Adam and Eve and Genetics Difficulty

[GEddie]

Divine Revelation *properly interpreted * trumps.

Properly interpreted does not **necessarily **mean twisted around to make way for polygenism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[grannymh]

May we all prepare our souls
for the true celebration of Christmas


Lorenzo Lotto, 1523

 

[guanophore]

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.

Scientists have found more Genetic variation in one villiage in Africa than in the whole rest of the planet. This supports the idea that only a small band of humans left Africa and populated the earth.

Correct. There is too much genetic diversity in humans, and too much shared with chimpanzees to have had a genetic bottleneck of just two people in the last five million years.

Actually you may be thinking of phenotype. We share 95% of our DNA with Chimps. The fact that we can be so different shows how widely divergent just a small amount of DNA can be.

… then those with living ancestors are all common ancestors to every living human. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are just two examples of such common ancestors. Any couple within that group, who did not have any children except with each other, can serve as Adam and Eve since all living humans are descended from that couple.

There is no problem with all humans being descended from a single couple.

This is an interesting documentary on Adam and Eve:

 

[Lion_IRC]

That’s all fine and dandy.

Perhaps then you can explain how Cain married a “woman of another tribe”?
What other tribe? There were only 3 live people on the planet according to Genesis.
And Cain found a city. What city? Built by who? Adam? Populated by who?

You just have to accept that Genesis and reality disagree on a few points.

I take it you believe that if its not written in the bible then it never happened.
The bible’s not a telephone book. It doesn’t have to list every name.

Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. That’s plenty of time for lots of tribes to develop - all making babies and building the ancient equivalent of ‘cities’.

 

[Richca]

They are not members of the same species if one has no soul.It is a beast. Animals do not have rational souls and certainly a son of God would not mate with an unsouled primate(beast).

Yes, human beings are a different species than the irrational animals obviously. Human beings are traditionally defined as a rational animal so human beings fall under the genus animal and since there are many different kinds of animals and families of animals, if we follow the classification of the animal kingdom of modern science, human beings are placed in the order of primates which involves a number of subsets of primates called families or subfamilies. Whatever family or order we place human beings (human beings I’m defining as a rational animal, i.e., who possess a spiritual intellectual soul) under the genus animal, the specific difference between humans and the other animals including those of the order of primates is the spiritual intellectual soul. In fact, the whole animal kingdom can be divided between the rational and irrational, that is, between human beings and all the other animals.

 

[Richca]

Outstanding observation!

Tell me… what part of your physical body images God? What organ or bone or flesh do you possess that is ‘like God’? Here’s the thing… we are in the ‘image and likeness’ not in our physical existence (since, after all, God doesn’t have physical existence), but in our immortal soul. Not even our intellect/rationality/mind is ‘like’ God’s (since He doesn’t “think” like we do). Therefore, a creation in the imago Dei

 

[Gorgias]

Properly interpreted does not **necessarily **mean twisted around to make way for polygenism.

Two thoughts: first, what’s being floated here isn’t polygenism; if it were, it would be unable to be accepted. Second, ‘properly interpreted’ also does not mean presuming that a literalistic reading has the force of doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

Grannymh touched upon this in an earlier post; a human being is not a composite of two natures but forms a single nature composed of soul and body.

Yes, and it was a good reminder. Yet…

Whatever family or order we place human beings (human beings I’m defining as a rational animal, i.e., who possess a spiritual intellectual soul) under the genus animal, the specific difference between humans and the other animals including those of the order of primates is the spiritual intellectual soul.

I’ve asked granny this same question in other threads, and have yet to receive a good answer: you’re claiming that science defines human beings in terms of our “spiritual intellectual soul”? Boy, I’d like to see that definition… can you provide it for us?

No – science doesn’t deal in souls, and so, the scientific definition of ‘genus’ and ‘species’ has nothing to do with souls. That’s why this whole discussion is possible: only theology deals in souls, and so, we’re trying to find a harmonization that allows science to be science while allowing theology to be theology, and letting both speak truth in their own domain. Where we get in trouble is when we attempt to “cross the streams”, so to speak: asking the Bible to be a science text or claiming that science defines things in theological terms.

I do not outright classify any human word or human description superior to the revealed word of God, whose principle author is the Holy Spirit, in any sense. If I did so, this may be like blaspheming or desecrating the Lord’s body. Of course, Holy Scripture must be interpreted correctly which we hold the Catholic Church to be the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Accordingly, I personally do not hold that some sort of modern scientific conjecture in regards to the **creation **of Adam and Eve is superior to what is set down by the inspired author of Genesis.

Not ‘superior’, but, by the same token, not necessarily a scientific description of what happened. On one hand, you’re dismissing a human interpretation that is at odds with your stance, while at the same time, holding up a human interpretation of your own.

It is not against the catholic faith to hold to the literal sense of the creation of Adam and Eve as set down in Genesis.

Nor is it with the Catholic faith to assert that an understanding of the creation epic as poetic/allegorical must be dropped in favor of the literalistic one.

Interestingly, it seems that you’re misusing the term ‘literal sense’ here: it refers to what the inspired human author intended to write. Sometimes, that intent is literalistic (e.g., the authors of the Gospels really intended to describe Jesus’ literal death on the cross), but sometimes, it is not (e.g., the Catechism affirms that Genesis 3 is allegory that tells a certain truth). You can’t hide behind ‘literal sense’ unless you interpret what the author’s intent was; which, as you point out, we can’t do. So, the literalistic interpretation has no greater inherent value than another interpretation of what the ‘literal sense’ of this passage is.

Do we read the Holy Scriptures as if we are reading a Harry Potter or Nancy Drew mystery or scientific journal?

Yet, isn’t that precisely what the literalistic reading of this passage is trying to do?

No, not when, in my opinion, the available physical evidence depends on one’s interpretation of it which I may or may not agree with, many assumptions, uncertainty and doubt;

So, the measuring stick here is what “I may or may not agree with”…?

and when such interpretation conflicts with the available evidence of divine revelation and Holy Scripture.

No, it doesn’t do that – it only conflicts with your interpretation of the available evidence of divine revelation and Holy Scripture. Big difference.

 

[grannymh]

May I gently remind readers that in real science, polygenesis requires a large random breeding population somewhere in the thousands. A population of thousands by any other name is still a population of thousands and not a mathematical population of two.

In today’s science, the needed population for producing a specific species has not disappeared when it comes to the scientific genetic principles involved in species origination such as beavers and humans. None of us should ignore today’s science.

Regarding the “force of doctrine” as in the Catholic Church. May I gently remind readers that human origin from two sole founders has the force of doctrine. The amazing Pope Pius XII put that in stone when he clearly referred to the “sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church” in paragraph 37, Humani Generis.

In other words, when one ignores the scientific principles in polygenesis, one is also ignoring some basic fundamental Catholic doctrines.

Another interesting point. Those who are familiar with recent science, for example St. John Paul II, know that the proposed emerging theory attempts to explain what is usually known as rationality. Previously, it was supposed that rationality and morality developed as necessary tools as ancestor populations found the need for them.
“Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.” From St. John Paul II, paragraph 5. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
In my humble opinion, the word incompatible is especially strong.

 

[Gorgias]

May I gently remind readers that…

Good reminders. Keep in mind, too, that the proposition that’s been floated for consideration doesn’t run afoul of any of these notions (doctrinal or scientific)…

 

[grannymh]

In today’s science, one needs to look at all the propositions for consideration.

May I gently remind readers that just because one of the genetic solutions appears to work ------that absolutely does not change the very real science opposition to the very real Catholic doctrine that humankind originated as a population of two.

In my humble opinion, it is time to take off our rose colored glasses and upfront face the fact that the real scientific, indiscriminate, multiple random breeding, humanizing from one decade to the next, large population is not the same as the mathematical population of two which founded the human species.

For those who are interested in Catholicism, the non-Catholic punch which knocks out Adam, also knocks out the Catholic doctrines involving Original Sin. I am sure that lots of people are joyfully dancing at the idea of eliminating Original Sin. While I do realize that modern Arianism is not every day conversation on CAF, still we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the divinity of Jesus Christ. Check out CCC 389.

 

[Gorgias]

May I gently remind readers that just because one of the genetic solutions appears to work ------that absolutely does not change the very real science opposition to the very real Catholic doctrine that humankind originated as a population of two.

A common meme we encounter in today’s world – one that originated in a certain Rationalism of the past – is that science is opposed to theology; or, more precisely, that the two cannot both simultaneously tell the ‘truth’. This is, of course, false – and it’s at odds with Catholic teaching!

Science’s assertions about human populations of thousands and Christian theology’s assertion about two first humans are not at odds with one another, because, although they’re using similar terminology, they’re talking about different things. Christian theology doesn’t attempt a scientific description of the evolution of species, and neither does science make any statement about ensouled humans. To try to assert that the two disciplines are in opposition is either mistaken or egregiously in error.

The “very real Catholic doctrine that humankind originated as a population of two” is a doctrine about – as granny reminds us – ensouled human beings, as a unity of soul and body. The fact that science doesn’t deal in this construct implies that it can’t be asserted that it even addresses the plausibility of this construct!

In my humble opinion, it is time to take off our rose colored glasses and upfront face the fact that the real scientific, indiscriminate, multiple random breeding, humanizing from one decade to the next, large population is not the same as the mathematical population of two which founded the human species.

From a theological perspective, humans did not become more human “from one decade to the next”; they became human at the moment that God put a soul in them.

For those who are interested in Catholicism, the non-Catholic punch which knocks out Adam, also knocks out the Catholic doctrines involving Original Sin. I am sure that lots of people are joyfully dancing at the idea of eliminating Original Sin.

I’m not really sure what this means… but, there’s no Catholic doctrine which has been “knocked out” by science.

 

[rossum]

Science’s assertions about human populations of thousands and Christian theology’s assertion about two first humans are not at odds with one another, because, although they’re using similar terminology, they’re talking about different things. Christian theology doesn’t attempt a scientific description of the evolution of species, and neither does science make any statement about ensouled humans. To try to assert that the two disciplines are in opposition is either mistaken or egregiously in error.

Agreed. It might be clearer if we talked about T-humans for theological humans and B-humans for biological humans. Indeed, this difference can be theologically justified from Genesis 2. God created Adam from clay/dirt and then breathed a human soul into him. That was a two stage process. What God created from dirt was a B-human: physically human but not yet having a human soul. In the second stage of the process God added a soul to an unsouled B-human to form a T-human. Obviously the initial B-human did not have a soul, otherwise Adam would have had two human souls when God added another soul.

Science tells us that we are descended from a population of at least 10,000 B-humans. Theology tells us that we are descended from a population of two T-humans. Both are true, provided we keep in mind the distinction between T-humans and B-humans. Genesis 2 indicates the existence of at least one B-human.

rossum

 

[GEddie]

Two thoughts: first, what’s being floated here isn’t polygenism; if it were, it would be unable to be accepted.

If it is not, it is indistinguishable from it.

Roughly, what is being said is, “Current biology says a new species needs to begin numbering in the thousands; the Church says there were only 2 initial humans, ergo, we’ll theorize that those 2 bred with thousands of soulless, otherwise human bodies.”

That stands Church teaching on its head. Despite paying lip service to science by proposing what sounds like polygenism, it also isn’t science, as souls do not fossilize and so aren’t scientifically discernible.

Second, ‘properly interpreted’ also does not mean presuming that a literalistic reading has the force of doctrine.

Never said it was.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Gorgias]

If it is not, it is indistinguishable from it.

Hardly, as your spin on it demonstrates:

Roughly, what is being said is, “Current biology says a new species needs to begin numbering in the thousands; the Church says there were only 2 initial humans, ergo, we’ll theorize that those 2 bred with thousands of soulless, otherwise human bodies.”

Other than the fact that your wording poisons the well (first off – no, we’re not saying that our first two human parents were promiscuous; and second – no, “soulless, otherwise human bodies” attempts to make it sound like bestiality)… that’s close enough. I’d describe it more as “the first two humans (theologically speaking) were the origin of true human beings; their children (who were, likewise, humans, theologically speaking) bred with non-ensouled hominids until the population of all hominids were likewise humans.” At the end of the process, the population of hominids that includes two humans has become a population of hominids who are also humans.

That stands Church teaching on its head.

Not at all; it keeps to what the Church has proclaimed doctrinally about our “first human parents”. One might likewise say that the conjectures of inbreeding and incest among the children of Adam and Eve stretch Church teaching to the point of absurdity, and therefore, stand Church teaching on its head.

Despite paying lip service to science by proposing what sounds like polygenism

The elegance of the proposal is that you end up with both (scientific) polygenism and (theological) monogenism. Win!

it also isn’t science, as souls do not fossilize and so aren’t scientifically discernible.

That’s precisely my point. Thanks for assenting to it.

To be more specific, of course, I’d respond that we’re not trying to do science here; we’re trying to do theology. So, we don’t need fossils.

 

[HelenRose]

I would advise to study closely what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about this. Here is a key point:
*III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77" *

The writers of the Bible were not robots. They wrote what they understood of nature at the time they were writing.
I accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Bible. In so doing, I find no problem with all the scientific details. Scientific details is not what the Bible is about. The Bible
uses historical, prophetical and poetical texts to express timeless truths.

Scientists by nature are literal in their observations. Poets and musicians are less so. Beautiful poetry about a sunset can often express greater truths about a sunset than a lecture on light rays. I think that this is where literal minded people often find trouble with the Bible. It is a matter of looking a something from very perspectives.

 

[HelenRose]

You will find literal minded people among believers and non-believers.

When these two groups of people try to discuss the Bible with each other, trouble always ensues. Both have trouble in understanding poetry and understanding the difficulty in writing spiritual truths in human terms.

 

[grannymh]

The elegance of the proposal is that you end up with both (scientific) polygenism and (theological) monogenism. Win!

May I respectfully ask a question. I do not intend to be rude. Nonetheless, if my question is too personal, obviously, you can ignore it.

Question.
Do you know that the very first original fully-complete genuine human person to appear on planet earth actually and truly shared in God’s divine life?

Answer?

Note.
I do realize that the scientific bible omits Genesis 1: 26-27 because someone unfortunately may consider it on the literal side.

 

[rossum]

I do realize that the scientific bible omits Genesis 1: 26-27 because someone unfortunately may consider it on the literal side.

Looking purely at the physical side, there is no physical part of a human that is not also present in a chimpanzee. The proportions are different but every physical part of a human has its counterpart in a chimp. If the image of God is physical then chimps are also in the image of God, or at least very close to that image.

Since God is usually considered to be non-physical – science would be able to detect an omnipresent physical entity – then the image of God may be non-physical and hence outside the remit of a physical science like biology. It is usual for sciences to omit things that are outside their remit.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

It seems that you made changes to your post, granny, as I was in the midst of writing my response. As such, I hope you won’t mind if I reply to the new material there…

May I gently remind readers that in real science, polygenesis requires a large random breeding population somewhere in the thousands. A population of thousands by any other name is still a population of thousands and not a mathematical population of two.

You mention this here and in a later post, as well. However, your insistence on this point leads me to believe that either you misunderstand or are mischaracterizing the proposition being made. There is no denial that a “large breeding population in the thousands” is a population in the thousands, nor that 1000s <> 2. However, what’s confusing is that you seem to continue to ignore what’s being asserted: that the two are part of the population of thousands, and that through the breeding of successive generations of hominids, the number of non-human hominids goes from “1000s” to “zero”, and the number of humans goes from “2” to “thousands”. Is this something that you dispute, or disagree with, or are unaware of? Frankly, I’m confused by your continued assertions…

May I gently remind readers that human origin from two sole founders has the force of doctrine.

We don’t disagree on this point.

In other words, when one ignores the scientific principles in polygenesis, one is also ignoring some basic fundamental Catholic doctrines.

No, that is not the case.

“Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.” From St. John Paul II, paragraph 5. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
In my humble opinion, the word incompatible is especially strong.

It is. However, it’s not relevant in this case, as JPII is talking about spirit as being a phenomenon of physical matter (or evolving from physical matter). That’s not what’s being asserted here (and therefore, his assertion of ‘incompatibility’ is not relevant).

May I respectfully ask a question. I do not intend to be rude. Nonetheless, if my question is too personal, obviously, you can ignore it.

Question.
Do you know that the very first original fully-complete genuine human person to appear on planet earth actually and truly shared in God’s divine life?

Answer?

I’m not sure why you consider this question to be something that is not self-evident.

Yes, the “first original fully-human persons on earth actually and truly shared in God’s divine life” – after all, they shared in His “image and likeness.” This does not imply that the hominids who were physically identical with them (but did not possess immortal souls) likewise shared in His “image and likeness.”

Does this not seem obvious to you?

If not, then perhaps this is where you’re misunderstanding the case being made here.