Some Recent Developments: Reflections on the Origin of Man

When Charles Darwin began his historic voyage on the Beagle in 1831, many scientists and others of that day believed that the account of man’s creation recorded in Genesis was literally true. The idea that man might have evolved from animal life was not new, but the biblical statement describing man’s origin was generally judged to be reasonable, historically reliable, and consistent with the design which was apparent in nature.

The scientific quest for the origin of man has since led the modern world to accept the theory of evolution. First clearly formulated by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1859), this theory is now believed to account for the origin of all living things. So many scientists in so many disciplines have committed themselves to the evolutionary concept, that the theory today dominates the thinking of our age.

Kinds and Species

Although biblical language speaks of the creation of different kinds of living things, the idea of special creation was soon conjoined with belief in a special creative act for each species. Darwin thought this to be unreasonable. Observing the tremendous number of species in the world, he subscribed to the theory that all species were derived from previous species over a long course of time. To explain this he developed the principles of variation and natural selection which are still the basis for evolutionary theory. Variation is observable, and Darwin recognized that here was a process which might account for evolution. In the reproduction of almost all living things, far more individuals are produced than ever survive. Perhaps some small variation enables certain individuals in a given plant or animal population to adapt successfully to a given environment. These individuals, the product of natural selection, in their reproduction enhance or develop that difference until eventually a new variety, species, or kind of living things, evolves.

However, plants and animals apparently are designed for their particular environment and way of life, and scientists are still perplexed in seeking to account for these specializations by mechanisms of internal change and environmental selection (cf. C. L. Prosser, American Scientist, vol. 47, p. 536 [1959]; J. B. S. Haldane, Nature, vol. 183, p. 713 [1959]; C. H. Waddington, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 2, p. 379 [1959]). Biologists have not really proposed any adequate explanation for the apparent design and purpose in nature.

Geology and Fossils

The common belief (recall Bishop Ussher’s chronology of 1654) in the mid-nineteenth century was that the earth was but 6000 years old. Yet it is clear that the majestic statement in Genesis 1:1 which says that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is chronologically unrelated to that which follows. Before long, however, scientific study attested a much greater antiquity for the earth. It was affirmed that evolution must be a very slow process, requiring much more time than a 6000-year-old earth would permit. Once it was persuasively argued that the earth was at least several million years old, the theory of evolution became far more reasonable. Geologists have long been aware that the earth’s crust may be described in terms of layers which provide evidence for many long periods of time in the earth’s history. Attention was turned to the study of fossils as well as to living things in order to support Darwinism with experimental evidence. The discovery of fossils in these layers, their identification, and studies of their age have provided the definitive data for the theory of evolution.

The search for fossils had begun long before Darwin’s time, and the general nature of geological strata was well known. The earliest fossiliferous period had been characterized as the Cambrian—an approximately 500 million-year-old stratum representing about 80 million years. In it had been found what was then the earliest fossil evidence for living things, and it was recognized that here all known plant and invertebrate animal phyla appeared suddenly and contemporaneously, and differentiated into classes and orders. Although now there does appear to be evidence of Precambrian life, there is still lacking rational evidence to account for the origin of these admittedly highly developed kinds of living things. It was also known that in the Silurian layer—an approximately 350 million-year-old stratum representing about 30 million years—the vertebrate phyla appeared suddenly and fully developed with no fossil evidence to account for their origin (cf. A. H. Clark, Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 3, p. 523 [1928]; A. S. Romer, ibid., vol. 21, p. 33 [1946]). Darwin recognized in his day that this was serious evidence against his theory. Today, 100 years later, the paleontological evidence which a concept of “total evolution” requires is absent, although we do have convincing evidence that development has indeed taken place but possibly only within restricted limits.

The classical example of evolution, and one of the few which is documented with fossil evidence, is that of the horse. If the modern horse has evolved as the evidence indicates, a question which needs to be answered is, “Do we have evidence that the horse has developed from something other than a kind of horse, or is this only evidence that evolution has occurred within this particular kind of living thing?”

The geological dating techniques which have been used in order to assign ages to fossils, involve stratigraphy and paleontology (cf. A. Knopf, Scientific Monthly, vol. 85, p. 225 [1957]). These procedures attempt to establish relative geological sequences and assign to them their proper ages. The dating of rocks by radioactive techniques, such as the determination of the U238/Pb206 isotope ratio, has provided data which to a very large extent has confirmed the ages which have been assigned to various geologic eras. Such evidence compels us to reckon with the fact that life upon the earth is not “recent” (e.g. 6000 years). Our exegesis of Genesis must take this into account.

However, this radioactive dating procedure has not lent itself to the study of man’s ancestry since this search involves the paleontology of the Pleistocene period which is too recent for the uranium series of transformations to give useful information.

Dating of Early Man

In the study of early man one has had to rely upon standard geological dating methods until the carbon-14 radioactive method was developed by Dr. Libby. It is generally agreed that this new method is extremely reliable and is capable of determining ages of organic matter up to 60,000 years old with a high degree of probability. But for the most part the dates which have been given to the various examples of early man have been assigned without benefit of this method. In recent years the carbon-14 method has been used in an attempt to verify these earlier assignments, and it has become apparent that serious errors have been made in standard geological dating.

In Dr. Libby’s study of late-Pleistocene geology and archeology, it became clear that the dating which had been done was inaccurate, and the resulting chronology was quite insecure (cf. W. F. Libby, Radioactive Dating, [University of Chicago Press, 1952], p. 101). The dating of early man in North America is related to the Mankato glaciation in Wisconsin which was previously dated at 25,000 years ago. This has now been radiocarbon-dated at 11,000 years ago (ibid., p. 105). The cranium of Piltdown man (after the discovery of the hoax in 1953) was estimated to be 50,000 years old but is now reported to be 620 years old (cf. H. deVries and K. P. Oakley, Nature, vol. 184, p. 224 [1959]). The striking paintings of the Lascaux caves, considered to be the art of primitive man, were assigned an age of about 60,000 years but recent carbon-14 analyses indicates an age of about 15,000 years (Lascaux Caves: The Grotto of Lascaux, by Jean Taralon, Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques, Grand Palais, Cours La Reine, Paris VIII). The discovery of a complete but apparently ancient skeleton in Australia a few years ago led to an assignment of 125,000 years old but was subsequently dated as 6000 years old by carbon-14.

An Obscure Search

The search for primitive man was perhaps first rewarded with the discovery of Neanderthal man near the Neander River in Germany in 1856. Dated geologically to be 60,000 years old, Neanderthal man is said to represent an early stone age culture in Europe and is often called the first cave dweller. The original 14 bones were reconstructed by Boule into a hunched-back creature with head thrust forward, knees bent, and flat feet. In 1957, Neanderthal man was rereconstructed and found to be posturally identical to modern man and in other respects essentially human (cf. L. Eiseley, Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 32, p. 323 [1957]; F. C. Howell, ibid., p. 330; W. L. Straus, Jr., and A. J. E. Cave, ibid., p. 348). Subsequently the assignment of separate species status for many fossil hominids which, like Neanderthal man were considered to be distinctly outside the known limits of human variation, has been questioned (cf. W. E. LeGros Clark, American Scientist, vol. 47, p. 299 [1959]). The recent studies of Australopithecus, the southern ape-man of Africa, have resulted in controversy over its meaning and importance in the problem of man’s origin (cf. Nature, vol. 183, p. 159 [1959]). The discovery of Zinjanthropus in Kenya by Dr. Leakey similarly provides evidence used to support the concept of the animal origin of man. In each case, however, it is clear that the ages which have been assigned are uncertain. Until reliable dating is done, it cannot really be known whether these fossils represent possible evolutionary intermediates. Without this information a logical sequence of fossils cannot be constructed. It is therefore not surprising that the scientific search for the course of man’s origin remains obscure. (cf. W. L. Straus, Jr., Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 24, p. 200 [1949]; F. C. Howell, Science, vol. 130, p. 831 [1959]).

God and the Enigma

The biblical statement of the creation of different kinds of living things does not rule out the development of new varieties or species. It is not unreasonable biologically or biblically to consider that God gave to living things the capacity to change, to develop variety, and to adapt successfully to differing environments. However, we have no record of any living thing changing suddenly or gradually into an entirely different kind of living thing. It would appear therefore that, within certain limits, development has taken place and does still occur. We may not be able to define these limits biologically, but they could be considered to be the kinds of life to which Genesis refers. Such a view is consistent with all that we know at the present time.

Scripture indicates that God created Adam, and then Eve, and that they were the product of a creation that was distinctly separate from that of the animal kingdom. When this occurred, and how they might have differed from us, we do not know. But it is not irrational or unreasonable in the light of present scientific knowledge to believe that the Genesis account of the origin of man is divinely inspired recorded history.

Sterling Winthrop Research Institute

Rensselaer, New York

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.