A question torturing me

[grannymh]

my name is Alexandre and I am a student at the B.A in Anthropology at Laval University.

To keep this short, when we look at the evolution of human beings we find out that humanity evolved from great apes millions of years ago, and even before that from a tiny mammal that looks like a big rat. How then can we talk about Adam and Eve in such a context? How can we talk about original sin? What kind of original sin would that be?

If man evolved like this over millions of years then there never was any original sin human’s committed no more than for lions or horses or any other animal. And, of course this means Jesus and Christianity is irrelevant since there would be no original sin to save us from.

How does a Christian like me reconcile the scientific evidence available from physical anthropology and paleoanthropology with the word of the gospels?

Thank you for your replies!

Laval University in Quebec?

You are on target with your concern about the “original sin” relationship between Jesus and Adam. One of the best information sources for this relationship is Romans 5: 12-21.

Regarding our lovable first parents, it is not so much a reconciliation between scientific evidence and the word of the gospels. It is making sure that science is properly interpreted and that Catholic doctrines are properly understood.

As a start, the contemporary evolution model does not necessarily point to humanity as direct descendents from great apes. Rather, the reference is made to the Homo/Pan split or the most recent common ancestor. If you scroll down this link, there is a brief diagram of the cladistic system about humans.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
FYI, this website is one of the best.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

What this means for the reality of Adam is that there is now a clearer line of hominins so that one can compare the differences between archaic beings (sometimes referred to as subhumans) and true, fully complete human nature. Granted there are anthropologists who are still debating certain fossils; yet, there are pretty good assumptions and estimates going thousands of years backwards.

This is where we need to give our full respect to the dedicated women and men who are researching our human origin. At the same time, we must keep in mind that all their research is in the material/physical domain of natural science.

Catholics recognize that a human person is not only a product of matter. Human’s unique unification of an immortal soul and a decomposing anatomy is so profound that one has to consider that the spiritual, rational soul is the “form” of the body. It is because of its spiritual soul directly created by God that the body made of matter becomes a living human being. Source: paragraphs 355 - 368, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This link will allow the reader to enter the Catechism.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

In previous posts, I usually refer to the human species as peerless. Another descriptive term is exceptionalism. What I have done here is to throw out some initial ideas which could lead to the real exceptionalism of Adam. Once that is established in the natural science arena, then one can move on to the exceptionalism of Adam in the spiritual world which includes a deep, personal relationship with God.

Alexlex,

There have been a lot of good answers regarding your questions. I may be wrong, if so please correct me, but my guess is that it is the broadness of scientific inquiry that you are trying to match up with original sin. Would it be possible for us to discuss the primary research which causes the discord of original sin? Or perhaps we could discuss the scientific induction method which actually deals with probability? Or better yet, share with me what you are learning in terms of “human development” in the material/physical domain of natural science.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

my name is Alexandre and I am a student at the B.A in Anthropology at Laval University.

To keep this short, when we look at the evolution of human beings we find out that humanity evolved from great apes millions of years ago, and even before that from a tiny mammal that looks like a big rat. How then can we talk about Adam and Eve in such a context? How can we talk about original sin? What kind of original sin would that be?’

Gratuitous conclusion. Science has proven no such thing. The Church does not rule out some type of evolution. But teaches definitively that Adam was not the decendent of an animal in that he was conceived in the normal manner ( that is he would not have been conceived from animals in the normal sense. At the very least this would have meant that he never had an animal soul, his soul was not the product of evolution from animals.) What the Church means by that I think is that Adam was truely and entirely human from the moment of conception. Nor does the Church teach exactly how Eve was derived from Adam. And perhaps the Bible story is entirely true, the Church just hasn’t said one way or the other.

What’s hard to understand about original sin. Adam and Eve were created in a special condition with special but conditional attributes and in the state of grace. The sinned against God in some way and lost the special privileges and the state of grace. We inherit that sin through generation ( the Church doesn’t explain how this is possible since the human soul is created directly by God. It is not handed on by generation. A very interesting situation.)

If man evolved like this over millions of years then there never was any original sin human’s committed no more than for lions or horses or any other animal. And, of course this means Jesus and Christianity is irrelevant since there would be no original sin to save us from.

Are you saying that God lies then? Neither Science nor your interpretation of it are qualified to make philosophical and/or moral judgments about the Truths of Faith. St. Thomas Aquinas and other Christian philosophers and the Fathers of the Church have proven that the Truths of Faith are entirely reasonable, at the very least in that they show that the Truths of Faith are not contrary to reason.

Once reason leads us to God, it is entirely reasonable that there should have been a Revelation and then it is entirely reasonable to place one’s trust in a God who is Truth Itself and then to trust the Church He established to reveal all Truth. He never promised we could understand how some Truths are possible, He wants our trust, that is one of the tests He demands of the faithful. We are not God and should not expect to know everything God knows - and some think this is the sin Adam and Eve comitted, that they wanted to know as much as God.

How does a Christian like me reconcile the scientific evidence available from physical anthropology and paleoanthropology with the word of the gospels?

You just need to know the limits of Science. Science is not God, Science came from God via the slow development of the intellectual operations and powers He bestowed on Man.

Have you read any of the works of Thomas Aquinas, most of them are on line in English. newadvent.org/summa/

You also need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Your faith needs to keep pace to your education or you will loose it.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

God is AMAZING
My belief in creation

Evolution v. Creation

 I have a wonderful friend (in "real life" :p) who believes in the theory of evolution.  I love this friend to death, but I have to disagree with her, and I support the biblical belief of creationism.

 Now I know that even if evolution was proved to be a fact (instead of just a theory), the Church would never have been wrong.  Archbishop Sheehan said, "But even if the proof were forthcoming tomorrow, that the body of hte fist man was evolved from lower animals, it would not be found to contradict any solemn, ordinary, or official teaching of the Church."

 Yet I wanted to explain my thoughts on creation and the origin of man.

Here’s a monkey…I think I’ll name him Adam.

One of the main beliefs held by my friend is that, at one point during creation, God breathed a soul into a primate and that soul made the monkey the first man. This is a belief I cannot support and here is why:

 "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." - Gen. 2:7.
 
 Some thoughts.  First part of the verse: "...formed the man from the dust of the ground."  Looking at this closely, it doesn't really "jive" with the belief that the first man was evolved from a monkey.  God clearly made man from the dust of the earth, a fact we acknowledge on Ash Wednesday when we are told that we are dust and to dust we shall return.  We are not told that God decided it was time for man to make an appearance, picked up a monkey and breathed him a soul.  He made man from the dust, not some random monkey.  
 
 Second part of the verse: "...and the man became a living being."  This would mean that the materials used to make man had never been alive until this point.  Now, if this was a monkey that had been used to now have a soul, the verse would have read: "...and the man became existent, no longer an ape, but a man in the image of God."

**
Cross this line to de-evolve**

 Believing that Adam and Eve were the first on the earth, we believe that they existed very happily, even walking with God, in the garden of Eden.  Then came original sin, and due to their blame game, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, but with the promise of a savior that would come and rescue them from their sin as to open the gates of Heaven.

 Here is where my next thought comes in.  Adam and Eve were obviously advanced in knowledge enough to converse with God, name animals, and function as human beings.  So when they crossed the threshold of the garden of Eden, did they de-evolve?  Did they become reduced to grunting "cave men," hunched over, uncivilized, and animalistic?  This would actually go against this bible verse:

 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Gen. 1:26

 Man was created to have dominion over animals, not to be reduced to being animalistic himself. as this would be de-evolution, 

 Also, one thing you have to love about God is that He is a God of order.  For man to be created in God's image, then to be reduced to what we have learned as  the "cave man," would go against God's beautiful plan of order in the universe He has created.

 Just some thoughts on the amazing love of God.  Studied some of this in religion class this school year , had to share some of my thoughts!

Let me know what you think in the comments section on my blog? [SIGN]Check out the web address in my signature below[/SIGN] (where these thoughts are all written )
God Bless you all,

Chloe M.

 

[JDaniel]

But then again there never was a first two, evolutionnary theory renders this impossible, their was a first group of hominids that exibited the characterictics of the genre homo sapien but never a first two.

Alex: Welcome to CAF!

You’d better think that statement and position through a bit more. So, all of a sudden this “group” shows up, like some party-crashers at the front door? Do you really think that, at one moment there were no hominids, and the next moment there was a “group?” Evolution shows us that a singular modification will show up. Then, by breeding, spread to new offspring. First there is a first. Then a second. Then a third, and so forth.

And, although the story of the Fall appears to contain some contradictions, we can’t know precisely what took place during the past two hundred thousand years, or even the past one hundred thousand years. We are configurations of lattices of point particles immersed in Infinite Space - what I call the Mind of God. God can easily alter any configuration(s) He wishes to, at any point in human succession. Thus supplying to us a soul that brings with it all of the other determinants of humankind, such as consciousness of consciousness, and consciousness of consciousness of consciousness. Among other things.

You are over-thinking the problem. You know that thing on top of your neck, that you think with? Don’t give up on it.

What about the neanderthals? they also had this intellect, recent findings even show that they were not that different from us homo sapiens, infact its even possible that we may have interbreeded with them at some point, why did God make them go brutally extinct?

Hmmm? The first instance of sin with an animal?

Also what is exculsive to human intellect?

I mentioned one powerful one above. There are those who say that they can go inward five or six levels of consciousness of consciousness. Can any animal do that? Do animals remember birthdays or holidays? Can animals design and build particle accelerators?

Is it morality? Chimps, it was shown can have a notion of right and wrong. I think that mabe the fall was not a litteral fal, that is that we must take it as a methaphor or something… but im not satisfied with this.

While the precise events of the story may not be exactly as presented in modern Bibles, the verisimilitude is more than likely pretty good.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

This is a simple observation from the few years I have been on CAF.

Some of the least known Catholic doctrines are those connected with Original Sin.

These doctrines start with human nature itself. Note that our own human nature is the result of propagation as descendants of Adam after he shattered his relationship with his Creator. As a result, our human nature is wounded, yet essentially the same as Adam’s.

Like Adam, we are called to share in God’s life through knowledge (rational spiritual soul) and love (our unique free will). In order for this “sharing with God” to take place, the origin of our nature must unite the material and spiritual worlds. Natural science can provide information about our material body; but, by definition, natural science is limited to one world, the material world. It is when information from the material world intersects with Divine Revelation, that problems do occur. This does not mean that one should automatically throw out any theory proposed by scientists. What it does mean is that Catholics need to learn how to analytically approach science research as it develops and consequently changes. For example, the “monkey” theory went out about the same time as the Piltdown Man left the scene, give or take a few decades. Yet, chimps are considered by some scientists as our closest “evolution” relatives.

Long ago, I would post about my cousin Chilly Chimp. Poor Chilly. He gave up the opportunity to swim with the dolphins because he didn’t want to leave his favorite “bar scene”. I know. That is a bad pun. The point is that the evolution science model cannot explain away our peerless human nature based on our singular origin.

 

[interestedman]

Yes but theproblem is that evolution dosen’t work like that, its a continuity, so theirs no way to say who are the two ‘‘first’’ homo sapiens, rather is a group of MANY individuals, a population rather than 2 of them. Where is original sin in all of this?

Basically you can look at it two ways: original sin doesn’t exist or it exists for some reason other than the Adam and Eve narrative.

 

[coachdennis]

God is AMAZING
My belief in creation

Evolution v. Creation

 I have a wonderful friend (in "real life" :p) who believes in the theory of evolution.  I love this friend to death, but I have to disagree with her, and I support the biblical belief of creationism.

 Now I know that even if evolution was proved to be a fact (instead of just a theory), the Church would never have been wrong.  Archbishop Sheehan said, "But even if the proof were forthcoming tomorrow, that the body of hte fist man was evolved from lower animals, it would not be found to contradict any solemn, ordinary, or official teaching of the Church."

 Yet I wanted to explain my thoughts on creation and the origin of man.

Here’s a monkey…I think I’ll name him Adam.

One of the main beliefs held by my friend is that, at one point during creation, God breathed a soul into a primate and that soul made the monkey the first man. This is a belief I cannot support and here is why:

 "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." - Gen. 2:7.
 
 Some thoughts.  First part of the verse: "...formed the man from the dust of the ground."  Looking at this closely, it doesn't really "jive" with the belief that the first man was evolved from a monkey.  God clearly made man from the dust of the earth, a fact we acknowledge on Ash Wednesday when we are told that we are dust and to dust we shall return.  We are not told that God decided it was time for man to make an appearance, picked up a monkey and breathed him a soul.  He made man from the dust, not some random monkey.  
 
 Second part of the verse: "...and the man became a living being."  This would mean that the materials used to make man had never been alive until this point.  Now, if this was a monkey that had been used to now have a soul, the verse would have read: "...and the man became existent, no longer an ape, but a man in the image of God."

**
Cross this line to de-evolve**

 Believing that Adam and Eve were the first on the earth, we believe that they existed very happily, even walking with God, in the garden of Eden.  Then came original sin, and due to their blame game, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, but with the promise of a savior that would come and rescue them from their sin as to open the gates of Heaven.

 Here is where my next thought comes in.  Adam and Eve were obviously advanced in knowledge enough to converse with God, name animals, and function as human beings.  So when they crossed the threshold of the garden of Eden, did they de-evolve?  Did they become reduced to grunting "cave men," hunched over, uncivilized, and animalistic?  This would actually go against this bible verse:

 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Gen. 1:26

 Man was created to have dominion over animals, not to be reduced to being animalistic himself. as this would be de-evolution, 

 Also, one thing you have to love about God is that He is a God of order.  For man to be created in God's image, then to be reduced to what we have learned as  the "cave man," would go against God's beautiful plan of order in the universe He has created.

 Just some thoughts on the amazing love of God.  Studied some of this in religion class this school year , had to share some of my thoughts!

Let me know what you think in the comments section on my blog? [SIGN]Check out the web address in my signature below[/SIGN] (where these thoughts are all written )
God Bless you all,

Chloe M.

As I stated before in a previous post, Catholics can view the creation story as literal or symbolic IF they accept that God is the supreme creator, that at some point human parents (call them Adam & Eve, or FRed & Ethel if you like) sinned against God, and the redemption of the human race was through the sacrifice of Jesus. The details of how, when, etc. are secondary to faith and one of the mysteries that will be revealed to us when we are joined with Our Father in heaven.

If your friend believes in the teachings of the Church about God as creator, original sin, the need for a redeemer, and Jesus is the redeemer then the “method” God chose becomes secondary.

 

[grannymh]

Basically you can look at it two ways: original sin doesn’t exist or it exists for some reason other than the Adam and Eve narrative.

Catholic terminology (which can be different from some of the other Christian faiths)
is that Original Sin exists because an important essential part of the “Adam and Eve narrative” is that Adam actually existed as the first true, real, fully-complete human person.

 

[snarflemike]

Yes but theproblem is that evolution dosen’t work like that, its a continuity, so theirs no way to say who are the two ‘‘first’’ homo sapiens, rather is a group of MANY individuals, a population rather than 2 of them. Where is original sin in all of this?

Evolution works exactly that way. When mutations occur they don’t occur to a population, they occur to an individual. That individual then spreads beneficial (or perhaps harmful) mutations into the population.

Besides, there didn’t need to be a newly-mutated creature involved. God could very well have taken a stable population and infused human souls into two of that population. Bingo, the first two humans.