...and does it matter? Part 2 of 3.

Editorial introduction: Following his opening article last week on scientific evidence for a Creator, Paul Garner looks at three more theological problems presented by an ‘old Earth’ model of history.

4. Thorns and Thistles Before Sin

An ‘old Earth’ model forces us to accept that ‘thorns and thistles’ have been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans appeared or sin entered the world.

The biblical term ‘thorns and thistles’, used in Genesis 3:18, seems to be a ‘catch-all’ that embraces all plants with thorns, spines and prickles.¹ Botanically speaking, these terms have different meanings. Thorns are derived from shoots and spines from leaves or some part of a leaf. Both contain plant vascular tissue. Prickles are derived from the outer epidermis of the plant and do not contain vascular tissue. Plants with these features are known in the fossil record at least as far back as the Lower Devonian Period, conventionally 419-393 million years ago.

Lower Devonian examples include the spiny species Psilophyton princeps,² Drepanophycus spinaeformis³ and Sawdonia ornata⁴. Spiny cacti⁵ and prickly roses^6,7 date back to the Eocene Epoch, conventionally 56-34 million years ago. But the existence of these plants long before there were humans runs counter to the biblical claim that thorns and thistles were brought forth only as a result of human sin.

Genesis 3:17-18 tells us that the ground was cursed because of Adam’s sin, and that his life subsequently became one of sweat, sorrow, hardship and toil. From that time, thorns and thistles have been a constant reminder of the curse that God pronounced.

Thorns before sin...or as a result of sin?The connection between thorns and thistles and human sin is illustrated most graphically in the crown of thorns that adorned Christ at his crucifixion, as he bore the curse in our place (Matt 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5). But how can thorns and thistles symbolise the effects of the curse if they were around for hundreds of millions of years before Adam sinned, and were a normal part of the world that God described as “very good” (Gen 1:31)?

5. No Adam and Eve Ancestral to All Humans

Fifth, we would have to accept that there was no first human couple, and that humans were not all descended from Adam and Eve.

Modern humans have a fossil record that can be traced back a very long way - according to conventional dating methods. The first modern humans are thought to have appeared in Africa around 300,000-200,000 years ago.^8,9 Some of their descendants are thought to have migrated out of Africa as early as 177,000 years ago,¹⁰ followed by a more lasting dispersal event beginning about 74,000 years ago.¹¹ Modern humans then spread along the southern coastline of Asia, reaching Australia by about 65,000 years ago,¹² Europe by about 45,000-40,000 years ago^13,14 and the Americas by about 24,000 years ago.¹⁵

So even if we consider only members of our own species (Homo sapiens), there is no way that all humans alive today could be descended from one man unless Adam lived at least 300,000-200,000 years ago.¹⁶ This is problematic, given that a straightforward reading of the biblical genealogies (e.g. Gen 5:1-32, 11:10-32) indicates that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago.¹⁷

How can thorns and thistles symbolise the effects of the curse if they were around for hundreds of millions of years before Adam sinned, as a normal part of God’s ‘very good’ world?

Even if the genealogies are incomplete, as some argue, the amount of time that can be inserted into them is extremely limited. Since the fathers listed in Genesis 11 had their sons at age 35 or less, about 300 missing generations would be needed to add even 10,000 years to the chronology.

To extend the date of Adam’s creation back to 200,000 years we would have to insert 6,000 missing generations – clearly an absurdity in genealogies that together contain only 20 generations! And the problem gets worse if we consider earlier members of our genus to be descendants of Adam too. Homo ergaster and Homo erectus have a fossil record going back almost two million years!¹⁸

An alternative is to locate Adam much more recently in history, say less than 20,000 years ago. This is more in line with the biblical genealogies, but it would mean that Adam could not be the ancestor of most people living today, for the simple reason that humanity was already widely dispersed across the globe by that time. This runs counter to the biblical claim that Adam was the first man (1 Cor 15:47), Eve the mother of all living (Gen 3:20) and that all humans that have ever lived arose from this one, primordial couple (e.g. Acts 17:26).

It also raises disturbing questions about the spiritual status of the Homo sapiens that lived before Adam. Did they bear the image of God, or were they animals? And what about the people alive today that are descended from those other Homo sapiens, and not from Adam? If Adam was not the first man, but only one among many, the implications are startling and far-reaching.¹⁹

6. No Worldwide Flood

Sixth, we would have to accept that there was no worldwide flood within human history.

Lifesize ark built to Noah's specifications (Kentucky, USA).

Assuming the standard geological time-scale, most of the sedimentary rocks, with their enclosed fossils, were deposited in the hundreds of millions of years before humans made their first appearance. It logically follows from this premise that these sediments could not be the product of a global flood within human history.

Furthermore, the sediments that were formed since the first appearance of humans in the fossil record show no signs of having been deposited in a global flood. They mostly represent the deposits of ‘normal’ environments such as lakes, rivers and shallow oceans.²⁰ Thus, there is no place in the standard chronology for a global flood. In fact, even a geographically local but anthropologically universal flood cannot be accommodated unless the Flood was a very long time ago, since we have already noted how widely distributed humans have been for many tens of thousands of years according to conventional dating.

The biblical genealogies do not allow us to place Noah so far back in history, and in any case the idea of a local flood runs counter to the many lines of biblical evidence that point to a global flood.²¹ Others have suggested that the Flood may indeed have been global, but that it left no trace in the geological record. But a geologically ‘tranquil’ global flood is a contradiction in terms, and there is no evidence in the fossil record that human populations were ever wiped out by such an event.

The biblical claim is that Adam was the first man (1 Cor 15:47), Eve the mother of all living (Gen 3:20) and that all humans that have ever lived arose from this one, primordial couple.

Was the Original Creation “Very Good”?

Big questions confront us as we consider the logical consequences of embracing the old-Earth chronology. Perhaps the biggest is whether a world replete with death, agony, sickness and disease for hundreds of millions of years is compatible with the biblical description of a world that was “very good” in the beginning. If physical death was not the consequence of human sin but a normal part of the world from the outset, then what are the implications for our theology of Christ’s atonement and bodily resurrection?

Some may be tempted to say that the ‘death’ attributed in the Bible to Adam’s sin refers only to ‘spiritual’ death. But if that were the case, why was it necessary for Christ to suffer and die physically in order to save us?^22,23 Others will perhaps say that the death and suffering of animals for millions of years before the first appearance of humans is of no theological consequence because the death brought by Adam’s sin applied only to humans. But this is to downplay what the Bible says about animal suffering and death, which is connected to human sin in many passages.²⁴ And problems remain even if we consider only human death and suffering.

Consider Neanderthals, for instance. Neanderthals, whose fossil remains are conventionally dated to 250,000-40,000 years ago, are known to have suffered from bone fractures,²⁵ arthritis,²⁶ dental abscesses,²⁷ infectious diseases²⁸ and abnormalities arising from malnutrition.^29,30 One Neanderthal individual appears to have sustained crush injuries and head trauma, perhaps from a rock fall; he was probably also blinded in his left eye.³¹ Another shows evidence of widespread degenerative joint disease, as well as a rib fracture and loss of teeth.³²

Stringer and Gamble write that “evidence of injury or disease in some form or another is found in almost all reasonably complete adult Neanderthals.”³³ Are these Neanderthals descendants of Adam, suffering the effects of the Fall? If so, Adam must have lived a very long time ago - much further back than even the most generous interpretation of the biblical genealogies would allow. But if these Neanderthals lived before Adam, what are we to make of their cultural continuity with modern humans? Neanderthals are known to have manufactured stone tools and bone implements,³⁴ worn jewellery^35,36,37 and buried their dead.³⁸ In fact, genome sequencing has revealed that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred with one another.³⁹ Most modern Europeans and Asians have some Neanderthal genes – are Europeans and Asians the offspring of bestiality?

It is also important to note that all these problems apply as much to the old-Earth creationist model as to the theistic evolution model (both defined last week). If we accept the standard geological time-scale, we must abandon much well-established biblical theology.

Conclusion: Only the Young-Earth Model Explains the Data

It seems to me that we can only make sense of both the biblical and the scientific data if we are ready to question the standard time-scale and embrace the shorter chronology proposed by the young-Earth model. According to young-Earth creationism, the world was created in six days about 6,000 years ago.

From this perspective, the fossil record is a witness to the thousands of years of biblical history, not to the hundreds of millions of years of the old-Earth model. In fact, in the young-Earth model much of the fossil record is considered to have formed during the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah.⁴⁰

Is a world replete with death, agony, sickness and disease for hundreds of millions of years compatible with the biblical description of a world that was “very good” in the beginning?

The death, agony, sickness and disease evidenced in the fossil record is thus a snapshot of what the world was like at the time of that global judgment, not what it was like at the time of Creation. And the fossil record of humans is telling us a story not about human origins but rather about the patterns of human migration and dispersal after the Flood.⁴¹ In other words, in young-Earth creationism it is not our theology of the goodness of Creation or the atonement that we must re-think, but our scientific interpretations - specifically our understanding of the geological record and its millions-of-years time-scale.

Undoubtedly this is a radical proposal, one that requires many aspects of Earth history to be carefully re-considered. In fact, it is so radical it raises an obvious and pressing question: is such a wholesale re-envisioning of Earth history scientifically viable? Is it really credible to contemplate an Earth history spanning only thousands, rather than millions of years? What about the ‘mountains of evidence’ said to favour an old Earth? These are very good questions and I shall seek to address them in my next article.

References

1 Catchpoole, D, 2012. A thorny issue. Creation, 34(3):52-55.

2 Lang, WH, 1931. On the spines, sporangia, and spores of Psilophyton princeps, Dawson, shown in specimens from Gaspé. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 219:421-442.

3 Rayner, RJ, 1984. New finds of Drepanophycus spinaeformis Göppert from the Lower Devonian of Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 75:353-363.

4 Rayner, RJ, 1983. New observations on Sawdonia ornata from Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 74:79-93.

5 Chaney, RW, 1944. A fossil cactus from the Eocene of Utah. American Journal of Botany, 31:507-528.

6 Becker, HF, 1963. The fossil record of the genus Rosa. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 90:99-110.

7 DeVore, ML and KB Pigg, 2007. A brief review of the fossil history of the family Rosaceae with a focus on the Eocene Okanogan Highlands of eastern Washington State, USA, and British Columbia, Canada. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 266:45-57.

8 Hublin, JJ, Ben-Ncer, A, Bailey, SE, et al, 2017. New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature, 546:289-292.

9 Richter, D, Grün, R, Joannes-Boyau, R, et al, 2017. The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age. Nature, 546:293-296.

10 Hershkovitz, I, Weber, GW, Quam, R, et al, 2018. The earliest modern humans outside Africa. Science, 359:456-459.

11 Appenzeller, T, 2012. Eastern odyssey. Nature, 482:24-26.

12 Clarkson, C, Jacobs, Z, Marwick, B, et al, 2017. Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago. Nature, 547:306-310.

13 Higham, T, Compton, T, Stringer, C, et al, 2011. The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern Europe. Nature, 479:521-524.

14 Benazzi, S, Douka, K, Fornai, C, et al, 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behavior. Nature, 479:525-528.

15 Bourgeon, L, Burke, A and Higham, T, 2017. Earliest human presence in North America dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: new radiocarbon dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada. PLoS ONE, 12(1):e0169486.

16 And even then, it is claimed based on studies of modern genetic diversity that the ancestral population size of Homo sapiens cannot have been lower than about 10,000 individuals. See Venema, D, 2010. Genesis and the genome: genomics evidence for human-ape common ancestry and ancestral hominid population sizes. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 62:166-178.

17 Garner, P, 2009. The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation. Evangelical Press, Darlington, pp66-70.

18 Wood, B, 2005. Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp84-93.

19 Lloyd, S, 2017. Chronological creationism. Foundations, 72:76-99.

20 For example, in England and Wales, deposits assigned to the Pleistocene (conventionally dated from 2.58 million years ago to 11,700 years ago) include scattered outcrops of glacial and interglacial sediments and cave deposits. See Boulton, GS, 1992. Quaternary, pp413-444 in Duff, PMD and Smith, AJ (eds), Geology of England and Wales. The Geological Society, London.

21 Lloyd SJ, 2014. Flood theology: why does Noah's flood matter? Origins, 59: 4-8.

22 Lloyd, S, 2009. Christian theology and Neo-Darwinism are incompatible: an argument from the resurrection, pp1-29 in Finlay, G, Lloyd, S, Pattemore, S and Swift, D, Debating Darwin. Two Debates: Is Darwinism True & Does it Matter? Paternoster, Milton Keynes.

23 Lloyd, see ref. 19, pp86-89.

24 As we have already noted, this connection is evident in the Flood account but is seen also in the Passover narrative (Ex 12:12, 29) and in the fate of the animals in Nineveh (Jon 3:7-8, 4:11), as well as many other passages. It also provides the basis for the Old Testament sacrificial system.

25 Berger, TD and Trinkaus, E, 1995. Patterns of trauma among Neandertals. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22:841-852.

26 Dawson, JE and Trinkaus, E, 1997. Vertebral osteoarthritis of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 Neanderthal. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24:1015-1021.

27 Brothwell, DR, 1959. Teeth in earlier human populations. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 18:59-65.

28 Fennell, KJ and Trinkaus, E, 1997. Bilateral femoral and tibial periostitis in the La Ferrassie 1 Neanderthal. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24:985-995.

29 Guatelli-Steinberg, D, Larsen, CS and Hutchinson, DL, 2004. Prevalence and the duration of linear enamel hypoplasia: a comparative study of Neandertals and Inuit foragers. Journal of Human Evolution, 47:65-84.

30 Barrett, CK, Guatelli-Steinberg, D and Sciulli, PW, 2012. Revisiting dental fluctuating asymmetry in Neandertals and modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 149:193-204.

31 Trinkaus. E, 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. Academic Press, New York.

32 Stringer, C and Gamble, C, 1994. In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson, p95.

33 Stringer and Gamble, see ref. 32, p94.

34 Hayden, B, 1993. The cultural capacities of Neandertals: a review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution, 24:113-146.

35 Radovčić, D, Sršen, AO, Radovčić, J and Frayer, DW, 2015. Evidence for Neandertal jewelry: modified white-tailed eagle claws at Krapina. PLoS ONE, 10(3):e0119802.

36 Finlayson, C, Brown, K, Blasco, R, et al, 2012. Birds of a feather: Neanderthal exploitation of raptors and corvids. PLoS ONE, 7(9):e45927.

37 Welker, F, Hajdinjak, M, Talamo, S, et al, 2016. Palaeoproteomic evidence identifies archaic hominins associated with the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113:11162-11167.

38 Hayden, see ref. 34.

39 Pääbo, S, 2014. Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes. Basic Books, New York, pp185-195.

40 Garner, see ref. 17, pp194-208.

41 Garner, see ref. 17, pp226-238.