Variation on a theme of Genesis 1-2

As I read the creation story recently, some new ideas came to mind. I have to preface this post however with a bit of a possible false doctrine disclaimer. These are just a few of the musings I've been bouncing around my skull lately.

So, basically as church members, and as Christians in general, we sort of have to shy away from a literal belief in the story of the creation of man, as we have always understood it. The most literal interpretation of it all would be to say that man, as derived from Adam is less than ten thousand years old. How then do we respond to the fossilized remains of ancient man or man-like creatures? How do we respond to the mounting evidence of evolution as a means of transfiguring one species into another? How do we interpret the fact that our own bodies seem to have evolutionary remnants of past functions, no longer in use by modern man? For the longest time I have figured that there must be some sort of flaw with the science - the dating system, be it carbon or some other method, chinks in the evolutionary chain, etc. I figured that such convincing data was in place because it represented a chance for God to test the faith of His followers. Basically, the response has been to question the science, rather than see it as revelation of truth. You see, I feel like we are often very selective of the science that we accept, based on our own understanding of spiritual texts, but at the same time we are unwilling to see a broader, although perfectly feasible interpretation of certain scriptural stories.

For instance, if you take the fist two chapters of Genesis as a chronological timeline you will see that the creation of man on the sixth creative day (Gen 1: 26-30) is discusses much in the same way in which the previous creative days are discussed. Although man is given dominion over the animals, he is not necessarily imbued with any additional commands to which the plants and animals are not also subject. There is no sense of a spiritual mandate - no concept of the exercise of election or agency. It seems to me that man is simply ordained as the highest of the animals.

Then in chapter two, following the end of the account of the creative period, Moses, the author of Genesis, accounts the creation of Adam and Eve. At this point God does address the spiritual nature of man. He provides Adam and Eve with commandments and opportunities to follow instructions which might not follow naturally based on their biological instincts. At this point modern man as a spiritual entity is conceived.

As I read on, following the expulsion from the garden, it just seemed to me that there were more people in the lone and dreary world than Adam and Eve. The rapidity with which the account discusses the wife of Cain - the fact that he goes to dwell in another named land, it all seems to indicate to me that there were more people.

I think it is quite feasible that Adam and Eve, although created directly by God, were integrated into an existing population of genetically comparable human beings. At that point, all of human kind became more than just the rulers of the animals. At that point they became aware of more than just instinctual emotions and began to understand the difference between right and wrong. They became Sons of God, in that their spiritual destiny began to be diffused among them and among their children. Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 6 of Genesis might actually mark the point of the broader mingling of Adams progeny and that of the original men:

"1. And it came to past that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

If this is true, it could be equally true that God used the tool of evolution to create the animals, and thus man, in the first place. The creative periods could have been periods of evolutionary development in the world. This could explain why we, as descendants of Adam, as well as the original men, have genetic markers which point to earlier evolutionary stages. It could explain why homo sapiens seem to find themselves at the end of a progressive evolutionary chain. Rather than blasphemy, it could be seen as an amazing move of a God working with natural law as either a confine or a tool.

I know that it's a little out there, but I think it represents nothing more than a new interpretation that although foreign to our understanding, could be feasible. What do you guys think?

-Matt-