A Christian physician-scientist named Joshua Swamidass published a book at the tail end of last year (Dec 2019) called The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. Granted, I haven't read the book, but I've heard reliable summaries of its main argument. Indeed, from the mouth of Swamidass himself (e.g. see Swamidass' interview with Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity and Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy).
Swamidass' main argument is it's possible Adam and Eve were created de novo in the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, but at the same time there are hominids outside the garden of Eden. These hominids evolved through standard evolutionary processes. This includes hominids like Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and so on. However, after Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, they interbred with these hominids. Modern humans are their descendents. This in turn explains, for example, why there is a certain percentage (1-5%) of Neanderthal DNA in humans today. That's Swamidass' central argument.
This position raises several questions:
1. For one thing, are these hominids human like us? Were they created in the image of God?
2. If the answer is yes, how could there have been humans made in the image of God outside the garden of Eden? Did God create multiple humans in his image, two in the garden, but many others outside it? Yet these humans outside the garden evolved, but can one evolve from non-human to human (made in the image of God)? How would that work?
3. If the answer is no, which is presumably the answer, then these hominids were highly sophisticated primates closely resembling humans, but not human. So would Adam and Eve and their descendents have been committing bestiality by interbreeding with these hominids? Would Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah have been interbreeding with them?
4. Taking a step back, could these hominids even produce viable offspring with humans? Swamidass would have to say yes because that's how he explains the presence of Neanderthal DNA in humans today. So, are we part human and part beast? If one parent is human, but the other parent is a non-human hominid, then what would that mean for the child? Would they still be human made in the image of God?
5. Swamidass argues he believes the imago dei is not the best way to understand what it means to be human if the imago dei is taken to refer to something like a rational soul or human exceptionalism. Instead, Swamidass argues, he believes we need to take a "vocational" view of what it means to be created in the image of God. By this Swamidass means we might regard the imago dei as a God-given calling or role to represent God in the world. In addition, Swamidass talks about a third view of the imago dei known as the relational view, but he says this is the least common view.
In any case, it seems to me Swamidass hones in on the vocational view for the imago dei. I think he does this because that makes room for the fact that humans interbreeding with hominids could still be human. If what it fundamentally means to be human is a matter of "calling", then God can call hominids to be human too. I think that's roughly speaking Swamidass' reasoning. By contrast, if we say there's something unique or exceptional about humans, then that would not apply to non-human animals like Swamidass' hominids.
I don't know that I agree with these three ways of looking at what it means to be created in God's image. However, suppose we agree with this way of looking at the imago dei at least for the sake of argument. Why does Swamidass single out the vocational view? Why not all three at the same time? These could be three different perspectives of looking at the imago dei, all of which have some merit to them, but none to be favored over another.
6. If the hominids outside the garden are not humans, then they're akin to animals. They may have a soul, but would they be able to go to heaven? Perhaps only in the sense that God might allow some animals (e.g. pets) to go to heaven. But it's not as if they could be tempted, sin, and fall. Yet if we interbreed with these animals, and have offspring who are part hominid, then how would that influence Christian soteriology? Did Christ die for people who are half-hominid?
Look at it this way. Suppose humans could breed with other animals. Suppose humans could breed with dogs. We'd have dog-men. If so, then did Christ come to die for dog-men too? Did Christ take on dog-man flesh? Is Christ fully God, fully man, and fully dog? That seems absurd if not blasphemous.
7. Given Swamidass' argument, it's possible there are some humans living today who are not human at all. It's possible they could be fully hominid. Who were not made in the image of God. Nevertheless they look, think, talk, and behave indistinguishably from us. In fact, Swamidass mentions that's possible but it'd only apply to less than 1% of all humans. Nevertheless, they would still exist! And if so, then it wouldn't necessarily be immoral to kill them. At least no more immoral than killing a dog or horse or other animal if it must be done. Yet we couldn't distinguish between them and us.
8. Importantly, if we're the descendents of Adam and Eve interbreeding with these hominids, then we are not exclusively descendents of Adam and Eve. Rather we are descendents of Adam, Eve, and other hominids. This would have tremendous theological ramifications, no matter how much Swamidass wishes to underplay it.
9. All this relies on Swamidass' interpretation of the scientific evidence. Swamidass makes it sound like he's the only one who has the correct understanding of the scientific evidence. Despite the fact that there are other scientists who look at the same scientific evidence but draw different conclusions. Swamidass knows many of these scientists in person. He's well aware of their work. I'm referring to people like Ann Gauger, James Tour, Michael Behe, and Doug Axe.
Point being, there's debate over the scientific evidence. There are reasonable arguments to consider that some hominids could be part of humanity. For example, many have argued some hominids may in fact be human. This includes Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. See the book Science and Human Origins for starters.
Playing Devil’s Advocate
ReplyDeleteIf Swamidass is willing to say Adam was created De Novo, then I could see an easy way around your objection. Hudson’s Fall in Hypertime shows and interesting way that Adam/Eve could have been created in a Certain world W1, in this world Adam’s DNA is unique having a “wxyz” structure (just a place holder for some sequence or other of DNA). Adam falls and God changes creation in such a way that Adam and Eve are taken out of one hyperspace-time and placed in this one W2. Their “modern” human DNA appears exactly like A hominid would look in this world if it went through a long period of DNA evolution. Say the in W2 all the hominids have a die off event where the population was small. Adam and Eve’s descendants with the wxyz DNA from W1 fights with the hominids in W2 kills what is left of the hominids that pose a threat (essentially something like an Orang) and then there is a seamless replacement in the fossil record. We could even make room for the possibility that Adam and Eve are placed in a different hyper-space time at the exact time in which these other hominids die off.
If someone wanted to hold to scripture and the full common descent narrative (assuming Methodological Naturalism) this is one way of doing it. And interestingly enough, it shows that empirical evidence really isn’t up to snuff in disconfirming a worldview.
Hi Blake,
DeleteJust in case you haven't already seen this, I thought you might be interested in this (below). It's from Hans Madueme's review of Swamidass' book:
"The genealogical hypothesis recalls other works that try to harmonize a strict reading of Scripture with what current science is saying. One thinks of Hud Hudson’s fascinating book, The Fall and Hypertime (2014)—Hudson doesn’t actually believe the thesis he lays out, but he offers it as a way for traditional Christians to resolve the tensions they feel with evolution (Swamidass doesn’t say, either way, whether he believes the genealogical hypothesis). I’m also reminded of the gap theory from a century ago, defended by Thomas Chalmers and then, later, by C. I. Scofield and other early 20th-century fundamentalists. They speculated that an angelic fall ruined an earlier creation, triggering millions of years of pre-Adamic animal suffering and death, followed by God’s do-over in Genesis 1:2 (for a helpful description of this view, see Bernard Ramm’s The Christian View of Science and Scripture [1954], 195–210). Traditional Christians can read the Bible as they’ve always done and still accept everything scientists are saying. Swamidass’s genealogical argument tries to do for population genetics what Scofield’s “ruin-reconstruction” gap theory did for geology."
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/genealogical-adam-eve-swamidass
Interesting. Maudeme and Hudson has a back and forth in Themelios.
DeleteWhen I said “something like Orangs” I simply mean that Adam shows up on the scene at a proper time to fit seamlessly into the picture.
ReplyDeleteSo say, Adam shows up on the scene with the Denisovan’s, Neanderthal,cro-magnon, and other hominids are on the scene but he has genetic markers that look like they could have come from these hominids, but in fact they were the product of another hyper-time and hyperspace in which Adam was created de novo with these respective genetic materials already in place. This is similar to Gosse’s theories in Omphalos.
Thanks, Blake. That's very interesting! It's certainly very thought-provoking. Rich with possibilities. I may have to come back to this after thinking more deeply about it. But here's my initial impression:
DeleteI think one problem is, if I understand Swamidass correctly (and again I haven't read his book but just based on what he says in public; and keep in mind Swamidass often floats ideas, then changes his mind, so it's sometimes hard to pin him down): Not all humans today have the exact same kind of genetic makeup or genome. What I mean is Swamidass thinks, on the one hand, that most people in existence today have a genetic makeup consisting of ~95% DNA from Adam and Eve and ~5% DNA from other hominids, but Swamidass also thinks it's possible there are a minority of people in existence today who have a genetic makeup of a completely different kind such as a genetic makeup that's 100% hominid (e.g. 100% Neanderthal, 100% Denisovan) and/or a genetic makeup that's 50% Neanderthal and 50% Denisovan and so on.
However, if I understand the Hudson's fall in hypertime theory correctly, then wouldn't it have to be that everyone in existence today must have the same kind of genetic makeup? It doesn't matter whether that's 95% Adam and Eve DNA + 5% hominid DNA, 100% Adam and Eve DNA, 50% Neanderthal + 50% Denisovan DNA, etc., so long as it's one kind of DNA, not multiple kinds of DNA? At least, it wouldn't seem to explain the multiple lines of empirical evidence, even if it can explain one line of empirical evidence.
Of course, I imagine one could tweak the the Hudson's fall in hypertime theory so it accommodates multiple lines too, but I'm just replying to the theory as it stands right now.
I pulled from Hudson on the hype time hypothesis. I added the DNA bit, but yeah, I’m sure we could figure out away to make it fit multiple lines of DNA. It’s a metaphysical hypothesis so, it can accommodate itself to numerous scenarios.
DeleteI think that's a problem with Hudson's theory vis-a-vis Swamidass. If it can accommodate itself to numerous scenarios, then it's one step removed from the empirical evidence - which is fine if the theory is attempting to make a more fundamental point or if the theory doesn't need to be strongly tried to the empirical evidence - but in the case of human evolution including Swamidass' take on human evolution, there should be a strong grounding in the empirical evidence.
DeleteGiven your questions, I assume Swamidass would suggest you read his book where he explores most of these issues. In some instances, Swamidass doesn't provide definite answers, because his theory doesn't need to be that fine grained.
ReplyDelete1. For one thing, are these hominids human like us? Were they created in the image of God?
As to whether the people outside the garden (POG) are "human like us,"Swamidass notes that there can be different definitions of "human." For instance, there is the biological definition. With the biological definition, the POG are fully human. Or one might offer a theological definition of human that stood apart from the biological definition (e.g., collapsing "human" into "one made in the image of God") and then adopt a definition of "image of God" that would exclude POG. Swamidass notes that several different ways to understand the "image of God" (IOG). On some understandings, both the people outside the garden (POG) and Adam and Eve would be made in the IOG (e.g., on a structuralist view), because the biological definition is incorporated into IOG. On other understandings, perhaps only Adam and Eve would be made in the IOG (e.g., on a vocationalist view). But this wouldn't mean that POG aren't biological humans (it wouldn't invalidate that category) and the vocational calling wouldn't be the grounds for human worth and dignity. So even though POG wouldn't be IOG (and, thus, "theological humans"), they would still have human worth and dignity since that is grounded in something like a structuralist account (biological humans).
Swamidass prefers to speak of Adam and Eve and their descendants as "textual humans," acknowledging that the Bible only really focuses on (or shows awareness of) Adam and Eve and their descendants, while not settling the debate over how to define IOG.
2. If the answer is yes, how could there have been humans made in the image of God outside the garden of Eden?
That depends on how you cash out IOG. If you adopt a structuralist view, then Adam and Eve and POG are all made in the IOG. If you adopt a vocational view, then that POG aren't in the IOG has no more significance than the fact that Gentiles don't have the special vocation given to the Jews.
Yet these humans outside the garden evolved, but can one evolve from non-human to human (made in the image of God)? How would that work?
On the structuralist view, the borders between human (IOG) and non-human may be murky, but I don't think a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) who took this view would care too much. At some point, here we are.
3. ...So would Adam and Eve and their descendents have been committing bestiality by interbreeding with these hominids?
No, it wouldn't be bestiality (and Swamidass addresses this objection explicitly in his book), because POG are biological humans.
4. Taking a step back, could these hominids even produce viable offspring with humans?
Swamidass says yes, because Adam and Eve were created biologically identical to POG.
4. ...So, are we part human and part beast?
We are fully biological humans, no matter how you flesh it out, according to Swamidass.
5. ...it seems to me Swamidass hones in on the vocational view for the imago dei. ... If what it fundamentally means to be human is a matter of "calling", then God can call hominids to be human too.
He says he "inclines" to the relational view. But it seems like, no matter how we define IOG, POG are still biological humans with inherent dignity and worth on Swamidass's account. I think a weakness in Swamidass's theory is that it would seem to empty out the IOG and how that concept is treated in Scripture.
5. ... Why does Swamidass single out the vocational view?
Because he notes that this is the most well-represented view among Bible scholars. I think he says that exegetically, it has the most exegetical support.
5. ...Why not all three at the same time?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. Craig makes the case that the vocational view only really makes sense in light of the substantive view and I tend to agree with that. I don't think it would have been fitting (or perhaps even coherent) for God to have given the vocation to goats or chimps. Since Swamidass is in conversation with Craig, he surely is aware of this... but I don't know if he's addressed it.
6. If the hominids outside the garden are not humans, then they're akin to animals.
Swamidass doesn't say POG are not (biological) humans. So I don't think this criticism is on point.
7. Given Swamidass' argument, it's possible there are some humans living today who are not human at all.
Swamidass isn't attempting to make a positive case that all people today are descendants of Adam and Eve. He's (1) interested in showing that it's at least possible and (2) show that there is no evidence against the idea. It's part of his hypothesis that all humans alive by the time of Jesus and Paul are descendants of Adam and Eve. If you ask "How do you know that?" Swamidass might just say "Because that's the assumption/teaching of Jesus and Paul and there doesn't seem to be any good scientific reason to doubt it."
8. Importantly, if ... we are not exclusively descendents of Adam and Eve.... This would have tremendous theological ramifications, no matter how much Swamidass wishes to underplay it.
One might make the case that the Bible indicates that Adam and Eve are the universal ancestors of all biological humans (and I think that's correct), but I don't see why it would have theological ramifications beyond that particular issue.
Good comments
DeleteThanks, John.
Delete"Given your questions, I assume Swamidass would suggest you read his book where he explores most of these issues."
Yes, of course, that's fair.
"In some instances, Swamidass doesn't provide definite answers, because his theory doesn't need to be that fine grained."
I think one problem with Swamidass is he often acts like he's not saying anything definite. He's just floating ideas. That sort of thing. However, if he's just floating an idea, like a philosophical idea, then I don't personally find it all that compelling to respond to hypotheticals.
As for all your answers to my questions, for the most part, it sounds like you're just telling me what Swamidass is saying in his book or how Swamidass would respond, so I'd probably be better off reading Swamidass book and engaging with him directly rather than taking it secondhand.
Hi Blake,
DeleteAren't you a metaphysical idealist now?
I toy with the idea. I don’t know what matter is and no one else does either. I mean I know what it feels like to touch solid things... but beyond that things get very strange when you get to the supporting structure of our everyday perceptions. I think it’s one useful metaphysical theory that theism can incorporate, but a “material” world isn’t a problem for theism either.
DeleteInteresting. I was just curious. Thanks, Blake!
Delete"I think one problem with Swamidass is he often acts like he's not saying anything definite. He's just floating ideas. That sort of thing. However, if he's just floating an idea, like a philosophical idea, then I don't personally find it all that compelling to respond to hypotheticals."
DeleteWhile there are lots of details and questions that Swamidass's hypothesis leaves open, it does make some claims that are open to attack. For instance, the claim that Adam and Eve are not universal ancestors, his claim that his hypothesis is consistent with the traditional view of A&E, etc. And some of the points Swamidass leaves open we can try to close, which might make his hypothesis less plausible (structuralist reading of IOG), or we can raise problems for options like the vocationalist view that Swamidass doesn't completely avoid (e.g., if dominion is part of the vocation, what are the implications for those who aren't descendants (slavery, subjugation?)).
One reason Swamidass is worth paying attention to is because of how quickly I think his position will be adopted by those who are already in the TE camp or fans of John Walton or just looking for some way to ease the perceived tension between creation/evolution etc. On the surface, Swamidass's model provides a very easy solution and I suspect his hypothesis will become a common topic in creationist debates and discussions. (There might be an interesting side issue here too: if in 20 years the Adam-as-representative model virtually disappears, is that a piece of evidence for what YEC claims about TE and OEC readings being driven by the science rather than the text?)
I’ll have to check out Swamidass’ book. I’ve interacted with him on his website and he seems to be a genuine guy.
DeleteThanks, John! Very good points. If it's true Swamidass has already been adopted by TE types or Walton fans, then maybe it is worth reading and engaging his book for the sake of others. I have to admit I wasn't very impressed with Swamidass' arguments in public fora and social media, at least what I've seen so far, but maybe his book is better argued, and at any rate (again) it's worth engaging if it's already become so influential.
DeleteBy the way, it sounds like you've read his book? If you have, perhaps you might consider doing a series on his book and publishing it somewhere (e.g. Twitter, Medium)? I know I'd be interested in reading it if you do! :)