The Prophet Adam and Human Evolution

Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad

Due to such attacks, some Muslims felt inferior and thought that the problem could be rectified by an acceptance of the evolution theory, or at least accepting it as a valid alternative. However, the decisive verses of the Qur’an as well as the ahadith (Prophetic narrations) provide a problem for such an undertaking, and so we find that there are mistakes and random misinterpretations.

 

Praise be to Allah, the supreme Creator, Fashioner of mankind, Sustainer of the universe. All is His divine will, and his command is executed immediately. May peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, who came from the noble Adam, created and fashioned from clay, and preceded by none.

The theory of human evolution, namely that man descended from apes, is widely accepted amongst non-Muslims although there have been many non-Muslim scientists, atheists included, who argue that it is flawed. As an opinion, it was wholly rejected by all Muslims as it goes against their basic knowledge that Allah created Adam with his own hands, from clay, in the physical form of a human being, and then breathed life into it. Even so, there have been a few Muslims over the years that have endorsed the theory attempting to initiate a discussion on the topic, whilst there are non-Muslims who criticise us for being ‘simple-minded’ and ‘scientifically inconsistent’.

 

Due to such attacks, some Muslims felt inferior and thought that the problem could be rectified by an acceptance of the evolution theory, or at least accepting it as a valid alternative. However, the decisive verses of the Qur’an as well as the ahadith (Prophetic narrations) provide a problem for such an undertaking, and so we find that there are mistakes and random misinterpretations. Of course, those of truth will always oppose such heresy, to which these Muslim evolutionists, if there ever was such a term (!), respond that “we believe in the existence of Allah, the initial Creator, yet what is wrong in concluding that the way in which God created all human beings, including the first human, Adam, was by means of evolution, and namely, non-human parents who descended from apes?” Such people insist that this latest version of the theory is compatible with revelation given that there is no unequivocal scriptural text to deny it!

 

In order to deal with such unfounded claims, I would like to approach the issue in a scholastic and systematic manner so as to demonstrate how theological deviancy comes about through incompetence in systematically and rationally deriving meaning from the scriptural texts. It is due to this incompetence (that we should all be aware of so we save ourselves) that some attempt to legitimise the theory of human evolution and others unrecognised views that accompany it.

 

It is commonly believed that the Qur’an and the ahadith (Prophetic traditions) are the only sources of Islamic authority, yet we find that one of the primary causes of an individual’s theological (and legal) deviancy is the attempt to fully understand the divine texts by his/herself, with complete disregard for the profound understandings and well-substantiated views of hundreds of thousands of Muslim scholars from around the world who have contributed to the vast corpus of Islamic scholarship over the last 1400 years. The irony of such disregard is that Muslim proponents of the evolution process completely brush aside Islamic scholarly consensus yet are the first to advocate the (supposed) consensus of non-Muslim scientists!

 

It is clear that priorities are misplaced, for in glorifying western scientists the proponents of human evolution neglect the intellectual aptitude of Muslim scholars, particularly, the early scholars who were extremely astute and would, with all dedication, intensely scrutinise each and every aspect of the Islamic religion prior to any form of endorsement or inclination towards a given view – in fact, it is only very recently that scientists have adopted the same level of rigour. Given such a profound analysis, none of Islam’s scholars, let alone the greatest amongst them, ever articulated the view that Adam came into existence as a result of some evolutionary process. In fact, none of Islam’s early scholars ever even considered the possibility of Adam being created in stages of existence, or that he experienced childhood at some time of his life.

 

In adopting a religious opinion which is counter to a scholarly consensus made up of thousands of Muslim scholars over a long period of time, the proponents of human evolution expose their distorted outlook on Islamic knowledge and the Muslims scholars (as a collective) whom Allah has appointed as trustees of the faith. Such an attitude implies that Allah, may he be free from such an implication, has allowed the entire Muslim ummah, over a period spanning more than a millennium, to deviate from the truth whilst the correct view is uncovered by (theological) laymen in recent times!

 

Disregarding the binding legacy of scholastic consensus goes against plain old common sense and a number of verses and Prophetic traditions that state that scholars, not as individuals but as a collective, are the trustees of the faith. The explicit statements are numerous, such as Allah’s statement, “And We sent not before you but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know”^[1], and the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying, “the scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets.”

 

To believe that Adam had monkey-like parents (despite the fact that overwhelming evidences go against it) and to completely abandon the consensus of Muslims is indicative of deep-rooted arrogance, a rejection of the clear evidences, or ignoring the correct methodology in understanding the divine texts. For example, the first step of a sound methodology would be to analyse whether the conclusion is consistent with the Arabic language, since Arabic is the primary tool used in interpreting divine revelation, and so, any interpretation that fails to fall within the framework of the Arabic language is one that is redundant. For example, the Arabs did not consider the phrase kun fa yakun (be! And it is/was) to be an indefinite period of time, for indeed, the phrase illustrates the power and might of God that His will is manifested immediately and decisively, without delay. Even the phrase “be! And it is/was” in English implies it (whatever it is) happens instantaneously, and to argue otherwise would be a distortion of the English language!

 

Another key principle that must be established when dealing with scripture is the inter-contextualisation of the entire divine text - in order to correctly interpret the Qur’an and ahadith we must approach them, not as solitary verses, but as one coherent and homogeneous unit that affords a holistic interpretation, and not an interpretation based on preconceived ideas that singles out isolated verses so as to misconstrue them. Indeed, to approach the divine scriptures having already decided the matter is an insincere attempt to justify one’s belief, and to approach them enquiring into what Allah has ordained, in an open an unbiased way, is to demonstrate the sincere intention to receive guidance.

 

Another irony is the fact that the evolutionists try to place a theory (evolution) over fact (the Qur’an and ahadith). Do we not ponder why it is still considered a theory despite the fact that the idea has been around, in some popular form, since Darwin and is promoted so fanatically by its protagonists? It is truly unfortunate to see those who ascribe to Islam promote the theory of human evolution, and then do so by relying on mutashabih (ambiguous) verses of the Qur’an, some of which are clear kinaya^[2] (metonyms), and leave off muhkam (explicit) verses. This is precisely what Allah warns us against, saying,

 

“Those with deviation in their hearts follow what is undefined in it, desiring conflict, seeking its (false) interpretation.”^[3]

Evolution, in relating to man, is such an unfounded concept that to engage with it on par with academic and intellectual standards is to afford it credence, it being deserving of nothing but aversion. I could perhaps list all of the scientific inaccuracies of claiming that Adam came from apes, but as a Muslim it is more than sufficient to adopt the understanding of the scholars rather than derive a misconstrued meaning from a lone verse or hadith. This should be the case with any Muslim who believes that Allah has ordained certain measures to guard Islam against innovation, and hence, I shall, very limitedly, mention a small number of proofs which, for the benefit of the Muslim masses, simply expose the foolishness of this supposition.

 

The Qur’an clearly states that Adam was created by Allah, and with His own hands, “He said, ‘Iblis, what prevented you prostrating to what I created with My own two hands?”^[4] In addition, the famous Companion, Abdullah ibn Umar, said, “Allah created four things with His hand: the Throne, the Pen, the Garden of Eden and Adam. To the rest of His creation He said, ‘Be!’ and it was.”^[5] This narration clearly shows that the Companions believed that these four things, Adam included, were created in a way different to other animals and creatures. The authenticated ahadith furnish us with further examples that leave no doubt whatsoever that this was an actual act performed by Allah. For example, the Messenger of Allah said that on the Last Day, mankind would go from Prophet to Prophet requesting intercession; they would go to Adam and say, “You are the father of mankind, Allah created you with His hands, had the angels prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things.”^[6] If Adam was created from a ‘despised drop’ and like all other human beings, then what is the point of singling him out as being created by Allah’s hands?

 

“The likeness of Jesus, to Allah, is the same as Adam. He created him from earth and then He said to him, ‘Be!’ and he was.”^[7]

 

This verse is often quoted in isolation from the reasons for which it was revealed, thus, some evolutionists claim that the verse asserts that Jesus and Adam were born in the same way – through the womb of a female. Such an interpretation is deceptive as a brief look into the sabab al-nuzul (causes for revelation) quickly makes clear that the verse was revealed to repudiate the Christian argument that proof of Jesus’ divinity is his having no earthly father. The verse states that Adam had no parents whatsoever, being created instead from earth, yet this did not make him divine; the comparison then was between the single parent of Jesus and the absence of parents in regards to Adam.

 

The Qur’an informs us that Allah “taught Adam the names of all things”^[8] and so, we resolutely know that Allah engaged Adam directly. Allah also says,

 

“O mankind! Be mindful of your Lord who created you from a single soul and created its mate from it and then disseminated many men and women from the two of them.”^[9]

 

“It is He who created you from a single soul and made from him his spouse so that he might find repose in her.”^[10]

 

“O mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you might come to know each other.”^[11]

 

If we were to ignorantly suppose that Adam was born of evolved apes, we would then be positing, according to the verses above, that the creation of Hawwa’ was ever so more significant than that of Adam as she was not born but actually fashioned, by God, from Adam. Thus, in negating the instantaneous creation of Adam, the evolutionist is still left having to affirm the instantaneous creation of Hawwa’! And it is this fact, from amongst the many, that exposes the nonsense spewed by evolutionists, for in striving to negate a miracle of God (the creation of Adam), they resort to having to affirm it elsewhere (the creation of Hawwa’), that is, if they can resist the urge to deny the book of God outrightly.

 

The story of the Sabbath-breakers is well known whereby Allah cursed the disobedient and turned them into monkeys and pigs.^[12] How then, can the honoured sons of Adam^[13] actually come from that which is considered a curse? Of course, in being honoured, it is only logical to conclude that either humans haven’t come from apes, or that we negate the maskh itself and claim that the Sabbath-breakers did not turn into apes and pigs. Even if we were to state, for the sake of argument, that the transformation was metaphorical, the essential point still remains that they were cursed by taking on qualities of monkeys and apes. Correspondingly, there are various contradictions that arise in relation to Adam and Hawwa’ when attempting to scripturally justify human evolution. There are various mutawatir texts that confirm that Adam and Hawwa’ lived as spouses and that mankind came from the two, indeed the textual evidences regarding this point are particularly decisive. Furthermore, it seems quite an irrational interpretation that Allah mentions Hawwa’ as being brought into existence through Allah’s direct involvement, yet Adam, the first human being receives no such honour! It is extremely clear that the evolutionists and their deviant ideas refuse to acknowledge the entire textual discourse surrounding the creation of Adam, instead using solitary verses as a justification for evolutionist beliefs. Thus, in order to attempt some form of reconciliation between the two accounts, the evolutionist must adapt the Qur'an to fit the theory, or the theory to fit the Qur'an, or transform both equally, and in every case, each possibility is as preposterous as the others, all serving as evil paths to heresy.

 

In going beyond the Qur’an, we find that the ahadith are full with authentic narrations concerning the creation of Adam, and in keeping with deceitful intent we find that many liberals and evolutionists completely ignore the existence of such ahadith. Indeed they have to, for the shari’ah of Allah is preserved through the Prophetic narrations and so the evolutionists will do anything to maintain their secular outlook on the Islamic faith. In fact, the notion of evolution is deeply secular as it divorces the involvement of God in creation and attempts to posit Nietzsche’s opinion that if there is a god, then he merely initiated creation (which grew on its own) and that god is now non-existent or dead – we seek protection from Allah from such profanity.

 

We find that Anas ibn Malik relates from the Prophet,

 

“When Allah fashioned Adam in Paradise, He left him as He willed. Iblis then wandered around him examining him. Upon seeing him as hollow from within, he recognised that Adam had been created with a disposition that he would not have control over himself.”^[14]

 

I have not seen any scholar, past or present, who affords science the authority to determine how Adam was created. In cases where scholars do refer to science (in a limited capacity), they tend to provide their conclusions and then either explicitly/implicitly mention that this matter should be dealt with through science. In numerous verses the Qur’an commands mankind to reflect on the various types of creation, the alternation of day and night, and the celestial orbit of planets, but there is no indication whatsoever of an evolved Adam. In fact, the Qur’an describes the process of human creation in the womb but discounts the evolution of humans from monkey-like beings. If it is argued that the lack of evolutionary descriptions in the Qur’an is due to evolution’s complex nature, then we retort with the fact that so too is the process of foetal development, yet revelation informs us of it and to its fullest extent.

 

There are countless texts that can be analysed, but to do so would make this article voluminous. However, even light analysis of the Qur’an and Sunnah makes it exceedingly evident that such heretical beliefs have no place within Islamic thought - the Companions and early Muslims all understood the manner in which Adam was created by Allah and it is preposterous to claim that Allah revealed scripture that was misunderstood by all of the aforementioned, yet the Most High did not rectify their misreading!

 

Is the creation of Adam a scientific or religious matter?

In reality, there is no disparity between religious creed and science, and if there seems to be so, it inevitably implies that there has been some form of misunderstanding, either in terms of our religious or scientific knowledge. However, a decisive part of being Muslim is to acknowledge that the information related by way of the Qur’an and Sunnah entails certainty, whereas any other knowledge that we acquire is prone to human error. Thus, if the scriptures posit anything related to science and the overwhelming majority of scholars affirm its meaning, then we have to believe in it accordingly as such knowledge is fact-based and not merely human perception. The Qur’an and Sunnah address various disciplines such as science, history, geography, anthropology, politics and others. Whatever is mentioned there should be adopted as an aspect of our faith, “they say: we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.”^[15] Failing to do so suggests either one’s negation of more than half of the Qur’an, or accepting a text which is essentially devoid of meaning as it ends up meaning anything we desire it to, and this is how many of the obdurate fall into disbelief. For example, it has been repeatedly argued that the Qur’an is not a book of history, and so, the heretics argue that we are not obligated to believe historical details which Allah has revealed. Of course, the Qur’an is not a book of many things, but that is not to suggest that various topics are touched upon. Indeed, Allah says,

 

“There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, and then to their Lord they (all) shall be gathered.”^[16]

 

The ruling concerning the belief in Adam’s primate descendents.

Restricting the discussion merely to a ruling may be counterproductive as anyone who mistakenly concludes that it is not kufr (disbelief) will assume such profanation is to be tolerated, and so therefore, the main issue is not the ruling of such an immoral belief and whether it is kufr, but instead the gravity of this belief and what it signifies - it is the negation of what the ummah has endorsed as well as being in violation of countless proofs that state otherwise. Endorsing the presumption that humans evolved necessitates accepting reprehensible beliefs about the noble Prophet, Adam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and that his parents were either apes or ape-like beings! It is to insult the station of prophethood by claiming that Adam was taken care of by human-like baboons. Were Adam’s parents able to speak or did they merely grunt? Were they obliged to worship Allah or not? What was the extent of Adam’s cognitive faculties? Do human beings now have more advanced faculties than he did – have they evolved since his time on earth? How is it that the Qur’an disregards a significant aspect of Adam’s life although he discusses, in detail, what was before it and what came after.

 

If we believe that Allah is the Creator and can create anything, then what is wrong in accepting that he created Adam directly from clay, fashioned him, and brought him to life instantaneously? What is it that they negate? Why do we need to distort the meanings of countless Qur’anic verses in favour of a theory that continually changes? Must we negate the numerous and authentic ahadith that clearly establish a non-evolutionist narrative?

 

In conclusion, to use the theory of Darwin or any other theory that stems from it in order to justify the wicked belief that Adam was born of non-human parents is, in essence, to deny the existence of Allah as supreme creator who creates from nothing by mere command. It is this method of creating (although there are other ways as well) that establishes Allah’s rububiyyah (lordship), for in affirming unjustified theories of human evolution we make chance the creator, since anything that is created exists merely because chance decided so. But Allah says, “Or do they assign to Allah partners who created the like of His creation, so that (both) creations seemed alike to them?’ Say: ‘Allah is the Creator of all things; He is the One, the Irresistible.’”^[17]

 

I call upon those who believe and adhere to Islam to affirm the clear and decisive Qur’anic revelations and lucid ahadith, all of which negate the notion of human evolution, let alone Adam having non-human parents. I also call upon them to make the Islamic texts the primary source of authority in all of their affairs, since (Allah) the One who reveals revelation is most knowledgeable about the affairs of the universe. Let us not allow those of no faith to dictate our readings of scripture, our implementation of the Islamic faith, or our notions of what is to be deemed as being most superior, both in terms of creed and actions.

 

For those Muslims who endorse the theory of human evolution, contemplate the scripture with a believing and unbiased heart whilst keeping in mind the Sunnah of Allah’s noble Messenger. Strive against egotism and haughtiness and do not fear the criticisms of the disbelievers. Allah says,

 

“Therefore flee unto Allah; I am a plain warner to you from Him. And set not any other god along with Allah; I am a plain warner to you from Him.”<sup>[18]

 http://www.islam21c.com/</sup>

Why God Used Adam’s Rib to Create Eve

Why God used Adam’s rib to create Eve.
By Jan Meador

Genesis 2:21-23 (KJV)
²¹ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
²² And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
²³ And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I had always wondered why God used Adam’s rib to make Eve, but I had never asked Him.  I had heard preachers and others speculate and theorize why.  Some quote theologian Matthew Henry in saying that God didn’t take a bone from man’s foot because he didn’t want her to be man’s servant, or from his head because God didn’t want her to be man’s master, but from his side so she would be his companion, or, the supposition that he took it from near Adam’s heart as in reference to affection.  Well, this all sounds like a nice allegory, but it’s always been just that to me–a nice allegory.  As I sat here pondering on this, I knew there was a Divine reason, a spiritual law involved, and possibly even a natural/physical law involved.  So I asked God, and the Holy Spirit downloaded some information I’d never thought of or read or heard.

The first thing that came to mind was “why a bone?”  I said, “Lord, you could have used any part of Adam’s body to create Eve—the liver, the brain, the heart.  Why a bone?” He replied, “Bone marrow”. Immediately I knew that bone marrow manufactured blood cells and thought of the Scripture “the life is in the blood” (Lev. 17:10-14).  Then He said, “Look it up”. I typed in a Google search for bone marrow and got a link to a medical site with a definition for bone marrow.  Since I know just enough to pretend to be intelligent about the human body, I was surprised to find that bone marrow not only produces red and white blood cells and platelets, it houses stem cells.  It is from these stem cells that the blood cells and platelets are created.  These stem cells are referred to as “gatekeepers”.  When I saw the term “stem cell”, I immediately thought of reproductive cloning.

This that God had already shown me just set me on fire wanting more.  This revelation about the bone was awesome, but it made me realize even more that there was a definite reason why God used a specific bone.  So I asked, “Lord, with all the bones in the body, why the rib?” Again He said, “Look it up.” So I did.  I did a search in Google for “rib bone in man”, and got a hit on an article by a Christian doctor.  I was blown away when I read that the rib is the only bone in the human body that not only has the ability to repair itself, but it can regenerate itself! My spirit leaped within me and my thoughts were spinning like a whirlwind.

Here are excerpts from Dr. Purdom’s  article.

The Amazing Regenerating Rib
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.
February 4, 2009
Both men and women have 12 pairs of ribs.
…they (ribs) are one of the few bones that continue to make red marrow (and thus blood cells) in the adult.
Although all bones can repair themselves, ribs can regenerate themselves. Ribs are commonly removed during surgeries that require bone grafts in other parts of the body. The rib is removed from the periosteum (a tissue surrounding the bone) much like a banana would be removed from its peel while keeping most of the peel intact. The periosteum must remain, as it contains osteoblasts which build the new rib bone.
The rib bone is one of the few bones mentioned by name in Scripture. Genesis 2:20b–22 states, “But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.”
Some people have mistakenly thought that because God used a rib from Adam to make the woman that all men have one less rib than women. We know this is false because we can easily count the number of ribs in men and women and see they are the same. The number of ribs is determined by the code written in our DNA. God did not change Adam’s DNA; He simply removed one of his ribs to use for the creation of the woman.
God chose from Adam the one bone that could regenerate itself. So, even though he likely had one less rib bone for some period of time (possibly to some an indication of imperfection before the Fall), we still observe perfection and completeness in Adam physically before the Fall due to the regenerative capability of the ribs.

God designed each of us, and though He used the DNA and the stem cells and the blood and bone from Adam (a cloning scientists dream) God chose to fashion Eve uniquely.  He didn’t CLONE a copy of Adam, but made something beautiful from Adam.  It reminds me of how a child takes genes from both parents when conceived.  In Gen 2:23, Adam said “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called Woman, BECAUSE she was TAKEN OUT OF MAN.”  Eve was LITERALLY of Adam’s bone and flesh and blood.  If she was “taken out of man”, then God had placed her within man when He created Adam.  She was there all along–or shall we say, what was needed to create her was already within Adam.

This is so rich when you look at the relationship that God designed to be between a man and a woman.  It gives new meaning to the term “helpmate” that God spoke of.  It gives more understanding of why God didn’t just reach back down in the dirt and create woman from it as He did the animals and the man.  It is also very rich when looking at Christ and His bride.  When Jesus died on the cross, the centurion pierced his SIDE to be sure he was dead (although he already was).  It was from Jesus’ SIDE (the location of the ribs) that water and blood came forth.  It was at his dying that the church (His bride) was born.  Is this not even more beautiful when you understand Eve being birthed/created from the side, the rib bone of Adam?

When we look at human reproduction, what is required to reproduce comes from the male. Even the sex of the offspring is determined by the male sperm. So it was in creating Eve.  What was necessary to produce her was within man.  It doesn’t say that God took something from Adam and added anything to it in order to create woman.  It simply says that he took what was in Adam’s rib and made (built/fashioned) Eve.

God took from man what had the power to regenerate or recreate itself and made woman from this part of man–this part that God had already created.  And because of this, there is something so much deeper and amazing than this that we are seeing, and I want to know and understand it.  I know it will blow our minds.  There is a REASON God didn’t reach back down in the dirt and form a woman as he did every beast of the field and the fowl of the air and man.  (Gen 2:19).  There is a reason God brought forth woman OUT OF MAN.  There is a reason woman is bone of man’s bone and flesh of man’s flesh.

When Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree God commanded Adam that they were not to eat from, the Bible tells us that after doing so, she turned and gave the fruit to Adam.  He was right there with her while this was taking place.

Genesis 3:6 (NIV)
⁶ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

It was Adam’s duty by God to make sure that Eve knew and understood to obey God.  God had given man dominion over ALL that was created and he was instructed by God to “keep” (hedge and protect) the Garden.  This is a whole other lesson in itself, but my point is, Adam was not the one deceived.

1 Timothy 2:14 (NASB)
¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam knew the truth and willfully disobeyed God.  So my question is this.  Was their union, their bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, so strong that once he saw her eat from the tree and he knew the consequences—that he was going to lose her—that he then took of it himself?  This is a theory, but a strong one.  Did he not think that if he lost Eve, that God could not do again what He did the first time—remove another rib from him and make another woman?  I believe it proves the power of the unity that the man and woman had—a unity that God ordained and put into motion–a unity that when Jesus was being tested theologically by the religious scholars of His day, He expounded upon His Father’s words with absolute clarity:

Matthew 19:3-6 (KJV)
³ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
⁴ And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Though the question presented was about divorce, one can also look at this last statement “What therefore God hath JOINED TOGETHER, let no man put asunder.”, as confirmation that God indeed JOINED a MAN and a WOMAN together, and no man (or woman) is to UNDO anything that GOD has brought about.  Homosexuality is an UNDOING, and UN-JOINING, of male and female.  God declares such to be confusion, perversion, defiling, and an abomination.  Mankind can die justifying  their homosexual lifestyle as either by choice or by birth, but the Bible is very clear that those who do so will not enter the kingdom of God.

We see the NATURE of God in all of His creation, but especially in the creation of man and woman.  It is GOD that I want to see and understand, for when we understand the works and the ways of God, it helps us to understand His nature, His character, and better understand our relationship to Him.

In the King James Version of Gen 2:21-22, it states that God “made”, some other translations say “fashioned”, but regardless the translation,  the Hebrew word means “to build”.  But, you will see that it’s quite more than that.

Strong’s:
Hebrew Word: ‏בָּנָה‎
Transliteration: bānâ
Phonetic Pronunciation:baw-naw’
a primitive root; to build (literal and figurative) :- (begin to) build (-er), obtain children, make, repair, set (up), × surely.

I made emphasis of the “obtain children”, for I found that to be intriguing. It gets back to what I mentioned about woman being birthed from man.  But the thing I see so strongly in this is in the blessing that God pronounced on Adam and Eve after he created them.

Genesis 1:28 (KJV)
²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Did you notice that the first thing God blessed was their being able to reproduce themselves?  “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY”

Genesis 2:22 (KJV)
²² And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The Life is in the Blood

Leviticus 17:10-14 (KJV)
¹⁰ And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
¹¹ For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
¹² Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
¹³ And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
¹⁴ For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

God allowed the blood of animals, of what he created and gave life from the dust of the earth, to be what would be accepted as an atonement for man’s soul (man and woman)…until God’s Son, Jesus (Yeshua), came and fulfilled the Law and was the sacrificial Lamb of God that took the sin of the world and became our redemption–our atonement–once and for all.

¹¹ For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

atone/əˈtoʊn/ to make amends or reparation, as for an offense or a crime, or for an offender (usually fol. by for ): to atone for one’s sins.

Okay, the LIFE of all flesh is in its blood.  This gets us back to the fact that God used what PRODUCED LIFE (bone marrow), and more specifically, the bone and it’s marrow that actually recreated/regenerated itself, to build woman.  And, God used the blood of the flesh of animals to atone—to make amends/reparation on behalf of mankind’s soul for their sins.  So, why is the act of eating flesh that still has the blood in it, or drinking the blood of animals, an abomination to God?  Why did God instruct mankind, that if he were to hunt and catch or kill a beast or fowl and was going to eat it, that he was to pour out the blood on the ground and cover it with dust?  Why would this be something God would literally CUT THEM OFF from being part of His people?   THIS, I really want to understand.  Some believe that the SOUL of man is in the blood of man—that when God “breathed” into man’s body, God breathed his “soul” into him.  This is why some, such as Jehovah’s Witness, (whose beliefs I do not agree with), refuse to have blood transfusions.

Gen 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE, and man became a living soul.

I think of Genesis 4:10 (KJV)

¹⁰ And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Abel’s blood that poured out of him onto the ground, cried out to God to be avenged.  Is this allegorical or something much more—something spiritual?

OXYGEN (breath) is the key to living.  You breathe air in through your nose and mouth.  It goes into your lungs and actually dissolves in the water lining of the alveoli.  Oxygen then clings to your red blood cells as they pass through the alveolar capillaries.  NOW, the oxygen (the breath) is in the blood.

God breathed into man’s nose, it filled up his lungs and began to disperse into the blood and going to all parts of the body and the brain, and this SOUL God created came to life—this man became a “living (alive) soul–for the LIFE (the breath—the oxygen) was in the blood.  The moment that breath (oxygen) is taken from man, he beings to die—quickly.

This makes me think of another “mystery” in the Scriptures.  Jesus had resurrected from the dead, had ascended to His Father in heaven and placed His blood on the mercy seat in heaven and purified all things (Hebrews 9), and had returned to earth to be seen of more than 500 people over the course of 40 days.  The following account took place on Sunday evening, the same day he rose from the dead and after Jesus had ascended to the Father and made atonement for man with His blood.

John 20:16-22 (KJV)
¹⁶ Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
¹⁷ Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
¹⁸ Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
¹⁹ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
²⁰ And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
²¹ Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
²² And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

AMAZING!

This is another mystery.  May the Lord open the eyes of our understanding to His hidden mysteries as we seek Him and seek to know Him and understand His judgments and obey His precepts.

1 Corinthians 2:9-16 (KJV)
⁹ But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
¹⁰ But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
¹¹ For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
¹² Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
¹³ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
¹⁴ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
¹⁵ But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
¹⁶ For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 http://janmeador.wordpress.com/

Who Was Adam? An Old-Earth Creation Model for the Origin of Humanity

What is it to be human? This is an important question. Perhaps it is the most important question we could ever ask. The answer has profound and wide-ranging implications.

In many respects, this question can’t be adequately addressed unless we examine a more fundamental question, “Where do humans come from?”
In the West, influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview, the response to this question was largely based on the first two chapters of Genesis. Namely, human beings were created as a primordial pair, made in God’s image. And all humanity ultimately descended from a literal, historical Adam and Eve.
This view of humanity prevailed in the Judeo-Christian world until the early 1870s with the publication of Charles Darwin’s detailed work on human origins, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.
Darwin proposed that humanity evolved through a process of descent with modification from an ancestor shared with apes. As he put it, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some apelike creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”¹
Darwin saw evidence that human beings are nothing more than animals—certainly not the direct product of divine activity. He believed humankind differs only in degree and not in kind from apes.
For many Christians, Charles Darwin did the unthinkable: he interpreted humanity in a fully mechanistic and materialistic fashion. According to this view, all of human nature, not just humanity’s physical makeup, emerged under the auspices of natural selection. Darwin regarded humanity’s mental powers and intellectual capacity, as well as moral sense and religious beliefs, as evolution’s invention.
The scientific community claims support for human evolution from the fossil record. Paleontologists have unearthed many hominid fossils (and accompanying archeological remains) throughout East, Central, and South Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. These specimens encompass a wide-range of species. According to evolutionary biologists, these hominids fill in the evolutionary tree and clarify the pathway human evolution took over the last 6 million years.
Molecular geneticists claim another type of fossil evidence in support of human evolution: namely, the molecular fossils recently found in the genomes of humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the great apes. These “fossils” take on the form of structural features of genomes and DNA sequences shared among related organisms. Similarities and differences in genomic architecture and DNA sequences presumably reveal the evolutionary relatedness of humans and apes (in fact, all life) and provide details about their evolutionary history. Particularly compelling are the shared DNA sequences that appear to be nonfunctional now, but possess features that indicate that they at one time had utility. Presumably, random physical, chemical, and/or biochemical events rendered these functional components of the genome into useless artifacts. These features were then retained as the various lineages diverged from a common ancestor.
On the weight of these two lines of evidence, some Christians feel that overwhelming proof for human evolution exists and that it is now necessary to abandon the historic Christian view of human origins. Instead, they propose the Church adopt the view that God used evolutionary mechanisms to create (theistic evolution or evolutionary creation).
However, many evangelicals and conservative believers remain reluctant to embrace this proposal. First, they feel that abandoning the historic Christian view of human origins in favor of evolutionary creationism undermines key Christian ideas and doctrines and yields a narrative that doesn’t square with the biblical creation accounts.
Also a significant amount of skepticism exists within these circles about the capacity of evolutionary mechanisms to account exclusively for life’s origin and the entirety of life’s history (including the origin of humanity).
Does Another Option Exist?
Is it possible to develop a human origins model that incorporates the latest scientific advances while retaining the historic Christian view of humanity’s creation? Over the past decade or so, I have been working on this very question and proposed (along with astronomer Hugh Ross) a creation model for human origins that seeks to integrate both the scientific data and the biblical creation texts into a single framework.²
This approach gives biblical information equivalent weight to the results of scientific studies and aims to include both sources of information in a single coherent model that accounts for all the available data.
Our approach also departs from the strict methodological naturalism that undergirds the modern scientific enterprise, but does not abandon the scientific method that is central to science. This approach is also willing to depart from the strict adherence to the evolutionary paradigm that, too, is a common stalwart of modern science.
The process of building our model begins with identification of all relevant Bible passages that describe God’s creative work in bringing humans into existence, as well as those passages that recount early human history. Once all relevant Scripture is collated, application of sound exegetical techniques helps form the most plausible interpretations (admittedly for some passages several plausible interpretations exist). Using the historical-grammatical method, the origins passages are examined side by side with other relevant texts. All Scriptures that deal with humanity’s creation can then be integrated to form a comprehensive picture.
The biblical scenario for humanity’s origin and spread is then recast in scientific terms. As a result, it is possible to develop a set of predictions that logically flow from the model, rendering the model testable. It is also dynamic. Considerable freedom exists within the creation model’s framework for adjustments and fine-tuning as scientists and theologians make new discoveries and gain fresh insight.
Key Human Origins Passages 
The key biblical passages that establish the historic Christian view of humanity’s origin and also provide the framework for our creation model include:

Genesis 1:26–27, 2:7, 2:21–22	These passages teach that God directly intervened to create de novo the first humans—as an original pair—uniquely made in His image.
Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:24–26	According to these passages all humanity descended from a single primordial pair.
Genesis 5:13; Luke 3:23–38; Mark 10:6;  Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22	These passages treat Adam (and, consequently, Eve) as a real, historical person. Not only is Adam mentioned in the genealogy of Genesis 5, but also in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus Christ. Mark 10:6 indicates that Jesus thought of Adam and Eve as real people. Likewise, Paul viewed Adam as a real person as well.

An Old-Earth Creationist Model for the Origin of Humanity
The key tenets of our model are derived from the above passages and include the following ideas:

1. Humanity is traceable back to one woman and one man.
2. Humanity’s early population size was relatively small.
3. Humanity originated in a single location in or near the Middle East (the Garden of Eden).
4. Humanity’s origin occurred recently.
5. Humanity spread around the world from in or near the Middle East.
6. Human culture (which reflects the image of God) appears and expands explosively in the archeological record from the time of humanity’s origin.
7. Humans share anatomical, physical, biochemical, and genetic similarities with the extinct hominids, also with great apes and other animals.
8. Humans are behaviorally distinct (in ways that reflect God’s image) from the earlier hominids, the great apes, and other animals.

The central question for our project: Is it possible to square these ideas with the latest scientific insight into the origin of humanity?
Scientific Insights in Human Origins: Molecular Anthropology
One of the most exciting advances in human origins research has been the use of DNA sequence data to gain insight into the origin and early history of humanity.³ A number of genetic markers have been employed toward this end including: genetic heterogeneity; Mt DNA; Y-chromosomal DNA; pseudogenes; HERVs; SINE DNA; microsatellite DNA; and minisatellite DNA. Linkage disequilibrium has also been used to develop an understanding of human origins. Another rather inventive approach has been the use of the genetic variability of human parasites (such as the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, the JC virus, and the bacterium Helicobacter pylori) as a proxy for human genetic diversity. Each parasite studied represents an opportunity to corroborate independently the studies based on human genetic markers.
Collectively these studies indicate that humanity originated recently (around 150,000 years ago, though there is significant uncertainty in the date), from a relatively small population (perhaps as small as a few hundred) from a single location (East Africa).
Of particular interest are the results of Mt DNA and Y-chromosomal studies that trace humanity’s origin (through the maternal and paternal lineages, respectively) to single ancestral sequences referred to as “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam.”
These results have helped establish the Out-of-Africa model as the most prevalent explanation for the origin of humanity, largely supplanting Multiregionalism.
Evolutionary biologists interpret these results to indicate that a relatively large population of humans suffered a catastrophic collapse. When this occurred, genetic diversity was lost and the first humans went through a genetic bottleneck. After suffering the population collapse, the humans who survived are thought to have experienced rapid population growth and expansion as they migrated around the planet. Accordingly, the genetic markers of the population collapse remain imprinted on today’s human population groups in the form of limited genetic variation. They theorize that the passage of humanity through the genetic bottleneck, perhaps as recently as 150,000 years ago, creates the appearance that humanity arose from a small original population.
Along the same lines, evolutionary biologists are quick to assert that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were not the first humans. Rather, according to them, many ‘Eves’ and ‘Adams’ existed." Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam consisted of a number of individuals who shared a common haplotype. These two haplotypes were the lucky ones that just happened to survive. The genetic lines of the other first humans were lost over time.
Still, as an old-earth creationist, I find the concept of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam intriguing. Is it possible to reconcile the data interpreted in the context of the Out-of-Africa model to the view of humanity’s origin espoused by the historic Christian faith?
Some might conclude that reconciliation isn’t possible. But when the scientific and biblical data are carefully considered there is a close congruence between the biblical and scientific account of human origins.
As I discuss in Who Was Adam?, a date for humanity’s origin around 150,000 years ago is not necessarily incompatible with the biblical account of human origins. Some Bible interpreters treat the genealogies in Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah) and Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham) as exhaustively complete chronologies and have attempted to determine the date for Adam and Eve’s creation from them. This approach, however, is questionable for several reasons. The Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies were not intended as chronometers, but, like all genealogies found in Scripture, were meant to communicate theological truths.⁴
The range of meaning for the Hebrew words translated as “father” (’āb) and “son” (bēn) can include “ancestor” and “descendant,” respectively.⁵ Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as “begot” or “become the father of” can mean to father an individual, or to bring forth a lineage.⁶ In Hebrew thought, a father is not only the parent of his child, but also the parent of all his child’s descendants. According to K. A. Kitchen, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 could be read as, “A fathered [P, who fathered Q, who fathered R, who fathered S, who fathered T, who fathered . . .] B.” Genesis 5 and 11 could then be read as “A fathered the lineage culminating in B, and after fathering the line, lived X years.”⁷
It is also important to keep in mind that dates for humanity’s origin derived from coalescence analysis and molecular clocks are notoriously imprecise. Calibration of molecular clocks is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.⁸ Researchers simply cannot determine with any real accuracy mutation rates and changes in these rates over time. Scientists typically must estimate the likely high and low values for mutation rates. The dates for humanity’s origin extracted from genetic data of human population groups must be regarded as crude estimates, not ironclad conclusions. One researcher noted that molecular clocks are best thought of as “sun dials” not “stopwatches.”⁹
The bottom line: There is no reason to regard the scientific dates for the origin of humanity to be in conflict with the biblical account.
What about the location of humanity’s origin? Does an African origin of humanity conflict with the biblical account? Not necessarily.
The Garden of Eden’s location has been the subject of endless debate throughout church history. While the debate still is not fully resolved, most theologians agree the garden was located in one of two adjacent regions. With the land later called Israel as the frame of reference, Genesis 2:8 describes the garden’s location as “east, in Eden.” This implies that the garden was contained within a larger region called Eden.¹⁰
The mention of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers indicates the garden’s location within Mesopotamia (Genesis 2:4). However, the Pishon and Gihon rivers (also noted) are unknown. They may have been smaller river channels, part of the Tigris and Euphrates systems,¹¹ or they may have disappeared becoming dry river beds.¹² Along these lines, K. A. Kitchen argues that these four rivers came together in Mesopotamia to form a single stream that ran into the Garden of Eden. Based on Kitchen’s analysis the rivers are listed, starting with the Pishon (a dried-up river) located in a southwesterly direction, proceed in a counter-clockwise fashion across the east to the Gihon (also dried-up) north to the Tigris, and finally northwest to the Euphrates. Kitchen proposes that the Garden of Eden locates to the north end of the Persian Gulf and is now submerged under water.¹³
Alternatively, the Pishon and Gihon may be references to the Blue and White Nile. Part of the support for this view comes from Genesis 2:13, which states that the Gihon “winds through the entire land of Cush.” In the Old Testament, Cush (the land) equates to Ethiopia, but it can also refer to Kassites, descendants of the patriarch Cush. The Kassites lived in Mesopotamia.¹⁴
Some biblical scholars hold that the Garden of Eden was most probably somewhere within Mesopotamia, but its boundaries may have extended into north and east Africa. Considering this interpretation, Cush may well have been Ethiopia. If this identification is accurate then the scientific and biblical data harmonize.
What if the Garden of Eden is confined exclusively to Mesopotamia? The data that locates humanity’s origin to Africa still need not be seen as problematic for a biblical model. Without question, African populations are humanity’s oldest (not only because of genetic diversity, but also because African DNA sequences encompass DNA sequences from all other human population groups). This inclusion, however, does not mean these groups originated in Africa. When molecular anthropologists use genetic data to locate humanity’s origin (and spread), they assume that the contemporary location of population groups represents their location throughout human history. This supposition remains open to question, particularly because many human population groups have migrated as much as thousands of miles throughout their history.
Did humanity originate from two individuals, a primordial pair? From my perspective, I think that the data from molecular anthropology squares with the traditional Christian view of human origins on this point. As already discussed, from an evolutionary perspective, it looks as if humanity passed through a genetic bottleneck. As I argue in Who Was Adam?, however, the genetic bottleneck is a concept embedded within the evolutionary paradigm. From a creation model standpoint, the limited genetic diversity of humanity doesn’t reflect population collapse, but is viewed as a signature for a creation event.
I also argue in Who Was Adam? the fact that all humans can trace their ancestry to a single mitochondrial DNA sequence indicates that humanity originated from a single woman. That is Mitochondrial Eve was the biblical Eve. (The corresponding reasoning would also apply to Y-chromosomal Adam.)
Others have challenged this interpretation, however, arguing that the genetic data indicates that humanity arose from thousands of individuals, not two." The chief basis for this claim comes from estimates of the ancestral population size of humans based on genetic diversity.
It is possible to estimate the effective population size of any ancestral group from genetic diversity of present-day populations if the mutation rate is known. As discussed in Who Was Adam?, a number of these types of studies do indeed indicate that humans stem from a small population, on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand.
Skeptics of the traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins accept these results uncritically. Again, they argue that the data indicate that humanity experienced a genetic bottleneck. Consequently, humanity arose from the thousands of survivors, not a primeval pair.
Skeptics also point to other methods for modeling the ancestral population size that do not depend on mutations, but on other processes to generate genetic diversity.¹⁵ Studies employing these techniques, too, seem to indicate that humanity arose from population sizes that were on the order of a few thousand individuals.
A number of recent studies, however, show that these methods are not good predictors of population size.¹⁶ In fact, in two instances—one involving Mouflon sheep and the other Przewalski’s horses—when the original population size was known, the genetic diversity measured generations later was much greater than expected based on the models.¹⁷
In the face of this challenge, it is important to recognize that the population sizes generated by these methods are merely estimates, not hard and fast values. The reason: the mathematical models are highly idealized, generating differing estimates based on a number of factors. As a case in point consider two studies discussed in Who Was Adam? One, reported in 2003 by a Russian and U.S. research team, examined DNA sequence elements called short tandem repeats at 377 locations in the human genome for 1,056 individuals that represented 52 population groups. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that humanity originated from a single point of origin (apparently Africa), from a small population (~2,000 or less) between 71,000 and 142,000 years ago." Although this conclusion was in line with that of an earlier study of short tandem repeats, the population size estimate from the earlier study was around 500 individuals." The reason for the difference was in part the differing sample sizes and number of locations in the human genome that were studied.
Did humanity originate from a single pair? Even though population estimates indicate that humanity originated from several hundred to several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could well be that these numbers overestimate the original numbers for the first humans.
Given how poorly these population size models perform, and noting that humanity can trace its origin to a single ancestral mitochondrial DNA sequence (which, again, I interpret as a single individual), it is hard to argue that science has falsified the notion that humanity descended from a primordial pair.
And it is important to note that human origination from a small population is consistent with the existence of a historical Adam and Eve who gave rise to all of humanity. After their creation, the biblical text teaches that they produced many sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Given the limitations of the methods, could it be that the population estimates are reporting on the population structure of humans some time after their creation, when the population would have been small, on the order of a few thousand?
Scientific Insights in Human Origins: Comparative Genomics
One of the biggest challenges to the historic Christian faith are the shared molecular fossils found in corresponding locations within the genomes of humans and the great apes. For many people, the only way to make sense of these molecular fossils is in the context of the evolutionary paradigm. Accordingly, these shared features were found in the genomes of common ancestors and were retained after the evolutionary lineages diverged.
But humans’ and great apes’ shared molecular fossils point to common descent only if certain assumptions are true: first, the shared structures and sequences of genomes are not functional, and, second, the events that created these features are rare, random, and non-repeatable. Another assumption in play is that no mechanisms other than common descent (vertical gene transfer) exist that can generate shared features in genomes.
As it turns out, a number of recent studies raise questions about the validity of these assumptions. For example, evolutionary biologists claim that synteny (the ordering of genes along a chromosome) reflects the degree of evolutionary relatedness.¹⁸ But there are examples where this relationship doesn’t hold.¹⁹ Other studies have shown that the location of genes along the length of the chromosome has functional significance, and therefore could be understood as intentionally designed.²⁰
Over the course of the last decade or so, molecular biologists and molecular geneticists have come to discover that most classes of “junk DNA” have function.²¹ It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe these discoveries. I refer interested readers to my books Who Was Adam? and The Cell’s Design.
It turns out that many of the events that alter genomes’ structures and DNA sequences are not rare and random necessarily. For example, biochemists have known for quite some time that mutations occur in hotspots and that transitions happen at a higher frequency than transversions. Recent work also indicates that transposon insertion and intron insertion occur at hotspots, and gene loss is repeatable.²²
New studies also reveal that horizontal gene transfer can mimic common descent. As it turns out, this phenomenon is not confined to bacteria and archaea, but has been observed in higher plants and animals as well, via a vector mediated pathway or organelle capture.²³
In light of these discoveries, is it possible to make sense of the shared genomic architecture and DNA sequences within the framework of a creation model? I think it is with both the biblical text and the views of the eminent biologist Sir Richard Owen as a guide.
Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of Adam and states that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground.” The verb “formed” is translated from the original Hebrew verb yāṣar, which means “to form,” “to fashion,” or “to produce.” Genesis 2:19 uses yāṣar to describe God’s work to form “out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” Together, these verses indicate that both man and animals were fashioned by the Creator from the same substance and design template.
It follows, then, that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities should exist between humans and other animals, including the “99% genetic similarity” between humans and chimpanzees. In other words, shared features reflect common design, not common descent.
And yet, according to Genesis 2:7, only Adam was animated with the divine breath, implying that there is something distinct about humans. Genesis 1:26–27 (and 5:12) teaches that human beings alone were made in God’s image. As a result, humans display unique nonphysical characteristics that reflect that image.
It stands to reason that significant physical differences will also exist between humans and other animals—variations that provide the biological support for humanity’s likeness to God.
In light of this discussion, it is interesting to note that prior to Darwin, eminent biologist Sir Richard Owen interpreted homologous structures (and, consequently, related organisms) as manifestations of an archetype, not the products of descent with modification.²⁴ Darwin later replaced Owen’s hypothetical archetype with a common ancestor. But the key point is that it is possible to conceive of an alternative interpretation of shared biological features, if one is willing to allow for the operation of a Creator within the history of life.
I see the notion of a Creator producing life-forms that adhere to a common blueprint—an archetype—to be consistent with the creation of humanity and the animals described in Genesis 2.
That is, it is possible to propose a model that accounts for the shared features of genomes from a creation perspective. What follows is the framework for such a model. The assumption that undergirds this model is that a Creator is responsible for life’s origin and history. As such, the genomes of organisms have been created via God’s direct intervention. But once created, genomes are subjected to physical, chemical, and biochemical events that can induce changes in their structure.
This model explains the similarities among organisms’ genomes in one of two ways:

• Reflecting the work of a Creator who deliberately designed similar features in genomes according to: (1) a common function; or (2) a common blueprint.
• Reflecting the outworking of physical, chemical, or biochemical processes that (1) occur frequently; (2) are nonrandom; and (3) are reproducible. These processes cause the independent origin of the same features in the genomes of different organisms. (Along these lines, it is also interesting to note that researchers have discovered that horizontal gene transfer mimics the genomics signature for common ancestry.)

Our model also explains genomes’ differences in one of two ways:

• Reflecting the work of a Creator who deliberately designed differences in genomes with distinct functions.
• Reflecting the outworking of physical, chemical, or biochemical processes.

In other words, our model can account for similarities and differences in the genomes of organisms as either the deliberate work of a Creator or via natural-process mechanisms that alter the genomes after creation.
Scientific Insights in Human Origins: Archeological Studies
One of the key ideas of the historic Christian faith and a key aspect of our model is the notion that human beings are made in God’s image. Scripture doesn’t explicitly state what the image of God is. Over the centuries, theologians have discussed and debated this concept. Some take the image of God to describe humanity’s resemblance to God. Others take it to refer to humanity’s relational capacity, while some theologians think that the image of God allows humans to function as God’s representatives or viceroys on Earth.²⁵ A consensus of these three approaches identifies four characteristics ²⁶

1. Human beings possess a moral component. They inherently understand right and wrong and have a strong, innate sense of justice.
2. Humans are spiritual beings who recognize a reality beyond this universe and physical life. Mankind intuitively acknowledges the existence of God and has a propensity towards worship and prayer.
3. Human beings relate to God, to themselves, to other people, and to other creatures. There is a relational aspect to God’s image.
4. Humanity’s mental capacity reflects God’s image. Human beings possess the ability to reason and think logically. They can engage in symbolic thought. People express themselves with complex, abstract language. They are aware of the past, present, and future. Human beings display intense creativity through art, music, literature, science, and technical inventions.

According to the historic Christian faith, much of human behavior ultimately stems from the image of God. Because the archeological record is the product of behavior and activity, it supplies the means to probe for the image of God. Artifacts that result from reason, symbolic thought, technical inventiveness, and artistic, musical, and religious expression will reflect the image of God. Because our model views the hominids as animals (see below), it predicts that such image-of-God artifacts will make their first and only appearance in the archeological record alongside human remains.
While artifacts are found with hominids that precede human beings in the fossil record, our model maintains that they will differ fundamentally from those associated with the first true humans. The archeological remains that coincide with hominids should indicate the absence of image-of-God behavior.
Without question, hominids living as long ago as 2 million years employed tools and possessed a “culture” of sorts. Still, their crude technology and simple lifestyle remained static for hundreds of thousands of years at a time. When new modes of technology and culture appear in the archeological record, the advances generally represent relatively small steps upward, followed by long periods of stasis. Even as recently as 100,000 years ago, the hominids used remarkably unsophisticated technology. But at 40,000 years ago (based on the archeological record in Europe), something quite amazing happened. According to paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer:

For millennia upon millennia, we [hominids] had been churning out the same forms of stone utensils, for example. 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 use of ropes, bone spear points, fishhooks and harpoons emerge, along with 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?²⁷

Though Stringer sees an evolutionary connection between modern humans and the hominids that predate them in the fossil record, the archeological record displays something other than a gradual evolutionary emergence of human culture. Rather, the record’s defining characteristic is a veritable explosion of civilization. This eruption is considered anthropology’s “big bang.”
I see the sociocultural big bang as a signature for God’s intervention, denoting the creation of the first humans, creatures that uniquely bear God’s image. Our model predicts that evidence for behavior reflecting God’s image should appear abruptly in the archeological record and should correlate exclusively with the appearance of humankind. The archeological and fossil records reveal this exact pattern.
While the case for the sociocultural big bang is based primarily on the archeological record in Europe, it is gratifying to see that other archeological sites around the world also reveal sophisticated behavior associated with modern humans with dates closer to the time when modern humans are thought to have first appeared on the scene.²⁸
Who Were the Hominids?
Since I am skeptical of aspects of the evolutionary paradigm, and human evolution specifically, how then do I account for the hominids that precede modern humans (and in some instance co-existed with them)? The biblical creation model that Hugh Ross and I proposed considers the hominids found in the fossil record to be animals created for God’s purposes, by His direct intervention. They existed for a time and then went extinct. These were remarkable creatures that walked erect and possessed some level of limited intelligence and emotional capacity. Such characteristics allowed hominids to employ crude tools and even adopt a low level of “culture,” much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. While the creation model asserts that the hominids were created by God’s divine command, they were not spiritual beings made in His image. This status was reserved exclusively for human beings.
Our model treats hominids as analogous to, yet distinct from, the great apes. For this reason, the model predicts that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities existed among hominids and human beings to varying degrees. But because the hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be noticeably different from humans, as reflected by their cognitive and communicative capacities, behavior, “technology,” and “culture.”
Our model maintains that while human beings reflect God’s image in their activities, hominids did not. The model asserts that humans are uniquely spiritual and hominids were not. The archeological record associated with hominid fossils supplies key data to evaluate this prediction. In Who Was Adam?, I provide an extensive discussion of the archeological record associated with the hominids and how the features of the record comport with the predictions of our model.
How do I justify my skepticism of human evolution from a scientific perspective? A sufficient response to this question is beyond the scope of this paper. I refer the interested reader to Who Was Adam? for an extensive critique of human evolution.
Still, a few points are worth consideration. When most people think of hominid fossils, they picture nearly complete skeletal remains. Popular presentations almost always feature the greater-than-90-percent complete “Turkana Boy” specimen—or “Lucy,” which consists of a nearly 40 percent complete postcranial skeleton. Yet, these specimens are unique. Most hominid fossil discoveries consist of partial crania, partial jaws, isolated teeth, and, occasionally, isolated limb fragments.²⁹ Paleoanthropologists rarely find a complete cranium, let alone an entire skeleton. Moreover, very few hominid species have extensive representation in the fossil record. In most cases, a limited number of fragmentary fossil finds and a handful of specimens define a species.
Without a large number of specimens, paleoanthropologists can’t accurately decipher the range of morphological variation that occurs within a population or across geography and time. And without this knowledge, it’s uncertain if hominids with morphological differences from two time periods in the geological column represent two distinct species with an evolutionary connection or the range of variation within a particular species.
Often the hominid remains are crushed or shattered prior to fossilization and further deformed by geological processes. These limitations make proper analysis of the hominid fossil record very difficult. Distortions and deformations of hominid fossils obscure paleoanthropologists’ ability to construct accurate evolutionary trees. The implications are enormous for human evolutionary scenarios. Given all the difficulties associated with the hominid fossil record, it’s not surprising that paleoanthropologists disagree on the evolutionary relationships among the hominids, specifically on the progression pathway that led to modern humans. Examination of any textbook or treatise on human evolution attests to this conflict.³⁰
In the midst of these controversies, work published by Mark Collard and Bernard Wood raises serious and fundamental questions about the capability of paleoanthropologists to ever establish evolutionary relationships among hominids.³¹ In their view, any evolutionary tree paleoanthropologists construct for hominids will always be hopelessly uncertain.
Paleoanthropologists typically use comparisons of hominid cranial and dental (anatomical) features to build evolutionary trees, since these fossils supply the chief data available. However, as Collard and Wood point out, the use of hominid craniodental features to discern evolutionary relationships has never been validated. To make their point, these two paleoanthropologists compared evolutionary trees constructed from craniodental data with those built from DNA and protein sequences for two currently existing groups of primates. One group included humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. The other consisted of baboons, macaques, and mangabys. For both sets of primates, the evolutionary trees built from DNA and protein sequences differed significantly from those constructed from craniodental data.
Evolutionary biologists now consider evolutionary trees produced with molecular data inherently more robust than those derived from anatomical features. This development has forced paleoanthropologists to conclude that “little confidence can be placed in phylogenies [evolutionary trees] generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable.”³²
In light of these results, “that human evolution occurred” becomes a scientifically untenable statement. In order to demonstrate that humanity originated through biological evolution, robust evolutionary trees must be established. Collard and Wood have shown that such determinations may never be possible for hominids as long as craniodental data is all they have to work with. In fact, more recent work indicates that this problem extends beyond the hominid fossil record. Evolution biologists from the University of Helenski (Finland) question the reliability of any evolutionary tree generated from dental data.³³
These scientists are not the only paleoanthropologists to demonstrate problems with hominid evolutionary trees. Others have rigorously detailed additional difficulties with the methods and data used to build the trees.³⁴ Any evolutionary relationships set forth are highly tentative, little more than sheer speculation. It’s no wonder each new hominid discovery throws the field of paleoanthropology into chaos and forces researchers to redraw the trees.
Final Thoughts
Many key doctrines of the historic Christian faith rest on the historicity of Adam and Eve. While I understand the draw of theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism), this position also wrecks havoc on the traditional Christian view of human origins by casting doubt on the historicity of Adam and Eve. I think it is important for the Christian community to look for alternative paradigms that accommodate the advances coming from science (without necessarily embracing an evolutionary interpretation of those advances) while retaining the traditional interpretations of human origins from the first chapters of Genesis.
The model that Hugh Ross and I proposed in Who Was Adam? seeks to accomplish that very goal. I believe that the model performs quite well, and has successfully accounted for a number of discoveries that have been made since the book’s publication.
Admittedly, there is much more work to be done to develop our human origins model. And there are a number of outstanding questions and challenges for the model as well. New advances such as those in comparative genomics propel our project forward, prompting us to propose an accompanying genomics model.
I am hopeful that our approach represents a viable alternative to theistic evolution and will hopefully attract more participants to the project.

 http://www.reasons.org/articles/who-was-adam-an-old-earth-creation-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity