Book Review: The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass

The final installment of my review: Genealogical Adam & Eve Makes God a Monster . You can listen to the podcast or read the text. A couple of samples for discussion:

I also complained that Swamidass qualifies almost every claim into oblivion. After spending an entire chapter arguing strenuously against the fact of Tasmanian isolation, he informs us that it really doesn’t matter, since “nearly universal ancestry by AD 1 may be sufficient” (78). What?! Does this mean Aboriginal Tasmanians weren’t affected by the “fall”? Were they without sin until the Europeans arrived, bringing Adam’s sin on board like a stowaway?

I’ll return to those questions later, but they highlight the biggest problems with Genealogical Adam & Eve , which are the “fall” and original sin. In the final chapters of the book, Swamidass attempts to “synthesize the discussion in the first two parts of the book into a theological experiment” (172) that will dramatize the “fall” and original sin. But true to form, by the time the reader arrives at the end of the discussion, Swamidass qualifies everything. He says his “proposal is only tentative and can be replaced or adjusted” (199). That doesn’t undo the damage. The proposal as it stands suffers from special pleading on Tasmania, selective evidence on pre-fall humanity, and circular logic overall. The only option is to replace it, preferably with something more historically credible and parsimonious.

becomingadam.com

Thanks for the ping Jay.

1 Like

I’ve only gotten through the first 4 chapters of my new copy of the @Swamidass book so far, but am looking forward to finding time to read the rest. Reading it over Christmas break led to a few good discussions with my family.

When discussing the idea of evolutionary creation or theistic evolution with pastors and theologians, the biggest challenge in the conversation seems to be the idea that evolution turns the Adam and Eve and original sin story into a figurative narrative, instead of a historical account. I think Dr. Swamidass’s argument that science cannot disprove a de novo creation of Adam and Eve would be a helpful way to resolve some of the apparent (but perhaps unnecessary) conflicts. As a biologist and Christian, it would be helpful in these discussions for me to understand more clearly how I could hold both to the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy and the theory of evolution.

His version of a two-population model does have an answer for the original sin issue, while keeping a literal Adam and Eve. I am also an adherent of a two-population scenario, though mine is different from his. One way it is different is that I have a different answer as to how Original Sin still works in a two-population model.

2 Likes

Having “an” answer doesn’t mean it’s a good answer. If humanity was peaceful and no one exercised power/“dominion” over anyone else, as Swamidass claims (no patriarchy prior to the fall?), why was Adam necessary? To introduce the historical condition of sinfulness? The whole scenario makes Christ the answer to a problem that God created.

Not sure if it helps you out with inerrancy, @MOls, but here’s a “one-population” model that supports the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I place an approximate date on the historical “fall” and explain not just the fact of original sin but its origin and mode of transmission:

The overview is Adam’s Evolutionary Journey parts 1-3. You can listen to the podcast or read the blog version. Love to hear your thoughts if you get around to it!

@Jay313

Are you sure @swamidass asserts that nobody asserted power over others?

In the meantime, your scenario doesn’t seem to allow for a specific human couple that are the historical Adam/Eve.

That will cause trouble for those who depend on Romans 5 for the need for human atonement.

I have read that one Jay. And that of Dr. Swamidass. Obviously I prefer the Christ-centered model that I advocate. I will let you and he debate about the validity of his. Perhaps he has already crafted a response I haven’t seen yet. Maybe you would like my answers to the same question better.

Thank you for your analyses @Jay313 and @Mark_Moore and @gbrooks9. This is an interesting discussion.

Yes, I’ve been dialoging with a few pastor/theologians/exegetes who allow for an old earth creation view, but will not except the theory of evolution because of their need for a literal Adam and Eve. In particular, the claim is that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy would require Adam and Eve to be a historical couple, because both Jesus and Paul refer to Adam as a historical figure. The genesis account of Adam and Eve dialoguing with God also sounds historical, not simply symbolic/figurative.

I don’t see how I could get beyond this type of evolutionary science vs Biblical inerrancy impass with conservative theologians without allowing for a historic Adam and Eve

Perhaps the @moderators could comment on the BioLogos view of Biblical inerrancy and a historical Adam and Eve. I’ve noticed that the BioLogos belief statement uses the terms “inspired and authoritative” in reference to scripture, rather than the more traditional term, “inerrant”

Might someone be able to clarify for me: I’d assume the belief statement, “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God” is meant to allow inclusion of people with widely varied viewpoints (which I could see as a good thing). Is that a correct interpretation on my part? Is BioLogos also accepting of people who hold to more conservative views, such as scriptural inerrancy, or does BioLogos generally prefer a more liberal/figurative approach to scriptural interpretation?

1 Like

The organization does not take a position on either. People within the “BioLogos network” hold to a range of views on Adam and Eve and a range of views on inerrancy.

More details in the new common question article here:

And the updated Adam and Eve one here:

2 Likes

Thank you for that perspective, Christy. I appreciate it!!

I believe this statement in the BioLogos common questions article, “Were Adam and Eve historical figures?” is one that the Swamidass book would disagree with:
“Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two Homo sapiens individuals, but a population of thousands.” If I understood it correctly, I think Swamidass argues that the genetic data would not be sensitive enough to detect a de novo generation of an Adam and Eve in the context of a larger evolving population of hominids

But the Swamidass book would affirm the quote at the end of that article:
“Genealogical science suggests that a pair living at that time and place could be part of the genealogies of all humans living today” (which I see cites his ASA paper)

2 Likes

Actually Michelle, My understanding is the a geniological Adam and Eve idea does not claim any genetic input is necessarily passed on to the current population from Adam and Eve so the geniological (family tree) connection is independent of genetic analysis.
However, genetic data indicates no single couple origin is indicated in the last several hundred thousand years (roughly), but that is a a different subject, and really has nothing to do with a geniologic A&E.
So, this statement:

… is true, but unrelated to whether the evolving population derived from a minimal population numbering in the thousands.

GAE%20page%20176

Here you go, @gbrooks9. This is the PDF the publisher sent me. If your printed version says otherwise, please scan it and post/email it to me, and I would be glad to correct the record. Otherwise, stop resorting to innuendo and, like your role model, slander of my professional reputation as a journalist and editor. Try addressing the facts, rather than ad hominem and innuendo.

Duh. Your crew over at “Peaceful” Science has yet to answer the challenge of how Adam & Eve were socialized. They failed the first challenge, regarding how did Adam and Eve learn to speak? But the more difficult question is left hanging. Even God himself couldn’t teach the first couple how to conduct themselves in society outside the Garden, since humans learn those things by observing how other humans conduct themselves in specific situations. YHWH himself couldn’t teach Adam and Eve how to act around other people, since that is learned by observation and imitation. Do a Google Scholar search sometime on “social learning” or “enculturation” and look again at my article in God and Nature magazine, Practical Problems for Literal Adam. Good luck.

That’s all you’ve got to hang your hat on, those who depend on Romans 5? What I keep telling you and you fail to understand is that the median age of evangelicals and especially YEC is 55. The old folks aren’t changing their minds. My audience is those who accept evolution and seek to reconcile it with faith, which is Millennials and Gen. Z. I’ve given up on YEC. Try to change their minds, if you dare. Good luck.

Sure. I have a deal for you. I’ll read your material and start a thread on BioLogos dedicated to your scenario and my reply. In the meantime, you start a thread over at “Peaceful” Science asking Swamidass and the peanut gallery to deal with the facts, not ad hominem or libelous claims. Does Tasmania add 10,000 years to GAE or not? Deal with the facts. Does GAE make God a monster or not? The crew has already taken a stab at it in If GAE were true, the God of the OT is worse than Dawkins and Hitchens describe.

Get your crew to confront the facts, and I’ll be glad to start and host a discussion of your ideas.

@ManiacalVesalius started a discussion on inerrancy that is worth checking out. Biblical Inerrancy Is a Modern Invention. Lots to discuss there, but the time is growing late. Maybe tomorrow.

1 Like

This seems reasonable to me (video explanation), though I have rather limited theological credentials compared to many here. It neutralizes one of Jerry Coyne’s major criticism of Josh’s book.

1 Like

Thank you for watching the video Robert. I think it does neutralize that objection. Josh is right about the main idea of two-populations but may be trying too hard to find a scenario where the church does not have to change their mind on anything, just add to what they already have. I’ve seen too much. They need to re-think some things in light of scripture, not just science. I have called for theology to go back to its roots and behave a bit more like a science, and science to avoid mirroring the dogma of theology.

1 Like

Jay that thread you link to has 152 comments on Josh’s site, so they are doing that. And on his FB group I have already challenged some of the science, specifically the “ghost genes” part. I don’t think he had a good answer and I asked him to rephrase some of that and I think he will. So what you are asking has already been done. Including by me. And others with way more impressive credentials than me.

@Jay313

What I describe below is MY view; no doubt @Swamidass 's view will differ from mine to some minor or major degree!

1] if God intentionally guided human evolution, God knows full well what human behavior and social norms are … not just for human society immediately proximate to the Eden sanctuary, but for all the other extant human societies.

2] So a de novo creation of Adam/Eve (including a “standard” genetic load, as well as a “standard” neural/engram inheritance) could very easily be made in sync with one of the surrounding pre-Eden human societies.

3] Point [2] would include any linguistically relevant genetic predispositions, as well as what God specifically taught them as mentioned in point [4] below!

4] The key input for Adam/Eve is what God taught the pair as they developed in Eden. What they learned from God is the legacy that they then brought to the rest of humanity!

@Jay313

I think you will find trying to reach the audience of evangelicals who DEPEND on Romans 5 is plenty ambitious. You might claim YOUR scenario is designed for ALL the evangelicals… but without favorably embracing Romans 5, you will end up with a willing audience of Evangelicals even smaller than ours.

We aren’t trying to change the minds of stalwart Creationists… we only intend to reach the next generation that are looking for a legitimate Christian reason to diverge from the grandfather’s Creationism!

@MOls

Just to be clear, the sentence

Genealogical science suggests that a pair living at that time and place could be part of the genealogies of all humans living today…"

does not mean that Adam/Eve were the only humans in existence at any point in time. The quoted sentence is based on the idea of rapid “genealogical progression” - - the ability of multiple Universal Ancestral Pairs to entirely co-opt a population, regardless of size.

Recent computer simulations of the genealogical progression for human populations frequently show that only a few assumptions enable this to happen within 2000 years.

So, if Adam/Eve are released into an already existing human population, God’s providential treatment of the affairs of Adam’s offspring would allow all humanity, by the time of the birth of Jesus, to be descended from Adam/Eve, as well as from a few other Universal ancestral pairs from after the time of Eden.

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.