Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Can evolution coexist with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve?

Did the Biblical flood envelope our whole world, with plant life surviving underwater for 150 days – or is there another explanation that makes sense of this seeming impossibility?

Can the mainstream findings of modern science sit comfortably alongside Genesis 1 – 11?

Australian author and Pastor Mike Russell explores these difficult questions in his fascinating new book, A Timeline of Origins – Toward Better Integration of the Bible and Science.[1] I found Russell’s book fascinating and accessible to your everyday Christian. He certainly got me thinking!

Russell argues that it is possible to square the Biblical account of Genesis 1-11 with the mainstream findings of modern science (in particular, radiocarbon dating and evolution). They don’t necessarily need to cancel each other out.

While many Christians might question this approach (especially if they believe in a six-day creation), I think Russell’s argument – while quite novel – could help further bridge the divide between modern science and Christianity.[2]

Russell’s Aim: Defeating a Modern ‘Defeater Belief’

From the outset, Russell wrote this book to help non-Christians overcome a key difficulty in coming to faith:

‘[According to McCrindle research], Christianity’s stance on science and evolution blocked 34 per cent from engaging with Christianity, either completely (23 per cent) or significantly (11 per cent)…The general way the Bible is seen to clash with science could be summarised in one word: evolution.’[3]

The reason this clash exists, he argues, is because of the ‘failure from the Christian side to provide a timeline of human history that sits comfortably with the findings of mainstream science and a high view of Scripture.’ [4] Without such a timeline, many non-Christians find the Bible highly implausible and ignore it.

But in this book, Russell puts forward a novel solution:

Russell’s Solution: Genesis speaks of Two Worlds, not just One.

Russell’s solution involves accepting at face value the accounts of Genesis 1-11 (with the exception of six-day creation: that’s one area where he defers to radiocarbon dating), especially the genealogies and huge lifespans mentioned in Genesis 5 and 11.[5]

To make sense of this timeline, and the findings of archaeology and modern science, he proposes a hypothesis that the Garden of Eden was in another world different from our own. While Adam and Eve were a special creation of God in that other world, God used evolution in our world to form another race of humans. The two races were brought together when the world of Eden was destroyed in the Biblical flood, and God brought Noah and the Ark across to our world.

(As I said, it’s a novel hypothesis!)

Let’s unpack Russell’s argument further as per his book:

1) The Timeline: Fitting Old Earth and Evolution (Modern Science) with the Genesis Genealogies

Here’s how Russell puts together a timeline of the earth from modern science and Genesis 1-11:

• Our planet was formed 4.5 billion years ago.

• The Garden of Eden was located in another world, separate from ours.

• Adam and Eve were created in the other world around 5100 BC.

• God used evolution to form ‘biological humans’ in our world – humans that looked like us but had not yet been given human souls. They were not in the image of God before 5100 BC

• The fall happened in the other world in 5100 BC, and after the fall, all the ‘biological’ humans in our world were made fully human by a direct, worldwide intervention by God.

• 2900 BC: the Biblical flood of Gen 6-9 destroyed the other world, ‘the world of that time’ (2 Peter 3:6)

• 2370 BC: The Tower of Babel event occurs (Gen 11).

This timeline obviously raises many questions! Russell explains and defends his timeline in the following chapters.

2) The Two Worlds: To Where was Cain Banished?

The narrative of Cain is a building block to Russell’s argument of two worlds and two races of human beings.

When Cain was banished to the land of ‘Nod’ after he killed his brother, he was afraid not of loneliness but of being killed (Gen 4:14). Why would that be if, at the time, there were only two other people in existence (Adam and Eve) at a location he could no longer reach?

Russell’s answer is that more people existed, not descended from Adam. Cain finds a wife from these people and then builds a city (Gen 4:17). Russell argues that these people weren’t his relatives, but other people who weren’t descended from Adam and Eve.[6] Russell then argues that passages like Acts 17:26 – usually translated as humanity descending from one man – could plausibly refer to the spread of nations after Noah, rather than humankind from Adam.

3) Is Theistic Evolution Unbiblical?

In this chapter, Russell faces objections to theistic evolution – the idea that God used evolution to form the human beings in our world.

Russell argues that it’s not unusual for Scripture to talk about God intervening in our world after he created it, so ‘there is no reason to insist he did not do so at certain stages of evolutionary process’. [7] In Russell’s view, God used evolution to form what he calls ‘biological humans’ in our world – human beings not made in the image of God, without a soul, but merely a higher form of animal, while he formed Adam and Eve as an act of special creation (Gen 1-2).

These ‘biological’ non-image-bearing humans – the rational equivalent of more intelligent apes –  were later given a soul ‘when God transmitted Adam’s sinful nature to the whole human race…by the miraculous bestowal of non-material, intangible human souls to each human…’[8] According to Russell, this worldwide bestowal of a soul on ‘biological humanity’ happened around 5100 BC.

But weren’t there full rational thinking human beings on our planet before 5100 BC?

Not according to the evidence Russell presents: ‘The only archaeological evidence we would confidently accept for necessarily fully human behaviour is that of written language, which does not appear in the record until after 4000 BC.’[9]

4) How the Great Flood fits in

The Biblical Flood is another critical plank in Russell’s argument.

His novel hypothesis is that Genesis describes the flood destroying a world that was distinct from our own. That is, Genesis describes Cain as being banished from the world of his parents, from the world Russell calls the “once cursed world”, into our world, which he calls the “twice-cursed world” due to the extra curse God places on it in Gen 4:10-12. Russell claims that ‘it is plausible that it was this once-cursed world [that was] destroyed by the flood, and not our own twice-cursed world… this is at least as plausible as the major alternatives grounded in a high view of Scripture.’[10]

Why is Russell’s two-worlds hypothesis as plausible as the traditional alternative of a flood that destroyed our world? Russell identifies several reasons:

• The animals in our world don’t look to be distributed around the globe as though they came from the Ark 5000 years ago;

• The long lifespan of the people in Genesis accounts;

• The flood can’t be mythical, as the author of Genesis takes great pains to locate the narrative in history;

• If our world had been covered in water for 150 days, this would have destroyed all plant and tree life.

Of course, this raises several objections, to which Russell responds.

First, isn’t this talk of ‘two worlds’ just science fiction?  

Russell responds by saying Christians already believe in another physical world:  where the physically resurrected Lord Jesus resides (Heb 9:24).[11]

And what about the objection to  Noah’s Ark moving across to a new world?

Russell argues that it’s plausible that ‘God sees the “earth” of the ancient world as being so connected to our earth that he doesn’t see the need to distinguish the two worlds clearly. This is similar to the way God tells Abraham that he will inherit “all the land that you see” [Gen 13:15] when in fact Abraham will receive the land in the “new heavens and earth”, not in our world, at least not in the way we would normally speak of “our world”.[12]

5) The Tower of Babel

In this chapter, Russell argues that the earth having a sole language, as described in Gen 11:9, is directly challenged by the modern mainstream position that there wasn’t one language for the whole world.[13]

His solution is to hypothesize that the language described by Gen 11:1-9 was plausibly the sole language of the other ‘once cursed’ world but never the language of our ‘twice-cursed’ world. [14]

Using textual arguments, Russell proposes the following:

• Gen 11:1 is a background setting to the chapter, applying to the other world, where the people of Adam through to Noah did speak the one language.

• Gen 11:2 moves the narrative to a later time, where the descendants of Noah are in our world, speaking their original language.

• Gen 11:9 is about the Lord confusing the language of the tower’s builders, namely the language they spoke in their old world.

Russell argues that his interpretation makes better sense of the sin of the people who built the tower of Babel. Namely, their sin of ‘exalting themselves’ (Gen 11:4) only makes sense if there are other people at whose expense they are being exalted.[15] Furthermore, we don’t have to make the mental leap that Genesis 10 – speaking of various language groups – comes after Genesis 11.

6) Conclusion: A Plausible Fit Between the Bible and Modern Science?

In conclusion,  Russell summarises why his reading is plausible – at least as plausible as more traditional readings of Genesis 1-11:

• The explicit timeline given by the genealogies within Genesis 1-11

• After his banishment, Cains’s fear of being killed, rather than being lonely, points to the existence of other people in his new location;

• The idea that the flood destroyed the world left behind, rather than our world, allows us to say with Scripture that the world was completely flooded, without us having to ‘defend propositions that clash fundamentally with mainstream science’.[16]

• We can identify a plausible historical context for the Tower of Babel account.

He concludes by pointing out that whether we opt for the more traditional view of Gen 1-11 or his new hypothesis, we’ll still have questions about the text.

And so, which reading is more plausible? Which reading fits with a high view of Scripture and the findings of mainstream science?

My Assessment

I appreciate Russell’s high view of Scripture and his desire to take modern science’s claims seriously.

I think Russell succeeds in putting forward a plausible fit between the Bible and the findings of mainstream modern science. His hypothesis answers questions about where Cain’s wife came from, why animals are distributed across our planet in ways that don’t suggest they all left an ark in modern-day Turkey, and how plant life survived for 150 days underwater in the flood. It gives a possible answer to these vexing questions.

On the flip side, his hypothesis depends on particular interpretations of various verses, which, due to my lack of Hebrew knowledge, I’m unable to judge (I’ll leave it to brighter minds than mine to critique his Hebrew exegesis).

Whether other readers agree with Russell will depend on them: our presuppositions and upbringing will probably find the idea of another world an emotional hurdle, if not an intellectual hurdle. Some will question Russell’s acceptance of evolution and the modern secular scientific consensus. And Russell’s interpretation of various biblical passages – like Acts 17:26 – may also raise questions in Christians’ minds.

Nevertheless, I think Russell’s argument is worth considering.

Who Might Find This Book Useful?

While any Christian interested in the integration of the Bible and modern science will find this book interesting, two groups may find this book particularly useful:

• Non-Christians who are interested in the Bible, but can’t see how modern science could integrate with Genesis 1-11;

• Christians who are curious how evolution and carbon dating might fit with the Bible. This could be especially useful on a university campus and upper high school setting.

• Christians struggling with their faith due to evolution and carbon dating.

 Overall, A Timeline of Origins is a fascinating read. I commend it to any Christian who wants to think deeply about Genesis, our origins, and how the Bible can fit with what modern science says about our world.

[1] Michael D. Russell, A Timeline of Origins – Toward Better Integration of the Bible and Science (WIPF & STOCK: Eugene, Oregon), 2024.

[2] This isn’t the only way to do it, of course. Other methods involve questioning the very assumption behind evolution. For example, Professor John Lennox’s  book ‘God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God?’

[3] Russell, Timeline, 1.

[4] Russell, Timeline, 2.

[5] Along with Bible scholars like Gordon Wenham, Russell argues that ‘the burden of proof still sits with those who would deny these genealogies should be used for a timeline, rather than those who would affirm it’. Russell, Timeline, 10.

[6] Russell, Timeline, 28.

[7] Russell, Timeline, 43.

[8] Russell, Timeline, 49.

[9] Russell, Timeline, 53.

[10] Russell, Timeline, 61.

[11] Interestingly, Russell shows that Bill Dumbrell – a giant in the Old Testament scholarly world – had already suggested that Eden was in a separate world.

[12] Russell, Timeline, 84-85.

[13] Russell, Timeline, 87.

[14] Russell, Timeline, 88.

[15] Russell, Timeline, 91.

[16] Russell, Timeline, 104.