A Personal Note on My Dual Human-Origins Thesis

I would take this opportunity to explain to you why I believe that my thesis of creation should be seriously considered. As you know, there is much debate today about what should be taught in the public schools on human origins. This debate gets people who have never thoroughly studied the issues giving their opinion on the subject. Some Christians are teaching that you cannot believe the Bible and also accept theistic evolution. This encourages young people, who are continuously being told that humans evolved, to believe that the Bible is untrustworthy. But we know that the Bible is trustworthy and that faith comes by hearing the Word of God and that this leads a seeker to salvation. On the other hand, other Christians say that God accommodated His inspiration of the Bible to the erroneous current views of that day. They can accept evolution, but now they may have an inferior view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Models that assert that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally do not do justice to the creation account in Genesis 2,

 where it relates the creation and the temptation and sin of Adam and Eve. The young earth view teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that they were created about six thousand years ago, contradicts the mass of evidence that science has accumulated that revealing that modern humans have lived upon the earth much longer than this. Others believe that you can interpret science to produce evidence for a model that places the time of the appearance of man at about forty thousand years ago. Then they believe that you can stretch the genealogies to place the creation of Adam and Eve this far into the past. But such a scenario is quite impossible because it is unreasonable to interpret the genealogies in this manner and it places the creation of Adam and Eve before the inception of agriculture. About fifteen years ago, I realized that no theory that adequately harmonizes the Bible and science has been popularized in book form or on the internet. Since I felt a different approach was needed, I searched diligently and prayed for it. One night as I was studying the genealogies of the Bible, I was rewarded with mathematical evidence for a model that would truly harmonize the Bible and science.

My personal study of the human genome had brought me to realize the importance of a fact I read in Matt Ridley's Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), p. 448--life spans of humans are determined by over seven thousand genes. It was this realization that was very helpful in my discovering our origins. Since so many genes determine our life spans, we can view each gene as having a certain potential for a certain life span. We also can conclude that the genes from the male will influence the life span of the couple's child toward his life span and that the genes from the female will influence the life span of the couple's child toward her life span. Since the laws of probability will cause the total influence of all of these contributing genes to be the average life span of the child's parents' life two spans, we can conclude that the child will have the average of the life spans of his parents. An analogy to this would be the tossing of a coin. It has been shown that if you toss it a lot of times, you will come up with heads about fifty percent of the time and tails about fifty percent of the time.

From this, I concluded that when "the sons of God" married "the daughters of men" (Gen. 6:2) the children of these couples would have life spans that would be the average of their parents life spans, and proceeded to apply this assumption to an analysis of the life spans of the patriarchs given in the genealogies of the Bible. My results were extremely rewarding. The life spans that I was calculating were in line with just what you would have expected from the history of the early Hebrews. I now had mathematical evidence that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race. This being the case, it became evident that the human race is much older than six thousand years and that, yes, Adam and Eve could have been created about six thousand years ago just as the Bible indicates. My results also gave me evidence that a child's life span will be the average of his parents, since if this were not true, my application of this formula would not have yielded consistent results when this theory was applied to the actual life spans of the patriarchs.

It then became necessary to study the Old and New Testaments in the Hebrew and Greek to discover how we had missed this teaching. It took a few years to properly understand a number of passages, but I discovered that this is just what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, this interpretation of the Bible has evaded us, and the result has weakened our Christian apologetic.
In regard to the biblical teaching, Genesis 1 is speaking of the creation of the pre-Adamites through God's process of evolution; Genesis 2 is the account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden animals directly from the hand of God. Genesis 6 begins with the story of how the descendants (called "the sons of God") of Adam and Eve married into the human race.

To be more specific, I discovered that Genesis 2:4 refers back to the creation story of Genesis 1 rather than to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. We must conclude this from the syntax of the Hebrew as explained in the appendix of my book. Also I discovered that the word "generations" in this verse should be translated here "descendants." It should read, "These are the generations [descendants] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (KJV). These pre-Adamites must have descended from the heavens and the earth because they are called "descendants of the heavens and the earth."

I also saw that Genesis 6:1-2 explains that "the sons [descendants] of God, who were the descendants of Adam and Eve, married the daughters of the people who were created as told in Genesis 1: "And it came to pass when [the] men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of [the] men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Gen. 1-2, KJV). The result of these intermarriages was an increase in the average life span of the pre-Adamites; Genesis 6:3 tells us that the intermarriage between these two races would eventually result in an average life span of 120 years: "And the days shall be an hundred and twenty years.'" (KJV) It was a series of these intermarriages that brought the average life span of the descendants of Adam and Eve before the flood down from over 900 years to 120 years and the average life span of the pre-Adamites up for 70 years to 120 years. Due to their sin, particularly, their violence, God destroyed these people who had a life span of 120 years in Noah's flood. This passage is also instructive because these two groups that intermarried are distinguished from one another by the author of Genesis based upon the different manners through which they appeared upon the earth--one manner was directly from the hand of God, the other appearance, from "men," who, according to Genesis 1, were descendants of heaven and earth.

It is popular today to think that the Bible indicates that the giants that existed at that time came from these intermarriages, but the Bible does not say this. It says, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (KJV, emphasis mine). Many believe that these giants were the result of the marriages of angels with men or they believe that the giants were the result of the cohabiting of visitors from outerspace with women of this planet or they believe the presence of these giants should be explained by some other scenario. One of these explanations may be correct; however, the context of Genesis 6 and the immediate text indicate that the "sons of God" were the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. For example, the fifth and sixth chapters of Genesis show that the descendants of Adam and Eve increased upon their land and that about later another group of men came to this land. It was "the sons of God" who were already upon the land. This means that the group, whom the Bible calls "men"  were the incoming group, not "the sons of God." Therefore, "the sons of God" cannot be the angels. Also the whole scenario of how and when the decrease in life spans of the patriots decreased supports the same conclusion, that is, that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into and existing race. The book of Jude is supposed to support the view that angels married these women, but I show in my book that Jude does not teach this. The Book of Enoch is relied upon as an authoritative source to support this view, but those who take this view assume that the author of the book of Enoch had some access to historical data that bares on the subject, data that has since been lost. This is simply an assumption.

A study of the verses in the Bible that seem to contradict this dual origin thesis shows that they actually do not contradict it. This view of the Bible's teaching on the subject will now yield a very good harmony between the Bible and science. I was hoping that the new 2009 edition of my 470-page book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science, dealing extensively with the subject, would be purchased and read by many, but such has not been the case. You can imagine how discouraging it is for me to see people needlessly turn away from the Christian message because they believe science has made the biblical revelation untenable.

Please see my website at http://www.garytmayer.com/