A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution

A Genealogical Adam and Eve in
Evolution
S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD
Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD is a physician, scientist, and Assistant Professor

of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine, Washington University in Saint Louis. He
leads a computational biology group that studies information at the intersection
of biology, chemistry and medicine. He now blogs at Peaceful Science
(http://peacefulscience.org/).
In the age of genomes, new information is reshaping our understanding of life on

Earth. This information cannot be ignored, and questions are rising in the
Church. How much does evolution press on theology? Was Adam a real person
from whom all mankind descends? 1
In Adam and the Genome, the scientist Dennis Venema explains our origins as
most scientists understand it, with special attention to genomic data and human
evolution. Assuming this science is correct, the theologian Scott McKnight,
“rethinks” Adam and Eve using historical and cultural context of the original
authors as a guide, but with evolution in view. Ironically, their ambitious
proposal is surprisingly concordist:2 “accepting the reality of genetic evidence
supporting a theory of evolution along with an understanding of Adam and Eve
that is more in tune with the historical context of Genesis” (p. 173). A historical
1
McKnight asserts a much more restrictive definition of “historical Adam” that I am ignoring
entirely; no one affirms that version of historical Adam, not even Ken Ham, so it has no bearing
on the conversation. In my experience, most are asking if Adam and Eve are real people and if
they are our genealogical (not genetic) ancestors.
2
McKnight is an ardent non-concordist and may strongly dispute this assessment. An
entertaining exchange between McKnight and Denis Alexander is informative and clarifies that
his proposal actually is concordist of a sort: http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/the-various-
meanings-of-concordism and http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-
understanding/adam-and-the-genome-some-thoughts-from-scot-mcknight/. We expect the
world to match what we find in Scripture, so concordism is not necessarily incorrect, but in this
case, it may raise the risk of incorrectly reading science into Scripture.
Swamidass, S. J. A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution. Sapientia, June 26, 2017
(http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1328264
Adam can neither be identified in science nor in Scripture; both concord in
refraining to teach (or deny) that Adam and Eve are real people from whom all
mankind descends.
Venema is a gifted scientific writer. As most scientists would, I agree with the
science3 in this book and urge skeptical readers to take this account seriously.
However, Venema omits important scientific information that materially affects
the theological response. Compounding these omissions, the introduction
articulates the “assumption” that Venema’s science is correct (p. xii).
Consequently, it appears that McKnight believes genetics rules out Paul’s
genealogical Adam, even though this is not the case. This scientific error seems
to unduly shape his interpretive goals.
Moreover, it is hard to endorse an after-science approach to Scripture; reading

before4 or with5 science would be more grounded. The authors do talk of
“dialogue” between science and theology, but the conversation in this book is
one-sided. Missing key caveats, Adam and the Genome implies that evolution
itself requires a dramatic “rethink” of Adam. Biblical exegesis appears
subservient to an accurate but poorly delimited scientific account.
Consequently, Adam and the Genome is best understood as a partial explanation

of the relevant evolutionary science. It also explains why some Christians do not
affirm a historical Adam, but a better account would explain this without
assuming science.
3
I do have some minor quibbles that I will not enumerate here, most of which are about how the
scientific method works. I, however, do agree with the fundamental scientific claims made by
Venema.
4
Reading before science, John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One and The Lost World of
Adam and Eve books explains an interpretation rooted in the cultural context of the original
authors. Walton is not motivated by science. Unlike McKnight, Walton affirms that Adam and Eve
are real people in our past, though he similar eschews the loaded term “historical”
http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/interpreting-
adam-an-interview-with-john-walton.
5
Reading with science, Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s articulates five “scenarios” consistent with
both Scripture and the plain reading of our genomes (Origins, ch. 12). Notably, this book is
written by the current president of BioLogos and her husband. Jack Collins proposes several
creative scenarios that are particularly important (Adam and Eve as Historical People and Why It
Matters, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Collins.pdf ).Greg Davidson, another
BioLogos speaker, also articulates additional possible scenarios too (Genetics, the Nephilim, and
the Historicity of Adam http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2015/PSCF3-15Davidson.pdf ).
The Plain Reading of Genomes
Venema reports a real shift in science as genetic data becomes the backbone of
biology and medicine. Genomes are transforming our understanding of
everything, and they convince most Christians in science that evolution is the
way God designed us.
Venema accurately recounts human origins, as most scientists understand it,

with clear explanations of genomes and the mathematical models that make
sense of them. Anatomically modern humans arose as a group that never dipped
in size to a single couple. Correctly, he explains that science cannot tell us about
the “historicity” of Adam and Eve, cautioning that Y-Chromosome Adam and
Mitochondrial Eve are not the founding couple of humans. He rightly explains
that skeptics in the Church fail to engage the plain reading of genomes,
unconvincingly dismissing it as “speculative,” rather than proposing and
quantitatively testing their own mathematical models.6
I first encountered genomes as a student.7 With quantitative and mathematical

detail, evolutionary theory explained the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity
between the human and chimpanzee genomes. God could have falsified
common ancestry in our genomes, for all the world to clearly see. He did not.
Why not?8 At the very least, my Creator was much less intent on disproving
6
To their credit, a few groups have very recently proposed genetic models of a single-couple
origin. However, none yet have been tested on the full range of relevant genetic data (global SNP
variation, linkage disequilibrium, exome variation, etc.), and it is unclear if any of these models
could work. For example, Reasons to Believe (private communication) and another team led by
Dr. Ola Hossjer (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2016.3 ) have
proposed conceptual models that might allow for a sole-couple origin, but neither group has
mathematically formalized these models to test if they are consistent with the full range of
genetic data. Venema cannot be faulted for failing to mention these recent, speculative, and
untested models.
7
The human genome was published in 2000, as I graduated from undergrad. The chimpanzee
genome was published in 2005, when I was in graduate school.
8
Of course, “common function” generically explains why genomes are similar, but common
descent more accurately explains the patterns of similarity we see. For example, a mathematical
equation in evolutionary theory, verified with direct experiments, explains why mice and rat
genomes are 10 times more different than human and chimpanzee genomes
(http://peacefulscience.org/evidence-and-evolution/ ). Common descent is the only known
design principle that quantitatively explains this fact, and a thousand others like it. Even if
evolution is false, it is explaining something about biology more than “similarity is due to shared
function.”
evolution than I. Whether evolution is true or false, it certainly looks like our
genomes descend from common ancestors with the great apes. Even if it is
ultimately false, evolution is the plain reading of genomes.
Jesus Stands Alone

A robust Christology is painfully absent from most faith and science
contributions. When mentioned, Jesus is a bystander, useless to the debate but
threatened all the same. This fragile Jesus is nothing like the One we find in
Scripture. I applaud McKnight for breaking this pattern in arguing correctly that
Jesus is not threatened by our debates over Adam.
McKnight studies how Paul’s Adam interacts with Jesus. He observes Paul could
be reasoning from Jesus to Adam (p. 181). Paul’s Adam, rather than a starting
point from which to define Jesus, is instead an explanatory contrast by which to
expound a Jesus clearly seen by other means (Hebrews 1:1-3); a Jesus who
stands alone, without need of Adam. McKnight’s reframing is consistent with the
rest of Scripture, which calls Jesus the “cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20), grounding
everything in the Resurrection instead Adam (I Corinthians 15:3-7,14; Acts 17:16-
34). Underscoring this point, there were many versions of Adam in Paul’s time. In
full view of these many Adams, the early Church did not insert one into the
historical creeds. We do well, then, to remember that the traditional marker of
orthodoxy is the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection, not Adam, and a
confession that He rose from the dead (Romans 10:9).
There is much more Christology could offer. Venema and McKnight might have
calmed concerns of many readers with personal confessions.9 They could have
explained how and why they personally came to know Him, affirm His Lordship,
and believe the Resurrection. Confessing Jesus’ authority over all things,
including science (Matthew 28:18-20), might have averted their after-science
framing too. From the Empty Tomb, it seems untenable to interpret the Gospels
after assuming the solid scientific conclusion that men never rise from the dead.
Science is blind to the Resurrection and this blindness declares its limits; science
9
‘When people utter the sentence, “I confess that Jesus is Lord,” they are confessing. They are
not stating a fact about Jesus. They are enacting a commitment by speaking. By making the
confession, you bind yourself to what you confess.’ Okamoto, Joel (2015) "Making Sense of
Confessionalism Today," Concordia Journal: Vol. 41: No. 1, Article 5.
http://scholar.csl.edu/cj/vol41/iss1/5/
cannot bring us to God or speak of when He acts. Therefore, in view of Jesus,
why interpret any Scripture after assuming science?
Moreover, McKnight’s historical-contextual hermeneutic would be better

understood by explaining its impact on our understanding of Jesus. Many are
suspicious of an unfamiliar hermeneutic that justifies rethinking Adam. When
applied to Jesus, will this hermeneutic rethink Him too? Will it rethink away the
bodily Resurrection? A large body of work10 uses a historical-contextual
hermeneutic to study the Resurrection, revealing it more lucidly than a plain
reading. With this hermeneutic, some details of Adam are darkened, but Jesus
Himself grows brighter.
These points aside, I agree with McKnight’s main thesis. Fear not an ambiguous
Adam; find confidence in the lucid clarity of Jesus. We follow Him because He
rose from the dead,11 whether Adam is historical or not.
The Scientific Omissions

Nonetheless, I depart from Adam and the Genome in its treatment of the
historical Adam, and I specifically dispute their dismissal of a genealogical Adam.
I am an evolutionary creationist who affirms Adam and Eve were real people in
our past to whom we trace our lineage. I affirm a genealogical Adam.
Venema makes two critical omissions in his account that materially affect the
subsequent analysis. The omitted information limits the way evolution presses
on theology, and calls into question McKnight’s rethink of Adam. Unfortunately,
the science I am sharing here has been overlooked my most, so it will be
surprising. Here, I include a brief overview with extensive footnotes, but a more
complete introduction is published elsewhere (Peaceful Science,
http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-science/).
The first omission is the distinction between “human” in science and “human” in
theology. Specifically, science focuses on anatomically modern humans. This is a
matter of practicality because there is no way of detecting the breath of God and
10
Personally, I am shaped by N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, but another
important work is The Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas.
11
An explanation of the evidence I point to for the Resurrection is here:
http://www.veritas.org/evidence-easter-scientists-list/.
His Image on us. Therefore, we cannot locate Adam in history, let alone
determine who descends from him. Science can, however, ask if ancient bones
look like those of modern humans. Alongside anatomy, paleoanthropologists
identify several milestones. Roughly speaking, 200,000 years ago we appear,
80,000 years ago we leave Africa and spread across the globe, 10,000 years ago
we discover agriculture, and 6,000 years ago began recorded history. At which
point did we become the “mankind” of Scripture? And when and how did we
receive God’s Image? Are Neanderthals and other hominids part of mankind
too? Science cannot and does not say.
The second omission is the distinction between genealogical and genetic

ancestry, which obscures the well-established science of bi-parental genealogical
ancestry.12 Defined genealogically, universal common ancestors are everyone to
whom all humans alive can trace their lineage. The first surprise is that a large
group of people fit this criterion.13 The second surprise is that our last universal
genealogical ancestor might have been very recent, perhaps just 3,000 years
ago.14 Informally extrapolating this to all humans in recorded history, common
ancestors might be situated more recently than 10,000 years ago.15 The third
12
Our common bi-parental genealogical ancestors are (1) not our most recent common ancestor
(MRCA), (2) not our identical ancestors, (3) not our mitochondrial Eve, (4) not our Y-Chromosome
Adam, and (5) not necessarily our genetic ancestors. Whatever you may know of these things,
common genealogical ancestors are different (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.006 and
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2015.02.002).
13
We can build our intuition about this by considering a group of grandchildren that share the
same grandfather. The grandfather is their common genealogical ancestor, but so also is every
ancestor of the grandfather. There will also be other common ancestors too, if we take into
account the distant shared ancestors of their parents.
14
We can build our intuition about this by considering the total population and the number of
ancestors there are as we count back generations. First, we have two parents, then four
grandparents, then eight great-grandparents. The number of ancestors we have increases
exponentially as we go back, but the population does not. The number of people either stays
constant or decreases exponentially as we go back in generations. Eventually, all our lines begin
to cross and all our lines coalesce together (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001867800009587). Our
first common father appears quickly, in just a few thousand years, but we find millions of
common fathers stretching back to the first moment humans appear. Only tiny amounts of
migration give us a common ancestor just 3,000 years ago.
(https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02842).
15
There are some caveats about a date less than 10,000 years. This depends on precise details
about migration around the globe and whether specific populations were totally isolated for very
long periods of time. Nonetheless, it seems impossible for genetic and archeological science to
rule out the small amounts of migration and mixing that would admit very recent common
ancestors.
surprise is that most our genealogical ancestors are “ghosts” that leave no
genetic trace in our genomes, and are therefore undetectable.16 So we find
several anatomically modern humans, each of whom are ancestors of us all,
stretching from more than 200,000 years ago to more recently than 10,000 years
ago. All these individuals are unobservable by genomic science and universal
genealogical ancestors of us all.
Therefore, entirely consistent with the genetic evidence (Figure 1), it is possible
Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, 10,000 years ago in a
divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with
opportunity17 to be a relationship with Him. Perhaps their fall brought
accountability for sin to all their descendants.18 Leaving the Garden, their
offspring blended with their neighbors in the surrounding towns.19 In this way,
they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history.20 Adam and
Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors of all mankind.21 Even if this scenario
is false or unnecessary, nothing in evolutionary science unsettles this story. So,
16
Most of our common ancestors are genetic ghosts “who are simultaneously (i) genealogical
ancestors of each of the individuals at the present, and (ii) genetic ancestors to none of the
individuals at the present.” (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2015.02.002 ).
17
An earlier version said “capable” which was confusing to some readers.
18
Another question arises in considering Adam’s descendants. Perhaps they include all humans
in recorded history (as I have assumed here), all humans alive when Paul writes Romans, or just
some humans alive today and tracing to Jesus’ lineage. Other options are possible too. In the
final model, to explain how all humans today are fallen and bear God’s Image, perhaps Adam and
Eve also are representatives of all humans alive at their time (as is explained in Origins by the
Haarsmas). Variants of this “recent representative-genealogical” model appear to resolve most
theological objections, match closely the “traditional” interpretation of Genesis, and be entirely
consistent with mainstream science.
19
Some will be uncomfortable with the notion of two types of anatomically-modern humans that
do and do not bear the Image of God. This problem might be alleviated several ways. Perhaps the
Fall also brought “death to all mankind” (Romans 5:12) by bringing accountability (God’s Image,
knowledge of good and evil, and a sinful nature) to humans outside the Garden. The
“representative-genealogical” model would solve this problem in another way. Supporting either
of these models, there are several verses that suggest Adam’s lineage is not pure (Genesis 4:13-
18; 6:1-6). Moreover, Scripture never claims Adam and Eve were alone, without people outside
the Garden. For further discussion, see John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve.
20
The possibility of an Adam and Eve like this is “essentially unobservable” in genetic data past
about 15 generations (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2015.10.008 ). It is also not clear what group
of people must descent from Adam; I choose all those in recorded history here, but one could
easily choose “those alive at the time of Paul” instead.
21
Remember, several other scenarios include Adam as a real person at the headwaters of
humanity.
evolution presses in a very limited way on our understanding of Adam and Eve,
only suggesting (alongside Scripture) that their lineage was not pure. Any case
claiming that evolution itself requires more dramatic rethinks of Adam is in
scientific error.
Why would we think, therefore, that “accepting the genetic evidence for a
theory of evolution” is in “tune” with a radical revision of the traditional
interpretation of Genesis (p. 173)? Instead, evolution gives no reason to doubt,
as Jack Collins puts it, that Adam and Eve sit at the “headwaters” of all mankind.
Genomes give no reason to doubt, as John Walton puts it, “Adam and Eve are
historical figures---real people in a real past.”
For these reasons, Adam and the Genome’s ambivalence to the genealogical
Adam is a non-sequitur. McKnight seems unaware that evolution does not
challenge Paul’s understanding here. McKnight’s rethink of Adam on this point,
therefore, is not the response required by evolution.22 One does not follow from
the other. Adam and Eve could be ancestors of all mankind. On this point,
therefore, McKnight’s rethink of Adam must come on its own, independent of
evolution, and without assuming science.
The Final Piece

A final piece is missing. Why end opposition to evolution? Why accept any
revision, no matter how small, to accommodate evolution? I return to my story.
For decades, I had used arguments against evolution to build my confidence. I

somehow felt my trust in Jesus was completed by knowing evolution was false.
In this way, I trusted in Intelligent Design and creation science, but doubted the
work of God in history to reveal Himself. Anti-evolutionism quietly became a
foundation of my faith, on which too much rested.
The turning point came for me in Jesus.23 He encountered me again. Through

Him I found a confident faith, rooted in God’s work in history rather than human
efforts to study nature. Founded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
22
Ironically, the concordism in this proposal and its after-science approach raises concerns of
eisegesis. Knowing that a genealogical Adam is possible, would McKnight have embarked on this
ambitious project? Would McKnight still rework Paul’s genealogical Adam?
23
Read about my story here: http://peacefulscience.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/swamidass-confident-fatih.pdf
Declared in the testimony of all believers. Confessed in my own true experience
of Him. Evolution is powerful, but Jesus is greater than anything I find in science.
In Him, I find no fear.
With trust in Jesus, I approached evolution anew. This is the moment it all made
sense. Genomes were clear, suggesting alongside Scripture only minor
adjustments to the “traditional” interpretation. In the clear light of Jesus, I no
longer needed anti-evolutionism. The Resurrection is the “only sign given” by
which God makes Himself known to our skeptical world (Matthew 12:38-45).
This sign was perfect, in no need of completion. Not needing anti-evolutionism
any more, I left my idol to follow Jesus.
Now, I see common descent is the design principle that explains so much of
biology, including genomes. It looks like evolution is God’s wise way of creating
us all. As Venema proclaims: “Evolution versus Is Design” (p. 89). I know God
creates because God reveals Himself as the Creator through Jesus. Science
struggles to see, but I believe because I trust Jesus more.
Now I face a mystery. We do not know all the details; a very large number of
scenarios are consistent with science and Scripture. What are the details? How
could we know?
Facing a grand mystery, I fall into the worship of creative curiosity.
I fall into the “theologized fiction” of C.S. Lewis. Instead of clinging to a fragile
theology unsettled by intelligent aliens, The Space Trilogy “imagined out loud” a
vision of Jesus in a universe with life on other planets. Instead of grasping at fine-
tuning arguments, The Chronicles of Narnia embraced the multiverse with a
vision of Jesus too. “I am in your world,” said Aslan. “But there I have another
name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why
you were brought to Narnia.”
Our generation needs fearless creativity. Come let us worship with curiosity,
imagining new stories of Adam that give a clear vision of Jesus to our scientific
world.
Figure 1. Genealogical ancestry is not genetic ancestry. Illustrating the story in
the text, we show a cartooned pedigree, a genealogy, from past (top) to present
(bottom). Squares and circles denote men and women, respectively, with lines
indicating parentage. Red and blue individuals are those in the genetic lineages
to a single ancestor, Mito-Eve and Y-Adam, respectively. In contrast, every
individual with a black border is a common genealogical ancestor of all those in
recorded history (grey box). The Scriptural Adam and Eve (the black box and
square) are created from the dust and a rib less than 10,000 years ago, have no
parents, are in the Garden of Eden (black box), and are genealogical ancestors of
everyone in history. This story is entirely consistent with the genetic data (see
http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-science/ for more information).

A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Genealogical Adam and Eve in

Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD is a physician, scientist, and Assistant Professor

In the age of genomes, new information is reshaping our understanding of life on

Moreover, it is hard to endorse an after-science approach to Scripture; reading

Consequently, Adam and the Genome is best understood as a partial explanation

Venema accurately recounts human origins, as most scientists understand it,

I first encountered genomes as a student.7 With quantitative and mathematical

Jesus Stands Alone

Moreover, McKnight’s historical-contextual hermeneutic would be better

The Scientific Omissions

The second omission is the distinction between genealogical and genetic

The Final Piece

For decades, I had used arguments against evolution to build my confidence. I

The turning point came for me in Jesus.23 He encountered me again. Through

Facing a grand mystery, I fall into the worship of creative curiosity.

You might also like