Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry

2021; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 31; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.31.2.0234

2576-0998

James Wilson,

Evolution and Science Education

S. Joshua Swamidass engages the debate between evolutionary science and Christian theology, presenting a new perspective on the topic and engaging his audience in a neutral conversation in which all voices on the topic can be heard. In 5 parts and 18 chapters, Swamidass presents evidence, argumentation, and commentary on evolutionary biology, genealogy, biblical studies, and theology.In part one, Swamidass states that his goal is to address the “traditional” de novo view of Adam and Eve as 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” (p. 5). True to his inviting conversational tone, Swamidass speaks of his own motivations, having learned the “traditional” creationist view while raised in the Indian church, and later wrestling with this view as he embraced evolutionary science.In part two, Swamidass focuses on ancestry. He asserts that Adam and Eve’s line interbred with people outside Eden, becoming genealogical ancestors of everyone by AD 1 (pp. 23–30). Swamidass distinguishes between genealogical and genetic ancestry, addresses Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, and suggests that his focus on genealogy is warranted by a similar focus in Scripture (pp. 31–42). Swamidass then discusses the history of genealogical science and suggests that people today have Universal Common Ancestors as recently as 2,000 to 3,000 years in the past (pp. 42–55). Swamidass proceeds, using the world population in AD 1 as a base to claim that a Universal Common Ancestor would have been possible as early as 3,000 to 5,000 years prior using conservative simulations (pp. 56–64). This is likely even in light of genetic and genealogical isolation, which he considers unlikely and inconsequential to his thesis (pp. 65–78). Finally, Swamidass claims that how we respond to the miraculous de novo creation of Adam and Eve depends on “whether we think scripture is trustworthy, and what we think it is telling us” (p. 87).In part three, Swamidass focuses on humanity. He defines “human” according to the theological equation of humans with the image of God (p. 97–104), though it is debatable whether the equation should cover attributes, vocational/functional qualities, and/or relationship with God (pp. 105–17). Swamidass briefly disqualifies the use of the traditionally racist term “polygenesis” for his work (pp. 118–32), before distinguishing further between textual humans (those mentioned in Scripture) and the rest of the people outside of Eden (not mentioned in Scripture) based on gaps in the Genesis account (pp. 133–50).In part four, Swamidass focuses on mystery. He embraces the dilemmas of the traditional account of Adam and Eve in terms of infallibility, tolerance, and mystery (pp. 155–62). Swamidass discusses the literalist tradition, de novo creation of Adam and Eve, their recent creation in the Middle East, the tradition of universal ancestry, and limits to speculation about these topics (pp. 163–72). He then engages in a thought experiment of human origins that combines the traditional account of Adam and Eve with evolutionary science (pp. 173–83). Next, Swamidass considers physical corruption (death), moral corruption, and debt (sin) and how these consequences of the fall were transmitted instantly, contagiously, and hereditarily across humanity (pp. 184–91). He further discusses how the theological theme of exile plays into God’s response to humanity’s sin as a means of justice and mercy (pp. 192–200). Swamidass concludes that his thesis is no more objectionable or problematic than other popular theses, and he poses several unanswered questions for his readers (pp. 201–9). In part five, Swamidass concludes with a final exhortation to his audience of secular scientists, non-traditionalists, and traditionalists (pp. 215–23).I appreciated Swamidass’s inviting tone and much of his work in the early part of the book, but I have several objections to his argumentation. First, Swamidass asserts that his focus on genealogy rather than genetics is warranted by Scripture’s similar focus on genealogy and its ignorance of genetics because application of genetics to Scripture is anachronistic (pp. 31–42). But it must be observed that ancient and/or scriptural genealogy is different from modern genealogical science, and applying the standards of modern genealogical science to ancient genealogy is also anachronistic.Second, Swamidass relies on mathematical simulations and models for his determination of dates for Universal Common Ancestry, which he hedges and clarifies with several caveats (pp. 56–64). The accuracy of the date estimates depends heavily on the factors that we choose to consider when constructing the simulation. It was not clear to me that these factors were sufficiently exhaustive.Third, Swamidass makes several claims about the existence of people outside Eden before Adam and Eve’s creation that are largely arguments from silence (pp. 133–50). For example, Swamidass claims that the mark of Cain affirms that there were people in Nod who sought his life (p. 143), but more likely this should be read in light of the blood avenger concept that we find later in the OT (e.g., Num 35; Deut 19; Josh 20; 2 Sam 14), in which case the people seeking his life would be Abel’s family. Swamidass makes several exegetical claims, and in short, I suggest that his exegetical method has room for improvement.Finally, Swamidass claims that how we respond to the de novo creation of Adam and Eve will depend on “whether we think Scripture is trustworthy, and what we think it is telling us” (p. 87). “Trustworthy” is quite loaded. Although Swamidass acknowledges and invites other interpretive lenses, he relies on and prioritizes the literalist tradition of interpretation, guided largely by the Chicago statement on inerrancy. Against Swamidass, I believe that interpreting Adam and Eve mythologically or nonliterally could drastically change the scriptural component of his argument. Additionally, adherence to the literalist tradition, despite its allowance for literary genre, assumes that we actually know the genre of Gen 1–11 (a topic of ongoing debate), and that the literalist interpretation was the one intended by the author(s)/editors. If the Adam and Eve account truly is mythical or nonliteral (and meant to be understood as such originally), then Swamidass’s thesis is essentially moot. I found this book to be informative and creative, and I believe it merits much more follow-up work from those on the different sides of the debate to refine Swamidass’s claims and to contribute to the discussion.