1. Genealogical ancestry is not genetic ancestry. If genealogical ancestry is most important, then Adam and Eve could have been ancestors of us all as recently as six thousand years ago.
2. Human is a multivalent term, with many definitions. In theology, the term human can be defined with theological precision and it need not correspond with the scientific usage.
The first correction, on ancestry, settles the scientific question of the genealogical hypothesis. Much like the Virgin Birth of Jesus, there is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, a historical couple who lived recently in the Middle East.
The second correction, on human, opens up “breathing room for real theological reflection, development, and genuine intellectual progress.”14 Latitude in theological definitions of human reopens an exchange with traditions of the Church. Historically, the lacunae of the traditional account are filled in many ways. Acceptable speculation, nonetheless, fell within guidelines established by a multi-century tradition.15 As I will explain in the coming chapters, this tradition already includes definitions of human that affirm the doctrines of monogenesis and sole progenitorship within the genealogical hypothesis.16
Ending at a beginning, I offer a speculative narrative of origins that contains the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve alongside evolutionary science. Recovering the traditional account without revision, evolution expounds the mystery outside the Garden. Theological questions arise, but these questions are no more challenging than historical speculation about Genesis. In this way, the speculative narrative flows out of the traditions of the Church, perhaps now unthreatened by evolution.
CROSSROAD AT A FRACTURE
Genetics, archaeology, anthropology, theology, philosophy, history, art, and literature intersect around the question of Adam and Eve, in a dynamic exchange between worlds. My civic practice is located here, at the intersection of science, society, and the Church.
Personally, I am a Christian, affirming both evolutionary science and the Lausanne Covenant. But I am neither an “evolutionary creationist” nor am I a “theistic evolutionist.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently published Scientists in Civic Life, articulating best practices in communicating science with the public. The two-way exchange of civic dialogue, which I follow here, embodies the principles, values, and practice from which my work arises.17 I confess my personal beliefs because transparency builds trust, and “scientists cannot take trust . . . for granted.” My intention, however, is to advocate for public understanding of science. I want to understand the values of others, take questions seriously, and clarify what science does and does not say, without pressing my personal beliefs.
This book is about science and theology, but I write with societal concerns in mind and in conversation with history. I contemplated the mystery outside the Garden with Lutheran theologians at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis in 2017, the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s Reformation. The year ended with police clashing with protestors on Delmar Boulevard just hundreds of yards from my home in St. Louis. In the shadow of Ferguson, a group of us met at the seminary to read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s work as 2018 began.18 This was the fiftieth anniversary of King’s assassination, and the year I published the first peer-reviewed article on the genealogical hypothesis.19 The final draft of the book was delivered to the publisher, then published, in 2019, the 160th anniversary of the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. This book is to be published in December, just weeks after the anniversary of this book, the book that began a controversy about human evolution that lasts till today.
My civic practice included professional risk. When I first went public with this work in 2017, I was an untenured professor at a secular institution.20 Then, in October 2017, I published a defense of Tim Keller’s confession of the de novo creation of Adam,21 along with “Eight Genealogical Theses.”22 Perhaps it was unwise to take this forward before tenure, but the moment seemed to require it. In 2018, nonetheless, I was awarded tenure. As I have come to understand it, “secular” means “fair,” not atheistic or anti-Christian. My secular colleagues were fair to me.
A multiyear interdisciplinary exchange grew out of my practice.23 I am a scientist, but the question touches on fields far outside my expertise. Scientists, theologians, philosophers, historians, and exegetes (those who interpret Scripture in the original language and cultural context) have been working through questions about Adam and Eve for a long time. Groundwork was laid by several before me.24 Well before this book was published, several scholars already interacted with my thesis. In the spring of 2018, theologian Ken Keathley arranged a dialogue at a Baptist seminary between several scholars and me. Summer of 2018, I presented to about seventy scholars at a theological conference organized by the Creation Project. Written responses from two theologians, an exegete, and a philosopher, all from the Creation Project, are included in the online appendixes to this book.25 In fall of 2018, I presented again at a university in Hong Kong, alongside theologian Andrew Loke and historian Clinton Ohlers. Finally, early in 2019, nearly forty scholars gathered in two workshops to discuss and comment on my thesis. Altogether, perhaps as many as one hundred different scholars shaped the content in this book with feedback, conversation, and review.
This interdisciplinary crossroad included atheist, agnostic, Jewish, and Christian scientists, along with other types of Christian scholars that do and do not affirm evolutionary science, and that do and do not affirm a historical Adam and Eve. This conversation is already encouraging contributions from other scholars. Interacting with the science here, theologian Andrew Loke is concurrently publishing a book, reconciling literalism with evolutionary science.26 The theologian Jon Garvey is also publishing a book, contending that biblical theology grows more coherent with the people outside the Garden.27 I expect more to follow. The philosopher William Lane Craig is in the middle of a two-year project, studying the science and theology of Adam and Eve, intending to publish a book of his own.28 Based on this narrative too, the exegete Richard Averbeck intends to develop his own biblical theology.
The question, also, sits at a fracture, and injuries are found on all sides. Making space for a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve sometimes provokes fears of exclusion among Christians who understand Genesis in non-traditional ways. There are injuries at this particular fracture, and I do not mean to add to them. Though this work flows out of traditions of the Church, its purpose is inclusion, not exclusion. My goal is to open up new territory, making room for one another, even as we maintain our own beliefs and practices, whether they be traditional or not.
AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN WORLDS
With inclusion in mind, this book is an exchange at the crossroad of the question. It lays a scientific foundation for a speculative narrative, designed for others to take and develop further. My hope also is that it might allow a different sort of community to arise. In addition to this first chapter, there are three parts to this book, and a concluding chapter.
1. Fracture: The question of Adam and Eve in evolutionary science calls out courage, curiosity, and empathy.
2. Ancestor. Approaching the question in science, we test the “genealogical hypothesis.” Does scientific evidence rule out a recent Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, de novo created in the Middle East? No. The evidence does not tell us one way or another.
3. Human. The exchange between science and theology began centuries ago, asking the question, What is human? What of the mystery outside the Garden?
4. Mystery. A new conversation in theology begins as we consider together the ancient mystery of the people outside the Garden, the splintered account of Adam and Eve rebound.
5. Crossroad. Secular scientists, traditionalists, and nontraditionalists might find civic practices at this fracture, making space for one another in tolerance, humility, and patience.
I conclude on a starting point, a new narrative of o
rigins, flowing out of deep traditions of the Church. This narrative contains within it the findings of evolutionary science alongside the traditional account of Adam and Eve. The theologian C. John Collins is in the same denomination as Keller, with similar theological concerns as he. He writes in response to this narrative starting point,
Sometimes, if we wait, new light will come in the scientific thinking. And sometimes, as well, someone with enough imagination will propose a workable scenario that helps us past the apparent hump. I still want to do some more thinking . . . but it looks like Dr. Swamidass has indeed provided an imaginative and serviceable tool for our toolkits, to promote “peaceful science.”29
Some of us think evolution is a myth. Some of us think that Adam and Eve are a myth. Whatever our personal beliefs, many societal questions converge at this starting point, an exchange at a crossroad.
CHAPTER TWO
A GENEALOGICAL HYPOTHESIS
I AM A SCIENTIST. IN THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE, I am curious about the question of Adam and Eve. Questions are far more interesting than the settled answers. I want to know what precisely the evidence tells us about human origins. I want to map out the full range of ways that Adam and Eve could be understood alongside mainstream science. I want to understand what the evidence is telling us here. In what way does evolutionary science press on the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve?
Scientists, at our best, engage questions like these without a polemical agenda. Careful, rigorous, and honest engagement with question is how we come to understand the true structure of the world. The scientific analysis is still controlled by the evidence. This means we all must set aside theological agendas, whether they be for or against Adam. Nothing in this book is outside mainstream science. It is meant as much for secular scientists as it is for theologians and pastors. Whatever our personal understanding of Adam and Eve might be, we can still come to agreement about what science tells about them, and what it leaves unsaid.
Science legitimately tests hypotheses that arise from theological questions. In this case, we will define the genealogical hypothesis with enough precision to test with evidence, and establish ground rules for this test. We can engage the experiment, whether or not the premise of the experiment is true. Scientific understanding is often probed with thought experiments, as we are doing here.
And so, the experiment begins. We should expect surprising turns. Science is nonintuitive, revealing surprising things about the world. Mass is energy. Time slows with gravity and acceleration. The earth moves around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. Tiny vibrations between mirrors at LIGO are recording the gravitational waves of black holes and neutron stars dancing across the galaxy. Then there is quantum mechanics. “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”1 Soon, we will find that the science of ancestry is surprising too.
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Thought experiments are an important part of hypothesis-driven research. Starting from a hypothesis, which may or may not be true, we work out the evidence that this hypothesis would entail if it were true. Starting from a different hypothesis, we do the same. This enables us to determine which evidence or experiments could discriminate between each hypothesis. In this sense, most scientific inquiry is guided and designed by thought experiments. Very commonly, we do not have the data required to discriminate between two hypotheses. In these cases, we answer with rigorous ignorance, “We do not know from evidence which one is correct.”
In this thought experiment, we will consider if Adam and Eve could be genealogical ancestors of us all, in our recent past, perhaps de novo created by a direct act of God. Outside the Garden, a larger population exists, who arise by evolutionary processes. Eventually the lineage of Adam mixes with those outside the Garden, thereby becoming ancestor of us all. In this thought experiment, what would we expect our genomes to tell us? Is there any evidence against this story?
Let us consider these questions with rigor and honesty. Let us consider what science does and does not say about our origins.
Some are convinced that Adam and Eve are fictional characters. For this reason, they are convinced this thought experiment is unhelpful. Even from a purely scientific point of view, however, thought experiments are valuable.2 Whether or not Adam and Eve are real, this thought experiment will advance our understanding. This alone is enough to justify engaging the questions here with rigor more deeply.
What good is a hypothesis with fictional entities? Well, thought experiments often include fictional entities. The great physicist James Clerk Maxwell imagined his own magical “demon” in 1871. He made use of this demon, “Maxwell’s demon,” in a thought experiment to probe the limits of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.3 The demon sits between two chambers, opening a door between them so as to only let molecules move in one direction across the door. In this way, the demon might move all the air into one chamber, which would violate the law. Maxwell’s demon is a construct by which to probe the limits of our understanding, whether or not he is real or fictional.
Some readers see no value in the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve. Come along in this thought experiment anyway. Whether or not Maxwell’s demon is real, this thought experiment probes our understanding of physics. For the same reason, we need not believe Adam and Eve are real to join in. The questions ahead will still clarify what the evidence does and does not tell us about our origins.
Some readers, coming from the other direction, are certain that mainstream science is wrong about human evolution. For them, perhaps, Adam and Eve are real, and evolution is the myth. Come along in this experiment too. Come explore how we might make sense of Adam and Eve if evolution were true. Discover, perhaps, that evolution is not in conflict with Scripture. There is always value in understanding that which is rejected, and perhaps finding that much less is at stake than we once feared.
THE GENEALOGICAL HYPOTHESIS
In this thought experiment, I propose a hypothesis to clarify the limits of what science does and does not tell us. In this hypothesis, evolution does not appear in Scripture, nor does Adam and Eve appear in evolution. Each story would be outside the other’s view, only visible in the peripheral vision. Evolution and Genesis would be telling us two different origin stories that could, nonetheless, be simultaneously true. Under this hypothesis,
1. They lived recently in the Middle East. Adam and Eve are situated in recent history, perhaps as recently as six thousand years ago, and in the Middle East. We can explore if and how the evidence constrains where they could be located.
2. They are genealogical ancestors of everyone. By AD 1, Adam and Eve are a couple from whom all humans across the globe descend. In the distant past, at some point before AD 1, there would be biological humans alive that do not descend from them.
3. 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).4 We have not specified the ways Adam and Eve are the same or different from those outside the Garden, but some constraints will arise. This proposition is not required, and it might be dropped if required by the evidence or disfavored in theology.
As defined by these three 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. More importantly, however, it is not a sufficiently clear definition to assess with evidence. We need to know if there were people outside the Garden, with whom Adam’s lineage eventually interbreeds, and from where these people come. This brings us to the fourth proposition.
4. Interbreeding between their lineage and others. Adam and Eve’s lineage eventually interbreed with people outside the Garden. Adam would be the same biological type of those outside the Garden, with no biological advantages over everyone else.
There has been a mystery in theology for a very long time about people outside the Garden, but no firm conclusion. Scripture is silent ab
out them. Others might posit they do not exist, but that would be a different hypothesis. Here, we are only considering the case where there are people outside the Garden. To scientifically assess this hypothesis, however, we need to 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.
We will also add this proposition about the people outside the Garden, which will fill in poorly specified details of the traditional account.
6. The two findings of evolutionary science. The people outside the Garden would share common descent with the great apes, and the size of their population would never dip down to single couple.
It is beyond the scope of this book justify or explain the evidence for these two findings. There are legitimate questions about their certainty and confidence, but that is not our focus here. We just take them as starting propositions.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 2
