# Wikipedia and Adam and Eve

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Adam\
**Created:** [May 27, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278 "2018-05-27T01:18:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/1 "2018-05-27T01:18:55Z")

</div>

> [@Science on Localized Events in Distant Past](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269/41):
>
> Someone, eventually, needs to get that straight on wikipedia. Maybe some friendly atheists can step up to it =).

We have already done it.

> **[RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 1:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/2 "2018-05-27T01:20:47Z")

</div>

> [@Science on Localized Events in Distant Past](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-on-localized-events-in-distant-past/269/42):
>
> We have already done it.
> 
> [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main\_Page](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)

Where does it say anything about Adam and Eve and setting the record straight there?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/3 "2018-05-27T01:25:47Z")

</div>

[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adam\_and\_Eve](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/4 "2018-05-27T18:29:50Z")

</div>

Let me remind you. This is what wikipedia says:

> 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) 1

That is just a totally false statement. It misrepresents science and creates a ton of unnecessary conflict. Someone, eventually, needs to get that straight on wikipedia.

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> [Adam and Eve - RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve)

This also says nothing of recent developments.

* * *

What do you think the right way is to fix that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/5 "2018-05-27T19:30:02Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> What do you think the right way is to fix that?

I guess I don’t take what you call recent developments as raising to the level needed to interpret the Adam and Eve story as anything more than a story like the Catholic Church has done. A story where, God, curiously uninformed for an omniscient deity, was unable to find the humans when he went for a stroll in the Garden at twilight.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/6 "2018-05-27T19:32:53Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> I guess I don’t take what you call recent developments as raising to the level needed to interpret the Adam and Eve story as anything more than a story like the Catholic Church has done. A story where, God, curiously uninformed for an omniscient deity, was unable to find the humans when he went for a stroll in the Garden at twilight.

That’s fine. I have not problem with that. However,

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> > There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and **their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.**  
> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam\_and\_Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) 1
> 
> That is just a totally false statement. It misrepresents science and creates a ton of unnecessary conflict. Someone, eventually, needs to get that straight on wikipedia.

The real issue is in correcting that overstatement of what science tells us. Science does not indicate that Adam existed, but is false to say it has determined he did not exist. That is like claiming evolutionary science has determined Buddha did not exist.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/7 "2018-05-27T19:38:03Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> A story where, God, curiously uninformed for an omniscient deity, was unable to find the humans when he went for a stroll in the Garden at twilight.

Are you sure that’s what the text states?

Parents often ask “Where are you?” even though they know _exactly_ where their child is. I am surprised that that reality would not be evident when reading Genesis 3.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/8 "2018-05-27T19:48:14Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> The real issue is in correcting that overstatement of what science tells us. Science does not indicate that Adam existed, but is false to say it has determined he did not exist. That is like claiming evolutionary science has determined Buddha did not exist.

Who are making these overstatements? I don’t think it is “science” per se and I don’t think it is ever discussed by scientists. There are certainly no scientific papers or conferences written about it. Science is neutral on the subject. Science doesn’t comment on Atheism, Buddha, Jesus, nor Adam and Eve. Science does a lot a work on human origins and the consensus is that their were many species of humans around for the past million years. How an A&E story fits with that is outside of science.

The way I look at it, is that you are trying to find a place for characters in a story in real human history. That may be important for some Christians to remain faithful and be a worthy purpose for you, its not science nor in the interest of science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/9 "2018-05-27T19:49:43Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.

So @patrick, please show me the evidence behind this statement. Show me how evolutionary science is incompatible with their literal existence? If you can’t produce evidence or even reasoning for this, how is that a true statement?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/10 "2018-05-27T19:58:50Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Show me how evolutionary science is incompatible with their literal existence?

Evolutionary science **doesn’t care** if they literally existed or not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/11 "2018-05-27T20:01:35Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> > Show me how evolutionary science is incompatible with their literal existence?
> 
> Evolutionary science **doesn’t care** if they literally existed or not.

I **_entirely_** agree. So, why are you okay with people saying this?

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.

What not change that to say: human evolutionary genetics does not tell us one way or another about their literal existence.

**_That_** would be a truthful statement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/12 "2018-05-27T22:14:28Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> What not change that to say: human evolutionary genetics does not tell us one way or another about their literal existence.

Because human evolutionary genetics doesn’t give any credence to any character appearing in any story in any ancient book.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/13 "2018-05-27T22:21:07Z")

</div>

Why is Adam being historical so important? How about every other character in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, even David and Solomon, and of course Jesus. Their historical existence is even more suspect. Why the personal fascination with Adam?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/14 "2018-05-27T22:25:20Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Why is Adam being historical so important? How about every other character in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, even David and Solomon, and of course Jesus. Their historical existence is even more suspect. Why the personal fascination with Adam?

@Patrick,

The point of this two-pontoon scenario is straightforward:

1. There are Christians who find too much evidence for Evolution for that evidence to be ignored.

AND

1. There are Christians who find too much Biblical Investment in Adam/Eve for de novo Adam/Eve creation to be ignored. **Noah, while being important, is not in as crucial a linking position as Adam.**

Once @swamidass realized that science does not have the capacity to say de novo Adam and Eve is impossible, then the door was opened to combining both categories of events into a single scenario.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/15 "2018-05-27T22:48:54Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> There are Christians who find too much evidence for Evolution for that evidence to be ignored.

Like the Roman Catholic Church of nearly 1.5 billion people.

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> There are Christians who find too much Biblical Investment in Adam/Eve for de novo Adam/Eve creation to be ignored.

YECs and a few others? How many people are we talking about? More importantly, how many young people under 30 in the US as this is a US Evangelical issue only?

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Once @swamidass realized that science does not have the capacity to say de novo Adam and Eve is impossible, then the door was opened to combining both categories of events into a single scenario.

The door was always open. Science never had nor never will have the capability to say anything de novo is impossible. Isn’t the key foundation of Quantum Mechanics is that everything is possible and nothing is impossible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/16 "2018-05-28T00:17:08Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> gbrooks9 wrote:
> 
> > There are Christians who find too much evidence for Evolution for that evidence to be ignored.
> 
> Like the Roman Catholic Church of nearly 1.5 billion people.

Right. Like those, and like many people attracted to the BioLogos position.

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> gbrooks9 wrote:
> 
> > There are Christians who find too much Biblical Investment in Adam/Eve for de novo Adam/Eve creation to be ignored.
> 
> YECs and a few others? How many people are we talking about? More importantly, how many young people under 30 in the US as this is a US Evangelical issue only?

I really don’t know… but there’s enough of them to have made the current occupant of the White House a real nuisance.

Your comments about the door always being open is completely beside the point. The door to realizing there is a force called gravity was always there as well. Next time I’ll try to clear my figurative terminology with you.

**At some point, gravity and @swamidass’ scenarios, become a common place discussion.**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 12:39am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/17 "2018-05-28T00:39:53Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> > There are Christians who find too much Biblical Investment in Adam/Eve for de novo Adam/Eve creation to be ignored.
> 
> YECs and a few others? How many people are we talking about? More importantly, how many young people under 30 in the US as this is a US Evangelical issue only?

There are a lot of people who care about this, not just in America. There are may be more Christians in China right now than USA, and most of them are YEC.

That is beside the point. This is really just about being honest.

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Why is Adam being historical so important? How about every other character in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, even David and Solomon, and of course Jesus. Their historical existence is even more suspect. Why the personal fascination with Adam?

This been the central reason why most people have rejected evolution, and for example, would not read David Reich’s book. I want to invite them into the fun of understanding origins from all angels, so they can see the beauty there as well.

Also, keep in mind, wikipedia does not say “evolutionary science is incompatible with the literal existence” of King David, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Hitler, Moses, Abraham. If it did, perhaps we would be raising questions about that too. I’d be concerned if said these things against other religious. It works against science to set it up falsely and needlessly against deeply held beliefs.

We have talked about this before. Science is neutral on things like this. I’d agree with you on keeping God out of scientific explanations. It is only fair to refrain from misrepresenting the findings of science so as to create needless conflict with deeply held beliefs of others. I’d have no problem with the statement if it was true, but it is unequivocally false. Without question. Why not correct it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 12:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/18 "2018-05-28T00:46:05Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Why not correct it?

Go ahead, it is okay to make changes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 12:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/19 "2018-05-28T00:56:27Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> I really don’t know… but there’s enough of them to have made the current occupant of the White House a real nuisance.

I know, the VP is a YEC, so is half the cabinet, as well as the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. I am expecting a big backlash to a more secular government in the new Congress in 2019.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278/20 "2018-05-28T01:01:27Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> > Why not correct it?
> 
> Go ahead, it is okay to make changes.

Turns out that they don’t tolerate that from Christians. Ironic.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/wikipedia-and-adam-and-eve/278.md?page=2)