Did Human Beings Evolve Outside The Garden Of Eden When God Created Adam & Eve?

            Science and Historical Christianity have seemingly been at odds with each other. The study of Historical Adam & Eve is a topic that contributes a good deal to this conflict.

            Dr. Joshua Swamidass’¹ recent book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, however, strives to bridge the gap between evolutionary science and the conservative understanding of Adam and Eve.

            Proponents of evolutionary science believe that humans evolved as a population sharing common ancestors with apes and chimpanzees. On the other hand, a traditional or conservative understanding of the book of Genesis is the belief that Adam and Eve were created by God. They were the first humans. All of mankind descended from them.

            These two views contradict each other (or so it seems). 

            Dr. Joshua Swamidass’ position is that there is enough room to accommodate both these views and that they do not necessarily contradict each other.

            How is this possible?

            First, Dr. Swamidass establishes the distinction between genetics and genealogy within the context of ancestral study. Upon establishing that distinction, he posits the Biblical narration of Adam and Eve as the genealogical ancestry and that of science as the genetic ancestry.

            Second, he posits the presence of human beings outside the Garden of Eden. In other words, when God created Adam & Eve and made them reside in the Garden of Eden, there were other human beings outside the Garden, who were the products of God guided evolution. Thus he builds a bridge between theology and science.

            It’s quite important to note that Dr. Swamidass is committed to the de novo² creation of Adam & Eve.

            In an interview with Christianity Today, Swamidass explains how these seemingly contradictory views could be true:³

There’s been a lot of conflict about how science expresses its understanding of Adam and Eve. It has to do with misunderstanding the word ancestor. We can understand it in the genetic sense, meaning someone we get our DNA from. Or we can mean it in a genealogical sense, meaning someone whose lineage we descend from.

Genetics works in a very nonintuitive way. For example, my parents are both equally 100 percent my genealogical ancestors, and the same is true with my grandparents and great-grandparents. But my parents are each only one half of my genetic ancestry; my grandparents are one quarter; my great-grandparents are one eighth. Genetic ancestry just dilutes to the point where the majority of our genealogical ancestors pass on no DNA.

Why is that important? Scripture doesn’t tell us about genetic ancestry. It does, however, tell us about genealogical ancestry. Historically, we’ve believed that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of everyone. We can ask: Does this mean genetic ancestors or genealogical ancestors? Well, Scripture can’t possibly be talking about genetic ancestry. It has to be talking about genealogical ancestry.

That recognition really opens up an immense amount of space for theology. As Christians, we’ve had a lot of anxiety over what science is telling us about Adam and Eve. But these conflicts are based on what science says about our genetic ancestors. If we focus on genealogical ancestors instead, there might be far less conflict than we first imagined.

…If we keep straight what the science is actually saying, the story of Genesis could be true as literally as you could imagine it, with Adam being created by dust and God breathing into his nostrils and Eve being created from his rib. But evolution is happening outside the Garden, and there are people out there who God created in a different way and who end up intermingling with Adam and Eve’s descendants. It’s not actually in conflict with evolutionary science [Emphasis Mine].

            While there seems to be a point of convergence between evolutionary science and Historical Christianity, there could be a number of theological conundrums.⁴

            First, the Bible seems to unequivocally imply that there were no humans before the creation of Adam and Eve (cf. Genesis 1 26-29, 2:18, 20b, 3:20). Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you look closely at the text itself, the text is pretty clear that there weren't any other people around. Genesis 2 says there was no man to till the ground and therefore God created Adam out of the dust of the Earth. And when it comes to finding a suitable mate for Adam, God parades all these animals before Adam and there was no one found that would be a suitable partner until God created Eve. And what was she then given the name? She was called “the mother of all living.” So I think that the story itself says pretty clearly that Adam and Eve were the only human beings around.”⁵

            Second, if there were humans outside the Garden, then, Dr. Swamidass cannot refer to Adam & Eve as the universal ancestors of mankind. At most, Adam & Eve would be the ancestors of their descendants.

            It is highly plausible that the humans outside the Garden would have had their own children and they would have had their own descendants. A part of these descendants would not, in any way, be connected with the descendants of Adam & Eve (they would not have interbred with the descendants of Adam & Eve).

            These people are then totally disconnected from Adam & Eve. If so, Adam & Eve cannot be the ancestors of these people. Therefore, according to Swamidass’s view, Adam & Eve cannot be the universal ancestors of all mankind. To consider Adam & Eve as the universal ancestors of all mankind would be incorrect.

            Third, there is an ontological likelihood of a flagrant divergence between the humans outside the garden and Adam & Eve. While Adam & Eve were created in the image of God, the other humans, who were evolving outside the Garden would not be in God’s image.

             This then leads to another theological conundrum. Those created in the image of God are worthy of honor and respect; he is neither to be murdered (Genesis 9:6) nor cursed (James 3:9). Being made in the image of God also attributes characteristics such as ‘righteousness,’ ‘holiness’ (Ephesians 4:24), and ‘knowledge’ (Colossians 3:10) to man. Furthermore, those created in the image of God and those who believe in Christ are to be conformed to the likeness of Christ (Romans 8:29) and will one day be like Christ (1 John 3:2).

            Those evolved humans outside the Garden would have none of the above characteristics since they were not created in the image of God. Therefore, the evolved humans cannot be the recipients of God’s grace and beneficiaries of Christ’s atoning death.

            Here is Dr. Craig’s explanation of the situation, “What it would imply is there are people who are just like me and you in every way (rational, self-conscious, self-reflective, trying to do right and wrong, loving their children, having an aesthetic appreciation of beauty and ugliness, of right and wrong) and yet they are not in the image of God and therefore are not truly human and therefore are not recipients of God's grace or beneficiaries of Christ's atoning death. And I find that unconscionable…”⁶

            Dr.Craig also reminds us that if such humans do exist now, then evangelizing to them is totally futile.

            Fourth and finally, the traditional or conservative understanding of the term human is to reference it with the image of God i.e. every human is created in the image of God. But Dr. Swamidass disagrees with this definition, “One of the other surprising things in dialogue with theologians through this . . . one of the key things that I wrote was a chapter explaining how the term “human” has no precision in science to the point that really there's really no claim that scientists have to be normative in that discussion. Theologians really have the right to define “human” on their own terms. Right? But the problem is you go talk to theologians and they can't define “human” in an agreement with one another! They have a broad, broad range of views. One way to do it, which I actually don't think is a most helpful way, is by equating human with the image of God – saying if someone's in the image of God then they are human, and if they're not in the image of God then they aren't. I think that that's a problem actually. I don't think that that makes sense…”⁷

            Dr. Craig rejects Dr. Swamidass’ view that humans are merely descendants of Adam and Eve i.e. that humans cannot be defined as those made in the image of God, “I think this attempt to drive a wedge between the image of God and human is unacceptable. Listen to the words of Genesis 1:26 and following: “and God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion . . .” Then it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” That's clearly not just referring to Adam. That's referring to man generically. I think Mike was quite right in his comments. “Adam” is not used as a proper name in Genesis until later in the story, but here we're talking about adam meaning “man,” and it's used with regard to a plurality – male and female, them. So we mustn't, I think, try to drive this wedge between being in the image of God and being human. On the contrary, what makes us human is that we are in the image of God unlike all the rest of animal creation. No other animal in Genesis 1 is created in the image and after the likeness of God. That's what makes us human. Now, Josh says to be human is simply to be a descendant of Adam and Eve. In this way he can approximate the traditional view of Adam and Eve that in fact they are the parents of every human being that has ever lived but only at the expense of having these folks outside the Garden who look like human beings, act like human beings, but they're really not human. And that just gives me the chills frankly.”⁸

            To conclude, Dr. Swamidass’s endeavor to bridge the conflict between evolutionary science and Historical Christianity remains untenable. For instance, the four theological conundrums that are presented, which are the consequences of his theological position, deeply undermine the essence of Historical Christianity. In other words, Historic Christianity would be substantially diluted doctrinally, if Dr. Swamidass’ views are to be upheld.

            A liberal Christian or the doctrines of liberal Christianity (which has already compromised the core doctrines of Historic Christianity) may agree with Dr. Swamidass’s position. But the doctrines of Historic Christianity remain in conflict with his views. Hence, it could be reasonably concluded that Dr. Swamidass’ stand about the historical Adam & Eve does not reflect the essence of Historic Christianity.

Endnotes:

¹A Computational Biologist, who uses artificial intelligence to explore science at the intersection of biology, chemistry, and medicine.

²In the beginning, out of dust and a rib.

³https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/genealogical-adam-eve-evolution-joshua-swamidass.html

⁴Much of the information for this section has been sourced from Dr. William Lane Craig’s critique of Dr. Josh Swamidass. This is from two articles entitled Josh Swamidass on Adam and Eve – Part 1 and Part 2.

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/josh-swamidass-on-adam-and-eve-part-1/

⁶https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/josh-swamidass-on-adam-and-eve-part-2/

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 28^th March 2020.

The Conflict Between Evolution And Ethics (Evolution Cannot Explain Ethics) – Part 1

            With regard to morality, Christians believe that human beings are moral beings with the knowledge of good and evil and with a disposition to conform to the rules of right conduct. In answering the question, “How are human beings moral beings?” the Bible teaches that we, who are created in the image of God, have the moral law written in our hearts by God (cf. Romans 2:15). With regard to the question, “Why are we moral beings?” Christians would assert that we are moral beings to glorify God.

            The atheist, on the other hand, rejects God’s existence. Thus the atheist rejects creation and subscribes to evolution.

            So the atheist should answer these two questions:

            (1) How did human beings become moral beings?

            (2) Why does morality exist in a human being?

            Before the atheist answers the abovementioned questions, an important question that needs to be answered is, “Are human beings moral beings?”

            Infants are not born as “blank moral slates,” says an article in Mail Online, “Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.'”¹

            Since human beings are moral beings, it is incumbent upon the atheist to answer the question, “How and why are human beings moral beings?”

            Some atheists believe that morality is an illusion, whereas other atheists believe that there are objective moral values. A proper study should consider both positions. Hence, we adopt a two-pronged scheme to understand this subject:

            (1) In the first scheme of study, we consider atheists’ contention that morality is illusory, meaningless, or that it is impossible to explain without positing God. If atheists believe that morality is an illusion (there is no morality), then the question, “How and why are human beings moral beings?” need not be answered. This is addressed in this article.

            (2) The second scheme of study will take into account the book Moral Landscape authored by the New Atheist, Sam Harris, who posits objective moral values. So we should examine the possibility of the existence of objective moral values without any source (because atheists reject God, who is the source of everything that there is) and without any possibility of objective moral duty (if there is no source, there is no need to be dutiful)? This would be addressed in PART 2 of this article.

Part 1: Morality Is An Illusion In The Evolutionary Paradigm

            Some atheists believe that any deep meaning to morality, such as the existence of objective moral values, is illusory. Christian apologist, William Lane Craig’s article entitled “Can We Be Good without God?” expounds this position by citing the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, “Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, writes, The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .”²

            Here’s Craig’s interpretation of Michael Ruse’s rejection of objective moral values, “As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of “herd morality” which functions well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.”³

            Then there are atheists who believe that it is not plausible to explain the ‘how’ of morality in human beings without positing the existence of God. Christian apologist, Brett Kunkle of the Christian apologetics ministry Stand to Reason says, “J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century, said this: “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them.” ⁴ (Emphasis Mine).

            Secular philosophers understand that evolution deprives morality of its meaning in the atheistic worldview. Craig cites the eminent American Philosopher and ethicist, Richard Taylor, to emphasize this fact, “The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion. [2]

            He concludes,

            Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”⁵

            Moral obligations are also a meaningless term in the atheistic worldview. Brett Kunkle writes, “If humans are simply more developed animals, why think there are moral duties to which they are obligated? Male great white sharks are under no obligation to refrain from forcibly copulating with female great whites. Male lions are under no obligation to refrain from killing all the young lion cubs in a pride they have just taken over. Notice, we do NOT use moral terms to describe such behavior. We do not call the shark’s behavior “rape” and we do not call the lion’s behavior “infanticide.”

            Natural science is a descriptive enterprise, only telling us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. For example, nature can describe what it is to be healthy, but it cannot generate a moral obligation to be healthy.”⁶

            Brett Kunkle also cites Richard Taylor, who has understood that evolution cannot explain moral obligations, “The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough…. Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawgiver higher…than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can…be understood as those that are imposed by God…. But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of moral obligation…still make sense? … The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. [3] .”⁷

            Furthermore, evolution deprives human beings of any intrinsic value thereby rendering morality a meaningless term. Kunkle cites Richard Dawkins, who explains this fact, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference…. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. [4]”⁸

            Kunkle goes on to add, “On a naturalistic evolutionary scenario, human beings are nothing special. The universe comes into existence through the Big Bang and, through a blind process of chance and necessity, evolves all the way through to us. The same process that coughed up humans also coughed up bacteria. Thus, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about being human. Indeed, on this view, to think humans beings are special is to be guilty of speciesism, the view that one’s own species is somehow superior to other species…But what other result should we expect from valueless, cause-and-effect physical processes? There is no reason to think that an impersonal, valueless process could produce valuable, rights-bearing persons.”⁹

            Finally, evolution hits a vital nail in the coffin of morality when it deems freewill or human freedom as non-existent, “If we are the products of evolutionary forces, how did moral freedom and responsibility emerge? There is no reason to think, given our supposed materialistic and deterministic origins, that we have free will. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel states that there is “no room for agency in a world of neural impulses, chemical reactions, and bone and muscle movements”; naturalism strongly suggests that we are “helpless” and “not responsible” for our actions. [5]

            Of course, if there is no free will, then no one is morally responsible for anything. Determinism puts an end to objective moral duties because on this worldview, we have no control over what we do. We are nothing more than puppets in a cause-and-effect universe.”¹⁰

            In conclusion, since evolution deems morality and human freedom as meaningless and illusory, evolution cannot explain ethics.

Endnotes:

¹http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/can-we-be-good-without-god/

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.str.org/blog/why-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality#_ftn3

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/can-we-be-good-without-god/

⁶https://www.str.org/blog/why-evolutionary-ethics-fails-to-account-for-objective-morality#_ftn3

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 27^th August 2018.