A little confused about evolution, Adam/Eve, and the RCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter thatdudeinblack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And what, pray tell, is the actual intent(s) of the author of the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture? 😉
The Catechism addresses this in detail. On God’s sovereignty, creating from nothing, all things dependent on God, the hierarchical order of creation with man as summit, the goodness of creation, etc…
 
The major reason that some current readers deny the historical aspect is because they do not want to accept some of the basic truths found in the beginning of human history.
I would like to make a clear differentiation between (A) calling the first three chapters of Genesis a moral fable/allegory and (B) considering it as real history told through symbolic language or near east mythological style. It is real history, that much should be undisputed among Catholics, but that does not mean it’s a literal scientific account.
 
So I understand that many Catholics and members of other denominations accept evolution as a plausible theory to the development of species and all. I understand that when talking about “death” being the wages of sin, this was referring to more of a “death of the spirit” kind of thing, if that’s a proper term to use. Many I’ve talked to refer to humans before the Fall (if we’re to suggest the Fall occurred long after the introduction of humans in the material form) as having an “animal soul” of sorts. It also occurred to me that Genesis 1 might not have been a chronological account, making room for belief in an Old Earth.

There’s still something that’s been nagging at me for a while, even though it might not be that big of a deal but would still like some insight on it nonetheless: did Adam and Eve walk this Earth at the same time humans were there, the ones that had existed before the Fall? Was this “new Man” of sorts with a connection to God brought about by Adam and Eve’s physical procreation on Earth, only affecting their offspring and not the rest of humanity? Or did humanity as a whole get implanted with this “rational soul” upon Adam and Eve’s Fall?

I’m sorry if I’m not making much sense here, since I’m rather tired IRL but also have been trying to reasonably reconcile things like evolution with the story of Genesis and humanity’s relationship with God. Again, I’ve always felt there’s room for evolution here in some way, shape or form, and I knew some things shouldn’t be taken so literally as they are by many others, but yeah, it’s getting to a point where it’s rather confusing trying to make sense of it. Hopefully people more familiar with this stuff and much more knowledgeable can help me out here./QOOPS
 
The Catechism addresses this in detail. On God’s sovereignty, creating from nothing, all things dependent on God, the hierarchical order of creation with man as summit, the goodness of creation, etc…
And…

What else is important?

Maybe–not sure-- the problem could be that difficult intellectual digging may dig up stuff that some modern preachers/teachers would rather not find.
 
And…

What else is important?

Maybe–not sure-- the problem could be that difficult intellectual digging may dig up stuff that some modern preachers/teachers would rather not find.
And a real, historical original sin that caused the Fall of man. I’ve no dispute with that. And I don’t think that acceptance of evolutionary theory of man in general conflicts with that.
 
I would like to make a clear differentiation between (A) calling the first three chapters of Genesis a moral fable/allegory and (B) considering it as real history told through symbolic language or near east mythological style. It is real history, that much should be undisputed among Catholics, but that does not mean it’s a literal scientific account.
Maybe it is time to remind readers of the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth. In preparation for the early major Ecumenical Church Councils, there is a lot of sorting out questions. For example. What is in the material world of science and what is in the spiritual world of the Creator God.
 
And a real, historical original sin that caused the Fall of man. I’ve no dispute with that. And I don’t think that acceptance of evolutionary theory of man in general conflicts with that.
The evolution theory includes the “fact” that a new species population evolves from a previous large population. The evolution theory regarding the human species normally begins with the Homo/Pan split or divergence. This is also known as a speciation event. This split does not have a population of two humans. In fact, the evolution theory flat out denies the possibility that humankind descended from a population of two, lovingly known as Adam and his spouse Eve.
 
The evolution theory includes the “fact” that a new species population evolves from a previous large population. The evolution theory regarding the human species normally begins with the Homo/Pan split or divergence. This is also known as a speciation event. This split does not have a population of two humans. In fact, the evolution theory flat out denies the possibility that humankind descended from a population of two, lovingly known as Adam and his spouse Eve.
I am well aware and already spoke to that and linked to a reconciliation proposal by Kenneth Kemp.
 
The evolution theory includes the “fact” that a new species population evolves from a previous large population. The evolution theory regarding the human species normally begins with the Homo/Pan split or divergence. This is also known as a speciation event. This split does not have a population of two humans. In fact, the evolution theory flat out denies the possibility that humankind descended from a population of two, lovingly known as Adam and his spouse Eve.
At the split from the chimpanzee (Pan) ancestor, our ancestors were not human (Homo) but something like Australopithecus. The genus Homo only evolved later, after the split from Pan.

None of that prevents all current humans being descended from a particular couple. It is just that there would have been other parallel couples from whom all modern humans are also all descended. Going back that far, every one of Adam’s contemporaries would either be a universal ancestor (ancestral to all living humans) or a non-ancestor with no modern descendants.

If one universal ancestor couple were given souls by God (something science cannot say anything about) then all living humans would be descended from that specific couple.

The other parallel ancestral couples provide the additional genetic variation seen in modern populations.

rossum
 
At the split from the chimpanzee (Pan) ancestor, our ancestors were not human (Homo) but something like Australopithecus. The genus Homo only evolved later, after the split from Pan.

None of that prevents all current humans being descended from a particular couple. It is just that there would have been other parallel couples from whom all modern humans are also all descended. Going back that far, every one of Adam’s contemporaries would either be a universal ancestor (ancestral to all living humans) or a non-ancestor with no modern descendants.

If one universal ancestor couple were given souls by God (something science cannot say anything about) then all living humans would be descended from that specific couple.

The other parallel ancestral couples provide the additional genetic variation seen in modern populations.

rossum
As you may remember, years ago, a CAF member had my head on a platter for not doing my homework. For me, that was the best science lesson. You also are a good teacher and I always appreciate your posts…even when I do not agree with some item.

Currently, I am interested in the branches of the evolution tree.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

When looking at evolution teaching and research papers, we do not find any branch which has an originating human population of two. Two is a powerful word in Catholicism. The Catholic Church will not give up its teaching that the human species came from a population of two original fully-complete real humans.

Regarding Adam’s contemporaries. The length of Eve’s fertility provided lots of younger human companions. 🙂
 
thatdudeinblack;14681560:
There’s still something that’s been nagging at me for a while, even though it might not be that big of a deal but would still like some insight on it nonetheless: did Adam and Eve walk this Earth at the same time humans were there, the ones that had existed before the Fall? Was this “new Man” of sorts with a connection to God brought about by Adam and Eve’s physical procreation on Earth, only affecting their offspring and not the rest of humanity? Or did humanity as a whole get implanted with this “rational soul” upon Adam and Eve’s Fall?.[/QOOPS
Given that we’re required to believe all true men desended from A&E, all proto-men getting rational souls post-fall (and therefore becoming true men) would seem to be in error.

The question i personally wonder is if A&E could have been pre-homo sapiens and whether Neanderthals were true men potentially.
[/quote]
 
When looking at evolution teaching and research papers, we do not find any branch which has an originating human population of two. Two is a powerful word in Catholicism. The Catholic Church will not give up its teaching that the human species came from a population of two original fully-complete real humans.
It’s been stated many times, but I feel like it’s never actually being responded to, such that I’ve no idea if it’s actually being understood. Have you thoughts on this paper: www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf
 
I am well aware and already spoke to that and linked to a reconciliation proposal by Kenneth Kemp.
*Science, Theology, and Monogenesis *is a well-known philosophical/science presentation.

*.*Apparently, it attracted favorable response. As I recall, a response included a discussion regarding Thomistic Philosophy. This would need additional discussion concerning conception of matter being receptive to the spiritual soul whatever that means.

Obviously, I am not qualified to do my own analysis. I respect the work of Professor Kempt. Someone has to begin the discussion. However, apparently some philosophers detected some flaws. That is the job of philosophers.
 
From mVitus, post 72
Given that we’re required to believe all true men desended from A&E, all proto-men getting rational souls post-fall (and therefore becoming true men) would seem to be in error.

The question i personally wonder is if A&E could have been pre-homo sapiens and whether Neanderthals were true men potentially.
Proto-men and pre-homo sapiens designations are not considered true fully-complete rational humans who received the spiritual soul at conception.

Currently, there are some experts who consider Neanderthals as true humans descending from Adam and Eve. We can enjoy the experts, but there is no Catholic doctrine specifically dedicated to Neanderthals by name…
 
You also are a good teacher and I always appreciate your posts…even when I do not agree with some item.
Thank you.
When looking at evolution teaching and research papers, we do not find any branch which has an originating human population of two.
You won’t. There is too much variation in the human genome for so small an original population. At most Adam and Eve could have had four alleles between them, or only two if Eve was an almost identical clone of Adam with a duplicate copy of Adam’s X chromosome for her XX from his XY.

At some loci there are hundreds of different human alleles. At other loci there are more than four alleles which we share with chimps. All the evidence points to a population larger than two. The usual estimates are about 10,000 to 20,000 breeding pairs.
The Catholic Church will not give up its teaching that the human species came from a population of two original fully-complete real humans.
A “fully-complete real human” for Catholics includes a soul. A soul does not fossilise and there is no specific DNA sequence attached to a soul. Hence evolution cannot say anything about souls. All it can talk about is lines of descent, fossils and DNA. In that population of 10,000 pairs, it is perfectly possible that only two had souls.

rossum
 
A “fully-complete real human” for Catholics includes a soul. A soul does not fossilise and there is no specific DNA sequence attached to a soul. Hence evolution cannot say anything about souls. All it can talk about is lines of descent, fossils and DNA. In that population of 10,000 pairs, it is perfectly possible that only two had souls.

rossum
And I suppose what is at issue in Catholic discussion of the dogma is whether a distinction, such as what Kemp proposes, between a “theological human” and a physiological, genetic “human” without a rational soul reconciles the seeming contradiction.
 
Thank you.

You won’t. There is too much variation in the human genome for so small an original population. At most Adam and Eve could have had four alleles between them, or only two if Eve was an almost identical clone of Adam with a duplicate copy of Adam’s X chromosome for her XX from his XY.

At some loci there are hundreds of different human alleles. At other loci there are more than four alleles which we share with chimps. All the evidence points to a population larger than two. The usual estimates are about 10,000 to 20,000 breeding pairs.

A “fully-complete real human” for Catholics includes a soul. A soul does not fossilise and there is no specific DNA sequence attached to a soul. Hence evolution cannot say anything about souls. All it can talk about is lines of descent, fossils and DNA. In that population of 10,000 pairs, it is perfectly possible that only two had souls.

rossum
“In that population of 10,000 pairs, it is perfectly possible that only two had souls.”

What needs to be added to the above possibility is a definitive description of the other pairs.
 
“In that population of 10,000 pairs, it is perfectly possible that only two had souls.”

What needs to be added to the above possibility is a definitive description of the other pairs.
They had either human DNA, or at least DNA that was compatible with human DNA. This assumes that the addition of a soul does not significantly change DNA.

Their DNA was compatible enough to allow interbreeding with fertile offspring. We have evidence that this was possible with both Neanderthals and Denisovans. Outside Africa most of us have about 2-4% Neanderthal DNA. Denisovan DNA is found in human populations of Melanesia and Australia. They probably acquired it in Siberia while migrating eastwards on their way to Australia.

rossum
 
From Catholic Answers:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

From the Catechism:

"295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143

About Eve:

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

From the encyclical Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top