Did it Rain before the Flood?
“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate (lit. work) the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground” (2:4-6).

Most of the Bible is straightforward and easy to understand. The Reformer’s called it the “perspicuity of Scripture.” God desires the salvation of all men and has made the way of salvation simple and accessible. You don’t have to be a theologian or rocket scientist to believe that God saves sinners through Jesus’ sin-bearing cross work and death-defeating resurrection. Most of the Bible is easy to understand, but a few passages, like the one above, leave us scratching our heads. Did it rain before the Flood?

If you’re like me, you grew up hearing a theory about a “vapor canopy.” This view was popularized by pastors and Bible teachers who wanted to stay faithful to the text while providing a scientific model for how God watered His plants before rain. The pre-Flood climate, it was argued, was different before the Flood and the earth was wrapped in some kind of green house vapor. Today this is a theory in search of a working scientific model. You no longer have to believe in a vapor canopy to be a card-carrying Creationist.

Some point out that the text does not require us to believe that “mist” was the only water source at work in creation. The presence of the “mist” was more an indicator of God’s provision that a detailed view of the earth’s water cycle. But we’re still stuck with the phrase “…the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth” (2:5). In an article published in the Westminster Theological Journal, one writer argued that the words should be taken at face value. If so, then the text is describing the earth before the earth spouted vegetation:

Verse 5 itself describes a time when the earth was without vegetation. And the significant fact is a very simple one. It is the fact that an explanation–a perfectly natural explanation–is given for the absence of vegetation at that time: “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth”. The Creator did not originate plant life or earth before he had prepared an environment in which he might preserve it without by-passing secondary means and without having recourse to extraordinary means such as marvelous methods of fertilization. The unargued presupposition of Gen. 2:5 is clearly that the divine providence was operating during the creation period through processes which any reader would recognize as normal in the natural world of his day (Meredith Kline’s “Because it Had Not Rained” published in the Westminster Theological Journal). (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html).

No rain and no man to irrigate equals no vegetation. Kline’s main argument is that the text tells us that God used the natural modus operandi of providence in His work of creation. This presupposes, at least for Kline, a figurative chronological framework of the days of creation, because 2:5 insists that God used natural water cycle processes and there is no way that the newly emerged continents could have dried out within 24 hours by natural processes. Based upon his read of Genesis 2:5’s “no rain”, Kline is inclined to believe that the days of creation were never meant to be read as 24 hour days of one earth week.

Vapor canopies? Figurative frameworks? Both theories suffer from reading into the text instead of reading the text within it’s context (which is basic Bible study). Both camps want to take the text seriously, but because they read “earth science” into the passage, one group has to invent a different water cycle and the other has to read the days in a figurative way. Thankfully, there is a much simpler explanation for the “no rain upon the earth” (2:5) and it is found within the near context.

The simplest explanation for “the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth” is that the writer is alluding to the Flood. The “rain” in question here refers to the “rain” that God sent as judgment against humanity. I will highlight the phrase so that you can see it:

“the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth” (Gen. 2:5)

“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights” (Gen. 7:4)

Which is easier, to read the passage in its near context or to re-invent the earth’s water cycle (i.e. evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation)? I think its better Bible study to say that Moses is describing the land before the effects of the Fall and God’s judgment. If this is so, the other features of the text should bear this out. The table below shows you the connections.

Moses is not interested in telling us about the water cycle, but he is interested in telling us about what things were like before the Fall and before the Flood. The words “plant of the field”, “work the ground” and “the LORD God had not sent rain” anticipate the curse that would come from Adam’s rebellion. Reading Genesis 2:4-6 is like watching a movie with a soundtrack that alerts you that something or someone dark is coming. It’s Moses’ “Darth Vader” theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8). Noted Hebrew scholar John Sailhamer agrees:

“the narrative points to the fact that before man was created (in vs. 7), the effects of man’s rebellion and the Fall had “not yet” been felt on the land. In the subsequent narratives, each of the parts of the description of the land in vv. 4-6 is specifically identified as a result of the fall of man” (Sailhamer, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 40).

Again, which is easier, to relate the exact words of chapter two with the  corresponding words of chapter three (see the table) or to re-engineer the plain meaning of the “days” in Genesis 1 so that you can build a figurative framework?

But what about the Rainbow?
I’m so glad that you asked! People who hold to the “vapor canopy” view, which is like trying to hold water (Sorry, but I couldn’t resist) find additional support for their view in the rainbow:

“I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen. 9:13-15).

The most obvious thing to say is that the text does not say that this was the first rainbow. (Gn. 9:13). Instead, what we see is that God is attaching a new significance to the rainbow by means of a promise. So the next time it rains and you see a rainbow, remember to give thanks to God for keeping His promises.

Next Time: Was Noah’s Flood Local, Universal or Global?

It was March of 1898 and the British were building a railway bridge of the river Tsavo in Kenya. The days were filled with hard labor under the African sun, but the nights were filled with heart-stopping terror. Two lions stalked the camp site in the darkness, slipping into worker’s tents and dragging their victims off to a bone-shattering death. Campfires were stoked at night in the hopes of scaring the lions away and worker’s hastily erected a thorn fence around the perimeter of the camp with Acacia trees, but the man-eaters would not be stopped. Soon after, all work on the bridge ground to a halt as hundreds of laborers fled the appetite of the lions. Lieutenant-Colonel John Henry Patterson eventually killed both lions, one of which measured over 9 feet long and took eight men to carry it’s dead carcass back to the camp (thanks Wikipedia!). The bridge was completed in February of 1899, but the cost in human life was high. Today, the lions of Tsavo are on display in the Chicago Field Museum and the bravery of Patterson is portrayed in the 1996 movie The Ghost and the Darkness starring iconic 80’s actors Michael Douglas and Val Kilmer.

Lions are apex predators and humans will sometimes find themselves on the menu, but have these creatures always been meat-eaters? Did God design lions to be predators or is all predatory behavior in wild animals the result of Adam’s rebellion against God? Could Adam have been eaten by a lion before the Fall?

Once again, Christians tend to fall into two interpretive camps. Young Earth Creationists (YEC) believe that animal and human death followed Adam and Eve’s decision to choose the good without God and Old Earth Creationists (OEC) believe that death was already at work in creation, but it did not put its cold blight on humanity until Adam’s sin. Here’s my position: ADAM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EATEN BY A LION BEFORE THE FALL, but the reason why I hold this position might surprise you.

Where do we begin? As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is always true and never wrong, but I’ll add a helpful qualifier from NT scholar Paul Feinburg, “…when all the facts are known and …are properly interpreted.” So, let’s open a Bible to the book of Genesis and do our best to interpret the facts.

The YEC View: Death was Not at Work before the Fall of Mankind into Sin
“Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the land, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the land and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the land which has life, I have given every green plant for food’; and it was so” (Gen. 1:29-30).

A quick read of the early chapters of Genesis points to the YEC view. Genesis 1:29-30 seems to say that both man and animals were originally vegetarians. Remember, the text is absorbed with the edible vegetation and fruit trees that God is providing for people and the creatures within the Promised Land. It should be noted that there is no prohibition in this passage. The first prohibition (i.e. you shall not) in the story concerns fruit-eating, not meat-eating (2:17), but on the surface, it does seem like everyone and every creature in the land were vegetarians. It is only after the flood that God permits the consumption of animals:

“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:3-4).

Young earther’s find further support for their position in Paul’s letter to the Romans. In a passage designed to show us how the obedience of Jesus is greater in impact than the disobedience of Adam, we read:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

Obviously, some kinds of “death” were at work before the Fall: skin cells flaked off, bugs may have been consumed by birds and fish and plants pulled up from the roots by grazers “died”, but human and animal death came into this world only after Adam’s rebellion. This means that lions were originally vegetarians. Adam could only have been eaten by a lion after his eviction from the garden in a newly fallen world, now splashed red in tooth and claw.

The OEC View: Death was at Work before the Fall but not in the Garden and not in Humanity
“Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the land, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the land and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the land which has life, I have given every green plant for food’; and it was so” (Gen. 1:29-30).

First, let’s make the main thing the plain thing. Genesis 1:29-30 is less about the menu and more about the generosity of God who provides for His creatures. Note the phrase, “Behold, I have given…” (1:29). The point of these verses is not to suggest that lions were or were not vegetarians, but that all creatures received their sustenance from God. This stands in contrast to pagan stories where man is created to toil in order to feed the gods and free them up from manual labor.

Second, we must resist the urge to read a menu-restriction into the story where there isn’t one. Strictly speaking, the text does not say that meat could not be eaten or that only fruit was to be eaten. There is only one prohibition (i.e. you shall not) in the story and that involves a test of man’s obedience (2:16-17). The text isn’t interested in answering all our questions about the full range of menu options; it has a different story to tell. Please refer back to my earlier posts about how to read the early chapters of Genesis.

There are clues in the text, however, that lead me to believe that death was already at work in the animal kingdom outside the Garden. By themselves, these are not very load-bearing, but when you put them together they open the door to the possibility of death at work before the Fall.

1. The Protection Motif
“Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it” (Gen. 2:15 emphasis mine).

This is not the first time we read that God “placed” Adam in the Garden, but the word that Moses uses here in 2:15 is different than the word used in 2:8. Here the word carries the ideas of safety (Gen. 19:16) and rest (Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19). The same word is used of angels seizing the hands of Lot and his family and placing him outside of Sodom before fire consumed the city (Gen. 19:16). Why choose a word that implies safety from danger? Could it be that dangerous things lurked outside the safety of the Garden? Things like lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!

This word is the first hint that danger exists outside the Garden in Eden. God puts Adam in the Garden for his protection and man is safe in His presence. Interestingly, protection from wild beasts is a motif promised by God in connection with His covenants. God promises protection to Noah from wild beasts in Gen. 9:2 and later to Israel in the Promised Land (Exod. 23:29).

2. The implication of “surely die”
“The LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die’” (2:16-17).

Here we find provision, and for the first time in the story, prohibition and the threat of death. Adam may eat freely (that’s generous provision), but one fruit is excluded from the menu. Should Adam disobey God, death would result, but doesn’t this assume that Adam had some understanding of death? And if he did, where did he get this understanding? I can imagine danger and death at work outside the garden and Adam being aware of it.

3. The Creation of Wild Beasts and Prey
“You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey and they seek their food from God. When the sun rises they withdraw and lie down in their dens” (Ps. 104:20-22).

Psalm 104 is a poem expressing God’s care and delight in His good creation. The psalm follows the creation account of Genesis 1 with each day of creation as a starting point for praising God. All of creation is dependent on God, including the lions who roar after their prey. Interestingly, lions are created as meat-eaters in this poetic retelling of the Genesis 1 creation story. In this creation poem, death is at work in the animal kingdom, “You take away their spirit, they expire and return to their dust” (104:29).

What about Romans 5:12? A careful reading of Romans chapter 5 reveals that Paul is concerned with death at work in humanity. It’s focus is on man and the impact of the two “Adams” on people, not the animal kingdom. I would not press Romans 5 into the service of answering our questions about animal predation before the Fall.

Taken together, the above texts and their implications keep me open to the idea of animal predation before the Fall. It seems as though death was at work, not in man, but in the animal kingdom outside the Garden. This view compliments the fossil record which shows the death and extinction of many animals before the later creation of mankind (including dinosaurs).

So, could Adam have been eaten by a lion?
Even though death may have already been at work in the animal kingdom, Adam could not have been eaten by a lion before the Fall because God had “placed” him in the Garden (Gen. 2:15). The Garden in Eden was a place of safety and rest in God’s presence. He would have been beyond the reach of tooth and claw. This is a timeless spiritual lesson for us. Everything good is to be found in God’s presence, but outside of the presence of God we find danger, death and destruction.

Death is a terrible judgment on humanity. In the words of the rock band Switchfoot, “We were meant to live!” The death of Jesus on the cross is not only the end of our moral-debt before a holy God, but the death of Death itself. Everyone who puts their faith in Christ Jesus may have eternal life and be raised from the dead to enjoy a New Creation in the presence of God. It is on this New Heaven and New Earth that “the lion will lie down with lamb” (Isaiah 11:6). Here’s a parting question for you to ponder: If God were to ask you why He should let you live on His New Earth, one where peace reigns and the lion lies down with the lamb, what would you say?

Next Time: Who were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6?

Q: What did Jesus think of His mother Mary? My aim in this episode is to make much of Jesus without putting the mother of our Lord down (and I hope that I have accomplsihed this). This is part one of a two-part question & answer series. Renal and I wish you all a very happy Christmas!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a scientist. My disciplines are steeped in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and its communication, including Biblical theology, systematic theology, hermeneutics, apologetics and evangelism. That said, since the Bible makes claims that touch on the disciplines of science, history, etc., most pastors are required to have a broad knowledge in these areas. This post will address some of the scientific issues touching on human origins, as best as I understand them. I am not a scientist, but I do love science fiction!

Hands down the best Star Wars movie ever made is episode five, The Empire Strikes Back. The story takes place three years after Luke and the Rebel Alliance destroyed the Death Star. In Empire, Luke journeys to a murky planet called Dagobah to train with Jedi Master Yoda. Years earlier, Yoda defeated a dark Jedi on Dagobah and the cave where he died became saturated in the dark side of the force. After a force-training session, Yoda leads Luke near the mouth of the cave:

Luke: There’s something not right…I feel cold.
Yoda: [Pointing in the cave’s direction] That place is strong in the dark side of the force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go.
Luke: What’s in there?
Yoda: Only what you take with you.

Investigating the fossil evidence of human origins is a lot like journeying into the cave on Dagobah—what you find is what you take with you. This was certainly the case with many of the early fossilized remains discovered by Darwinian enthusiasts. In 1912 a lower jaw and part of a skull was unearthed in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible was ape-like, but the skull was very much like a modern human. For almost a half century, “Piltdown Man” was afforded a place in the family photo album of humanity, but in 1953, scientists discovered that the the skull was “human-like” because it was human and the jaw was “ape-like” because it was the jaw of female orangutan. In 1922, not long after the “Piltdown Man” hoax was foisted on us, a prehistoric tooth was discovered in the Upper Snake Creek area of Nebraska. “Nebraska Man” was soon heralded as a man-like North American ape, but later analysis proved that the tooth belonged to neither man nor ape—“Nebraska Man” was an extinct pig! See what I mean? What you see is what you take with you.

The fossil evidence is still a grave yard littered with contention and presupposition. Creationists tend to see human traits like bipedalism as owing to a shared design feature. The God that designed us to flourish in grasslands and forests also designed apes and chimps to thrive in similar terrain. Meanwhile, Darwinian evolutionists take any anatomical and genetic similarities as evidence for family resemblance. Where we see shared design features, they see shared family origins. What follows is a brief look at some of the fossil and genetic issues surrounding the subject of human origins. In you must go.

What about Lucy?
Lucy is the name given to a species of extinct ape called Australopithecus. Darwinian Evolutionists tend to see Lucy as a precursor to modern humanity. In addition to being a tree-climber (arboreal), there is evidence that she had bipedal capacity. Bipedalism is the center of the debate. In the book Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Dr. Rana notes that Lucy’s bipedalism was “facultative”, meaning that Lucy, unlike modern humans, was not obliged to walk upright (p. 37). The rest of Lucy, including cranial and facial features and teeth is distinctly ape-like. There is no evidence of distinctly human culture. Creationists from both Old Earth and Young Earth persuasions tend to see Lucy’s bipedalism as a shared design feature from a loving Creator. The ability to walk upright for extended periods of time enabled her to flourish in a mixed habitat of trees and open savannas.

What about Chimps?
Chimps possess human-like behavioral traits and make great companions for eccentric pop stars. Michael Jackson’s chimp Bubbles slept in a crib at Neverland and even drank tea with the Mayor of Osaka Japan during the King of Pop’s Bad Tour in 1987. Unfortunately, as chimps mature they become too aggressive to serve as human companions. Bubbles was moved to an animal sanctuary and has outlived the King of Pop. He now resides in Florida at the Center for Great Apes. Wikipedia is amazing!

Creationists like me expect some overlap between human and chimp behavior due to shared design features. Like humans, God designed chimps to live in communities that bond together for their survival. Chimps seek shelter from extreme weather in caves and even make crude weapons to hunt their prey. It has even been postulated that chimps fear death, a very human trait. Rana and Ross write:

Chimpanzees grieve the loss of community members and have some fear of dying. This sense of loss and fear need not be understood in evolutionary terms. It could be viewed from a biblical vantage point. As Hugh Ross discusses in Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, birds and mammals are “soulish” creatures created with a capacity for emotion. All such creatures grieve the death of a companion with whom they have formed a strong emotional bond (p. 332).

What about genetic similarity? It has been said that chimps and humans share 99% similarity. Recent studies have reduced the similarity from 99% to 97%, but the gulf is wide. Rana and Ross “bottom-line” it for us:

Though humans and chimpanzees share a high degree of genetic similarity, several recent studies demonstrate that even subtle genetic differences can manifest themselves dramatically in terms of an organism’s anatomy, physiology and behavior (p. 223).

Meanwhile, YEC scientists like Nathaniel Jeanson and Jeffrey Tomkins widen the genetic gulf even more. In an article on the genetic similarity between people and chimps, they write, “Humans and chimpanzees are not 99% identical. They are only 88% identical, which means that the two species differ by nearly 400 million (400,000,000) DNA letters! (p. 296).

The behavioral and genetic similarities between chimps and humans pose no threat to the Genesis origin story, but should a viral-based drug called ALZ-112, originally designed by a scientist trying to save his failing father from Alzheimer’s disease, be unleashed on humanity, it could lead to the end of humanity and the Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

What about Neanderthals?
The Darwinian evolutionary approach to these big game hunters is that they lived anywhere from 400,000 to 40,000 years ago. Unfortunately their existence overlapped with modern Homo sapiens and they were somehow wiped out. Theories about their extinction include everything from climate change, displacement and genocide from their Homo sapien neighbors. They live on in Ben Stiller’s Night at the Museum trilogy and, due to interbreeding, some human populations. According to Swedish Biologist Svante Paabo, Neanderthal DNA makes up 1-2% of the genome of modern people. You could be part Neanderthal!

The Creationist response to these findings is mixed. Old Earth Creationists like Rana and Ross view Neanderthals as non-human hominids created by God. They walked upright and made simple tools, but at the end of the day they were nothing more than sophisticated beasts. Rana and Ross argue that they lacked distinctly human traits like the production of clothing, jewelry and sophisticated tool making (i.e. combining two materials in a process called hafting). They also note some differences in cranial features and suggest that Neanderthals lacked the “smarts” of humanity. What about interbreeding? Rana and Ross acknowledge this, but see it as the result of man’s slide into depravity, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). Gross!

Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, are surprisingly enthusiastic about the recent findings on Neanderthals. YEC’s tend to view Neanderthals as an extinct group of humans. In an article titled “Neanderthals: Our Worthy Ancestors”, Marvin Lubenow cites Neanderthal expert Svante Paabo, “Many would say that a species is a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring with each other and cannot do so with members of other groups. From that perspective we have shown that Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species” (Searching For Adam p. 265).

Like other people groups, Neanderthals were driven to extinction through displacement and genocide. Lubenow cites the example of the Aboriginal Tasmanians, an indigenous people group from Tasmania (a state in Australia). It is estimated that their population ranged anywhere from 3,000 to 15,000 people before British Colonization in 1803. About thirty years later, thanks to disease, displacement and violence, the Tasmanian population was reduced to 200 people. Those remaining were exiled to the Furneaux Islands where disease took its toll. By 1847 the population had dwindled to 47 people. The last person to claim sole Tasmanian descent died in 1905. Aboriginal Tasmanians now live on in mixed descent as some Tasmanian women married outside the tribe. Many YEC’s view Neanderthals in a similar historical light.

What about other tests of humanity? Neanderthals pass the bipedal test and the fertility test (i.e. the ability to mate and produce non-sterile children), but what about cultural tests like clothing and more sophisticated tool making? OEC’s like Rana and Ross see Neanderthals as less-than-human because they appear to have roamed naked and fossil sites lack evidence for needles, awls, ropes, etc. Human sites nearly always show evidence of cloth making materials and jewelry. Interestingly, from the stand point of Genesis, clothing has been a mark of humanity since the Fall of man, “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (3:21). But Lubenow likens the lack of distinctly human culture to other human cultural outliers, like the Fuegian Indians off the tip of South America. Citing indigenous researcher Ashley Montagu, the Fuegians:

…live in perhaps the worst climate in the world, a climate of bitter cold, snow, and sleet, and heavy rains a great deal of the time, yet they usually remain entirely naked. During extremely cold weather they may wear a loose cape of fur and rub their bodies with grease (p. 279).

The Fuegians are fully human, but nomadic and before modernity knocked, often went about buck naked. Perhaps Neanderthals were cultural outliers like this remote tribe?

What about Genetics? Pair or Population?
Today’s scientific community argues that humanity arose from a population of several thousand, not the pairing of Adam and Eve. Once again, ask “What’s in there?” and you will hear the voice of Master Yoda, “Only what you take with you.” Rana and Ross lament:

Most biologists begin their study of human origins with the assumption that humanity evolved from a preexisting lineage of hominids. And if humans evolved, then, by definition, our origin must have started with a population, not two individuals because, according to the tenets of neo-Darwinism, evolutionary transformations are a population- level, not individual-level, phenomenon (p. 350).

Darwinian evolutionists find it hard to believe that two people could account for the vast amount of genetic diversity displayed in humanity. Most creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve with genetic differences and that, following the Fall, mutations added to the diversity we see around us. Is it really possible that two people (or eight if you trace humanity back to the great deluge) can account for it all? Interestingly, a window into this possibility has opened up for us through the discipline of conservation biology. In Who Was Adam?, Rana and Ross report on the findings of a research team exploring the genetic diversity of sheep on a remote island in the southern Indian Ocean. In 1957 two Mouflon sheep were introduced to the isle of Haute. By the 1970’s the population had grown from the two yearlings to 100 sheep, reaching a population peak of 700 by 1977. Rana writes, “The researchers discovered that when they measured [the original population size], the [genetic] diversity exceeded model predictions by a factor of 4.” Perhaps the models geneticists are now using to measure genetic diversity in human origins are also in need of recalibration?

Next Time: Where was the Garden in Eden located and what about the tree of life?

I’m a big reader. At any one time I find myself navigating between 3-4 books. As a child I’d spend hours devouring a good story. I read all the classics. By classics I mean works like The Uncanny X-Men, Daredevil, Web of Spiderman, and the entire Japanese Lone Wolf and Cub series. In between these time honored works I’d pick up Hemingway, J.D. Salinger, Dickens and whatever else was assigned in school. Genre aside, those parts of the story that made the most purchase on my imagination always revolved around the origin and character arc of the principle actors. People come from places and they experience inner transformation as they fumble through life’s difficulties.

The Book of Genesis tells my favorite origin story. The thin pages of my Bible are thick with answers to the big questions that keep us up at night:

Origin: Where did we come from?
Morality: How should we live?
Meaning: What’s our purpose?
Destiny: What happens after we die?

While Genesis tells my favorite origin story, it is not the only origin story from the Ancient Near East (hereafter ANE). The first readers of the Pentateuch were no doubt familiar with these competing origin tales:

• The Atrahasis Epic– Tired of working for the higher gods, the lower deities create mankind to do the work, but when their noise becomes overwhelming, the gods send a flood to wipe them out. Atrahasis, the king of Shuruppak, is warned about the coming flood and builds a boat in which he and animals and birds are saved.
• The Gilgamesh Epic– The story of the deluge is retold, but this time the “Noah” character is named Utnapishtim, who is given advanced notice of the flood by the god Ea. Utnapishtim is granted eternal life and the main character of the epic, a demi-god named Gilgamesh, goes on a quest to find Utnapishtim and discover his secret.
• The Enuma Elish– This story charts the god Marduk’s ascension to the head of the pantheon. He opposes the primordial and chaotic god Tiamat (i.e the primordial sea) and uses her corpse to construct the cosmos.

When it comes to origin stories, it’s not the similarities that matter, it’s the differences. The God of the Bible is different from the gods of the ANE. The little gods of Mesopotamia and Egypt have needs. They need food and create people to work the fields. The God of the Bible has no needs (Ps. 50:12; Acts 17:24-25). As a result, He cannot be bartered with or held hostage. Little gods can be bought off and managed with the proper sacrifices and incantations, not so with Yahweh (the personal name of God in the Old Testament). The little gods of the ANE are just bigger versions of us: fickle, quick to anger and capricious; but the God of the Bible is utterly unique—He is not a bigger version of us and when we are at our best, we become like him. Genesis is not the only origin story from the Ancient Near East, but it is the only one that matters.

The Judeo-Christian story of human origins no longer competes with the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics, but instead with the evolutionary “particles to progress” story spun on PBS channels everywhere. According to this origin story, man evolved from pre-existing hominids. Over the course of time we picked up advantageous “human” traits like bipedalism and skeletal changes that eventually led to bigger brains. Walking upright freed our hands from knuckle-dragging and allowed us to carry tools and spend less energy getting around. Bigger brains allowed for greater social learning and language acquisition. If you are tracking with this origin story, the most noticeably absent person in this tale is God.

Did we evolve from pre-existing hominids, as the “particles to progress” story tells it, or were we created by an immediate act of God? What does the Bible really say about our origins and does it really conflict with what science tells us?

In the next post we’ll examine the creation of man from the standpoint of Genesis and following that we’ll dig into the fossil evidence and the genetics issue, but before we do that I want to pose a question: So what? What’s at stake if there is no God and we simply evolved into bipedal people with big brains? It’s not like the “particles to progress” story is a threat to the future of iphones and the hope of self-driving cars. So what if we’re simply beasts?

If we are beasts, why not act like beasts?
Theodore was a handsome and charismatic young man. He was college educated and showed promise in law school. He was the kind of man that a young woman could feel good about taking home to meet mom and dad, but beneath his charming exterior, Ted Bundy was a monster. Before his execution at the age of 42 in 1989, Bundy confessed to murdering over 30 people. In a correspondence before his death, Bundy exposed his rational for the rape and murder of his victims (Warning: this is sick stuff):

Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgements,” that all value judgments are subjective,  and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.”…[There is no] “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself who has the boldness and daring… to throw off its shackles…Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer?…Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “ good” and others as “immoral” and “bad”?

I know, I know, Bundy was crazy! Most people who espouse atheistic philosophy are not psychopaths. Most people do not go around “Dexter-ing” their fellow humans, but his question won’t be buried: Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer?

Bundy’s logic was simple: It’s not wrong to slaughter animals. People are animals. Therefore it is not wrong to slaughter people [There is no right and wrong]. Did you note Bundy’s appeal to the “age of scientific enlightenment”? Ideas have consequences. If there is no God, there is no timeless, objective moral “ought to” or “ought not to.” Morality becomes radically subjective and nothing more than a social construct. As a daring and sophisticated beast, Bundy simply chose not to follow the construct.

I can almost hear some of my atheistic and agnostic friends getting apoplectic. Surely morality has evolved past “tooth and claw.” We have come a long way from Bronze age morality baby and we know better now. But without an objective moral standard, how do we know what goes on the “naughty list” and stays on the “naughty list”? More than that, as a sophisticated beast, wasn’t Bundy just doing what came natural to him? In his book How to Be An Atheist, Mitch Stokes writes:

According to the evolutionary story, our moral beliefs are merely survival tools, not the apprehending of eternal truths. But it’s plausible that certain currently untoward behaviors aid our survival: rape, aggression, xenophobia, and male promiscuity. These are not only natural but arguably advantageous. Yet they now offend us. Since morality is up to us, however, we can choose to put rape and aggression on the immoral list. This is the good news. But the bad news would be that morality seems to merely a matter of preference. We can choose our standards.

Bundy chose his standards. In this age of scientific enlightenment, he was just connecting the dots. No God—No Objective Morality. No God and man is merely a sophisticated beast. If we are beasts, why not behave like beasts? I’m not saying that it has to go there, I’m saying that without God there’s no rational reason why it ought not.

If we are beasts, why not “do it” like beasts?
The 1980’s was a magical time for music. The Brits brought us the dulcet introspection of Morrissey fronting the Smiths and the happy/sad songs of the Cure. In America, Van Halen popularized the alchemy of screaming guitars and synthesizers. No one has to apologize for the music of the ’80’s. But if the ’80’s was a party, the ’90’s was its hangover: Vanilla Ice’s “Ice, Ice Baby”, Right Said Fred’s “I’m Too Sexy” and Billy Ray Cyrus’ “Acky Breaky Heart.” Somebody stop, I want to get off! The decade had a few stand outs from the emerging alt rock scene, but a time period inaugurated with the lyrical pap and dribble of “Stop. Collaborate and listen. Ice is back with a brand new invention (Actually, he ripped off Freddy Mercury and David Bowie) and ending with, “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals, so let’s do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel” desperately needs a re-write!

The music was bad and the lyrics worse, but bands like The Blood Hound Gang were just connecting the dots of a godless philosophy: If we are beasts, why not “do it” like beasts? If humans have no intrinsic moral worth, then sex is not sacred. Why not “do it” like they “do it” on the Discovery Channel? The answer, of course, is that we are not beasts and sex is something special. The clash of atheistic philosophy and the sacred are put on garish display in the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind starring Russell Crowe. Crowe plays Ronald Nash, a socially awkward and filterless mathematician. In one scene he approaches an attractive and available young woman sitting at the bar. He blunders badly and she suggests, “Maybe you wanna buy me a drink?”

Nash leans in with blunt philosophical honesty, “I don’t know exactly what I’m required to say in order for you to have intercourse with me. But could we assume that I said all that? I mean, essentially all we’re talking about is fluid exchange, right? Could we just go straight to the sex?”

Nash was just connecting the dots, but his request was met with a prompt slap to his face. Really, the slap says it all. Deep down inside, we know that sex is transcendent and much more than the “animal-act”! In fact, upon further examination, when it comes to humanity, there is no animal act. In his book Rumors of Another World, Philip Yancey reminds us:

Human beings experience sex as a personal encounter, not just a biological act. We are the only species that commonly copulates face-to-face, so that partners can look at each other as they mate, and have full body contact. Unlike other social animals, humans prefer privacy for the act.

The way we “do it” gives us away. We do not act like beasts because we are not beasts.

If we are beasts, what happens to equality?
The Declaration of Independence grounds human rights in the benevolence of the Creator:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our dignity comes from God, not from the opinions of others. Our rights comes from God, not from kings and governments. These potent words are founded on the belief in God. Remove God and you lose the inherent dignity of people. Natural selection and philosophical naturalism could never arrive at such a proclamation. When it comes to natural selection it is NOT self-evident that all men are equal: Some are smarter than others, some more attractive, some stronger, etc. These truths are only self-evident from a Judeo-Christian framework.

Ideas have consequences. The evolutionary “particles to progress” story reduces us to sophisticated beasts without an objective moral ought or ought not. We don’t have to act like beasts, but in this origin story there is no rational reason why we shouldn’t. If we are beasts, why not act like beasts? Think about it.

Next Week: Genesis and the creation of man.