I love reading, thinking, and talking about creation and scientific fields with which the book of Genesis overlaps. Recently, I have been reading about human origins and when Adam and Eve existed. As much of a controversial topic this is, one question that I think is often misunderstood in this debate, is, “what is a human?”
In my reading on when Adam and Eve existed, William Lane Craig is the only prominent figure who has placed Adam and Eve more than 200,000 years ago in time. There could be many reasons for this, but the strongest reason, I believe, is due to the difficulty in interpreting extremely long gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 1-11. Although many argue that gaps in the genealogies are permissible, it is difficult to rationalize gaps of thousands of years in the genealogies. One other possible reason for the recent bias in the placement of Adam and Eve is due to the hyper fixation on humans as Homo sapiens.
In the whole conversation concerning humans, I think that young-earth creationists statements about what a human is are most consistent with the evidence. That is, a human is not just a person of the species Homo sapiens. According to Answers in Genesis,
Neanderthals were a group of humans, descended from Adam and Eve, who lived in the harsh post-Flood world.1
Answers in Genesis also acknowledges the humanity of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, and others.2
Old-earth creationists, such as those at Reasons to Believe, have put together human origins models which reject the humanity of these species. Fazale Rana states:
The RTB model posits that the hominins, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, were creature made by God that existed for a time and went extinct. These creatures had intelligence and emotional capacity (like most mammals), which enabled them to establish a culture. However, unlike modern humans, these creatures lacked the image of God. Accordingly, they were cognitively inferior to modern humans.3
In my view, the Reasons to Believe model for human personhood has two primary difficulties. The first being that the image of God, which is required for human personhood, is too abstract and subjective. Surely, the text of Genesis is not so scientifically precise to only include Homo sapiens as humans which were made in God’s image. After all, these are modern classifications which should not be so quickly imported into our reading of these texts.
Secondly, the Reasons to Believe model may be at risk of allowing prejudice against ancient Homo sapiens and even other humans which live on earth today. Reasons to Believe acknowledges that these human-like creatures had intelligence and even culture but that these creatures were cognitively inferior. Of course, the Neanderthals were not as technologically advanced as we are today, but there are still cultures today which are technologically deficient, especially compared to those in the modern west. Along with this, even ancient Homo sapiens have biological and behavioral differences from humans today!
For a more precise and consistent criteria for human personhood, anthropologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks list four key characteristics:
- Abstract thinking
- Planning depth
- Behavioral, economic, and technological innovativeness
- Symbolic behavior 4
Without exhaustively sifting through the evidence of each of these hominins, there is evidence that these creatures made instruments, jewelry, weapons, composite tools, art, and significant structures. They also likely conducted collaborative hunting and burial rituals. These activities demonstrate these creatures ability to think abstractly, prospectively plan, innovate, and conduct symbolic rituals.
The evidence puts those who want to exclusively give humanity to Homo sapiens in an uncomfortable position. William Lane Craig puts it this way,
…to deny the humanity of past individuals exhibiting such behavior would permit one similarly to deny the humanity of people living today who share such behavior, which is not only implausible but morally unconscionable.5
If we take this understanding of our human counterparts, important theological implications come from this. These humans are rational beings with souls. Jesus, indeed, died for the sins of these humans as well as for our sins. When we get to heaven, we very well may see Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other humans which do not look identical to our expectations. It is quite humbling to consider this possibility and to remember that these are not just creatures with no worth.
I want to point out that there are other understandings of what humans are. Some posit that it is possible that there are biological humans who do not have souls. This view is much more complicated, so we will not discuss this view today. Perhaps, in another post, we can give a more thorough analysis of this view. If you would like to read more about this view, see S. Joshua Swamidass’s work on The Genealogical Adam and Eve as well as other articles.
- Answers in Genesis. “Who Were the Neanderthals?” Answers in Genesis, last updated August 14, 2019. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthals/who-were-the-neanderthals/
- Answers in Genesis. “Human Evolution” https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOormpLa1yPowoVQHhRQ3rx-F7yNt7HqeCXwf3YEUBtefZ4-155WD
- Rana, Fazale. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity. 2nd ed., Reasons to Believe Press, 2015, p. 223.
- McBrearty, Sally, and Alison S. Brooks. “The Revolution That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior.” Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 39, no. 5, 2000, pp. 453–563. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0435
- Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2021, p. 353.
