Adam and Eve and Genetics Difficulty

[rossum]

I just stumbled upon a very interesting video of a Jewish philosopher refuting Darwinian evolution.

David Berlinski? If it was then he has not refuted evolution. He is just another DI propagandist pushing ID. If not Berlinski, then who was it?

In a nutshell complex lifeforms evolving randomly makes no sense.

Of course not, since that is not what evolution says. Evolution says that complex lifeforms evolved from slightly less complex lifeforms, adding a little more complexity on the way.

It is an idea that took on a life of its own,and was adopted as an atheistic response to the origins of life.

Francis Collins and Ken Miller would both disagree that evolution is atheistic. It is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity. You will not see God mentioned in a science textbook on gravity. Does that make gravity atheistic?

Creationism seems much more plausible than evolution.

Your “seems” gives the game away. The biological evidence points towards evolution. Massively so.

All biological evidence points to a loving Creator who is definitely not random but very purposeful and loving.

… and who created malaria, cholera, Ebola and the Black Death. Strange sort of “loving” it seems to me.

rossum

 

[cjforJesus]

David Berlinski? If it was then he has not refuted evolution. He is just another DI propagandist pushing ID. If not Berlinski, then who was it?

Of course not, since that is not what evolution says. Evolution says that complex lifeforms evolved from slightly less complex lifeforms, adding a little more complexity on the way.

Francis Collins and Ken Miller would both disagree that evolution is atheistic. It is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity. You will not see God mentioned in a science textbook on gravity. Does that make gravity atheistic?

Your “seems” gives the game away. The biological evidence points towards evolution. Massively so.

… and who created malaria, cholera, Ebola and the Black Death. Strange sort of “loving” it seems to me.

rossum

Evolution is beyond absurd if you actually critically examine it. There is absolutely NO scientific proof that MACRO evolution ever occurred no matter how hard scientists try to prove it. Nothing in the fossil record, absolutely nothing to show that human beings were not always human beings,ensouled by God

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You will not see God mentioned in a science textbook on gravity. Does that make gravity atheistic? . . .

It would if the textbooks claimed that gravity was a randomly occurring event rather than an integral part of creation, which is brought into existence by God. Apples and oranges, my friend.

 

[cfauster]

Actually, a scientific concept need not entail randomness to be perceived as anti-religious. Charles Darwin himself noted as much:

"Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing ‘occult qualities and miracles into philosophy.’ … It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, ‘as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.’ " (Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, pages 421-422).

 

[rossum]

Evolution is beyond absurd if you actually critically examine it. There is absolutely NO scientific proof that MACRO evolution ever occurred no matter how hard scientists try to prove it. Nothing in the fossil record, absolutely nothing to show that human beings were not always human beings,ensouled by God

1. You are being lied to by YEC sites about the level of scientific support and evidence for evolution. Why do you believe people who lie to you?
2. Your use of the word “proof” in this context shows that you need to learn more about how science works. Proof is for mathematics; in science all we have is “the best so far”. Newton was the best we had for a long time. Then Einstein came along and showed us a better theory of gravity. Newton was never “proved”, nor is Einstein. When we find a better theory than Einstein’s his theory will be replaced in its turn.
3. Evolution itself is a banned topic here, see the stickies, so we will have to avoid detailed discussion of the topic.
4. Am I right in assuming that your source was David Berlinski? The number of non-Christian English speaking anti-evolutionists is very small, so it is not difficult to make an educated guess.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It would if the textbooks claimed that gravity was a randomly occurring event rather than an integral part of creation, which is brought into existence by God. Apples and oranges, my friend.

Nor is evolution a randomly occurring event. Natural selection is most definitely non-random. Sexual selection is most definitely non-random. The word “selection” gives the game away in both cases.

rossum

 

[cjforJesus]

Nor is evolution a randomly occurring event. Natural selection is most definitely non-random. Sexual selection is most definitely non-random. The word “selection” gives the game away in both cases.

rossum

Evolution is just modern mans attempt to explain his origins.
I realize Buddhists do not believe in God and everything is illusion,but Catholics have the choice to believe we are created beings not just random accidents.
When you can show me ANYTHING from the fossil record to support evolution then I will examine it again.
Not too many years ago a skull was found and dated to almost 1 million years. The skull was virtually identical to modern man. There is variation among skeletal structures in many races and some aboriginals look amazingly like what is portrayed as neanderthals.

 

[rossum]

Evolution is just modern mans attempt to explain his origins.

That is what science does. It explains things. The origin of species is one of those things.

I realize Buddhists do not believe in God and everything is illusion,

We have tens of thousands of gods; many more than you do. Reality is not an illusion. Our perception of reality is imperfect (due to our imperfect senses) and so our internal models of reality are also imperfect.

When you can show me ANYTHING from the fossil record to support evolution then I will examine it again.

I cannot show you here because evolution discussion is not allowed. I think I can say that DNA paternity (and maternity) tests are just a small part of the evidence for evolution.

Not too many years ago a skull was found and dated to almost 1 million years. The skull was virtually identical to modern man.

Reference please.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Nor is evolution a randomly occurring event. Natural selection is most definitely non-random. Sexual selection is most definitely non-random. The word “selection” gives the game away in both cases.

rossum

There’s a reason evolution is a banned topic.
This not being a science forum, I will not belabour a point you did not grasp and I believe you do not wish to.
You would be far, far further ahead in your spiritual progress meditating than arguing on Catholic forums in your quite condescending fashion.
Seriously dude, I’ve got all sorts of initials after my name related to study of the natural sciences.
Don’t tell me about evolution or gravity or the philosophy of science.

 

[grannymh]

That is what science does. It explains things. The origin of species is one of those things.

Hi Rossum,
Long time no see. Glad to see you here. I just printed out one of your crisp sentences about science. Natural science is a gift from God which benefits society especially in the medical arena.

I am guessing that the citation you asked for is known as the “Face in the Crowd” reported in either *Nature *or *Science *around 2012 or so. For me, the age of the fossil was not important. It was this picture of five sculls in a row which sticks in my mind. Most likely I am wrong about the date and place, etc. In any case, paleoanthropology fascinates me. Not necessarily because of the origin of a species; but because of the Creator’s mastery, that is, God’s amazing skill in bringing about the working human anatomy.

In my humble opinion, the difficulty with natural science is that some people have a hard time grasping the scientific difference between the large originating populations of species such as birds and bears and the unique originating population of two which is the origin of the human person. Another way of explaining the difference in kind is the comparison of a beaver dam with the Hoover Dam.

 

[Latinitas]

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:

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:

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:

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…

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?

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, although I think this thread might soon be closed, given that it’s going a bit off course.

I certainly don’t take a literalistic interpretation of the Primeval History; but, as this decree indicates, I certainly do hold that they are truly historical, even if not written according to modern styles and sensibilites. My question was really how does one reconcile the seeming contradiction between the conclusions reached in evolutinary biology on the one hand, and the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the other. The difficulty I see in the various systems proposed to resolve the problem, which no one here has addressed, is how does one reconcile this with original sin, particularly with the notion that the father passes on original sin to his children, not the mother (thus the symbolism of circumcision in the Old Law)? The fact that the father’s DNA is in all of us doesn’t seem sufficient. It would seem that we must all be descended from one male, and that all other males and females, originate in him.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Gorgias]

I certainly don’t take a literalistic interpretation of the Primeval History; but, as this decree indicates, I certainly do hold that they are truly historical, even if not written according to modern styles and sensibilites.

The answer, of course, comes down to what you’re trying to imply by ‘historical’, if it’s not ‘literalistic’. Your question in the OP about Eve conceiving seems to be explicitly drawing out a literalistic interpretation. (After all, if the events are historical but allegorical, then the notion that the first mother of all humans actually conceived offspring isn’t a stretch at all. On the other hand, if you perceive the accounts literalistically, then there are the potential problems that you have raised in this thread.) I’m not sure I’m seeing the problems to which you allude, if your interpretative stance is “historical, but not literalistic” …

My question was really how does one reconcile the seeming contradiction between the conclusions reached in evolutinary biology on the one hand, and the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the other.

Stated simply? By letting biology talk about science, and doctrine about theology.

The difficulty I see in the various systems proposed to resolve the problem, which no one here has addressed, is how does one reconcile this with original sin

The notion of ensoulment of two hominins among a population of unensouled hominins (which, IIRC, has been mentioned here) would seem to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.

particularly with the notion that the father passes on original sin to his children, not the mother (thus the symbolism of circumcision in the Old Law)?

Hmm… in Romans, Paul talks about the first Adam and the new Adam; but he doesn’t specifically mention the mechanism by which the effects of original sin are passed on. The Catechism talks about the propagation of original sin (as by generation), but doesn’t peg it as paternally transmitted.

Circumcision, then, seems less relevant to your case. Moreover, it predates the Old Law, if by that, you mean the Mosaic law. The symbolism of circumcision seems to have less to do with original sin than a sign of the covenant with God.

Finally, if original sin were passed exclusively from the father, that would seem to be at odds with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The fact that the father’s DNA is in all of us doesn’t seem sufficient. It would seem that we must all be descended from one male, and that all other males and females, originate in him.

I’m not sure what this is trying to assert. If a person has a “father’s DNA” in him, how does that not explicitly mean that he is not descended from him?

 

[grannymh]

. My question was really how does one reconcile the seeming contradiction between the conclusions reached in evolutinary biology on the one hand, and the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the other.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Question: How does one reconcile the seeming contradiction between the conclusions reached in evolutionary biology on the one hand, and the Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the other?

Answer: There is absolutely no possible reconciliation.

Science demands that humankind originated in the same manner as bees, birds, bears, and buffalo. Obviously, lots of people like that idea because it knocks out the annoying Catholic doctrines on Original Sin including the fantasy of Adam. The few people who are aware of modern Arianism love messing with Original Sin because that tampers with the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Another reason that there is no reconciliation possible is that science bets on the mathematical difference between a population in the thousands and a population of two. When it comes to the origin of humankind, science chooses the larger number whereas Catholicism sticks to a population of two.

 

[Latinitas]

The answer, of course, comes down to what you’re trying to imply by ‘historical’, if it’s not ‘literalistic’. Your question in the OP about Eve conceiving seems to be explicitly drawing out a literalistic interpretation. (After all, if the events are historical but allegorical, then the notion that the first mother of all humans actually conceived offspring isn’t a stretch at all. On the other hand, if you perceive the accounts literalistically, then there are the potential problems that you have raised in this thread.) I’m not sure I’m seeing the problems to which you allude, if your interpretative stance is “historical, but not literalistic” …

The problem isn’t in interpretation, but simply resolution of the difficulty. When I say historical but not literalistic, I mean, a kind of literary way of describing actual events.

Stated simply? By letting biology talk about science, and doctrine about theology.

But when they both concern the same thing, then they must be reconciled.

Hmm… in Romans, Paul talks about the first Adam and the new Adam; but he doesn’t specifically mention the mechanism by which the effects of original sin are passed on. The Catechism talks about the propagation of original sin (as by generation), but doesn’t peg it as paternally transmitted.

The Council of Trent defined the following:

If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

-Council of Trent, Session V, Canon 2

Circumcision, then, seems less relevant to your case. Moreover, it predates the Old Law, if by that, you mean the Mosaic law. The symbolism of circumcision seems to have less to do with original sin than a sign of the covenant with God.

But the sign of the coveneant is related to the fact that Israel was a holy people, that is, free from sin. Furthermore, it’s a foreshadowing of baptism, which removes original sin, and most Catholic theologians seem to say that circumcision removed the original sin of Jewish males during the regime of the Old Law. And yes, you’re correct, circumcision dates back to Abraham, not Moses, but it was part of the Old Law.

Finally, if original sin were passed exclusively from the father, that would seem to be at odds with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

How so? Mary had a human father. You do have to recognize that it was not absolutely necessary for the Mother of God to be free from original sin to bear Our Lord, just highly fitting. So I don’t see how it contradicts the Immaculate Conception.

I’m not sure what this is trying to assert. If a person has a “father’s DNA” in him, how does that not explicitly mean that he is not descended from him?

If the person were descended from the first man only throught the mother, than where did the father receive original sin from? Or, since as I said, it seems that it is the father alone who passes on original sin, how does the infant have original sin?

That’s my difficulty.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[grannymh]

But when they both concern the same thing, then they must be reconciled.

Both meaning science and doctrine about theology.

Pardon me. Who made up that rule?

Common sense would not be an appropriate answer because common sense, if used, would say that there is a big difference between the material world and the spiritual world.

 

[rossum]

Answer: There is absolutely no possible reconciliation.

Science demands that humankind originated in the same manner as bees, birds, bears, and buffalo. Obviously, lots of people like that idea because it knocks out the annoying Catholic doctrines on Original Sin including the fantasy of Adam. The few people who are aware of modern Arianism love messing with Original Sin because that tampers with the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Another reason that there is no reconciliation possible is that science bets on the mathematical difference between a population in the thousands and a population of two. When it comes to the origin of humankind, science chooses the larger number whereas Catholicism sticks to a population of two.

You are omitting one point here. Science defines a human as a member of the Hominidae with a certain general configuration of DNA. That is a purely material definition.

The Catholic Church defines a human differently. The material part of a human is the same as the scientific definition, but in addition the Catholic definition includes a human soul created directly by God.

Since those are two differently defined entities, then it is possible to have two different origins for them. Hence, by looking carefully at the two different origins of the two different entities it is possible to reconcile them. This seems to me to be what the Pope was talking about when he said: “The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.” That talks about the origins of the material physical human body, which is all that science and evolution talks about. Evolution does not talk about souls. The soul is not encoded in DNA, it is not inherited, it does not mutate and it is not subject to natural selection. Evolution is silent on the matter of the soul.

By separating the origin of the material body – there is no physical part of our body that is not also present in chimpanzees – from the origin of the non-material soul then a reconciliation is possible.

$0.02

rossum

 

[cjforJesus]

You are omitting one point here. Science defines a human as a member of the Hominidae with a certain general configuration of DNA. That is a purely material definition.

The Catholic Church defines a human differently. The material part of a human is the same as the scientific definition, but in addition the Catholic definition includes a human soul created directly by God.

Since those are two differently defined entities, then it is possible to have two different origins for them. Hence, by looking carefully at the two different origins of the two different entities it is possible to reconcile them. This seems to me to be what the Pope was talking about when he said: “The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.” That talks about the origins of the material physical human body, which is all that science and evolution talks about. Evolution does not talk about souls. The soul is not encoded in DNA, it is not inherited, it does not mutate and it is not subject to natural selection. Evolution is silent on the matter of the soul.

By separating the origin of the material body – there is no physical part of our body that is not also present in chimpanzees – from the origin of the non-material soul then a reconciliation is possible.

$0.02

rossum

There is no reconciliation between the two ideas of what constitutes a human being. Science says we are just evolved animals.The CHurch says we are made in the image and likeness of God and our souls created immediately by God.

Did God take two semi evolved human like creatures and give them souls or did two beasts without rational souls give birth to a human? It is ridiculously perplexing.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem isn’t in interpretation, but simply resolution of the difficulty. When I say historical but not literalistic, I mean, a kind of literary way of describing actual events.

OK; but that still falls within the definition of ‘literalistic’, I’d assert. After all, even the CCC talks about the ‘allegory’ found in these passages. If you’re not calling it ‘allegory’, and requiring that it be literally true as written (while nevertheless being written ‘in a literary way’), then I’m wagering that you’re tending toward a ‘literalistic’ interpretation (and hence, the problems that you’re stuck on…)

But when they both concern the same thing, then they must be reconciled.

They don’t “concern the same thing.” As rossum has pointed out to granny, science is talking about the origins of physical animals – the human species, defined in a purely physical way. The Bible (and Christian theology), on the other hand, is talking about different subject matter: the origin of humans ‘in the image and likeness of God’, with immortal souls – this is a definition that requires a physical human person, but goes beyond that definition. Therefore, two types of explanations – one that is purely physical/material and another that speaks to metaphysical realities – are required. The ‘reconciliation’, therefore, will not be one that points out where one or the other is factually incorrect, but rather, will be one that’s based on the differences in the subject matter of the two disciplines.
Latinitis:

[Paul]
doesn’t specifically mention the mechanism by which the effects of original sin are passed on. The Catechism talks about the propagation of original sin (as by generation), but doesn’t peg it as paternally transmitted.

The Council of Trent defined the following:

If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

This is precisely what I was talking about!

Notice that this speaks about the personal sin which is later transmitted to all humanity as ‘original sin’, but not the mechanism by which it is propagated!

Your best hope for making this stick is the assertion that the mention of ‘Adam’ here – and him alone – implies that the propagation is paternal. That just doesn’t work, logically. Firstly, if the sin is the sin of Adam alone, then Eve does not need a savior; this contradicts the faith. Secondly, if the sin is not Adam’s alone and Trent refers to it in the (rather poetic) phrase “the transgression of Adam”, then it stands to reason that when it speaks of the agent through whom the death of the soul entered the world, it too is using the same turn of phrase (ostensibly to speak of our first parents). Thirdly, even if Trent were construed to mean that original sin is propagated only by Adam to his children, it makes no statement about how it is propagated from his children to us (to wit, your assertion that only through his sons does it come down to us.) Finally, even if we’re talking about Adam alone as the initiator of the effects of original sin, the propagation of humans is not a solitary act; since generation of humans is a team effort, then it’s illogical to say that the propagation of a spiritual reality is purely a paternal act.

But the sign of the coveneant is related to the fact that Israel was a holy people, that is, free from sin.

No, Israel is not “free from sin”; it is holy in that it is “set apart” for God.

Furthermore, it’s a foreshadowing of baptism, which removes original sin, and most Catholic theologians seem to say that circumcision removed the original sin of Jewish males during the regime of the Old Law.

Yes, circumcision foreshadows baptism, but it does not bring about its effects. (Would you please provide some citations (magisterial sources, preferably) that back up your claim that “circumcision remove original sin”?) After all, Paul seems to disagree with you vehemently, when he talks about the effects of circumcision under the law of Moses as opposed to the effects of baptism under the law of grace.

Moreover, this seems to assert that Jewish men were free from the effects of original sin, but Jewish women were not. Is that really the claim you’re trying to make, here?

If the person were descended from the first man only throught the mother, than where did the father receive original sin from? Or, since as I said, it seems that it is the father alone who passes on original sin, how does the infant have original sin?

Clearly, through the mother. Your assertion that it’s propagated solely through the father has no support. Remove that mistaken assumption, and the difficulty goes away.

 

[grannymh]

You are omitting one point here. Science defines a human as a member of the Hominidae with a certain general configuration of DNA. That is a purely material definition.

The Catholic Church defines a human differently. The material part of a human is the same as the scientific definition, but in addition the Catholic definition includes a human soul created directly by God.

The actual Catholic definition of human nature goes much deeper.
In Catholic terminology, the material anatomy is considered “matter” which is animated by the spiritual form (soul). Therefore, a human person comes into existence.

Since those are two differently defined entities, then it is possible to have two different origins for them. Hence, by looking carefully at the two different origins of the two different entities it is possible to reconcile them.

The concepts of two differently defined entities and two different origins could be considered Cartesian Extreme Dualism which is not acceptable by the Catholic Church

This seems to me to be what the Pope was talking about when he said: “The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.”

My apology. I cannot address this because it appears to be an interpretive summary or perhaps it is another translation. If it is a second translation, I would appreciate the citation for comparison with this link. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

That talks about the origins of the material physical human body, which is all that science and evolution talks about. Evolution does not talk about souls. The soul is not encoded in DNA, it is not inherited, it does not mutate and it is not subject to natural selection. Evolution is silent on the matter of the soul.

By separating the origin of the material body – there is no physical part of our body that is not also present in chimpanzees – from the origin of the non-material soul then a reconciliation is possible.

$0.02

Again, this raises the question of Cartesian Extreme Dualism which is not accepted by the Catholic Church.

While the spiritual soul is radically different from the decomposing anatomy, their reconciliation is not considered two natures united. For example, a chimpanzee type body united with a rational type soul instead of an animal soul per Aristotle. Rather their union forms a single nature. Information source: CCC 362-366. CCC 355-357

For the most part, the science of bees, birds, bears, and buffalo, is not only acceptable but it also is important. It is certain basic, written in stone, tenets like populations breed populations which cannot mathematically be reconciled with the number two which is the Catholic doctrine for the origin of our amazing species.

 

[grannymh]

OK; but that still falls within the definition of ‘literalistic’, I’d assert. After all, even the CCC talks about the ‘allegory’ found in these passages.

Speaking about allegory. Here is precisely what the CCC says. I put in bold the essential message.

**CCC 390 **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.