The scientific explanation of human origins consists of the synthetic theory of biological evolution. In the scientific view, the Genesis 1 creation account could be a hymn, or literary exposition, but not an acceptable explanation of human origins as its basis is not upon the observation and replication inherent in scientific methodology. While science constitutes the paradigm of secular humanists, many scientists nevertheless remain committed Jews and Christians. Just because a researcher utilizes the scientific method does not make him or her secular or an unbeliever.

You may find that there exists much in science that you will accept as adequate explanation based upon what scientists know of the ancient world. You also may find that there exists much in religious faith, while not explained by science, which can only be understood as the creative acts of God. Consider now these two approaches in explaining the origin of human life.

The Biblical Account of Human Life

Creationism, the understanding that God brought into being the universe and all life forms, has developed along several lines giving rise to a number of theological models accounting for humanity’s presence in the world. These ideologies have religious faith and divine revelation (the domain of special revelation in theological terminology) in common.

As Christians, we believe that God created everything in the physical universe by and through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16 NASB; John 1:3 NASB). We freely admit that our belief has its basis in faith and not on scientific data, although confirmation of our faith lies in what we encounter in the natural world. We also acknowledge that through science, wherein hypotheses must be testable and verifiable, our knowledge of the physical world advances through systematic observation and the process of testing and falsification of hypotheses. We submit that the scientific method is a tried and effective methodology for coming to understand the nature of the physical world.

We argue that to be credible, any theory explaining the origin of modern human beings and the earth, even the universe itself, must be consistent with God’s word and the findings and evidence of science. Anything less is bad theology, bad science, or both. We reject various creation scenarios based solely on hermeneutics and spurious dogmas as well as evolutionary scenarios which solely explain life as a phenomenon independent of God. In this context, it appears to us that the strongest theoretical explanation of life in the present day world and the past life evidenced in the fossil record lies in creationism.

Creationists hold that the biblical creation account does not contradict true science. Nevertheless, scientific hypothesis testing and religious faith constitute radically different means of coming to a knowledge of the universe and the origin and purpose of life. The former deals with the production of physical facts and offers no purpose for human life. The latter deals with the search for fact, truth and the purpose of human life. They arise from two irreconcilable paradigms. One focuses upon general revelation and the other upon special revelation.

In Christian theology, a domain of special revelation, God’s calling (John 6:44 NASB, John 6:65 NASB) enables people to understand God’s plan and truth. Those who encounter God and have their minds supernaturally opened by God can understand truth in these matters. This rationale limits the secular knowledge scientists can discover, learn, and understand. Absent such a calling they will be “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” 2 Timothy 3:7 NASB). They will only be able to deal with general revelation limiting them to the production of facts not truths. The secular scientific community, on the other hand, sees Christianity and Judaism as hopelessly enmeshed in unproven assumptions, conflicting ideologies, convoluted logic, anti-intellectualism, and religious bias.

DNA and Genetic Change

The Darwinian paradigm for biological evolution had its basis in natural selection wherein some genetic variations increased and others ceased. Darwin’s original theories became inadequate explanations since he did not understand the role of genetics in inheritance.

The chemical basis of inheritance lies in DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Reproduction of DNA in reproductive or “sex” cells, known as gametes, permits transfer of genetic material, called genes, from parent to offspring. An offspring’s genetic endowment consists of the genes acquired from the offspring’s parents. Genes may have alternative forms known as alleles. Some genes have only a single allele and others have more. A population’s gene pool consists of the total aggregate of genes in that population at any one time. Genetic variation arises from the interaction of four natural phenomena: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

• Mutations. A change in genetic code known as a mutation consists of changes in the hereditary instructions contained within a gene. A mutation, the ultimate source of all genetic variation, must occur in reproductive cells to cause genetic change in offspring. The process of mutation involves random genetic change primarily due to chemical factors and ionizing radiation. 
• Gene Flow. The movement of genes from one population to another, describes the process of the loss or gain of genes in a population due to the emigration or immigration of fertile individuals, or the transfer of gametes, between populations. This process introduces new genes into a population resulting in populations becoming more similar to one another. 
• Genetic Drift. The process of genetic drift, dealing with chance preservation or extinction of particular genes, may be defined as a variation in the gene pool, a change in allele frequency, in a small population due to chance. 
• Natural Selection. The process of natural selection refers to the differential survival and reproduction of organisms as a result of their biological characteristics.

The Scientific Explanation of Human Life

Today the prevailing scientific explanation for human origin is the synthetic theory of human evolution, or the scientific theory of evolution, not classical Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. The theory, based upon genetics, serves as the standard scientific explanation of how life evolves. Many religious arguments opposing the theory of evolution focus on classical Darwinism, but biologists and anthropologists abandoned Darwinism many decades ago.

Often the public understands the simple word evolution to mean the rejection of creationism. Ask yourself, is evolution true? is evolution a fact? If you want to invite Christians to an argument tell them that evolution is true. Just the word evolution evokes an emotional response as the word has become for many believers a synonym for the synthetic theory of evolution. In science, the word evolution is not equated with the synthetic theory of evolution.

The word evolution as used in anthropology and the biological sciences is in reference to genetics. It simply means a change of allele frequencies over time. This genetic change operates in our physical world and is vastly important in dealing with viruses, medical conditions, and the biotechnology industry.

With this in mind, microevolution means a change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations. Microevolution involves short-term genetic change or variation, in populations and the phenomena bringing it about. This is simple genetics as it operates in our everyday world. The vast majority of Christians have no objection to the scientific understanding of microevolution as it does not contradict the Bible and Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, the synthetic theory of evolution consists of an explanation for genetic change over deep time wherein long-term patterns of genetic change occur (such as the development of the fetus inside of the mother’s body, the development of upright posture in hominids, and the like). This concept repudiates the biblical creation account and biblical doctrine.

Macroevolution, in simple terms means evolutionary change in relatively large and complex changes over many generations and on taxonomic groups higher than the species level over time. A purist would say selection among interspecific variation, as opposed to selection among intraspecific variation (Gould 2002). Macroevolution, long-term evolutionary change, deals with changes of sufficient magnitude to bring about new taxonomic groups, e.g., new phyla, genera, families.

Some biological scientists have come to challenge some of the assumptions and inferences of the synthetic theory of evolution. Over the last four decades certain empirical conditions have given rise to at least four factors of sufficient complexity and significance to redefine the established theoretical model. These consist of the following: 

1. A rapid increase in fossil discoveries.
2. Technological advances in instrumentation and associated methodologies.
3. Massive amounts of data from the archaeological record.
4. The state of contemporary knowledge in molecular biology. 

While many discoveries have fine-tuned the synthetic theory of evolution, a fair number of the revisions remain incompatible with the underlying model. At this time no coherent alternative model from which a body of theory may be deduced has been produced.

Many, but not all, religious people reject biological evolution. Creationists argue that the scientific method has a flaw which brings with it cultural assumptions and biases such that it cannot by its own definition ever arrive at absolute truth. Moreover, they argue, there exists a “species barrier which cannot be abridged. They claim accounts of “new species” break down under analysis since the argument has its foundation on which factors characterize a species or differentiates one species from another. A Genesis “kind” may or may not be exactly the same as what biologists now call a species. Moreover, the argument reduces to a debate largely over taxons and taxonomy. 

Creationists argue further that evolution also has its basis in faith. They reason that if evolution exists then there must be a mechanism that produces evolution. They contend that belief in such a mechanism requires faith. Hardcore evolutionists respond that the scientific method assumes a knowable universe as a starting point and that this “faith” is no more than a non-issue since “a knowable universe” does not require a creator per se.

Our Understanding

At this time we would argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the universe followed by a time break of an unspecified duration, possibly billions of years, between this original creation (Genesis 1:1) and the work God undertakes at Genesis 1:2-2:1. We reject the idea that the Creation of the universe and then all life fell within the last ten thousand years as there are species on the earth, both flora and fauna, that have been continuously present for millions of years. In biblical understanding, our species (contemporary mankind) is a unique creation of God that had no biological antecedent.

The substance of the punctuated-equilibrium model suggested by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould (Eldredge and Gould 1972; Gould and Eldridge 1977) is consistent with Genesis 1:1-2. The fossil record evidences a process wherein there were a series of long periods of stasis followed by short periods of extinction and speciation. Our world is the outcome of a process which took billions of years.