An Unpeaceful Peace

Joshua Swamidass's Methods and Models for Reconciling Science and Faith are Problematic Scientifically, Theologically, and Rhetorically

Background:

Joshua Swamidass is a Christian and a scientist who was raised a young earth creationist (YEC). His family believed Adam and Eve were specially created by God, without parents, and that all humanity was descended from them. Even though he was exposed to the competing evolutionary story of human origins, he trusted Scripture, despite unanswered questions.¹

But as he was "drawn to science," the "conflict with what I was reading in scripture" was "pulling me apart." He called it "really a fractioning experience."² The evidence for evolution appeared strong, while the YEC camp seemed weak, and when he left the young earth viewpoint, he felt like he'd "been lied to."³ As a student, he was once "fully convinced of ID [intelligent design],"⁴ but then he considered "leaving science" because of the "conflict and animosity" surrounding the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover trial, a season he described as an "overwhelming … time of shadows [and] darkness."⁵ Following that, he aligned with but then separated from BioLogos, a prominent group dedicated to winning Christians over to evolutionary thinking, after which he came to express confidence in his Christian faith based on the Resurrection of Jesus, while also affirming standard evolutionary science.

Today, he has an MD and a PhD, and works as a computational biologist and associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis. A staunch critic of ID arguments in biology, he is also seeking to become a prominent voice in the conversation over Christianity and science, having founded the website and online discussion forum Peaceful Science, and authoring The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry in 2019, funded by over $100,000 from the pro-evolution Templeton Foundation. Although he at one time explicitly identified himself as a "theistic evolutionist,"⁶ he now disfavors the moniker, even though the views he promotes are nearly indistinguishable from it.

Reason for Surveillance:

There is nothing troubling about anyone taking a winding road to confident Christian faith, and we recognize that Christians may disagree in good faith with intelligent design. But the methods and models for reconciling science and faith that Swamidass is now offering the church are scientifically and theologically problematic. Even more important, the form of 'dialogue' pervasive at his Peaceful Science website is worrisome. Most recently, he's become not just a voice in the ID-evolution debate but an activist, using his position and prestige to advocate against academic freedom for those who dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy. This is hardly "peaceful science."

Scientific Arguments

To reiterate, we're happy when credible Christian voices like Swamidass's join the origins conversation, even when they're skeptical towards ID. We are willing to grant that Swamidass makes his criticisms of ID in good faith, although we find them easily answerable and uncompelling. Here are a few examples of responses to some of his most common scientific arguments.

One of his central arguments is that cancer can "regularly innovate[] with proteins of novel function" and that this "casts serious doubt on the ID arguments from molecular biology."⁷ ID biologists such as Jonathan Wells respond by noting that, "The origin of species and the development of cancer are polar opposites." Cancer is not an example of innovation, but rather is the result of a breakage. As Wells puts it, "Perhaps evolutionary theory can explain the destruction of living things, but that does not mean it can explain the construction of living things."⁸

Regarding Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, Swamidass asserts that "it has been refuted many times," and he cites the evolution of the Lambda phage as evidence. This argument, popularized by theistic evolutionist biologist and BioLogos-affiliate Dennis Venema,⁹ claims that the Lambda virus acquired four mutations allowing it to enter bacteria using a new host protein (OmpF), rather than the typical one (LamB). But neither Swamidass nor Venema acknowledge Behe's response, which noted that OmpF and LamB "have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other."¹⁰ In this pathway, each mutation provided a stepwise advantage, meaning Swamidass and Venema haven't challenged a system that Behe claimed could not evolve, nor did the system arise in a manner that Behe says is impossible. Moreover, the mutations significantly degraded function, as Behe observes: "at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose."¹¹ Thus, the cited evolution of the Lambda phage does not refute Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.

Swamidass has claimed that Behe "has abandoned"¹² his original argument from irreducible complexity, but this is not true. In his 2019 book Darwin Devolves,Behe re-affirmed the definition of "irreducible complexity" from his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box and said that such a system "strongly challenges Darwin's mechanism."¹³ Behe then noted that for his classical biological example, the "[flagellum] assembly process and the [assembled] flagellum together constitute irreducible complexity piled on irreducible complexity."¹⁴ He asked rhetorically whether new discoveries over the past 20+ years have weakened his argument: "the answer is a resounding no. Nothing at all has changed."¹⁵ Swamidass's characterization of Behe's position is simply false.

Swamidass often presents a rhetorical argument for common ancestry. He claims that genetically speaking, "humans are about 10 times more similar to chimpanzees than mice are to rats," and since (in his own words) "we readily accept mice and rats are related," we should therefore also accept that humans and chimps are related. He further asserts, "All this evidence, and more, is why scientists say that we share a common ancestor with the great apes [emphasis added]."¹⁶ But this rhetorical argument falls flat.

Here's why. First, ID is compatible with common ancestry, so it's not refuted by this argument.

Second, when did we "readily accept" his assumption that rats and mice are genetically related? Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. But what percentage of genetic similarity would tell us that two groups are necessarily related? Swamidass cannot say, because no such objective standard exists.

Third, Swamidass's statistic that humans are "10 times" more genetically similar to chimps than mice are to rats is outdated—the number is more like 3.75 times.¹⁷ But the exact number is unimportant. Why? Because there is no objective basis for using some percentage of genetic similarity between two species to conclude common ancestry, in part because even a high degree of genetic similarity between species could be explained by common design. Intelligent agents often re-use parts and components that perform common functions in different designs. Everyday examples of this include wheels used on both cars and airplanes, or touchscreen keyboards used on both phones and tablets.

Swamidass dismisses the rejoinder regarding common design as a "lawyerly objection"¹⁸ (which is ironic, given that his own argument is fundamentally rhetorical). But common design is a defensive argument. It is not intended to prove that species were specially created or designed separately. Rather, it's a rejoinder put forth to defeat the evolutionist assertion that genetic similarity necessarily indicates common ancestry. Genetic similarity doesn't necessarily indicate common ancestry because intelligent agents will independently emplace common parts in different designs to fulfill common functional goals. High genetic similarity could reflect design using a common blueprint rather than common ancestry.

And finally, the quote about what "scientists say" highlights a debate tactic that Swamidass often uses: he argues by citing what he claims "scientists say."¹⁹ This seems designed to shut down conversations, as if Swamidass speaks for all scientists and all scientists speak with one voice that no one may legitimately challenge. Yet credible scientists hold different positions on questions over protein evolvability, irreducible complexity, common ancestry, and intelligent design—and they have published minority scientific viewpoints in the peer-reviewed literature.²⁰ Sci-fi author Michael Crichton warned why we should be wary of the 'scientists say' gambit:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.²¹

In science, what matters isn't how many scientists are on your side—what 'scientists say.' What matters is what the evidence says.

Peace, Peace, They Say…

Swamidass's "Peaceful Science" website states the "aim to build trust across divides" using "empathy," "humility," "tolerance," and "patience."²² He further explains that he wants to "create space for those with whom we disagree." Those are admirable goals, but many who have interacted with Swamidass and his forum indicate the reality is starkly different. One participant (not an ID-supporter) publicly accused Swamidass of doxxing him after he repeatedly disagreed with Swamidass's views.²³ Others familiar with the forum say it frequently seems dominated by harsh personal attacks against anyone critical of evolutionary theory or supportive of design—an odd way to "build trust across divides." Indeed, a number of people have left the forum because they found the level of personal invective unconducive to constructive conversations.

Numerous examples could be cited, but here is one to illustrate. In one thread, Swamidass's primary partner-in-opposing ID, atheist biologist Nathan Lents, berated ID proponents as "dishonest" and having a "mix of arrogance and insecurity." They take an "amateurish approach to science," he said, and "can't muster even a modicum of adult conversation about science" or "behave in a serious way." Lents summarily dismissed the Discovery Institute as "completely antithetical to science" and concluded, "there is no point taking them seriously." At the same time, he complained, without a hint of irony, about the "nastiness" of Discovery's "rhetoric."

When another participant questioned the nasty tone, Swamidass accused the questioner of "raising the temperature," simply for questioning why Lents's incivility wasn't moderated. Swamidass even intimated that Lents deserved praise, because "Lents is being far more gentle in his opinions about ID than most scientists." Swamidass encouraged the questioner to take time "to know why scientists are angry with ID." Apparently, according to Swamidass, it is okay to heap personal abuse on ID proponents, but not okay to point out that that's not "peaceful." Apparently, according to Swamidass, ID deserves this treatment.

Swamidass too has been known to call ID proponents "dishonest"²⁴ or accuse them of "lying."²⁵ His most high-profile personal attack occurred when he partnered with Lents to review Michael Behe's 2019 book Darwin Devolves in the prestigious journal Science.²⁶ They falsely charged that Behe "ignores evidence," "misrepresents theory," and "avoids evidence that challenges him." As I (Casey Luskin) observed (then-writing under the generic Evolution News byline), "The not-so-subtle subtext…is that Behe is an untrustworthy scholar who ignores criticism, so don't pay any attention to his book."²⁷ Swamidass made this explicit in a webinar critiquing Behe when he said, "over and over again I don't know if I can really trust where [Behe]'s coming from."²⁸

Multiple authors have refuted Swamidass's charge that Behe ignores criticism, even providing multiple links showing where Behe had engaged the very evidence and arguments Swamidass claimed he ignores.²⁹ Indeed, in 2020, Behe published A Mousetrap for Darwin, an anthology collating hundreds of his responses to critics—including Swamidass's own review in Science. But rather than respond specifically to evidence-based critiques of his claims, Swamidass has tended to decline to answer them—neither correcting the record nor providing evidence for why his original claims were true.³⁰ Indeed, Swamidass has been called out for adopting a patronizing and dismissive tone toward those he disagrees with.³¹ This seems to be the opposite of genuine dialogue. As Discovery Institute's John West writes, "If dialogue simply means raising as many new objections against someone as you can, but never having to respond to their previous replies, then that doesn't seem very constructive."³²

Perhaps concerned about his public reputation as a "peaceful" Christian after slandering Behe's character, Swamidass posted an article titled, "I agree with Behe," praising Behe as a "hero" (before deleting the phrase), emphasizing agreement, and suppressing disagreement. West exposed the troubling contradiction:

Imagine you know someone who tells your friends you are his "hero." …A couple of days later, you discover that this same person has sent your co-workers an article he has co-authored denouncing you. His article claims you "ignore evidence," "misrepresent" the state of your field, and are even engaged in a "quixotic" quest. Reading through the article, you learn that it actually misstates your position, makes misleading claims, and ignores your responses. Still later, this same person tells others that he had an obligation to critique you because your views are tantamount to believing that "1+1=3."

The same person starts issuing public challenges to you to engage in "dialogue," pledging that he wants you "to get a fair hearing" — all the while insisting to others that you don't respond to your critics (even though you have done so extensively).

Is this person's approach likely to produce genuine dialogue?³³

Indeed, having been repeatedly burned by unfair and harsh treatment, today few if any leading ID proponents participate at Peaceful Science.

A Problematic Proposal

Seeking to broker peace between Christianity and mainstream science, Swamidass has proposed the 'genealogical Adam and Eve' (GAE) scenario in his book of that title. According to the GAE hypothesis, Adam and Eve are no longer the sole progenitors of all humans, but their offspring interbred with a population of humans who evolved outside the Garden. In this view, two human origin accounts—one of Scripture and another of evolutionary science—"would be taking place alongside one another, outside each other's view."³⁴ Though he wrote a 260 page book advocating this view, he is officially noncommittal, calling it "a thought experiment,"³⁵ which appeals because it offers a creation story that fits with evolutionary biology.³⁶

The philosophy behind the GAE model is to uncritically accept a fully mainstream evolutionary account of human origins but assert that somewhere along the line God specially created Adam and Eve so their offspring could interbreed with this large population of fully evolved humans. Notice that this makes his claims about Adam and Eve conveniently immune to scientific testing, because no one could ever refute the proposal that God miraculously inserted a mere two individuals during the vast eons of human evolution. Swamidass not only acknowledges this fact, but deliberately emphasizes it, noting that, "There is no evidence for or against the de novo creation of Adam and Eve," and even comparing GAE to postulating "a unicorn on the other side of the moon."³⁷ For Swamidass, GAE can only be supported "from evidence outside genetics."³⁸ This may insulate GAE from attacks by atheists, but his model reflects a philosophy which constructs a highly privatized apologetic that poses no threat whatsoever to materialism and gives skeptics and nontheists no reasons to take Christianity seriously.

Nonetheless, there are significant scientific problems with his GAE model. Because he incorporates standard evolutionary models of human origins into his proposal, and because those evolutionary models are challenged by the genetic and fossil evidence, the evolutionary aspects of Swamidass's model are scientifically problematic.³⁹ And if humans did not evolve from apelike creatures via standard evolutionary mechanisms, there is no reason to adopt the GAE hypothesis.

Beyond scientific problems, Swamidass's thought experiment raises enormous questions for Christian orthodoxy. Swamidass writes that the GAE hypothesis rescues a "traditional"⁴⁰ version of Adam and Eve. But the version it puts forth isn't exactly the traditional Adam and Eve. Nor is the human family it posits consistent with the traditional biblical understanding of humanity.

In the GAE scenario, Adam and Eve are not the sole progenitors of humanity, and we are not descended only from them, but also from an entirely distinct, large population of humans that evolved via standard evolutionary mechanisms from apelike creatures. In this scenario, there are "textual" humans who are made in the image of God, who descended from Adam and Eve, who inherited Adam's sin, and for whom Christ died. These are the people who are referenced in Scripture. Then, there's another entirely distinct category of "biological humans" who evolved from animals, whom Scripture never references.

Swamidass hedges on whether the non-textual people had "human worth and dignity," were made in the image of God, sinned, or had "need for a Savior."⁴¹ But his model leaves open the possibility that they possessed none of these things, raising potentially disturbing implications for universal human equality and the value of all human life.

The theological and anthropological problems only compound from there. In Swamidass's view, it's important that textual humans included "everyone alive across the globe by, at latest AD 1,"⁴² such that when Christ died all living humans needed salvation. The troubling implication is that before Christ's birth, there were untold non-textual humans—people whom Scripture never mentions, who did not necessarily inherit Adam's original sin, and for whom Christ did not necessarily die. Biologist and apologist Jonathan McLatchie explains the conundrum:

Swamidass' view would seem to suggest logically that those individuals who were biological (but not textual) humans are qualitatively indistinct from other animals. But in that case it makes no sense to call their deeds evil, or to postulate that they had a sense of right and wrong. Moreover, if they, as Swamidass suggests, "do wrong at times", then does this not suggest that Adam's fall is but one of many falls that have occurred in human history? The theological ramifications that accompany this scenario are too severe for me to entertain Swamidass' proposal.⁴³

And there are Scriptural problems. In Genesis 3:20, Eve is called "mother of all the living," but a core element of Swamidass's model is that Eve did not become an ancestor of all the living until millennia after her creation. He concedes that Scriptures such as Acts 17:26 ("from one man, [God] made all the nations") and Romans 5:12-18 ("all sinned" after Adam's fall, so Christ died for "all people") seem to "presume universal ancestry of Adam," but dismisses them with the casual, "They do not specifically deny mixing with other lines in the distant past."⁴⁴

Maybe they don't, but this is a precarious foundation for a new doctrine of human nature, especially one that is not actually required by the science. We agree with Swamidass that Christ's resurrection is the strongest grounding for Christian faith and sufficient reason for confidence in it. And we are happy to seek peace with him as a brother in Christ. But the church does not need to adopt thought experiments that require redefining humanity to keep peace with the prevailing winds of evolutionary thought.

ID theorist Paul Nelson has explained the driving philosophy behind Swamidass's approach: a prior commitment to methodological naturalism⁴⁵—the idea that when studying science, one is only allowed to invoke naturalistic forces and mechanisms. But this approach can bear bad fruit. One of Swamidass's early converts to skepticism regarding ID arguments was apparently Christian blogger and apologist Vincent Torley, who had written extensively in favor of ID for years. Once Torley became convinced to reject scientific evidence for design, he did not stop there. By 2018, he was publicly rejecting evidence for the resurrection as well.⁴⁶ This strong commitment to methodological naturalism that fuels a rejection of ID can, by the same rationale, end up undercutting arguments for the resurrection.

Threatening More than Orthodoxy

Most recently, Swamidass has moved beyond simply promoting theistic evolution and on to calling for Christian educational institutions who disagree with Darwin to face penalties. Earlier this year, he authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that targeted the academic freedom of Christian institutions that promote YEC.⁴⁷

According to the op-ed, YEC groups should be "tracked" such that their "deviations from national norms in a science curriculum" are "reported" and "prominently disclosed." He called this a gracious gift of "institutional tolerance" and "academic freedom"—and in return for that generosity, YEC institutions should be forced to "give more space to students and faculty who disagree" with their views.

Incredibly, he calls this "compromise," where YEC institutions should be forced to "defend academic freedom for those who dissent from scientific creationism," a "two way street" of "academic freedom." But what do YEC groups get in return? Will they now be tolerated at mainstream institutions? Of course not! Swamidass's strange version of "academic freedom" would deny religious groups the right to enforce faith statements and define themselves around certain beliefs.

In a Facebook conversation he later admitted that his arguments could also cut against ID-friendly universities.⁴⁸ If this false "compromise" is forced upon ID, will mainstream biology departments be required to hire ID proponents in turn? Again, of course not. This approach is anything but peaceful. What kind of a strategy leads one to say he's defending "academic freedom" while calling for Christian institutions that question Darwin to be hamstrung? Probably the same Orwellian strategy that involves claiming to rescue a "traditional" Adam and Eve while maintaining that humanity evolved from apelike creatures, calling someone your "hero" while denouncing him as an untrustworthy scientist, or calling your website "peaceful" while giving free rein to personal invectives against ID proponents.

Swamidass told Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity, "We know where [ID] leads. It leads to you getting kicked out of science."⁴⁹ Perhaps this comment gives some insight into his reasons both for personally rejecting ID and calling for official discrimination against those who do not toe the line on evolutionary orthodoxy. Whatever the rationale, we invite Dr. Swamidass to show a genuine commitment to his stated goal of creating "space for those with whom we disagree," and to join with us in advocating for a free and open debate with, as he puts it, "empathy," "humility," "tolerance," and "patience."

1. S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (IVP Academic, 2019), p. 7.
2. "Dr. Joshua Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution" (April 28, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEinFT6gSY (after 3 min mark).
3. "Dr. Joshua Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution" (April 28, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEinFT6gSY (about 18:45).
4. "Unbelievable? Intelligent Design on trial. 15 years on from Kitzmiller-Dover – Mike Behe and Joshua Swamidass" (November 21, 2020), https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Intelligent-Design-on-trial.-15-years-on-from-Kitzmiller-Dover-Mike-Behe-and-Joshua-Swamidass (approx. 24:00).
5. "Unbelievable? Intelligent Design on trial. 15 years on from Kitzmiller-Dover – Mike Behe and Joshua Swamidass" (November 21, 2020), https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Intelligent-Design-on-trial.-15-years-on-from-Kitzmiller-Dover-Mike-Behe-and-Joshua-Swamidass (approx. 18:00 - 19:00).
6. "I am a theistic evolutionist," Joshua Swamidass, "Evidence and Evolution (The Debate)" (April 19, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20161027063841/http://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolution.
7. Joshua Swamidass, "Cancer and Evolutionary Theory," https://discourse.biologos.org/t/cancer-and-evolutionary-theory/5673.
8. Jonathan Wells, "Does Cancer Disprove Intelligent Design?" (August 20, 2018), https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/does-cancer-disprove-intelligent-design/.
9. See Dennis Venema and Adam McKnight, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Brazos Press, 2017), pp. 78-80.
10. Michael Behe, "More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously" (January 30, 2012), https://evolutionnews.org/2012/01/more_from_lensk/.
11. Michael Behe, "More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously" (January 30, 2012), https://evolutionnews.org/2012/01/more_from_lensk/.
12. Joshua Swamidass, "Which Irreducible Complexity?," https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-irreducible-complexity/662.
13. Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution (HarperOne, 2019), p. 230.
14. Behe, Darwin Devolves, p. 230.
15. Behe, Darwin Devolves, p. 287.
16. Joshua Swamidass, "Evidence and Evolution (The Debate)" (April 19, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20161027063841/http://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolution (emphasis added).
17. Swamidass states that rats and mice are 15% genetically different, and humans and chimps are 1.5% genetically different, leading to his calculation that "humans are about 10 times more similar to chimpanzees than mice are to rats." But the best current estimate of human-chimp genetic difference, based upon both protein-coding and non-coding DNA, is ~4%. See Josiah Seaman and Richard J. A. Buggs, "FluentDNA: Nucleotide Visualization of Whole Genomes, Annotations, and Alignments," Frontiers in Genetics, 11:292 (2020). Thus, at most humans and chimps are ~3.75 times more genetically similar than rats and mice. The precise number is not important to our argument here, however.
18. Joshua Swamidass, "Evidence and Evolution" (April 19, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20160423121850/https://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolution.
19. Joshua Swamidass, "Evidence and Evolution (The Debate)" (April 19, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20161027063841/http://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolution, where he writes "All this evidence, and more, is why scientists say that we share a common ancestor with the great apes."
20. For a list of many peer-reviewed papers published by ID proponents on these topics, see "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design," https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/.
21. Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming," Wall Street Journal (November 7, 2008), https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122603134258207975.
22. Peaceful Science: Our Mission and Values, https://peacefulscience.org/mission-and-values/.
23. See http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-13/#comment-249813.
24. Joshua Swamidass, "Evidence and Evolution (The Debate)" (April 19, 2016), https://web.archive.org/web/20160522061112/http://swami.wustl.edu:80/evidence-for-evolution.
25. Joshua Swamidass, https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/part-2-of-polar-bear-seminar/5701/47.
26. Nathan H. Lents, S. Joshua Swamidass, Richard E. Lenski, "A biochemist's crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence," Science (February 7, 2019), https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/.
27. Casey Luskin, "Science Review Offers False Accusations about Chloroquine Resistance" (February 14, 2019), https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/science-review-offers-false-accusations-about-chloroquine-resistance/.
28. "A Critique of Mike Behe's Book 'Darwin Devolves': Conversation with Dr. Joshua Swamidass" (April 10, 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5p0MsVEvg (about 33:50).
29. See various responses listed at "Darwin Devolves: Criticism & Response," https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/.
30. For examples, see John G. West, "In the Controversy over Intelligent Design, Seeking Genuine Dialogue" (February 17, 2019), https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/in-the-controversy-over-intelligent-design-seeking-genuine-dialogue/ and Casey Luskin, "From Swamidass on Chloroquine Resistance, a Response that Doesn't Respond" (February 20, 2019), https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/from-swamidass-on-chloroquine-resistance-a-response-that-doesnt-respond/.
31. David Klinghoffer, "Advice to a Theistic Evolutionist" (May 16, 2016), https://evolutionnews.org/2016/05/advice_to_a_the/.
32. West, "In the Controversy over Intelligent Design, Seeking Genuine Dialogue."
33. West, "In the Controversy over Intelligent Design, Seeking Genuine Dialogue."
34. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 10.
35. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 7.
36. For example, Swamidass writes "one layer of the GAE speaks to Christians who want to engage mainstream science" and that his model "challenges a key plank of the ID movement, that the rules of science have to be changed in order to make progress." See "Nelson: On the Swamidass Hypothesis — The Cheese Stands Alone," https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/nelson-on-the-swamidass-hypothesis-the-cheese-stands-alone/11587/16.
37. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 87.
38. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 87.
39. For detailed discussions of problems with human evolutionary models, see Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, and Casey Luskin, Science and Human Origins (Discovery Institute Press, 2012); J.P Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem eds. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Crossway, 2007). See also Unique Origin Research at https://uniqueoriginresearch.org/.
40. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 5.
41. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 149.
42. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 134.
43. Jonathan McLatchie, "The Search for Adam and Eve: Human Origins According to Scripture and Science" (December 8, 2020), https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-search-for-adam-and-eve-human-origins-according-to-scripture-and-science/.
44. Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, p. 114.
45. See Paul Nelson, "Which Game? Whose Rules?" (August 24, 2020), https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2020/08/which-game-whose-rules/; Paul Nelson, "Trapped in the Naturalistic Parabola" (June 17, 2020), https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/trapped-in-the-naturalistic-parabola/; Paul Nelson, "Nelson: Parabolas and Methodological Naturalism (Again)" (June, 2020), https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/nelson-parabolas-and-methodological-naturalism-again/10956/2.
46. See John W. Loftus, "Christian Apologist Vincent J. Torley Now Argues Michael Alter's Bombshell Book Demolishes Christian Apologists' Case for the Resurrection" (September 26, 2018), https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2018/09/christian-apologist-vincent-j-torley.html.
47. Joshua Swamidass, "A Compromise on Creationism," Wall Street Journal (March 4, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537.
48. https://www.facebook.com/dr.swamidass/posts/10158627724146998.
49. "Dr. Joshua Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution" (April 28, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEinFT6gSY (1:15:10).