Why You Should Read the Book "New Evidence for Two Human Origins"

New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science shows you how a person can believe in Christianity and at the same time avoid espousing a logical contradiction.

Revised June 15, 2014

Currently most people’s perception of what the Bible teaches about human origins blatantly contradicts the results of scientific studies. This would not be a problem if many of the current teachings of science concerning the age of the earth and the evolution of mankind had not passed through the maturing stages in which they have become established as proven scientific knowledge. Also the problem would not be of great significance if these scientific conclusions were not being disseminated to all ages of our population through TV, internet, text books, school teachers, comic books, informal discussions, encyclopedias, and news reports. If the discrepancies between much of scientific teachings on the age of the earth and human origins does not make you feel uneasy, or challenge your faith in the inspiration of the Bible, let me encourage you to find the answers to these contradictions between the Bible and science so that you can help someone else who may be distancing himself from the Lord Jesus Christ and His church due to these apparent inconsistencies between the Bible and science. Actually, the basic problems concerning this subject which have surfaced have been faced and answered in this book.

You may ask, “Why should I go to this book for answers rather than to one of the many other published media on this subject?” It is simply because this is the only currently published thesis that presents a workable harmony of science and the Bible. Let us look at some of the creation models that are being circulated; we will also include the thesis presented in New Evidence for Two Human Origins:

1. The young-earth view does not harmonize the Bible and science because science has evidence that the earth is old. Science has evidence also that mankind evolved from lower species. This takes time and the young earth view does not allow for this required old age for the earth.

2. Progressive creationism teaches an old earth, but they teach that all mankind are the descendants of Adam and Eve. This cannot be true because the biblical genealogies and the agricultural setting of the time of Adam and Eve’s creation will not allow this.

3. Those who hold the accommodation view have no problem with what the Bible asserts about the time of creation or the structure of the cosmos, because they believe that God accommodated himself to the beliefs of the people when He inspired the Bible so that the writers taught erroneous things about the cosmos; we must ignore these errors that the Bible teaches about science and believe the teachings about God and his people. This cannot be true because Jesus said, “the scriptures cannot be broken.” And the Bible says that God cannot lie.

4. Others may hold the neo-orthodox view of inspiration. They say that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired but not so much as to make the Bible true in all cases; as one reads the Bible the Holy Spirit impresses the spiritual truth upon the reader’s mind and spirit so they he can see that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God and believe. This view of the Bible is erroneous, because the Bible itself teaches the orthodox view of inspiration.

5. Scientists and others often hold to a figurative interpretation of the stories found in the first part of Genesis. They believe we are not to take these stories laterally. They say these stories were God’s presentation of man’s origin designed to get across to the reader that God created heaven and earth and that He created the human race, with whom He desires to fellowship as they also follow His ways. Some of these interpreters see Adam and Eve as being the first evolved humans who have an eternal human soul others see Adam and Eve in yet a more figurative manner. This view is unacceptable because it deviates too much from a literal view of what the Bible teaches; it ignores the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus also interpreted these Old Testament stories in a literal manner.

6. Another old-earth view believes that nonhumans evolved from the animals, but these hominids became extinct before Adam and Eve were created about six thousand years ago. This view has some merit, but is untenable also. It does not explain why the life spans of the descendants of Adam and Eve decrease as they do, and it does not explain why the human genome shows that modern humans are descended from earlier species. What is more, it ignores the Bible’s assertion that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race.

7. The dual-origins view, which is presented in New Evidence for Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science, is a better model because it agrees with science that mankind has descended from earlier species. It takes into account the Bible’s teaching that the pre-Adamites of Genesis 1 descended from the heavens and the earth and in so doing is compatible with science. It places the creation of Adam and Eve at about six thousand years ago which is in accord with the biblical genealogies. It can be shown to be valid mathematically because it shows correspondence between the ages of the patriarchs in the biblical genealogies and biblical history. In this regard, my book follows the decline of lifespans and explains why each lifespan resulted as it did. It explains why in one case the increased instead of decreasing, and it explains why the lifespans leveled off at one point and then started down again.