A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution

S. Joshua Swamidass | June 26, 2017

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?

Baker Academic (2017)

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:

“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 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 science

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,The authors do talk of “dialogue” between science and theology, but the
conversation in this book is one-sided. it is hard to endorse an after-science approach to
Scripture; reading before

or with

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.

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.

I first encountered genomes as a student.

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?

At the very least, my Creator was much less intent on disproving 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 (Heb. 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” (Eph. 2:20), grounding everything in the Resurrection instead Adam (1 Cor.
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 (Rom. 10:9).

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 (Rom.
10:9).

There is much more Christology could offer. Venema and McKnight might have calmed
concerns of many readers with personal confessions.

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 (Matt. 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 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 work

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,

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 by most, so it will be surprising. Here, I include a brief overview with
extensive footnotes, but a more complete introduction is published at my site, Peaceful
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 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 10,000 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.

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. The second
surprise is that our last universal genealogical ancestor might have been very recent, perhaps just
3,000 years ago. Informally extrapolating this to all humans in recorded history, common
ancestors might be situated more recently than 10,000 years ago. The third surprise is that most
our genealogical ancestors are “ghosts” that leave no genetic trace in our genomes, and are
therefore undetectable.

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.
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).

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 capable of a relationship with Him.
Perhaps their fall brought accountability for sin to all their descendants.

Leaving the Garden, their offspring blended with their neighbors in the surrounding towns. In this
way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are
the single-couple progenitors of all mankind.

Even if this scenario is false or unnecessary, nothing in evolutionary science unsettles this
story. So, 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.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.

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.

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. 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. 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?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.