MONOGENESIS IN A LARGER POPULATION
With the theological stage set, we can return to our central question. Is it possible that Adam and Eve were the first people on the globe ever? Is there a definition of human in theology where we arise by genealogical descent from them? Are there any theological models that would have Adam and Eve as our progenitors? Are there theological models where the extent of the image of God is precisely Adam and Eve and their genealogical descendants? Yes, there are.
In 2011, the Catholic philosopher Kenneth Kemp authored an article, “Science, Theology and Monogenesis.”15 Making a distinction between biological, theological, and philosophical humans, Kemp proposed that Adam and Eve were the first “theological humans,” the first in the image of God. The image of God spread by genealogical descent from this first “theological human” couple. There were other biological humans outside the Garden who were not in the image of God. Kemp explains several different variations of this proposal, answering several theological questions that arise. Kemp’s thesis is that this understanding of human origins is compatible with the doctrine of monogenesis, as defined in Humani Generis.
For the Christian faithful cannot maintain the thesis which holds that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that “Adam” signifies a number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the magisterium of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.16
A fixed point in Catholic teaching is that original sin must pass by “generation” to all humans from some original man. Generation is usually understood to mean natural descent. Kemp’s model satisfies this requirement. All theological humans begin with Adam and Eve, and all humans in all of history descend genealogically from Adam and Eve. At the same time, there were biological humans outside the Garden with whom Adam’s lineage interbred. The extent of theological humans, by his definition, matches exactly Adam, Eve, and their genealogical ancestors.
Kemp’s paper drew from work in 1964 by C. J. Andrew Alexander, who wrote, “While it is true that all men are descended from Adam, the race nevertheless had a broad origin.”17 Kemp continues,
What underlies Alexander’s analysis is a distinction, which he never makes in exactly these terms, between man as a theological species and man as a biological species. One should distinguish from both of these, as Alexander does not do, what might be called the philosophical species.18
By “philosophical species,” Kemp means those with rational souls, capable of rational thought. Kemp goes on to argue that theological humans are a subset of biological and philosophical humans in the past, but they extend to include all humans alive today. Kemp explains how this proposal is consistent with Catholic doctrine, and with key passages like Romans 5:12-14:
This theory is monogenetic with respect to theologically human beings but polygenetic with respect to the biological species. Thus, the distinction resolves the contradiction.
In this way, the contradiction resolves with a distinction. Kemp emphasizes that human is a multivalent or polysemous term, used in different contexts with different meanings. This grants autonomy to both scientific and theological discourse, to use the term as they see fit within their own conversation. This move also creates new categories of people in the distant past.
Kemp’s work was expanded and affirmed by several scholars. Later that year, the biologist Jerry Coyne issued a challenge: “We can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.”19 The Catholic philosopher Edward Feser commented positively on Kemp’s solution, offering it as an answer to Coyne’s challenge.20 In 2016, the theologian Andrew Loke developed and used this approach to answer the objections to evolution offered by Wayne Grudem, a literalist.21 In 2016, the Catholic philosopher Antoine Suarez proposed that the image of God (and original sin) also propagates as couples are made “one flesh” by marriage.22 Though Kemp’s model is articulated from a structuralist point of view, it works for vocationalists too; the biblical theologian Jon Garvey, through this entire time, has been writing about this extensively on his blog.23 In 2015, the geologist Gregg Davidson developed a similar approach, also using a vocational understanding of the image of God.24 There are several commonalities between most models within this body of work.
■ These models all work by employing multiple meanings of the term human, decoupling the scientific definition from the theological definition. This is their key insight, most clear in Kemp’s work.
■ Both structuralists and vocationalists have proposed variations of this model, showing that it works with a wide range of understandings of the image of God.
■ These models understand the image of God, original sin, and the genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve as nearly (if not exactly) coextensive, referring to essentially the same group of individuals. This may not be a strict requirement of the text or theology and is subject to challenge and revision.
■ Even if our biological ancestors never dip down to a single couple, there are definitions of human in theology that would have humans arising by monogenesis: genealogical descent from a single couple.
This body of work demonstrates that the doctrine of monogenesis allows for people outside the Garden. Perhaps the genetic evidence has challenged some understandings of Adam and Eve that disallow people outside the Garden. There are, nevertheless, several existing theologies of Adam that show humans in theology all arising by genealogical descent from a single couple within a larger population.
There are common objections to these proposals, but I am sure all of them can be addressed. For example, some object that the interbreeding between Adam and Eve’s lineage and the people outside the Garden is bestiality. This objection misunderstands the model. The people outside the Garden are not beasts. They are fully biologically human. Some object that the people outside the Garden do not have worth and dignity because they are not in the image of God, or do not have souls. This objection rushes too quickly to judgment. These models do not entail denying rights, dignity, or souls to the people outside the Garden. These models, however, do not work out much of the theological details concerning the people outside the Garden. Going forward, working out our understanding of this mystery remains an important question.
Table 9.1. Kemp, Loke, Suarez, and Davidson understand the people inside and outside the Garden as equally human in a biological sense. They understand the image of God and original sin in different ways, but all understand them both to be coextensive with Adam and Eve’s lineage (excluding Jesus). They also understand Adam and Eve to be chosen from a larger population, not de novo created.
Outside the Garden
In the Garden
Adam and Eve’s Lineage
biological humans
biological humans
biological humans
evolved
chosen
theological humans
image of God
image of God
original sin
HISTORICAL THEOLOGY AND CREATIONISTS
How is it possible to affirm monogenesis if there were people outside the Garden? Is this definition acceptable to creationists? Is it a grand revision or a careful recovery of historical theology? As long as they only exist in distant past, most of historical theology is silent about people outside the Garden. This is an important point. Creationists that reject evolution may object to defining monogenesis this way. These objections are not consistent with the speculation that they tolerate among other creationists.
Several theology traditions articulate the theologically important components of the Genesis account in confessions and other doctrinal statements about Adam. Some claim scriptural evidence for a historical
Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all. First, there are the genealogies in which he appears (Gen 5; Mt 1; Lk 3). Next, there is Adam’s declaration that Eve is “mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Likewise, Paul reasons about the universality of the gospel, which seems to presume universal ancestry of Adam (Rom 5:12-18; Acts 17:24-28). In confessions and doctrine, it is common to find statements of “natural descent,” “first parents,” and “specially created” Adam; these statements, as we have seen, are consistent with evolutionary science. They do not specifically deny mixing with other lines in the distant past. As long as the unity of humankind in the present day is affirmed, speculation about interbreeding in the distant past is within orthodoxy. Historical theology has been largely permissive about interbreeding, when confined to the distant past.
In line with this tradition, creationists that reject evolution continue to tolerate speculation about people outside the Garden. Usually, they do not believe these people were biologically human. Instead, there has been speculation about beings of some sort that are reproductively compatible with Adam and Eve’s lineage. Creationists at Reasons to Believe affirm an old earth, but they reject human evolution. In 2015, Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana updated their model of human origins to acknowledge interbreeding between humans, whom they define as Homo sapiens, and people outside the Garden, whom they identify as Neanderthals.25 Among young earth creationists, Bodie Hodge from Answers in Genesis acknowledges interbreeding with others outside Adam and Eve’s lineage as a valid way of interpreting the Nephilim (Gen 6:1-4).26 Of course, these communities all reject evolution. This demonstrates that interbreeding between Adam’s lineage and others, when confined to the distant past, is already widely tolerated, if not explicitly endorsed, even among those that oppose evolution. The Ark Encounter, for example, includes a large diorama of Nephilim giants in a Colosseum, battling dinosaurs and humans. Ken Ham himself tweeted a happy endorsement of this speculation about interbreeding between Adam and Eve’s lineage and others.27 Objections from creationists to the genealogical hypothesis usually apply to these sorts of speculations too.
Table 9.2. I will propose a flexible framework, with details to be adjusted and varied. How to best fill in these details, however, is an open question to be explored. In contrast to prior work, my baseline narrative will identify the image of God with those outside the Garden and affirm de novo creation. This baseline matches the traditional account, but the framework still accommodates as variants the models proposed by Kemp, Loke, Suarez, and Davidson. As I will soon explain, this flexibility is accomplished by introducing a textual definition of human.
Outside the Garden
In the Garden
Adam and Eve’s Lineage
biological humans
biological humans
biological humans
evolved
de novo
textual humans
image of God
image of God
image of God
Fallen
The theology for these speculations about Nephilim, moreover, is not developed among creationists. By tolerating speculation here, however, they are implicitly endorsing an understanding of monogenesis that is not far from Kemp’s proposal. All of them affirm that we all descend from Adam and Eve; in the distant past, however, other sorts of beings might have interbred with our lineage in the distant past.
Though these groups reject evolution, they tolerate speculation about beings outside the Garden in the distant past. Why? The traditional account is open-ended about people outside the Garden, with lacunae that are filled in various ways. Looking to Scripture, there are no statements in the text that preclude interbreeding between Adam’s lineage and others in the distant past. As I will explain in more depth in coming chapters, there are several passages that seem to suggest there were people outside the Garden. Genesis has evoked speculation by readers for thousands of years. This might be the fundamental reason people outside the Garden are tolerated among creationists. Scripture does not rule out people outside the Garden, and it might even hint that they exist. I expect Ken Ham would object to the genealogical hypothesis for including people outside the Garden, but on what grounds? Everyone today descends from Adam and Eve, so the objections to polygenesis do not apply. Of course, creationists could fashion a special rule for the purpose of excluding the genealogical hypothesis. This would be a special pleading, an objection not grounded in the text of Scripture or in traditional theology. Such objections are a departure from the traditional account of Genesis, which includes mystery about people outside the Garden. It is against tradition to foreclose this mystery.
KLINGONS, CYLONS, AND NEANDERTHALS
If the people outside the Garden are not in the image of God, what are we to make of them? What precise traits makes us human? When do those traits arise in the past? Are all of us alive today fully human? These traits do not all arise at the same time; so, which ones are most important? The answers to these questions are uncertain and disputed.
If we ever made contact with intelligent aliens, would they be human too? Would Klingons be human or not? Though they are not biological “humans,” would they have human worth and dignity? Would the intelligent aliens of Star Trek, Arrival, Contact, and Battlestar Galactica have the same human worth as us? Why or why not? Perhaps someday we will build androids with strong intelligence. Maybe they will be indistinguishable from us, like the artificial persons of the “hosts” of Westworld and the Cylons of Battlestar Galactica. Maybe they will uncomfortably fall in the uncanny valley, like Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek and the robotic child in Spielberg’s AI. Either way, would they have human worth and dignity?
In many ways, the present world draws a sharp line between humans and other animals. As we go back in time, this clarity becomes murky. In science fiction, our clarity grows even more opaque. Time machines are probably impossible. If, nonetheless, we could transport Neanderthals and Denisovans, into our world, would they have human worth and dignity? We can parse out and debate who is and is not human by particular definitions. In some cases, we might come to agreement, or maybe not. We will likely need new categories, for there is complexity here, and answers are not settled, even though the stakes are high.
These are important societal questions. What grounds universal human worth and dignity? What is human? Ancient ancestors, artificial minds, and intelligent aliens all bring us here. These are the sorts of questions into which we will now press deeper.
CHAPTER TEN
THE ERROR OF POLYGENESIS
HUMANS CAN ARISE BY MONOGENESIS from a single couple within a larger population. Is this a redefinition of monogenesis, or a recovery of its original meaning? Is this true to the original intent of the doctrine or not?
These questions reopen a multicentury exchange between science and theology, an exchange that began long before evolutionary science was proposed. Historically, the lacunae of the Genesis account are filled in many ways. In this exchange, however, clear boundaries to speculation were articulated. This is the exchange out of which Humani Generis articulates its definition of monogenesis, opposing racist theories of polygenesis. Similar doctrine is found throughout the Church, sometimes using other terms like sole progenitor or first parents. These doctrines remain an important factor in resistance to evolution to this day. As we study this exchange more closely, it will be clear the genealogical hypothesis sits solidly within this tradition too. The definition of monogenesis, which allows for interbreeding in the deep past, is a recovery of the doctrine, not a redefinition.
Studying this further will surface a complex and messy history of racism in both science and theology. Some have deemed other communities “subhuman” or “not fully human.” They used theological reasons. They used scientific reasons. The question of origins pushes us to grapple with this ugly history. Creationists sometimes blame this all on evolutionary science, but the full telling of this history is complex. Indeed, it is a minefield. Misunderstanding this his
tory creates a great deal of confusion. In 2017, I first presented the science regarding genealogical hypothesis in print.1 The first public response was from the scientist Dennis Venema, whose book I was reviewing: “Do we really want a theology that names them all as subhuman animals until their lineage happens to encounter and interbreed with Adam’s (Eurasian) offspring? God forbid.”2
Figure 10.1. Genetic ancestry dissipates and dilutes, but genealogical ancestry rapidly spreads across the globe. The notion that Adam and Eve’s lineage is confined to a single geographic area or people group, such as Eurasians, is not consistent with the evidence.
Venema filled in the theological details in a negative way. At the time, I had not put forward a theological model alongside the science. I was focused, instead, on clarifying what science did and did not say. The people outside the Garden are not “subhuman,” and Adam and Eve’s lineage are not identified with “Eurasians.” The evidence indicates, and the genealogical hypothesis supposes, the opposite (fig. 10.1).
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 12