The Genealogical Adam is Polygenism not Monogenism
My Inconceivable Conversation Joshua Swamidass
In my post, Joshua Swamidass’ Genealogical Adam and Eve, I made the claim that Swamidass’ model of human origins is polygenesis not monogenesis. I offered two reasons for that claim.
He posits two different origin stories for humans: one group of humans who evolved outside the garden and the second group (Adam and Eve) who God (may have) created inside the garden. This is poly (two) genism (origins) for humans.
He posits that humans existed prior to Adam… that is by definition pre-Adamism. To be fair, this view of humans living prior to Adam is common to both monogenists and polygenists. Both had roots in pre-Adamism. However, in concert with the first point I conclude that his theory fits more naturally with historic polygenism.
Please read my original post for the full explanation or if those terms are new to you. You can also see in this post how I’ve illustrated Josh’s model which I label Genealogical Polygenesis.
When I first posted that article on my original More Than Cake website, Josh took issue with my claim In 2021 we had what I think was a helpful exchange that clarified our differences. When I moved to Substack, that conversation was lost but the original Disqus thread was preserved (download PDF at the bottom of this post). I’ll repost the content from our threaded exchange here but the original content is still available.
Swamidass
Interesting article, and thanks for engaging. I was surprised how dismissive you are of the contribution. Seems like like neglected quite a few critical details, such as the fact that I'm just using the definition of Monogenesis exposited by, for example, Kenneth Kemp (not redefining the terms), which is distinct from White's approach. I'm pretty sure White did not think we all descend from Adam and Eve, which again highlights the disanalogy here on a material point.
Of course, none of the ideas are new in my book too, but they are brought together in a way that no one thought possible before. That's the strength of the book. It is a lot of old ideas once thought to be in conflict that are in fact not in conflict.
J.R. Miller
Hi Josh,
Thanks for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts. I don't see my post as dismissive of your contribution. Scholars disagree about stuff all the time, so please don't confuse disagreement with dismissal of your work :-) If I had dismissed your work, I would not have taken the time to respond to it.
And you are right, there are aspects of your theory that are new. In your definition of "ancestor" you certainly use population genetics in a way not possible 50 or 150 years ago. Also, for better or for worse depending on how different folks view it, no one can deny that your book has had a tremendous impact in generating interest for this field of study.
When I started my own research into this area (for both my masters thesis on Hebrew cosmology and for my current PhD exploring the issue of race and the doctrine of Adam and Eve), it seemed like few people in the church were really taking much interest in this topic. Many people were settled in their theological or scientific camps. Now, in no small part because of your book, lots of folks are starting to dig into Genesis and the doctrine of Adam and Eve with fresh eyes. People are moving outside their entrenched positions and doing new work to connect their theology to contemporary philosophy and science. Your work has, I am sure, helped lots of people break down those barriers and start a deeper study of Genesis... and that is a good thing.
So while some parts are new, others are not. Like a lot of folks back in 2017, your thesis seemed like something wildly new. And the perceived novelty of it made a lot of people pick up a copy and read it. Yet, after lots of years of focused historical research, I am seeing parallels throughout history. That is one reason I emailed you a year or so ago about the Pruss' article to see if you had read it. In my reading of the primary sources from men like White, I was actually shocked at how many folks offered different origin theories and how many argued for ideas that were similar to yours. My goal for this short post was to show that your ideas have a relevant historic context and folks like me who have a different field of expertise can use our research to help weigh the merit of your theory. Again, I see that as a good thing.
Ultimately, I am glad folks are discussing this issue and recognizing the need for accepting the historical Adam and Eve as a key biblical doctrine. I think the historic Christian doctrine of A&E provides the best argument against racism... and in a few months when I finish folks can decide how effective I was in making the case.
Swamidass
That comment is certainly more balanced, and I appreciate it. I sure hope that you are correct too, that there is renewed interest in this conversation.
That being said, I do think there are some material points in your article that are not really disagreements, but mischaracterizations.
1. A core point I've made (and so has Kemp and Loke) is that the doctrine of Monogenesis holds we all descend from Adam and Eve, without ruling out our descent from other lineages.
2. The analogues you draw to polygenesis specifically deny that we all descend from Adam and Eve, so they are not good points of comparison. They diverge from the GAE on precisely the key point of doctrine. So it really is misleading to group them together by saying that the GAE is polygenesis.
Whether or not you want to call it "polygenesis" or not is a matter of debate, but the distinction is a matter of fact. That distinction has to be clear in order to have any meaningful discussion.
3. You are right that others have wondered about AE were de novo created with people outside the Garden created by evolution. But that was thought by just about everyone to be in conflict with the evidence. As far as I know, I'm the first scientist to show this is not the case.
4. Moreover, it is dismissive to headline "Even Swamidass Does Not Argue his Theory is True," as if it this somehow depreciates the idea. Rather, I argue that the whole scenario could be true. If Adam and Eve are real people in a real past, this is the best scientific estimate of whether they'd be our ancestors or not. Several others have argued that some variant or another of the GAE is actually true, most notably in William Lane Craig's new book, but also Jon Garvey's book.
5. Your comment also is in conflict with your heading "Swamidass’s Theory is Not New." The fact is that some parts are new, and parts are not new, and even many parts that are not new had been overlooked for a long tim. Perhaps we'd even agree on how to bin components into those categories, but emphasizing that nothing is new here does seem to be dismissive to me. On a factual level, that simple assessment isn't true either.
Perhaps there are some other points to address too, but it seems that these are some large gaps as it is. I'm not sure why you took the approach you did. You certainly are welcome to disagree with me on particular points, or even more broadly, But those disagreements are most helpful and meaningful against the backdrop of accurately laying out the real issues. I suspect we actually agree on most the facts, even though I do not think your main article represents them well.
J.R. Miller
Hi Josh, I am glad you find the reframing of my post more to your liking.
That said, your perception that my post is a misunderstanding and not a disagreement is incorrect. Let me just address your first point:
“I do think there are some material points in your article that are not really disagreements, but mischaracterizations.
1. A core point I've made (and so has Kemp and Loke) is that the doctrine of Monogenesis holds we all descend from Adam and Eve, without ruling out our descent from other lineages.”
Believe it or not, I get it. You outline your thesis in several places throughout your book. Kemp seems really important to your work as he argues there is “a distinction between biological, theological, and philosophical humans (111).” You engage his theory which then gives you the necessary framework to define your terms:
“Humans can arise by monogenesis from a single couple within a larger population. Is this a redefinition of monogenesis, or a recovery of its original meaning? Is this true to the original intent of the doctrine or not?…. The definition of monogenesis, which allows for interbreeding in the deep past, is a recovery of the doctrine, not a redefinition (118).”
My observations is that you rely on subjective concepts like “deep past” and “textual humans” to fit together the pieces of your theory. You claim in your book that your definitions of monogenism/polygenism correct the error of others (who those others are is unclear to me. Do you mean Ken Ham?). Now that is an important claim. Yet, I find your definitions of monogenism and polygenism historically inadequate. You write:
“Monogenesis means an origin by genealogical descent from one couple (120).”
The first problem is that this definition builds your theory of “genealogical” Adam INTO the definition of monogenism. But if as you claim your theory is new, then how in the world can this definition entail the various theories of the 19th century? Let me give one example. I don’t think your definition fits the monogenetic theory of men like Alexander Winchel. He definitely rejected the theory that human origins was tied to a single couple. If there was such a couple, in his view they would have only been the ancestors of the Jews alone and not all humans.
You say, “Polygenesis, literally, means an origin from a large population, not a single couple (120).”
Based on my research, this is not accurate. For example, some polygenists argued there are separate Adams and Eves for each race. The origin, they said, was not “large populations” but specially created couples. I could go on, but this one example does illustrates why your definition does not fit the historical context for the broad spectrum of polygenic theories. I was glad you referenced David Livingstone’s book since I find his work exceptional. At the same time, I was shocked to see that in your survey of the history of polygenism you only gave him 1 footnote. You did cite yourself 13 times in the book (which is fine), but some meaningful engagement with Livingstone would have helped refine your thinking.
Now, some of your confusion is understandable because the historical waters get really muddy when it comes to the many competing views of human origins. This is especially true for people who have not had the chance to read from the primary sources. In writing for my PhD, I have read more than 50 primary sources from different 19th century authors alone and could still find a new one every day if I tried. There are a plethora of people with conflicting ideas which often blurs the line between monogenism and polygenism.
Don’t get me wrong. I realize your expertise is in genetics, so I am not expecting you to write like an historian. But if you claim to be an authority for correcting the historical record, then I would have expected to see some significant interaction with primary sources. You seem to rely on Ken Ham as your foil since you cite about 5 of his books. Now it’s possible what you wrote helped correct Ham’s work, but he is hardly the gold standard for scholarship. Still, almost all of your citations regarding the history of polygenism/monogemism are from secondary sources from within the last 40 years. Your book has only a handful of sources between 1950 and 1964. You do make one brief mention of Kepler’s 1609 work and Augustine’s City of God. However, the only primary source from the 19th century I noted is Henry Kendall who, as you admit, had no significant influence on theories of human origins. And yes, he is one 19th century source who argued that after around 26 generations everyone is related to everyone else. That is an interesting find. So I applaud the interdisciplinary work you did. It is not easy and I am glad for the contribution to the discussion. We need more of it. That sad, for me to buy into your definitions I’d need to see a deeper engagement with the primary sources.
Consequently, it is my educated opinion that your work does not provide adequate definitions for monogensis/polygensis. What you wrote does not fit the history I have studied and your definitions rely far too much on modern sources. That Josh, reflects my disagreement and not a misunderstanding of your work as it is written.
Swamidass
On monogenesis, I’d emphasize I’m giving a simplified introduction to non experts, from a non expert in historical theology. The complaint about footnotes is hard to take seriously, as he is prominent discussed in the text, and I state that much of a full chapter is summarizing his work.
For a more expert consideration of monogenesis, I point to Ken Kemp. Have you read his review of the GAE? And his article on monogenesis?
He would argue that the GAE affirms both (non racist) polygenesis and monogenesis at the same time, and that Catholic doctrine primarily demands affirmation that we all descend from AE. I found his comments elucidating.
As for the “subjective” notion of textual humans, that’s just a recovery (not my invention) of one historically important objective definition of human: AE and their descendants, which I justify with a particular set of Scriptural arguments. You can disagree with the idea, but it isn’t an ambiguous gloss and I didn’t invent it either. It isn’t any more subjective than other definitions used, though it isn't visible to genetic science.
As for “deep past”, did I I even use that phrase? I doubt it, but perhaps you could find a reference, or not.
Setting these real issues in your analysis aside, I'm glad you are entering the conversation. The ASA conference (virtual) is coming up soon, and I'm discussing aspects of the GAE in response to Livingstone there. Also, the book was discussed at ETS and AAR. Perhaps as you clarify your response, you can help us map out better ways to engage with evolutionary science with a paper of your own. I'll look forward to seeing it.
J.R. Miller (1st Reply)
Hi Josh, thanks for your response. I will try to briefly address a couple of your concerns.
You wrote:
"On monogenesis, I’d emphasize I’m giving a simplified introduction to non experts, from a non expert in historical theology."
Simplified is fine, but that does not address the critique of why I think your definitions fall short. Do they mesh with Kemp? I'll take your work on that, but he is not the only scholar in the field. By way of contrast, I offered a very simple definition in my original post that both makes sense to non-experts and is far more in line with the historical sources.
You wrote,
"For a more expert consideration of monogenesis, I point to Ken Kemp. Have you read his review of the GAE?"
I understand the need to point me to others if direct engagement on the topic is beyond your current study. Although since he is not a part of this conversation, I will stick to the analysis of your writing. That said, I will check out his review. Thanks for the tip.
You wrote,
"The complaint about footnotes is hard to take seriously, as he is prominent discussed in the text,"
That's a rather dismissive comment Josh... hardly the stuff of peaceful science. Suggesting my critique is laughable may be a useful tactic for avoiding the substance of my observation, but it’s hardly a scholarly responsive. Your book lacks proper engagement with primary historical sources. This, IMHO, is a critical weakness in your argument. If others have done the work, that is fine, but from what I can tell my analysis of your book stands.
You wrote,
"You can disagree with the idea, but it isn’t an ambiguous gloss and I didn’t invent it either. "
That is a bit of a straw man brother. First, my claim regarding your use of "textual humans" is not that you "invented it"... where did I ever use those words? My claim is that your over-reliance on others people's work without direct engagement (or a demonstrable understanding) of the primary sources created gaps in your argument.
Second, the word I used to describe your use of "textual humans" was subjective, not ambiguous. They are not synonyms. I doubt you would intentionally misconstrue my argument to make your own point, so I can only assume that you don't understand the difference. I can explain my point in more detail if you like.
You wrote,
"As for “deep past”, did I I even use that phrase? I doubt it, but perhaps you could find a reference, or not."
Sure.. here on page 98:
"In the deep past, however, the situation is more uncertain. "
On page 118:
"The definition of monogenesis, which allows for interbreeding in the deep past, is a recovery of the doctrine, not a redefinition."
Again on page 183:
"Without this larger narrative, however, traditional accounts struggle to engage what scientists are discovering about our deep past, and this is a major challenge."
I can cite several more examples if you like. And that does not include the plethora of references to "deep tradition" and "deep time". LOL... you love that word deep. If you need me to do more free research for you, just let me know :-)
As to my writing projects related to this topic. I have done my share of presentations on related issues at ETS (regional and national), Society of Christian Philosophers, and EPS. My recent journal publication critiquing Walton's OT hermeneutic addresses some of the exegetical issues relevant to your argument that you do not fully address in the book. I'd also point you to my last thesis on the topic of Hebrew cosmology and Ancient Near East mythology. The study is highly relevant for biblical studies and I am working to republish this soon as a textbook.
My PhD, however, is where most of my time is focused right now. My dissertation offers a "deep engagement" with the entire topic of human origins, the Darwinian assumption of animal to human evolution, the philosophy of human personhood, and the moral importance of A&E as progenitors of all humans (not just textual humans). I'm closing in on 100,000 words and 370 sources so its quite extensive. Assuming I can finish this fall, I hope to have the content revised for publication next year.
If you are making a formal invitation to present at a future even, just give me a heads up and I will do what I can.
Thanks for asking and engaging on this post.
J.R. Miller (2nd Reply after reading Kemp’s article)
Thanks for reminding me about Kemp. I read his article years ago early on in my research. We even had a brief email exchange in 2019 about your book, but I had not seen his review.
Since you rely on Kemp for your framework, and you mentioned his 2011 journal article, I thought I would quote something here. Kemp outlines his theory and concludes:
"This theory is monogenetic with respect to theologically human beings but polygenetic with respect to the biological species. Thus, the distinction resolves the contradiction (232).”
So Kemp makes my point... his theory—which you use as the framework for yours—is polygenic in material terms, but only monogenic in a theological or spiritualized way.
I checked my notes on this as well. I won't repeat Kemp's concerns expressed to me privately via email, but I will say that based on our conversations I am confident in my critique. Your argument for a polyphyletic version of monogenesis (at least given Kemp's definitions of monogenism and polygenism) is a logical impossibility.
I also found some interesting points in Kemp's review article that you so kindly shared. I find his two main critiques interesting:
First, building on the work of others, he [Swamidass] offered scientific answers to some of questions which I had not been able to answer in any detail. Second, he offered a narrative of the origin of the human race that differs in some important respects from my own, and which, moreover, is not in all respects compatible with Catholic doctrine.
His first point, is what I wrote in my original post. You build your case by relying on the work of others and then add in your scientific bit. I simply go a step further to point out that your lack of engagement with primary sources results in some of the gaps I see in your theory.
Regarding his second point, Kemp explains:
"There are, it seems to me, two important respects in which Swamidass’s account is inconsistent with Catholic theology. The first is with respect to its anthropology, the second is with respect to the nature of sin."
So my theological concern is from a Protestant side, Kemp's from the Roman Catholic, but we both see problems.
I am also pleased to see Kemp's critique of how you define certain terms.
"Swamidass develops a different scenario, which avoids the bestiality objection but, as we will see, at considerable theological cost. Swamidass divides the relevant population somewhat differently. His fundamental distinction is between Adam and Eve (who are “inside the Garden”) and their descendants, on the one hand, and “people outside the Garden,” i.e., the other biologically human beings with whom they interbred. These are “fully human,” at least “in important ways” (149), though his terminology is a bit unsettled, for elsewhere he suggests that they not be called “humans” (rather than just “people”) outside the Garden (134) [emphasis mine]."
I agree with Kemp's critique that your definition of "human" is unsettled. I say some of your terms are subjective, Kemp uses the word unsettled... we are in the same ballpark.
Kemp, like me, expressed concern about how you use the term "ancestor". He writes:
"He [Swamidass] recognizes that Adam and Eve need not be our most recent universal common ancestors. For the reasons given above, however, Catholic theology will be guided here not merely by genealogical issues, but by evidence of rational behavior. Adam and Eve must be the ancestors of all rational human beings on earth with any biological relation to us."
This is what I wrote in my post above, you use the term ancestor in a way that is different from the biblical meaning and theology is the proper corrective for that error. So here again I think Kemp is right on target.
Thanks for the article link, it did help :-)
Swamidass (Final Comment)
I’m sure our paths would cross in the future. Not offering a formal invitation at the moment. In the mean time, I’m afraid you’ve really misread me on several point. The misconceptions here are very strong.
J.R. Miller (Final Comment)
I guess folks will have to decide based on our exchange where the misconceptions lie. Right now I fell like I'm playing Inigo Montoya to your Vizzini.
PDF of the Entire Thread
Coming Soon
Based on Josh’s citation of Ken Kemp, I eventually conducted an interview with him to discuss the terms polygenesis and monogenesis. Kemp’s responses were devistating to Josh’s argument. Subscribe to my Substack and you’ll get notification when the interview posts.