The Genealogical Adam and Eve

[Irkle Berserkle]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

 

[eleos1954]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

The genealogy in His Word is there for good reason (some find boring) it is the record of the ancestry of mankind ... if one goes outside of that then His Word loses it's cohesiveness ... and that is what causes much debate within the Christian realm itself today. Some Christians are trying to meld Word of God with that of evolution ... and the fact is you can't do that else the integrity of scripture doubted, misconstrued, adding confusion.

Young earth? You bet! Believe what is written in His Word or not.

We are to reason with the scriptures themselves as they are written not fit them into other ideas.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

The genealogy in His Word is there for good reason (some find boring) it is the record of the ancestry of mankind ... if one goes outside of that then His Word loses it's cohesiveness ... and that is what causes much debate within the Christian realm itself today. Some Christians are trying to meld Word of God with that of evolution ... and the fact is you can't do that else the integrity of scripture doubted, misconstrued, adding confusion.

Young earth? You bet! Believe what is written in His Word or not.

We are to reason with the scriptures themselves as they are written not fit them into other ideas.

In contrast to evolutionary theory, I believe the ages of the universe and the earth have been established to a level of scientific certainty. God uncannily blessed us with a universe susceptible to scientific investigation and analysis as well as minds and senses suited to such investigation and analysis. If I thought evolutionary theory had been established to the same level of scientific certainty - which I don't, not by a long shot - I'd be a theistic evolutionist.

Theologically, I don't see anything in the Bible that mandates a young earth position, but the young earth position would force me to disregard the scientific evidence as well as what my own mind and senses tell me. I have difficulty believing God would engage in this level of deception (and for what purpose?). I respect sincere young earthers and don't argue with them; I simply reject their position.

The beauty of the author's position is that (1) it is scientifically sound, (2) it squares with the Genesis account, in a way that would satisfy both Young Earth and Old Earth creationists; and (3) to me, it squares with what we actually observe about the sudden rise of civilization.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Irkle Berserkle, first off, MERRY CHRISTMAS

As for the book and its author (Swamidass), how are the Biblical problems of sin and death entering into the world for the first time (~after~ our first parents sinned) addressed?

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - our son and granddaughter are on their way over here, so I may or may not be able to reply again today, just FYI.

Romans 5
12 Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
.​

 

[d taylor]

*​

Another example of people trying to please science and throwing The Bible under the bus.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Hello @Irkle Berserkle, first off, MERRY CHRISTMAS

As for the book and its author (Swamidass), how are the problems of sin and death entering into the world for the first time (~after~ our first parents sinned) addressed?

Thanks!

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - our son and granddaughter are on their way over here, so I may or may not be able to reply again today, just FYI.

Romans 5
12 Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
.​

It seemed to me this was addressed in a completely biblical manner. Adam and Eve were the first true "theological humans" - meaning the first humans made in God's image and thus the first capable of sinning. Their Fall was the Fall as Christians understand it. The book is more scientifically oriented, and I really don't recall the Fall being discussed specifically at all, but I believe this is the basic notion.

MERRY CHRISTMAS back at you!

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

*​

Another example of people trying to please science and throwing The Bible under the bus.

No, that's the very point: Unlike Craig's recent book, it doesn't "throw the Bible under the bus" in the slightest, unless perhaps you think anything other than young earth, flat earth creationism throws the Bible under the bus.

 

[d taylor]

No, that's the very point: Unlike Craig's recent book, it doesn't "throw the Bible under the bus" in the slightest, unless perhaps you think anything other than young earth, flat earth creationism throws the Bible under the bus.

I think any other reference stating views on God's creation, outside of using only The Bible. Is placing science above The Bible concerning God's creation and puting forth a false view on God's creation.

My believe personally is a time gap, heaven and earth (earth being a plane and stationary) creation. With a sun, moon and stars placed in the raqia moving over the earth.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

If anyone has a GEDCOM file listing the Biblical lineage I would be very appreciative to receive it.
I have started one but found it very difficult.
Thanks

 

[St_Worm2]

MERRY CHRISTMAS back at you!

It seemed to me this was addressed in a completely biblical manner. Adam and Eve were the first true "theological humans" - meaning the first humans made in God's image and thus the first capable of sinning. Their Fall was the Fall as Christians understand it. The book is more scientifically oriented, and I really don't recall the Fall being discussed specifically at all, but I believe this is the basic notion.

Thanks

As far as sinning goes, death was the result (as Romans 5:12 makes clear). So, if no one sinned prior to the existence of our progenitors, that would also mean that no one died either.

Does Swamidass address that in his book (and if so, what does he say about it)?

Thanks again

--David

Romans 6
23 The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
.​

 

[Job 33:6]

This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve, which is little more than theistic evolution with some possible direct intervention by God. The author is a Christian. Although secular and atheist scientists don't agree with his thesis, they do acknowledge that the science is rock-solid.

The author accepts conventional evolutionary theory for the sake of argument. His thesis is that God created Adam and Eve in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden as recently as 6,000 years ago but potentially several thousands of years before that. He didn't fashion them from the humans then existing but, consistent with Genesis, made them as wholly new creatures. They were the first true humans in a theological sense. Through mating with the biological humans then existing, they became the genealogical ancestors of all humans living by the time of Christ.

If this sounds scientifically implausible, it isn't. The book is written at a very high level and is well worth your time if you have any interest in this subject.

I'm steeped in the Intelligent Design literature and have long believed that Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and all the permutations are fundamentally flawed, which isn't to say they are complete nonsense. I had also long suspected what this author proposes. The explosion of sophisticated human civilizations within the past 10,000-20,000 years is quite mysterious and strongly suggests "something happened." This thesis is also consistent with Genesis, which has the first generations of humans engaging in agriculture, metalworking, city-building and other activities that are believable if Adam and Eve were created within the author's timeframe but not if they existed 500,000 years ago as Craig proposes.

Do you know why WLC chose an age of 500,000 years rather than 6,000?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks

As far as sinning goes, death was the result (as Romans 5:12 makes clear). So, if no one sinned prior to the existence of our progenitors, that would also mean that no one died either.

Does Swamidass address that in his book (and if so, what does he say about it)?

Thanks again

--David

Romans 6
23 The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
.​

If we follow Romans 5:12 and keep reading, the verses go on to say:

But death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who is to come.
Romans 5:14

But what's interesting here is that physical death didn't just stop happening "until Moses", implying that Paul's statements about death in this group of verses is not a physical death but rather spiritual death with relation to OT law.

Paul later goes on to say:
Romans 6:11
And
Romans 7:9

So also you, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:11

And I was alive once, apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died, and this commandment which was to lead to life was found with respect to me to lead to death.
Romans 7:9-10


So we see as Paul speaks through chapters 5, 6 and 7, and really throughout the entire book, Paul is discussing a spiritual death with respect to the laws of the OT. Of course Paul didn't actually physically die, though he said that he died. Which means he must not have been speaking of a physical death.

And of course our physical bodies rot and decay when we physically die (our physical bodies do not have eternal life). So when in Jesus and saved by Jesus, we live forever, this doesn't mean that our physical bodies live on forever. Rather it's a divine eternal presence on some fashion that doesn't explicitly relate to the condition of our temporal human bodies.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Do you know why WLC chose an age of 500,000 years rather than 6,000?

No. I actually own the book I highlighted in my original post, but I've only read about Craig's book. Craig pretty clearly accepts theistic evolution in its entirety and must believe that 500,000 years ago was when humans "modern enough" to qualify as Adam and Eve emerged. I used to have great enthusiasm for Craig's work but had lost much of it before this latest book was published.

To those who want to debate the fine points of the book I highlighted vis-a-vis your notions of what the Bible says or requires: The point of my original post was simply "This is an interesting thesis based on science that even atheists accept - buy the book if you're interested." I'm not the author's personal apologist, and I have no interest in debating with flat earthers, young earthers or anyone who thinks the Bible is a scientific text. You're entitled to your beliefs, and God bless you.

My position has simply been, long before I'd ever even heard of the Intelligent Design movement, that (1) there is something fundamentally flawed with mainstream evolutionary theory and (2) there was some mysterious advance in the human species in the timeframe of 10,000-20,000 years ago. I don't regard the Bible as a scientific text. I believe it sets forth, in general terms understandable to ancient readers, an account of creation that is remarkably sophisticated in comparison to every other ancient creation myth.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. I actually own the book I highlighted in my original post, but I've only read about Craig's book. Craig pretty clearly accepts theistic evolution in its entirety and must believe that 500,000 years ago was when humans "modern enough" to qualify as Adam and Eve emerged. I used to have great enthusiasm for Craig's work but had lost much of it before this latest book was published.

To those who want to debate the fine points of the book I highlighted vis-a-vis your notions of what the Bible says or requires: The point of my original post was simply "This is an interesting thesis based on science that even atheists accept - buy the book if you're interested." I'm not the author's personal apologist, and I have no interest in debating with flat earthers, young earthers or anyone who thinks the Bible is a scientific text. You're entitled to your beliefs, and God bless you.

My position has simply been, long before I'd ever even heard of the Intelligent Design movement, that (1) there is something fundamentally flawed with mainstream evolutionary theory and (2) there was some mysterious advance in the human species in the timeframe of 10,000-20,000 years ago. I don't regard the Bible as a scientific text. I believe it sets forth, in general terms understandable to ancient readers, an account of creation that is remarkably sophisticated in comparison to every other ancient creation myth.

So you're arguing against WLCs proposal of 500,000 years but then you aren't sure why he selected that age to begin with?

How can you argue against a position when you don't know what the position even is?

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

So you're arguing against WLCs proposal of 500,000 years but then you aren't sure why he selected that age to begin with?

How can you argue against a position when you don't know what the position even is?

I don't know about you, but I often find that reading multiple sophisticated reviews of a book is an effective way of learning what the author is saying and whether the book is worth buying. I have read multiple sophisticated reviews of Craig's book, as well as interviews with Craig - he's been working on the book for years. I am not "against" Craig's proposal. I reject it based on my understanding of evolutionary theory and the Bible. If you prefer Craig's theory, go for it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't know about you, but I often find that reading multiple sophisticated reviews of a book is an effective way of learning what the author is saying and whether the book is worth buying. I have read multiple sophisticated reviews of Craig's book, as well as interviews with Craig - he's been working on the book for years. I am not "against" Craig's proposal. I reject it based on my understanding of evolutionary theory and the Bible. If you prefer Craig's theory, go for it.

But you don't know why he even proposes the dates that he has. How can you consider your reviews sufficient if you don't know why he makes the argument that he does?

Anyway, when you figure out what WLCs argument actually is, I'd be happy to hear your critique, but otherwise it sounds like you're strawmanning the situation by not clarifying on what his position even is.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

But you don't know why he even proposes the dates that he has. How can you consider your reviews sufficient if you don't know why he makes the argument that he does?

Anyway, when you figure out what WLCs argument actually is, I'd be happy to hear your critique, but otherwise it sounds like you're strawmanning the situation by not clarifying on what his position even is.

It strikes me that you're just looking for an argument, and I'm way too experienced on forums such as this to take the bait. My original post was not about Craig. If you want to spend 15 seconds on Google, you'll quickly discover umpteen discussions as to why Craig assigns a figure of 500,000 years. In a nutshell, it's what I said: He accepts theistic evolution in its entirety (notwithstanding the flaws that the Intelligent Design movement and even secular scientists have identified, and notwithstanding the difficulties this raises for the Genesis accounts), and he believes that 500,000 years ago is when humans who might qualify as Adam and Eve emerged. He accepts that God may have tinkered with that raw material. If you want to know more than that, spend 15 seconds on Google or buy Craig's book.

 

[coffee4u]

In contrast to evolutionary theory, I believe the ages of the universe and the earth have been established to a level of scientific certainty.

Except the heavens and earth were all within the 6 days not just Adam and eve.
Exodus 20
20 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[Job 33:6]

It strikes me that you're just looking for an argument, and I'm way too experienced on forums such as this to take the bait. My original post was not about Craig.

You literally referenced Craig's position in the second sentence of your post.

"This is one of the most fascinating and groundbreaking books I've read in a long time: The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. It's far superior, both scientifically and theologically, to William Lane Craig's recent book on Adam and Eve"

I'm not to blame for asking the simple question of what WLCs position actually is, which you seem not to know.

It's hard to say that your referenced book is superior to WLCs if you can't actually elaborate on what WLCs position actually is.

If you aren't familiar with WLCs position and if the topic really isn't about WLCs position (at least in part) then you need not have mentioned him to begin with.

Anyway, I'll move on now.

All the best.

 

[sfs]

If anything, Swamidass is more accepting of conventional evolutionary biology than WLC, and was in fact instrumental in the latter's acceptance of it. He also has no use for most ID arguments, as you will learn if you spend time at his website. They both allow for miraculous intervention in the creation of the first humans, Swamidass in the de novo creation of a first couple who are biologically compatible with existing, evolved creatures, and WLC in divine modification of an evolved pair, along with the infusion of an immaterial soul.

Of the two, I find WLC's approach more compatible with both science and the Bible. With science, since he's postulating a genetic change that accounts at least in part for modern humans' behavioral changes; with science, because the focus on physical descent (with or without any genetic inheritance) as being essential to being human seems profoundly at odds with the NT focus on spiritual descent and adoption. But then, I don't find either at all plausible.

(You can read my take on WLC's book here, or more readably, through the link here.)