Becoming Adam: GAE book review

Faith & Science Conversation
83

You’re asking the reader to prove a negative. The onus is on the author to make the case that it happened. Do you have any evidence to offer?

Swamidass said in the book that he only would appeal to one miracle.

  1. They are de novo created. God creates Adam and Eve by a direct act, de novo from dust and a rib (or Adam’s side). … As defined by these four propositions, this hypothesis restates how most people in history have understood Genesis. It is an “improper” hypothesis, in that it includes a miracle, so it cannot become a proper scientific conclusion.

To scientifically assess this hypothesis, however, we need add two more propositions.
5. No additional miracles allowed. No appeals to divine action are permitted to explain the data or increase confidence in the hypothesis. Yes, one direct act of God is included in the hypothesis itself, but the evidential evaluation of the hypothesis cannot infer or rely upon divine action in any way.

These are direct quotes from the PDF of the book. Looks to me like the only miracle allowed is the de novo creation of Adam & Eve. Now you’re talking about two of them. What’s the other miracle? Getting people to Tasmania in time to infect that populace with sin before AD 1? Do you need any more miracles to make this thing work? Might as well throw another log on the fire.

84

@Jay313

No matter how often you are corrected on this point, you continue to think GAE is about convincing scientists about religion. No, No-No, Nooooo.

GAE is about teaching how well science can accommodate religious ideas.

As for miracles… after the de novo creation of Adam/Eve, all that is left is providential events. Even Behe describes providential events as belonging to the real of natural processes.

85

I don’t think anything of the sort. Do you have anything substantive to discuss?

1 Like
86

I see you were asking questions about this GAE theory a while back. I’ve only read the first 4 chapters of the book so far, which I think present a rather interesting hypothesis (the book is a dense read, so slow to get through).

In case it helps answer your questions, this is my understanding of the GAE theory, which could help reconcile an inerrant view of scripture (de novo Adam and Eve story) with human evolution:

The thesis, as I understand it so far, is that data around genetic inheritance would not be sensitive enough to detect the existence of a newly, (miraculously created) couple, if they intermingled with evolved people who would have existed outside of the garden of Eden (e.g. if the Nephilim could be interpreted to be Neanderthals, for example). If that did happen, the Bible would still be accurate in saying that we all descended from Adam and Eve in the genealogical sense, because genealogical inheritance is what the Bible refers to. The reason why genetic data would be insufficient to detect a de novo couple, is because genetic evidence dilutes/disappears in the population over time and fails to track all genealogical relatives, whereas genealogical relationships explode exponentially over time.

In the book, Swamidass cites a 2004 Nature paper: Rohde, D. L. T., Olson, S. & Chang, J. T. (2004) Nature 431, 562–566 saying that it could only take a few thousand years for intermingling human populations to all become related globally. I actually remember this paper being big news back when I was in graduate school, but I never thought about its possible scriptural implications.

Since I haven’t made it through the rest of the book yet, I can’t speak to the criticisms that Jay Johnson has about the nature of the humans, how sin was transmitted, etc. So I still have more to read and try to understand about the theory myself.

Note that the thesis only works if there were other populations of people outside of the garden. This is different from the more traditional, de novo created, sole progenitor hypothesis in which there were no other people outside the garden. Evidently, such a de novo sole progenitor hypothesis can be soundly refuted by genetic analysis explained on the BioLogos website by Dennis Venema

1 Like
87

There was a lot of discussion in this thread about the GAE hypothesis helping YECs accept evolution. I wouldn’t necessarily expect that, because I thought that YECs would want Adam to be a sole progenitor. While reading the book, I was thinking about it being more helpful in allowing old earth creationists to accept evolution. In fact, Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe has endorsed the book. For an old earth creationist to accept evolution, the actual date of when a de novo Adam and Eve could have been created would not be all that important. Thus, I don’t agree with Jay’s “just pick your favorite date” critique of the book. The hypothesis is not so much about specific time-frames, but is rather about the limitations of genetic inheritance data. IF by a miracle, a de novo Adam and Eve couple were created within the context of other hominids existing outside the garden of Eden, and they interbred, genetic data would not be able to detect whether or not that new creation had happened.

4 Likes
88

@Jay313

I strongly recommend that you stop thinking GAE is a book trying to teach history to existing audiences who already support Evolution.

The book, and the methodologies, is about showing Christians that there is room for a few one-off miracles in a world where Evolutionary processes are acknowledged as valid. It isn’t supposed to be convincing to people who already embrace evolution; it is supposed to be helpful to Christians who, for one reason or another (but particularly because of Romans 5), want to fit Evolutionary theory in with their faith.

89

I agree, and would add the other insurmountable problem would the the worldwide flood position also held by that group.

1 Like
90

I suggest that various (and combative) views from various groups and individuals should not deter us from considering the reasonable concept put forward by the genealogical idea. This is at an early stage of development and yet some seem vehemently opposed to the idea - I ask why is that?

2 Likes
91

That was exactly my thought too. Thanks for the reply!

92

@MOls and @Diplodocus

Yes, I’m sure there will be persistent camps of Creationists who think Adam/Eve must be the first two Homo sapiens.

But the internal conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 suggests to the critical reader that humanity came first - - THEN came a special couple known as Adam and Eve.

Theologically speaking, Romans 5 requires an Adam/Eve… but it doesn’t require that they have to be chronologically the first humans.

GAE can’t resolve all possible conflicts. But showing the way out of the Romans 5 conflict is an important milestone!

93

Early stage of development? We’ve been hearing about GAE for a couple of years now. Didn’t Swamidass receive a Templeton grant and spend the money to gather a lot of scientists and theologians to advise him on the manuscript? And the GAE still isn’t ready for public consumption? This is starting to feel like a Thanksgiving dinner where the host forgot to thaw the turkey the night before. (Sorry, I know you’re Australian and won’t necessarily get the reference.)

I can’t speak for anyone else (luckily for them!), but I’m opposed to the GAE first of all because I don’t believe it’s true. It makes a mess of original sin and the fall, and if it were true, it calls the character of God into question. I explained why in my post GAE Makes God a Monster. Forgive the clickbait title, but I actually stole the phraseology from Church historian and Arminian theologian Roger Olson, who on Sept. 5 said this on his blog, “I have openly admitted here that consistent Calvinism turns God into a monster and makes it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil …” If it’s okay for Roger to say that about Calvinism, it’s okay for me to say it about GAE.

Second, I believe the cure is worse than the disease. The last thing evangelicals need is an apologetic that non-Christians poke fun at. Jerry Coyne called it a wonky quasi-scientific theory. Graham Coop called it a neat parlour mathematical trick. And that’s just what was said before the book came out. Evangelicals already have a credibility problem on our hands, especially among the younger generation. GAE is likely to make the problem worse, in my judgment.

Which brings me to my third objection, previously made in the thread on inerrancy: We are losing the younger generation. They are forming their worldviews and not mature in their faith, and when much of the information they are fed from Christian sources flatly contradicts the evidence, faith itself comes into question. This is a matter of evangelism – of life and death – not a difference of opinion over how best to interpret Genesis or Paul. The GAE hypothesis may appeal to someone whose interpretation requires a literal couple named Adam and Eve. But what is its appeal to someone who already accepts evolution but isn’t sure about the Bible? None, as far as I can see. Those are the people I worry about because their numbers are growing astronomically. GAE does nothing about the real problem, and may exacerbate it.

94

I think the intent is to reach the YEC’s, who are the ones causing the young people problem (IMO), but I am skeptical of it actually doing that. I’ve talked to one YEC about the book so far, and he agreed with my assessment of not seeing being related to Adam and Eve as being important. But he and I both don’t believe in the concept of being born with any kind of sin. So I don’t think the book would help people like him any, and those are the people my congregation comprises of.

I don’t, however, think this will cause more problems. He’s been pretty clear that he’s not presenting this as something that we can prove happened, but that if a de novo Adam and Eve being related to all humans is important to you, science can’t disprove that. (Though as I said elsewhere, I do think Noah throws a wrench in there)

1 Like
95

I certainly am not opposed to the idea, I just think that it is ultimately not something I can embrace, and that ultimately it is not something many will find convincing. It may well help as a step in reconstruction for those in transition in their belief, so may have some utility in that respect.

I think the premise is based on “genealogy” being significant in a theological sense to us today, which is something I wonder about. In the ancient culture, no doubt it was important to people, but in today’s culture and society, we are more concerned with the individual and genealogies are often skipped or looked on with puzzlement when encountered in the Bible.

2 Likes
96

@Jay313

I don’t think YECs give a hoot about what non-Christians poke fun at. In fact, I think nothing would make them more suspicious than being pitched something that non-Christians LIKED!

In your article “GAE makes God a Monster”, all you are doing is raising the same theodicy problems that are common to all Christians who embrace Evolution. So I find this bit of criticism to be unusually despicable - - being made by another Christian who already embraces evolution and already participates in the usual difficulties of theodicy.

Just ask yourself why would a struggling YEC walk to a literature table where the possibility of Adam and Eve being specially created is dismissed from the outset…

versus

… a literature table where it can be honestly said that science is not in a position to detect or refuge the idea that Adam and Eve could have been specially created?

97

Not really. In my review, I said:

Genealogical Adam and Eve proposes that God’s first attempt at creation was somehow deficient, so he *re-*created humanity in the form of two people. I find no scriptural warrant for this fanciful notion. It raises far more questions than it answers. … The first that comes to mind is “Why?” Was God dissatisfied with his first effort – the “biological humans,” as Swamidass calls them?

This is not a problem for all Christians who embrace evolution. It’s a problem specific to GAE. I also said:

The “biological humans” are created in the image of God and endowed with a soul. They know right from wrong, have a conscience, and occasionally violate it by choosing evil. I fail to see the difference between the “biological humans” Swamidass describes, and the Gentiles Paul describes. The whole point of Rom. 2:12-16 is to demonstrate that “all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12). God judges the Gentiles by the standards of their own conscience. These pre-fall “biological humans” seem indistinguishable from Paul’s post-fall Gentiles, whom God judges. What’s the difference?

Again, this is a problem specific to GAE, not to every Christian who embraces evolution. Perhaps another example will work out better for you:

Chimpanzees have a well-documented form of “war,” and Richard Wrangham proposes that the “warfare” waged by early humans followed the chimpanzee pattern.[3] Even Fuentes would agree that the archaeological record is filled with instances of violence, murder, and cannibalism,[4] and artifacts such as “Venus” fertility figurines and magical creatures appear simultaneously to the cognitive revolution more than 40,000 years ago. Were those things not sinful until Adam fell in 4000 BC? As for the assertion that humans didn’t dominate or exercise power over others until Adam’s sin, I’m frankly speechless.

Again, a problem only for GAE. If you’d actually like to address any of the issues that I raised in the review, feel free.

I’m not sure how it’s despicable to point out flaws in an idea, but thanks for keeping me humble. Or as humble as it’s possible for one like me to be. haha

98

I’m curious how a chapter that doesn’t mention Eve, a first woman, or any woman could be thought to require both Adam and Eve. I’d think the way Paul completely omits the woman and wraps everything up in “one man” causes more trouble than salve for the literalist. If “by one man” excludes any other men being involved in sin’s origin, surely it also excludes even one woman?

If Romans 5 had mentioned Eve – such as how 1 Timothy 2 does – perhaps we wouldn’t have readings that try to explain why Adam’s sin mattered but Eve’s didn’t (e.g. federalism, headship).

4 Likes
99

I’ll take this as an example of your sense of humour (we may have that in common):upside_down_face: Anyone else would see this as supporting GAE by many qualified persons, and I understand Swamidass’s book is reaching a large audience - public consumption (haha).

I think we may differ in our theological outlooks on original sin also.

Peace, live long and prosper.

100

I mostly agree, but the bible was written when genealogy was important and central to a person’s identity and clan. It is not a good idea to glibly toss this aside. From this we may understand why A&E are important to an understanding human nature and the human spirit (which is central to biblical understanding.)

101

@Jay313 (cc: @swamidass)

This is just silly.
Christians who already endorse Evolution also need an explanation for the cut-off between Homo sapiens that evolved, and Homo sapiens “chosen” for a personal education by God.

We don’t know exactly what the criteria was, and we probably never will. You are trying to make a difference without a distinction.

Frankly, Jay, you go way over the top in trying to find problems with the GAE scenario, which has the advantage of being much more flexible in how it handles problems than you will ever be able to appreciate.

102

@Jay313, I’m not seeing how GAE, specifically, makes God a monster. God calling out Adam and Eve seems analogous with God calling Abraham. The Jews were God’s people, not the rest of the people living in Canaan (or in the world).

Or is it GAE tied with inheriting Adam’s sin that’s the problem? It seems that inherited sin would be the issue there, not GAE specifically (and again, I am skeptical of the need for genealogical connection to AE in the first place, so I’m not arguing for GAE here).

1 Like