THE ORIGIN OF MAN
I wrote “ A Christian View of Evolution” 11 years ago and updated it about 6 years ago. Since then two books have been published which have given me new ideas about the specific question of the origin of man.
They are:-
“The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed” by Antony Latham, published in 2005 by Janus Publishing and
“Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves” by James Le Fanu published in 2009 by the Harper Press
Latham sums up his book with these words:-
“All the evidence that I have looked at has led me to believe that life has been designed and that all the major innovations have occurred in saltations, the like of which no Darwinist can explain. The evidence before us shows that a creator has been active throughout.”
Latham is a doctor and with much more scientific knowledge than I have shows, I think conclusively, that the fossil record shows absolutely no sign of gradual emergence of any major new body plan (Latham’s own words in a recent email); each new species appears in the fossil record suddenly (hence the term saltation) and in many case disappears millions of years later exactly the same as it was when it first appeared. He also expounds what has become the bedrock of the theory of intelligent design - irreducible complexity. As he says, “natural selection is not in any way creative. All it can do is weed out some and allow others to survive. In many ways it is therefore a negative force only - denying some organisms life”.
Another important point made by Latham - and by Le Fanu - is the uniqueness of man as a creature. A particularly interesting fact he produces is the different views on the origin of man between Darwin and and his contemporary evolutionist A.R.Wallace, who said (contrasting his views with Darwin’s):-
“My view, on the other hand, was, and is, that there is a difference in kind, intellectually and morally, between man and other animals; and that while his body was undoubtedly developed by the continuous modification of some ancestral animal form, some different agency, analogous to that which first produced organic life, and then originated consciousness, came into play in order to develop the higher intellectual and spiritual nature of man”
I would just comment that it is not consciousness that distinguishes man from animals (they too are conscious), but self-consciousness - the ability to reflect on his thoughts and feelings.
On the origin of man Latham makes a number of interesting points.
The Upper stone age culture with many types of tool, ornaments, jewellery and cave paintings did not appear until 30,000-40,000 years ago. But, as Latham points out, strangely, anatomically modern Homo Sapiens existed much earlier. As he says:- “Could it be that we are confusing gross anatomy and brain size with something that cannot be measured in bones - humanity?”
A final quotation from Latham:-
“We do not know where we originated as a species - perhaps Africa, perhaps the Middle East. We do not know when and how we emerged but what evidence we have indicates a massive saltational leap from the preceding Homo Erectus and astounding changes in a brain which triples in size within just 3 million years. There is absolutely no evidence for gradual change”.
As I have already indicated Latham says that “life has been designed and that all the major innovations have occurred in saltations, the like of which no Darwinist can explain. The evidence before us shows that a creator has been active throughout.” This still leaves me with some doubt about what he actually believes was the origin of man. Does he believe that man and all other creatures have a common ancestor, each emerging from earlier ancestors by means of massive genetic mutations instigated by God - in other words miraculous mutations? Or does he believe that God created man suddenly without any ancestor. I suspect that maybe he does, for right at the end of his book he says “That I still uphold Genesis to be true is too much to explain in this book”. He cannot believe that the world and all plants and creatures were created in 6 days, so perhaps he just means that he accepts the words in Genesis 1 v27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”.
It’s also possible that he thinks that God suddenly infused the spark of humanity into a group of previously unselfconscious homo sapiens.
In a recent email Latham tells me “I do strongly hint at ‘common descent’ - in other words there is ancestry with earlier forms but how the change to humans occurred is still miraculous. Like you I do not find it difficult to believe that God could instantaneously create out us out of nothing but I feel the evidence is that he has used earlier forms (for whatever reason) as a sort of template leading up to us”.
But for me that still wouldn’t solve the problem of the mutation between homo erectus and homo sapiens. I have to add that theologically I can’t accept that God can create anything “out of nothing”. Man is a physical manifestation of the Divine image.
James Le Fanu’s book is passionate. He rejoices in the spiritual, artistic, technical and economic facets of the human mind. Man with these attributes is unique amongst all creatures. He dismisses Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and blames Darwin for the fact that for 150 years materialism has dominated intellectuals.
He is even more impressed by recent scientific research. Hence his subtitle - “How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves”. He refers in particular to the work on the mapping of the human genome and the Decade of the Brain in which, by means of PET scans, it has been possible to watch the working of the brain. Both studies seemed likely to reinforce the materialist doctrine. Man was man because of his genes and his brain. These would explain everything. But they haven’t. Man has not got more genes than any other creature - indeed some of the things we eat on our plates have more genes than we have. The work on the brain, he says, has been even more remarkable. It has greatly increased our knowledge of how the brain works, but it has not been able to explain the mind. He points out that scans have shown that patients undergoing cognitive therapy can, by mental processes, actually change the physical brain. The immaterial can actually change the material.
Le Fanu is impressed with the suddenness with which the unique attributes of man appeared. “The most striking feature of the arrival of modern man is its suddenness and completeness, epitomised most obviously by the beauty and originality of those artefacts he left behind: the ‘pride of lions’ portrayed in perspective on the walls of the Chauvet cave [Cro-Magnon man, 30,000 years ago]; the beads and jewellery for self-adornment in this and the ‘next’ world; drums fashioned from mammoth’s bones to celebrate, with singing and dancing, the wonders of the natural world; oil lamps, harpoons, spear-throwers. All the features in short - artistic, technical, economic and religious - that can be found in contemporary society”
As with Latham I am not entirely sure how Le Fanu thinks man originated. He certainly believes in intelligent design, but I don’t get the impression that he is as dedicated a Christian as Latham.
Before I give my tentative conclusions about the origin of man I need to say some more about those who do believe in evolution by natural selection. Both Latham and Le Fanu concentrate their criticisms on fundamentalist Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. The true Darwinian denies free will and denies any supernatural influence on the world. But there are thousands, probably millions, of religious people who believe in evolution by natural selection. The vast majority have not, I think, questioned the validity of the fossil record and just accept it as a known fact. They even seem to go along with the idea that all creationist are extreme fundamentalist Christians who believe that the account of creation in Genesis has to be taken literally. Orthodox Christianity for centuries has seen the account as allegorical.
But why do they not believe that God can directly influence the creation of species? The answer I think is their view of Divine Providence. On a recent television programme about Darwinism and Atheism, the presenter, a member of the clergy, a firm believer in evolution by natural selection rejected “intelligent design” on the grounds that if God could intervene in the process of evolution, why did he not prevent wars, stop disasters and ensure that the world was peaceful and prosperous.
This is not Divine Providence as I understand it. It seems to rest on the assumption that God created the universe, set it in motion with some rules to be obeyed and then stands back and lets it go. This kind of deism is I think much more prevalent than is commonly recognised. It is an approach that must question whether any of the miracles that occur in the Old and New Testaments really occurred. They look for some wholly material explanation. It even throws doubt on what to me is the most significant case of Divine intervention - the birth and life of Jesus Christ. Catholics seem to be able to accept miracles but Protestants find it very hard. The Rev. Sir John Polkinghorne, scientist and theologian, even suggested in one of his books that the miracle at Cana was the result of accelerated fermentation. In other words he could accept what he saw as a minor miracle, but could not accept a major miracle that Jesus actually instantaneously turned water into wine.
By contrast, according to the doctrines of the Swedenborgian church, to which I belong, Divine Providence maintains and supports finite creation at every moment - though, of course, in itself it is timeless. Creation did not just take place 16 billion years ago; we are experiencing constant re-creation. Without God’s constant influx into the universe everything in space and on earth would immediately collapse. Divine Providence is involved in everything that happens - not a sparrow falls , not a hair from one’s head by random chance.
Luke Chap 12 “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows”.
Although Divine Providence watches over everything God cannot intervene contrary to Divine Order, for He is Divine Order. God will not do anything which destroys man’s free will. So He allows evil, but ensures that it never gets so powerful as to threaten man’s freedom to choose between good and evil. Life on this earth is nothing but a preparation for the world to come. Divine Providence is not concerned with material outcomes except insofar as they affect man’s eternal well-being. So far as anybody who dies is concerned there is no such thing as a tragic death - the dead are alive and well in the next world and are better off than in this world. Of course it may seem tragic to those left behind, but would seem less so if they recognised the eternal ends with which Divine Providence is concerned. We may wonder whether there is any hope of men learning to live together in peace. It certainly will not happen quickly; we must recognise that we are at the very beginning of human history. Cro-Magnon man appeared a mere 30,000 years ago and there are billions of years still to come.
So, what are my conclusions about the origin of man? Like Latham and Le Fanu I reject evolution by natural selection. I have two other reasons besides the fossil record for doing so. Mankind has two unique characteristics compared with any other creature. Man is the only creature able to reflect on his thoughts and feelings - the only truly self-conscious creature. It is inconceivable that self-consciousness could arise gradually; you either are, or you are not. Christians believe that every human being has a soul which will live after death to eternity. Again you cannot envisage a soul developing gradually. The human spark must have arrived suddenly.
The other unique characteristic of mankind is that it is the only creature whose infants are born in complete ignorance with no innate knowledge of how to behave as a human and is consequently totally dependent on its parents for, shall we say, at least five years. If amongst a group of anthropoid apes their infants were gradually to become more and more ignorant and increasingly dependent, as they became more and more human, this would put them at a serious disadvantage compared to other apes. They would be seriously hampered in their tasks as hunter gatherers. According to the theory of natural selection one would surely expect this particular group to die out very soon.
So, how did man originate? The fossil record would support evolution by saltation. But what we know about genetic mutation makes it impossible to believe that genetic mutation could immediately transform a reptile into a bird , or a reptile into a mammal or an anthropoid ape into a human being. So I have to reject evolution altogether.
Man ( and indeed all other creatures) must have been created instantly, miraculously, by God. Why should this be so difficult to accept? God, the creator of the universe, miraculously came into the world as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ . To create man would obviously be within his power. Consider Deuteronomy Chap 4 verse 32 “For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?
Doubters might say, if that is so, why do we not find examples today of instant creation? I think it is because every species that exists (and all those that are now extinct) was created before Man, the crown of creation.
If I am right, the very first human beings must have had a very special form of Divine revelation. The very first humans would never have been infants or children and would not have been able to learn as we do the innumerable skills which we all acquire from our parents and our peers and which we store in our remarkable memories. So the Lord would have had to instill these ‘memories’ in them. He would have had to appear to them and teach them how to behave both spiritually and physically. They would have needed not only their own version of the Ten Commandments but also detailed instruction on where to live, what to eat, what to wear.
To my mind this throws in doubt many of the generally accepted view about the nature of the first humans. They were certainly not savage. They were in direct communication with God and were more innocent than any humans have been subsequently. They were obviously monotheists; they knew their God. He was Jehovah. Swedenborg tells us that the first humans were members of what he calls The Most Ancient Church and were innately aware of the spiritual correspondence of all material things.
All Christians today know some of these correspondences. Bread and wine, for example, Divine good and Divine truth and lambs, innocence. If, as I believe, the first humans were of remarkable innocence it seems inconceivable that there were not lambs around.
If this is right it implies to me that the first humans may well not have been hunter gatherers - they were not descended from hunter gatherer anthropoid apes. I suspect that they may have been nomadic herdsmen with sheep and cattle. The tame sheep and cattle having been created by the Lord at the same time. This would mean that they were carnivorous from the beginning. Why else do humans have canine teeth?
My belief is called by some “special creation” . Patrick Johnson, Editor of the Swedenborg Society Newsletter, says that he finds evolution “more attractive than special creation, which smacks too much of magic for my liking”.
What could be more magical than the miracle of the omnipotent God entering the world which he had created in human form? What more magical than that after death he left no mortal remains behind? Water into wine - miracle or magic?
I rejoice that I live in a wonderful miraculous, magical world with the prospect of eternal life ahead of me.
Guy de Moubray
Buxlow Manor
31st July 2009
to Buxlow. Please click on menu to learn more about my books, home tours and Buxlow Manor.
