How should we understand Genesis in light of modern science? Most contemporary models of evolution maintain that humans arose as a population, sharing a common ancestry with animals. Many interpretations of Scripture, however, understand humanity to have their origins in Adam and Eve—a couple specially and directly created by God (see, for example, Gen 1–3). Rather than assert that these teachings are incompatible, S. Joshua Swamidass’ The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry attempts to explain how “evolutionary science could be true, even as our loyalties remain with Scripture” (7).
Swamidass is uniquely qualified to write on this subject. As a scientist and a Christian, Swamidass’ faith is readily apparent throughout the pages of this volume. The author’s disclosure(s) of various aspects of his personal interest in these matters (see, for instance, 5–17), including his (former) belief in Young Earth creationism (YEC), are especially winsome (156). Likewise, Swamidass’ apologetic efforts are not only rhetorically effective, but also quite disarming in their overarching approach (see, for example, 227–30). Swamidass is also to be commended for how well he handles those with whom he disagrees. For example, Swamidass applauds Ken Ham’s staunch stance against the legacy of segregation in certain fundamentalist communities, even though he disagrees with Ham’s YEC (126–27). Given the acrimony that often accompanies this topic, such grace is a true pleasure to witness.
The book itself is also adeptly written. Swamidass pitches things just right for the uninitiated. The numerous (but not overwhelming) references to contemporary entertainment sprinkled throughout the text—including The Chronicles of Narnia, Battlestar Galactica, and other popular works—make for a thoroughly engaging and stimulating read.
Typographically, The Genealogical Adam and Eve is a feast for the eyes. Numerous charts, diagrams, graphics, and such effectively communicate Swamidass’ (relatively) complex and detailed arguments in a succinct, pedagogically sensitive way. Regrettably, however, there is no list of illustrations. One also notes that certain tables do not adequately differentiate between certain positions (see, for instance, 11 and 90, where position “A” and “B” have no readily apparent differences). Alongside this, while the Scripture index is thorough, the “general index” (subject/author) is somewhat disappointing in that it either: (1) omits certain individuals altogether, such G. K. Beale, Douglas L. T. Rohde, and C. Yang; or (2) is incomplete, as is the case for C. John Collins, Wayne A. Grudem, and Dennis R. Venema, among others. Given how much Swamidass’ other work positively contributes to this book (see 6, 9, 12, 14, 42, 46, etc.), it is particularly unfortunate that his own name is not listed in the index.
Central to Swamidass’ theory is the Genealogical Hypothesis (GH). Swamidass states that the GH concerns “genealogical ancestry, not genetic ancestry. Adam and Eve are genealogical ancestors of everyone to the ‘ends of the earth’ by AD 1, at the latest, but not necessarily our genetic ancestors” (31, emphases in original). Elsewhere, he maintains:
Entirely consistent with the genetic and archeological evidence, it is possible that Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10, 000 years ago. Leaving the Garden [of Eden], their offspring would have blended with those outside it, biologically identically neighbors from the surrounding area. In a few thousand years, they would become genealogical ancestors of everyone. (10).
Much hinges here on concordism and what constitutes a faithful interpretation of Scripture. While Swamidass is right to be concerned about upholding the historical referentiality of the biblical text (see, for example, 169 and 219–20), it is at times difficult to discern if Swamidass’ thought experiment permits him to have his cake and eat it too. To clarify, Swamidass (judiciously) invites his readers to reject “wooden traditionalism that forces agreement everywhere” (220). At the same time, however, he also seems to (illogically and erroneously) assert that the so-called Nephilim (the large beings referenced in Gen 6:1–4) survived the Flood (145) and that “Noah’s flood did not destroy the people outside the garden. Our ancestors, it seems, never dip down in the last hundred thousand years to five people. According to Genesis, the genomes of five people were on the ark: Noah, his wife, and the wives of his three sons. A unique regional flood might have destroyed all of Adam and Eve’s world in a large region, but not the whole globe” (170).
Squaring this assertion, though, with the covenant God makes post-Flood is particularly difficult given the universal language involved throughout the account (see Gen 9:9–17, cf. 6:9). Scripture also seems to underscore that only eight people survived Noah’s Flood (1 Pet 3:20–21; 2 Pet 2:5; cf. Matt 24:36–44; Luke 17:26–27; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 3:6), the Nephilim did not endure the Flood (cf. 1 En 89:5–6; Sir 16:7; Wis 14:6–7; 3 Macc 2:4 alongside 4Q370) and that it was through Noah’s sons that the world’s population was re-constituted (see Gen 9:19; 10:1–32). In brief, it seems rather odd for Swamidass to maintain a rather strict concordist interpretation of Genesis 2–4 but (seemingly) change his hermeneutical tune with respect to Genesis 6–9 and the Noahic Flood.
That said, one need not agree with the author at every step to find oneself learning and enriched, and many adherents to YEC may be surprised to find themselves nodding in agreement. At the same time, though, Swamidass’ assertions could benefit from engaging more thoroughly with the crème de crème of his opponent’s research vis-à-vis direct citations/references. For example, Swamidass contends that “even if our planet is actually young, it looks billions of years old. This evidence is not explained away by being ‘created’ mature, because it appears to tell a story of past events, including the deaths of animals and people outside the Garden [of Eden]” (169–70). But it is precisely this claim that YEC take pains in their work to dispute. I recognize that many readers will be unmoved by such a criticism, regarding a view like YEC to be untenable, but my point here is merely that more engagement with contrary voices would have strengthened his arguments.
These infelicities aside, Swamidass’ The Genealogical Adam and Eve provides much stimulating food for thought and will be considered by many individuals to effectively facilitate an increased tolerance, humility, and patience between various discussions concerning the beaker and the Bible. Its most likely audience are Bible College and Christian university/seminary students, along with other Christian leaders and invested laypeople.
Dustin Burlet teaches at Millar College of the Bible (Winnipeg, MB).
Dustin Burlet
Date Of Review:
December 27, 2022