Does Science Deny a Historical Adam and Eve? Part 2

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this article yesterday, I’m not a scientist. I study theology and its relationships with science and philosophy, but I’m familiar enough with the landscape to know that many well-respected scientists and philosophers believe there’s more than enough room for a literal Adam and Eve. Furthermore, some are confident that science actually points to the historical pair as well. In what follows I’ll try to lay out a little of that landscape as we continue discussing the objections some people have to a literal Adam and Eve.

Objection #2: “Modern humans are hundreds of thousands of years old.”

When biologists discuss human origins, they believe that all our DNA can be traced to a single ancestor on both male and female sides, dubbed “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y Chromosome Adam.” Unlike creationists, however, they believe that these figures lived among at least 10,000 other humans in a more distant past (more on this below in Objection #3). When scientists try to figure out when these two figures lived, they count the mutation rates that allegedly happen per generation and try to work backward to an original ancestor. The only problem is that what they find fits more with the Bible than it does the evolutionary story of humanity.

Geneticists use two primary methods to test mutation rates: pedigree- and phylogeny-based studies. The first method looks at observed mutation across multiple generations, the second tries to guess the mutation rates based on the assumption that we diverged from primates millions of years ago. Scientists from all backgrounds admit that these kinds of dating techniques aren’t perfect and there’s still lots to learn, but something that’s become increasingly clear is that pedigree studies tend to conflict with phylogenetic ones. The mutation rates we can actually observe from generation to generation point more towards a historical Adam and Eve than to evolutionary monkey business.

As the author of one secular study put it, “Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve” — the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people — lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old.”

Another study done a few years later confirmed the same thing:

One of these anomalies is the discrepancy between mtDNA mutation rates observed in evolutionary timescales (e.g. in dating the divergence between two species) and those measured within family pedigrees [27]. If the high mutation rates seen in some human pedigrees were used to calculate the age of our most-recent female common ancestor, she would have lived just 6,000 years ago, a date more consistent with Biblical Eve than Mitochondrial Eve.

In other words, human DNA tends to mutate a lot faster than would be expected if our modern species branched off from primates sometime deep in the distant past. To be clear, these studies still deny the biblical timeline, even if the evidence is in their face. But the fact that known mutation rates conflict with phylogenetic assumptions is fairly clear. Much ink has been spilled trying to reconcile the data with evolutionary timelines, but to this day all the efforts still seem to be lost in speculation.

Objection #3: “Humans have too much genetic diversity to originate from a single pair.”

Some scientists believe that human DNA is so diverse that humans had to have arisen out of a population of at least 10,000 people — not a single pair. Genetic diversity is supposed to be the nail in the coffin for a literal Adam and Eve, and scientists like Dr. Dennis Venema are adamant about it.

Venema works for BioLogos, a think tank started by Frances Collins that is devoted to reconciling evolution and Christianity. His work has ignited a firestorm of controversy throughout the Evangelical world and influenced many academics. In 2011 his claims were widely shared through an NPR article:

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple … given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can’t get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

But scientists of all stripes, even evolutionists themselves, have contested the dogmatic claims behind Venema’s work. Even some evolutionary scientists claimed his science contained outright falsehoods and unwarranted assumptions. The pushback was so strong that BioLogos quietly deleted most of Venema’s most well-known articles.

While Venema and other evolutionary scientists still see difficulty reconciling a historical Adam and Eve with genetic diversity, a number of well-respected Christian scientists (from old-age and young-earth backgrounds) say that genetic diversity isn’t a problem if we assume it was front-loaded into Adam and Eve to begin with. Scientists like Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute, as well as John Sanford, an accomplished geneticist out of Cornell University, have put out models with different timescales making a strong case for a historical Adam and Eve.

So even though Venema and many of his colleagues are die-hard deniers, not all scientists are. Many actually look to the diversity and mutation rates in our genes as strong evidence for a historical Adam and Eve. It all depends on the prior assumptions that scientists use to interpret data.

Carl Trueman, one of today’s most well-known theologians, called the controversy surrounding a historical Adam and Eve “the biggest doctrinal question facing the current generation.” If we lose a literal Adam and Eve, we lose the Gospel. Some Christian apologists have already started denying the concept of original sin, calling it “Augustinian Biblical.”

We can’t underestimate how deeply this affects our understanding of salvation. The cross is God’s response to a historical Adam and Eve falling from grace, not a metaphorical example. Take away the history and might as well deny the cross.

The science, as I’ve hoped to show, isn’t always as cut and dried as we’ve been told. While many believe that Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly be real historical figures, others look to our genetics as strong evidence for biblical accuracy. This is a time for the Church to exercise wisdom and be mindful of how worldviews can influence what “the science” is really telling us.

Angelos Kyriakides is a husband, father, pastor, and apologist who lives in Southern Ontario, Canada. He holds a master’s degree in Theological Studies from Regent College and has a special focus on secularization, science, and faith. You can catch more of his content at www.therightstory.org.