Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Studentzzz]

How does Christianity account for the existence of other human species?

Other human species existed for 2 million years before Sapiens cropped up. The most generous estimates suggest that we are a few hundred thousand years old. At one point we shared the planet with at least 6 other human species (Neanderthals, Homo Erectus,etc) who had big brains, communities, cultures, language, used tools, and had compassion and empathy. We even bred with them. How do Christians square this with theology that exalts is as special?

[jimwalton]

I believe in evolution. What science tells us about the development of humanity is still being figured out, but the shape and progression of it is most likely reliable and true.

I believe the Bible. God is the creator. The Genesis account tells us how God ordered the cosmos and Earth to function as His temple, not about its material manufacture. In other words, Genesis 1-2 are not about how the world came to be but rather how they function.

Therefore we have a chain of hominids and various "homo-" species before the advent of Homo Sapiens.

But what the Bible indicates is that a particular point in paleo-anthropological history, humans had developed to the point of being spiritually capable and morally culpable. At that time God invested humans with souls (Gn. 2.7). Their ensoulment exalted them as special, and then God revealed Himself to them (Gn. 2.15ff.). The rest is history—literally.

The biblical story of Genesis kicks in probably in about 6000 BC (give or take, who really knows) during the Neolithic era, and gives us the account of ensouled humanity.

I see no conflict between the Bible and science, between Genesis and "the existence of other human species."

[Studentzzz]

So were Sapiens only ensouled 6000 years ago? History starts 70,000 years ago with the beginning of fictive language, and humans identical to modern Sapiens appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago. Homo Floresiensis only went extinct 13,000 years ago so if humans were ensouled before this time then they too would have had souls just as we do.

Also a different answer told me that all living creatures have souls, not just humans?

[jimwalton]

> So were Sapiens only ensouled 6000 years ago?

We don't really know the era of Adam & Eve. 6000 BC (8000 years ago) is one reasonable guess, but there's no way to really know.

> History starts 70,000 years ago with the beginning of fictive language, and humans identical to modern Sapiens appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago. Homo Floresiensis only went extinct 13,000 years ago so if humans were ensouled before this time then they too would have had souls just as we do.

The Stone Age and the Neolithic Period are considered to be pre-history, ending in about 6000 BC. The history of Mesopotamia is thought to have begun around 6000 BC (date is somewhat flexible). Agriculture was beginning and writing was appearing on the scene. This ties in with the biblical account as I am describing it. Agriculture in the Levant is thought to have emerged around 8000 BC. Evidence of religion (Gobekli Tepe) shows up at around 9000 BC.

We can only speculate about the dates/era of Adam and Eve, but right in this pocket isn't a bad guess. While homo sapiens were thought to have begun to evolve out of homo erectus 350,000 years ago, they were still evolving. The interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans also altered the genetic line (100,000 - 50,000 BC), and we don't recognize homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) until more recently, with an exponential population growth sometime after 10,000 BC, again, in the same general era.

As far as ensoulment, according to the Bible it was a distinct act of God, not anything related to evolution (and hence would not necessarily involve Homo Floresiensis, Neanderthals, et al.). Genesis 2.7 says that when God breathed into humanity (not just an individual) the "breath of life," it was at that time and with that action that humanity ("*ha 'adam*—the article showing it was not an individual's name or even an individual) "became a living soul (*nephesh*)." Humankind is the only creation who is spoken of in this way.

> Also a different answer told me that all living creatures have souls, not just humans?

Genesis 6.17, 7.15, & 22 all mention "the breath of life" pertaining to animals. There is no reason to associate “the breath of life” in these verses with Genesis 2.7, which was a direct action by God. Here the phrase means that they were living beings, not that they were “living souls” (as Gn. 2.7 specifies). They are merely identified as “living things” (Gn. 6.16).

[Not expecting Trump]

One thing that has always kept me from fully reconciling Darwinian evolution and the Bible is death. I don't see any problem with creatures evolving over time, or progressing from one stage to the next, but evolution by means of natural selection depends on some creatures dominating and others dying. Just interested in your thoughts on that and how you see it.

[jimwalton]

Death was in the system before Adam & Eve and before Original Sin. Technically every time A&E walked on the dirt they probably killed something. Did they never step on an ant or swat a fly? When they picked fruit and ate it, they technically "killed" it. If plants could serve as food, plants died. Since death was in the system, there is no reason to draw a false line and say that insects and animals did not. Through sin came the inevitability of death for people ("the day that you eat of it you shall be doomed to die"). Because of sin, people lost access to the tree of life and become fully susceptible to death. The "death" of Gn. 2.15 and of Romans 5.12-21 is a break of fellowship with God.

We are not to think that humans were immortal. When Genesis 2.7 speaks of humanity as being "made of dust," it means that we were mortal by nature. If they were immortal, they didn't need a tree of life. We don't die physically because of our sin, we are separated from God because of it (REAL death). When Romans 5 speaks of death, it speaks not of the expiration of the body, but rather moral and spiritual corruption. After all, Jesus didn't die (Romans 5) to save us from physical death, but from separation from God.

I don't want to say too much, so if you have more questions or want to talk more, just write back.

The death that Genesis 3 and Romans 5 talk about is death that came through sin.