Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Christians and Creationism

Christians and Creationism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The addendum was added in 2025.]

The discussion below shows that many Christians who claim to be creationists support Darwinism, that the breed-of-dog analogy fails to support the argument of all humans descending from Adam and Eve, and that the only living thing that Eve can be the mother of the Adamites, Aryans, or Whites, if Darwinism is false.

Are Christians Really Creationists?
Are Christians true creationists or are they Darwinists? Whether a Christian is a creationist or a Darwinist, i.e., an evolutionist, can be discovered by simply asking him if all the races (species) of men are descended from Adam and Eve. If his answer is yes, he is a Darwinist. If it is no, he is a creationist.
Today, most taxonomists are lumpers. That is, if two otherwise different animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they should be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the dog (Canis familiaris), the gray wolf (C. lupus), and the dingo (C. dingo) used to be considered different species. However, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, taxonomists have lumped them together as Canis lupus. The coyote and jackal have not yet become part of C. lupus. (However, a dog can also breed with a jackal [C. aureus] and a coyote [C. latrans] and produce fertile offspring. Likewise, a wolf can breed with a coyote and a jackal and produce fertile offspring.)
Some other species that can mate and produce fertile offspring are the gaur or Indian bison (Bos gaurus) and the gayal (Bos frontalis), the American bison (Bison bison) and the yak (Bos grunniens), the American bison (Bison bison) and the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus), the American bison (Bison bison) and the domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and the Przewalski's horse or Mongolian wild horse (Equus przewalskii), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and llama (Lama glama), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the lion (Panthera leo) and the leopard (Panthera pardus), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Several of these interbreeding species are of different genera. Most likely, the Clymene dolphin, formerly called the short-snouted spinner dolphin  (Stenella clymene), is a hybrid species of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Another possible example is the red wolf  (Canis rufus) and the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon). Some zoologists believe that the red wolf and eastern wolf are really hybrids of the gray wolf and the coyote. If the red wolf becomes a hybrid, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. (A true creationist would argue that the reason the red wolf appears to be a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote is that God created the red wolf using DNA similar to that which He used in creating the gray wolf and the coyote.)
Another example of two species mating and producing fertile offspring is the Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The Cuban crocodile has become an extremely endangered species, partly because the American crocodile and the Cuban-American crocodile hybrid are breeding it out of existence. (We are seeing a similar scenario being set up to exterminate the White race. In the United States, the American Negro has been a chief weapon in this destruction. However, the American Negro is being destroyed by being used to destroy the White race. Nevertheless, the death of the American Negro is acceptable collateral damage to rid the universe of an evil far greater than Satan: the Aryan race.)
Some creationists admit that different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. According to them, such interbreeding is how new species or kinds, as they like to say, came into being. For example, Anas poecilorhyncha and A. platyrhynchos are two species of ducks that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although these two species do not normally come into contact with each other, when they do, they interbreed. Their offspring is so viable that it is recognized as an independent species, A. oustaleti.
Many Christians believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings. These angelic beings interbred with human women (Adamites) and produced fertile beings, the Nephilim. Many non-Christians and New Agers also believe that angelic beings mated with humans. Since the Nephilim were alive centuries later at the time of Moses, two things are proven: The Noachian Flood was not global, and the Nephilim were fertile. Thus, angelic beings of the spiritual realm mated with human beings of the physical realm and produced fertile offspring. According to the lumper’s primary criterion for defining a species, angels and humans are of the same species.
This absurdity shows that the ability to produce offspring should not be the primary criterion for determining a species. Contrariwise, the inability to produce fertile offspring should be used to disqualify creatures from being classified as the same species, instead of the ability to produce fertile offspring being used to classify them as the same species.
Likewise, the same is true of DNA. (Do spiritual beings have DNA?) DNA should be used to exclude rather than to include. If two similar groups have similar DNA, it is because the Creator used similar DNA in making similar groups, i.e., species or kinds as many creationists prefer to use. Therefore, because Aryans, Turanians, Melanochroi, Negroes, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians have similar DNA and can produce fertile offsprings when they interbreed does not make them the same species. (Have Khoisans and Indo-Australians ever interbred and produced fertile offspring?)
One interesting aspect about using DNA to determine species is the water buffalo or domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). This species consists of two subspecies: the river buffalo with 50 chromosomes and the swamp buffalo with 48 chromosomes. These two subspecies can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with 49 chromosomes.
Like orthodox evolutionists, creationist Darwinists reject the notion of the fixity of species. Both orthodox evolutionists and creationist Darwinists believe in the mutability of species. Their primary disagreement is the starting point and time required for one species (or kind) to change to another species (or kind). Another major difference is that orthodox evolutionists believe that life began by some kind of spontaneous generation, while creationist Darwinists believe that life began by some kind of divine creative act.

Breeds of Dogs
Many creationist Darwinists point to the more than 300 breeds of dogs to support their claim that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Most contend that all the species of Canis (the gray wolf, including the domestic dog and dingo, the coyote, African golden wolf, Ethiopian wolf, Eurasian golden jackal, Asiatic wild dog, African wild dog, black back jackal, and side-striped jackal) descended from a common pair of parents. Some claim that all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyote descended from common ancestors; that is, all the species of the Canidae family have a common pair of initial parents. Thus, these so-called creationists resort to Darwinism to expand the origins of species. God merely created the initial parents from whom these species evolved (developed, as these creationist Darwinists like to say). If true, their assertion that all humans descended from Adam and Eve easily supports that the biological races of men are different species: They evolved (or developed) into different species from common parents.
As for the breed of dogs, they are artificial creations. With perhaps a few exceptions, they do not occur naturally. Breeders have developed them by breeding dogs with traits that they want. Breeders keep the offspring that have the desired traits and cull the rest. They keep breeding the offspring until the offspring breed true with the desired traits. Where is the evidence of such an authoritarian program in the development of the various human species, races, and breeds? If the dog breeder analogy is accurate or has merit, then God would have selected offspring from Adam and Eve and bred them to produce the desired racial traits and would have destroyed those who did not have the desired traits.
If Occam’s razor (“simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones”) is applied, the simplest solution is having God creating the parents of each race. That is, each biological human race is descended from a different pair of parents. Fewer assumptions are involved in this explanation of the species of men than the evolutionism offered by creation Darwinism. Moreover, it is more Biblical.
In the nineteenth century, before political correctness gained control of science, anthropologists and others could discuss the races of men and their hybrids with an honesty and frankness that cannot occur today. Some anthropologists concluded that some human hybrids lack fecundity to survive for more than a few generations, if that long. That is, if the hybrids did not breed with one of the parent stock, they would die out within a few generations. In On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo (edited by C. Carter Blake; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, Paternoster Row,1864), Dr. Paul Broca summaries some of these studies. He comments (page 61):

Zoologists have, in each of the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognised several types which they denominate species.
The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species. In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

Eve: Mother of All Living
In Genesis 3:20, the Bible calls Eve the mother of all living. From this statement, most creationists infer that all species of men are descended from Adam and Eve. (According to the “two seed” theory, only some humans are descended from Adam and Eve; the remainder is descended from Satan and Eve.)
If the passage that Eve is the mother of all living is literally true, and it has to be literally true if all species of men descended from Eve, then evolution (or perhaps devolution) is proven, and Chapter 1 of Genesis is wrong. If Eve is the mother of all living, then all animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, bacteria, and archaea are descended from her. The passage does not limit “all living” to only humans: That is merely an unsupported inference. Thus, evolution is not from a primitive single-cell creature toward the complex human. It is the opposite, i.e., from the complex human to the most primitive single-cell creature, which is more correctly devolution. (Consequently, the theory held by many creationists that life on earth is degrading or devolving is supported.) To avoid this absurdity that all living things descended from Eve and the contradiction of Chapter 1 of Genesis, the most appropriate interpretation of this passage is that all Adamites, Aryans, or Whites are descended from Adam and Eve — and nothing more.

Addendum

The following are additional species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

1. A goat (Capra hircus) bred with a sheep (Ovis aries), an ibex (Capra ibex), or an aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) produces fertile offspring. 

2. A domestic sheep (O. aries) bred with an Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), mouflon (O. musimon), or big horn sheep (O. canadensis) produces fertile offspring.

3. A mouflon  (O. musimon) bred with a big horn sheep (O. canadensis) or a urial (O. vignei) produces fertile offspring.

4. Two species of mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus, can produce fertile offspring when mated.

5. Two other species of mice, P. leucopus and P. gossypinus, can also produce fertile offspring when crossed.

6. A llama (Lama glama) bred with an alpaca (L. pacos) produces fertile offspring.

7. Two species of barking deer, Muntiacus reevesi and M. muntjak, can produce fecund offspring.

8.  Two species of chinchillas, Chinchilla brevicaudata and C. laniger, produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. 

9. Guinea pigs, Cavia aperca and C. porcellus, produce fertile offspring.

10. Two species of chimpanzees, Pan satyrus and P. schweinfurthii, can interbreed and produce fecund offspring. 

11. Two species of leaf monkeys, Pithecus chrysomelas and P. cruciger, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

12. A slate-colored junco (Junco hyemalis) bred with white-winged junco (J. aikeni), Oregon junco (J. oregonus), and gray-headed junco (J. caniceps) produces fertile offspring.

13. A pig (Sus domesticus) can breed with a wild boar (S. scrofa) or banded pig (S. vittatus) and produce fertile offspring.

14. A domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus), red jungle fowl (G. gallus or G. bankiva), Ceylon jungle fowl (G. lafayette), gray jungle fowl (G. sonnerati), and Javan jungle fowl (G. varius) can all interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. 

Copyright © 2019, 2025, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Predestination Theology

God the Great Programer: 

Predestination Theology

Thomas Allen

 
[NOTE: This article has been inspired by a preacher from Asheville, North Carolina, whose teaching describes God as the Great Programmer, although he does not use such terminology, and that people have no choice but to do what God has predestined them to do. However, God holds people accountable for the acts that He has coerced, predestined, them to do — perhaps because they believe that they chose to do such acts although, in reality, they had no choice.]
    According to the predestinationists, God is the Great Programmer of the universe. Free will is an illusion. No one really has any choice in what he does — especially where salvation is concerned. If free will exists, i.e., if people have a real choice, then God is not sovereign. According to predestination theology, man has no more choice in what he does than an ant, ameba, or aster.
    God arbitrarily decides who will be saved and, consequently, who will be condemned. (If one is not saved, he is condemned. No other options exist.) Faith, baptism, repentance, good works, and even Jesus’ death and resurrection have nothing to do with salvation. A person believes in Jesus, repents, is baptized, and does good works because God has programmed him to do so. He does not believe in Jesus because he has heard the evidence about Jesus and is convinced that it is true. He believes because God has programmed him to believe. Furthermore, a person who does not believe in Jesus can also be saved because salvation depends on God’s arbitrary choice and not on faith. Therefore, salvation is by God’s arbitrary choice and not by faith.
    People do good because God programmed them to do good. People do evil because God programmed them to do evil. Moreover, people sin because God has programmed them to sin. They have no choice whether they will do good works or bad works, for that would require free will. If free will exists in one realm, it must exist in all realms — even in the realm of salvation. As no one has any say in the realm of salvation because that is God’s arbitrary choice, he has no choice in his works. Free will impugns (refutes and denies) God’s sovereignty and, therefore, cannot exist if God is sovereign — such is the implication of the predestinationists and their predestination theology.
    Because God programs people to act in certain ways does not mean that they are not accountable for their acts. However, it does mean that they are not responsible for their acts. For example, a robot programmed to perform evil acts is held accountable for its acts and is destroyed or decommissioned. (Predestinationists effectively consider humans and all other life forms to be essentially robots.) However, it is not responsible for its acts. It is just doing what the programmer programmed it to do. The programmer is responsible for its acts.
    People are held accountable for their acts, but are not responsible for them. God is responsible. Free will is necessary for people to be responsible. If people have free will, then they have a say in their salvation, and God is no longer sovereign. However, predestinationists claim that people have no say in their salvation. Salvation is God’s arbitrary choice.
    In other words, although God holds his created robots accountable for their actions, though they have no choice, He being the Master Programmer is responsible for their actions. For them to have any say requires free will. However, they cannot have free will because that destroys God’s absolute sovereignty.
    If the predestinationists are correct, free will does not exist. Free will is merely an illusion. God chooses whom He will save regardless of faith, baptism, repentance, or good works. (By this choice, He consequently chooses who is to condemn.) To the extent that any of these have anything to do with salvation, they result from God’s programming and not from one’s choice, acts, or efforts. Although a person may be held accountable for his actions, he is not responsible for them. He is merely executing the program that God has inputted into him. Responsibility rests with God because He has programmed the person to act the way that he does. If God is not responsible, then free will exists, and God’s sovereign is impugned.
    According to the predestinationist, man cannot have free will. If he were to have free will, God’s sovereign would be impugned (refuted and denied). Being the absolute sovereign, God’s sovereign cannot be impugned even one iota. If God’s sovereignty is impugned one iota, God would cease being sovereign. Therefore, man cannot have free will.
    Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit was not an act of free will. God had programmed them to eat it. They had no choice. If they had a choice, then God lost sovereignty, and He did not lose any sovereignty. Eve and Adam did not sin because they yielded to temptation; they sinned because God programmed them to sin. They had no choice but to sin. However, God held them accountable for their act, although He was responsible for it instead of them.
    Pharaoh of Moses’ time was an extremely obedient servant of God. Few Biblical characters were as obedient as this Pharaoh. He did exactly what God wanted him to do when God wanted him to do it. Yet, the Bible implies that he died unsaved. Thus, obedience to God’s will does not guarantee salvation.
    God programmed (forced) Saul to perform an unauthorized scarify. Then, He punished him for doing it. Thus, God was responsible for Saul’s sin because He made him sin. However, He held Saul accountable for the sin and made David succeed Saul as king. Other examples are found in both the Old and New Testaments of God programming people to sin and holding them accountable for the sin.
    As Paul explains in Romans, people have as much choice, free will, as a clay pot — which is none. The potter, God, is responsible for how the pot, the person, turns out. However, He holds the pot accountable. If He does not like the pot that He made or if He made it to be destroyed, He destroys, condemns, it.
    Some predestinationists who also hold to the identity school (the identity school believes that the lost tribes of Israel are found in Europe and their descendants in the Americas) claim, or at least imply, that all Israelites are saved. Apparently, this is true if they do not believe in Jesus and do sinful work. They are saved because God chose the Israelites and no one else for salvation regardless of their beliefs or acts. They are saved because of their ethnicity; God arbitrary chooses their ethnicity for salvation. Presumably, all the idolatrous kings of Israel and Judah were saved because they were Israelites. In any event, these kings were merely doing what God had programmed them to do. (Not unamazingly, people who hold this belief assume that they are Israelites and are, therefore, among the saved. God must have programmed this belief into them. They will not know for sure that they are among the saved until they die.)
    Since man has no free will, he is neither moral nor immoral. To be moral requires having the choice of acting immorally. Furthermore, to be immoral requires having the choice of acting morally. Having a choice, free will, impugns God’s sovereignty and, therefore, cannot exist. When a person appears to act morally or immorally, he is merely executing the program that God has inputted into him. He is doing exactly what God wants him to do.
    Having no free will, no real choice, no person is responsible for his acts. Whether good or evil or whether a believer or nonbeliever, he is merely a robot executing the program that God inputted into him. Moreover, his acts and beliefs have nothing to do with salvation. God arbitrarily decided whom He saves and whom He condemns before He programs anyone.
    God has programmed some people to believe that they have free will although they do not. Others He has programmed to know that they have no free will.
    As shown above, according to the predestinationists, man cannot have free will if God is sovereign. Each individual does only what God has programmed him to do. Free will is an illusion.
    In summary, man is not responsible for his actions: God is. He merely does what God has programmed him to do. However, God holds man accountable for his acts and beliefs. Moreover, the death and resurrection of Jesus have nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is God’s arbitrary choice — not faith in Jesus. To the extent that belief in Jesus has anything to do with salvation, God has programmed that belief into the person. As man has no choice in what he does and believes — he is merely executing the program that God put in him — free will is an illusion. If man had a choice, free will, God’s sovereignty is impugned (refuted and denied) and, therefore, cannot exist. Such is the essence of predestination theology.
    (With few exceptions, predestinationists seem to believe that they are among the saved. To know whether they are saved, they have to know God’s arbitrary choice. That is, they have to know the mind of God, which no man knows. How do they know whom God has chosen for salvation? They cannot base it on their beliefs or acts. Salvation is by God’s arbitrary choice and not by one’s beliefs or acts.)

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

What Race Was Adam?

What Race Was Adam?

Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998), with some grammatical corrections. The footnotes in the original are omitted.

Creation of Adam
    The last species of men whom God created was Adam, the father of the Aryans. Adam was created about 8,100 B.C. on the Pamir Plateau. With Genesis 1:27 begins the cultural history of man with the creation of Adam.
    Genesis 1:26 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth.” The Hebrew word in this verse translated as “man” is ̓âdâm. This word is translated as “Adam” in the second chapter of Genesis. More than five hundred times, 'âdâm is translated Adam. If this word had been translated as “Adam” instead of “man,” there would be no doubt that the Bible deals only with the Adamic race. The Adamic, Aryan, or White race, is the race created in the likeness of God and given dominion over the earth.
    A more literal and correct translation of Genesis 1:26 and 27 is “. . . God said, Let us make Adam (̓âdâm) in our image, after our likeness . . . And God created the Adam [or, the Adamite](ha-̓âdâm) in his own image . . . .” This translation clearly shows that Adam and the Adamite are the race whom God created in His own image. If the traditional translation of  ̓âdâm as man is used, these verses should read, “. . . Let us make a man in our image . . . And God created the man in his own image. . . .” Such a literal translation clearly shows that a particular man is being created, not mankind in general. This record of Adam’s creation strongly suggests the existence of other races of men at the time of his creation.
    God created the Adamic race to “have dominion over all the earth.” He created the Adamic race to civilize mankind. As shown below, the Adamic race is the source of civilization. He exalted this race, and other races have recognized it as God’s chosen (Acts 13:17). God also chose the Adamic race as the race from which He would bring His Son, who would be man’s savior.
    The Scriptures do not claim that Adam was the first man or that he is the father of all the races of man. On the contrary, the Scriptures present evidence that other people already existed before Adam was created.
    When God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, He gave Adam two duties to perform. First, he was to tend or dress the Garden of Eden. Second, he was to protect (keep) it.
    The word translated “keep” in the King James Version is shâmar (Strongs O.T. #8104), which means “to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e., guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.” Although most versions translate this word as “keep,” the Amplified Bible translates it as “guard and keep,” and Moffatt translates it as “guard.” Those who translate shâmar as “keep,” translate it in the sense of preserving, watching over, and defending if they translate it according to the root meaning of the word.
    From whom was Adam to defend the Garden of Eden? His enemy appeared not to be wildlife, for God brought them to Adam to name. That he was to defend it from Satan is also unlikely. God would not have asked Adam to protect the Garden of Eden from a being more powerful than he. The Bible clearly illustrates that man lacks the power to protect himself, much less anything else, from Satan. (He must rely solely on the power of God for such protection.) So, who was the enemy from whom Adam was to guard the Garden? The most logical answer is that he was to defend it from other men—most likely the ones to whom Cain fled in Nod.
    Another indication that the world was well populated at the time that Cain slew Abel is that Cain lured Abel into the countryside to kill him. He goes into the countryside away from any population center, so no one would witness his murder. If the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able, and an unnamed daughter with whom Cain could flee, as the traditionalists claim, Cain would not need to take his brother into the country to kill him.
    Furthermore, in Genesis 4:14, Cain claimed that he would be a fugitive and expressed fear that anyone who found him would slay him. Whom did Cain have to fear if Adam and Eve were the only people alive at that time? From whom would he be a fugitive? No evidence is given in the Bible that Adam and Eve had another child until after Cain had fled. Even if they did, Cain had no more reason to fear his brothers and sisters than his parents — perhaps even less fear since, according to the traditionalists, he married one of his sisters. Cain was not expressing fear of his family. He was expressing fear about people of other races who existed before Adam’s creation. God affirmed this conclusion in His response to Cain in Genesis 4:15 when He told Cain, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” Then He placed a mark on Cain. God was acknowledging that many other people were then living who could have slain Cain, and that He would avenge Cain’s death if any of them slew him. If only Adam and Eve were living, and some brothers and sisters, as the traditionalists claim, what purpose would the “mark “ have served? After all, his parents knew their own son. If he had any siblings at the time of his flight, surely they knew their own brother. The “mark” was so that the other people then living could recognize that Cain was under God’s protection. Cain was certainly aware that other people were then living who would delight in killing him.
    Genesis 4:17 provides more evidence that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. This verse shows that Cain found a wife, who bore his children. If Adam and Eve were the only people at this time, then how was Cain able to find a wife? No evidence is given in the Scriptures that Adam and Eve had any daughters to whom Cain could marry at the time the Bible describes Cain's marriage. In fact, Adam and Eve do not appear to have had any daughters until well after Cain's marriage. His marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his building of a city all occurred before Eve gave birth to Seth. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no daughters until after Seth's birth.
    The conventional explanation for Cain’s wife is that he married his sister. If Cain's wife was a daughter of Adam, why should she be punished along with Cain for a crime of which she was innocent? Why should she be banished along with him and forever separated from her parents? Why should her children be denied proper religious training and righteous rearing? The answer to these questions is that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam. The scriptural evidence that Adam and Eve had any daughters for Cain to marry at the time the Bible describes his marriage is lacking.
    Cain did not marry his sister. He married a woman of another race, probably a Turanian. Jude supports the belief that Cain married outside his race. In verses five through eleven, Jude condemns old and new apostates. He compares the new apostates with the old. The most common sin that he identifies with the old apostates is the sin of miscegenation. In verse seven, he states that Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” That is, they lusted after people of a different race. In verse eleven, he states the apostates had “gone in the way of Cain” and had followed “the error of Balaam.” The error of Balaam was his advice to Balak, King of Moab, to destroy Israel by having his mongrel people integrate with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Using Cain’s name in parallel with Balaam, Jude strongly suggests that both of them were guilty of the same sin, miscegenation.
    Further evidence that the world was populated at the time God created Adam is that Cain built his son Enoch a city (Genesis 4:17). The building of a city certainly implies the presence of a large population. Even if this city were no more than a village of huts, as some commentators claim, it still implies a population much larger than would have been the case if all mankind were descended from Adam and Eve. The building of a city strongly suggests that the land to which Cain fled was already inhabited. Why would he bother building a city if the area to which he fled was uninhabited? The dwelling that he, his wife, and son had would surely have sufficed.
    In an attempt to prove that Adam was the first man of all mankind created and the father of all races, theologians who preach the doctrine of the unity of man quote Genesis 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Acts 17:26, Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, and Colossians 3:11. None of these verses, however, support their claims.
    Quoting Genesis 3:20 (“. . . Eve . . . was the mother of all living”), these theologians claim that Eve is the mother of all the species of men. As discussed in detail in the chapter on the Flood, “all” does not always mean the whole number of or every last one. It frequently means many or a large number. In this passage, Eve is being called the mother of the Aryan race, the mother of all Adam’s descendants. She is the mother of all with whom the Bible is concerned, i.e., the Aryans. Expressions like this one that appear to refer to all the inhabitants of the Earth, nearly always only refer to those created in God's image, i.e., Adam’s descendants, the Aryans.
    These theologians are fond of quoting the first half of 1 Corinthians 15:45: “So it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul.” Then they argue that all men are descended from Adam. They overlook the last half of the verse: “The last Adam became a live-giving spirit.” They omit it because it makes no sense considering their doctrine. It immediately raises the question: Who is the last Adam? (The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ, with which nearly all, if not all, theologians agree.) The correct reading of this passage is that Adam was the first man of the Adamic line, not of all the racial lines existing today. Then the answer that Jesus Christ is the last Adam becomes clear. Jesus was born out of Adam through Abraham, Judah, and David. Verse 47 supports this conclusion: “The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthly: the second man [Christ] is of heaven.” Adam was the “first man” only in the same sense that Christ was the “second” man. Adam was the figure of Christ (Romans 5:14). If these verses are to be interpreted consistently, they cannot be understood as describing Adam in a physical sense. If they are referring to Adam in a physical sense, then Jesus was, according to verse 45, the last man, which is absurd. These verses outline a basic theme of the Bible: death in Adam and life in Christ. This is the light in which these verses should be understood—not as proof that Adam fathered all the races of men.
    Perhaps the favorite verse of the preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man is Acts 17:26: “And he [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” This is the King James Version. The American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley Version, and The Holy Bible in Modern English, translated by Ferrar Fenton, omit the word “blood.” Weymouth, in his New Testament in Modern English, gives in a footnote the literal translation, “from one,” and notes that “from one blood” is an alternative reading found in some manuscripts. “One blood” appears only in some later manuscripts and, therefore, probably is not in the original.
    This verse does not prove that all the races of men descended from Adam. It does show that God created each race of man. He created them at different times or by “the times before appointed.” He placed each of them in their own specific zoological zone or geographical area (“bounds of their habitation”).
    The preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man also like to quote Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, or Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew.” The Jew and the Greek referred to in these verses are both descendants of Adam. They are both Aryans. These verses are referring to one race, the Aryan race, living in different countries and conditions, and being united under Christ. They do not prove the doctrine of the unity of man.
    Thus, the verses often quoted to support the doctrine that all races of men descended from Adam fail to support this doctrine. Only the White race descended from Adam.

What Race Was Adam?
    Adam was created White. The name “adam” is ̓âdâm in Hebrew and means a “ruddy human being” (Strong's O.T. #120). It is derived from “adam” (Strong's O.T. #119), or ̓âdam in Hebrew, which means “to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy.” Only one race has the characteristic of blushing or showing blood in the face or skin, and that race is the White or Aryan race.
    Adam was named “Adam” because he possessed a ruddy or rosy complexion. He was fair and White and, therefore, the hemoglobin showed through his nonpigmented skin, giving a ruddy or flushed look. His name described his physical appearance. It is a physical characteristic that appears only in the White race.
    The Bible further proves that Adam and Eve were of the White race with fair and ruddy or rosy complexion by the way it describes their descendants. 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:43 describe David as being “ruddy and of fair complexion.” 2 Samuel 13:1 describes David’s daughter, Tamar, as “fair.” Genesis 12:11 and 14 describe Sarah as “very fair,” and Genesis 24:16 and 26:7 describe Rebekah as “very fair.” They are descendants of Adam. In Songs of Solomon 5:10, Solomon is said to be “white and ruddy.” In Lamentations 4:7, the Nazarites (consecrated persons) of Judah are described as “whiter than milk” and “more ruddy in body than rubies.”
    Adam and Eve were White. The church has historically always depicted them as White and correctly so. As recorded in the Bible, Adam’s descendants end up being White or at least of a light complexion. This is a fact that no one seriously denies. Yet traditional creationists also claim that all the other races are also descended from Adam.
    Adam was not the father of the human race. He is only the father of the Aryan race. Each race is a distinct and separate creation. God created each race independently of the others and at different times. Hence, each race is a distinct species.
    Scientific evidence suggests a high antiquity of man, along with evidence of definite anatomical differences. Each race of man is descended from a different human pair whom God created with different external and internal characteristics.
    The Scriptures and science agree. The fossil record supports the Bible, and the Bible supports the fossil record. Adam was not the first human that God created. Adam was only the first individual of a new species, the Aryan race of man.
    Although traditional creationists and evolutionists view each other’s theories with enmity, their theories have much in common. Both claim that all races of men have a common origin. Both claim that early man possessed a wide variety of genetic traits that allow for the different races. Both claim that only minor variations exist among the races today. Both claim that the races are the result of climate, environment, natural selection, and group isolation. Both claim one species, race, or kind can produce others—the principle of speciation. Both claim that God did not create the individual races of men. Both claim that no pure race exists because gene flow can and has occurred among the races.
    Only two areas of any real disagreement exist between the traditional creationists and evolutionists. First, the creationists believe in the Divine creation of the initial pair. Evolutionists, for the most part, believe in some sort of spontaneous generation. Second, the creationists believe that the races of men evolved (or developed, as they prefer to say) over a few generations. The evolutionists believe that they evolved over tens of thousands, if not several hundreds of thousands, of years.
    Both the traditional creationists and evolutionists ignore the fact that man can only invent falsehoods in science and religion. True science is nothing more than God’s revelation through His work in nature. New discoveries in science may conflict with religious errors preached over the centuries. With religious truths, however, they can never conflict. Both science and Scripture have the same Author.

Image of God
    “And God created man [Adam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him. . . .”(Gen. 1:27). Adam had the physical nature of the Universe. He possessed life as found in other animals. But he was more. God had made Adam distinctly different. Like other races of men, Adam possessed reason, personality, and free will. Unlike the other races of men, he was created in the image of God. He possessed special qualities of God lacking in other races. Adam was the first man that God made in His own image.
    Pre-Adamic men were not created in the image of God — at least not in the sense that this phrase is used in Genesis. Pre-Adamic men had no closer union with their Creator than do their untutored descendants (Turanians, Negroes, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Australians) have today.
    Adam, however, was unique. God had made him as a special image of His own eternity. God made Adam immortal (this immortality Adam lost through sin). He was a creature, a species of man, with whom God could visit and have fellowship and communion (this unique fellowship with God, the Adamic race lost when Adam sinned). He possessed a spiritual quality lacking in others. This spiritual quality was directly related to kinship to God. He had the ability to think God’s thoughts in purity and holiness without corruption. Adam had the capacity to commune with God as no other race could. He could reach spiritual heights unattainable to the other species of men. God gave Adam a moral and spiritual nature that enabled him to understand his Creator, to commune with Him in this life, and to look forward to eternal bliss.
    Among the Divine qualities identified by Campbell that God gave Adam was a conscience or moral sense. This conscience in the Adamic race differs entirely from that in the other species of men. In the other races of men, conscience is a perceptive faculty. It provides them with some idea of right and wrong, but it never causes them to feel as though they must do right except where doing right is expedient. When they do wrong, they seem to lack an inward accuser or judge. They seldom show remorse about their crimes or sins; they only have remorse about being caught. In Adamic man, conscience provides moral guidance and protection from sinning. It is an innate part of his moral and spiritual constitution. His conscience convicts him of sin. The conscience of Adamic man is entirely different from that of other men
    Adam’s unique privilege before God was conditioned by his obedience and responsibility to God. God had created Adam and the Adamic, Aryan, race to be his representative and steward on the Earth. God had delegated to Adam a share of His own authority. He made Adam a responsible being. The Divine purpose for the Adamic race was world dominion. (Because of sin, the Adamic race can now only achieve its Divine purpose by the intervention of Christ Jesus.)
    “And Jehovah God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Thus, God breathed His spirit into Adam and made him a living soul. This, God did not do for the other species of men. This is what separates Adamic man from the other races. The other races do not possess the ever-living spirit of God as does Adamic man. Unlike other beings, he shared something in common with his Creator.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.