S. Joshua Swamidass of WUSTL recently received a 1-year grant from the Templeton Foundation for a hypothesis that he calls “the genealogical Adam” and to build his website “Peaceful Science,” which he likes to call a ‘fifth voice’ alongside Answers in Genesis, BioLogos, the Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe. https://www.templeton.org/grant/the-genealogical-adam-and-peaceful-science.
In this thread I show how Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’ approach is both non-scientific and unoriginal, that is, the notion is already available in the literature. Swamidass cites only 2 scholars (one a retired physician and the other a professor of law) as precursors to his work in the article he wrote (2018) in an evangelical Christian journal for scientists (PSCF). He then added the name of another person who is actually a biologist in a blog comment as a possible precursor to his work. Yet a quick internet search reveals over 8,000 prior uses of “Adam’s genealogy”. Even further if one types in ‘Adam & Eve Genealogy’ (without quotes), one gets almost 5 million hits! It thus does not seem that Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’ is anything new, but rather just recycled.
The duo of “Adam’s genealogy” is only slightly different than Swamidass’ “genealogical Adam.” Is Swamidass trying to do the same thing that Charles Darwin and Alfred R. Wallace seem to have done by not citing their precursor Patrick Matthew, who had already used the term ‘natural process of selection’ (1831), and instead claiming to have produced an original new theory of the ‘origin of species’ on their own? Does Swamidass think that simply coining a new concept duo alone is sufficient to claim precedent as a new ‘scientific’ theory about human origins?
Swamidass writes: “A question about ‘descent’ can be a question about genealogies, and genealogical questions should be answered with genealogical science.” (PSCF) ‘Can be’ indeed, yet the ‘scientificity’ of (the field of) genealogy is openly questionable and is instead commonly referred to not as a ‘science,’ but rather simply as ‘family history.’ One doesn’t study genealogy at universities (http://www.senecacollege.ca/ce/humanities/genealogy.html) and natural science programs do not exist in which to acquire a degree in the field.
Nevertheless, Swamidass currently persists in trying to redefine natural science to include genealogy within it, stating that, “[w]ithout contradicting the findings of genetic science, genealogical science gives a different answer to the question [of human origins].” (PSCF) Why is he insisting to try to to turn genealogy into a ‘natural science’ when he is not a ‘genealogical scientist’? And is he next going to start applying what he calls ‘genealogical science’ to other species too, in his bid to seek ‘peace IN natural science’, but not beyond it? My guess is that Swamidass is aiming for some kind social and cultural legitimacy for an ideological position that he won’t openly name, yet which superficially underwrites his recent emergence on the scene in science, philosophy and theology/worldview conversations after joining and then noisily exiting from the BioLogos Foundation after a public spat with then Biology Fellow Dennis Venema.
Swamidass recently responded to a critic of his approach at PS titled “The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?”, by stating: “Of course, the hypothesis of Adam and Eve is a theological hypothesis. No one disputes this, or at least they shouldn’t.” https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-theological-hypothesis-of-adam-in-science/4437/14 Yet Swamidass himself has spoken about what he calls “the Science of Adam,” saying, “This last year, 2017 till now, we have been reworking the science of Adam,” which seems to put him in a dispute with … himself. http://peacefulscience.org/reworking-adam/ How can he hold this rather apparent contradiction in his own mind and at the same time pretend to others that there is no contradiction in what he writes? Swamidass appears to want to have his cake and eat it too in framing his particular non-mainstream evangelical brand of ‘natural science & religion’ discourse, perhaps as a result of having been raised in a YECist atmosphere.
As anyone who has followed my comments about ‘Peaceful Science’ knows, aside from his thread manipulations in the Discourse system and sometimes bullying behaviour (confirmed at TSZ through his recent rule-violating actions here), I have major concerns with Swamidass’ seemingly contradictory and oftentimes confusing approach as a form of reactionary appeasement to the YECist community he represents religiously, if not scientifically. And it’s not like people didn’t already know that “Genetics is not Genealogy,” as he writes in the PSCF paper. The lack of a coherent philosophical basis for his project appears to lead Dr. Swamidass into making over-generalised and/or fuzzy statements that simply do not stand up under closer scrutiny. Unfortunately, to such legitimate criticism he usually just responds with a ‘nobody here but us natural scientists’ refrain, as if that supposedly solves the problem automatically by appeal to authority.
Swamidass states in the Templeton announcement: “We see an opportunity to restructure the [sic] conversation on origins, to be more inclusive and grounded in science.” Yet by categorically avoiding philosophy as a bridging discipline that seeks wisdom beyond empirical research alone and by trying to turn conversations about origins into a ‘natural science-first’ affair, Swamidass instead displays what appears as ideological natural scientism, the view that natural scientific knowledge ‘counts’ as more important than other types of knowledge. This, combined with his sometimes bombastic evangelical zeal, means that Swamidass comes across as belittling toward non-scientists (cf. ‘non-methodological naturalists’ in his awkward usage of the term) and thus runs the risk of actually distorting and harming conversations about origins, rather than enriching them.
While there is surely something positive to say about Swamidass’ attempt to make ‘peace’ between non-mainstream evangelicals and natural scientists on the topic of ‘origins’, which I find refreshing and much needed especially in its oftentimes toxic US variant of discourse, there is much still misleading, unexplained or just not yet openly admitted in Swamidass’ ambitious neo-creationist partially-scientific project. We’ll have to see what happens over the next 10 months of the project and if he eventually comes around to drop his stubborn ideological insistence upon ‘methodological naturalism’ as if it is a ‘strictly scientific’ approach, rather than a misnamed ideology to be avoided for important and valid reasons.
In summary:
- Is there anything new in so-called ‘genealogical Adam’?
- How much ‘science’ is there in Swamidass’ ‘genealogical science’ and how much is actually just ideology or worldview parading as natural science?
- Will genealogical approaches to other species be considered?
I’m baffled by the need in some to account for an ancient, well, can I say, myth. The Genesis creation stories have no relevance to Christian ethics. I don’t understand why some Christian literalists tie themselves up in knots over it.
In a year he will either have something to show for it or will have learnt an important lesson.
I didn’t read anything in that article which refutes the science Joshua Swamidass has presented. The Gregory doth protest too much, methinks.
The science is pretty simple. We can all have a specific ancestor in our family tree without losing all of the genetic diversity from the population that ancestor belonged to. Some people have argued that the Adam and Eve scenario would require all modern genetic variation to come from just those two people resulting in much less variation than we see in modern populations. Dr. Swamidass has demonstrated that this isn’t true. The current genetic variation in the human population is consistent with a continuous populations of tens of thousands of individuals, but it doesn’t rule out the possibility of everyone having Adam as one of their ancestors in their family tree.
The point is simple: we knew/believed/accepted this before Swamidass came along and said so. Do you disagree?
Who knew? My guess is, less than one percent of the world population. Maybe less than a tenth of a percent.
My point is simple. You have not shown how Dr. Swamidass’ conclusions are unscientific.
T_aquaticus,
That’s fine, as I’m in no way either questioning or challenging his ‘strictly natural scientific’ work, so your point misses the main point. Would you nevertheless admit it’s also possible to reach those same ‘conclusions’ without using ‘natural science’ at all? Simply put, re: “the possibility of everyone having Adam as one of their ancestors in their family tree,” we knew/believed/accepted this before Swamidass came along and said so.
In the article, you stated:
“In this thread I show how Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’ approach is both non-scientific and unoriginal, . . .”
Perhaps you should correct that?
I would say that a pre-scientific Adam is a possibility, but not a necessary conclusion. It is an article of faith rather than a logical necessity.
I’m thinking that a DNA based Adam is a rather new idea in popular science.
The Biblical Adam is a population of one. The scientific Adam is one of a significant sized population. Tens of thousands.
T_aquaticus,
I asked, “Would you nevertheless admit it’s also possible to reach those same ‘conclusions’ without using ‘natural science’ at all?” Instead of answering directly, you just turned around & asked me a question, apparently in defense of Swamidass’ ‘genealogical science’ (though it’s not clear to me if that’s your aim). Sorry, the lack of reciprocity is not helpful.
Perhaps Swamidass could correct himself & stop referring to ‘genealogical science’ or ‘the science of Adam’? At least play fairly please, T-aquaticus, if you’re going to try to defend Swamidass & his scientism. If Swamidass hadn’t written that stuff, then this thread would not have been written.
If you are going to claim that something is not scientific, then actually demonstrate how it is not scientific. As it stands, all you have is bluster.
So it seems T_aquaticus is disputing Joshua, though Joshua says he shouldn’t? Ah, the irony! = P
In case you need help about ‘genealogy’ since apparently, though you won’t say so directly yourself, unlike Joshua, then start at this common resource. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy After reading that, is genealogy in your view a ‘strictly natural scientific’ field?
The topic you raise is one of demarcation, i.e. ‘science’ vs. ‘non-science’ (or proto-science, quasi-science, fake science, etc.). It would be unwise to think biologists are leaders on this topic when they’re usually way down the list in terms of knowledge & credibility. Joshua *wants* genealogy to be a ‘science’ & calls it a ‘science.’ Does that in itself make you believe genealogy qualifies as ‘strictly scientific,’ or do you have your own argumentation &/or evidence to provide?
The question is if the Genealogical Adam concept is scientific. Dr. Swamidass states that we can have both a genealogic Adam and genetic variation consistent with a constant and continuous large population. That is scientific. The science is correct.
Just curious, you’re not a ‘scientist’ are you, T_aquaticus?
Of note, there are 3 questions listed in summary above, in case you actually want to have a conversation instead of a monologue.
Gregory,
Is the Bio Logos claim that all humans could not be the result of an original Adam and Eve a scientific one? Isn’t Swamidass in bounds attacking this claim as not solid science.
Can you have a discussion instead of a monologue?
The scientific claim made by Dr. Swamidass is that everyone can have Adam as an ancestor while still having genetic variation consistent with a large and continuous human population. How is this not scientific? As another example, it is estimated that 25% of some larger European groups have Charlemagne as one of their ancestors. The same can be said of some Chinese populations, where 8% are direct male descendants of Genghis Khan.
To your questions:
1. I am not aware of anyone else who has made an argument for everyone sharing Adam as an ancestor while still preserving the genetic variation found in the human population in which Adam first emerged. Are you?
2. The science is discussed above, and it isn’t based on ideology or worldview.
3. The same approach works for all other diploid species.
So an original pair of specially created polar bears who intermingled with a brown bear population is scientific?
This may help:
“By asking how recently the people of Europe would have a common ancestor, he constructed a mathematical model that incorporated the number of ancestors an individual is presumed to have had (each with two parents), and given the current population size, the point at which all those possible lines of ascent up the family trees would cross. The answer was merely 600 years ago. Sometime at the end of the 13th century lived a man or woman from whom all Europeans could trace ancestry, if records permitted (which they don’t).”
http://nautil.us/issue/56/perspective/youre-descended-from-royalty-and-so-is-everybody-else
So both affirming common descent and denying it. Interesting.
Common descent is different than a population bottleneck of a single couple. Pedigree collapse to a common ancestor is also different than DNA sequence coalescence. Some of your ancestors have none of their DNA in your genome due to how diploid organisms create gametes. This is why genealogy differs from genetics.
Alan:
A few reasons why (some) Christians feel the need to account for Adam:
1. Inerrantists are committed to the idea that the entire Bible is correct and trustworthy. Acknowledging the falsehood of the Genesis account leads to a slippery slope on which the truth of the rest of the Bible comes into question.
2. Some Christians think that Jesus himself took the Genesis account literally. If they admit that Genesis is false, they’re admitting that Jesus was wrong about something.
3. The doctrine of the Fall derives from the Genesis account, and for many (most?) Christians is the reason we need a Savior. This is particularly true for those who believe in “original sin” — the notion that Adam’s sin is somehow transmitted through heredity to us, his descendants.
See this passage, for example:
BioLogos, in so far as they (collectively & individually) claim there ‘could not have been two’ (i.e. could only be @10,000) has been based on the natural science available, in particular Venema. Kathyrn Applegate, if I recall correctly, holds a different position. Swamidass was certainly ‘within bounds’ in my view to challenge Venema’s natural scientific claim, just as Ann Gauger is right to do so also, even if she’s an ideologically confused IDist. I’ve been challenging the same claim from a philosophical and theological perspective (there had to have been a first, sacred scripture uses the names ‘Adam’ & ‘Eve’) for several years in this conversation before Swamidass came along. That part’s not a new challenge. However, the claim that there is ‘strictly scientific evidence’ for the possibility of such a bottleneck appears to be new, other than perhaps among so-called ‘creation scientists’.
What Richard Buggs did was new & apparently long overdue. http://richardbuggs.com/index.php/2018/04/18/adam-and-eve-lessons-learned/
Please clarify, colewd, I accept & believe in a historical Adam & Eve as described in sacred scriptures. Joshua knows this is my position from posting at BioLogos (under the same name as here). To suggest that natural science can or even should attempt to ‘date’ them is biting off a lot more than one can chew. Are we on the same page with that?
I don’t mind what Swamidass is trying to do. In fact, I applaud it & find it both refreshing & welcome in its ‘intention’, if not in its delivery. It’s his sloppy language, weak philosophy & scientism that is troubling and off-putting. And he has treated me with both contempt, condescension & most recently in an intentional hurtful way, ignoring my careful and clear critique of his position.
What’s different or the same between many times written ‘Adam’s genealogy’ & ‘genealogical Adam’ in your view?
T_aquaticus,
In so far as it depends on genealogy. Are you suggesting you consider genealogy a ‘natural science?’ Please answer this question, because Swamidass has used the concept duo ‘genealogical science,’ which is non-standard. If you do, then please start using the ‘J-‘ word here, which in almost any case is currently bound to lead to Guano.
Joshua has already admitted he heard about Adam & Eve first as a YEC *before* he was scientifically trained. Yet now he’s actively attempting to ‘scientise’ Adam & Eve with his choice of language – the Science of Adam – which is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
1. I had thought it was the standard, long accepted view of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Has Joshua read their views about this before? He cited Jon Garvey (retired MD who thinks I ‘outed’ his collaborator here at TSZ when I didn’t) & David Opderbeck (law professor), who shares almost exactly the same view on this topic as I do, yet who isn’t trying to ‘scientise’ the conversation.
2. Well, as a biologist, like Swamidass you seem to lack much if any actual awareness of ideology, so that’s likely why you’ve answered that way. If you’re going to claim above that ‘genealogy’ is a ‘science,’ then you’re on a slippery slope to all kinds of quasi-scientific ideas.
3. Yet ‘genealogy’ is supposed to have to do with human beings. Is this a kind of species egalitarianism approach you’re suggesting?
You can make philosophical arguments about the Sun moving about the Earth, but the scientific evidence still supports Heliocentrism. The scientific evidence clearly doesn’t support a bottleneck of 2 humans 10,000 years ago, a conclusion which Buggs and Gauger agree with. You can reject science if you want, but the conclusion is still scientific. Also, there is no such thing as supernatural science, in case you were wondering.
You can disagree with the theology and philosophy of Genealogic Adam, but the science behind it is still solid.
T_aquaticus,
It is now obvious after more than once asking that you will go out of your way not to answer my simple, clear, direct question about the scientificity of genealogy, so it’s time to stop replying to you. It reveals a lot about a ‘friendly atheist biologist’ that he wishes to go along with Swamidass trying to ‘scientise’ genealogy.
If, however, you are indeed newly convinced that two historical persons ‘Adam’ & ‘Eve’ are now possible whereas before reading Swamidass in your view they were not, then perhaps you’re another step on your own way towards ultimately rejecting atheism, and I would consider that regardless of how it happened, a success. Good for you T_aquaticus! In that case, refer to genealogy as ‘science’ all you want if what it means is that theology has now become a live option for you to reconsider, even beyond just ‘the Science of Adam.’
Genealogy is science, but it can differ from genetics, as Joshua was correct to point out. General relativity is not genetics, but it is science. Something doesn’t have to be genetics in order to be scientific. Scientists model genealogy all of the time as part of their scientific work.
You have never put forward scientific concepts from “flood geology” or scientific arguments from Dr. Wise? Isn’t flood geology an attempt to find scientific evidence that is consistent with a recent global flood? Aren’t YEC’s continually looking for scientific evidence for a young Earth? Perhaps you should consider why you are singling out Joshua.
All Joshua has done is find a model that isn’t falsified by scientific evidence and also results in all humans having Adam and Eve as their ancestors. Why is this so dangerous? How is it any more dangerous than Galileo supporting Heliocentrism?
Galileo ignored what the pontiffs had said about the placement of the Earth and Sun in the heavens. Do you worship pontiffs, or God?
SLiM 3 is a computer model of genealogy that scientists use to model population genetics. Genealogy can be science.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msy228/5229931
I am saying that the same science applies to all species.
= Me-Scientist, Me-Biologist, Me-Know, Other People-Stupid = Scientism
Like a hammer looking for nails
“Genealogy can be science.”
So peaceful in scientistic ignorance… = P
I see that Joshua Swamidass acknowledges that at the time of his ancestral pair, there were other people alive. Furthermore he acknowledges that A&E may not have contributed any DNA to present-day people. (He’s unclear on how they might have transmitted the Original Sin. If it had to be transmitted with the genes, then we could hope to map which parts of the genome all came from A&E and then we would know where the OS is in the genome. Then we could think about genetic manipulation of it to become Original Virtue.)
With no DNA transmitted down to us from A&E, locating them in space and time would essentially be impossible. So he may be chasing a phantom there.
I am glad to see people citing Joe Chang’s papers on shared ancestors of all members of a human population (or of the human species). These are surprisingly recent, but one must realize that they are unlikely to have transmitted any DNA to us — they may be genealogical ancestors, but not genetic ancestors.
By contrast, any piece of our genome, such as the gene for malate dehydrogenase, has a common ancestor, a single individual back perhaps 800,000 to 1 million years ago. For different genes, these are different people. Hemoglobin Helga, Cytochrome Sy, Little Piece of Junk DNA June, etc. They did not all live at the same time and place.
I gave a talk on some of these issues to a local Tech Forum last year. You will find a video here with a PDF of the slide projection here. It came to the same conclusions as Graham Coop did. I was unaware of his work when I prepared that talk. You will find Graham’s blog about his work here. He has made some really wonderful graphics on these issues.
Great catch, Joe!
Your analysis simply shows how confused Swamidass is about his own beliefs…
I’m not a scholar but the “transfer of the original sin” was unlikely to be genetic otherwise Jesus would have inherited it…
Joe Felsenstein,
There’s another option, that he may be intentionally creating a phantom, calling it ‘genealogical science’ & stepping out of the way to say “believe whatever you want” about Adam & Eve. He believes in a historical Adam & Eve himself, while his ‘Science of Adam’ (and Eve) relativises his/their historicity.
Nevertheless as I said above, if people like ‘friendly atheist biologist’ T-aquaticus are convinced that a historical Adam & Eve are now simply ‘not impossible’ due to Swamidass’ scientific rhetoric trying to scientize genealogy, and thus may reconsider theological Adam & Eve, that’s the up-side in his approach. It’s a much different evangelical-oriented apologetic than IDism!
The downside I don’t think Swamidass has yet considered & likely won’t get much push-back about it from his fan-base at PS or from IDists like Gauger or Axe.
Gregory,
We are pretty much on the same page. Making the call on the existence of A and E is beyond to tools of science. Describing a detailed account of the origin of humans is also beyond the tools of science.
Not really. Science has conclusively shown to an exceptional degree of certainty that Adam and Eve never existed.
Well that surely depends on what you mean by a “detailed account”. If you want the life-story of every individual who ever lived going back to the common ancestor we share with chimps, then no you’re never going to get that. But is that really necessary to have a very well supported account of human origins?
colewd,
Thanks colewd, glad we largely agree about that.
I have to admit it’s a strange experience for me with Joshua, who I would like to support & yet who won’t allow serious criticism of ‘methodological naturalism’ & other ideologies he holds. Somehow it reminds me of when I lived in Eastern Europe & had conversations with people there about ‘scientific atheism’ & the way it’s advocates were so sure of themselves ‘scientifically’ that they wouldn’t allow other viewpoints their rightful place at the dialogue table. Indeed, those ‘voices’ were simply forced out so that ‘scientific atheism’ could take the primary seat.
Sometimes listening to Swamidass badgering people (“I want to know…”, “Do you or do you not…”) I hear an opposite echo of ‘scientific atheism’ in what he is promoting as ‘confessional science.’ This I find quite troubling and speaks to why I titled the thread ‘Peaceful Scientism.’ It’s something quite surprising in Swamidass that has caught me off guard, having faced up to ‘natural scientist bullies’ in the past from a rather different angle.
It’s good that you can get along with Swamidass at PS. He is indeed bringing some of the disparate largely evangelical community pieces together there, while critiquing the ID people (I guess this means you also) for their ‘strictly scientific’ claims quite sharply as he does it. Good wishes with your interactions there.
From the Templeton Foundation:
… we recently proposed The Genealogical Adam. Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, Adam and Eve, genealogical ancestors of us all, could have been de novo created in the Middle East, as recently as 6,000 years ago.
Are they freaking kidding ?
If its all privately funded, then just go away and don’t bother us again.
Rumraket,
Go to Swamidass’s blog and try to make this claim.
Why don’t we start with origin of the human splicing codes.
Depends on whether A&E are the only ancestors at that time in the past (the traditional biblical literalist view), or are just two of the people who lived then who happen to be ancestors of us all, with the other folks who were around then also contributing to our ancestry.
Swamidass wants to use the latter as the definition of A&E, and he calls this “Genealogical” Adam and Eve. He acknowledges that GA&E might have contributed no genes to us, even though they were our genealogical ancestors. Does science refute them? I would say, no, but also it cannot collect any information confirming them.
What science can refute is OFA&E (Old-Fashioned Adam and Eve).
It would be much easier if the faulty evolutionary assumptions were ignored…
Yes, I find that troubling.
Good thinking. Thus we have narrowed down the genetic provenance of OS to the Y chromosome. Jesus having gotten a special one different from any others.
I separate the ideology of the forum (ie its rules) from the problems with the attitudes that seem to be part of some individual posts.
I agree that some posts read as judgemental, but then there is the separate issue of trying to read emotion and motive from disembodied text.
You talk as if that’s the only thing stopping you. Well, ignore those assumptions and come to a conclusion about Adam and Eve already!
Out of interest, who is enforcing the usage of those faulty evolutionary assumptions? Can you name them? What are they?
If you can’t then on what basis do you make the quote statement?
Joe Felsenstein,
Ha! That was my first thought too. But that then leads to the conclusion that OS is only present in the male of the species. Now, the medieval church was pretty misogynistic, but that’s a chattel too far, I reckon. Women DO have souls, mate.
So OS must reside on an autosome, and the sinless allele is extremely rare (1 in a million, say).
As it happens, Mary was heterozygous and, you guessed it, …
Yes, but then we still have the problem of how the OS got into all descendants of GA&E if there were copies of that part of the DNA in the other ancestors of us. Did the OS preferentially segregate into the descendants, so we all have two copies of it? That is called “segregation distortion” and is an unusual phenomenon. The topic gets deeper and deeper and requires more and more Design Intervention.
Joe Felsenstein,
This is not clear at all without assumptions starting from a150 year old inference that is at best iffy at this point.
So a “real” biblical Adam and Eve are looking legitimate whereas Darwin’s idea is looking like it’s failing?
I would propose that somebody seriously holding that view is delusional and cannot be reasoned with.
Odd how they cleave to 2000 year old assumptions with no physical evidence whatsoever but reject others because they are 150 years old and a bit “iffy” where “iffy” is undefined.
I suspect “iffy” means “I don’t understand it” or “I understand it but reject it”.
It uses coalescents. Do you understand them? They are basically 40 years old.
However, I guess we must defer to your expertise.
Joe Felsenstein,
Does it use universal common descent as a working assumption? Does it assume genetic differences are due to mutations that are random with respect to fitness?
What’s wrong with that assumption?
Do you have an alternative assumption you could use? If so we can compare and contrast the outcomes and compare them to reality.