Dr. Swamidass' claim that science indicates that Adam & Eve had no ancestors

Conversation Side Conversation
1

Yesterday (December 10, 2019) I heard Dr. Swamidass interviewed on KWMU radio (90.7 FM) in St. Louis, MO. I interpreted him as saying, in that interview, that there is scientific evidence to support or validate the Biblical claim that Adam and Eve had no ancestors (human, humanoid, or animal), but rather were completely and directly created by God. Dr. Swamidass used the term “de novo” to refer to this act of direct and complete creation. Could anyone please reply and tell me:

(1) Is this in fact the viewpoint of Dr. Swamidass?
(2) Is there in fact any evidence that establishes or indicates to the existence, at any time, of human beings that had no ancestors?

Below is a link to the interview:
Dr. Swamidass interview on St. Louis Public Radio, Dec. 10, 2019

3 Likes
2

I am not surprised that he came across that way. He is here, so he will certainly clarify matters for you.

3 Likes
3

It is not.

There is not, and he doesn’t think so.

6 Likes
4

Thanks for the question @HomoBiologicus.

  1. This is not my view. Science does NOT indicate Adam and Eve had no ancestors. Rather the evidence does not tell us either way about the de novo creation of AE within a larger population. No evidence for or against it.

  2. There is no scientific evidence that indicates that any human being had no ancestors. The only evidence I know is Scripture, and this is not scientific evidence. Our warrant for believing de novo creation depends on whether we trust Scripture, and what we believe it says.

Thanks for the questions. This is explained in detail in my book, the GAE.

4 Likes
5

The St. Louis Public Radio website has a news article about their interview with Dr. Swamidass.

The article quotes Dr. Swamidass as saying:

"What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution?”

Doesn’t that sound like Dr. Swamidass is saying that there is scientific evidence for both Common Descent evolution and for Special Creation? After all, Dr. Swamidass is a scientist. Dr. Swamidass was invited onto this public radio station only because he is a professor of science at Washington University in St. Louis. Everyone listening thought that this was a scientist being interviewed about science (not a theologian being interviewed about theology).
Right?

The news article about this interview goes on to say:

“What is new is Swamidass’ work with genealogies. Based on that, he finds that it would actually be possible for everyone on earth to include in their ancestors a Middle Eastern couple living 6,000 years ago. And that, he says, has profound implications.”

Is that an accurate summary of what Dr. Swamidass said during this interview?

And if this is what Dr. Swamidass said, doesn’t that sound like Dr. Swamidass was saying that there is scientific evidence for BOTH Common Descent evolution AND for Special Creation? Genealogical evidence is scientific evidence, right?

In a very recent post by Dr. Swamidass, he states that the central thesis of this book is this:

“The traditional de novo view of human origins is entirely consistent with evolutionary science, so we should make space for it. Making space for it is good for science, society, and the Church.”

If a SCIENTIST writes that, surely he must be saying that there is scientific evidence for the “traditional de novo view of human origins” (which I take to mean the Bible’s creation story for Adam and Eve). If there were no scientific evidence for the Bible’s creation story for Adam and Eve, how would any scientist-qua-scientist be justified in believing in it or in “making space for it” in the science curriculum or in science textbooks, or be justified in communicating this on public radio programs?

As a theologian, or as a personal religious believer, anyone can believe or say whatever they want. There are no restrictions in theology or religion. Any belief is possible in theology and religion, as seen in the profound diversity of churches and religions. But scientists must confine themselves to what can be reasonably established by the scientific method. Right?

So if a scientist goes on an NPR-affiliated public radio station and announces that Adam and Eve actually existed, and that they had no ancestors, isn’t he going to be necessarily understood as making SCIENTIFIC claims regarding those matters?

If the scientist does not intend to make scientific claims about those matters, shouldn’t he say something to make abundantly clear that he’s proposing those things merely as matters of faith and not of science?

I do accept and realize that Dr. Swamidass wrote above in this thread the following:

" Science does NOT indicate Adam and Eve had no ancestors. Rather the evidence does not tell us either way about the de novo creation of AE within a larger population. No evidence for or against it."

As we all know, ever since Darwin the dominant idea among scientifically-minded people has been that the Bible’s story of human origins has been debunked and discredited by the sciences of biology and geology. But Dr. Swamidass, in that quote above, is disagreeing with that consensus. He’s saying that there isn’t any SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR or AGAINST the Bible’s story of human origins. In making that assertion, isn’t Dr. Swamidass making a scientific claim? I think so. So, it seems undeniable that Dr. Swamidass is aiming to shift or alter the consensus science regarding human origins. So, it seems undeniable that when Dr. Swamidass was talking on the radio yesterday in St. Louis about Adam and Eve actually existing and having no biological ancestors, he necessarily was making a scientific claim. He was claiming that, per science, the Bible’s story of human origins is not debunked, not disputed, and nor excluded by science or from science. That’s new. That’s science, or proposed science.

That’s Creation Science, isn’t it?

That simply must, I think, be seen as giving scientific credibility to the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Correct? It’s “making space” for Creationism. It’s a scientist arguing that we all must “make space” for Creationism. If someone argues in favor of making space for Creationism, isn’t that a form of Creationism?

I suspect that the people at the public radio station, where Dr. Swamidass was interviewed yesterday, were alarmed by his teaching of Biblical Creationism, and by his statement on the air that he believes in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Why do I suspect this? Well, read the title that they gave to their news article about the interview:

“Wash U’s Dr. Joshua Swamidass Builds Bridge Between Science And Creation Myths In New Book.”

Notice that phrase “Creation MYTHS.” Of course, if the Bible only had a creation myth, there’d be no need to reconcile it with science, any more than there’s a need to reconcile “Star Wars” or Homer’s “Odyssey” with science. And notice that the title used “Myths” in the plural, when in fact the interview did not discuss any creation story other than Adam and Eve. The radio station needed, I think, to suggest that Dr. Swamidass was “ecumenical” or “interfaith” in his orientation, when in fact he is not. He is a Bible-believing Christian–a type of person that rarely if ever is interviewed on public radio.

When I have more time, I will obtain and read Dr. Swamidass’ book.

By the way, if anyone finds my comments here to be ignorant, so be it. Perhaps they are ignorant. I am not a scientist. I just want to make clear that I am not being deliberately ignorant. I am not trying to provoke or troll anyone.

I am sincerely concerned about the wave of religion-based denialism that I see as sweeping across America, on such topics as vaccines, climate change, genocide, impeachable presidential crimes, racial identity and civil rights, women’s rights, use of nuclear weapons, and evolutionary science.

Here is the link to this news article that I have been quoting:
Dr. Swamidass interview on St. Louis Public Radio

6

No, it does not sound that way to me. I do not think he is suggesting that there is scientific evidence for special creation. He is, perhaps, suggesting that science is silent on that.

4 Likes
7

No, it doesn’t sound like that to me at all. Of course I’m familiar with his writing, so perhaps I’m not reading it without preconceptions. But what he’s actually saying is that there is evidence for common descent and no evidence precluding special creation of two individuals alongside an evolved population.

6 Likes
8

I do accept and realize that Dr. Swamidass wrote above in this thread the following:

" Science does NOT indicate Adam and Eve had no ancestors. Rather the evidence does not tell us either way about the de novo creation of AE within a larger population. No evidence for or against it."

As we all know, ever since Darwin, the dominant idea among scientifically-minded people has been that the Bible’s story of human origins has been debunked and discredited by the sciences of biology and geology.

But Dr. Swamidass, in that quote above, is disagreeing with that consensus. He’s saying that there isn’t any SCIENTIFIC evidence FOR or AGAINST the Bible’s story of human origins. In making that assertion, isn’t Dr. Swamidass making a scientific claim? I think so.

So, it seems undeniable that Dr. Swamidass is aiming to shift or alter the consensus science regarding human origins. So, it seems undeniable that when Dr. Swamidass was talking on the radio yesterday in St. Louis about Adam and Eve actually existing and having no biological ancestors, he necessarily was making a scientific claim.

He wasn’t being neutral on the matter. He was saying, based on science, that the scientific consensus that the Biblical creation story has been debunked, is in fact itself debunked by science. I.e., that longstanding anti-Biblical consensus is now debunked by science.

The title of Dr. Swamidass’ book is:

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

“Science,” not “Theology,” is right there in the title. The book is making a scientific argument in favor of the literal existence of Adam and Eve, and in favor of the Biblical teaching that they had no biological ancestors–it must be, right?

When Dr. Swamidass was speaking on the radio yesterday, he was claiming that, per science, the Bible’s story of human origins is not debunked, not disputed, and nor excluded by science or from science. That’s new. That’s science, or proposed science.

That’s Creation Science, isn’t it?

That simply must, I think, be seen as giving scientific credibility to the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Correct? It’s “making space” for Creationism. It’s a scientist arguing that we all must “make space” for Creationism. If someone argues in favor of making space for Creationism, alongside Evolutionary Science, isn’t that a form of Creationism?

9

In part, if it’s making a scientific claim to say that there’s no evidence against a hypothesis. Note that if the hypothesis were true we we would not expect to see evidence for it and if it were false we would not expect to see evidence against it. No evidence, either way.

If you’re interested in labels, you could label it like that. But what purpose is served?

Depends on what you mean by “credibility”. The only science involved is showing that having a hypothetical individual as a common ancestor (note: “a”, not “the”) of everyone alive 2000 years ago is reasonably probable if that individual lived as recently as 6000 years ago. Identifying that person as Adam and saying he was created, not born, is a theological addition to the science. Its only point of contact with science is that there is and can be no evidence contradicting it.

You seem intent on labeling him as a creationist. But why?

5 Likes
10

I am NOT interested in degrading or insulting Dr. Swamidass, or anyone. I see Dr. Swamidass as a good guy, 100% sincere. But I am interested in accurately classifying or categorizing schools of thought. I think science always proceeds along lines of the classification of new phenomena, like when Darwin struggled to classify and categorize the many new plant and animal forms that the encountered on his voyage to South America and Australia.

Dr. Swamidass claims to be saying something new. So, I’m testing that claim, as I think any scientifically-minded person should do. Maybe it isn’t new at all. Maybe he isn’t even saying what he says he’s saying. Or maybe he is teaching something new, something accurate, and something helpful. There are many possibilities.

When I heard Dr. Swamidass being interviewed on my local public radio station yesterday, I thought, “Oh, my God, why are they interviewing a Creation Science advocate on public radio?” I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the interviewer did not ask any hard or probing questions, but seemed accept everything he said as the gospel truth.

But then after a bit, I asked myself, “Was Dr. Swamidass in fact a Creation Science advocate?” I wasn’t sure. So I came to this website to try to find out.

I am not against religion. I am pro-religion. Religion is good for people (except for religions that insist on dominating or ruling people of other religions or of no religion).

But I am against pseudo-science.

I’ve reached no conclusions about Dr. Swamidass’ teachings. But I will admit I see some worrisome signs.

2 Likes
11

Can please produce the quote where I said anything like this? I don’t recall even saying the word “debunked.”

4 Likes
12

You need to avoid substituting labels for real understanding. As far as I can see he isn’t promoting any pseudoscience. The idea of a created Adam and Eve isn’t, as far as I can see, what he thinks is true. He’s merely saying that the genetic data can’t falsify them as long as a) they’re less than 500K years old and b) there was a pre-existing, evolved population into which they were inserted.

Now, by some definitions he’s a creationist, since by some definitions anyone who believes in God is a creationist. But that isn’t what you mean, is it?

2 Likes
13

Forgive me. When I wrote, “he was claiming,” I only meant that I understood you to be claiming that. That was my summary and recollection. If the radio station had made available a transcript of the interview, I would have quoted from that, rather than giving my recollections or summaries.

If you find I am misrepresenting your teachings, please forgive me. I assure you, it is not intentional. I am doing my best to understand what you are teaching. To be honest, I find your teachings to be very difficult to understand. Perhaps that is my fault. If so, please indulge me and have mercy on my shortcomings. I am not a scientist. I did read the entirely of Darwin’s Origin of Species (6th edition) a couple years ago, and felt that I understood it well.

Best wishes.

1 Like
14

I just wrote a book explaining my position very carefully. It was endorsed by several atheists. You can buy it on kindle for $15 and start reading it within roughly 60 seconds. Perhaps start there.

2 Likes
15

All I can say is that, in biology, the whole classification structure in biology, called Taxonomy, using concepts such as domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, has proved extremely useful. Without these, Darwin could have never made his breakthrough.

In politics, proper and accurate classification is also of extreme importance.

For example, was the USSR a Socialist state, or not? Is Donald Trump a White Nationalist, or not? Is the present-day USA a Capitalist nation, or not? Was FDR’s New Deal a form of Socialism, or not? Was the church of the Council of Nicea the same church that we read about in the New Testament, or not? Is homosexuality a natural phenomenon, or not?

Matters like these are, in the end, a matter of classification. Disputes will arise, but the attempt must be made. Or so I believe.

16

Classification is fine. You already have more than enough information to know I break your ontology and you need more information.

I genuinely appreciate your willingness to withhold judgement and ask me directly. This is an upright thing to do.

In this case, it would really help the conversation if you set a side some time to read the book. If you did so, you’d have far more information than you’d have from hours asking us questions. The remaining thoughts and questions you’d have have would be really interesting to hear. I look forward to it.

2 Likes
17

Yes, professor, I agree. I will read your book before making any further online comments about its thesis. In the meantime, I wish you well.

3 Likes
18

I genuinely look forward to picking up the conversation soon. Let’s wonder together what it means to be human.

1 Like
19

Some perspective on that.

I was an evangelical Christian for around 12 years, starting at age 11. And, at the same time, I had a keen interest in science.

I always took the Adam and Eve story as a fable (or a Just So story). We do not debunk fables. We accept them as fables. So I would not say that the biblical creation story was debunked.

It was clear that the idea of Adam as for first human would not stand scrutiny. I should mention that I grew up in Australia, and the Australian Aborigines were already disproof of the idea that Adam was the first human. However, at the same time, it was also clear that one could never disprove the possibility that Adam was specially created. As far as I know, the scientific consensus would concur. So I don’t think @swamidass is trying to change that scientific consensus. Rather, he is introducing a novel way of understanding it from a theological perspective.

Because I always took an allegorical view, it never mattered to me one way or the other. But I do think you are misreading what @swamidass is intending here.

20

@HomoBiologicus

At the risk of interrupting your reading, are you a Trinitarian Christian? Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If so, do you think the resurrection overturns all of biology?

If your answer to the first 2 questions is YES, and to the last NO, you now understand how a person could believe God created Adam miraculously… without overturning millions of years of fossil evidence demonstrating Evolutionary science.