Did Adam and Eve Exist?
A Scientifically Viable Argument for a First Human Couple
The question of whether a first human couple existed from whom all other humans originated is in many people’s thinking the hardest scientific problem currently facing biblical Christianity. Many, like biologist and atheist apologist Jerry Coyne and Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig, have stated as much.1 Considering the many articles dealing with this question or some facet of this question in journals dealing with science and religion, it is difficult to ignore the seriousness of the problem. I would like to offer a relatively simple solution to this problem, claiming that there was a first couple but also that none of our presently most widely accepted scientific beliefs from population genetics and archeology are mistaken.2 I would like to present this model to suggest that this might be the easiest way to resolve the “first human couple” problem. In doing so, we will also need to consider some issues in the interpretation of Scripture. I will call this an evolutionary Adam and Eve model (EAE). I do not want to suggest that this is the only evolutionary Adam and Eve model so I’ll simply designate it EAE1.
Let me start with some quotations, some of which are taken from my book, Human Suffering and the Evil of Religion.3 There I offer the following as a basic argument for a first couple without getting into a couple of related moral problems we will look at later in this study.
Understanding the Genesis creation account. Henri Blocher speaks of the first chapter of Genesis as something close to prose-poetry.4 “[C.] John Collins calls it exalted prose.5 This kind of assessment from such prominent biblical scholars should lead us to think it should be interpreted much as we would poetic literature. If we see this as poetic literature, this does not mean it can be made to say anything we want it to say. The creation story must in some important ways correspond with what actually happened.”6
Kenneth Kitchen says that “the ancient Near East did not historicized myth (i.e., read it as imaginary ‘history’). In fact, exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to ‘mythologize’ history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.”7 Collins agrees that not only did the Mesopotamians recount their ancient histories “with a great deal of imagery and symbolism” but the Hebrews appear to have done so as well.8 So we see the need to distinguish an historical core from the embellishment of symbols and imagery not only in Genesis 1 but also in the full pre-Abrahamic history of Genesis 1–11. Concerning the creation account in Genesis 2, Martin Emmrich argues that this requires at least an historical core of an actual garden and two occupants.9“there was . . . a trend [in Near Eastern mythology] to ‘mythologize’ history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.”
“The Genesis account is given in an agrarian setting; Adam was to tend the garden in Eden. [One of his first two sons kept flocks, the other worked the soil.] Agriculture came into being around ten thousand years ago. The original events could have occurred in a gatherer culture with the story altered to eventually fit the agrarian culture when it came into being.”10
Whether little or much or all of the original story was lost to Abraham’s line after so many thousands of generations, God could have revealed to Abraham whatever information he wanted him to have. It may be that little or no accurate information was retained as it was passed on and altered to form the Near Eastern mythology Abraham grew up with. With this new revelation, however, Abraham himself may have altered and modified the oral tradition he had received. If any historic or spiritual information was lost during the several hundred years between the time of Abraham and Moses which God wanted the Israelites to have, again, God may have revealed this to Moses. It is also possible that the Israelites had a functional written language while in Egypt thus allowing the mythologized history to be passed on with little change during these few hundred years.
A final mutation produces the first genetic human. Our goal is to genetically arrive at a primate who has the human characteristics assumed in the Bible (intelligence as well as moral and spiritual abilities and awareness).
“Population geneticists tell us that there never was a time that less than a few thousand of our species existed at once. I believe the currently accepted number is about ten thousand. If that is the case, how could there exist just two humans from whom all others originated?”11
Consider one of the ways species change: “One individual has a mutation or the last of a number of mutations which has some survival benefit and that individual produces offspring some of whom carry on that beneficial mutation. The mutation produces a survival advantage. Sometimes the rest of the species perish since they lack that advantage and cannot compete for resources. . . .
“One individual of an interbreeding population of non-human bipedal primates had the mutation which made it human. Thus we start with one individual producing a new subspecies which further interbreeds with others of both the old and new subspecies but the new eventually displaces the old. This is how we can have one originating human within a large interbreeding population of non-humans.”12
I should emphasize that this model is not claiming that one mutation of a simple gene necessarily produced humanness. A mutation could produce a regulator gene which could deactivate some genes and trigger a number of other genes to produce the needed change. This mutation would likely be the last of a large number of mutations all of which together are needed to produce the needed change. It pushes one over the edge to humanness. Hereafter, I will simply speak of this as the “human gene mutation.” I would hypothesize that the human gene is recessive rather than dominant. This is not to say that a model using a dominant allele could not also work.13
Now if it can be positively shown that we cannot use any commonly accepted model of human evolution to reach a first human couple from whom all other humans descended (such as I’ve tried to do here), then I would resort to a model which says that the large composite of genes which produce the essential human characteristics came into being through a kind of non-functional DNA built up. This DNA had no function or different segments had other gene functions until the accumulation was completed. All together this composite of genes produced the characteristics sufficient for humanness. A final gene would be the last one necessary and sufficient to complete the composite of genes to bring about the needed human characteristics. I would suspect that this scenario would likely require some divine intervention, certainly more than any normal gradualist scenario would. But it would still produce a final gene (two copies of a recessive allele) needed to trigger the new human characteristics. Nothing of our current scientific knowledge conflicts with such a possibility.
Attributes necessary and sufficient for normal biblical humanness. C. John Collins says, “Some have suggested that perhaps, to make the first man, God used the body of a pre-existing hominid, adding a soul to it. We should observe that, in view of the embodied image of God [in humans] in Genesis, if this took place, then it involved some divine refurbishing of that body in order for it to work together with the soul to display God’s image.”14 It is difficult to see that what Collins calls divine refurbishing could not be a natural end result of evolutionary processes, though in any case still intelligently guided processes. And as Collins points out, this certainly could also include the addition of a human soul.
Since it is difficult to say what basic difference would clearly distinguish humans from non-humans of their own species, it may be that very little genetic alteration was needed to bring about this change. The first humans may have been the same or almost the same as their non-human siblings and parents in behavior and intelligence—in their rationality, creativity, sociability, etc.—but different only in their moral and spiritual awareness and abilities. We cannot even claim any certainty that language was a uniquely human characteristic. If the first human and their predecessors were so alike, it would be very likely that interbreeding would occur between these subspecies for a very long time.
Even with very little cognitive changes, the genetic differences could have been sufficient to require a sizable number of genes to produce even this. We would also need a final mutation here, a last change in DNA or DNA arrangement to bring about this difference.
Having said this, it is also quite conceivable that the non-human subspecies did not possess anything close to the rationality, creativity, or any of the linguistic abilities of the first humans. In this case it is still possible that given enough preparatory gene buildup over innumerable generations to a final just-right prehuman genome and given a precise final gene mutation, a mutation sufficient to finally enable the needed characteristics, a human genome could result. There might have been proportionately less mating between these subspecies than if the two were more alike, yet given enough generations, there still could have been enough interbreeding to result in the human gene pool we see today.
I would think that to be human in the sense the Bible speaks of it one must have at least the following characteristics. Humans must:
(1) possess theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others and to understand that others have these mental states as distinct and different from one’s own;
(2) be able to possess an awareness of the universe’s creator as a conscious being;
(3) be able to be aware that one has moral obligations to all others who have minds like oneself; and
(4) be able to be aware that one has moral and spiritual obligations to this creator God.
Using a normal gradualistic evolutionary model, we eventually arrive at a primate which has just enough of these characteristics such that God would consider it human. If I’m off on exactly what those characteristics are, God would determine that. Even if one might possess 1 and 2, they would still not be human if they lack 3 and 4. Nevertheless, my own inclination is to think that all non-humans, no matter how close they otherwise are to humans in mental abilities, would lack all four.
Once an individual has the first glimpse of an awareness that they have moral obligations to God and to all others who are like oneself, having a mind like they have, they are expressing human characteristics. God considers one to be human who is able to have these mental abilities. So even if we evolved by a gradual progression to these new characteristics, there can still be a clear demarkation between those possessing a given characteristic conferring humanness and those lacking it.
Once an individual has the first glimpse of an awareness that they have moral obligations to God and to all others who are like oneself, having a mind like they have, they are expressing human characteristics. God considers one to be human who is able to have these mental abilities.
Humans who lack the humanness gene. It is not inconceivable that some people throughout our history have had mutations in the genes which provide humanness and that this causes them to lack the necessary characteristics of humanness. They may be so mentally handicapped that they cannot become aware of, say, others as deserving to be treated without harm or of the possibility of God’s existence. Though they cannot respond to God or others morally, yet they may still be human in God’s sight. They simply do not have the responsibility God gives to other humans. God has another purpose for them in this life. Since our ultimate purpose in this world is to respond to God—to choose to accept or reject this God—as well as to respond to others morally, everyone must at some time have this ability and be given the opportunity to so act. Those who never are given this ability in this life, like those who die too young, must be given it in another life.
Genetics to produce a first human couple who are ancestors of all other humans. Notice that the human mutation could be kept to discrete individuals within the entire species. We know that genes are passed on, half of one’s genome is received from one parent, the other half from the other parent. In heterozygous individuals, one gene or allele from one parent will be dominant and the other corresponding but different allele from the other parent recessive. The dominant allele will be expressed; it will cause certain characteristics (like brown eyes) to be present in the individual, and the recessive allele (like blue eyes) hidden. The recessive allele will be expressed only if both parents provide that same recessive allele making the individual homozygous with this gene.
Assuming the human mutation is a recessive allele, the first human must be homozygous with this allele, it must have both copies of the allele. The allele producing humanness we may call “h.” The prior non-human allele we may call “N.” Mating with a non-human (NN), a homozygous human (hh) would have only heterozygous non-human children (Nh). Two homozygous humans (hh) would have only human children (hh). Two heterozygous non-humans (Nh) would on average have one homozygous human child (hh), two heterozygous non-human children (Nh), and one homozygous non-human child (NN). A homozygous human (hh) and heterozygous non-human (Nh) could have no homozygous non-human children (NN) but would have on average a homozygous human child (hh) for each heterozygous non-human child (Nh).
The first individual having the humanness allele (Nh) will not be human and have these characteristics since they would have only one copy of the allele and the allele is recessive. This allele may be passed on to a number of offspring without producing anyone with both copies of the allele. Only individuals with both human alleles would be human. The two first humans could be born of completely different parents.
These first two with the humanness gene (hh), Adam and Eve (A&E), mate. The story in Genesis speaks of the first man being placed in a new location, perhaps one devoid of any other non-humans of his species, until Eve is later brought to him (Gen 2.8, 22). After the Fall, the first sin, the two are cast out of Eden, possibly to be brought back to their wider non-human interbreeding population. Their human offspring mate with other non-humans of their species (Nh and NN) producing human and non-human offspring. God providentially makes sure humans (those possessing both alleles, hh) are not born of any non-humans possessing the allele (a single copy of the human allele, thus Nh) other than A&E’s descendants. God determines that those non-humans outside of A&E’s line possessing one copy of the allele eventually die out, though before that happens they and the NN non-humans may mate with some in A&E’s line who are fully human (hh) or are not human but possess a copy of that allele (Nh).
When and where the first human couple lived. We do not know when and where the first humans lived but we do have some good guesses. Vanessa Hayes and colleagues have provided evidence that anatomically modern humans lived in south central Africa (the Kalahari region of northern Botswana) 200ka to 130ka (thousand years ago). Anatomically modern human does not necessarily mean biblically human. It could be human but it could also just mean it’s getting closer to one who has the consciousness and moral abilities of one God would consider human, the humans as depicted in the Bible. With climate changes, green corridors opened and migrations from there to the northeast occurred 130ka and to the southwest 110ka though a remnant population remained in the Kalahari. If Hayes’ proposal stands, the first biblical humans, those possessing the four cognitive characteristics we have discussed earlier, could have first come into being just before the first major population split 130ka. The great cultural revolution expressed in painting and statuettes in Europe and Asia after 40ka had predecessors in Africa in the last 100k years and earlier (snail and sea shell beads, decorated ostrich egg shells, grave goods, symbolic markings, use of colored pigments).15 So the new display of intelligence could have had its origins 130ka. All this fits a 130k year old origin of humanity. Much depends on whether Hayes’ work is upheld under scientific peer review.
Researchers have in recent years offered evidence that Neanderthal artistic and technical capabilities were comparable to those of humans.16 If their evidence stands this could push back the date of human origins to a time prior to the split of the human linage from the Neanderthals and Denisovans, around 550ka in Africa. Of course we need to remember that mere technical and even artistic intelligence does not necessarily indicate humanness. Our last non-human predecessor was very likely very close to the first human in intelligence. So if Neanderthals are found to have been as intelligent as some claim, they were still not necessarily human in the biblical sense of being morally and spiritually responsible.
Under either a 130ka or 550ka date for the first man, Adam could have been taken from his wider non-human species in Africa to Eden in the Middle East. Eve, who had grown up in the same population that Adam had in Africa, would have then been taken to be with Adam. Eden may have been in the Persian gulf region if the biblical description of the four rivers can lead us to a location. Interestingly, the garden in Eden where God placed the man is said to be in the east (Gen 2.8) and the Persian gulf is definitely east of Africa. It is also possible that Eden is not outside of Africa and that the description of the rivers was an anachronistic reading replacing some earlier named rivers or locations. Possibly the rivers have symbolic meaning and were added to the account for that purpose. If Eden had been outside of Africa, once A&E were expelled from the garden, they could have returned to their earlier home in Africa. Later accounts of cities and locations sometimes appear to have had symbolic meaning. When Cain is cursed to a life of wandering, he goes to the land of Nod, which means “wandering.”
The preeminent geneticist David Reich explains that the “mutations necessary to facilitate modern human behavior were already in place” prior to the Upper Paleolithic and Later Stone Age transitions, the time of dramatic cultural changes about 42ka which indicate clearly modern human behavior.17 The first humans by biblical standards, those possessing at least consciousness, language, moral and spiritual awareness, and a sufficient degree of rationality to consider moral questions, could have existed much earlier. Other than this minimal degree of rationality, it is very difficult to know how much intelligence was needed for humanness. And, of course, the one possessing the first mutations needed for all of these characteristics could have also had those characteristics.18
Biblical evidence for human/non-human interbreeding. The Genesis account hints that there was a larger population with whom A&E’s descendants could interbreed. The first son of A&E, Cain, killed his brother, Able, and was cursed to wander upon the earth. Cain pleads with God and says that anyone who finds him will kill him (Gen 4.12–14) strongly suggesting that there already exist a large number of others living at the time and spread out upon the portion of the earth Cain would have wandered. Also we have to wonder where Cain or any of his later brothers found their wives, unless their wives were their sisters.
The moral problem of human/non-human interbreeding. The interbreeding of A&E’s human descendants with non-humans, if it is taken as a kind of bestiality, might have been allowed but not desired by God. It could have occurred as a result of human wickedness and depravity.
On the other hand it seems feasible to think that since these non-humans and humans were of the same species that this may not be bestiality at all. These were our closest non-human relatives and they may have had characteristics which are almost indistinguishable from those of humans, morally as well as intellectually. And as I pointed out, had God not allowed this human/non-human interbreeding, it is almost unavoidable that the first humans would have had to have participated in numerous instances of sibling incest.19
I would think that secular evolutionists will typically see no problem with this idea of humans mating with their closest non-human relatives. Other animals mate with animals outside of their species, though these matings are usually infertile unless very close to the border line of their species differentiation. Many secularists consider humans no different from other animals in essence. They would likely point to some difference in degree of intelligence but other than that they should, if they are consistent with their world view, not object to the idea of humans mating with their closest non-human relatives. Indeed, they would have to admit that this is what actually happened when the first humans, however they are defined, came to be.
Benign environment for human evolution. Animal species vary considerably in their natural instincts as to their inclinations to harm others of their own species and other species. Some might exhibit very little aggressive or harmful behavior, especially if they had inhabited and had evolved in environments which required little predation and struggle for survival. The non-human species into which the first human was born may have had this more benign behavior.
Moral behavioral differences and similarities of the first humans and their predecessors. The first humans could have been given the added benefit of being able to freely choose against whatever harmful behavior would still be present in the wider non-human portion of the species, an ability which was removed in part after their first sin. To a degree then, the Fall could have returned humans morally to the prehuman state of their predecessors. The non-humans would have had what was almost equivalent to the sinful nature of the fallen humans. Fallen humans would still be able to freely choose not to commit some sins though the non-humans would not be free in that regard and would not be responsible for their actions. Still, both could have been enough alike, the humans and non-humans being sufficiently tolerant of each other, that they would interbreed for many generations thus accounting for the genetic variation we see in our gene pool.
Possible second stage intelligence advances in first humans. The first humans may have had just enough survival advantage that the non-humans would eventually become extinct. If the human advantage was greater intelligence, it also may have increased with time which in turn also caused interbreeding with the non-human subspecies to eventually lessen even more. This second stage intelligence increase could occur by another or a number of regulator gene mutations or a number of normal gene mutations in the humans. Any such mutational changes, whether providing intelligence or any other advantages to the humans, might have also provided no advantages or harmful changes in any non-humans who happened to receive it. If the latter, non-humans might then no longer be born of the human/non-human interbreeding or if born they might not survive long. To put it more briefly, the initial mutational change which produced humanness (again, the last of a number of mutations) might effect changes in one’s genome such that future mutations producing increased intelligence in those possessing the humanness gene (hh) are harmful or neutral to those lacking the gene (Nh or NN). We see that there are variations of our scenario for the continued interbreeding of humans and non-humans and the eventual extinction of the non-human subspecies.
The simplest scenario variation, as I’ve mentioned, is that the first human mutation alone produced sufficient survival advantage (probably increased intelligence) to eventually after thousands of years bring about the extinction of the non-humans of this species.
I would think that the scenario outlined above would be able to account for the origin of humans from a single human within a wider interbreeding population of non-humans. I have yet to run into any substantial scientific objections to this model though I have run it past several specialists.20
A sin of an unchosen representative cannot pass on a sin nature. This scenario removes the sticky problem of having a moral decision, a Fall, of a representative couple affect the sinfulness and guilt of their contemporaries and others not descended from that couple. Is it even conceivable that Adam may so represent others as to make them guilty of his moral choice if they do not have the ability to accept or reject Adam as their representative? (This is the same problem many of us have with the federal view of original sin.)
An Adamic Fall if all humans sin. This scenario also frees us of the questionable attempts some have made to rid us of an historical Fall entirely. If all people inevitably sin just because this is how God created us, then despite claims to the contrary, God is responsible for creating sin. God is absolutely good and can have no part with sin except to allow its possibility. Human free choice, not God, was the source of this sinful nature. God consigned all to disobedience, to sin, so that God might have mercy on all (Rom 11.32) but God consigned us to sin only by the originating decision of a free human choice. Without that choice God would never have consigned us to disobedience. If someone might claim that we do not possess a sin nature at all, they would not be able to explain how it is that all people do inevitably sin. Without some kind of Fall, it would have to be possible that someone other than Jesus could live a sinless life. Since we know that no one is without sin, an historic Fall is the most feasible explanation.21
No De Novo Creation
The EAE1 model conflicts with a common creationist view that Adam was created de novo from the earth. The de novo creationist account denies the common ancestry of humans to prior life on earth and our relatedness to all other life. This is creation of a human as an adult directly from the earth or as an embryo directly into a primate womb (or some variation of either) with no biological predecessor. There are some very strong reasons those who accept the biblical account should reject de novo creation.
Denis Lamoureux argues that since the Genesis account of Adam being created from the dust of the earth sounds like the quick de novo creation we find in some other Near Eastern mythologies, it must be assuming de novo creation, it must mean he was created directly with no prior animal ancestry. Lamoureux says, “Adam is a retrojective conclusion of an ancient taxonomy.”22 Since we now know that humans came into being through a long evolutionary process with many non-human ancestors and the ancient de novo creation idea is wrong, he would say, it follows that Adam, as a first human and ancestor of all other humans, never existed.
Evolutionary creation possible from Genesis creation account. We also know that the Genesis creation account differs significantly from other Near Eastern creation myths, however, and Lamoureux freely admits as much.23 So could the Genesis account also differ in that it does not necessarily affirm de novo creation? On even a very literal reading of the narrative, the Genesis account only says God created Adam from the earth, it does not say God did not create Adam through numerous preceding animal ancestors over millions of years but ultimately from the earth. In fact, it says clearly that both the man and animals were created from the dust of the earth (Gen 2.7,17) which further suggests the possibility of common ancestry. An evolutionary creation could be depicted in more condensed, picturesque, and poetic language by saying that God created Adam from the dust of the earth. The Genesis creation account does not claim human evolution never occurred and our modern scientific understanding gives us no reason to affirm Adam never existed. If it can be shown that the writer(s) of Genesis stated clearly that God created Adam with no prior ancestors (a spiritual claim insofar as it speaks of God’s activity) and if no poetic, semi-poetic, or otherwise non-literal language was involved, then we should admit that the infallibility of scriptural teaching is defeated—but not until then.
the Genesis account only says God created Adam from the earth, it does not say God did not create Adam through numerous preceding animal ancestors over millions of years but ultimately from the earth
EAE1 requires some divine intervention (miracles). Now admittedly the EAE1 model involves some divine intervention. God has Adam move to a new location, possibly to separate him from his non-human mate and other non-humans of his species, and possibly Eve is later moved to be with Adam. Of course, God could have merely motivated Adam and then Eve to migrate to this new location and then back after the Fall. So this could have been a very easy divine intervention. But then God would need to make sure that once we have these first two individuals (each with two copies of the recessive humanness allele, hh), that these two mate, and that no one outside of these two and their descendants produce homozygous human offspring, offspring with these two copies. Also, those outside of the first human couple, A&E, who have one copy of the allele (Nh) must eventually die out, though for some time they would mate with A&E’s descendant. God would have to make sure all of these events occurred.
Besides such innocuous “miracles” as these, the process of producing a final composite of genes which may quickly produce human characteristics and which are turned on to this function by a final mutation, might involve some divine intervention as well. This scenario seems to me to be a very natural process with no need for intervention, but if I’m wrong and it does need it, I could add this as another miracle, a miraculous creation of the human genome. This might be more appropriately called providential than miraculous, but since we are talking about some kind of divine intervention in the world, no matter how little, then strictly speaking “miraculous intervention” would be an accurate description.
If some miracles needed, why not de novo creation? Here we might ask, If we admit to all of these miracles, why not simply skip this evolutionary model entirely and just posit a couple of big miracles, God creating Adam de novo and Eve from Adam’s side? That would at least appear to be much closer to the biblical story of creation.
We have already looked at one reason those who seeks to be true to the biblical account should not be concerned about sticking with de novo creation. It’s because the biblical account does not in fact deny evolutionary creation. Even a very literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 does not deny it. We have seen that the statement that God created Adam from the dust of the earth could quite literally mean that he did so indirectly through countless generations of progressively lower animals.
De novo creation is ad hoc and unnecessary. Another reason is because of the ad hoc nature of de novo creation in this context. If we have a normal evolutionary model, we can progress from simple living organisms to complex to humans very naturally and easily. If we interject a special, de novo creation just prior to the final creation of humans (and when it is not needed), it appears to be ad hoc and unnecessary. If we assume a basic starting point of animals in evolutionary process, except for some special spiritual addition, from that starting point natural law will produce humans. But then if we interject a radical discontinuity, a de novo creation, that which could have easily produced humans is interrupted.
Think of de novo creation like this. God begins, as it were, with something equivalent to a giant petri dish. Since these new humans he wishes to create have no physical connection to prior living things, God has to start by placing in the petri dish all new chemicals and attempt to bring out of it a new complex organism. It would be extremely difficult to imagine God creating each cell individually of an adult or even a child, with each cell requiring enormous duplication and repetition of prior arrangements.
Maybe the de novo creationist might imagine God starting by creating one cell, essentially a fertilized human cell, providing it with nourishment, and allowing it to grow. God could even build the zygote in the womb of an already existing primate in order to give it this nurturing environment. But even with this concession, we should be aware that the chemical nature of the cell is so extremely complex that one wonders why God didn’t just use the already existing pre-human primate gamete and just alter (mutate) it a little and then use it to produce a human embryo? The de novo created cell has the same DNA that the pre-human cell has except for some relatively minor changes. But the de novo creationist thinks that instead of taking this vast quantity of old genetic material and just altering it, or allowing evolutionary processes to alter it, God has to create it all brand new. God looks at the old codes and copies and alters each DNA strand again and again and again, millions and millions of times. No, it simply does not seem at all likely that God would create in this way when God could merely allow a relatively small gene mutation (the last of a number of mutations) in an already existing primate gamete to produce a human.
We have genomes leading from simple organisms to higher primates up to humans which appear to be gradually more and more like the human genome. This is what we would expect if there was a gradual evolutionary development to humans. A special interruption of this process to create humans de novo is exactly what we would not expect with what we now know genetically.
Naturalistic evolution alone cannot produce consciousness or libertarian free will. I said that “if we have a normal evolutionary model, we can progress from simple living organisms to complex to humans very naturally and easily.” I need to quality this claim. Animal sentience (if any animals are truly sentient) and human consciousness cannot be produced by natural evolutionary processes alone. Existence consists of two categories: the material entities which make up that which we are aware of and our awareness of those things and other things (such as our consciousness). That awareness, consciousness, is not material. It is a category mistake to place consciousness among materialistic entities or to think that any arrangement of matter, no matter how complex, can produce consciousness. To think consciousness can be produced from a unique configuration of and changes in matter, such as the workings of neurons and synapses, is to believe in magic; it is to think that something can come from nothing. A naturalistic evolution involving only changes of material organisms to sentient and conscious beings is impossible. Only input from a conscious source such as a creator God can account for consciousness.
The same can be said of Libertarian Free Will (LFW). LFW is the ability to choose between at least two options without any prior causes determining the choice, including the nature of the agent. The decision is determined solely by the agent, the person making the choice. If any other cause determines the choice to be made (including the nature of the agent) the agent cannot be responsible for their action since that prior cause has determined one’s actions. If we are morally responsible for our actions, as our courts and all societies and, indeed, the Bible assume, then we must have LFW. A materialistic philosophy assumes a strict causal determinism. There is no place for LFW to slip in.24 Only a source of LFW can provide LFW to others. A creator God who possesses LFW may intervene in the evolutionary process to give a conscious intelligent being LFW. This is not proof that we have LFW, rather it is evidence that if we do have it, it must come from a source which likewise possesses it.
Other than the unique characteristics of consciousness and LFW (if we have LFW), an evolutionary process with few divine interventions or alterations in that material process (miracles) can, as I said, produce “humans very naturally and easily.”
God avoids all miracles or allows less involved miracles whenever possible. Another reason to reject de novo creation is because of an argument which tells us that God avoids miracles when possible but that when they are necessary or desired in God’s view, some are more likely to occur than others. (This second claim is at the core of the previous reason we have offered against de novo creation.) God avoids miracles when possible but when God must work a miracle, God avoids miracles which involve greater intervention in nature. I think these two claims are evident from the fact that there are not many miracle claims evident throughout history compared to clearly natural occurrences. And few of the miracle claims which do occur can be verified to be true miracles, events providing evidence of divine intervention in the world. Normally God seems to allow natural processes to continue on their own without interruption.
This is the major reason I find some miracles more likely than others. Parting the Red Sea could have involved merely the redirection of strong winds, as the Bible indicates (Ex 14.21). That seems to me to be light years away from the kind of enormously complex and involved de novo creation we have just discussed. Making sure that a few individuals who have only one copy of a recessive gene will happen to have no children or happen to have children who do not have this allele at all may be seen as miracles, but surely they are not miracles of the same complexity as de novo creation.
If God could create humans by evolutionary processes alone, God would do so—unless God had some special reason for intervening into nature. But if we must conclude with at least some divine intervention, though clearly the least necessary, should we honestly think this would be unexpected? If we think that some gene alteration is needed, say, or some control of the social and psychological context of who mates with whom and the genetic makeup of their children, we should not complain that since these are all miracles, we might as well reject the entire scenario and reaffirm de novo creation.
Does God Deceive?
Daniel Harlow complains that approaches to the creation story such as the one I am offering “read into the biblical text anachronistic notions that would have been inconceivable to the ancient author(s) and audience(s) of Genesis.”25 But does it really matter that the first hearers were unaware of these “inconceivable notions,” notions like the idea that there could have been 2,000 to 10,000 to 50,000 generations from Adam to Abraham instead of 20? Since the first readers or hearers easily saw the semi-poetic and symbolic features in the Genesis account, it is doubtful that they would have imagined that the entire account should be taken as a literal history. This would have been clear to them.
Modern readers should be grateful that current scientific investigation has been able to clarify for us more precisely some of those portions of the narrative which should be reinterpreted because of their historical inaccuracy. In the past readers would usually accept the whole as generally historically accurate but wonder whether some portions might not be. They received the information God wanted them to have along with some misinformation. Yet none of this really mattered; at that time it did not affect their spiritual well being whether they held to that misinformation or not. God would allow them to have the complete truth eventually (in the next life at least); that is, they will be shown what portion of the narrative was historically accurate and what was not and what other historical events actually did occur. In the meantime it just does not matter that they were for some time mistaken about the nonessential information.
If someone should complain that this view of Scripture makes God into a deceiver, I think we should rather say that God simply hides information from us but only temporarily and for our benefit. We should recognize that it is to God’s glory that God hides information from us and it is to our glory that we discover that which is hidden (Prov 25.2). There is a beauty, indeed a sense of achievement and fulfillment, and even a sense of joy in the scientific enterprise and in other intellectual endeavors when one discovers what God has hidden.
When humans first gazed at the sky, the most obvious conclusion they could reach was that the sun traveled across the sky and the earth was unmoved. Because God did not tell them that it was the motion of the earth which caused this appearance, was God deceiving them? No, God was simply giving them a puzzle to solve. God allows us to eventually have the truth either by scientific investigation or through revelation (the latter will occur when we will someday be with God). Until either occurs, it is simply not necessary that we have that information. God simply hides information from us for our benefit. It’s like the parents who hides Easter eggs simply to enjoy their children’s joy in searching for them.
What God wanted us to know is that our material substance is of the earth, this is part of the historical core, and that with the Fall we will return to it—we are mortal. One of the mythical elements is the common image we assume of God shaping the clay or dust. Also, we need to know that our spiritual substance comes from God. The first readers knew God breathed into Adam the breath of life even though they also knew that this may not have occurred in anything like the kind of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation image one would normally picture.
Conclusion
The EAE1 model says that the biblical story of Adam and Eve has an historically accurate core even though it is inaccurate in some of its details. These are the mythical elements. However, those inaccuracies were often given to provide symbolic information in a poetic or semi-poetic form. The historical core is that this first couple did exist and that they did sin and pass on a sin nature and death to their descendants. Surrounding information such as Eve’s creation from Adam’s side or rib did not occur but could be seen as symbolic in some other way: possibly Eve was related to Adam in some manner. There is the further symbolic meaning of man and woman not being adversaries or alien to each other. So, again, the symbolism has its basis in historical events.
Evolution could build up a genome sufficiently close to the human genome that with the last needed mutation, an allele is created which provides the neurological capability of humanness to one who has both copies of that allele. The first one to have both copies (Adam) has the characteristics such that God would see him as human and breathe into him the breath of life. Prior to Adam’s birth, the allele could spread somewhat through the population without anyone else having both copies and thus without anyone else becoming human. The second person to have both of these humanness alleles (Eve) would mate with the first one and produce children who would interbreed with the larger non-human population. Eventually the non-human population could die out but only after many generations of interbreeding with the humans.
Other scenarios for the creation of A&E which similarly do not contradict our current scientific beliefs have been offered in the literature which might just as adequately account for their existence. But I believe this one does as well. In any case, I think we should see that there is no good scientific reason to believe that there could not be a first human couple from whom all other humans originated or that this first couple could not have committed the first sins which passed on a sin nature and death to all of their descendants.
Dennis Jensen, October 2019, revised June 2020 and additions made April 2021
References
1 Jerry Coyne’s article and William Lane Craig’s early response and comments (both last accessed April 2019). As of the time of this writing, this problem also appears to be one of Dr. Craig’s latest areas of focus.
2 In my thinking it is beyond question that the physical human organism is the product of ages of evolutionary processes and common ancestry. I have found Dennis R. Venema and Scot McKnight’s Adam and the Genome, Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2017) to be particularly persuasive in arguing for this view. However, though his arguments for evolution and against some intelligent design (ID) arguments are very strong, I do not find all of Dr. Venema’s arguments against ID persuasive. Belief in evolution does not require that there could never be any intelligent intervention in the process. Venema does show that some biological systems are not irreducibly complex (IC) which have been purported to be IC; it does not follow that all are unlikely to be IC.
I believe Venema also stopped short of claiming that research is likely to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. What we now know of the origin of life seems to me to offer a very powerful argument for theism. Intelligent intervention for the origin of life is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, it is simply a better explanation given our current knowledge. And if naturalists appeal to future possible scientific discoveries (“give us just a few hundred years and everyone will see that it all originated by natural causes”) this is the same kind of god-of-the-gaps reasoning of which they accuse some anti-evolutionists only in an opposing naturalistic-explanation-of-the-gaps form. If someday good evidence for a naturalistic explanation does become available and the naturalistic explanation does seem more likely, ID theists will simply have to give up a line of argument which once seemed very powerful. Until then, we must go with the evidence we have.
3 Dennis Jensen, Human Suffering and the Evil of Religion, The Greatest Problems for Belief in God (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2018). Most of this book deals with other apologetic issues such as the problem of evil and the social harm or benefit of Christianity, religion in general, and secularism. Quotations used with permission.
4 Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1984), 32. Blocher did not use the term “prose-poetry” though in my original quotation I mistakenly stated that he did. Blocher did, however, write of the two together and assume this concept.
5 C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub, 2006), 44.
6 Jensen, Human Suffering, 21.
7 Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 262. See also 300, 425–26.
8 C. John Collins, “A Historical Adam: Old Earth Creation View,” in Four Views on the Historical Adam, gen. eds. Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 151. Let me offer a couple of other examples of mythologized history to show that this is not an unlikely understanding of certain forms of biblical literature.
In Genesis 1, creation days one through three correspond to days four through six. Each day of the second set speaks of that which occupies or rules the corresponding day of the first set. The creation of the sun, moon, and stars (the greater and lesser lights) appear to have been placed on day four to correspond to day one, the day light was created and separated from darkness. The creation of flying animals and the water animals on day five corresponds to the creation and separation of waters and sky on day two. The other creation days similarly correspond and were depicted primarily to add to the symmetry and beauty of the passage rather than to express an accurate chronological order. Though God did actually create these objects in our world and universe (the historically accurate core), this account appears to be more of a depiction of the most obvious categories of existence (earth, waters, sky, and light) and those entities which fill or constitute them.
Another example might be the number of generations from Adam to Abraham. The Genesis account says there are ten from Adam to Noah and ten from Noah’s son Shem to Abraham. Adam had three sons named in Genesis: Cain, Able, and Seth. Noah, the tenth from Adam (including Adam), had three noted sons: Ham, Shem, and Japeth. Terah, the tenth from Noah (including Noah) also had three specifically noted sons: Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. The form of both lines is exactly the same, with three sons ending each and three sons following the first man. In the second line, from Noah to Abraham, we find Peleg exactly in the middle. We are told that in his day the earth was divided (Gen 10.24). It hardly seems likely that it would be merely coincidental that the earth was divided when Peleg was placed in exactly the middle of his genealogical line or that these precisely ordered twenty individuals, two sets of ten, would be the only patriarchs from the first man to Abraham or that the flood would occur in exactly the middle of the genealogy from Adam to Abraham. The seventh from Adam (seven being the perfect number) was Enoch, the one who walked with God and did not die (Gen 5.24). A good case can be made that the writer did actually intend the listing of names to indicate that no gaps exist in the genealogy. (Jeremy Sexton, “Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90? A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps,” Westminster Theological Journal 77 (2015): 193–218.) (accessed April 2019.) Thus this could be an example of factually mistaken information received from a prior source even though it consists of an historically accurate core (if the named individuals did actually exist). Yet the form and symmetry also suggest that these selected names and the numbers associated with the provided names intended symbolic meanings, some of which we have been able to discern already.
9 Martin Emmrich, “The Temptation Narrative of Genesis 3.1–6: A Prelude to the Pentateuch and the History of Israel,” Evangelical Quarterly 73, no. 1 (2001): 4n6. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2001-1_003.pdf (accessed June 2020).
10 Jensen, Human Suffering, 21.
11 Ibid., 22.
12 Ibid.
13 There is a variation of this model we should consider in which the humanness allele is dominant. Eve, Adam’s wife, could also have been Adam’s daughter by a non-human mate, a kind of “Lilith” as it were and a member of Adam’s wider non-human species. The moral issues involved in this possibility will preclude many from even considering it. But some may see no real moral issues here since this is such a socially unique time in history.
A given allele produced the characteristics needed for humanness. It was the last of a number of mutations which produced the characteristics of normal humanness. If this allele were dominant, then the first one to have a copy of this allele would be human. The next person having this allele would be a son or daughter. By genetic mutation a single male human, Adam, and then a related second human, his daughter, Eve, thus arose within a population of non-human primates. A&E produce human offspring who interbreed with the non-human subspecies and possibly with each other for a number of generations. The humans have some advantage or eventually attain some advantage which allows them to survive and the non-humans eventually become extinct.
This EAE1 model variation has the advantage that it offers a feasible account of the more mythical story of Eve’s creation we find in Genesis 2. The account of Eve being created from Adam’s rib or side could be simply saying that Eve came from Adam. It could be a metaphorical way of saying that Eve was his daughter.
I should also mention that if we assume the human gene mutation is a recessive allele, as we have in the main text of this essay, it is still possible for the model to be developed in such a way that A&E were father and daughter if that is desired.
Does the moral problem with this model variation preclude any possibility that God would create in this manner? I will argue that it does not. However, those who think this is not something the God of the Bible would do may consider the original form of this model a more likely scenario.
If Eve was Adam’s daughter and then his wife, the moral problem I’m concerned about is parent-child incest. One reason incest is normally morally wrong is because genetic harm results to one’s offspring. We find that almost half of the children who are born from incest with first degree relatives are completely healthy and half have disabilities (accessed April 2019). If we are looking at only the genetic harm that results from incest, it would not be morally wrong for that reason if God providentially made sure no such mutations occur.
But incest is also wrong because of the social and psychological harm that results. If we think carefully about why we find parent-child incest so distasteful, I think we discover that the thought of social harm, of betrayal of a loved one, of psychological harm to an innocent child—all of these notions first come to mind. However, if there is no family structure to be disrupted or social context to be harmed, none of these problems arise. When Adam took Eve as his wife, Eve’s non-human mother could have long been deceased or geographically separated from A&E. Eve could have been separated from Adam even before her birth and until she was brought to be with him. Thus there would have been no family disruption for either Adam or Eve. A&E may not have been aware of the other as one’s parent or child as parents and children would normally perceive each other. There was no truly human social context for social harm to occur.
Parent-child incest should be considered morally wrong because of the social and physical harm that results. If some moral actions are harmful at one time but not at another, they may be proscribed at one time but not at another. Abraham married his half-sister; Isaac and Jacob married their cousins, Jacob even married sisters; Moses’ father married his aunt, his father’s sister. Most of these acts were condemned in the Mosaic Law but were permissible before that time. For Adam to marry his daughter when no social or physical harm could result from such an act may not have been morally wrong in God’s eyes. Parent-child incest may not be morally evil at this earlier and socially unique time in history.
14 C. John Collins, “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (Sept. 2010): 156. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Collins.pdf (accessed June 2020).
15 David Wilcox, “A Proposed Model for the Evolutionary Creation of Human Beings,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 68, no. 1 (March 2016): 32. Hayes’ proposal is found in Eva K. F. Chan, et. al, “Human Origins in a Southern African Palaeo-wetland and First Migrants,” Nature 575 (2019): 185-189 at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1714-1. (Last accessed June 2020.)
16 Megan Gannon, “How Smart Were Neanderthals?” Live Science, 23 March 2019, https://www.livescience.com/65003-how-smart-were-neanderthals.html. Dirk L. Hoffman et al., “Symbolic Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 Years Ago,” Science Advances 4, 22 February 2018: eaar5255, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar5255. Fazala Rana, “Are Perforated Shells Evidence for Neanderthal Symbolism?” Reasons to Believe, 28 March 2018, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2018/03/28/are-perforated-shells-evidence-for-neanderthal-symbolism. (All websites in this endnote last accessed June 2020.)
17 David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Pantheon, 2018), 43.
18 If environmental or cultural stimuli were needed to initiate any of these characteristics (some characteristics may have been already present), these stimuli could have been present with the first one to possess these mutations. Or if there were some who had these needed mutations but lacked the needed stimuli to possess human characteristics, any of their lines which did not interbreed with the first one possessing these stimuli or his or her descendants could have died out before they attained these stimuli. Thus humanness could have occurred with one individual and continued only through that one individual’s linage or it could have occurred with two individuals who alone possessed the needed mutations and cultural or environmental stimuli and continued only through their linage.
19 S. Joshua Swamidass offers a biblical model of human origins which, to a degree, avoids both sibling incest and bestiality (if interbreeding with non-humans of one’s species should be called bestiality). This is the Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) model. The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019). A&E are specially created either de novo or from a population of already existing humans. In either case A&E live within a population of other humans and A&E’s descendants interbreed with those humans. These previously existing humans had come into being through normal evolutionary processes. They are distinct from A&E’s descendants in some of their characteristics and in God’s relationship to them. By at least the time of Paul, though possibly earlier, the only humans still existing are those descended from A&E.
The GAE model does not avoid human/non-human interbreeding (bestiality?) entirely, however, since those humans who preceded A&E and who arose through normal evolutionary processes had to interbreed with their non-human predecessors at some point. The most significant problem I see with Swamidass’ model is that the biblical evidence seems to me to preclude the existence of any group of humans other than those descended from A&E (Gen 3.20; Acts 17.26; Rom 5.12–19; 1 Cor 15.45). Swamidass believes these passages are better understood as leaving open the possibility of the existence of these pre-Adamic humans. (My readers will need to judge for themselves by looking at these passages and then Swamidass’ analysis of these passages in his book.) He also offers as biblical evidence for the existence of these humans “outside of the garden” the same evidence I offer for the existence of an interbreeding population of non-humans (see the paragraph two paragraphs prior to the one referencing this endnote and entitled “Biblical evidence for human/non-human interbreeding”).
20 Population geneticist David Wilcox, in private correspondence has expressed misgivings about an earlier variation of this model. (David Wilcox, email messages to the author, 19, 20 October 2015; 14, 18, 20, 21 April 2019.) However, after some discussion, his concerns seem to me to mostly involve certain moral issues, which we have looked at elsewhere in this paper. Though he still may not accept the revised model I am offering, I do not see that he has offered any insurmountable scientific objections to this model. Indeed, Dr. Wilcox has offered his own model for the evolutionary creation of humans, one variation of which allows for a first human couple from whom all other humans descended.
Professor Wilcox has offered his own model in 2016: “A Proposed Model for the Evolutionary Creation of Human Beings,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 68, no. 1 (March 2016): 22–43 (accessed June 2019). I question Dr. Wilcox’s view that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to be raised in a special social environment in order to have the moral awareness needed to choose to obey or disobey God and to be human. The social environment of the prehuman subspecies might have been sufficiently close to that of a human social environment that the human environment was not needed. But if it was needed, it is not inconceivable that God specially implanted that awareness into their psyches as they were growing by “intensively socializing a growing child” (as Wilcox puts it, 38). In any case he does offer a model, one variation of which does admit the possibility of the creation of a first human couple from whom all humans have descended. Humanness is transferred through human acculturation, in his view, though in this particular model variation it happens to be transferred only to Adam and Eve’s direct descendants. Also I see no reason to think that this model variation could not be made to allow the transfer of a sin nature only to the first couple’s human descendants. Dr. Wilcox has since looked at his wider model in the light of more recent scientific findings in “Updating Human Origins,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 71, no. 1 (March 2019): 37–49 and has not substantially altered his view (accessed June 2020).
My other attempts to obtain scientific feedback on the model in this paper have been to a large degree frustrating. One person I corresponded with claimed that my model does not work but has not been able or willing to offer scientific evidence for his claim. Another has offered an argument against this model which I have answered in the revised formulation of this paper. With Dr. Wilcox’ evaluation, it seems clear that no solid scientific criticism can be placed against this model.
21 I wanted to be careful not to say that “since we know that no one is without sin, an historic Fall is the only possible explanation.” For example, Origen’s view of the preexistence of human (and other) souls could account for the universal sinful human nature. Only those who had sinned to a given degree in a pre-earthly state were given a human birth and a fallen nature. The major problem with Origen’s view is that there are no biblical events or teachings which suggest it whereas A&E’s choice to sin and other biblical teachings do suggest their act was the source of a fallen human nature. This is, of course, not sufficient evidence to decisively exclude Origen’s view.
Jensen, Human Suffering (21, 23–25) offers a view of original sin which I believe can be reasonably accepted. It also argues that if there had been no Fall then there would still be some suffering in the world. From the book of Job we may infer that all must be tested as to their choices to affirm or reject God, and tested within the context of suffering. But mere suffering which will bring about a greater good should not be called evil. This argument is spelled out in greater detail in part one of Human Suffering.
22 Denis O. Lamoureux, “No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View,” in Four Views on the Historical Adam, gen. eds. Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 58.
23 Ibid., 53.
24 It is sometimes claimed that quantum mechanics introduces indeterminism into the natural world. But indeterminism, if it truly exists, is not LFW. A true ontological chance or indeterminism, if this is the source of one’s moral decisions, cannot produce a responsible moral choice any more than if the choice were determined by someone or something other than the agent. The decision must come from the agent and be determined by the agent with no other determining cause. I would side with those scientists who deny the possibility of indeterminism via quantum mechanics, though this is not necessary for my argument.
25 Daniel Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (Sept. 2010): 181 (accessed June 2019).
