A right attitude.
We must come to this subject humbly. Our ability to understand science and scripture is fallible and limited. And so we should not dismiss an interpretation of scripture or theory of science without considering it carefully. John Calvin writes on science:
“Whenever we come upon [matters of art or science] in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts…Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labour to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen?"[1]
The issue we face.
Most briefly, modern science suggests the universe could be as old as 13.8 billion years, the earth 4.54 billion years, with human-like creatures appearing around 2 million years ago, and modern human beings around 300,000 years ago in Africa. It is said there was a major migration of the latter around 100,000 years ago, with some settling in the Ancient Near East (the land of the Bible), leading to the first farming and civilizations appearing from around 10,000BC.
What are Christians to make of this?
The age of the earth.
An initial reading of Genesis 1-12 that calculates years through the lists of names (genealogies) might suggest that God created everything in six literal days, perhaps as recently as 4 thousand BC. However, the scientific evidence for a very ancient universe and world significantly challenges this because it comes from various different disciplines: (a) Huge amounts of time are needed to explain the vast number of plants and creatures found in the geological column, (b) the size of coral reefs that only grow slowly, and (c) the evaporation of ancient seas that have left salt beds in deserts. (d) An older earth is also supported by the number of yearly silt layers created by thawing ice, (e) of strata in ice core samples, and (f) of rings in ancient trees. On top of this, we have (g) radiometric dating, and (h) astronomical observations such as those which imply the light from the stars has taken millions of years to reach us. This can’t all be explained by the changes to the natural order that may have taken place because of the flood. Moreover, although the evidence for evolution is more debated, we must engage with the fact that human remains (again dated by numerous disciplines tied to those suggesting an ancient earth) are far earlier than what seems the focus of the biblical account.
The evolution of species.
What’s called “micro-evolution” clearly occurs as organisms adapt to their environment. However, modern science also asserts a “macro-evolution” of all species from the first spark of life. It appeals to the existence of what it says are transitional fossils, the appearance of increasingly simple organisms towards the bottom of the geological column, similar species living in the same regions, the anatomical, cellular and molecular similarities between creatures, and genetic similarities in which there seem to be similar “defective” genes passed down.
This could all be explained by the wisdom of God in designing according to patterns and with regional commonality in order to fit certain environments. And there are question marks raised over the theory of an unguided evolution by both Christian and non-Christian scientists: (a) the utter mathematical improbability of the formation of the first life forms, (b) the lack of sufficient years for the complexity of today’s organisms to evolve, (c) the difficulty in seeing how transitional aspects of organisms might form, (d) the “over-design” of humans that cannot be explained merely by what was required to survive, (e) the surprising jumps in the fossil record, (f) the inability of evolution to explain the non-material aspects of existence such as consciousness, and (g) our ability to reason way beyond what is necessary to survive.
Having said that, if the earth is ancient, I can see no particular difficulty with the idea of God guiding some form of evolution in plants and animals so that they exist according to “kinds” when man is created. The language of death entering through Adam refers to human death (Rom 5v12-21). Psalm 104, a creation Psalm, actually presents God’s creation of a world where prey is given to lions as a sign of God’s generous provision. So, plant and animal death is consistent with the creation being declared “very good.” Moreover, the “bondage to decay” of Romans 8v21 is more literally “bondage to corruption” (ESV). So, it probably refers to how the creation suffers under the corruption of humanity, rather than that all death or struggle in nature flows from the fall. Genesis 3 only mentions pain in birth and farming. And struggle is one of God’s means in this age of bringing maturity (Rom 5v3-4, Heb 5v8).
But could man have been created by some form of divinely guided evolution? Creation from dust is used elsewhere to describe normal birth (Job 10v8-9). And being “not made from woman” (1 Cor 11v8), and “Son of God” with no ancestors (Lk 3v38), could possibly mean that Adam was the first true God-imaging human, even if evolved from hominids. But to my mind, these texts and the wider theological implications make this unlikely.
Possible scenarios.
There are numerous theories discussed by Bible-believing thinkers that seek to reconcile scripture with this science. I will outline the two I find most compelling, with various possibilities regarding human origins under the second.
1/ The mature creation view.
This accepts that the evidence for an ancient universe and earth is significant but holds that for the purposes of creation being up and running from the start, God created it fully functional and so with the appearance of age. For example, he created it with light already travelling through the universe so it could be seen on earth, land already with carved rivers to benefit creatures, and trees already grown and so with rings. Some hold that this may have come via an extremely rapid process of development rather than being instantaneous, which would better explain these features.
This is supported by the fact that the most obvious reading of Genesis 1-11 is that the genealogical dating, type of culture, and events leading to the rise of civilisation, place Adam, Eve and the creation week around 4-5000BC. Moreover, the command “let there be” implies immediate fulfilled (2 Cor 4v6), light does appear before the sun, moon and stars are created (1v14-19), the formation of Adam seems to be mature, and Genesis 2v7-10 could imply rapid development of vegetation. And God created the earth to be governed by humanity. So, it would be strange for it to exist for billions of years before their creation rather than functionally ready for them (Gen 1v26-28, Psalm 8, Rom 8v19-21) – not least because Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve’s marriage and temptation as occurring at the “beginning” (Matt 19v4, Jn 8v44). Furthermore, millions of years of nature red in tooth and claw, with diseased and violent hominids existing before Adam is extremely hard to reconcile with a world created “very good.”
The problem with this view, however, is that although it may explain why the universe looks billions of years old, it would require the many evidences of an older earth to be just an appearance of that, with creation actually taking place not long before 4,000BC. But we have seen the age of the earth is measured by numerous means. Moreover, it is hard to see how all the features of age mentioned above needed to be implanted by God for the creation to be fully functional. Most especially, why the billions of fossils in the genealogical column with an apparent age far greater than that of human remains? It is difficult to explain these all from the flood. And there is a theological problem too: God delights in our examination of the natural order. Solomon was commended for it. This implies he would not create in a way that would make that endeavour unreliable, and especially not bring about evidences of age in his creation that were not actually necessary to how it operates. He is always concerned with truth.
In assessing this view, thought also needs to be given to the extent of the flood as some proponents say that it would have resulted in some of the appearances of age. Scripture presents it as universal. But does that mean the whole world as we know it or as the ancients knew it? Certainly, the theological sense of returning the creation to the water chaos of Genesis 1v2 may imply it was truly global. However, it is scripturally possible that it was a massive regional flood as the word for “earth” also means “land” which gives a very different feel to Genesis 7 (see 7v17-19). Moreover, the word for “earth” can refer in Genesis to the known world populated by Adam and Eve’s descendants (Gen 11v1, 41v57). This would still give reason for Jesus and Peter using the flood as a pattern for the final universal judgement as would be a paradigm of that (2 Pet 3v3-7, Matt 24v37). And it is striking that Moses says that Canaan contained the descendants of the Nephilim (Num 13v33), which would not have been possible if the flood was truly global as the Nephilim lived before the flood (Gen 6v4). Either a global flood, or a massive regional one of the known world populated by Adam and Eve’s descendants in Noah’s day, are therefore possible interpretations of the Bible text.
2/ The analogous days view.
This suggests that a close reading of the text shows Genesis 1 to be an artistic account of creation, which should not be read as implying a literal week. Rather, it’s seven days are an analogy of a working week to teach that humans are to image God’s creative activity in the way they work.
Some might say that this view is also deceptive, as it would mean God had made a very old universe and earth whilst giving the appearance in scripture that it is much newer. But, for significant reasons many Christians hold that Moses himself has signalled in the text that we are not to read Genesis 1 literally.
The book is structured around the phrase “This is the account of…” (2v4, 5v1, 6v9, 10v1, 11v10 etc). This suggests chapter 2v4 begins the mainstream history that leads to Abraham and beyond, and that chapter 1 may therefore be a different sort of literature acting as a prologue. And it does have a well crafted artistic structure with a refrain like a chorus: “And it was good” and culminating with humanity commissioned to subdue (as God does in days 1-3) and fill (as God does in days 4-6). This supports a key intent of chapter 1 being to help us understand what it is to image God. So, it could be a sort of illustration, telling the history of God’s creation through the idea of a working week (Ex 20v11). In which case, the writer would be using 24 hour days as an analogy, to make the point that man is like God in how he is to work. It would be rather like the teacher explaining the history of life using a 12 hour clock. Genesis 1 would therefore be a semi-poetic proto-history, that compacts the creation of the universe over a vast time to explain theological truths about God and humanity in a memorable and meaningful way to ancient peoples.
There is much detail which makes sense in the light of this view: The whole six days are referred to as one day in 2v4 – literally: “in the day when God made...” And the seventh day has no evening and so is still continuing (John 5v17, Heb 4v4-6). The writer doesn’t therefore seem to want the reader to understand the days in a literal way. Indeed, if God was creating all over the planet, there could be no such thing as “morning and evening,” as they depend on being in one place. Moreover, the first five days of creation have no definite article, and so literally read “on a 1st day” until concluding with “on the 6th day.” This may be to signal that the days were times of God’s creative work followed by gaps of rest as when day is followed by evening, so further allowing the account to cover vast ages, whilst maintaining a focus on the 6th day and so the creation of humanity. And there is a remarkable fit between the days of creation and what science says would have been noticed on the earth.
We should also note that a literal reading of 1v11-12 requires vegetation to grow miraculously in one day, three days before man was created. But 2v5-7 pictures God using his normal means to make vegetation grow when humanity was created. And as a creation Psalm, Psalm 104v14-17 portrays this normal operation of things straight after God separating the land from the sea.
A key objection, however, is with respect to human origins. Genesis 2-5 seems to present Adam and Eve’s descendants within a Neolithic culture sometime after 10,000BC, whereas (if the science is correct) fossils suggest hominids lived and experienced sickness, violence and death long before that. DNA sequencing does give some evidence of common ancestors to modern humans 100,000 or so years ago, but even if we locate Adam and Eve then, this is still much further back than the Neolithic age. Three key scenarios attempt to explain this whilst ensuring an historical Adam and fall, original righteousness, and universal need of redemption.
1/ A genealogical Adam.
One possible explanation would be if Adam and Eve were relatively recent sinless creations - perhaps with a genetic link through Adam to a wider humanity, or to hominids. Job describes his normal birth as being created from dust, so this language could be figurative for Adam too. And his fall and its consequences may have been a paradigm for a descent into sickness, violence and death in this wider group prior to that, but that was not counted “sinful” in the sense of breaching a command (Rom 5v13). The “very good” of the completed creation could therefore refer to when the original humanity were first formed. Certainly, Genesis 3v22-23 implies that outside of Eden where there was no access to the tree of life, death was the norm. And 4v14-17 imply there may have been a wider violent humanity already in existence.
This would make Adam and Eve's descendants a line of redemption within humanity, through Abraham, to Christ. It may be that they replaced any wider group which went extinct, or that they interbred with them so that all humanity in Christ’s day were genealogically descended from Adam. There is evidence of what are termed “homo sapiens” interbreeding with earlier groups. And, farming (subduing the earth) did first appear in the area Genesis speaks of, and then in subsequent millennia appeared on different continents in a way that seems independent. It is speculative but possible that this is evidence of God raising wider hominids to the level of bearing his image and fulfilling its vocation as true biblical humans after Adam’s fall, and perhaps in preparation for interbreeding with Adam’s line. On this view Adam would be the covenantal representative of any such wider human group. So, sin and death would still come to all through Adam in the sense of sin as a breach of command then imputed to this wider humanity as well as his descendants (the focus of Romans 5v12-21), and death also come in this sense that it would then include alienation from God and blocked access to the tree of life (the focus of Genesis 3v22-24).
God only tells us what we need to know in scripture, and that is that Israel and humanity as known in Jesus’ day had all descended and inherited corruption from this one couple who were originally righteous but fell into sin. But a key problem with this view is its complexity given the simplicity of the text.
2/ An early-modern Adam.
Alternatively, it is possible that the genealogy of Genesis 5 doesn’t record when specific individuals were born, but when the ancestral lines of significant individuals began. So, after 105 years Seth “begat (became the father of) Enosh in the sense that he had the child from which the line to Enosh began (just as Jesus can be called “son” of David despite there being 1000 years between them).
If this is the case, Moses concern is not with giving a dateable timeline, but with showing the descent from Adam to Noah over however long it might be. The genealogy would therefore provide a literary way of compacting great aeons of time and bringing the reader from the mystical events of Eden in distant prehistory to the realities of Neolithic life. Adam’s naming of Seth in Genesis 5 would seem to imply that he, Cain and Abel were Adam’s actual sons (see also 4v1-2). If so, the possibility of generational jumps would have to start from Seth. And there is precedence for this. After what seem to be regular sons in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 9v11, Zadok is said to be the “son of Meraioth,” whereas the genealogy of Ezra 9v2-3 tells us he was at least his great-great grandson.
All this makes it possible that Adam and Eve were the source of what are termed “modern” humans (around 100,000BC) from whom we are all descended. Moreover, we might find that they, humanity, and the sort of farming displayed by Cain and Abel, are far older than that, with Adam and Eve therefore preceding all signs of violence or suffering amongst prehistoric humans. Having said this, a key problem with this view is that it stretches the genealogy of Genesis 5 beyond what seems reasonable.
3/ A blended Adam.
A final possibility is that Adam and Eve were the first couple that all humanity are descended from and were created in the vastness of distant pre-history. They were therefore the real, historic, source of all. But, by giving them generic names meaning “of the ground” and “life giver” the writer signals that he is using them in an artistic way, and does so by blending them with the parents of Cain and Abel from 4v1 (and in 5v3), who live in the Neolithic period when farming and civilization begins. By this means, the writer would be seamlessly compacting the vast period of time to that point, and signalling that history proper for Israel and humanity starts with Neolithic culture.
This is attractive as it explains the death and sin palaeontology suggests all hominids experienced, the existence of others at the time of Cain and Abel, and their Neolithic context. It could also explain why the writer speaks of the creation of man/adama generically in 1v26-28 and 5v1-2. It is often missed in translation that the Hebrew for man and Adam are the same. So Genesis 5v1-3 reads: “This is the book of the generations of man/adama. When God created man/adama, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them man/adama when they were created. 3 When man/adama had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” One can easily see how the generic humanity in v1-2 may move to a specific individual with Seth’s father in v3.
And this sort of thing has precedence in the way that names are used elsewhere in scripture for later human beings, just as Jesus is referred to as Adam (1 Cor 15v45) and David (Ezek 37v24) because descended from them and acting like them. So, there is a real sense in which Cain and Abel’s parents could be ascribed the generic names Adam and Eve too – as they were also “of the ground” and “life giver” as all men and women are (Job 10v9). Perhaps the key problem with this view is that this is all rather speculative.
Final thoughts.
Much more could be said, which gives support or raises problems for all views. And some Christians will feel very strongly that one particular view must be held. However, we should remember that our understanding of science and of this portion of scripture is limited. As history progresses, it may be that things become clearer. It may be we will only understand in glory. But these scenarios certainly mean that we need not assume there is a conflict between scripture and science.
Whether as a means of portraying complicated truths in a memorable way to an ancient people, or compacting unimaginable eons into a prologue to the book, God knew what he was doing in these first two chapters of Genesis. He just isn’t interested in enabling us to grasp how it all fits the findings of modern science. No doubt, if he was, it would have been very confusing for previous generations.
We cannot therefore know our Creator’s purposes in now extinct species, whether dinosaurs or hominids. The key thing, is that what he wants every generation to know is very clear indeed: God created Adam, and Eve from him. They were righteous and able to live forever. But they fell into sin bringing corruption and death on themselves and all humanity, and causing the flourishing of creation itself to be hindered. And so all humanity need Christ, and through him “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” (Rom 8v21)