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

I agree. I think the real issue here is how media (mis)interprets and (mis)represents interviewees, either deliberately or accidentally.

@Jonathan_Burke and @swamidass:

There is nothing quite like reading the initial posts of those who are encountering GAE for the first time!

Sometimes it is unintentionally comical. And sometimes it becomes stunningly clear that the correspondent has never looked at the problem of human origins from a different perspective.

At the very least, GAE will accelerate the advancement of mindsets in the English-speaking world! In 10 years, the debates regarding Genesis 1 & 2 will have a completely different sound!

1 Like

There are (at least) two versions of the GAE - an adoptionist one in which God bestows ā€œsomethingā€ on an Adam (and Eve?) who were produced by normal reproductive processes within an existing population, and a creationist one, in which God creates Adam (and Eve?) de novo but with reproductive compatibility with a pre-existing population. I have the impression that Professor Swamidass personally prefers the latter, though it would seem to clash with his expressed approval of methodological naturalism.

He prefers the latter because it makes Genesis 2 true, and the goal is to attract biblical literalists.

You can voice approval of methodological naturalism (MN) while also holding faith-based beliefs where MN is silent. Approving of MN does not mean you have to use the method for everything in life. In the case of a specially created genealogic Adam and Eve, MN canā€™t rule it out. As an atheist, I certainly donā€™t believe that such a couple existed, but I am also humble enough to admit that it canā€™t be ruled out.

4 Likes