Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? What Does the Science Say?
In a previous post, I argued that Adam and Eve's historical existence is biblically affirmed and theologically necessary—but what about the evidence? Has science disproved their existence? Is the Genesis account just a quaint fairy tale invented by ancient Jews who were trying to figure out where they came from? What does the science actually say? First it must be noted that science doesn't say anything. Scientists do.
Scientists gather evidence and then interpret that evidence to form a conclusion.
Each scientist has certain pre-conceived biases, assumptions, and philosophical commitments. This is why different scientists can come to such radically diverse conclusions, even though they are working with the same evidence. This will be important to remember as you read through this post. Let's look at 3 different pieces of evidence and see how they might interact with the biblical account:
1. Out of AfricaHas science disproved the existence of a literal Adam and Eve? If you were to ask just about any scientist 30 years ago, they would say unequivocally, "Yes! Science has shown us that humans can be traced back not to one primordial couple, but to many diverse populations of archaic human forms from all over the globe." That is what is called the "multiregional hypothesis," and today it is rejected by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists.
What is now more widely accepted is what is called the "Out of Africa Hypothesis" which claims that modern humans first appeared 50,000 to 100,000 years ago in one regional location, East Africa. From there they spread throughout the globe.
What does this mean for Adam and Eve?
Although the Out of Africa Hypothesis certainly doesn't prove the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, it is definitely one step closer to agreement with the biblical account. The Bible teaches that when Adam and Eve were created, they were placed in the Garden of Eden. It's exact location is debated, but the Gihon River described in Genesis 2 flows out of Cush, which is most likely modern day Africa. Even if Eden didn't reach quite to Africa but was isolated to Mesopotamia, there is still no great challenge to the biblical narrative. Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden because of their sin, so biblically speaking, humanity's population growth would have happened outside the Garden of Eden anyway.
2. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal studies have allowed scientists to trace human origins to a single pair of humans—a single male and a single female. Naturally, scientists who are Christians are going to interpret this as evidence supporting the idea of a biblical Adam and Eve, while secular scientists aren't so convinced.
As recently as the early 2,000's, the general scientific consensus was that "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" existed roughly 100,000 years apart. This would certainly make it difficult to prove that they were a couple! However, recent challenges to that consensus bring them much closer together. Biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana wrote:
Now, based on better estimates of mutation rates for mitochondrial DNA, use of larger regions of the Y chromosome, and inclusion of rare Y chromosome variants, the dates for mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam converge around 150,000 years ago.
What does this mean for Adam and Eve?
This evidence certainly can't prove that the biblical Adam and Eve existed, but it does not disagree with or disprove the Genesis account. The Bible doesn't tell us when Adam and Eve were created but very clearly communicates that they were created.
3. Primordial pair or population?
Based on the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam evidence, many evolutionary biologists conclude that there must have been many "Adams" and many "Eves"—and that this DNA evidence only tells us about two out of many of the first humans. Based on scientific data regarding genetic diversity, they estimate that the first humans were never less than a population of a few thousand people—not a single pair.
The main problem with this conclusion is that it is entirely based on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is true. It is what is called a "theory-laden" hypothesis, in which scientists assume that humans evolved from a population because that is how evolution works.
(Remember those biases and philosophical assumptions?) In other words, because in the evolutionary paradigm populations evolve—not individuals, it couldn't be just a single pair—as the evidence seems to suggest.
What does this mean for Adam and Eve?
There are many reasons to reject the idea that humanity evolved from a large population, rather than a single pair (5 such reasons are articulated here), so there is no disagreement with the biblical narrative.
Conclusion
Has science proved that Adam and Eve existed? No. Has it proved that they couldn't have existed? Definitely not. Thirty years ago, scientists believed that humanity evolved from various populations found all around the globe. Today they mostly agree that they evolved from one population, located in Africa. Less than twenty years ago, scientists claimed that the genetic evidence that traces humanity to one male and one female showed them to have lived about 100,000 years apart. Since then, studies have shown that gap to be much narrower.
Although we certainly can't claim that science proves the existence of Adam and Eve, the trajectory of science seems to be going in the direction of the biblical narrative. The main point? Over the years, science has actually brought us closer to the plausibility of a literal Adam and Eve and not the other way around.
[If you want to learn more about this fascinating subject, check out Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana's book, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity.]
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to have my weekly blog posts delivered directly to your inbox.
barry
4/24/2017 03:21:06 pm
"In a previous post, I argued that Adam and Eve's historical existence is biblically affirmed and theologically necessary—but what about the evidence? Has science disproved their existence?"
——–Barry: Has science disproved the appearances of Mary at Fatima? Should we believe a hypothesis merely because science hasn't disproved it?
"Is the Genesis account just a quaint fairy tale invented by ancient Jews who were trying to figure out where they came from?"
———Barry: No, it is a story the ancient Hebrews borrowed from earlier pagan myths and changed around to their unique liking. The Epic of Atrahasis is from the 18th century b.c., at least 400 years before Moses. There's a reason why Genesis has more in common with the pagan myths of ancient Mesopotamia such as Atrahasis, and less in common with the pagan myths of ancient Australia such as the Rainbow Serpent. It's called cultural influence.
"Scientists gather evidence and then interpret that evidence to form a conclusion. Each scientist has certain pre-conceived biases, assumptions, and philosophical commitments. This is why different scientists can come to such radically diverse conclusions, even though they are working with the same evidence. This will be important to remember as you read through this post."
———Barry: Christians read the bible and then interpret that evidence to form a conclusion. Each Christian has certain pre-conceived biases, assumptions, and philosophical commitments. This is why different Christians can come to such radically diverse conclusions, even though they are working with the same Bible.
"Has science proved that Adam and Eve existed? No. Has it proved that they couldn't have existed? Definitely not."
———-Barry: science cannot prove that miracle claims in non-Christian religions are false, but that hardly justifies thinking those claims should be taken seriously. Otherwise, how much time do you recommend that atheists spend evaluating the miracle claims of Mormonism, Catholicism, Hinduism?
"Thirty years ago, scientists believed that humanity evolved from various populations found all around the globe. Today they mostly agree that they evolved from one population, located in Africa. Less than twenty years ago, scientists claimed that the genetic evidence that traces humanity to one male and one female showed them to have lived about 100,000 years apart. Since then, studies have shown that gap to be much narrower."
———-Barry: Christians will believe one theological hypothesis for years, then decide later that they had been misinterpreting the bible the entire time, and yet they supposedly have a God guiding them in bible study, Who thinks bible study is more important than scientific discovery. Changing of opinion plagues Christians, their scholars and apologists, no less than it plagues the sciences.
"Although we certainly can't claim that science proves the existence of Adam and Eve, the trajectory of science seems to be going in the direction of the biblical narrative. The main point? Over the years, science has actually brought us closer to the plausibility of a literal Adam and Eve and not the other way around."
———-Barry: and the more literal science makes Genesis, the more literal Genesis 6:6-7 becomes. Your scholars who tell you this passage is an "anthropomorphism" have no support for that interpretation from the grammar or immediate context, their sole reason to deny the literal character of the passage is their worry that it will contradict something else in the bible. But biblical inerrancy doesn't have nearly the universal acclaim that other interpretation tools like "grammar" and "context" have, therefore, the mere fact that an interpretation of bible verse makes it contradict something else in the bible, cannot be sufficient to justify classifying the interpretation as false.
Alisa Childers
4/24/2017 09:08:47 pm
Hi Barry, I never implied we should believe a hypothesis simply because science doesn't disprove it. That would be silly. I believe Adam and Eve literally existed because that is what the Bible teaches (and I have good reasons to trust the Bible that I have addressed in other posts.) The main point of this post is that there is no scientific opposition to that claim.
Regarding the Hebrews borrowing from other pagan myths, this is something I will most definitely write about in the future. I don't deny that the biblical writers wrote within their cultural contexts—however, I've read many of the pagan myths, and I find them to be very different than the Genesis account. For one thing, the concepts of monotheism and creation ex-nihilo were entirely unique to the Hebrew Scriptures. Pagan myths depict the universe being created out of already existing matter (including the bodies of the gods), while the Hebrew God is distinct from His creation. Pagan myths depict humans as a slave-race, whereas the Genesis account depict man being created in the image of God. These were very countercultural ideas.
Christians have certainly disagreed and changed their minds on certain issues over the years. Reformations have always led back to a more biblical Christianity. However, the belief that lies at the core of the Christian faith—the sinless life, death, and resurrection of Jesus has never changed.
barry
4/25/2017 03:34:06 pm
Ms. Childers,
I am not sure what your purpose is in citing to the differences between Genesis and other pagan myths from the ANE. You cannot find any exact parallel precursor in any mythology, whatsoever, for an ugly woman who had snakes for hair, whose sight would turn men to stone, but that hardly causes you to conclude that Medusa's uniqueness and differences means the stories about her are historically accurate. Why then are you implying that because Genesis provides "countercultural ideas", those ideas must have originated with a real god?
The idea of homosexual men marrying each other was totally contrary to American culture from the 1970's and back, yet it is being flouted as normal more and more since the 2000's, yet you would hardly say the countercultural nature of homosexual marriage implies it came from God. (Yes, I despise homosexuality despite my being an atheist, and I have answers for Frank Turek's 'if-god-doesn't-exist-then-how-can-you-know-anything-is-immoral?" stuff)
And since on every other page of the OT the Hebrews are giving in to pagan idolatry, it seems more correct to limit the countercultural monotheism to just their handful of fundamentalist prophets, not the entire nation. Jeremiah is a stark example.
Apologists happily admit to important differences between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana, but they are also positively certain that Philostratus modeled the latter on the former. Apologists also insist that because Apollonius' biography didn't come out until the end of the 2nd century or later, the fact that Jesus was the earlier, makes it clear in which direction the borrowing took place.
Why then don't you agree that because the Atrahasis Epic dates to at least 400 years before Moses, this makes it clear who did the borrowing? If you speculate that 400 years before Moses the Hebrews were orally preserving the story of Noah, would you make such concession in the case of Apollonius (i.e., oral traditions about him circulated for decades before they were written down)?
I therefore conclude that the mere fact that Genesis and Atrahasis/Gilgemesh "differ" in some details, does not override the implications of their parallels. Why do you Christians always insist, or strongly imply, that "important differences" in parallel bible/pagan accounts somehow negates the notion of biblical authors copying off of early pagan motifs? Where did you get the idea that if you are going to steal from an earlier work, you aren't allowed to change it around to your unique tastes?
You say reformations have always led back to a more biblical Christianity….so, may I assume you are either a Lutheran or a Calvinist? Or did the Protestant Reformation lead in more directions than simply back to a more biblical Christianity? You realize, do you not, that Luther felt the book of James was unworthy of a place in the canon because he was completely unsatisfied with the efforts of others to "reconcile" it's teaching of justification by faith+works, with the book of Romans?
You assert that the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has never changed. Were you not aware that many times in JETS and elsewhere, evangelical scholars complain about other evangelicals asserting Jesus' resurrection was spiritual? What could be a better proof that the Jesus-resurrection story in the bible is fatally ambiguous and thus subject to changing interpretations, than evangelicals who first took it as bodily, then changed their minds and said it was spiritual?
I am very familiar with apologetics arguments for the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and I'd like to discuss with you the individual pieces of evidence thereto which you believe are the most clear and compelling. IMO, the identity, and/or credibility of the NT authors can be attacked/impeached on the merits, with force sufficient to justify disagreement with Habermas and Craig.
Christopher J Johnson
2/1/2019 06:07:18 pm
It is not possible that we evolved from a population of two. The lowest population in human history was over two thousand.
CHARLES R ROBERSON
4/27/2017 07:50:59 pm
Science is a method not a position. Therefore it is no problem if a position changes. Scientific positions can change for Christians as well but some act as if this is a problem. Our positions are getting closer to the Biblical account.
Alisa Childers
4/27/2017 11:18:56 pm
Barry, my purpose in citing the differences in the biblical account (which at the core are striking) is to answer your claim that the Bible simply "borrowed from earlier pagan myths." I'm not making the leap that this necessarily means it's from God. I might expound that and use it as *one piece* of evidence for inspiration, but it wouldn't be the *only* evidence I would use. But the uniqueness of the Hebrew story within the context of the Ancient Near East is compelling to me, and I can't conclude that they were simply "borrowing." Something else was clearly going on…
"-Barry: No, it is a story the ancient Hebrews borrowed from earlier pagan myths and changed around to their unique liking. The Epic of Atrahasis is from the 18th century b.c., at least 400 years before Moses. There's a reason why Genesis has more in common with the pagan myths of ancient Mesopotamia such as Atrahasis, and less in common with the pagan myths of ancient Australia such as the Rainbow Serpent. It's called cultural influence."
http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html
"-Barry: Christians read the bible and then interpret that evidence to form a conclusion. Each Christian has certain pre-conceived biases, assumptions, and philosophical commitments. This is why different Christians can come to such radically diverse conclusions, even though they are working with the same Bible. "
All Christians that are truly Christians hold to what is called the 'essentials' as expressed in the Apostle's Creed and other Confessions and Creeds. Nearly all Christians hold to the major tenets of the Faith, i.e. diety of Christ, the resurrection, the substitutionary atonement, a Triune sovereign God, a transcendent and immanent God. What you are discussing are the 'non-essentials' that Christians are free to disagree on and have freedom to worship with certain song books, forms of their buildings, many doctrines that not related to our salvation or soteriology. Similarly, you hold to simiar views to materialists or naturalists. Often called, Secular Humanists that all differ and agree on many of the same tenets of experience and reality. They are mostly atheist, hold to evolution, but differ on how it happens and on origins and purposes of life, such as survival, happiness, etc..
"Barry: science cannot prove that miracle claims in non-Christian religions are false, but that hardly justifies thinking those claims should be taken seriously. Otherwise, how much time do you recommend that atheists spend evaluating the miracle claims of Mormonism, Catholicism, Hinduism?"
Can There Be More Than One God
The definition of God requires that He is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent specifically. God means "that which a greater cannot be thought." The definition of omnipotence is "a power which a greater cannot be surpassed," therefore, there can be no higher power than that of God's, presupposing the possibility of His existence. it's defined in that way. Thus, if there were more than one God, his power could nonetheless be exceeded by another God. All God's would therefore have to be the of the same level of each other's power and none could be of lesser power because otherwise they wouldn't be God. Then all Gods would be the same in all attributes, which is futile because they would be accomplishing the tasks that only one of them could accomplish on His own. Also, God is by definition omnipresent, which means He is present everywhere at the same time. If God were omnipresent, there would be no need for another God. Occam's Razor implies that we make an impossible assumption about there being more than one God, so we should believe in only one God. Therefore, monotheism is the only possible necessity of God. It's impossible for there to exist more than one God. If more than one God had all the exact same attributes, which God’s will would take precedence and rule and cause things to happen a certain way? They wouldn’t all have the same desires and will, so which would rule and be sovereign? It is a contradiction.God is defined as omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent , hence by definition there can only be one God. If we were to force more than one God on these attributes it would automatically dilute one or more than one of these attributes assigned to God. It is just basic logic, there can only be one biggest or one smallest something. If we don't want to agree with these clearly understood terms then might as well stop using language altogether.
"-Barry: and the more literal science makes Genesis, the more literal Genesis 6:6-7 becomes. Your scholars who tell you this passage is an "anthropomorphism" have no support for that interpretation from the grammar or immediate context, their sole reason to deny the literal character of the passage is their worry that it will contradict something else in the bible. But biblical inerrancy doesn't have nearly the universal acclaim that other interpretation tools like "grammar" and "context" have, therefore, the mere fact that an interpretation of bible verse makes it contradict something else in the bible, cannot be sufficient to justify classifying the interpretation as false."
Your hermeneutics is very poor. If one uses a proper methodology of interpretation, there are no conflicts in the Bible. The usage of hermeneutics which takes into account the immediate/larger contexts, the original language and meanings, the cultural milieu, the issues being addressed, and forms of grammar, of which we first assume literal unless all those variables mentioned show othe
Robert Shannon
4/24/2017 10:16:03 pm
If I remember my physics professor's teaching of science in 1956, Science can not really disprove something, that it is base on observable observations from which a hypothesis is drawn and later conclusions from the hypothesis are stated. So we have a long way to go before the matter of Adam and Eve are settled, if ever. Another thing, Science can not disprove something like God because God is spiritual and is not visible for observation. However there is evidence that God exists.
> However there is evidence that God exists.
What evidence is that exactly?
John Murphy
11/9/2017 12:46:23 am
OK. Tell me the evidence that god exists.
Thanks so much for condensing all the scientific data, so that we can see it in one text. I really appreciate it.
Bnotamonkey
4/25/2017 09:24:49 pm
Why wouldn't their be parallels? If they account of Genesis and the flood are true events of course there would be parallels coming down from great antiquity. WHo cares who wrote it down first. What matters is who got it right and how God used certain people to make sure the correct version got transmitted.
Flood has something like 150 accounts which This serves to reinforce the veracity of the stories, rather than debunk them. The inspired bible authors used these stories to teach fundamental truths about God and Man and the relationship between them. In the Bible Genesis: we have a single eternal God who in what can be seen as a challenge to all other cultures and peoples, is declared to be the source of all things. There is no birth of God or death of God. There is no violence or metamorphosis. Things come into being by the mere will of God. No worship of things. Its the creator of the things
CHARLES R ROBERSON
4/28/2017 01:18:33 pm
All this comparative religion stuff. Evidence. Perhaps they borrowed from us. No evidence who cares. They have hands, we have hands, we must be the source of everything. Good logical fallacy . 🙂
CHARLES R ROBERSON
5/1/2017 01:36:16 pm
What do you accept as evidence? Does all evidence have to fit the Scientific method? If so what is the scientific method? What is proof? How does it differ from probability? When this is answered we can go on. Alisa has presented fascinating changing interpretations of Scientific findings. Science as a method says nothing but findings support our interpretations as they have here. The Bible is coming closer to ever changing interpretations of scientific findings. Just think if there is a real Adam and Eve.
John
9/27/2017 02:27:20 pm
Well, there are those that teach that there originally was the supercontinent called Pangaea. So technically Adam and Eve could,ve been near the North East of Africa.
Robert Hagedorn
12/3/2017 05:38:14 pm
But what is the forbidden fruit? An internet search for THE FIRST SCANDAL leads quickly to both the identity of this fruit, and a news story. A link to the website is not provided, because links are sometimes viewed as unwelcome. But, your search will be easy and very quick. The story uncovered by your search will not be so easy and quick.
Dave Wollman
1/4/2018 10:31:26 am
I am not disturbed nor distracted by the logic generated to disprove Bible authenticity. I understand the logic provided by the articles author as well as the counter argument against. Science may someday disprove certain aspects of the Bible as it has in the past. However, as stated, this evidence will also be based on a premise you must make some kind of leap of faith to begin your defense of the proposed conclusion. I choose, through the faith granted me by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to begin and end my defense with the statement ‘ the Bible is the inspired word of God’. I could not have come to this conclusion without Him. I believe it. God bless you all as you search for your own personal answers. I believe if you are searching, then God is calling.
CHARLES RONALD ROBERSON
1/4/2018 01:05:08 pm
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? However you answer this requires faith. There is evidence of God but no one has answered what evidence they accept
Dave
1/5/2018 12:08:35 pm
Your expectations of proof seems to be contra indicated. If you are truly searching for proof of a supreme being, should’nt you start the process with the recognition of the limitations of human understanding?
CHARLES RONALD ROBERSON
2/4/2019 02:20:35 pm
My argument was not from ignorance.
David Thatcher
10/26/2020 03:34:25 pm
You've never heard of DNA dating? The accumulation of DNA changes over time shatters the Biblical timeline of 6k yrs ago for Adam and Eve (if they even existed), requiring much, much more time. It's like trying to pour a gallon of water into a 12oz can. And that's a problem for you, because you believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve as modern humans, so you have to answer for the Biblical timeline which is far less than the DNA evidence requires. How will you also answer for the presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans? The bible says nothing about other types of humans/humanoid beings. You must also completely reject fossil evidence for earlier human forms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Did they die for their sins? Why or why not?
Andrew J Patton
4/2/2021 11:42:34 am
Most importantly, the Bible doesn't claim that Y-chromosomal Adam and michondrial-Eve were a couple. Rather, the Bible says that Y-chromosomal Adam is Noah, the common male-line ancestor of all who survived the bottleneck of the Great Flood. The female line, however, goes through Noah's three daughters-in-law, which may go back further, perhaps even to Eve herself.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
