Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Have They Been Disproven by Science?

Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Have They Been Disproven by Science?

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:41 pm by Dave Armstrong

Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Have They Been Disproven by Science? 2026-06-05T23:41:24-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Albrecht Dürer, Adam and Eve [engraving], 1504 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

This is an exchange (currently abridged to tighten up the content) that I had with an atheist, Brad Feaker, under my post, Defending God (The Atheist Blame Game). His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

In order to buy into the ‘original sin’ argument, you need an ‘original couple’ or Adam and Eve. Please correct me if I misstate your position because I am assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve. And if so, I really understand why people who take that position fear and loathe evolution so much.

The study of population genetics informs us that no such ‘original couple’ ever existed. No Adam and Eve? No original sin. No original sin? No ‘fallen’ world. And that one fact alone invalidates your entire theological argument. No original sin means there is no need for a ‘saviour’.

1. I don’t “fear and loathe evolution” as you mistakenly think. [his remark along these lines that I am here replying to, seems to have been deleted] I am agnostic about it; rather ho-hum. My position is that God created all that exists. He either did it through evolutionary processes or more directly and “instantly” at times. It matters not one whit to me which method He used. What I oppose is materialism, not evolution. That is where the real philosophical battle lies. I don’t think materialistic evolution is able to be adequately explained solely by the laws of science as we presently know them. That’s why I am agnostic about it. 2. Of course I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, because that is what anyone who takes the Bible and Christianity seriously, believes. I disagree that science disproves a “primal pair.” I have posted some serious analysis about this, which shows that Adam and Eve are quite compatible with evolutionary process. Thus, original sin is salvaged and Christianity survives a close call with death. Whew! That was close!

Excerpts:

For a solid philosophical / scientific defense of monogenism (all human descent from one primal pair), see, “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis,” by Kenneth W. Kemp (American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 217-236, 2011). I agree with his analysis (i.e., insofar as I grasp all the technical science entailed).

Abstract: “Francisco Ayala and others have argued that recent genetic evidence shows that the origins of the human race cannot be monogenetic, as the Church has traditionally taught. This paper replies to that objection, developing a distinction between biological and theological species first proposed by Andrew Alexander in 1964.”

Kemp is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He obtained an M.A. in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame in 1983, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the same university in 1984.

Another serious, extensive philosophical / scientific explanation that is consistent with traditional Catholic theology and dogma is from Edward Feser: “Modern Biology and Original Sin” [part one / part two]. Feser is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Barbara, an M.A. in religion from the Claremont Graduate School, and a B.A. in philosophy and religious studies from the California State University at Fullerton.

First, I should have specified human evolution. And of course you fear and loathe it – you would not spend so much energy trying to deny it if you did not.

You don’t read very well. I just said I was “agnostic” about it and that I couldn’t care less if God decided to create by this method (including human evolution). I don’t spend much time fighting a thing that I have no final opinion about. I oppose materialism. Learn the difference.

If you are actually interested in learning some facts I recommend the following papers: Li, H., and R. Durbin. 2011. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475:493-497. Sheehan, S., K. Harris, and Y. S. Song. 2013. Estimating variable effective population sizes from multiple genomes: a sequentially Markov conditional sampling distribution approach. Genetics 194:647-62. And they thoroughly discredit the notion of a literal Adam and Eve. Frankly, I know that it will not make one bit of difference to you what the science says, because I am betting you will simply dismiss any evidence that contradicts your world view. And I am not really interested in learning about genetics and biology from professors of theology and philosophy. I will stick to biologists and geneticists – you know…the people who actually study and understand these subjects in depth.

I gave you two serious academic treatments defending a primal human pair, that you had assumed were non-existent. Scientists and philosophers disagree on this point, as we would expect. What else is new? Citing two articles against me doesn’t prove that no contrary opinion exists.

You need to stop making dumb arguments that science has disproven Adam and Eve altogether, and with that, original sin and Christianity itself. It’s laughable.

My patience is very thin with these idiotic remarks from atheists and agnostics about how Christians, almost to a person, are completely hostile to evidence, reason, science, etc. You’re not interested in back-and-forth discussion.

You still have not presented one factual contradiction of the studies I posted. Did you read either of those studies by chance? Just curious because I did read quite a bit of the pages you directed me to. I do not agree with it – but I read it anyway to give it a chance. I have no interest in the opinions of philosophers on matters of genetics and biology, just as I am not interested in their opinions on any other subject matter outside of their area of specialty – if the subject is science. Do you go to your mechanic if you are suffering from an undiagnosed illness? Not that I dismiss philosophy – it can give us valid insights into ourselves. But philosophical arguments do not refute hard facts. Repeated studies have demonstrated that [neither] an Adam and Eve, nor a Noah and his family members, were the forebears of the human species. This is the uncomfortable elephant in the room of Christianity. I will ask again. Were I to see empirical evidence for the existence of God – I would be obligated to change my mind. What would you require to change yours?

I change my mind for a variety of reasons: not limited to empirical reasons, because that is not all there is. Recently, I replied to another atheist who asked about ways Christianity could be disproved. I gave about five off the top of my head.

You have completely evaded my main point. Science has eliminated the idea of a literal Adam and Eve – regardless of your opinion.

Not at all. I provided two perfectly acceptable defenses of Adam and Eve, in line with current science. Just because you have a hostility to philosophy, it doesn’t follow that I have provided no reply at all. Your limitation and silly adoption of “empiricism only” as your epistemology is your own blind spot and limitation, not mine. The first article from Kemp cites lots of scientific studies. But remember, here was your original challenge (my present bolding and italics):

Since you claim that my theological argument is invalidated, it is completely proper to reply with theological arguments, because if you don’t understand how it is that Catholics accept both theological and scientific truths and harmonize them, you can’t fully understand our position. Therefore, a piece of philosophical theology is perfectly acceptable and exactly on-point. It shows that the Catholic doctrine of Adam and Eve and a primal pair need not be contradictory to science at all. The second paper by Edward Feser is of the same nature. Philosopher Dennis Bonnette (see many of his papers below) wrote:

It is widely claimed that Adam and Eve were “impossible” in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest findings of science — thus scandalizing Catholics into thinking that fundamental revealed truths are not well founded.

The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption came (Rom 5:12-21). The Catechism cites St. Paul, and speaks of Adam and Eve as of a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin” (CCC, 399-404).

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates, which vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007) depending on the methods used, with an actual “bottleneck” ( a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. We must also realize that these calculations depend on many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are now known to vary widely, and that all depend on retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have almost no information.

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

Since the Class II region where HLA-DRB1 resides recombines only rarely, the region behaves as a unit during reproduction. It is inherited as a block, referred to as a haplotype. It is now known that there are only five basic haplotypes (Andersson 1998), and their particular identity is specified by which HLA-DRB1 allele they carry. Depending on the accuracy of the dating and tree drawing, there may have been between three and five haplotypes at the time of the Homo/Pan split. We share four of them with chimps. Since a single mating pair could pass on a maximum of four haplotypes, the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve. [I am indebted to molecular biologist Dr. Ann Gauger for the above line of reasoning pertinent to the genetic arguments.]

The point of all this is to show that the science which is so dogmatically employed to undermine Catholic doctrine regarding Adam and Eve is itself not definitive. Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.

What is most important for purposes of this thread is the realization that, since the same God is Author of both human reason and authentic revelation, legitimate science will never contradict Catholic doctrine — and Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.

In my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, second edition, 2003), I offer extensive analysis of the interface between evolutionary theory, philosophy, and theology — including a most detailed explanation of how the existence of a literal Adam and Eve remains rationally credible, even to well educated Christians at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

For further philosophical / scientific defenses of the Adam and Eve of historic Christianity, see:

Knowing an Ape from Adam (Dr. Edward Feser, 12-20-14) Monkey in your soul? (Dr. Edward Feser, 9-12-11)

No, Virginia, Science Hasn’t Debunked Adam (Dr. Lydia McGrew, 7-3-14)

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple (Dr. Dennis Bonnette)

A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Faith and Reason, vol. 19.2-3, 1993)

Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, New Oxford Review, July / August 2007)

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Crisis Magazine, 11-24-14)

Does Science Allow for a Literal Adam and Eve? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette)

Time to Abandon the Genesis Story? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 7-10-14)

Did Darwin Prove Genesis a Fairy Tale? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Social Justice Review, September-October, 2007, 98:7-8)

The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Faith and Reason, vol. 33:1-4, 2008)

Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation (Phil Porvaznik)

Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church (Phil Porvaznik)

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record (Phil Porvaznik)

Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (Pope St. John Paul II, 1986)

* * * * *

Previous Post

September 6, 2015

Is the Mass a Re-Sacrifice? (vs. Lutheran Pastor Ken Howes)

Next Post

September 7, 2015 Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz