The science of genetic bottlenecks is known to many, but often misunderstood.
The Genealogical Adam and EveThe Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry
Evolutionary science teaches that humans arose as a population, sharing common ancestors with other animals. Most readers of the book of Genesis in the past understood all humans descended from Adam and Eve, a couple specially created by God. These two teachings seem contradictory, but is that necessarily so? In the fractured conversation of human origins, can new insight guide us to solid ground in both science and theology? In The Genealogical Adam and Eve, S. Joshua Swamidass tests a scientific hypothesis: What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution? Building on well-established but overlooked science, Swamidass explains how it’s possible for Adam and Eve to be rightly identified as the ancestors of everyone. His analysis opens up new possibilities for understanding Adam and Eve, consistent both with current scientific consensus and with traditional readings of Scripture. These new possibilities open a conversation about what it means to be human. In this book, Swamidass
- untangles several misunderstandings about the words human and ancestry, in both science and theology
- explains how genetic and genealogical ancestry are different, and how universal genealogical ancestry creates a new opportunity for rapprochement
- explores implications of genealogical ancestry for the theology of the image of God, the fall, and people “outside the garden”
Some think Adam and Eve are a myth. Some think evolution is a myth. Either way, the best available science opens up space to engage larger questions together. In this bold exploration, Swamidass charts a new way forward for peace between mainstream science and the Christian faith.
The science of genetic bottlenecks is known to many, but often misunderstood.
A discussion of various proposals regarding Adam & Eve and how they align with science and Catholic theology
A leading young earth creationist, a paleontologist, debates Dr. Swamidass and Michael Jones on evolution, and whether it is compatible with Genesis.
If Dr. Marcus Ross has any scientific objections to my work, let him to take them up directly with me.
Denis Lamoureux, an evolutionary creationist, found a math error in The Genealogical Adam and Eve. This mistake, and the rest, are corrected in the paperback version of the book.
I was wrong. I incorrectly used the terms monophyletic and polyphyletic in my book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I am correcting the record here.
As for me, I aim to quickly correct my own mistakes as publicly as I make them. This is one of the demands of science, and what I expect of others.
The question of Tasmania pulls us deeper into science, wondering together about what we know and the limits of our knowledge. Let the conversation grow.
Learn about the new consensus on Adam and Eve. Take a short-course with Carver Classroom, or join the workshop at the ASA.
In this essay we respond to the comments of Tom McCall, William Lane Craig, and Stephen C. Meyer on mere theistic evolution.
The Christian community needs to see more humility from its intellectual leaders—and more patience and less pressure to crank out surefire answers to hard questions on complex issues.
I am a scientist, and I am often asked by my colleagues about evidence I see for the resurrection. This is how I explain it to them.
The Genesis story of Adam and Eve matters. Not just to Christians, but to people of all Abrahamic faiths.
Swamidass invites us to treat one another virtuously in the midst of our differences, not as things but as persons, as King envisioned in view of Jesus.
This is one of those insights that corresponds to the Bible’s intent and makes me think “Why didn’t someone say this so clearly earlier?”
I don’t see any biblical passage that is fatal to the thesis. On the other hand, I also don’t see—and the author admits this openly—any explicit data in the text to support the thesis.
Last week, millions of people learned about the new conversation on Adam and Eve. The response is a salient window into where stands the conversation.
The critics misunderstand a highly significant result. This book answers the twelve objections to evolution raised by Wayne Grudem.
The biblical text gives us anchor points in our engagement with modern science even though it does not focus on a lot of the concerns that modern scientists have in their work.
Why do I prefer an ancient genealogical Adam over Josh’s hypothesized recent genealogical Adam? The reasons are both biblical and scientific.
The main concern about the Genealogical Adam and Eve model (GAE) is its assertion that humans already existed outside the Garden. My contention is that there is nothing new about this.
If at some point in the future, the scientific evidence shows that evolutionary mechanisms are the mechanisms of God’s creation, then what?
The dialogue between PS and RTB is live streamed on January 18th, as we consider The Genealogical Adam and Eve alongside their model of human origins.
BioLogos updates their scientific position on Adam and Eve. This is an important step forward and a key milestone in the conversation.
BioLogos deletes an article from their website. Why did they delete it? What were the mistakes in it? Transparency is how we move forward.
Does genetics challenge a single-couple origin to humanity? William Lane Craig explains how we found that this challenge was an illusion.
Darrel Falk, People like me, stuck in a specific genetic paradigm, were wrong. The humility of our scholars opens a better way forward for everyone.
Instead of narrowly arguing for our own theology, let us all advocate for truthful accounts of science and the full diversity of the Church. Peace.
It is difficult to classify every way of understanding Adam and Eve alongside evolution. These four questions are a helpful starting point.
Michael Heiser pursues his exegetical work on its own terms, engaging watchfully with science. How do sacred and natural history combine?
We disagree. These disagreements matter. Still, we can find a better way than conflict. Let us move towards one another from here.
James Tour and I do not agree on everything, but we found virtue in the wasteland, friendship across our disagreements.
I went public in 2012 on evolution. When it comes to personal risks, very personal reasons take center stage. Why did I go public?
Let me answer some questions from readers about my OpEd on Marco Rubio and the Age of the Earth.
Former Christian turned atheist, Stephen Matheson, invites fellow secular humanists to join the growing conversation at Peaceful Science.
Whatever our skin color, country of origin, ethnicity, or culture, we are all one family, one blood, one race, the human race. What has rendered us apart?
We’ve understood differences to be rooted in our essential nature, but maybe they are not. So, maybe some of the ways the world is can be changed.
Jon Garvey published the first book-length response to Joshua Swamidass’ The Genealogical Adam and Eve, a theological case for people outside the garden.
Gavin Ortlund’s new book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, advocates for prioritizing which theological concerns are most important when engaging science.
In his series of novels, Brian Godawa joins the ancient midrash tradition of imaginatively retelling human origins through the lens of Genesis.
David Rygiol responds with art: Most of our ancestors leave us no genes at all – they are genetic ghosts in our past, looming like a shadow.
David Rygiol responds with art: I grew up in a fractured world, and the fracture grew into me, challenging, unsettling my identity.
Madeume’s objections do not challenge Swamidass’ key thesis: a traditional, literal reading of Scripture does not rule out people outside the Garden.
A readers guide to the written interviews about the The Genealogical Adam and Eve: Christianity Today, Paul Louis Metzger, Sean McDowell, and Duke Divinity.
John W. Hilber explains how Relevance Theory clarifies the meaning of text, by clarifying what is implicated vs. incidental to the message.
Consider COVID-19 with Behe. If God created all things, then in this sense He designed us all. Still, creation is not design and design is not creation.
When I disagree with another scientist, I sometimes respond, In my professional opinion, this just looks 1+1=3 to me. Maybe they took the garden path?
Responding to my book, Garvey argues that allowing for people outside the garden is helpful to theology, recovering the original understanding of Genesis.
When it comes to human ancestry and origins, images can help communicate what words cannot, and invite a broader audience to join the conversation.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve. A conversation begins on human origins, but it is also an old conversation, one that brings us to an ancient question.
This typographic logo is meant to be composed with images corresponding to different content areas, but also conveying our mission and identity.
Nathan Lents, a secular biologist, published in USA Today his reasons for endorsing The Genealogical Adam and Eve. This created a small social media storm.
Despite our significant differences, Nathan Lents and I found common ground in science, in education, and in our common humanity. That’s worth celebrating.
Peaceful Science is launching, a diverse community of scholars advancing science in a fractured society by engaging the grand questions together
IVP Academic has been encouraged to see the truly unique, communal development process that Josh has embraced for this project.
With important questions before, us how should we approach origins? Let’s keep working at this with our eyes focused, not on Adam and Eve, but on Jesus.
Just like us, C. S. Lewis encountered challenges from science. Rather than falling into unending arguments, he found a better way.
Peaceful Science fills a unique role in the conversation, intending to support trustworthy scientists as they engage the public.