OVERVIEW
The Theological Significance of Historical Adam
II. The Evidence from the Bible and Jewish Texts for Adam and His Family
Other Biblical References to Adam and His Family
III. The Evidence from Science for Adam and His Family
IV. Literary and Linguistic Evidence for Adam and His Family
The overarching theme running through all sixty-six books of the Bible is the story of God’s creative work, of humanity’s rebellion against God, and of God’s work to redeem fallen humanity. Adam is a central figure in the Genesis account of creation and of humanity’s rebellion, and the church has historically viewed him as a real person. This view has come under criticism in recent years. This criticism raises questions about the interpretation of the biblical narrative concerning Adam and of Christian doctrines that depend on this narrative.
While doubts about Adam’s historicity are hardly surprising in a secular society that largely rejects the authority of the Bible, it has surprised some to see debate about this issue occur among Bible-believing Christians. The debate is captured in the book Four Views on the Historical Adam, where the following four positions are presented and defended: (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA)
1. No Historical Adam: Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creation (TE/EC)1 View
Professor of science and religion Denis Lamoureux argues that Adam never existed, but his story remains “a vital, but incidental, ancient vessel that transports inerrant spiritual truths: only humans are created in the Image of God, only humans have fallen into sin, and our Creator judges us for our sinfulness.” (in Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 37, emphasis in original)
2. A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View
Professor of Old Testament John Walton asserts that
Adam and Eve are historical figures–real people in a real past. Nevertheless I am persuaded that the biblical text is more interested in them as archetypal figures who represent all of humanity. . . . If this is true, Adam and Eve also may or may not be the first humans or the parents of the entire human race. Such an archetypal focus is theologically viable and is well-represented in the ancient Near East. (in Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 89)
3. A Historical Adam: Old-Earth Creation (OEC) View
Professor of Old Testament C. John Collins argues “that the best way to account for the biblical presentation of human life is to understand that Adam and Eve were both real persons at the headwaters of humankind.” In other words, he believes Adam and Eve really existed and that the Fall was both moral and historical. If there originally were more human beings than Adam and Eve, claims Collins, then they were a single tribe of closely related members. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve were historical figures. As far as how we should interpret Scripture, Collins says “that the nature of the biblical material should keep us from being too literalistic in our reading of Adam and Eve, leaving room for an Earth that is not young, but that the biblical material along with good critical thinking provides certain freedoms and limitations for connecting the Bible’s creation account to a scientific and historical account of human origins.” (in Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 143)
4. A Historical Adam: Young-Earth Creation (YEC) View
Professor of Old Testament William Barrick states,
Adam’s historicity is foundational to a number of biblical doctrines and is related to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. . . . The biblical account represents Adam as a single individual rather than an archetype or the product of biological evolution, and a number of New Testament texts rely on Adam’s historicity. (in Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 197)
Three questions are at the heart of this debate:
1. Was Adam a historical person?
2. Was Adam the first human and, with Eve, father of all humanity?
3. Was Adam created via an evolutionary process or was he a de novo creation (created as a new, fully formed being)?
In this chapter we examine answers to these questions from Scripture and from the book of nature. In regard to the various interpretations of these two books, we note key distinctions distinguishing among the four views of Adam outlined above.
B. The Theological Significance of Historical Adam
The name “Adam” is from the Hebrew ‘ādām, a word that can mean “humanity” (male and female collectively, as for example in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2); “man” (for example in Genesis 2:7); or a proper name (for example in Genesis 5:1a). When used with the definite article it is never a proper name; without the definite article it can be “Adam” or “humanity.” (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 91) The creation of ‘ādām in Genesis 1:26, 27 describes the creation of humanity in general, while the accounts in Genesis 2:7 and 2:21, 22 refer to the creation of two individuals: a man and a woman. These individuals are subsequently identified as Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:20; 3:20). Theologians from Patristic to modern times have recognized the importance of Adam to Christian doctrine, in particular the doctrines of man, sin, and salvation. (VanDoodewaard, QHA)
1. The Doctrine of Man
The creation of humanity described in Genesis 1:26, 27 emphasizes the unique status of humans as God’s image-bearers. Theologians have interpreted the “image of God” in different ways. According to one view, humans resemble God in some way; according to another, humans are God’s representatives on earth; a third view holds that humans, like God, are relational beings. John Collins has argued that these three views are not mutually exclusive, and notes five characteristics of God taken from the creation account evident in humans: displaying intelligence, using language, appreciating aesthetic and moral goodness, relating, and following a cycle of work and rest. (Collins, G1–4, 61–67) Some of these characteristics are important criteria for identifying the evidence of human behavior in the archaeological record (see section III.C.2 in this chapter).
Humanity’s shared status as image-bearers of God acts as the basis for two hallmarks of the Christian doctrine of man: the equality and the value of all human beings. For instance, the historical understanding that Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity, implied in Adam’s naming his wife “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20), means that all humans are members of the same family, emphasizing the equality of all humans. The YEC and most OEC2 views of Adam and Eve hold to the historical understanding, and the Archetypal view leaves it as a possibility. The TE/EC view is “that God ordained and sustained a teleological process of evolution that led ultimately to the creation of humanity, who bear His Image.” (Lamoureux, EV, 284) While TE/EC ultimately rejects the atheistic view of man’s origin as a chance event, that view does believe that God used Darwinian evolutionary processes to create humanity—processes that appear to be blind and undirected. Even some atheists question the ability of naturalistic evolution to account for mankind’s origin. (Nagel, MC)
2. The Doctrine of Sin
Theologian Wayne Grudem has defined sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.” (Grudem, ST, 490) Genesis 3 describes the events leading up to the first sin: Adam and Eve chose to disobey God’s command not to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, resulting in God’s curse on them and on the ground, and their expulsion from the garden of Eden. Their alienation from God was followed by alienation between humans, as epitomized by Cain’s murder of Abel (Gen. 4:1–16) and the murderous behavior of Cain’s descendants (Gen. 4:23, 24). This alienation, reflected in the universally shared sense of loss and yearning for justice and a better world, has characterized human experience and history since Adam’s sin. This led G. K. Chesterton to observe: “original sin . . . is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” (Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 28) Grudem uses the phrase “inherited sin” rather than “original sin” to make clear the biblical teaching that all humans inherit sin from Adam. There are two aspects of this inheritance. First, because Adam represented all of humanity in Eden, all humans are counted guilty with him. Second, all humans inherit a sinful nature from Adam. This sinful nature is manifest in our thoughts, actions, and relationships. When discussing divorce, Jesus described one of sin’s effects as “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8 ESV). The reality of our shared sinful nature was highlighted dramatically in the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a chief architect of the Holocaust. After recognizing that Eichmann appeared to be a normal person—and that all of us have the potential to be just as evil—an Auschwitz survivor collapsed when testifying against him. (Colson, TT, website)
Because of Adam’s central role in the first sin, the historicity of Adam is important to the doctrine of sin. The inheritance of Adam’s guilt and sinful nature has been the position of Christians for centuries. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 85–324) The YEC, OEC, and Archetypal views of Adam agree with this position, although there are different explanations for how this nature is passed from generation to generation.
The TE/EC view, which generally denies a historical Adam, states: “original sin was manifested mysteriously and gradually over countless many generations during the evolutionary processes leading to men and women.” (Lamoureux, EC, 292) TE/EC physicist Karl Giberson comments, “In the conclusion to Saving the Original Sinner I argue that a deep and meaningful concept of sin as an intrinsic part of human nature is a natural implication of our evolutionary origins. If we understand sin as a ‘pathological selfishness’ (which I think captures it nicely), we can easily see how it was produced by natural selection.” (Wilson, SOS, website) Giberson maintains that humans did not willfully rebel against God but rather we acquired our sinful tendencies through evolution, leading him to call Darwinism an “acid” that destroys belief in “the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam,’ [and] the origins of sin.” (Giberson, SD, 10)
The view, then, that human moral sense reflects the image of God, with that image having been marred as a consequence of Adam’s historical act of disobedience, is the view the church has largely held since the beginning, and the one we find to be the most compelling account of the biblical record.
3. The Doctrine of Salvation
In explaining the doctrine of salvation, the apostle Paul identified Adam as the man responsible for sin entering the world. He then identified Jesus as the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), who bore the penalty of the first Adam’s sin and made possible the forgiveness of sins, as well as the eternal life lost as a result of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:20–22, 44–49). In writing that sin entered the world through one man, and that the consequences of this sin have been borne by one man, it seems clear that Paul, in making a supremely important theological statement, was referring to persons he considered to be historical. However, while all Christians recognize that Jesus was historical, the TE/EC view generally denies the historical Adam. A TE/EC explanation for this is explored in II.E below.
II. The Evidence from the Bible and Jewish Texts for Adam and His Family
The man whose creation is described in Genesis 2:7 is identified as “Adam” several times in Genesis chapters 2 through 5. The creation of humanity described in Genesis 1:26, 27 does not use this proper name, and theologians differ on the relationship between these two creation accounts. John Collins argues that the traditional interpretation (Genesis 2 elaborates the creation of humanity described in Genesis 1) is supported by the fact that Jesus in Matthew 19:3–9 combines Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 2:24 in his teaching on marriage. (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 127) The YEC and OEC views follow the traditional interpretation, understanding that Genesis 2 teaches the de novo creation of Adam and Eve as deliberate, miraculous acts. While some interpret the description of these miracles literally, others argue that God could have used an evolved hominin as the basis for the creation of Adam. Theologian John Stott comments on this as follows:
Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally “from the dust of the ground” and then “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” [Gen. 2:7 NIV], or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God. (Stott, RGGN, 1643)
In presenting the TE/EC interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, Denis Lamoureux makes the case that the two accounts come from two different sources and are complementary. (Lamoureux, EC, 198–202) While agreeing that Genesis 2 describes de novo creation, he does not consider it to be a historical event. In fact, he questions the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, writing: “Real history in the Bible begins roughly around Genesis 12 with Abraham.” (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 44)
In presenting the Archetypal view, John Walton proposes a third interpretation: “The second account is not detailing the sixth day, but identifying a sequel scenario, that is, recounting events that potentially and arguably could have occurred long after the first account. . . . Adam and Eve would not necessarily be envisioned as the first human beings, but would be elect individuals drawn out of the human population and given a particular representative role in sacred space.” (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 109) Biologist Denis Alexander has suggested an evolutionary model incorporating the archetype concept: “God in his grace chose a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East . . . or maybe a community of farmers, to whom he chose to reveal himself in a special way. . . . [T]his first couple, or community, have been termed Homo divinus . . . corresponding to the Adam and Eve of the Genesis account. . . . [Adam] is therefore viewed as the federal head of the whole of humanity alive at that time.” (Alexander, CE, 290) Under this view, Adam and Eve were not specially created by God and were not the progenitors of the human race.
Genesis 3 gives the sad account of Adam and Eve’s disobedience and of God’s pronouncement of the consequences of their disobedience. The interpretation of these events by the different views of Adam was discussed under I.B.2.
Genesis 4 describes the birth of Adam and Eve’s sons Cain, Abel, and Seth, and of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain. This chapter also describes some of Cain and Seth’s immediate descendants. John Walton discusses an issue that has raised questions for centuries: the apparent reference to other humans living at the same time as Adam and Eve. He notes, “From Genesis 4:14, 17 we could reasonably deduce that there are other people around—in fact, that may be the easiest reading.” (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 94) The traditional interpretation is that these people are other descendants of Adam and Eve, but this is not stated explicitly in Scripture. Walton suggests that they are not Adamites.
Collins has reviewed a few proposals to account for non-Adamites present at the time of Genesis 4. (Collins, DAERE, 124–131) These include the “Neolithic farmer” model of Denis Alexander mentioned earlier, as well as the thinking of Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner and of C. S. Lewis. In discussing these possible scenarios Collins notes that any account including “polygenesis” (humans other than Adam and Eve at the beginning of mankind) must “envision these humans as a single tribe. Adam would then be the chieftain of this tribe (preferably produced before the others), and Eve would be his wife. This tribe ‘fell’ under the leadership of Adam and Eve. This follows from the notion of solidarity in a representative.” (Collins, DAERE, 121)
Genesis 5 gives the genealogy of Adam’s descendants through Seth and notes that he had other children. There is also a comment that Seth was “a son in [Adam’s] own likeness, after his image” (Gen. 5:3). This echoes the words used in Genesis 5:1 to describe God’s creation of Adam in his own likeness and implies that the image of God in Adam, though marred by sin, was passed on to his descendants.
Adam is included in three biblical genealogies:
• Adam’s family tree through Seth (Gen. 5:1; also mentioned in Jude 1:14)
• The family tree of David and Israel (1 Chr. 1:1)
• The family tree of Jesus (Luke 3:38)
Adam’s inclusion in the family trees of David and Jesus, both of whom are clearly portrayed as historical figures, provides strong evidence that the biblical authors believed in a historical Adam. Yet, in defending his position of no historical Adam, Lamoureux argues that biblical genealogies were written to provide theological truth, not a twenty-first-century understanding of genealogy. (Lamoureux, EC, 206–14) However, he does not make a convincing case against the historicity of people included in these genealogies.
The Second Temple period refers to the time between the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian exile (c. 516 BC) and the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD 70. A study of literature from this period provides insight into the cognitive environment of the New Testament writers. In presenting a review of this literature, John Collins focused on the Apocrypha and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (37–c. 100 AD) as being within the mainstream of Jewish thought. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 27–31) Josephus calls Adam “the first man, made from the earth.” (in Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 30) References to Adam in the Apocrypha describe him as a real person, for example: “Thou madest Adam and gavest him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung. Thou didst say, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself’ ” (Tobit 8:6 RSV). Collins concludes: “In the period that bridges the Old Testament and the New, the Jewish authors most representative of the mainstream consistently treat Adam and Eve as actual people, at the head of the human race.” (in Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 31)
In response to a question from the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus cites the marriage union of the man and woman in Genesis 2:24 (Matt. 19:3–12; Mark 10:2–12). In his warnings to the Pharisees, he mentions Adam and Eve’s son “righteous Abel” (Matt. 23:35). These passages seem to imply that Jesus thought of Adam and Eve and their family as real people. Denis Lamoureux, who denies a historical Adam, explains that Jesus “accommodated by using ancient science in His teaching.” (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 61) Lamoureux also cites history as an accommodation used by Paul. However, it is difficult to see how the hermeneutical assumption of accommodation is consistent with Lamoureux’s use of inerrancy to describe spiritual truths carried by a “vital, though incidental” individual, precisely because the New Testament is making theological claims based on the historicity of Adam himself. (Barrett and Caneday, FVHA, 37)
Paul’s descriptions of Adam’s sin in the passages from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 cited in section I.B.3 seem to demonstrate he believed Adam was the historical father of all humanity. Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman expresses a dissenting view from this traditional understanding. He cites New Testament scholar James Dunn to argue that Paul’s analogy of Jesus as the last Adam “does not require that Jesus, an indisputably historical figure, be compared with a historical figure. . . . As Dunn points out, such literary-historical analogies are known from the time of Paul.” (Charles, RG, 124)
Denis Lamoureux admits that the passages from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are a challenge to the TE/EC view of historical Adam. In response, he argues that in this and other passages Paul communicated inerrant theological truth through the incidental (and erroneous) ancient history and science of his day. (Lamoureux, EC, 324–331)
In other passages, Paul mentions Eve’s participation in Adam’s sin and refers to both Adam and Eve as historical people when giving pastoral instructions to Timothy. Alluding to Genesis 2:21, 22 where Eve is made from Adam’s side, Paul endorses the special creation of Eve, saying she was created “from man” (1 Cor. 11:8, 9 NIV; 1 Tim. 2:13, 14). This language would seem to preclude an evolutionary view of Eve’s origins. When he addressed the Greek philosophers in Athens, Paul taught that God had “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” (Acts 17:26 ESV)
F. Other Biblical References to Adam and His Family
Other references to Adam and his family in Scripture are often used to indicate that the biblical authors believed they were real people. Some examples are listed below.
• Isaiah may have been referring to Adam when writing: “Your first father sinned” (Isa. 43:27).
• Hosea, in preaching about Israel, declared: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7 ESV). There is disagreement over whether this refers to the historical Adam, human beings in general, or a location. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 26)
• Job, in proclaiming his own righteousness, contrasted himself with Adam, who “covered [his] transgressions” (Job 31:33 NASB). There is disagreement over the interpretation of this text as well. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 27)
• In the New Testament Abel is cited as an example of faith in contrast with Cain (Heb. 11:4), who is cited as a murderer (1 John 3:12).
The evidence from the Old Testament, from Second Temple literature, and from the New Testament seems to indicate firmly that the biblical authors viewed Adam as a real person.
In addition to affirming the historical Adam, the scriptural evidence seems to support the traditional view that Adam and Eve were the first humans, specially created by God, and that the entire human race descended from their offspring. However, John Walton has argued from Genesis that there may have been other humans present at the time of Adam and Eve. He argues that Adam and Eve were archetypes who represent all of humanity, not necessarily specially created by God, and may or may not have been the biological parents of all humanity. For a possible resolution to this uncertainty, we will now explore evidence from the book of nature and search for an answer to the question of whether Adam and Eve were de novo creations.
III. The Evidence from Science for Adam and His Family
One of the more popular genres on American television is the crime drama. Through this medium of entertainment, the use of DNA evidence for identifying criminals has become a technique familiar to most people. While DNA profiling to resolve criminal cases, paternity suits, etc., is done using sections of DNA, the sequencing of the full human genome by the Human Genome Project4 provides much more than a genetic “fingerprint.” It provides the full sequence of the 3.2 billion base pairs (“letters” making up the genetic code) in human DNA, opening the door for molecular anthropology, the search for links between ancient and modern human populations around the world. These links are established by determining differences in sequences between individuals. These differences are attributed to mutations that have taken place over time. Genetic information that has been uncovered in the past few decades has shed considerable light on human origins. Primate genomes that have been sequenced include those of the chimpanzee (2005), macaque (2007), orangutan (2011), gorilla (2012), bonobo (2012), and gibbon (2014). (Seven Bridges, GGRNI, website) Evolutionary biologists compare the human genome with those of the primates to build evolutionary relationships. Skeptics of Darwinism maintain that genetic similarities between humans and other species are better understood as the result of common design rather than common ancestry. We examine this evidence below.
1. Genetic Diversity
One technique for studying human ancestry is to compare the base-pair sequences of a specified segment of DNA between individuals from different people groups. Such comparisons show that:
Human beings display much less genetic diversity than any other species. For example, several recent studies report a much more extensive genetic diversity for chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans than for people. . . . The human similarity is observed worldwide, regardless of race or ethnicity. The limited geographical range of the great ape species, contrasted to the widespread geographical distribution and extensive biological variation of humans, makes this observation impressive. . . . Molecular anthropologists pose what they sometimes call the “Garden of Eden hypothesis” to explain the limited genetic diversity. This model maintains that humanity had a recent origin in a single location and the original population size must have been quite small. . . . Molecular anthropologists observe the greatest genetic diversity among African populations and conclude that these groups must be the oldest. (Rana and Ross, WWA, 63–64)
Comparisons using much longer data sequences from the Human Genome Project confirm the “very limited genetic diversity among human populations,” as well as the conclusion “that the African population groups are the oldest.” (Rana and Ross, WWA, 65)
2. Mitochondrial Eve
One of the most widely used techniques in molecular anthropology is the study of DNA taken from cell mitochondria, the organelles where energy-storing molecules are produced. Since mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only from our mothers, molecular anthropologists can use it to trace humanity’s maternal line. A landmark study carried out on samples of mtDNA from 147 people from five geographic populations was reported in 1987. (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson, MDHE, 31–36) The study’s authors concluded that all of the mtDNA stemmed from one woman who lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. Additional studies conducted over subsequent years confirmed the conclusion that humanity can trace its maternal lineage back to a single ancestral mtDNA sequence: one woman in a single location (probably east Africa). The science community named her “mitochondrial Eve.” The “mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis does not necessarily mean that this hypothetical mother was the first human or the only human alive in her time. Rather, from an evolutionary view, it means that her mitochondrial DNA is the only lineage not to become extinct and is now ubiquitous throughout the entire human race. Nonetheless, this viewpoint is compatible with the view that there was an original mother and father who were the first parents of the entire human race. One of the original study’s authors clarified: “She wasn’t the literal mother of us all, just the female from whom all our mitochondrial DNA derives.” (Stringer and McKie, AE, 124) The evidence from mtDNA led to the “Out of Africa” model of human origins, in which all humans share a common African ancestor. While there was resistance to this model of human origins by those who held to the “Multiregional” model (in which humans evolved from different hominin populations around the world), the “Out of Africa” model has since gained widespread acceptance. (Gibbons, OAL, 1272–1273; Hedges, HE, 652–563)
3. Y-Chromosomal Adam
Most of the DNA in the human cell is in our chromosomes. Humans have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, with one pair being the sex chromosomes. Males have one X and one Y sex chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes. Since Y-chromosomal DNA passes from father to son, molecular anthropologists study it to trace humanity’s paternal line. One of the advantages of Y-chromosomal data compared with mtDNA is a longer DNA sequence, providing more opportunity to detect mutations. A number of studies carried out on Y-chromosomal DNA from men representing different races and regions of the world have been reported in the literature. (Hammer, ARCA, 376–378) The consensus of these studies is that humanity can trace its paternal lineage to a single man in a single location in Africa, “the same time and place where mitchondrial [sic] Eve lived.” (Gibbons, YCSTAWA, 804–805) The science community has named him “Y-chromosomal Adam.” Like “mitochondrial Eve,” the “Y-Chromosomal Adam” hypothesis does not necessarily mean that this hypothetical father was the first human or the only human alive in his time. Rather, it means that his Y-chromosomal lineage is the only example of such a lineage not to become extinct and is now ubiquitous throughout the entire human race. Nonetheless, this viewpoint is compatible with the view that there was an original mother and father who were the first parents of the entire human race.
4. Genetic Evidence for the First Humans
The findings of molecular anthropology outlined above point to the recent origin of humanity (within the last 200,000 years) from a single location (probably east Africa), with a single ancestral mtDNA sequence, “mitochondrial Eve,” and a single ancestral paternal DNA sequence, “Y-chromosomal Adam.” While the evidence of a single female ancestral sequence and a single male ancestral sequence seems to be consistent with the biblical account of Adam and Eve as the parents of all humanity, evolutionary biologists do not think that there was an original pair. Instead, they believe that humans evolved from an earlier hominin population composed of thousands of individuals. As a result of a postulated population collapse, humans passed through a “genetic bottleneck,” with the ancestral sequences being from one of the females and one of the males. Evolutionary biologists use a variety of mathematical models based upon population genetics to estimate the size of the genetic bottleneck. The resulting estimates are dependent on a number of factors; a 2014 study noted a range in the literature of “1,000–10,000” for the archaic population size. (Elhassan et al., EGDDMH, e97674) Denis Alexander cites three studies with a range of 9,000–12,500 for the “founder population that was the ancestor of all modern humans.” (Alexander, CE, 265)
Biologists Dennis Venema and Darrel Falk, writing from a Christian perspective, reviewed the findings of three different methods of genetic analysis to estimate the size of the human genetic bottleneck; all three methods concluded that the original population size was “several thousand.” (Venema and Falk, DGPSPC, website) Venema and Falk believe that all humanity is descended from a small ancestral population but reject the claim that humanity is descended from an original pair. One possible way to harmonize this with Scripture is to accept the possibility discussed in II.A that other humans were present at the time of Adam and Eve, as argued by the Archetypal view. The TE/EC view generally follows mainstream science, while denying a historical Adam.
The population genetics models that claim humans descend from a population of thousands of individuals rather than an initial pair are based upon a number of assumptions. The standard and often unstated assumptions behind these models include:
• That common descent really occurred and there was no time where God specially or instantaneously created humans (whether two humans or many) with a wide range of genetic diversity.
• That random processes are the only causes of genetic change over time (i.e., that there is a constant rate at which mutations accumulate over time). Possible other factors like hotspot mutations, differential selection, or intelligent design, could undermine this key assumption. Even under a Darwinian view, if natural selection acted strongly upon certain alleles over the course of evolution, then that could also challenge this assumption.
• That there was random breeding between individuals in the population.
• That there was no migration in or out of the population.
• That there was a relatively constant population size.
Each of these assumptions of this model is simply that—an assumption. But if any of the assumptions are not valid, the model fails.
Indeed, while evolutionary biologists believe that humanity has descended from an archaic population size of several thousand, some scientists disagree that the biblical claim of an ancestral pair has been disproved by genetics. Biologist Ann Gauger, for example, made a detailed critique of evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala’s challenge to the concept of an original human pair using the genetic variation in one of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, the highly variable DRB1 gene. (Ayala, ME, 1930–1936) His analysis led him to conclude that the minimum size of the initial ancestral human population was four thousand, with a long-term average effective population of one hundred thousand. Gauger showed that the outcome of his analysis is very sensitive to the assumptions made, (Gauger, SAE, 105–122) and concluded: “Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.” (Gauger, SAE, 121) She has noted that a follow-up study using sequence data from the entire DRB1 gene found only four versions of the gene at the time of our assumed last common ancestor with chimpanzees. (von Salomé, Gyllensten, and Bergström, (FSA, 261–271) Since an ancestral pair can carry four versions of one gene, she contends the data suggest the possibility of an ancestral pair. (Gauger, private communication) Gauger is on a team developing a population genetics model based on the assumption of an ancestral pair with created diversity. This team argues that such a model seems to explain modern genetic diversity as well as, if not better than, models based on the assumption of common descent. (Hössjer et al., GM, online)
Biochemist Fazale Rana also disagrees that genetics disproves the biblical claim of an ancestral pair; with astronomer Hugh Ross, Rana has given several reasons to question the mainstream consensus: (Rana and Ross, WWA, 77–80, 349–353)
• There is evidence that the models used to estimate the original population size do not agree with experimental observation. They cite three field studies with large mammals (sheep, horses, and whales) to make the point that when an original population size was known, the genetic diversity after several generations was greater than predicted by the models. The sheep study had an ideal scenario: two sheep introduced on a remote island and the population studied for 46 years. (Kaeuffer et al., UHIMPFSPI, 527–533) Dennis Venema has provided a counter-argument to the sheep study. (Venema, WLCMSH, website)
• There are questions as to whether the fundamental assumptions in the models are correct. They cite several papers questioning these assumptions, including one showing “that variation in the rate of mutation rather than in population size is the main explanation for variations in mtDNA diversity observed among bird species.” (Ellegren, IGDRHLP, 41)
• Evidence from conservation biology challenges the concept of recovery from a population collapse. They cite examples of fieldwork and theoretical work to make this point.
The YEC and some OEC views agree with the arguments challenging the mainstream consensus and see the evidence of “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam” as consistent with the biblical view of an ancestral pair. They think that evolutionary models are based upon assumptions—assumptions that would likely not hold true under a naturalistic scenario of human origins, and certainly would not hold true if humans were specially created by God.
5. Genetic Evidence and Human Origins
Most evolutionary scientists maintain that the human genome is full of nonfunctional “junk” DNA that we share with other mammals, such as apes and mice. They argue that this shared, nonfunctional DNA can only be explained if the “junk” arose when random mutations blindly produced useless genetic mutations in an organism that became the common ancestor of many modern species, passing its “junk DNA” on to its descendants. Francis Collins, NIH director and formerly head of the Human Genome Project, promotes this view when he argues that human DNA provides strong evidence that we share common ancestry with other mammals:
Even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor comes from the study of what are known as ancient repetitive elements (AREs). These arise from “jumping genes,” which are capable of copying and inserting themselves in various other locations in the genome, usually without any functional consequences. Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs, with roughly 45 percent of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam. . . . Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. (Collins, LG, 135–136)
The caveat that Collins expressed turns out to have been prescient. Six years after the publication of The Language of God, the ENCODE project published their findings to date, stating their “data enabled [them] to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.” (ENCODE, IEDEHG, 57–74) While these findings have been controversial and have not shaken the basic evolutionary paradigm,5 in January 2015 Francis Collins revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a healthcare conference in San Francisco, Collins was asked about junk DNA. He said, “We don’t use that term anymore. . . . It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome—as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” He concluded that most of what had been considered junk DNA “turns out to be doing stuff.” (Zimmer, IMODG, website) The growing consensus in molecular biology is that non-coding DNA is not junk, severely undercutting junk-based arguments for human-ape common ancestry.
Even though the term “junk DNA” is falling out of favor, the presence in the human genome of “pseudogenes,” genes that appear to have lost their function, is considered by evolutionary biologists to be strong evidence for common descent. Denis Alexander considers them to be “valuable genetic fossils for tracking our own evolutionary history.” (Alexander, CE, 244) Evolutionary biologists compare the location of these “fossils” in the human genome with their location in the genomes of our purported ancestors to develop this history. In response, Darwin skeptics point out that many pseudogenes are already known to exhibit evidence of function. (Luskin, FC, 86–92; Luskin and Gage, RFC, 216–235) The ENCODE project reported that more than eight hundred pseudogenes in the human genome show evidence of function. (ENCODE, IEDEHG, 58) Another scientific paper observes that “pseudogene regulation is widespread in eukaryotes.” (Wen et al., PANPA, 27–32) We are just beginning to develop biochemical techniques for studying the functions of pseudogenes, and evolutionary assumptions that pseudogenes are “junk” may be hindering our ability to discover their true functions. (Wen et al., PANPA, 27–32) As one paper in Annual Review of Genetics notes, “pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles.” (Balakirev and Ayala, PATJFD, 123–51) Gauger points out that the similarity in DNA sequences between species leads one to expect functionality and that we are likely to continue to discover functions in pseudogenes. (Gauger, private communication) If pseudogenes are in fact functional, they might point to common design rather than common descent.
Another line of evidence for human evolution comes from a particular comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes: human chromosome 2 is very similar to a proposed fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Evolutionary biologists argue that this fusion event is strong evidence for a shared ancestry for humans and chimps. In response, Rana and Ross point out “while it is not unusual for chromosomes to fuse, they will almost never fuse with intact chromosomes because of telomeres. These structures, in addition to providing stability, are designed to prevent chromosomes from undergoing fusion with chromosome fragments. . . . [They suggest that] the unlikely nature of these events could be taken as evidence for the Creator’s role in engineering or designing the fusion.” (Rana and Ross, WWA, 355–56) Moreover, the supposed fusion site is greatly lacking in repetitive DNA that should have been present if two chromosomes were fused end-to-end. (Fan et al., GSEACFS, 1651–22) But even if the fusion is real, because it is found only in our human lineage, at most this “fusion evidence” can only show that a fusion event took place somewhere along the human line; it cannot determine whether our lineage leads back to a common ancestor shared with apes. (Gauger, Axe, and Luskin, SHO, 92–99)
6. Where and When Did the First Humans Live?
As described earlier, molecular anthropologists have found the greatest human genetic diversity to be among African populations, leading them to conclude that humanity originated in Africa, most likely east Africa. (Elhassen et al., EGDDMH, e97674) They continue to use DNA from different populations to determine how humanity populated the earth. National Geographic’s Genographic Project, launched in 2005, invites the public to participate in this study by contributing DNA for analysis. The project website includes a map of human migration routes based on DNA evidence. (National Geographic, HS, website) This evidence is consistent with the biblical account of humanity originating at one location, although the biblical account suggests a Middle Eastern location. However, as discussed in III.C.1, the Bab el Mandeb strait and much of the Red Sea were dry near the end of the last ice age, facilitating human migration from the Middle East to east Africa (for instance following banishment from the garden of Eden) and vice-versa. Hence, genetic evidence pointing to an east African location for human origins is not inconsistent with a Middle Eastern location for Eden.
Using estimates of mutation rates, molecular anthropologists can turn differences in DNA sequences into “molecular clocks.” Rana and Ross have reviewed the results of recent studies carried out to estimate independently the “molecular clock” ages of Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. (Rana and Ross, WWA, 265–67) Scientists have calibrated the mtDNA “clock” using DNA from human remains that were dated using carbon-14 methods. The validity of this calibration was demonstrated with mtDNA recovered from a human femur estimated to be 45,000±2,000 years old by carbon-14 dating. Molecular clock dating of the mtDNA yielded an age of 49,000±17,000 years. (Qiaomei Fu et al., GS, 445–449) While the error bar on the molecular clock age is significant, the agreement is nevertheless impressive. The current estimates for Adam are based on larger portions of the Y chromosome than in earlier studies, as well as the use of rare Y chromosome variants. A study published in 2013 concluded that the “time to the most recent common ancestor” of the Y-chromosome was 120,000–156,000 years, and to that of mtDNA was 99,000–148,000 years. (Poznik et al., SYCRDT, 562–65) Proponents of the YEC and OEC views of Adam see this independent determination of comparable ages through the maternal and paternal DNA lines as consistent with the traditional biblical account of an ancestral pair, although YEC would consider these ages to be overestimated.
Most of us have seen the standard March of Progress diagram depicting a sequence of primates beginning with a hunchbacked ape and ending with an upright-walking modern human. This iconic diagram summarizes the message that humans evolved. While this is accepted by the TE/EC view of Adam (and some proponents of the Archetypal view), the OEC and YEC views believe that God intervened supernaturally in some manner in Adam’s origin. All views must address the paleontological evidence for the first humans.
Paleoanthropologists have been attempting to construct an evolutionary history for humans since Darwin’s time. As recently as 1981, John Reader (author of Missing Links) wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table.” (Reader, WHZ, 802) However, that collection has grown significantly since 1981. While each new find is encouraging to proponents of evolution, the relationships between hominin fossils are not always clear and paleoanthropologists continue to revise their thinking on the postulated pathway to humans. But evolutionary pathways are unclear. A 2015 review of human evolution by two leading paleoanthropologists admitted “[t]he dearth of unambiguous evidence for ancestor-descendant lineages,” and states: “the evolutionary sequence for the majority of hominin lineages is unknown. Most hominin taxa, particularly early hominins, have no obvious ancestors, and in most cases ancestor-descendant sequences (fossil time series) cannot be reliably constructed.” (Serrelli and Gontier, MEIE, 365)
There are several reviews of the paleontological data from a Christian perspective. Lamoureux provides a TE/EC view (Lamoureux, EC, 432–442); Alexander provides an evolutionary/Archetypal view (Alexander, CE, 252–262); Rana and Ross provide an OEC view, including a focus on the most recent finds (Rana and Ross, WWA, 31–43; 143–158; 277–289); Marvin Lubenow provides a YEC view. (Lubenow, BC) William Stone summarizes the scientific consensus in 2011 regarding the hominin species. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 56–60)
The traditional evolutionary view is that Homo habilis evolved from one of the species in the Australopithecus genus. This genus includes the “gracile” forms africanus and afarensis (which includes the famous “Lucy”) and the “robust” forms, sometimes classified as a separate genus, Paranthropus. The Homo genus also includes different forms, such as Homo erectus, the Neanderthals, and modern humans that are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. However, a number of paleoanthropologists dispute that “Homo” habilis could serve as such a link, with many arguing that it does not even belong in the genus Homo due to its australopith-like traits and noting that unambiguous Homo remains from about two million years ago predate habilis in the fossil record. (Spoor et al. INE; Wood and Collard, HG; Gibbons, WWHH; Berger et al. HN; Spoor et al., IEH; Hartwig-Scherer and Martin, WLMH)
The oldest fossil remains of what appear to be anatomically modern humans are claimed to be those found in the Kibish Formation in the lower Omo valley, in southern Ethiopia. (McDougall, Brown, and Fleagle, SPAMHKE, 733–36) The 40Ar/39Ar dating of a layer below the fossil find gave an older age limit of 198,000+14,000 years; dating of a layer above the find gave a younger age limit of 104,000+7,000 years. Both the location of these fossils, as well as the date range of strata above and below the fossil find, are reasonably consistent with the conclusions of molecular anthropology regarding the location and estimated age of the earliest humans. Other ancient fossil remains of anatomically modern humans have been reported in Africa and the Middle East. The estimated age of these remains range from 70,000 to 130,000 years. (Rana and Ross, WWA, 275) Caution must be exercised in the interpretation of ancient human fossils, as the appearance of anatomical similarity to modern humans is not necessarily indicative of modern human behavior (discussed in III.C.2).
After reviewing the paleoanthropological evidence of the Australopithecus and Homo genera, Stone concludes that the discontinuity between the two suggests that it is the dividing line between nonhumans and humans, and proposes to place Adam at the root of the genus Homo. (Madueme and Reeves, AFOS, 63–81) Indeed, a number of paleoanthropologists have admitted a distinct gap in the fossil record between humanlike members of our genus Homo and apelike species such as the australopithecines. (Gauger, Axe, and Luskin, SHO, 45–83) As the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated: “The earliest fossils of Homo . . . are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap.” (Mayr, WMBU, 198) Likewise, three Harvard paleoanthropologists admitted, “we lack many details about exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to Homo.” (Shea and Lieberman, TP, 1) This poses a severe challenge to the standard evolutionary view, generally endorsed by the TE/EC camp, that humans evolved from the apelike australopithecines.
Proponents of the OEC and YEC views point to the discontinuities in the hominin/ human fossil record as evidence of God’s miraculous intervention in Adam’s origin. Most OEC views put this at the root of Homo sapiens, since it is closest to the origin of modern human physical capability, as well as the use of symbolism and appreciation of aesthetic goodness. The YEC view rejects the mainstream ages given for the fossil record in general.
1. The Garden of Eden
As noted in chapter 16, there are currently no archaeological data for the garden of Eden. However, scholars have attempted to deduce its location from the evidence in the biblical account, which names four rivers associated with the river flowing through Eden (Gen. 2:10–14). Two of those rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, are presumed to be the same as those known to us today, as is the location of the country (Assyria) identified with the Tigris. The identity of the other two is less certain. One, the Pishon, is said to wind through the land of Havilah, where there is gold, aromatic resin, and onyx. The other is the Gihon, said to flow around the land of Cush. Many different locations for these rivers and of Eden have been proposed. Astronomer Hugh Ross has made a suggestion informed by satellite imagery:
The details here point in the direction of the Hejaz, a mountainous region in the west central part of Saudi Arabia. This 6,000-foot range contains the only known source of workable gold in the region. The land of Cush has long been identified with Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. Given that the Bab el Mandeb strait and much of the Red Sea were dry near the end of the last ice age (some 50,000—15,000 years ago), Cush would have included the mountains in Arabia’s southwestern corner. . . . Satellite imagery reveals the dry beds of two major rivers that once flowed from west-central and southwestern Arabia into the Persian Gulf region. (Ross, NG, 97–8)
Ross notes that the one location where these two rivers could come together with the Tigris and Euphrates is in the Persian Gulf region. (Ross, NG, 99) Archaeological finds on the northern coast of the Arabian Peninsula and on islands in the Persian Gulf, notably the island of al-Bahrain, are associated with the ancient kingdom of Dilmun. (Britannica, s.v. “Dilmun”) Interestingly, ANE literature refers to the land of Dilmun as an ancient paradise reminiscent of Eden. (Arnold and Beyer, RANE, 15–19)
2. Earliest Evidence of Modern Human Behavior
As mentioned in I.B.1, aspects of the image of God in humans include displaying intelligence, using language, and appreciating aesthetic goodness. Archaeological evidence of such behavior appears to have arisen suddenly. Anthropologist Christopher Stringer has written about this sudden appearance:
For millennia upon millennia, [Homo sapiens] had been churning out the same forms of stone utensils. . . . But about 40,000 years ago, a perceptible shift in our handiwork took place. Throughout the Old World, tool kits leapt in sophistication with the appearance of Upper Paleolithic style implements. Signs of the use of ropes, bone spear points, fishhooks, and harpoons emerge, along with the sudden manifestations of sculptures, paintings, and musical instruments. . . . We also find evidence of the first long-distance exchange of stones and beads. Objects made of mammal bones and ivory, antlers, marine and freshwater shells, fossil coral, limestone, schist, steatite, jet, lignite, hematite, and pyrite were manufactured. Materials were chosen with extraordinary care: some originated hundreds of miles from their point of manufacture. . . . It is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come about virtually from nowhere–though obviously they did have a source. The Question is: What was it? (Stringer and McKie, AE, 195–96)
While Stringer evaluates the evidence within an evolutionary paradigm, the sudden appearance is consistent with the OEC and YEC views that God intervened supernaturally in the origin of humanity. The recent discovery of ancient cave paintings in Indonesia dated to 40,000 years ago adds to the list of evidence. The announcement states: “The discovery of 40,000-year-old cave paintings at opposite ends of the globe suggests that the ability to create representational art had its origins further back in time in Africa, before modern humans spread across the rest of the world.” (Ghosh, CPCIAOA, website)
In surveying the most recent finds, Rana and Ross note that archaeologists have discovered evidence in Africa of modern human behavior older than 40,000 years. (Rana and Ross, WWA, 271–76) Nevertheless, the “sociocultural big bang” of 40,000 years ago fits well with the sudden appearance of modern humans. Quite a few archaeologists have acknowledged a sudden “explosion” of modern humanlike behavior in the archaeological record around this time. (White, PA; 11, 231; Mellars, NMHC, Nowell, FPA) This is consistent with an OEC viewpoint.
3. Earliest Evidence of Human Civilization
The traditional “cradle of civilization” is in Mesopotamia, where, according to standard dating, the Neolithic Revolution began around twelve thousand years ago. One feature of this revolution was organized agricultural activity, including farming and animal domestication. While the timing of this revolution is significantly more recent than the evidence of modern human behavior discussed above, recent discoveries have revealed earlier dates for agricultural activity. This includes evidence of “small-scale trial cultivation” twenty-three thousand years ago on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Snir et al., OCPWLNF, website), and grain processing more than thirty-two thousand years ago in Italy. (Lippi et al., MFPPGP, 12075–80) These discoveries place the development of organized agriculture before the Neolithic Revolution and closer to the earliest evidence for modern human behavior.
IV. Literary and Linguistic Evidence for Adam and His Family
Evolutionary biologists have faced great difficulty in trying to explain the origin of human language in evolutionary terms. A 2014 paper coauthored by leading evolutionary paleoanthropologists admits that we have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved” and “the origins and evolution of our linguistic capacity remain as mysterious as ever” since “studies of nonhuman animals provide virtually no relevant parallels to human linguistic communication, and none to the underlying biological capacity.” (Hauser et al., MLE, 1) Under a biblical view, however, one would expect humans to have a distinct form of communication not seen among lower animals.
A biblical view also makes it reasonable to expect that stories concerning our ancient ancestors would persist in cultures around the world. These stories would have been preserved as oral traditions until systems of writing were developed.
The Sumerian civilization in southern Mesopotamia (c. 3500–2000 BC) is credited with developing the world’s first written language. The oldest written Sumerian records date to 3100 BC. (Britannica, s.v. “Languages of the World: Language Isolates”) The system of writing used was a pictographic type of cuneiform, which gradually changed to conventionalized linear drawings. These were pressed into soft clay tablets with the edge of a stylus, giving it a characteristic wedge-shaped appearance. Cuneiform was adopted for use in other languages, for example Akkadian and Babylonian. (Britannica, s.v. “cuneiform writing”) Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of cuneiform tablets in the Middle East. Many of these have been studied and translated by scholars around the world, enabling them to gain great insight into ANE beliefs about origins. Collins has described how three texts from ancient Mesopotamia demonstrate some parallels with Genesis 1–11. (Collins, DAERE, 137–160)
There is written evidence for the first humans from a civilization far from Mesopotamia: ancient China. Modern Chinese can trace its roots to inscriptions that have been found on oracle bones dating back to the second millennium BC. (Thong, FOF, 46) Chinese has remained a pictograph-based language since that time, although the characters have changed over the centuries. The characters used today have been grouped into six categories. (Thong, FOF, 47) As described for example by Chan Kei Thong, two of these categories are pictographs and ideographs. (Thong, FOF, 51–52) Pictographs depict objects while ideographs convey abstract ideas and are composed of two or more pictographs. A study of ideographs reveals some of the stories that inspired the ancient people who developed them. Thong demonstrates how several ideographs show clear consistency with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and their disobedience in the garden of Eden. The three examples listed below are formed using these pictographs: 口(mouth), 木 (tree) and 女 (female).
The symbol 束 (shu), meaning “to restrain,” is represented by a mouth superimposed over a tree. This correlates to the first restraint placed on Adam, namely the prohibition from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Thong, FOF, 56–57)
The symbol 婪 (lan) meaning “to covet,” is represented by two trees on top with a female on the bottom. The use of two trees correlates with the two key trees in the garden of Eden: the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. The female correlates with Eve, the first human to covet something forbidden (fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Thong notes: “The composition of this character is even more interesting when one recalls that in ancient China, women had no place in society. . . . Yet, the ancient Chinese chose to use the character for ‘woman’ rather than the one for ‘man’. . . . This shows that the ancient Chinese had some knowledge of the story of the first act of disobedience against God.” (Thong, FOF, 58)
Finally, the symbol 喪, meaning “death,” shows that death is associated with two mouths eating from a tree. This correlates with Adam and Eve’s disobedience, for which they suffered the promised consequence of death. (Thong, FOF, 61)
The fact that these three characters have ancient forms demonstrates that they were formulated long before the first Christian missionaries visited China, generally considered to be Nestorians in AD 635. (Neill, HCM, 95) While Thong has acknowledged that Chinese calligraphy scholars do not necessarily agree with his interpretations, he argues that one of the artifacts from the San Xing Dui civilization discovered near Chengdu, Sichuan Province, a bronze tree dated to 1600 BC, supports his view that the ancient Chinese had some knowledge of the events from the garden of Eden. The tree includes fruit, knives protruding from the branches as if to guard the fruit, a feminine hand reaching to the tree, and a serpent. (Thong, private communication)
The straightforward way of reading the Bible is that Adam was a historical person. It also seems clear that Scripture teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve, although some believe they were archetypes and not necessarily the biological parents of all humans.
Within the last thirty years scientific evidence for Adam has emerged from the study of human genetics. The once-dominant multiregional model of human origins has been replaced with a model of humans spreading around the world from a small founding population in one location, possibly east Africa. The identification of single ancestral maternal and paternal DNA sequences, while not proof of an ancestral pair, is evidence one would expect from the biblical account of origins. What’s more, data from the DRB1 gene suggest the possibility of an ancestral pair.
Paleontology and archaeology reveal at least three discontinuities in human history: the abrupt appearance of the genus Homo about two million years ago, the appearance of anatomically modern humans at around 130,000 BC, and the appearance of physical capability underwriting modern human behavior at around 40,000 BC. Physicist John Bloom argues that the two recent, abrupt discontinuities are evidence against a smooth, naturalistic transition and for the special creation of humanity. (Bloom, OHO, 181–203)
Finally, Scripture, the book of nature (including genetic, paleontological, and archaeological evidence), and linguistic evidence join together to present a cumulative case for the historicity of Adam.
1. This view is described as Evolutionary Creation in the book, but it represents what has typically been referred to as Theistic Evolution. We refer to it as the TE/EC view.
This is not to imply that these are the only available options regarding the historical Adam. We recognize that there are others. Not all who affirm the Archetypal view, for instance, believe in Adam’s historicity and some embrace evolution. And there are some Old Earth Creationists who strictly reject the existence of any other early humans besides Adam and Eve. We are simply adopting the positions from Four Views on the Historical Adam for the sake of convenience.
2. This is the view of the OEC model proposed by Reasons to Believe (RTB), as described in Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009).
3. See also Alister McGrath’s excellent article, “Augustine’s Origin of Species,” Christianity Today (May, 2009): 39–41.
4. The Human Genome Project was announced by President Clinton in June 2000, with the first draft published in 2001 and the project completed in 2003. (National Human Genome Research Institute, AAHGP, website)
5. ENCODE’s results showing that the vast majority of our genome is functional are experimentally derived, whereas criticisms of the project typically stem from mere theoretical considerations derived from an evolutionary paradigm. For a review of why arguments against ENCODE fail, see: Casey Luskin’s series of articles: “The ENCODE Embroilment: Part I: Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results?,” Salvo Magazine (Issue 31, Winter, 2014); “The ENCODE Embroilment, Part II: Denying Data Won’t Change the Emerging Facts of Biology,” Salvo Magazine (Issue 32, Spring, 2015); “The ENCODE Embroilment, Part III: Evolution Proves Our Genome Is Junky . . . Which Proves Evolution . . .,” Salvo Magazine (Issue 33, Summer, 2015); and “The ENCODE Embroilment, Part IV: Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions,” Salvo Magazine (Issue 34, Fall, 2015).