Never mind Genesis 2:18-24. In a Reuters story with the above title is also the subtitle, “Earliest Known Human Ancestors Lived Thousands Of Years Apart.” You may ask, “How could this be?” That is exactly the question expressed in the article. Along comes Peter Underhill and his Stanford University colleagues with some very interesting answers. Underhill said, “They had different molecular clocks.”
They believe Eve lived 143,000 years ago. Adam came much later. According to Underhill’s research, “genetic bottlenecks” in the male genetic legacy may have shortened it.
Now, I am not a doctor or even a Stanford researcher. But as I read the article, I immediately had a question that the article does not even attempt to answer. “If woman appeared tens of thousands of years before man, how did they have children?” When was there a shift in the biology of the male and female anatomy from the way children were born then to the way we get them today? When did a woman have a male child, and how? Or did man evolve separately?”
Evolution cannot explain how a fertile “homo sapien” male and fertile “homo sapien” female could appear in the same generation in the same place, come together, and begin to perpetuate the human race. Perhaps this is their attempt at an end run around the plain record of the Bible. But it raises more questions and provides fewer answers. But, so many times, the point does not seem to be providing positive proof of anything so much as it is disproving the accuracy of the Bible. It seems to me that they have done neither.
Long ago, Paul warned Timothy to beware of “worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge'” (1 Tim. 6:20, NAS). While the KJV uses the word “science” rather than knowledge, the Greek word is “gnosis” (which it translates “knowledge” the other 28 times it appears in the New Testament). The Underhill project would certainly seem to be “worldly chatter,” undertaken to prove a godless theory. It also seems like “empty chatter,” a fruitless discussion about matters already firmly settled by the Bible. It is, by definition, an opposing argument from that stated in the Genesis account. And, without doubt, it is “falsely called ‘knowledge.'” 1 Timothy 2:13 says, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” Underhill says, “For Eve was first formed, then Adam.” Remember when God warned Adam and Eve that, if they ate the “forbidden fruit,” they would “surely die”? The serpent came along and contended, “You surely shall not die!” (Gen. 3:4).
Science, medicine and technology have brought us so far in increasing the quality and quantity of our lives today. For that, be thankful! But, be able to recognize arrogant attempts to disprove God and the Bible in favor of a rebellious humanism which desires to give no account of self to anyone. Stay tuned, as there will certainly be other “stunning revelations” like this in the years ahead.
–Neal Pollard