Adam and Eve and Genetics Difficulty

[Richca]

The Catholic Church allows people to believe in a type of evolution but it never say exactly what. It only says that God creates each soul immediately.

 

[Kevin12]

This series of articles by Edward Feser, who is so far from being a modernist that he links a blog like Rorate Caeli that I really wish he didn’t, came up with a proposition that I think works well enough.

Adam and Eve were originally biologically modern humans but they lacked souls. God breathed souls into them. The story plays out as it did normally. The difference is that Cain and Abel, or the equivalent thereof, mated with unsouled humans. This process repeated until all the remained human species had souls, but also Original Sin. And here we are today.

 

[grannymh]

This series of articles by Edward Feser, who is so far from being a modernist that he links a blog like Rorate Caeli that I really wish he didn’t, came up with a proposition that I think works well enough.

Adam and Eve were originally biologically modern humans but they lacked souls. God breathed souls into them. The story plays out as it did normally. The difference is that Cain and Abel, or the equivalent thereof, mated with unsouled humans. This process repeated until all the remained human species had souls, but also Original Sin. And here we are today.

This cranky granny needs help with the link. It keeps going to a great article on Original Sin. If somehow I missed the information on pre-existent matter, unsouled humans overturning the principle of non-contradiction, and bestiality – please, could someone note the paragraph before as a signal. Thank you.

 

[cfauster]

This cranky granny needs help with the link. It keeps going to a great article on Original Sin. If somehow I missed the information on pre-existent matter, unsouled humans overturning the principle of non-contradiction, and bestiality – please, could someone note the paragraph before as a signal. Thank you.

The post by Edward Feser to which Kevin12 provided the link is Part II of a two-part series that Ed Feser entitled “Modern Biology and Original Sin.”

As you noted, Part II focuses on original sin.

I’m not sure, but perhaps the additional information you’re looking for from Ed Feser is towards the end of Part I, where Feser writes:

“There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures – even if there had been only two of them – would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul – that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have …we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair… This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like… but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair – when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.”

 

[Kevin12]

This cranky granny needs help with the link. It keeps going to a great article on Original Sin. If somehow I missed the information on pre-existent matter, unsouled humans overturning the principle of non-contradiction, and bestiality – please, could someone note the paragraph before as a signal. Thank you.

Sorry, I said “series” there because there are links to the other article on the issue. Part 1 is more on topic.

 

[Richca]

The post by Edward Feser to which Kevin12 provided the link is Part II of a two-part series that Ed Feser entitled “Modern Biology and Original Sin.”

As you noted, Part II focuses on original sin.

I’m not sure, but perhaps the additional information you’re looking for from Ed Feser is towards the end of Part I, where Feser writes:

“There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures – even if there had been only two of them – would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul – that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have …we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair… This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like… but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair – when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.”

I see no compelling reason, indeed no reason at all if we believe that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing and if we take into account His omnipotent power, for the use of the pre-human body like creatures whatever their number be for the creation and formation of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman of the human race. In contrast to Feser’s conception supposition scenario of the first two humans which I find rather unsatisfactory, we can just as easily suppose or assert that God took a handful of dirt from the earth, immediately and instantly formed the complete mature body of Adam and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that is, the rational spiritual soul and Adam became a living being. And then God took some flesh or a rib from the side of Adam and created Eve. From this first couple of the human race, all human beings have descended. We may remind ourselves also of what St John the Baptist says: " And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones." (Matt. 3: 9).

 

[Gorgias]

I see no compelling reason… for the use of the pre-human body like creatures whatever their number be for the creation and formation of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman of the human race. In contrast to Feser’s conception supposition scenario of the first two humans which I find rather unsatisfactory, we can just as easily suppose or assert that God took a handful of dirt from the earth, immediately and instantly formed the complete mature body of Adam and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that is, the rational spiritual soul and Adam became a living being. And then God took some flesh or a rib from the side of Adam and created Eve.

The ‘compelling reason’, I might think, is that it more neatly answers the question of the (seeming) evolution of primates. Now, God could have done it the way you suggest, but that would mean that He set up a system of evolution and then abandoned it in order to insert man directly into the system He had already created; or that He didn’t set up a system of evolution, but instead created primates with DNA that has the appearance of evolution (that’s the favorite one of the young-earthers: God’s trying to ‘fool us’ with fossils and such). The alternative, of course, is a solution along the line of Feser’s.

The ‘compelling reason’, then, would be an Occam’s Razor argument: the alternative that Feser proposes is the simplest way in which the evidence might be explained.

 

[Gorgias]

In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission declared that it is not permissible to deny the historical nature of the Genesis 1-3

There’s a lot riding on that statement, and depending on what you mean by it, you might have already answered your question (albeit in a way that might be unsatisfying to you).

Do you mean to suggest that the PBC asserted that all of Genesis 1-3 is strictly historical? That’s not what they said. Let’s look at the assertions in that document that are relevant to your claim:

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

Notice that this question doesn’t say that Genesis 1-3 is entirely a literal, historical narrative. Rather, it only says that it is not possible to completely exclude a literal historical meaning to these chapters. In other words, as long as there is (minimally) one literal historical truth in Genesis 1-3, the answer in question #1 holds up.

But, what could “literal historical” mean here? Is the question more nuanced than a surface reading reveals? Let’s look at the next question:

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.

This doesn’t help your case much. No, it cannot be taught that there are no ‘actual events’ that are described in Genesis 1-3; that is, that these are merely ‘fables’ that have been scrubbed of error or that there is no ‘foundation in objective reality’ to be found there. But… what is meant by ‘actual events’?

(There’s another interesting discussion to be had regarding the second part of the question – the part about ‘legends in part historical and in part fictitious’ – but I’ll defer for the moment.)

The ‘actual events’ are addressed in the next question:

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road, IMHO. The ‘actual events’ that the PBC are defending are: * The creation of all things by God in the beginning of time

• the special creation of man
• the formation of the first woman from the first man
• the unity of the human race
• the original felicity of our first parents
• etc, etc

None of these is contradicted by, for instance, the theory that Feser puts forward (which has been noted in this thread). Of special interest is the notion of “the formation of the first woman from the first man”, for a few reasons (!), but nevertheless, none of these assertions precludes the kinds of suggestions that Feser makes, or requires a more literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts.

So – and perhaps I’m misconstruing your question – it seems that you’re taking these assertions of the PBC document and attempting to make it say something that it’s not saying at all…

I do not see how one can seriously deny the historicity of Adam and Eve

Wait – you mean the historicity of a first man ‘from the red earth’ and a ‘mother of all the living’ (which is, in fact, what the Genesis accounts assert)? Yeah… that’s asserted doctrinally, and is all good. However, I think that you are asserting far more than that, right?

 

[Kevin12]

I see no compelling reason, indeed no reason at all if we believe that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing and if we take into account His omnipotent power, for the use of the pre-human body like creatures whatever their number be for the creation and formation of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman of the human race. In contrast to Feser’s conception supposition scenario of the first two humans which I find rather unsatisfactory, we can just as easily suppose or assert that God took a handful of dirt from the earth, immediately and instantly formed the complete mature body of Adam and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that is, the rational spiritual soul and Adam became a living being. And then God took some flesh or a rib from the side of Adam and created Eve. From this first couple of the human race, all human beings have descended. We may remind ourselves also of what St John the Baptist says: " And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones." (Matt. 3: 9).

Except that your scenario assumes that God also miraculously altered human DNA for probably thousand and thousands of years so in such a way that it would look like there was more genetic variation than there actually was, which would not only be more than we were due as fallen beings, but also nothing short of a direct act of deception on God’s part, along the lines of the idea by some early Protestant paleontologists who claimed God had deliberately buried dinosaur bones that chemical analysis showed were millions and millions of years old to test our faith.

Though I suppose you could say, God created Adam and Eve full bodied, but even then they were genetically identical to biologically modern humans that were already there, and it was with these beings with which the children of Adam and Eve mated.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I favor the principle that because of the length of female fertility, Adam and Eve had a bunch of children who were not necessarily clones of their mother.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s where the rubber meets the road, IMHO. The ‘actual events’ that the PBC are defending are:

• The creation of all things by God in the beginning of time
• the special creation of man
• the formation of the first woman from the first man
• the unity of the human race
• the original felicity of our first parents
• etc, etc

Don’t mind this older than dirt granny. But I sure hope that the etc., etc., includes human nature, the uniqueness of which is demonstrated in the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. That intelligent author was following the basic rule of “observe without prejudice.”

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t mind this older than dirt granny. But I sure hope that the etc., etc., includes human nature, the uniqueness of which is demonstrated in the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. That intelligent author was following the basic rule of “observe without prejudice.”

Not explicitly; I was just referencing the PBC document, and didn’t feel like re-typing what I had already quoted.

 

[Gorgias]

Personally, I favor the principle that because of the length of female fertility, Adam and Eve had a bunch of children who were not necessarily clones of their mother.

OK… so, since I alluded to this earlier, let me throw it out there now:

everyone tends to get a bit grossed out by the (seemingly necessary) incest and interbreeding that a highly literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of the beginning of the human race requires. They wonder whether there was Eve-and-children incest, or incest among the children of Eve, and neither of these are wholly satisfactory alternatives (even if they attempt to put a good face on it by claiming that there were “superior genes” that somehow make incest OK). But, one thing seems to have been forgotten…

If you want to take the account on its face, then Eve and Adam already had “brother and sister” DNA, since – when taken strictly literally – Eve was pretty near ‘cloned’ from Adam’s body. Therefore, Adam and Eve’s children themselves were already the product of a sort of incest…

 

[Aloysium]

The way I see it, God took the stardust - Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc at the beginning of the earth and began fashioning Adam.

Now, the real world is a bit different from what we think it is in our fallen state, and I’m not sure of much else other than it springs forth eternally created by God.
The laws and properties which govern the various forms and their behaviour are brought into existence in each and every moment that exists in time and space.

So God, outside of time, begins this moulding of Adam, and thereby creates a vast assortment of creatures along the way.
Life surrenders itself to life as a vast variety of branches spring forth from the main trunk, destined to see the incarnation of God in man.
The Word shapes Adam taking bits and pieces first carried by one-celled creatures, becoming evermore more complex, whatever the sequence involved: apparently fish, to mammals to primates.
God not bound by time, but creating through time, brought the reality of Adam’s body into its final form by means of animals he made along the way.

Once brought into existence, Adam became the source of all mankind through Eve who emerged from his side, body and soul, fully human.
This happened because, God being God, fashioned her from Adam.
People like to think in terms of RNA and DNA, replicating and forging proteins; hardly a tumor, she grew from his side, but with a different genetic make-up.
Adam and Eve were at the ontological Centre of the cosmos through their relationship with God, so that even after the fall, we see the flowering of genetic diversity in their off-spring, who like us were brothers and sisters in God.

That’s just the physical part of it. Mankind may or may not have any relation to the scientific designation of Homo sapiens; I don’t think so.
We have been here a long time, our roots going back to the formation of the earth from which we sprang.

All of us here today originate in Adam. We are one in him and we are one body in Christ when we love one another.

 

[cfauster]

The post by Edward Feser to which Kevin12 provided the link is Part II of a two-part series that Ed Feser entitled “Modern Biology and Original Sin.”

In case it’s of interest, here’s a profile of Feser:
catholic.com/profiles/edward-feser

Both he and Austriaco are Thomists. I think there are some subtle differences in their views, but I can’t quite put my finger on them (exploration of which would probably belong in the Philosophy subforum).

In this post I just wanted to provide a bit of background on Feser.

 

[grannymh]

OK… so, since I alluded to this earlier, let me throw it out there now:

everyone tends to get a bit grossed out by the (seemingly necessary) incest and interbreeding that a highly literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of the beginning of the human race requires. They wonder whether there was Eve-and-children incest, or incest among the children of Eve, and neither of these are wholly satisfactory alternatives (even if they attempt to put a good face on it by claiming that there were “superior genes” that somehow make incest OK). But, one thing seems to have been forgotten…

If you want to take the account on its face, then Eve and Adam already had “brother and sister” DNA, since – when taken strictly literally – Eve was pretty near ‘cloned’ from Adam’s body. Therefore, Adam and Eve’s children themselves were already the product of a sort of incest…

Incest – Yikes!

Perhaps, it is best to first understand that parent/child sexual relations is known as rape. Parent/child rape would naturally destroy the family structure. Thus, this literal abomination would not be part of the Catholic understanding of Genesis 1: 28. A marriage between siblings does not destroy the family structure. Still, currently a marriage between siblings or closely related relatives can result in medical disasters.

Second is the observable concept that “laws” of incest are based on two human persons’ right to marry. For an interesting resource, google Huntington Disease. For Adam’s children to inherit a fully developed genetic disorder, they would need at least one ancestor before Adam. Thus, the incest laws regarding marriage between closely related humans would take a few generations to develop. Considering the length and depth of female fertility which can result in overlapping generations, very soon, there would be no need for siblings to marry. The problem with today’s Catholicism is that it still maintains that Adam and Eve are the first fully complete human natures. (Genesis 1: 27)

One problem with Genesis 2: 21-23, is that some, not all, people ignore Genesis 2: 20 which contains a simple biological fact regarding the difference between natures.

What some, not all, people erroneously think is that every word in the first three chapters of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine – thus eliminating the need for the Holy Spirit and major church councils. (chapter 14, Gospel of John) In addition, at times there is a total misunderstanding of these simple words in CCC 390. “The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, …” Personally, I have no clue why the word “affirms” is not understood.

Back to this interesting possible literalistic reading – "If you want to take the account on its face, then Eve and Adam already had “brother and sister” DNA, since – when taken strictly literally – Eve was pretty near ‘cloned’ from Adam’s body. Sometime back, I did hear the idea that Eve and Adam were possibly twins.

When we look at the context of Genesis 2: 18-20 --.

18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k

19
So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

20
The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.

21
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.l

22
The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,

23
the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man this one has been taken."

– we see that the author is comparing material anatomies. Yet, the author knows that human nature has a spiritual principle, that is, a rational spiritual soul. This is clearly stated in Genesis 1: 27.

While the word “my” in “my bones” may not be strictly figurative, it does take us back to Genesis 2: 20 where Adam is definitely different from material creation. (shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26 & CCC 343) My signifies a definite person, Adam. It signifies the whole nature of the human Adam. How Eve was scientifically fashioned by God (CCC 371) is not necessary information. What is necessary is that Eve is a true, fully complete human person as is Adam.

The event which is being affirmed is the appearance of two first persons with a fully-complete human nature.

 

[cjforJesus]

Yes, the Church allows research and discussion as to the origin of the human body “as coming from pre-existent and living matter” (cf. Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII). For example, God could have taken a single living cell from some lower species of animal, reworked the genetics and DNA of it and then formed the complete human body of Adam from it and then infused the spiritual soul into this human body and so Adam became “a living being”, that is, a human being (a man) with a human body and with a human immortal spiritual soul. Only human beings who are one being composed of a corporeal body and spirit (or spiritual immortal soul) have a human body. Lower species of animals may have a human like body but not a human body. As God alone immediately creates the immortal spiritual soul of every human being including Adam, the first human being and the first man, He miraculously and supernaturally intervened in the creation and formation of Adam even as to his body. For the human body which is made out of matter is properly disposed to receive the reception of its specific form, that is, the immortal spiritual soul. And before Adam, there was no animal who had a form, i.e., a spiritual immortal soul, through which Adam’s body could have been properly disposed in all that pertains to the human body to receive the specific form of the human body, i.e., our spiritual soul. Accordingly, even as to Adam’s body, I believe God miraculously and supernaturally intervened in its formation and make-up which means it is not the direct product of a natural process of evolution though such a process could have been a factor in an incomplete way to some kind of development which eventually led in some incomplete way to the complete human body.

 

[cfauster]

Richca;13498951:

Creationism seems much more plausible than evolution. All biological evidence points to a loving Creator who is definitely not random but very purposeful and loving.

“…many Christians have a reaction to randomness that falls somewhere between uneasy and antagonistic. So where does the uneasiness come from? Likely it comes from the feeling that taking randomness seriously means not taking God seriously. Or put more strongly, it comes from a fear that believing in randomness means not believing in God. But rather than seeing apparent randomness as being in opposition to Christian belief that God is active and sovereign in the world, could God use actually randomness to achieve his purposes? Whether and how God uses randomness is difficult to tell, but randomness may not be as incompatible with a creating and sustaining God as some Christians fear …”

The above comes from Randomness and God’s Governance, Part 2. Here is a link to the three-part series.

 

[cjforJesus]

cjforJesus;13509465:

“…many Christians have a reaction to randomness that falls somewhere between uneasy and antagonistic. So where does the uneasiness come from? Likely it comes from the feeling that taking randomness seriously means not taking God seriously. Or put more strongly, it comes from a fear that believing in randomness means not believing in God. But rather than seeing apparent randomness as being in opposition to Christian belief that God is active and sovereign in the world, could God use actually randomness to achieve his purposes? Whether and how God uses randomness is difficult to tell, but randomness may not be as incompatible with a creating and sustaining God as some Christians fear …”

The above comes from Randomness and God’s Governance, Part 2

. Here is a link to the three-part series.

Sorry,but this man convinced me more than ever. Evolution is false and is only accepted because the alternative is God.

Do not worry though because you do not have to abandon your conception of scientific theories.The Church cannot teach on scientific principles. She is a teacher of faith and morals yet you may continue your studies in search of the truth.

 

[cjforJesus]

That quote in post 78 attributed to Richa was by me and the one attributed to me in the subsequent post was by cfauster