Nowadays it is not at all unusual for a person to reach the age of seventy, or even of eighty. Compared with life-expectancy in medieval times, and in many underdeveloped countries today, this is rather phenomenal.

On the other hand, when we look at the Book of Genesis, we find that in the earliest days of mankind things were different. We read, for example, that the patriarchs from Adam to Noah mostly lived to the amazing age of nine hundred years or more. After Noah, these figures first dropped to around six hundred years, and then to about three hundred years before a plateau was reached of around 100 years.

We know that in our times people seldom live to be over 100 years old. If we were to calculate, from what we know happens today, how old people would have gotten in the distant past, we might conclude that people always were limited to the age of about 100. But this is obviously not true, and therefore we know that we have to be very careful about such extrapolation. And we must always be sure to keep our eyes closely on what Scripture has to say to us.

We have to use this caution also when we ask how long ago Adam lived and when mankind originated.

Several different aaswers have been given to the question ofthe antiquity of the human race. Let us look briefly at four of these answers, as they are given by secular humanists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and those who hold to the historic view of Genesis.

Secular Humanism

Secular humanists reject the Genesis account of the origin of the human race, because they do not accept the Bible as God’s Word. They theorize that the first human creatures appeared a minimum of20,000 years ago. According to some reports, evidences of man may even go back as far as 3.5 million years. Mary Leakey, for example, has found a number of footprints at Laetoli in Africa, in layers dated at 3.6 million years. These footprints, she says, show a “bipedal, free-striding gait,” and “the form of [the] foot was exactly the same as ours. Since only man can make such footprints, original man in the secular story goes back extremely far. This view just cannot be reconciled with the Genesis record. They must fit into a better framework.

Theistic Evolution

Secondly, theistic evolutionists do believe in God. But they al so believe in the theory oforganic evolution, claiming that God used the process ofevolution to call things into existence gradually, by means of natural processes. They also accept the secular view of the origin of man , and therefore have a dilemma of having to choose between the secular view of man’s origin and the account found written in Genesis. Their choice has been to disregard the Genesis account as being non–historical, because of their faith in the theories of secular scientists. Jan Lever, a biologist in Amsterdam, goes along with the theory that man evolved from the animals. In his book Where Are We Headed, he says, “I know that the central thrust of this answer is right, simply because I believe in it.” As a scientist I cannot accept that, of course. And as a Christian I must reject it, because of the real conflict it poses with the Genesis record.

Progressive Creation

The third group of people, the progressive creationists, also take a stand on this issue. By and large, they emphasize that the Genesis account of man’s origin is correct. But since they also maintain that the creation days must have been very long periods of time, they get into a bind when they try to reconcile Genesis givens with the secular view of the earth’s history and the age assigned to earth layers. One Christian geologist, D. A. Young, goes so far as to say in his book Creation and the Flood, that:

thus the body of pre-man could be viewed as evolving in accordance with divinely controlled biological laws and processes up to a point at which the spirit was miraculously formed in this pre-man. The being in view would suddenly be constituted man. This miraculous in breathing could be the divine miraculous initiation that is required to bring man, the new structure, into existence.

This obviously is also a compromise view, which theologically and scientifically takes us way out on a limb. This kind of hermeneutics and this kind of science I would no longer consider Reformed.

Biblical Creation

It appears that only the fourth position is acceptable to responsible, Reformed, Bible-believing Christians. We believe that the Bible is clear in its teachings, and we maintain the principle that Scripture must be its own interpreter. Therefore we know that Adam and Eve were supernaturally created by God; that they constitute the first human beings, who lived only a few thousand years ago; and that they are the parents of the entire human race. And since the current so–called “scientific” view of the origin of man is in real turmoil because of new discoveries in the last dozen or so years, there is no reason for us to compromise our views.

We know, of course, that there are many variations on these four basic positions, but it becomes apparent that we have to choose basically between accepting or rejecting the inspired Genesis account. The conflict is not between what the Bible says and what the facts show, because those two will never contradict each other. The ultimate question is in regard to where we place our faith-in God’s Word or in the theories of secular man. I know where my sure foundation lies. 

Dr. Aaldert Mennega is a professor of Biology at Dordt College at Sioux Center, Iowa.