Christianity & Evolution: More Antithesis Than Harmony, Part II

In the previous post, we saw that the doctrine of original goodness raises significant questions for evolutionary theory. But there is more to say.

The views expressed in this article reflect those of the author, and not necessarily those of New Creation.

In the previous post, we saw that the doctrine of original goodness raises significant questions for evolutionary theory. But there is more to say.

The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race

“Monogenism” is the view that all human beings who have ever lived descend from an original couple—two people. “Polygenism” is the view that humanity descended from an original population of humans, potentially thousands. The scientific consensus today is firmly on the polygenism side. Researchers tell us about species like Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, and so on—all these ancient species allegedly related by evolutionary descent.

Many Christians think they can hold to some form of polygenism, and that monogenism is not necessary for Christianity. Roman Catholics and Protestants have argued for an original population of, say, 10–50,000 human ancestors. God then chooses to have a relationship with two of them who become true human beings—Adam and Eve (the other hominin ancestors either die off while Adam and Eve populate the earth, or by some transference mechanism they too receive the image of God). In another scenario, Adam and Eve interbreed with other hominins and populate the earth. Or maybe God implants a soul in two of them, and that “ensoulment” transforms them into “Adam” and “Eve.”

The evangelical John Stott proposed one such scenario.¹ So did the OT scholar Derek Kidner in his Genesis commentary—and more recently John Walton in his book The Lost World of Adam and Eve.² The geneticist Joshua Swamidass defended one of these neo-polygenist views in his book The Genealogical Adam and Eve.³ These proposals reject monogenism, the view that all humans that have ever existed descended from a single couple.

In fairness, theologians as far back as the sixteenth century have given exegetical reasons for rejecting monogenism. Consider these questions: Who was Cain’s wife? Where did she come from? After Cain killed Abel, Genesis 4:12 says he was “a fugitive and a wanderer” hiding from those who would kill him. But if Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet, why was Cain so afraid? And who lived in the city of Nod? Such questions prompted the speculation by some that the earth was already populated when Adam and Eve appear in the biblical narrative.

However, these arguments are not convincing. Genesis 1:27 is clear that God made the first human beings on the sixth day, and the broader context of Genesis 1–5 informs us that those first humans are Adam and Eve (besides, if there were already other “humans” present, why did God have a problem finding a suitable “helper” for Adam? See Gen. 2:18–20). In Genesis 3:20, Eve is described as the mother of all the living, which assumes monogenism. In Hebrew, the word “Adam” often signifies humanity, and that linguistic fact reflects the Hebrew mindset that the human race descended from Adam. In addition, questions about whom Cain feared after murdering Abel, or who lived in the city of Nod, and so on, are resolved by recognizing that Adam and Eve had other children (Gen. 5:4)—the early chapters of Genesis are highly compressed and leave out many details of the first humans. The Genesis flood narrative also assumes monogenism when it portrays Noah as a new Adam and the post-flood world as a new creation. Just as Adam is the father of humanity, Noah is the father of post-flood humanity.

In the New Testament, Luke’s genealogy extends all the way back to Adam because he was the first human being (Luke 3:23–38). The apostle Paul assumes monogenism when he writes, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:13–14). Paul takes it for granted that Adam was the first human based on reading Genesis 2–3 historically (see also Acts 17:26); he does the same in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 when giving instructions about worship. Monogenism is also assumed in Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, among other texts. These are more than proof texts—they reflect the apostolic conviction that Adam and Eve were the biological progenitors of humanity.

This doctrine of monogenism is essential for the unity of the human race. In Genesis 5:3, being in someone’s image and likeness is tied to sonship. Seth is Adam’s son and therefore made in the image of Adam. Same with Adam: he was the son of God because he was made in God’s image and likeness (Gen. 1:26; see also Luke 3:38). As Adam has children and grandchildren, he is enlarging the divine family. All human beings are made in God’s image because they are physically descended from Adam and Eve.

The unity of the human race is integral to the atonement and the forgiveness of sins—it is the foundation of sin and salvation. Sin and death entered the world through Adam the biological head of humanity (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22). Since humanity belongs to one biological family, the Son of God entered that same family, taking on the very same nature in the incarnation (John 1:14). As Gregory of Nazianzus said, “for that which He has not assumed He has not healed.”⁴ Jesus is therefore the savior of all people (1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 4:14); the possibility of atonement extends to all who hail from the same family as Adam and Eve.

There may be an even deeper logic to monogenism. Since the triune God is a unity-in-diversity, his image bearers (Adam and his offspring) necessarily reflect that trinitarian shape. The divine image is not merely a loose collection of individuals but an organic unity of every man and woman. Quoting Bavinck: “Not the man alone, nor the man and woman together, but only the whole of humanity is the fully developed image of God, his children, his offspring. The image of God is much too rich for it to be fully realized in a single human being, however richly gifted that human being may be. It can only be somewhat unfolded in its depth and riches in a humanity counting billions of members.”⁵ When Adam and Eve obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply, they were displaying the divine image throughout creation. The doctrine of humanity and monogenism go hand in hand.

Christianity & Evolution: More Antithesis Than Harmony Series

• Christianity & Evolution: More Antithesis Than Harmony, Part I
• Christianity & Evolution: More Antithesis Than Harmony, Part III

Footnotes

1. John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1994), 164. ↩︎
2. Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 28–30; John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). ↩︎
3. S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019). ↩︎
4. Gregory of Nazianzus, “To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius” (Letter 101), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature, 1894), 440. ↩︎
5. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 2:577. ↩︎