Reworking the Science of Adam

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thanks for joining us @auntyevology.

@auntyevology

If you would like to engage the multi-disciplinary topic of Adam, then let this non-scientist try to straighten a few things out, either with you or for you. Some questions follow. Are you up for it?

Sounds good. I’m up for it.

@auntyevology

The science? Which one? The ‘the’ intentionally denotes a singular, right?

Mainstream science. Not creation science or Intelligent Design.

@auntyevology

What makes ‘Adam & Eve’ a particularly scientific topic?

It is for two reasons. First, from wikipedia:

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.
Adam and Eve - Wikipedia

Even though this perception is common, it is false. It also appears in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (e.g. Ayala 1996). Because of this perception, this normally theological question is relevant to science.

Second, “Adam” and “Eve” are commonly used in the scientific literature as synonyms for universal ancestry (e.g. Y-Chromosomal Adam). The term, therefore, is important in scientific discourse. It is a reference to the science of ancestry.

@auntyevology

Shall it be specified that we are speaking only about natural sciences?

No, we are not talking only about science. We are talking about the interaction between genetic science and Christian theology and hermeneutics.

@auntyevology

If you are restricting yourself primarily to your own field of study,

I am not. I am in collaboration with theologians too, and also beginning to publish in theological journals too. This is about the dialogue between my field, science, and others.

@auntyevology

then are suggesting that there is already a biological science of ‘Adam’ or that you are making a biological science of ‘Adam’?

There is already a way of looking at Adam and Even in science. This view needs some correction, because it is not correct. Errors were made in our understanding of how the scientific evidence constraints our theology of Adam. Those errors needs to be corrected.

@auntyevology

Did you not yourself first encounter the name ‘Adam’ in religious scriptures or religious context?

I’ve encountered it in religious contexts.
I’ve encountered in scientific contexts.

@auntyevology

Or do you just mean ‘the science’ colloquially, as if, sure, Adam too could be dealt with scientifically, just as tying one’s shoes could by some people be considered a ‘science’ of some kind?

No, I am referring to mainstream science, as is taught at my secular university. This includes evolutionary science and population genetics, broadly speaking, but also demographic inference, archeology, and anthropology.

@auntyevology

Another way to ask it: how much ‘science of Adam’ is out there to deal with? Is there any?

There is quite a bit. As an example of some of this science in need of correction, I’d point you to Adam and the Genome:

Reviewing Adam and the Genome

@auntyevology

Nice to see that you are aiming to speak beyond narrow sectarian views of Adam and Eve using multiple competing hypotheses in this conversation.

That is the goal. I am not advocating for a single view as much as trying to give an accurate account of science for Church. I expect there will remain different views of human origins. Trusted voice on what the evidence is really showing us, however, are on short supply. I am doing what I can to serve the Church here.