My Analysis of S. Joshua Swamidass’ Book, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve” (Part 2) (…and why I ultimately am bored with science! WHAAAAAT???)

We now come to Part 2 of my look at S. Joshua Swamidass’ book, The Genealogical Adam & Eve. In my previous post, I attempted to lay out the basic thesis and argument of his book, namely that Swamidass puts forth a speculative hypothesis as a way to “heal the divide” between those Christians who accept evolution (and who thus feel they must jettison belief in a historical Adam and Eve) and those who have a problem accepting evolution because they hold to a belief in a historical Adam and Eve. Swamidass’ proposal is that we can have both: (A) A de novo creation of a historical Adam and Eve about 6,000-12,000 years ago, and (B) Evolution and common descent for human beings outside of the Garden of Eden. All that is required for this to work is accepting the possibility that after Adam and Eve sinned and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, that their descendants ended up interbreeding with the rest of humanity, and thus by the time of Christ, every human being was somehow genealogically related back to the historical Adam and Eve.

Throughout the book, Swamidass emphasizes that this hypothesis is admittedly speculative and that it doesn’t answer every question—in fact, it raises additional questions as well. But, as he states at the end of the book, his hypothesis is no worse than the numerous other attempts by Christians who try to make what we know about evolution and the age of the earth “jive” with some sort of historical Adam and Eve: (A) Old-Earth creationist organizations like Reasons to Believe claim that God-imaged homo sapiens (descendants of Adam and Eve) interbred with Neanderthal beasts, (B) Young-earth creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis claim that fallen angels literally interbred with human women to produce Nephilim giants,  (C) Others try to claim that Adam and Eve were a homo erectus couple living 2 million years ago.

The Overall Thrust of Evangelical Wrestlings on This Issue
If you follow the debates with Evangelicalism over the past 15 years or so regarding creation/evolution and the question of how to interpret Genesis 1-11 (specifically the historicity of Adam and Eve), you probably are familiar with the various concordist attempts to make a historical Adam and Eve “jive” with evolutionary theory. Although Swamidass insists that his hypothesis isn’t concordist, it is hard for me not to see just as much in the concordist camp as many of the other options. I don’t mean that necessarily as an insult, but the sheer fact is if one believes in a historical Adam and Eve, accepts the scientific evidence for evolution, and seeks to give an explanation that allow those two things to be harmonized in any way—that, as far as I can tell, is ultimately some form of concordism.

A great deal of Christians who are looking into the creation/evolution issue do this all the time. It doesn’t matter if it is Swamidass’ book, or Dennis Venema’s and Scot McKnight’s Adam and the Genome, or various articles and books related to the BioLogos organization—this has simply been a major issue that many Christians have been wrestling with and trying to resolve and/or harmonize. That is a much- needed thing to do, because after all, let’s just admit it, Evangelicalism has a lot of catching up to do with it comes to embracing modern science and understanding evolutionary theory. In addition, American Evangelicalism, no doubt influenced throughout the 20^th century by the more Fundamentalist, wooden-literal understanding of Scripture, has tended to come to Genesis 1-11 with the assumption that they have to come up with some sort of scientifically related answer to it. The result is often one of three answers:

(A) The rejection modern science and the theory of evolution and atheistic attempts to undermine Scripture.  These types double-down that everything in Genesis 1-11 is historical and accuse anyone who says otherwise of being a compromised Christian and a wolf in sheep’s clothing—this would be groups like Answers in Genesis. This type of literature is almost always a lot of pseudo-science, bad biblical exegesis, and invectives in the culture war.

(B) The acceptance that evolution and other fields of modern science are true. And then, based on the findings of modern science, they conclude that Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical, therefore must be…archetypal, mythological, etc. Most of the literature in this camp, consists mostly of reinforcing those scientific arguments that show how Genesis 1-11 doesn’t jive with modern science.

(C) The acceptance that evolution and other fields of modern science are true, but then the attempt to show how a literal/historical understanding of Genesis 1-11 can still exist side-by-side modern science. The proposed answers in this group tend to be rather varied.

Still, the starting point in all three groups is nevertheless is pretty much the same: using modern science as the driving force in discussing Genesis 1-11. The result is that most of the literature on this issue tends to be written by scientists, or theologians/biblical scholars trying to explain Genesis 1-11 in light of the findings of modern science. Modern science is playing field on which discussion of Genesis 1-11 often happens. It is in that respect that I feel that Swamidass’ book (although with many others) is still ultimately concordist at its core.

That being said, Swamidass’ hypothesis (that I outlined in my previous post) certainly does bring up some interesting, albeit speculative, points. The main point focusing on the issue of where did Cain’s wife come from? Anyone who has taken the time to critically read Genesis 1-11 no doubt has asked that question. Swamidass’ hypothesis that there was a human population that evolved over millions of years outside of the Garden of Eden answers that question. If I can put it this way, if you’re going to retain the idea of a historical Adam and Eve and still affirm evolutionary theory, Swamidass’ hypothesis is probably the best proposed answer out there. I obviously don’t buy the YECist argument that Cain married his sister (and that incest was okay for the first few thousand years of human history), and I’m also not impressed with the attempts to say that Adam and Eve were a historical couple two million years ago.

My criticism of Swamidass’ book, though, is really not just a criticism of his book alone. It is a criticism of the underlying assumption I’ve seen with most of these attempts in the first place: this assumption that without a “scientific” explanation of Genesis 1-11, then the value of Genesis 1-11 is cheapened. I question that very mindset and approach from the start.

My Journey to Understanding Genesis 1-11
I’ve written about this elsewhere from time to time, but I want to again explain the circumstances that led me to my conclusion that Genesis 1-11 should be understood to be in the genre of ANE mythological literature. Early on in his book, Swamidass says that the theory of evolution has caused many Christians to question and/or reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11. To put it another way, evolution was the culprit that caused some Christians to question the reliability of Scripture (namely Genesis 1-11). He’s absolutely right—for many Christians (and former Christians) evolution posed a major challenge to their faith.

That, though, is 100% not true in my case.

What led me to my conclusion that Genesis 1-11 is an example of ANE mythological literature was most definitely not evolution and modern science. It played absolutely no role in my understanding of Genesis 1-11 at all. Having grown up in American Evangelicalism, I always assumed Adam and Eve and the rest of Genesis 1-11 was historical, but I never really gave it much thought. I also learned in school about dinosaurs living millions of years ago, but I never thought about it enough to think it somehow contradicted the Bible. Like most Christians, I assume, I held both thoughts in my head at the same time without ever bothering to reflect on it.

I started to really ask questions about how to interpret Genesis 1-11 during my first master’s program at Regent College, specifically in one of J. I. Packer’s systematic theology classes, while I was doing a research paper on the topic of Original Sin. My undergraduate degree had been in Literature, and so when I started looking into Genesis 1-11 in more depth, it just started occurring to me that it had all the literary characteristics of ANE myth—it was as plan as the nose on your face. I continued to do my own study of Genesis 1-11 on my own and by 1999, when I was teaching at a small Christian school in California, I covered Genesis 1-11 as ANE mythological literature. I believed (and still believe) it is 100% inspired by God and 100% true, but the genre is absolutely that of ANE myth. That’s its genre. That the literary style people in the ANE expressed their beliefs about God/the gods, the nature of mankind, and the world around them. ANE myth was the genre by which ANE cultures expressed their foundational worldviews. They weren’t trying to do history and they certainly trying to answer our modern 21^st century questions.

And one more thing. Back in 1996-1998, when I came to that conclusion that Genesis 1-11 was in the genre of ANE myth, if you were to ask me at the time what I thought about evolution, I would have told you that I didn’t believe evolution was true. Like most Evangelical Christians, I had never bothered to look into it, but I rejected it because I associated it with atheism. At the same time, I was convinced Genesis 1-11 should be understood as an example of ANE myth.

And so, although I’m sure Swamidass is correct when he says the evolution has caused many Christians to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical, that simply is not true in my case. Let me put is as clearly as I can: Evolution and modern science should have zero influence on how one interprets Genesis 1-11. What should convince you that Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of ANE myth is the fact that it shares oodles and oodles of literary characteristics with other ANE myths. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck—and there is no need try to prove or disprove it is (or is not) a gorilla!

Conclusion (And I hope I don’t offend all the scientifically-minded Christians I’ve befriended over the past seven years!)
Far from cheapening Genesis 1-11, reading it with the understanding it is written in the genre of ANE myth actually opens you up to a much deeper and more profound understanding of those chapters. Instead of agonizing how it may or may not relate to modern science, or fretting that “if it’s not historical, then it’s not true,” you can just accept in in the way God has inspired it and accept it on its own terms—and then you’ll find yourself being challenged by it over and over again as explore the deep truths it is teaching you about God and mankind.

And to be honest, one of the things I’ve always found troublesome in the creation/evolution debate is how often those scientific speculations often tend to distract people from actually studying and contemplating what Genesis 1-11 is actually saying. Genesis 1-11 isn’t there just so science can either prove or disprove it. It can stand on its own, thank you very much. All the speculation about how Adam and Eve relate to the genome or genetics, all the claims about how Adam and Eve might relate to homo erectus or Neanderthals…sorry, it just bores me.

Thus, my major “criticism” of Swamidass’ book really isn’t of Swamidass’ book. It’s really a criticism of what I tend to feel is the general approach most people have to Genesis 1-11. Let me be clear, if you’re going to speculate and try to figure out a way to harmonize modern evolutionary science with some kind of historical reading of (in this case) Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3, I find Swamidass’ hypothesis the most interesting. But still, just like all other attempts, it still is highly speculative, it still cannot be proven, and it still is (in my opinion) ultimately unnecessary. I’ve seen a number of other book reviews on The Genealogical Adam and Eve that say it is a rather interesting though experiment and worth contemplating. And to that extent, I agree. Particularly, if you’re going to start with the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is historical, then you have to take seriously the question, “Where Cain’s wife come from and when Cain went and built a city, where did those people come from?” As a speculative matter, Swamidass’ hypothesis is interesting to think about.

But ultimately, we’re left with, “Well, maybe…but there’s no real way to prove it.” And the same can be said for all the other speculative arguments that attempt to harmonize or explain Genesis 1-11 in light of modern science. Again, that kind of stuff tends to bore me. Being an English Literature major, I equate it with if you took a Shakespeare class, but never got around to reading his actual plays. Instead, all you did was speculate and give arguments whether or not Christopher Marlowe was the one who really wrote the plays. Or you spent all your time trying to show which elements in Romeo and Juliet correlated with the source material in Arthur Brooke’s earlier poem entitled, The Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet. All that might be mildly interesting to a degree, but I want to read and analyze the plays themselves—that’s the point of taking the class. If the only thing you do in a Shakespeare class is speculate on authorship and source material, then you’re wasting your time. Similarly, if all one does with Genesis 1-11 is speculate on how it may or may not relate to modern scientific findings and how one might be able to prove it is historical—that seems to me to be a waste of time.

Again, though, I want to make clear that the above criticism isn’t really leveled at Swamidass’ book in and of itself. When it comes to the way most Evangelicals tend to speculate about how Genesis 1-11 may or may not jive with modern scientific findings—if you want to take evolution seriously and still retain a belief in a historical Adam and Eve—Swamidass’ hypothesis makes the most sense. It still is speculative—and that is something he readily admits throughout the book. It can act as a door for someone to get into the whole issue regarding evolution and the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve.

I’m just convinced that Genesis 1-11 can stand on its own and can be properly understood, without any regard to evolution or modern science at all. It has all the literary characteristics of the genre of ANE myth, and that genre should determine how one reads it and interprets it. There simply is no need to inject modern science or any kind of scientific speculation into it.

One Final Note
As a final, quick note, I wanted to say one more thing regarding something Swamidass says in the book—namely how accepting a historical Adam and Eve is similar to accepting the Virgin Birth of Jesus. My short response is that they are two different things. The Adam and Eve story is found within a section of Scripture (Genesis 1-11) that bears all the hallmarks and literary characteristics of ANE myth. Therefore, the reason I don’t think Genesis 2-3 is historical isn’t because a de novo creation can’t be explained by science. Of course, God could have created a historical couple de novo. He’s God—He can do anything. But that shouldn’t be the over-riding question. The over-riding question should be, “What is the genre of this passage of Scripture?” And if its genre is myth, then that suggests we aren’t dealing with historical claims.

By contrast, Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 are found within what most biblical scholars consider to be ancient historical biographies—that’s what the Synoptic Gospels are. They are clearly telling us about historical people, places, and events. Yes, there is an element of creative storytelling within them, but the genre of being ancient historical biographies impels us to read the small passages within the Gospels as being historical claims. Now, yes, the Virgin Birth story can’t be explained by science—it is a mystery. And yes, having done my PhD on Isaiah 7:14, I can talk all day about what Matthew is doing literarily, theologically, and creatively when he quotes Isaiah 7:14 and applies it to Jesus’ conception and birth. I can guarantee you there is a whole lot more going on in those Infancy Narratives than just a mysterious biological claim. Still, the claim in found within ancient historical biographies, that impels us to accept it has a historical claim.