As discussed in the preceding pages, numerous Christian scholars have argued that the crucial passages in Genesis concerning the creation of human beings (viz., Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7, and 2:21-23) can be interpreted in ways compatible with the possibility that God created our species via natural, evolutionary processes. Whether such interpretations are correct, however, is a hotly disputed matter in the church today. My own opinion is that the true meanings of these verses are far from obvious, and I do not think the exegetical questions can be settled decisively on either scriptural or scientific grounds. For this reason, I believe it is appropriate to heed insights from both Bible scholars and scientists as we seek to understand what scripture reveals about human origins.
Most contemporary Christian views of human origins can be classified into one of two main categories: de novo views and common ancestry views. There is also a newcomer on the scene which combines elements of both. Here’s a brief outline of several popular perspectives within each of those main categories:
De Novo Creation
Many Christians believe that God created the first human beings de novo (Latin: “of new”). That is, mankind was created separately from the animals, and we do not share ancestry with any other primates. Several popular views of Adam and Eve fall within this camp:
Genesis 2 describes four known rivers flowing out from named locations—in the mountains of Arabia and the mountains surrounding Mesopotamia—and meeting together in the Garden of Eden. … The only time these rivers can join together on dry land is when most of the Persian Gulf is dry. The drying up of most of the Persian Gulf requires that Earth be in an ice age.Hugh Ross, “When Did God Create Adam and Eve?” (Reasons.org, 2016)Fitting scriptural clues like this together with several lines of geological and archaeological evidence, Ross suggests that “the most likely biblical date for the creation of Adam and Eve … would lie between 55,000 and 120,000 years ago. However, the date could be stretched as far back as 230,000 years ago.”Hugh Ross, “When Did God Create Adam and Eve?” (Reasons.org, 2016) Others have suggested even earlier dates for Adam and Eve.For example, in their paper “A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible” (BIO-Complexity 2019: 1-20), Intelligent Design advocates Ann Gauger and Ola Hössjer use mathematical models of population genetics to show that the genetic diversity of the present human population could have originated from a single couple who lived 500,000 years ago. William Lane Craig suggests an even earlier date of approximately 750,000 years ago, though he argues that Adam and Eve may have shared ancestry with other primates. His view is briefly described below.
Common Ancestry
Evolutionary creationists accept the prevailing scientific account of human origins, which says that our species (Homo sapiens) evolved via natural processes from other primates between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago. Some Intelligent Design theorists also accept common ancestry, though many believe that God employed more than merely natural processes to bring about major evolutionary transitions, including the emergence of human beings. (God may have supernaturally infused new genetic information into the first human being’s genome, for example.) Similarly, although evolutionary creationists typically accept a naturalistic account of our biological ancestry, some believe that God did something supernatural to distinguish human beings from other animals. In particular, many believe that at some point in evolutionary history God made our species spiritually alive in a way that animals are not, e.g. by endowing each human being with a non-physical spirit. Among those who accept an evolutionary account of our biological origins, nearly all reject the idea that Adam and Eve were sole progenitors of humanity. (An exception is William Lane Craig, whose proposal is listed as view number 7, below.) However, there are numerous perspectives on where Adam and Eve fit into the picture:
On this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over the world. ... Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (1967), reprinted as Kidner Classic Commentaries: Genesis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 31-32.
My acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic “hominid” seem to have existed for thousands of years previously. ... It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin the phrase, the first man to whom may be given the specific biblical designation “made in the image of God.”John R. W. Stott, Understanding the Bible: Expanded Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 55-56.
This view is compatible with the previous one and is often combined with it. In his book Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?, biologist Denis Alexander combines Stott’s idea of Homo divinus with Kidner’s suggestion that Adam and Eve were chosen to represent all of humanity. Alexander agrees with young-earth creationists that Adam and Eve lived relatively recently—perhaps as recently as 6,000 years ago. In his view, Adam and Eve were “a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East” whom God called into fellowship with Himself, making them the first members of God’s spiritual family on Earth:
Adam and Eve, in this view, were real people, living in a particular historical era and geographical location, chosen by God to be the representatives of his new humanity on earth, not by virtue of anything that they had done, but simply by God’s grace. When Adam recognised Eve as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’, he was not just recognising a fellow Homo sapiens—there were plenty of those around—but a fellow believer, one like him who had been called to share in the very life of God in obedience to his commands.Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?, Second Edition (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2014), 236-237.
The Hybrid View
In his 2019 book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass brings some intriguing ideas into the conversation. He proposes a unique account of human origins that doesn’t fit neatly into either the de novo or common ancestry categories, but combines aspects of both. Swamidass suggests that the two main views are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, he argues that God created the human species, Homo sapiens, via evolutionary processes; but then God also created Adam and Eve in a separate, and relatively recent, de novo creation event!
Thus, for a period of time, two distinct lineages of humanity co-existed on Earth: Adam and Eve’s lineage, and the human beings who had been created via evolutionary processes—the “people outside the garden,” as Swamidass calls them. Importantly, Swamidass makes use of his expertise in computational biology to argue that it would take only a few thousand years of interbreeding (given reasonably conservative assumptions about migration rates, etc.) before every single human being on the planet would have Adam and Eve among their ancestors. Thus, by the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, it would have been true that “through one man sin entered into the world, and [spiritual] death through sin, and so death spread to all men” (Romans 5:12).
I’ll call this the hybrid view, which seems fitting for two reasons. First, Swamidass’s view hybridizes the other two views mentioned above, incorporating elements of each. Second, the hybrid view holds that all human beings alive today are essentially hybrid creatures, sharing ancestry with a naturally-evolved lineage of human beings and also with a supernaturally-created lineage.
I confess that I personally find the hybrid view less plausible than either of the other two main views. Nevertheless, Swamidass’s crucial conclusion from computational biology—namely, that everyone alive by the time of Christ would be genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve, regardless of whether Adam and Eve were sole progenitors—could have interesting implications for some of the other views listed above. In particular, views denying that Adam and Eve were sole progenitors (views 3 – 6) may find Swamidass’s insight helpful in understanding passages like Genesis 3:20, Acts 17:26, and Romans 5:12, even if the hybrid view is incorrect.