How do Biologos explain Mark 10:6 when evolution claims we came from a primordial soup and then evolved gender after creation?

5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Not sure that “Biologos” has some specific or official position on just this verse - but speaking for myself, I understand the verse as Jesus’ response to the challenge put to him over divorce. So the point of the passage seems to be how God - through prior prophets and law - allowed something less than ideal just because that was where people were at. Jesus then reminds them of a higher ideal - a pattern seen from creation itself of people being created to need and depend on each other, in this case even hearkening to our specific biological need of males and females, who were made for each other. The phrase “from the beginning” just means that this creative reality had a prior establishment that predates Moses - that there is something even more fundamental hardwired into us than our statutes and ordinances based in law. A “higher” law if you will. Trying to make that phrase carry water for young-earth-creationism does violence to the text, trying to contort it into something it isn’t.


From an evolutionary standpoint, I think it is obvious that gender was an attribute of mankind from the beginning of creation of mankind, and in fact considerably before. So, depends on how you define beginning of creation. In Genesis 1, gender is not mentioned until day 6. As Merv said, Jesus was not talking about biologic reproductive mechanisms, but rather about marriage. On a side note, it is interesting how the purity culture aspect of modern days did tend to make it about sex rather than about marriage


Viewing those verses as proof texts for a young earth or against evolution is taking them out of context. It’s yet another example of young earthist quote mining. It’s as simple as that.


Biologos is an organization made up of various people with a wide range of beliefs and only a small portion of those people are active members of this forum.

So how do I personally look at this?

  1. Well the first thing is to consider what is male and female in this case. Most likely they were not responding to just social roles and so this is probably not about cis vs trans. Secondly they are not talking about chromosomes since they did not even know those existed. So it seems like what they are lost likely talking about is the basic biological system of what kind of genitalia you presumably have based off general face and body. But we know that intersex people have always existed and even exists in other species. So it’s not talking about that. Basically said all of that to show that from the very state they don’t seem to be talking about everyone. But that’s not the really important part anyways. Just something to highlight.

  2. What Mark is doing is called hyperlinking. It’s part of intertextuality. Part of contextual analysis. They are tying their message back to a message in genesis 1. So if I made a reference to Herculean strength or speed of Superman I’m not arguing those are real people. I’m just using it to build my narrative. So when we look at genesis 1 and Mark 10 neither proves or disproves the other as scientific or historical. Genesis 1 is written as a myth. It’s not history. It’s not even highlighting all the marriages that had multiple wives .


Gender and marriage are cultural constructs that biological evolution doesn’t really speak to. On the other hand, the biological sex binary has existed for as long as humans have been on the planet. Jesus is talking about divorce and referencing Hebrew Scripture, which makes perfect sense for a rabbi to do. I honestly don’t understand the question or why anyone would be thinking about evolution when trying to understand what Jesus was teaching about divorce.


Good clarification. Old guys like me sometimes get the definition of gender and biological sex mixed up in the telling. It does seem that part of the confusion is also between biologic sexual morphology and sexual relations with both often referred to as “sex.”

1 Like

That contradicts Genesis where God made Adam, and then made Eve. They were not made at the beginning of creation either, according to Genesis 1.

Was Jesus wrong?

or are you misunderstanding (deliberately) the details of a larger conversation.



That we (Western Christians) would make this passage about the origin of biological sex rather than a theological statement about marriage and divorce probably shows how much the creation/evolution controversy has impacted how we look at scripture. It is interesting that, as a far as I know, there has never been a serious attempt by Jewish rabbis ancient or modern to argue for a concordist view of science and the Bible. Reading scientific theories into the Biblical text seems to have begun with the introduction of Christianity into Greco-Roman culture. Since Western Christians are closer to the ancient Greeks and Romans culturally than we are to the Semitic Jews of ancient Palestine, it makes sense that we would have a similar proclivity. This is not to say that science and the Bible don’t have a dialogue, just that the dialogue is not what we tend to think it is.


They get used interchangeably a lot of time, but for the purpose of the discussion, it seems Adam was referencing the evolution of biological sexual reproduction and implying it had some bearing on how one understood men and women and marriage and divorce. I just think it’s irrelevant when biological sex evolved if we are trying to understand Jesus saying don’t divorce your wife for stupid reasons, you’re supposed to have a bond and responsibility to one another that is really significant.


Oh what complete nonesense.

Lets read the text in parts so you can appreciate what the normal use of language here is actually saying…

5But Jesus told them,

Moses wrote this commandment

That clearly means that Christ is referencing a real event in the past…the prophet Moses actually wrote something down (in this case a commandment about marriage and divource)

Christ then goes on to say…

from the beginning of creation,

This means what in language? Does it not mean as it clearly says…from the start of the creation process?

Then we are told,
God made them male and female.

humans were made male and female? It is not talking about animals, insects, birds, fish, bacteria, viruses, plants…the context here is humans in marriage and divource.

It does not matter when the creation process started, what does matter is that male and female has been Gods handywork from the very start. He created us male and female exactly as stated in Geneis ch1 and 2.

Therefore the idea we evolved gender biblically is false teaching.

So i am not taking anything out of context as you incorrectly claim.

To take the above verse out of context would be for example, to claim it was talking about male and female animals or insects etc and draw a doctrine from that.

That does not address the text i quoted…

I note in responses here that individuals make the claim that bible writers didnt know anything about biology.

Trouble is, it was Christ (Creator/GOD) who spoke those words!

look at the text carefully …

Christ says HE (God) created them (Adam and Eve) male and female.

Moses, whom Christ is historically referencing here, wrote that they (male and female humans) were created on the same day!** (Day 6)

The statement that it was Adam first and then Eve does not address the Evolutionary dilemma, a long period of time. According to Moses, whom Christ is clearly agreeing with, Adam and Eve (male and female) were both created on the same day…within a 24 hour period

The here is that Christ states:

Moses wrote that [humans] were created male and female (he is not talking about ducks, dogs, cats, lizards, or plants)

Moses wrote a commandment for marriage (so Moses actualy wrote this down, therefore he really existed and wrote these things the writings of creation are clearly not an allegorical or metaphorical story)

And I am Prince Aloysius Gramondie Racemolie Torquinel of Tauri-Hessia.

No Adam, to take the above verse out of context is to claim that it is establishing a doctrine about the timing and process of creation rather than a doctrine about divorce. It nitpicks about one phrase in verse 6 while ignoring the entirety of verses 1-5 and verses 7-9. It completely misses the point of the entire passage.


Trying to make these verses be about biology instead of what they were actually about (divorce) is just like trying to use the parable of the variously and late-hired laborers and their wages as a manual for good economic practices or how to run a business. Because after all - this is God talking, right? And He knows more about business, economics, and labor than any of us. Or taking the parable of the sower and trying to discern best farming practices from that. But what that would really be is just yet more practice of missing the entire point of that lesson - and not only does your understanding of scripture suffer accordingly, but your business or your farm probably won’t be lasting very long either.


Oh how people miss the point when they explain away bible texts. You still do not get it…

Read the text again phrase by phrase,

  1. Christ (God) spoke the words - so the claim the bible writer doesnt know science is bull!

  2. Christ (God) says, Moses wrote - This is an historical reference to the REAL moses (not a mythical character)

  3. Christ (God) says, from the beginning of creation - two key words “BEGINNING” and “CREATION” He created them “MALE AND FEMALE”

The context is that God created humans (not animals, insects, plants) as two unique genders and He did this from the beginning. It is the comming together of these two unique individuals that form a marriage.

Evolution says a single individual divided to evenutally form gender (complete opposite of the bible)

When we look at how humans procreate, an sperm and an egg come together in order to produce a new life. Gender is decided at this point…not before, and not after. That is exactly what the bible says is needed “from the beginning of Creation”.

It has me wondering, can anyone show me from the bible where “humans” procreated without male and female first existing? (i would advise against the incarnation being inserted here, thats a miracle which a number on these forums dont accept and we are talking about testable science here not the miracle of the incarnation)

Nobody here is talking about science, Adam (except you). None of us are … and certainly the bible verse isn’t. No claims here about what the original writer knew or didn’t know about science (again - except from you.) All of us here take scriptures seriously enough to take Jesus at his word - that if he says this is about divorce and marriage - then, well, it’s probably about divorce and marriage. Not about science. Not about toaster ovens. Not about anything else that you or YECism hopes to force-fit into it that just isn’t there. Thanks for helping everybody else here be aware of how badly YECism distorts and prevents you from delving into even just the simplist lessons scriptures have to offer. It showcases just how seriously that man-made dogma can intrude itself between its adherents and any true sense of scripture. I’ve recently skimmed a book by the late Henry Morris (“The Remarkable Record of Job”) - and sure enough; the book turned out to be not about Job, but more about Genesis. He was (insofar as I read through it) seemingly unable to appreciate any of the deeper struggles and wrestling of Job because he was too busy force-fitting that whole book into just yet another lesson about young-earth creationism. (When the only tool one has is a hammer …!) Complete with the obligatory cherry-on top about how “behemoth is really a dinosaur”.

I’m not even sure what you mean by those words, Adam. But by now, I think I’m pretty safe in assuming that “Evolution” does not say what you think it says. I’m betting your claim there (to the extent that I can even guess at it) probably does not match actual evidential reality as accepted or understood by any real scientists.

Biology does not disagree. From the very dawn of man, from the first humans onward, and all mammals before, the sexes have been male and female.

Read the text again, phrase by phrase. The “BEGINNING” must here refer to humans, as the beginning of all creation itself started with light, which has nothing to do with gender. So while this verse is really concerned with divorce and the institution of marriage, there is actually no conflict with evolution even with your forced interpretation.


Exactly…so when Christ says HE (God)

Created them “Male and Female”

“from the beginning of Creation”

That means that there is absolutely no room for the evolutionary claim that we evolved from a primordial soup with gender coming millions of years later!

Surely you can see this enormous problem?

Evolution - a single entity eventually divides and develops the capability to reproduce, at some point we eventually see the evolution of gender (male and female) who can then mate in order to reproduce

Creation - God made us male and female from the beginning of Creation

These are two diametric opposites!

Yes He created humans male and female! That does not change anything that preceded them

You re trying to manipulate the words to mean what you want them to mean. Give it up!. Scripture is not in conflict with Evolution. God used Evolutionary processes, that does not mean that the scientific viewpoint is 100% correct. .Just because science ignores God does not mean that you have to ignore science.


1 Like

WIth the caveat that i am no biblical scolar, this seems an odd verse to argue for YEC. It appears to be saying that the original revilation given to Moses said one thing but that is not the full story. It is the best way God could explain it to you given you current social state but the full truth is something different. This opens a simple alanogy to genises 1&2 as this is what you needed to hear at the time and gave vital theological truths that are still true today but the full story is more complicated. God knew he couldn’t start talking about fusion in stars making all the elements and how DNA can produce variations and all the wonders of life.