Philosophical Anthropology

The Enigma of Humanity's Origin

Throughout history, humanity has been preoccupied with its ancestry. When did we first appear on Earth? What were those early humans like, and from whom do they descend? What circumstances led to the emergence of humankind? Each of us has a father and a mother who brought us into being. Our parents, in turn, have their own parents, and so on, delving deeper into the lineage. All of them were human. Therefore, within this genealogical chain, is there a rupture where the first humans had no parents or where their parents were non-human beings?

The theme of lineage initiation is a typical motif in ancient myths, closely linked to the experience of kinship as the foundation of one’s identity. The determination of who is related to whom significantly influences expectations of mutual support and assistance. It is no wonder that human imagination constructed ties with ancestors, often idealizing them, attributing extraordinary abilities to them, and extending their involvement in life through an invisible connection between the deceased and the living. The cult of ancestors fostered the deification of legendary progenitors, who were sometimes conceived in forms other than human—animalistic or otherwise—thereby rendering certain humans as complicit in some species of animals (such totemic identities are characteristic of archaic communities). A variant of this is the belief in a particular god who serves as a protector of a lineage (or group of related lineages), often interpreted as the very being through whom humanity came into existence, the father or mother of the human race as a whole. Since the emergence of living beings or objects bears visible analogies—such as the mating of male and female, the birth of offspring, or the crafting of an object by a master—such explanations for the genesis of humanity have always come to mind first. The world itself is said to originate and develop from an egg, born from the sexual act of eternal gods, and somewhere in this chain of progeny lie the ancestors of our kind. Alternatively, a god might sculpt humans and breathe into them the life-giving spirit, transforming this creation into something divine (for surely it is not without reason that he shaped humanity!). Thus, anthropogenetic notions were intricately intertwined with religious beliefs, as they provided explanations for the uniquely intimate familial bond between God and humans, simultaneously addressing the issue of the first humans’ emergence, that rupture in the chain of successive generations.

Today, such explanations are unlikely to satisfy the thinker. They appear too fantastical, although their echoes persist in contemporary religious consciousness. For example, the biblical myth of human origins may seem entirely acceptable to devout Christians who do not overly concern themselves with myriad questions. God created the world and the people within it, with humanity standing as the pinnacle of His creation, a special being to whom God is not indifferent. Furthermore, since the testimony of God's revelation to humanity is provided in the Bible, does denying the sacred essence of biblical narratives not, in effect, undermine the foundation of faith in God? This tension arises for religious consciousness when the act of creation is called into question. Consequently, the issue of human origins becomes dramatic, acquiring exceptional worldview significance. The dogmatic defense of the biblical myth of creation by God has, however, weakened over time, although it remains a characteristic feature of several denominations, especially among Protestant sects that regard the Bible as the primary source of doctrine. This tendency is also strong among Muslims.

Often, one encounters a contrast between two models of anthropogenesis—creationism (humans created by some higher power) and evolutionism (humans arising through self-development from some primordial form of life). Creationism is sometimes interpreted as intrinsically linked to religion, while the acknowledgment of evolutionary origins is seen as an expression of atheism. Conversely, evolutionism is portrayed as a model of scientific explanation, and creationism as myth. Yet, the relationship between mental frameworks and their internal logic is more complex than can fit into this simplified (and contrived) schema. Ultimately, for religious sentiment, the manner of humanity's emergence in the world is not of essential significance. What matters is whether they can expect God's involvement in their lives. Why then could not God have created a world where humans evolved from another form of life and transitioned into a post-human state? Or is it truly necessary to conceive of the world as created by God rather than a world in which God acts? The latter clearly forms the root of religious perception, while the former tends to be a somewhat arbitrary speculative exercise. Is it not naive to regard the Bible as an infallible source?

Doubts regarding this source first emerged among those who carefully examined the biblical texts. Here are some notable examples. It is rather challenging to explain why, on the very first pages, we encounter two different accounts of human origins. The sixth day of creation in the Book of Genesis is described thus (Genesis 1:24-31):

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them... This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being... And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:1-2, 4-7, 15-25)

So, which account is accurate? Did God create man and woman after the rest of the animals, or did He first create Adam, then the animals (which he would then have to name rapidly, and there were many kinds!), and only afterward did He create a woman as a companion for him? (Note that in these two narratives, the creator is referred to differently: in the first chapter, He is called Yahweh (God), while in the second, He is named Elohim (Lord God)).

Shortly thereafter, following the fall, the first couple gives birth to two sons, Cain and Abel. One is a farmer, the other a shepherd; the first kills the second out of jealousy, for God favored the shepherd's sacrifice. At the same time, moved and angered, God curses Cain, who, terrified, begs for forgiveness and some measure of mercy, fearing he will be killed for his crime. It is curious to ponder who would do this, given that at this moment there are precisely three people in the world: Adam, Eve, and Cain (Seth, another son of Adam and Eve, whose name is mentioned in the Bible, was born later). Cain is cast out, and he fears that other people (!) will not forgive him for killing his brother. God marks Cain with a sign ("the mark of Cain") as a warning not to harm him. Thus, Cain sets off into the world. At this point, there are two men—a father and a son—and one woman, Cain's mother. Yet, Cain somehow finds a wife for himself in exile!

While there are many defenders who tirelessly endeavor to justify the biblical text, firmly believing in its veracity, the sole reason for such defense lies in that sacred faith—a predisposition through which an individual seeks, at any cost, to concoct an interpretation that preserves its value. However, if the matter at hand is faith, what prevents one from reinterpreting the text in a manner that aligns it with any conceivable facts? The only barrier is the entrenched stereotypes of interpretation, their tradition. Thus, two fundamental conclusions emerge: (1) if someone wishes to find an interpretation that satisfies them, they will certainly find it; (2) the interpretation itself is inherently devoid of value. Consequently, creationism cannot be regarded as a means of explaining anthropogenesis that can somehow be extricated from arbitrary interpretations (or fantasies). In particular, there are no serious impediments (for the sake of faith) to merging the notion of Divine creation with an evolutionary understanding of the world—if one so desires. In this regard, creationism is merely an evasion of questions that appeal to empirical reality and can thus arbitrarily reconcile itself with any facts whatsoever.

Evolutionary models of development stand in opposition to one another as different versions explaining the mechanisms of qualitative transformations of objects in the world. All of them rest upon the acknowledgment of the historical variability of the forms of the cosmos, particularly the species of living beings. Therefore, contrary to evolutionism is the denial of the very fact of the world's variability in its objective composition (among which is the "biblical" creationism) or the acceptance of the idea that all events unfold with inexorable necessity. If we add that behind each such event lies the intent of a creator (that is, an event might occur or not depending on His will), we arrive at two anti-evolutionary models: fatalism (everything is a function of time) and theistic voluntarism (everything is the result of God's decision). Both models are logically feasible; however, there are no grounds to choose between them, just as there is no way to affirm or refute them in fact. Thus, their informative value is null: they allow for no predictions and provide no means to influence anything, offering no basis for justifying any goals or values. Rather, the opposite is true: by accepting such a model, we inevitably lead to absurdity in any attempts to comprehend the world and in any motives of practice and responsibility among individuals in their intentions to change life. For it is precisely in these attempts that there is no room for creativity or responsible action.

In this sense, creation can be understood as the acknowledgment of an act of purposeful fabrication of a specific object by a rational agent as the cause of its (the object’s) emergence. Does the possibility of creation contradict evolutionary models? Here, it is essential to note one characteristic prejudice: it is commonly accepted that creation is some instantaneous act or, at the very least, an action in which the expected outcome is achieved sequentially, according to a clearly predetermined design, without any deviations, attempts, or errors. We can indeed find elements of such actions in the work of a master craftsman. Yet we also observe that such expected conformity of the result to the prior intent characterizes reproduction—repeating something already mastered or invented. In the very act of creativity, as the emergence of something new that previously did not exist, neither does the intent entirely correspond to the result (the outcome of creative action is often unexpected for the creator; they do not know precisely where their inspiration will lead!) nor is it ever achieved immediately, on the first attempt. The creator explores alternatives, seeks potential forms of construction, tests them, evaluates their properties, with the criteria for evaluation and their vision of the purpose of their work constantly redefined by the results obtained. Moreover, new prototypes typically do not arise as entirely new in their entirety. Rather, they are variations on a theme, deviations from the original prototype, various ways of reworking it, solidifying some variant, and its multiple reproductions on this new basis undergo further trials, which at some point may hit a dead end and compel a return to one of the previous stages to begin searching for alternative options that were previously overlooked or dismissed. The thought process also fits entirely within this scheme. The only distinction lies in the fact that in thought, the creator operates with images and signs, rather than with tangible objects. And only where a successful template for reproduction has been devised can it subsequently be used as a ready action, as a finished model without searches and hesitations, immediately, in its entirety. Thus, as we can reconstruct the relationships between species of living beings or inventions, technologies, norms of behavior, etc.—in all these instances, we find the same general schema of the evolutionary process. It encompasses a mechanism for reproducing a certain type of objects, into which changes can be introduced. These changes solidify the reproduction of a new, altered prototype following numerous trials of various options based on the original. The solidification, selection, is carried out under specific critical conditions that determine the degree of viability of the new, its demand and resilience, and its ability to fit into the already existing world. Creation always alters this world and transforms the creator. Thus, there is no essential difference between the act of creativity and the evolutionary process; in reality, these are a singularly coherent means of producing novelty and altering the objective composition of the world.

Regarding the elucidation of the historical process of human origin, the sources of data and accumulated knowledge upon which this process is reconstructed, as well as the theoretical models of this reconstruction, this topic extends far beyond the limited scope of concise exposition. It suffices to state that currently, a dozen schemes of evolutionary anthropogenesis are competing with one another, and heated debates continue regarding the recognition of specific factual data as credible evidence in support of one hypothesis or another, along with numerous disputes over the very interpretations of findings, datings, and so forth. The work of anthropologists here resembles the task of assembling a coherent picture from puzzles taken from various boxes and mixed in a bag, with the majority of these puzzles from each box either lost or severely damaged. Clearly, the resolution of this task is heavily reliant on the imagination of the researchers and their ability to critically reflect upon the hypotheses put forth. This is an exhilarating game, one that today can only be engaged in by immersing oneself in the content of several related disciplines, which precludes the value of arbitrary speculations on this topic. It is vital to clearly understand the circumstance that the theory of anthropogenesis cannot justify or devalue religious beliefs, nor is there any basis to trust the authority of religious tradition in explaining the structure of the cosmos and humanity's place within it.

Thus, the concept of humanity lies within two semantic dimensions: belonging to the biological species Homo sapiens (one among other living beings); (2) the identity of the self as a subject of self-perception, akin to one’s own among one’s kind. In the second sense, we can view humanity as the player of roles in social interactions and as a personality, irrespective of its physical body. Characteristic traits of humans as a species comprise a complex of attributes in their physical structure (a large-headed, upright-walking, weak-bodied primate with an enlarged brain, upper limbs adapted for manipulating objects, devoid of fur, and hypersexual), behaviors (a social creature whose behavioral repertoire is shaped through cultural development within a community), and an adaptive strategy that consists of group cooperation with advanced collective tool-making activities aimed at transforming the living environment into one better suited to their needs—an artificial environment. The essence of this adaptive strategy is revealed in the concept of culture as the creation, processing, and preservation of an artifactual world and the reproduction of humanity within it as a bearer of the necessary repertoire of social behavior. Culture serves as a factor of heredity, complementing and largely substituting the molecular-genetic mechanisms of inheritance intrinsic to other living beings. Throughout the historical development of humanity as a species, its key individual characteristics (primarily higher mental functions—language, thought, self-regulation based on assimilated social standards) have been selected through eugenic selection. The diversity of humans is determined by two hereditary factors (cultural-genetic and molecular-genetic) and by individual variations of acquired experience (both through direct interactions between the organism and its living environment and mediated through an individual’s inclusion in mental culture and the development of their own "inner" mental world). In addition to individual variation, humanity also exhibits a marked group variability of cultures since the cultural-genetic mechanism necessarily involves partial social isolation of the community. The means of integrating such a community is morality, serving as a mechanism for social control over human behavior with an influence on their status within the group. The predominant form of activity in which mental culture is generated is play. Participation in significant games elevates life goals beyond the mere satisfaction of basic needs, imparting what is experienced as the meaning of life. The origin of humanity remains one of the great existential mysteries, and within its resolution, the evolutionary approach predominates.