IN MEMORY OF MY FATHER,
whom I grieved as I wrote this book,
Jaipaul Manikam Swamidass (1947-2018),
in the Image of God and Fallen,
Redeemed.
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PART 1 FRACTURE
1 Courage, Curiosity, Empathy
PART 2 ANCESTOR
2 A Genealogical Hypothesis
3 Genetics Is Not Genealogy
4 Ancestors of Everyone Today
5 Genealogical Adams and Eves
6 The Mythology of Isolation
7 Direct and Miraculous Creation
PART 3 HUMAN
8 Humans in Science
9 Humans in Theology
10 The Error of Polygenesis
11 Humans of the Text
PART 4 MYSTERY
12 The Splintering of Traditions
13 Recovering Many Traditions Together
14 A Narrative Experiment
15 Falling into Exile
16 Justice, Mercy, and Ancestry
17 Ending at a Beginning
PART 5 CROSSROAD
18 Tolerance, Humility, Patience
APPENDIX: Evidence and the Resurrection
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL INDEX
SCRIPTURE INDEX
NOTES
PRAISE FOR THE GENEALOGICAL ADAM AND EVE
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
MORE TITLES FROM INTERVARSITY PRESS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My wife, Victoria, and our sons, Caleb and Ezra
Peaceful Science its forum, workshops, and friends
Washington University in St. Louis
Concordia Seminary
Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
The Science for Seminaries Project
Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Henry Center and its Creation Project
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Science and Theology for Emerging Adult Ministries
Bush Center for Faith and Culture
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Faith and Science Collaborative Research Forum
University of Hong Kong
The Veritas Forum
The Carver Project
The Harvey Fellowship
Yvonne and Joseph Cordell
The John Templeton Foundation
Think neither fear nor courage saves us.
Unnatural vices are fathered by our heroism.
Virtues are forced upon us by our impudent crimes.
These tears are shaken from the wrath-bearing tree
T S. ELIOT, “GERONTION”
CHAPTER ONE
COURAGE, CURIOSITY, EMPATHY
I AM A SCIENTIST IN THE CHURCH and a Christian in science. My goal is to “make room for our differences, even as we maintain our own beliefs and practices.”1 We all come from different starting points. Some are certain Adam and Eve are a myth. Some are certain evolution is a myth. Whatever the truth of the matter, let us travel together for a moment, seeking a common good.
The question of human origins sits at one fracture in society, where divisions have grown into injuries. There are different stories in the Church and in science. Evolution splinters the traditional account of Adam and Eve along several dilemmas. This splintering brings me to a question: Alongside the scientific evidence, what are the full range of ways in which we could understand Adam and Eve? In what way does evolutionary science press on our understanding of Adam and Eve?
For thousands of years, most readers of Genesis thought Adam and Eve were real people who (1) lived in the Middle East, just several thousand years ago; (2) were the ancestors of everyone; and (3) were created, with no parents, by a direct act of God. This account is not airtight or self-contained, nor is it articulated in the precise language of science. It includes lacunae, or gaps, that are bridged in diverse ways. This is the “traditional” de novo account of Adam and Eve on which this book focuses.
There may be valid reasons to object to this definition of the traditional account. Other readings of Genesis are found in history and they might be considered traditional too. It is possible, moreover, that a nontraditional understanding of Adam and Eve might be a faithful reading of Scripture. The traditional de novo account described here, nonetheless, is how most people through history read Genesis. This account is intertwined with deep traditions of the Church, and it is the account that seems disproven by science. The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne succinctly states the consensus:
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.2
In agreement, “evolutionary creationists” argued for years,3
The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation.4
Is this how evolutionary science presses on the story of Adam and Eve? Does scientific evidence demonstrate the traditional account is incorrect? Maybe not.
This book arises from an ongoing “civic practice” of science “rooted in three aspirations: tolerance, humility and patience.”5 In humility, we recognize that we cannot convince everyone to agree with us. In tolerance, we make space for those with whom we disagree. In patience, we seek understanding, listening to the concerns of others, taking their questions seriously. The common good is served as we put these virtues into public practice, making room for differences. These virtues also make room for science. Science is driven by the dynamic exchange of disagreement over questions. Here, in science, the question of Adam and Eve followed me for decades.
The question, at first, required courage.
The question, eventually, was driven by curiosity.
The question, now, is motivated by empathy.
The question, here, is to be studied with a genealogical hypothesis.
The question is answered with a genealogical correction.
This question, already, is a crossroad.
As a scientist, and in the spirit of science, I want to take the question of Adam and Eve seriously, engaging it with rigor and honesty. Steeped in centuries of history, the question is storied, but a new conversation might arise around it now. Sitting at a fracture, the question itself is a crossroad for an exchange.
A QUESTION OF COURAGE
How much does evolutionary science press on our understanding of Adam and Eve? This question, at first, required courage. I was raised as a young earth creationist, believing that the Earth was just six thousand years old, following a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. I was taught that all humans descend from Adam and Eve. By a direct act of God, Adam was created without parents, from the dust of the earth, and Eve was created from his side. They lived just six thousand to ten thousand years ago in the Middle East. This is who we are and how we got here.
My parents were immigrants from India. We were not tightly connected to the history of conflict in the West over evolution and Genesis. Instead, we read Genesis, and it left us with a strong impression that we all descend from Adam and Eve, who lived recently in the past. We trusted Genesis, so this is what we believed. This was the first origin story I learned, understanding it as historical fact, but the story was still alive with mystery. I did not pretend to understand all the details. Like many readers before me, I wondered about Nephilim. “Who was it outside the Garden that interbred with Adam and Eve’s lineage?”
At the same time, I was drawn to science. I learned of another origin story, that of human evolution. “Humans arise from common ance
stors with the great apes, and we seem to arise as a population, not a single couple.” How was I to resolve the conflicts between these two accounts? At question were my loyalties, and the right answer was clear. I trusted Scripture more than evolution. The clarity was comforting.
As we will soon see, I was mistaken. Whatever one believes about Adam and Eve, evolutionary science does not require us to reject the Genesis narrative. Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, could have lived as recently as six thousand years ago in the Middle East. They could have been de novo created, the first “humans” of Scripture, free of death in a sinless environment. Ripped from the comforting clarity of conflict, we will see that evolutionary science could be true, even as our loyalties remain with Scripture.
There will be several twists and turns in this conversation. For many readers, those that reject evolution, it will require courage to leave the conflict and engage the question. Uncertainty requires courage. Take this as a thought experiment. Even if you are certain evolution is false, let us imagine together how we might understand Adam and Eve in a fictional world where evolution is true. Let us see how far we can go together. Step into this thought experiment with me.
A QUESTION OF CURIOSITY
The question of Adam and Eve lurked in my mind for years. At first, the question required courage. Eventually, in the mystery, fear gave way to curiosity.
Over several years of study, I was slowly convinced of the evolutionary account, which I understand as the providentially governed process by which God created us. For me, seeing and understanding the evidence for myself was important. I was (and am) still a Christian, and I still trust Genesis. How should I understand Genesis with science in view? Initially my questions required courage. At first, I was fearful. Eventually, however, I found a faith rooted in Jesus, not Adam. Whether or not Adam and Eve were real, there is public and private evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.6 On this cornerstone, I came to trust what God did in history to reveal he exists, is good, and wants to be known. Finding confidence here, I no longer feared what I might find out about Adam and Eve.
As my confidence grew, so did my curiosity. Through my scientific education, I often wondered about the questions of Adam and Eve. I wondered about them when I graduated from high school in 1996. When the human genome was first published in 2000, I graduated from the University of California in Irvine with a degree in biology. This question still on my mind, I spent nine years in graduate school to become a computational biologist and a physician. Through my education and early career, curiosity brought me back to this question over and over.
Now, I am a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, authoring a book about Adam and Eve. On a personal level, I do not fear any particular answer to the question. I am, all the same, still curious about how the new knowledge of science interacts with the old stories of Genesis. Through my path, I discovered a curious fact. Everyone was convinced that evolutionary science unsettled our understanding of Adam and Eve, but I couldn’t find the evidence that demonstrated this as true.
A QUESTION OF EMPATHY
In this book, I do not press my personal beliefs, focusing instead on explaining how science interacts with the questions put forward by others. For many pastors, theologians, parents, and students, the question of Adam and Eve is the central question of origins. Over the years, my empathy grew, as did my skepticism of the conflict. I was raised believing the traditional de novo account of Adam and Eve. As I studied science, I never found any evidence that gave reason to doubt this account. Even if Genesis was a myth, the story itself was compatible with what I saw in science. Still, others were caught in this avoidable conflict. My empathy grew.
A salient example of the conflict is an exchange in 2017 between a scientist and Tim Keller. A well-known pastor in New York, Keller agrees with mainstream science on most things. He agrees that the Earth looks old because it is old. He makes no objection to evolution among plants and animals nor does he insist Adam and Eve were in recent history.7 At the same time, he also believes that Adam and Eve were specially created, by a direct act of God.
Before God I’m trying my best to read this as I think what the Scripture says. Right now, it says to me, you know, there is an Adam and Eve, and everyone came from Adam and Eve, and they were a special creation, and so even though I don’t have an answer to my scientist friends, that is where I stand.8
Keller states his honest reading of Genesis, explaining what is non-negotiable for him, personally, without drawing a line to exclude others.9 He accepts the evolutionary origin story, except on Adam and Eve. This is the point beyond which he goes no further.
Deborah Haarsma is one of Keller’s scientist friends. In alignment with the scientific consensus, she confronted Keller, rehearsing the evidence commonly cited against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve.10 We share common ancestry with the great apes, and we arise a population, not an individual couple. This evidence, it seems, conflicts with Keller’s confession. As we will see, however, the conflict is an illusion. Keller’s confession is compatible with evolutionary science. In confrontations like this, my empathy for the pastor grows. Scientists speak with scientific authority, but sometimes incorrectly. The conversation ends. The conversation need not end this way.
This is the impasse. It has been the impasse for over a century. A pastor explains his honest understanding of Genesis. A scientist objects. The conversation ends. A fracture.
THE GENEALOGICAL HYPOTHESIS
From the sidelines, I listened closely for years, growing ever more skeptical of the conflict. Now, I want to explain what I have found by testing a hypothesis, a precise claim that may or may not be true. I will attempt to falsify this hypothesis with evidence. If I cannot falsify it, the hypothesis may still be false, but the evidence itself does not tell us either way. Scientific inquiry often progresses by careful hypothesis testing of just this sort.
Entirely consistent with the genetic and archeological evidence, it is possible that Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than ten thousand years ago. Leaving the Garden, their offspring would have blended with those outside it, biologically identical neighbors from the surrounding area. In a few thousand years, they would become genealogical ancestors of everyone.11
As written here, this hypothesis matches the traditional account of Adam and Eve, but it leaves out details required for a scientific analysis. Who were the people outside the Garden? How did they arise? This is an ancient mystery, unstated in Scripture, but we need details specified to test the hypothesis. In this book, I hypothesize that God created everyone outside the Garden through a providentially governed process of common descent, a process legitimately described by evolutionary science. The genealogical hypothesis, with details filled this way, is entirely consistent with the findings of evolutionary science. The DNA of our ancestors, their genetics, would still arise from a population, not a single couple. We would all still share common ancestry with the great apes. None of this is scientific proof that Adam and Eve existed. Evidence that Adam and Eve existed would lie outside our genomes, outside our scientific view, dependent on our understanding of Scripture. We are not reading evolution into Scripture. Evolution would be progressing in the mystery outside the Garden, outside the view of most theological discourse over the centuries. The two accounts, that of evolutionary science and of Scripture, would be taking place alongside one another, outside each other’s view. I am not reading evolutionary science into Scripture, where it cannot be properly found. This, instead, is a precise and testable hypothesis, consistent with Scripture though not found within it, expounding the ancient mystery outside the Garden.
Most of the details in this hypothesis are flexible from a scientific point of view. Adam and Eve could have been de novo created or chosen from a larger population. They could have been in the Middle East, or some other part of the world. They could have been in a supernaturally created Garden, free of death, or in an environment much like our own. T
hose outside the Garden could be in the image of God, or not.
This hypothesis, therefore, contains within itself many variants of the traditional account, all of which fill the mystery outside the Garden in this one particular way. There are alternative ways of filling the details too. Depending on the details, each alternative may or may not be in conflict with the evidence. We, however, are testing the extent to which the traditional account of Adam and Eve is challenged by evolutionary science. With this goal in mind, we fill in the gaps with the findings of evolutionary science.
Table 1.1. The genealogical hypothesis (GH) holds three claims together: (1) de novo created, (2) recent Adam and Eve, (3) ancestors of us all. It is very close to a young earth creationist understanding of Adam and Eve (H). If this hypothesis survives scrutiny, it returns territory to theology (E, F, G, GH).
THE GENEALOGICAL CORRECTION
As we will see, the genealogical hypothesis is entirely consistent with what we find in science. If Adam and Eve are understood this way, there is no scientific evidence for or against them. We start from two well-known findings of genetic science, thought to demonstrate that the theology of Adam and Eve must be reworked in light of evolutionary science.
1. We arise genetically from a population, and our ancestors never dip down to a single couple within the last five hundred thousand years.12
2. We share ancestors in common with the great apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans.13
We genetically arise as a population, not a single couple; we also share ancestors in common with the great apes. This is the story our genomes appear to tell, and it is the starting point of this conversation. I understand that some readers do not agree with one or both of these points. Questions here are legitimate, and perhaps I will one day author a book to explain what I have seen. For now, however, I want to set these questions aside. Let us, for the purpose of discussion, suspend any disbelief and proceed as if the evidence guides us to these two findings. From this starting point, we make two clarifications, two corrections.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 1