The origin of humans has been a subject of intense debate for many centuries. The two main approaches to this subject are materialistic and metaphysical. The materialist view suggests that humans evolved from non-human primates through the process of natural selection, while the metaphysical view suggests that humans were created by a divine entity or a supernatural force. According to materialists, their view is based on the scientifi c theory of evolution, which suggests that all living organisms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor. According to this theory, the process of natural selection drives the development of species over time and those individuals, with traits best suited to their environment, are more likely to survive and reproduce. Recent studies have provided convincing evidence for the descent with modification of humans from non-human primates, including genetic similarities, fossil evidence and anatomical comparisons. In contrast, the metaphysical view states that humans were created by a divine entity or a supernatural force. This view is often associated with religious beliefs and (according to its opponents) is not based on empirical evidence. For the origin of life there is a clear twofold requirement: firstly, a blueprint (plan) that determines how the organism will function (such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA)) and secondly a mechanism with a metabolic system to interpret the blueprint and functionally organise the proteins as described by the DNA or RNA. This is a classic “chickenegg” situation, because for life to arise, a blueprint is needed according to which the first organism will be produced, while at the same time an organism is needed to produce the first blueprint. All living matter (biomolecules such as nucleic acids, proteins and lipids) consist of the same macro-nutrients, namely, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphate, and sulphur, of which carbon and water are the most essential. These shared building materials are signs of a common origin, which is confirmed in genetics by aspects such as shared cell design, genetic code, protein systems, as well as DNA, mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid), and protein functions. The interconnectedness is especially clear where variations occur, such as changes through mutations which accumulate in the genome, especially in pseudogenes, where shared mutations then indicate shared ancestry; where retroviruses leave a copy (deactivated so-called “junk” genes) in the DNA of infected organisms, from which it is transmitted to the offspring to indicate relationships; and the sharing of parallel genes by some metazoa that indicate relationships. From a total of 6.1 billion prokaryotic protein-coding genes, 355 protein clusters have been identified that are shared by all prokaryotes. According to this, LUCA (last universal common ancestor) could successfully inhabit anaerobic hydrothermal vents on the sea floor in a H2, CO2 and iron-rich environment. This finding is consistent with the oldest evidence of life, namely microbial mats of bacteria and archaea that were the dominant life form during the earliest times of life on earth. Development and specialisation occurred during times of accelerated biodiversity, of which the Cambrian “explosion” was exceptional in scope and depth. DNA comparisons show that the phyla of the animal kingdom split into three groups, about 50 million years before the Cambrian period. The presence of complex DNA in all three groups that shared many characteristics, makes a complex ancestor a necessity. This indicates that the Cambrian biodiversifi cation was driven by selection from the loaded genetic potential space of a single, shared ancestor. As a species, human DNA shows a much lower diversity than the genetic theory predicts, mainly due to its recency as well as the occurrence of a “population bottleneck”, as indicated by the presence of a fusion chromosome. This fusion chromosome that once formed in a specific person, has become a shared chromosome of the entire human race. It is therefore currently generally accepted that the entire human population evolved from a very small group less than 160,000 years ago, possibly in Africa. Subsequently, through selection pressure, an identifi able gap, not only in form but especially in function, has arisen in modern humankind. The biblical narrative of Adam and Eve meets all the requirements for the threshold event that has been scientifi cally distinguished. In the Bible, it is said that God created man from the dust of the earth – in His image He created him. That humans have a common ancestor with monkeys seems to be true, just like with every organism on earth. We share much more than just ancestors with the rest of creation as was already stated, also building material, cells, organs, and a large part of our genome. That humans are unique in nature is, however, undeniable, and contemporary science cannot account for many empirical observations in this regard. It is therefore hypothesised that proto-man was created by guided development from the substance of the earth (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphate and sulphur). Later, a threshold event occurred (as described in Genesis) during which God transformed the protoman “in His image”. God guided human’s minds far beyond survival requirements to develop a language-processed, secondary memory, enabling humankind to receive and internalise love, wisdom, and morality. These are unique attributes of God that make humankind the image of God. Of the change of proto-man’s mind and his behaviour to modern humankind during the threshold event, there is ample scientifi c evidence. This could confi rm the paradise narrative as a verifi able reality, as does Eve’s creation from Adam. Modern scientifi c observations regarding the origin of the universe, the development of life and the origin of humans can be best understood when they are interpreted within a religious paradigm. Arno Penzias, physicist, and Nobel laureate is one of many scientists who conclude that the scientific evidence is consistent with the expectations flowing from theism. He writes: “The best data we have is exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the fi ve books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]