lived.(ref:
Ramm) The reason is as
follows: First, there is no
requirement in the Hebrew linguistic style for genealogies necessarily to
follow strict father-son relationships.
According to John Davis (in his Bible dictionary), some of the names in
Genesis genealogies were of patriarchs with lines of descent that were
considered unnecessary to include.
Important
differences exist between non-homo Sapiens homonids and Biblical homo Sapiens
man. When Biblical Adam was
created, he was given a ŅGod-breathedÓ soul and a type of consciousness (and
conscience) that had not existed in any pre-Adamic homonid. In addition to pronounced skeletal
differences (best studied by paleo-anthropologists), Biblical man must posess a
type of consciousness associated with a special ability to communicate in a way
that involves his unique responsibility to God. This ability would not be have been shared with
non-homo-Sapiens homonids, all of which have long since become extinct.
If
a universal flood obliterated animal life in America, then it should have wiped
out early ancestors of American Indians.
There is evidence that Indians were in America sometime between 10,000
and 15,000 years ago.
In this context, it was
reported in 2010 that two-thirds of the entire Neanderthal genome has been
sequenced from three female Neanderthals (who reportedly lived in Croatia from
38,000 to 44,000 years ago). A comparison
of that portion of their genome with that of modern Asians and Europeans,
provides evidence that modern homo Sapiens now living in Europe and Asia
inherited from one to four percent of their genome from Neanderthals. This seems to be evidence that
Neanderthals should not be considered a species separate from homo Sapiens,
since at least some inter-breding may have taken place. But, at the same time, there also
appear to be 15 genetic regions that differ between modern humans and
Neanderthals Šgenetic regions important in cognitive and skeletal
development. (This seems
reminiscent of differences between normal modern humans and those with some
genetic impairment) At any rate,
it is likely that modern humans survived as a result of a better genome than
Neanderthals who became extinct.
(Science, 330, 17 Dec. 2010, p. 1605)
If
mankind is defined in a Biblical fashion, then it must have begun with Adam and
Eve. These are the first
individuals to have a living soul and a type of consciousness that bears a
unique responsibility to (and capacity to interact with) God. They represent a sudden jump in
creation, and if one takes the Book of Genesis literally, as many do, only they
could have given rise to the modern worldwide species of homo Sapiens. This creative jump not only separates
modern Biblical man from all other animals, it separates him from all
pre-existing homonids.
ManÕs
intelligence requires a brain far more complex than that of any other
animal. It certainly seems
difficult to account for manÕs intelligence, creativity, common sense,
consciousness, conscience, and capacity for spiritual experience if one
continues to stand upon a philosophical foundation of materialism or
naturalism. Creationists must hold
that these Ņmade in the image of GodÓ aspects of human nature had a divine
origin.
Paleo-anthropologists
tell us that human civilization began sometime between 8,000 and 16,000
B.C. This allows thousands of
years for civilization to develop up to the point where Egyptian pyramids
(etc.) and Stonehenge (in England) could be built (2500-3000 B.C.). In Genesis 4 and 5 we already have
towns, agriculture, metallurgy and music.
These considerations would make pushing Adam back to 100,000 B.C. or
earlier, as the first homo Sapien, difficult. This is why many attempts to reconcile an exegesis of
Genesis with reasonably well-founded information from history, linguistics,
culture, anthropology, paleontology, archaeology, geology, physics and
astronomy has been both difficult and controversial for students of the Bible. (Perhaps presently available
information from all sources is inadequate to harmonize Genesis and
anthropology at this time.) (ref: Ramm)
Fossil homonids appear
in the Pleistocene era Šin the uppermost part of the earthÕs crust. At the same time, it seems plausible
that the appearance of homo-Sapiens man was contemporary with the end of the
ice age, the saber-toothed tiger and the giant mammoth. (Were they included in the animals
brought on board NoahÕs ark? One
might just as well also ask if all species of dinosaurs were brought on board,
instead of going extinct about 65 million years ago.)
The position that all
races of homo Sapiens that ever lived on earth were derived from Noah has a
problem. If there is good evidence
for Indians being in America sometime between 8,000 and 13,000 B.C., then any
universal annihilation of man (except for NoahÕs family) must have occurred
prior to that time. But it would
be difficult to find an evangelical Biblical scholar who would be willing to
date NoahÕs flood before 8,000 to 13,000 B.C. (Ramm, 336) Also, in order to include Negroid and
mongoloid races as descendents of Noah would require a great deal of stretching
of the Genesis genealogies.
Early
chapters of Genesis seem to involve primarily Caucasoid races. These people seem to have migrated from
Shinar in Mesopotamia to produce the Semetic family of nations (including the
Hebrews). An effort to derive all
races of the world from NoahÕs sons seems neither necessary from a Biblical
standpoint, nor possible from anthropological evidence. (Ramm, 337)
Races among homo Sapiens
would most likely have developed in a fashion similar to the way varieties
develop within any other species of animals. Isolation of a common stock can eventually lead to a
well-defined variety. Is there
anything unreasonable about the assumption that what we know about genetics,
combined with separation or selection over time, could have produced all human
races that presently exist in the world?
It should not be
necessary to warp or compromise oneÕs own intelligence in order to be a
conservative (or evangelical) Bible-believing Christian. Committed believers, who honestly seek
Biblical truth, do, in fact embrace (or argue in favor of) differing
interpretations of certain discrete portions of Scripture. If it necessary or advisable to
undertake a study of the original language used, and to refer to well-founded,
historical, geographical and archaeological evidence, why stop there, in oneÕs
use of reliable extra-Biblical information? If a Christian desires also to use the best evidence from
anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, or any other well-established
field of science, why should he be criticized by other Christians for doing
so? But not all information that
is sometimes claimed to be scientific is actually within the bounds of
science. It is beyond science if
it involves philosophical issues that science should not, or cannot address.
There are indeed certain
passages of Scripture that involve interpretational issues that Christians
should not attempt to resolve with dogmatic certainty. The reason is the following: There may be insufficient information
available from any source (existing on this planet at this time, at least) to
resolve the issue or answer the question involved. This is most apparent when it comes to answering questions
about future (prophesied in the Bible) events expressed in a pictorial (poetic
narrative) Hebrew linguistic style.
Why not also expect such a style to be used, to some degree, at least,
in Old Testament descriptions of events that occurred in the distant past.
Some eagerly sought information about past events may have been lost to us forever. An example of the latter are details which may have been involved in how the first form of life came into existence on our planet.
When Christians
interpret a particular passage of Scripture differently it is usually because
they are using different hermeneutical rules. Most conservative Christians are quite comfortable with
interpreting a particular passage in a manner consistent with its context, and
in a manner consistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole. They are usually comfortable with interpreting
a passage in a manner consistent with careful study of the language used in the
best original manuscripts. They
also do not ordinarily have a problem using the best historical, geographical
and archaeological information available to them. However, when it comes to expanding beyond the limits of
those disciplines, differences in their hermeneutical approach can become more
problematic.
How should a serious
student of the Bible choose the hermeneutical rules and procedures he should
follow, if he is to arrive at the single interpretation ŅGod intendedÓ when he
inspired the writing of Scripture.
Nowhere in the Bible are the most proper or most acceptable
hermeneutical rules even alluded to.
Chances are that a student will simply rely upon or consult a more
experienced teacher or scholar that that he respects. But the fact is, that vigorous arguments have occurred
between well-known widely respected Biblical scholars. Unfortunately, there have been instances
where professors in the same conservative evangelical theological seminary have
stopped speaking to each other because of their interpretational differences.
When it comes to
fundamental doctrinal issues, there should be unity. However, I believe that if the question or issue is
peripheral, to the extent that fundamentally important doctrinal issues are not
at risk, then there should be charity and tolerance.
.