Adam and Eve and Human Origins

[petra]

mcliffor:

When the Church says that we need to believe that Adam and Eve were actual people who commited the deed that led to original sin, how much of the story are we supposed to take as literal historical fact? Was the fruit tree an historical material entity? How as a Catholic should I approach theories founded on logic and sound archaeological evidence which suggest otherwise, such as the idea that Homo sapiens evolved seperately in different parts of the world, meaning there were many “first parents” and that not every human decended from the same man and woman?

This is a problem that I run into a lot, being an anthropology student. It’s always problematic for me when my faith and science overlap. I feel like one piece of undeniable scientific evidence could challenge all the faith I have in the infallibility of the Church or Christianity for that matter.

Also, I’ve already read the Catholic Answers article on evolution.

I recommend the following book: The Science of God by Gerald Schroder. Schroeder presents a compelling theory of how the evidence of an old earth, macro-evolution (with Intelligent Designer), a literal Adam and Even and their first sin are fully compatible and even harmonious.

 

[petra]

Kane:

They are quite correct. Do you have something wrong with the fact that God could have created the world in 6 days? Or are you a person of little faith?

God can do anything, and I’m sure most of us here have the faith that He can.

I know that Young Earth Creationists say that the Earth was created in a mature form and that the “evidence” that we see of an old earth was simply built into that mature form. I’ve heard it suggested that this “evidence” was even put there to confound those who think they are wise. The problem with this view is Romans 1:20 tells us that nature is truthful in what it tells us. God’s creation is actually a primitive gospel—it is sufficient to communicate what is needed to turn to God. People that reject God are without excuse because of what nature communicates. The truthfulness of nature holds men’s eternal destinies in the balance.

Therefore, it is impossible that nature would have as its purpose to mislead people–particularly the unsaved. According to Romans 1:20, nature is the first gospel they hear. It must be truthful.

God can not have used evolution to create us, because it begs the question where did evil come from? And what does Jesus redeem us from? Without a first Adam there is no need for a second Adam. Perhaps in the future the Church will admit it made another blunder just as it did in Galileo’s time.
There was a literal Adam and Eve. There was a literal event in which they fell from grace. Evil originated with the rebellion of Satan and 1/3 of the angels. Evil entered creation with Adam’s sin.

God did use evolution to create us. At some point in the development of the hominid species, He chose Adam and made him man by giving him something no other creature had: a spirit which made a relationship and communion with God possible. The human race did begin with one man: Adam. Other genetic ancestors that science identifies are simply pre-man species.

I recommend the book, The Science of God, by Gerald Schoeder. He presents a very compelling explanation for why macro-evolution through Intelligent Design and the Genesis account are in harmony. He explains that when God created the first life form, He placed all the genetic information needed for all subsequent species in that first organism—you could call it a super DNA. Traits were rapidly expressed through environmental changes. Evolution did not take place gradually and through purely random accidents (as Darwin postulated).

He also explains how the universe can literally be around 18 billion years old AND literally 6 days old. The first Genesis account mostly details events prior to the creation of man. Therefore, the reference point of time is likely not that of man. The reference point is likely that of the Creator. Most of us know that time passes at different rates depending upon speed. (At the speed of light, time actually stops.) Schoeder explains that time is also affected by mass. It progresses slower with increased mass. If I remember this correctly, scientists are able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe through measuring the echo of the big bang. As it turns out, about 18 billion years of our earth time equals 6 days in universe time.

Truth is just a click away:
answersingenesis.org/

What is the use of upholding the authority of the first verse when a young earth position denies the authority of Romans 1:20? True harmony of scriptures and an upholding of its authority can only be achieved through a mature understanding of Genesis and a recognition that the earth is, indeed, very old. There is more truth there than you are seeing. You are looking at it superficially.

 

[zian]

Kane:

They are quite correct. Do you have something wrong with the fact that God could have created the world in 6 days?

Sure, He could have. Seems He didn’t though, at least not 10,000 years ago. While your clicking away at the AiG site, why not have a look at the talk origins pages here

Kane:

God can not have used evolution to create us, because it begs the question where did evil come from? And what does Jesus redeem us from? Without a first Adam there is no need for a second Adam.

Personally, I will demure from indicating what God can or cannot do.

 

[urban-hermit]

mcliffor:

When the Church says that we need to believe that Adam and Eve were actual people who commited the deed that led to original sin, how much of the story are we supposed to take as literal historical fact? … every human decended from the same man and woman? …

…Also, I’ve already read the Catholic Answers article on evolution.

So you have read the Catholic Answers tract on Adam and Eve ? It answers your question, does it not? I think it is excellent. There is an excerpt below.

From what I learned from the CA document, combined with the document shared by “nobody” in post #15, I think I have put together at least one reason why we all are definitely descended from Adam: Because every human being has original sin, and original sin is transmitted when a human nature is received by a child from his parent, and only Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, it follows that we are all descended from them.

Mind you, I’m not saying this is the ONLY reason all mankind is descended from Adam and Eve (i don’t know - their might be scriptural reasons as well) but it just seems to me that this is one compelling reason why.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the Catholic Answers document mentioned above:

Adam and Eve: Real People

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

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

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

 

[urban-hermit]

zian:

Sure, He could have. Seems He didn’t though, at least not 10,000 years ago. While your clicking away at the AiG site, why not have a look at the talk origins pages here

Personally, I will demure from indicating what God can or cannot do.

As I understand, I am free as a Catholic to believe that God did in fact create the world in 6 days. I don’t think the Church would endorse my believing something that is false in any way that matters.

I just wanted to state that flat-out, since people who choose to believe in creation in 6 days are not given much respect, either in the general culture, nor often even here on catholic forums.

The other thing I would say is that talk origins, while it may be made up of scientists, is not authoritative in any way; not scientifically, and certainly not from a Catholic point of view. Also, they do not seem to interpret scientific data with minds informed by faith, which further diminishes their credibility.

 

[adventist]

ALL OF U BETTER GET RIGHT WITH THE LORD CUZ THAT SUNDAY WORSHIPPING IS NOT RIGHT YOU WORSHIP IDOLS, THE VIRGIN MARY, CROSSES, AND ESPECIALLY …HOW CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE YOU FOR UR SINS? WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT SAY ANY HUMAN BEING CAN FORGIVE YOU ? YALL ALL ARE WALKING AROUND IN THAT SAME SIN YOU HAD BEFOR YOU WENT TO THAT GUY YOU CALL UR PRIESTHOOD OR… COME TO HEAVEN WITH THE REST OF US… MAY GOD BLESS US ALL THAT CONFUSED FIGURE IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION AND, YES YALL WILL BRING THE MARK OF THE BEAST AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE AS THE RAPTURE

JOHN CHAPT 14 VERSE 6: JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, IAM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COMETH UNTO MY FATHER,BUT BY ME!!! MEANING MY THE JEWS AND THE CRISTIANS SAVOUIR JESUS CHRIST…

 

[Orionthehunter]

urban-hermit:

As I understand, I am free as a Catholic to believe that God did in fact create the world in 6 days. I don’t think the Church would endorse my believing something that is false in any way that matters.

I just wanted to state that flat-out, since people who choose to believe in creation in 6 days are not given much respect, either in the general culture, nor often even here on catholic forums.

The other thing I would say is that talk origins, while it may be made up of scientists, is not authoritative in any way; not scientifically, and certainly not from a Catholic point of view. Also, they do not seem to interpret scientific data with minds informed by faith, which further diminishes their credibility.

I give you total respect as it shows a heart willing to submit and believe. This is a blessing for you to see without proof.

However, for the doubting Thomas’s who are cursed with a need to have their faith “supported” by their God-given faculties of reason and logic, St. Augustine talks in “Confessions” about how God in His infinity, self-sufficiency, transcendence (all the other “All-Everything” terms LOL) is above time and not bound by it. In fact, for Him to be bound by time would make Him less than God.

The Church is silent on the means that God used to create the Universe because it isn’t critical to know God and experience His love and return that love. But the Church is extremely adamant that He created it out of nothing, that He did it freely of his own volition, that He did it out of love and that He didn’t do it to fulfill some short-coming in His nature out of loneliness (as to do so would mean that He wasn’t perfect or fulfilled before our creation thus again making Him something less than God).

The best argument for me that Genesis is partially literal in that He did things in a certain order and that He saved the best for last, the creation of man. However, the allegorical part of the story is two-fold:

1. Do you really think that God whose power is infinite “needed” to rest on the 7th day? Or that God who isn’t bound by time really spread it out over 6-24 hour periods?
2. If He were to give a complete scientific presentation in His earliest Revelation of Himself, the people of the time wouldn’t have had the capability to understand the science (well, first I took these proteins and combined them in this order to make amino acids and then I did x, then y and so on). You have to remember that people had to exist for thousands of years before they were capable to understand and accept His Incarnation. In essence, God has been practicing the woman at the well method of Revelation since the creation of mankind- He gives us information in ways that we can understand. I’m kind of reminded of how I asked my mom how my brother got in her tummy. She didn’t give me the scientific or erotic details. She said that she prayed that I’d get a brother or sister and God answered her prayer.

One of the best books I’ve read about Creation from a science perspective blended with theology is “The Case for a Creator” by Strobel. It goes thu different secular, scientific theories of Creation and ultimately the science becomes clear that for us to have “evolved” as we are, this perfectly balanced universe requires a perfect designer. As I am a person trained Mathematics and Statistics, to think that that there is not a perfect designer (God) is a mathematical/statistical virtual impossibility. For this reason, I assert that an atheist has to have more “faith” than a Christian becuase they ahve to believe in a statistical impossibility. Said another way, what faith it must take to believe that it is more likely that they will win every Power Ball Lottery from now until the end of time than to believe there is a perfect designer.

 

[petra]

urban-hermit:

As I understand, I am free as a Catholic to believe that God did in fact create the world in 6 days. I don’t think the Church would endorse my believing something that is false in any way that matters.

Yes, as a Catholic you are free to hold either view. But this is not because the Church is tacitly endorsing either view. It is because the Church recognizes that it is not a scientific authority and leaves those issues to scientists. If you happen to believe in string theory and if the Church does not forbid Catholics from believing it, if string theory later is proven to be false, the Church has not let you down by allowing you to believe something false. The Church’s juristiction is strictly spiritual and moral.

I just wanted to state that flat-out, since people who choose to believe in creation in 6 days are not given much respect, either in the general culture, nor often even here on catholic forums.

I respect everyone’s right to form their own views. But challenging the objective truth of assertions is not disrespect. It is simply reasoned dialog. Young earth creationists have a difficult task in front of them, as they need to overcome the incredible evidence to the contrary of their view. That evidence must be dismissed out of hand to hold a young earth view. This is especially difficult for non-Christians to fathom, and young earth creationists are, indeed, often disrespected by them. But here is an important thought to consider: if nature and creation really are a primitive form of the gospel as Romans 1:20 says that it is, then we all have a God-given recognition that the world around us is knowable and the evidence around us is relevant—not just placed there to trick us. Whether people have yet formally responded to God or not, at a very subconscious level, they NEED for this gospel to be true. God has given all of us that need. So to assert that nature is lying to us has profound implications, and a visceral reaction is often a result.

In other words, young earth creationists have an unnusually difficult time in public debate because they are factually wrong and they are challenging a God-given recognition that nature tells the truth. The controversy is unnecessary. Genesis and an old earth view are completely compatible.

The other thing I would say is that talk origins, while it may be made up of scientists, is not authoritative in any way; not scientifically, and certainly not from a Catholic point of view. Also, they do not seem to interpret scientific data with minds informed by faith, which further diminishes their credibility.

If God intended that His creation would communicate so much information about Himself that men’s eternal destinies are dependent upon the response to this information, then the message of nature is knowable to unsaved people (even scientists!). While science is not exact and there are politics involved and even personal rivalries, the scientific community is capable of advancing scientific knowledge of nature and creation. Truth really does matter to them, and in a laissez-faire economy of ideas, the strongest and best supported theories do ultimately prevail.

Faith is not needed to collect data. That is essentially all that science does. Science can tell how we got here, but it cannot tells why or for what purpose. Only the Church can do that through the deposit of faith left to the Church from Jesus.

 

[petra]

I should add that one thing Darwinian Evolutionists and Old-World Creationists will never agree on is the catalyst of evolutionary changes. As Christians, we must reject that the creation and formation of the natural world was purely random and impersonal. God was personally involved in every aspect of creation. He simply used an evolutionary process—DNA that responds to environmental changes and expresses traits that He had pre-encoded into the first life forms. We must also reject that the universe had no beginning.

Young earth creationists commit a logical fallacy by attributing the Darwinian cause of purely random mutation to all that would hold to an old earth view.

 

[rwoehmke]

Jeff Cavins in the second lecture of his course “The Great Adventure: A Journey Through the Bible” says that the Church requires us to believe 9 items about the creation story,
1.All things are created by God.
2.Mankind was a Special Creation.
3,The first woman was formed from man.
4.The Human Race is one.
5.Our original parents were happy.
6.God gave them a divine command to prove obedience.
7.They transgressed the command.
8. Our first parents thus fell from a state of innocence.
9.There was a promise of a future redeemer.
Apparently we are free to believe what we will about the timing and particular methods/processes that took place. It does make a beautiful story though.

 

[buffalo]

rwoehmke:

3,The first woman was formed from man.
.

Here is the problem with evolution and #3.

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction

     The       purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis       which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but       now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and       derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the       first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult       Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly       by the universal and ordinary *Magisterium* of       the Catholic Church as literally and historically       true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to       be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I       would express the thesis in Latin as follows:

     ***Definitive       tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice       formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

---

more…

 

[petra]

buffalo:

Here is the problem with evolution and #3.

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction

     The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis       which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary *Magisterium* of the Catholic Church as literally and historically       true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:

     ***Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice       formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

---

How is the historicity of Eve being literally formed from a rib of Adam while he slept inconsistent with macroevolution? This event would not preclude the development of hominid animal species and the eventual selection of one of them by God, within which He placed a spirit, a man was created, and named Adam. Eve was then created in the manner that Genesis describes.

What is the problem?

I will repeat again that the young earth position is untenable because it undermines and contradicts the truth of Romans 1:20.

 

[buffalo]

petra:

How is the historicity of Eve being literally formed from a rib of Adam while he slept inconsistent with macroevolution? This event would not preclude the development of hominid animal species and the eventual selection of one of them by God, within which He placed a spirit, a man was created, and named Adam. Eve was then created in the manner that Genesis describes.

What is the problem?

I will repeat again that the young earth position is untenable because it undermines and contradicts the truth of Romans 1:20.

This has nothing to do with the young earth position. Why do we believe there are only two positions? Creationism or evolution? God could have simply inserted Adam in the timeline anywhere He wanted regardless of anything else that was happening at the time.

 

[petra]

buffalo:

This has nothing to do with the young earth position. Why do we believe there are only two positions? Creationism or evolution? God could have simply inserted Adam in the timeline anywhere He wanted regardless of anything else that was happening at the time.

That is certainly true. However, (and I’m not an expert in this–perhaps the anthropologist that posted earlier can comment) I understand that ancestral lineages can be identified through DNA and there are pre-human hominids that are linked with us. If that conclusion is reliable, if we are seekers of Truth, and if it does not contradict Sacred Scripture or Tradition, then we ought to believe it. We, after all, are not Bhuddists in a world of illusion with our own personal reality. Rather there is an objective reality out there for use to discover and know. Romans 1:20 describes more than just a primitive gospel to the unsaved, it provides the basis for western theological and philosophical epistemology. And it also forms the basis for science.

Assuming for the moment that Adam was dropped into a point in history with no pre-human biological anecestry, do you agree that animals evolved from lower lifeforms (macroevolution) and that the universe is billions of years old?

 

[buffalo]

petra:

That is certainly true. However, (and I’m not an expert in this–perhaps the anthropologist that posted earlier can comment) I understand that ancestral lineages can be identified through DNA and there are pre-human hominids that are linked with us. If that conclusion is reliable, if we are seekers of Truth, and if it does not contradict Sacred Scripture or Tradition, then we ought to believe it. We, after all, are not Bhuddists in a world of illusion with our own personal reality. Rather there is an objective reality out there for use to discover and know. Romans 1:20 describes more than just a primitive gospel to the unsaved, it provides the basis for western theological and philosophical epistemology. And it also forms the basis for science.

Assuming for the moment that Adam was dropped into a point in history with no pre-human biological anecestry, do you agree that animals evolved from lower lifeforms (macroevolution) and that the universe is billions of years old?

Since DNA is a common building block it comes as no surprise to me that we can trace back to a point of linkage. Does it mean that is our ancestor, or simply there is a point in time where they would intersect? I would be particularly interested in the language of DNA itself and what it has to say.

 

[thistle]

Its not clear to me what you mean by the young earth position. Surely it is really not believed that the earth is only about 6000 years old!!

 

[petra]

thistle:

Its not clear to me what you mean by the young earth position. Surely it is really not believed that the earth is only about 6000 years old!!

Some people do believe that the universe and earth were created in 6 consecutive 24-hour days (as we know them to be) and that the age of the earth is about 6000 years old. Proponents of this view try to attribute the sedimentary layers and fossil record to a global flood. Other evidences of an aged earth, such as carbon dating far beyond 6000 years and slowly drifting continents that appear that they were once a single continent, are said to have been built into nature to give the appearance of an aged earth–allegedy to confound those who think they are wise (especially the unsaved). They say that any other explanation besides 6 days of creation and a 6000 year-old earth undermines the authority of scripture.

It is my contention that if true, this would amount to trickery on God’s part—particularly because we have been created with an instinct that there is an objective reality out there that we can sense and know. Scripture (Romans 1:20) also indicates that the truthfulness and message of nature is such that unsaved people are without excuse if they reject God. In other words, eternal destinies are dependent upon the truthfulness of nature. If trickery has been built into the historic record of nature, trickery was built into a gospel message. And that is impossible.

There are some very compelling explanations that uphold the authority of the Genesis accounts, while also taking mainstream scientific theories and discoveries into account.

 

[urban-hermit]

Jeff Cavins in the second lecture of his course “The Great Adventure: A Journey Through the Bible” says that the Church requires us to believe 9 items about the creation story,
1.All things are created by God.
2.Mankind was a Special Creation.
3,The first woman was formed from man.
4.The Human Race is one.
5.Our original parents were happy.
6.God gave them a divine command to prove obedience.
7.They transgressed the command.
8. Our first parents thus fell from a state of innocence.
9.There was a promise of a future redeemer.
Apparently we are free to believe what we will about the timing and particular methods/processes that took place. It does make a beautiful story though.

I did not know this!

I knew some of them, but not # 3.

THANKS !

 

[urban-hermit]

petra:

… Romans 1:20 describes more than just a primitive gospel to the unsaved, it provides the basis for western theological and philosophical epistemology. And it also forms the basis for science.

If you read a bit of the context of Romans 1:20, say Romans 1:16-32, you will see that Paul is speaking about how the physical order points toward the moral law (1-worship God above all else, 2-follow God’s commands on how to treat others). He is not saying that nature is in itself the Gospel, or that God never goes against the way nature normally works. The many miracles of God up to our present day show that sometimes He does.

 

[NathanCarson]

here’s my simple answer.

the bible is the infallible word of God, true.

God is smart, even more true.

God tells us the story the way we need to hear it.

Wether or not he created the world in seven days as we know it, or it’s some sort of allegory is not important. It’s the message contained within.

There are some who believe a day to God is 1000 years. they aren’t catholics.

You could take the bible simply as a book of morals, take away all the miracles, and simply leave the truths of what happened and explain them in some sort of intellectual babble and you’d still end up with the same message (if you were smart).