A Book Review of The Genealogical Adam & Eve (Part 1)

Two years ago, S. Joshua Swamidass came out with his book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. He contacted me and offered to send me a free copy to review on my blog. To be honest, I was a bit hesitant because, looking at the preview on Amazon, it struck me as pretty heavy talking about scientific details regarding genetics. My area of expertise is Biblical Studies. Even though in my time writing The Heresy of Ham and taking part in various creation/evolution online groups I’ve learned quite a bit in terms of science as it relates to the creation/evolution debate, I am by no means a scientist. My interest when it comes to the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2-3 is literary and theological, not so much scientific.

In any case, he sent the book, but it literary got lost in the mail and I never got it, a new semester started, and I pretty much forgot about it. Then about a month ago, Swamidass and I engaged in a friendly discussion in one of the online creation/evolution groups, and I thought, “Maybe I’ll see if I have enough credit card points to get it free on Amazon,” and lo and behold, I had the book a week later. And so, this is my review of the book, albeit about two years later than expected.

It turns out that certain sections of the book did, indeed, delve into some scientific weeds that were pretty much over my head, I do feel I was able to get a handle on what Swamidass’ overall thesis concerning Adam and Eve was, as well as what his main points and arguments were. What I am going to do, therefore, is two things. First, I’m going to provide an overview of what Swamidass presents in his book. Second, I’m going to offer my critique and observations of his thesis and arguments.

That being said, let’s get genealogical!

An Overview of The Genealogical Adam and Eve
The main goal Swamidass wants to achieve in his book is to show that there is a way for Christians to accept evolution and universal common descent and still accept a literal/historical reading of Genesis 2-3. Or even more simply put: Christians can accept evolution and “millions of years” and still believe there was as historical couple (Adam and Eve) that could have been created de novo somewhere between 6,000-12,000 years ago.

The way Swamidass suggests this might be possible involves essentially five things to consider:

(1) That God created humanity through the process of evolution—and thus accept the standard scientific theory that modern day homo sapiens evolved over millions of years and are related to the great apes.

(2) That, at some point within the past 6,000-12,000 years, God created de novo two specific, historical people—Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib—and that He placed them in a literal garden area somewhere in the Middle East. When they sinned, God exiled them from the garden.

(3) That outside of the garden, both before and after God created Adam and Eve de novo, there were other human beings who had come about through the long process of evolution.

(4) That when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, their descendants interbred with the human beings outside of the Garden of Eden.

(5) And that by the year AD 1 (basically the time Jesus Christ was born) every human being on the earth was somehow genealogically linked to Adam and Eve.

That scenario, Swamidass submits, would help heal the division between Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution and those Christians who insist that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 actually happened in history. The way Swamidass sees it, the theory of evolution has for too long called into question the historicity of Adam and Eve and created three specific dilemmas for Christians.

First, evolution, and the recent scientific discoveries involving the human genome, has shown that it is scientifically impossible that all human beings in history could have descended from a literal couple only 6,000-12,000 years ago. Therefore, Christians seemingly have to choose between believing in a recent Adam and Eve or monogenesis, which goes back much further than just 6,000-12,000 years and can only trace modern human beings back to larger people group. Second, evolution seems to force Christians into choosing either the belief that God created Adam and Eve de novo or that human beings share a common evolutionary descent. Third, evolution seems to force Christians into accepting the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 1-3 as either actual history or mythology, which Swamidass says has become an extremely divisive issue.

Swamidass’ hypothesis, he claims helps resolve these dilemmas. By postulating there were humans outside the Garden of Eden who evolved via evolution, Swamidass says that Christians can accept evolution for the “outside of the Garden” people, while at the same time believing in the historicity of the Adam and Even story in Genesis 2-3. As he writes, “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” (10).

To be clear, the meaning of the concept of a genealogical Adam and Eve is different than the idea that all human beings throughout all time genetically go back to a historical Adam and Eve: genealogical ancestry is different from genetic ancestry. Swamidass’ “genealogical Adam and Eve” are not the genetic ancestors of every human being who ever lived. Rather, they are a specific, historical couple whom God created de novo somewhere around 6,000-12,000 years ago, whose descendants interbred with the rest of evolved humanity to the point where, by the time Jesus was born, every human being in the world in AD 1 would somehow be able to trace their ancestry to that historical couple described in Genesis 2-3.

Genealogically, Swamidass argues, this is possible, although admittedly it cannot be conclusively proven. How likely is that possibility? Swamidass admits we don’t have enough evidence to know for sure. What’s more, Swamidass admits that there is “no genetic evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve…” (89). In other words, even though genetic evidence can’t prove the de novo creation of Adam and Eve, it can’t disprove it either. As he emphasizes throughout his book, much of his genealogical hypothesis is extremely speculative. That being said, particularly with the above quote, I wasn’t sure what to make of what he says just a few pages later, when he says, “Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, could have been de novo created in the Middle East” (97). If there is no genetic evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve, I don’t see how the de novo creation of Adam and Eve in the Middle East is “entirely consistent with the genetic evidence.”

With that over-arching thesis stressed throughout the book, Swamidass ventures into a number of speculative issues that have been discussed by numerous Christians involved in the sciences who have tried to reconcile a historical reading of Genesis 1-3 with what we now know about evolution. Where Adam and Eve chosen from a larger evolved population and then “refurbished” with spiritual qualities or unique physical abilities that defined them as uniquely human? Were they created de novo, but were still biologically identical to those outside the garden? Were those outside the garden truly human or slightly “less human”? For that matter, how does one define “human”? What exactly does the image of God mean? Is it referring to having a special relationship with God, a special God-given vocation, or special attributes that separate us from the animal world?

Swamidass spends time giving his tentative opinions on all these issues, all the while emphasizing that much, if not all of it, is admittedly highly speculative. Ultimately, his chief concern is to be able to continue to be able to hold that Scripture is trustworthy in what he teaches about Adam and Eve (namely that they were two historical people, created de novo by God, who lived no more than 12,000 years ago), while at the same time accepting the clear and overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. He wants the reader to know that it is possible that there was a de novo couple in the recent past from whom all human beings from the time of Christ onward were genealogically related. No, science can’t prove that, but it also can’t disprove it. It is possible.

As Swamidass wrote in a public Facebook conversation, what he hopes to get across in his book is this: “To take hold of evolution, most everyone thought we needed to revise the traditional reading of Genesis and traditional theology. Correcting some concordist equivocations, and some mistakes in the science, we find out we were wrong. Even a literal reading of Genesis (whether or not that’s the correct reading) isn’t in conflict with evolution, as are many traditional readings and theology. That’s good news for those of us committed to advancing science in a fractured society, but it’s bad news for the revisionists, who often wielded bad science for the purpose of forcing revisions to theology.”

And so, that is my best attempt to crystalize the main argument in The Genealogical Adam and Eve. Like I said, Swamidass does discuss a number of related issues stemming from this main thesis, but I wanted to try to articulate what I felt to be the main argument in as clear a manner as possible. In my next post, I’ll share my thoughts and critiques.