Adam and Eve or Adams and Eves

[Benedictus]

In case you are interested, according to some sceintists, there is evidence from DNA that all people are descendents of one woman in africa (I’ve heard her called the “African Eve”). For one source, see dnaancestryproject.com/ydna_intro_about.php

Yes, but don’t let the term fool you. Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of Genesis. Mitochondrial Eve is the ancester of all currently living humans through matrilineal descent. However, this woman was definitely not the first woman nor the only woman alive at the time. Mitochondrial Eve hasn’t always been the same person either.

Similarily, Y Chromosome Adam is the ancester of all males alive now through patrilineal descent; however, he lived many, many thousands of years after Mitochondrial Eve.

It may also surprise some to learn that the most recent common ancester of all human alive today may have lived as little as 1,000 years ago, although it’s more likely that the MRCA lived in the 1st or 2nd millinium B.C.

 

[paarsurrey]

In the bible it talks about Adam and Eve being the first parents and the first sinners. Does this litterally refer to 2 people?
If so, to multiply, humans would have to have commited incest.
If not, can someone please explain to me how?

Hi
No, no, no. The account of the Genisis and creation of Adam and his wife in Quans is only metaphoric. Adam was the first ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH on whom He revealed his Word and first primitive Code for the prevalent society. Humans did exist in tribal forms before him and in many lands. So there are many Adams and Eves. No problem in marrying with mates in the tribe/s.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam, bridging gaps bewteen faiths/denominations/religions

 

[DiscernVoc]

At some point the first homo sapiens was born. This parent would have been the final genetic mutation and was definably human and this trait has survived to this very day. The mate of this person would have been similar to that person in a way that would be indistinguishable. These two would carry practically identical genes as us. There would have to be a large breeding population that already existed that these two came from. This is evolution. I see it as the hand of God. What looks like random chance at first glance, would be completely calculated by an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being such as God. In fact, I believe this moment was the reason for the creation of the universe. God’s creation of us was began at the big bang. If you look at the laws of physics and nature you can inherently see God. This universe was created to foster life such as us. It is, however, important not to view God as too distant. In ways we can hardly understand He is still active in our lives. We must also not anthropomorphize God. To view Him as human is to trivialize Him. Anyway, this is just how I reconcile what seem to be scientific realities with my profound experiences in faith.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi
No, no, no. The account of the Genisis and creation of Adam and his wife in Quans is only metaphoric. Adam was the first ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH on whom He revealed his Word and first primitive Code for the prevalent society. Humans did exist in tribal forms before him and in many lands. So there are many Adams and Eves. No problem in marrying with mates in the tribe/s.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam, bridging gaps bewteen faiths/denominations/religions

Just FYI, this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

At some point the first homo sapiens was born. This parent would have been the final genetic mutation and was definably human and this trait has survived to this very day. The mate of this person would have been similar to that person in a way that would be indistinguishable. These two would carry practically identical genes as us. There would have to be a large breeding population that already existed that these two came from.

The teaching of the Church is that the first two human beings, whom we call Adam and Eve, are the ancestors of not only every human being alive today, but also of every human being who has ever lived. (Humani Generis, paragraph 37)

The Church doesn’t really speculate about the “how” since we have no way of knowing that.

This has nothing to do with “anthropomorphizing God.” God can still be God, and create “first” of every creature, just as it records in Genesis.

 

[cor]

Polygenism is not a heresy. (I don’t believe in it though I am open to it) Jimmy Akin writes:

Hypothetically (and I am not advocating this), an interpreter might conclude that Adam and Eve represent the early human community as a whole. Pius XII strongly discouraged this interpretation in his enecyclical Humani Generis, but did not altogether preclude the possibility that the Magisterium might be open to it in the future, and some members of the Magisterium (such as the German bishops’ conference) have been explicitly open to it in recent years.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/08/tough_bible_que.html

More:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/01/a_reader_writes.html
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html

I’d like to add though that while Pius XII addresses the relationship between monogenism and original sin, the latter being a datum of revelation, that monogenism itself it seems to me is in Catholic tradition a datum of revelation in its own right, apart from its connection to original sin. So Catholics IMO, should believe in monogenism not merely because without it original sin doesn’t make sense but also because monogenism itself is revealed independently of original sin in the scriptures and tradition.

Jimmy Akin’s allusion to the German bishops’ conference is explained more in one of the links above. The German bishops approved a Catechism that underwent Vatican review and retained a passage indicating polygenism was alright to believe under certain circumstances.

 

[cor]

Yes, but don’t let the term fool you. Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of Genesis. Mitochondrial Eve is the ancester of all currently living humans through matrilineal descent. However, this woman was definitely not the first woman nor the only woman alive at the time. Mitochondrial Eve hasn’t always been the same person either.

Similarily, Y Chromosome Adam is the ancester of all males alive now through patrilineal descent; however, he lived many, many thousands of years after Mitochondrial Eve.

It may also surprise some to learn that the most recent common ancester of all human alive today may have lived as little as 1,000 years ago, although it’s more likely that the MRCA lived in the 1st or 2nd millinium B.C.

Yes, many people mistakenly think the existence of the mitochondrial Eve entails monogenism. Here’s a link for people to read:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

[nobody]

Yes, but don’t let the term fool you. Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of Genesis. Mitochondrial Eve is the ancester of all currently living humans through matrilineal descent. However, this woman was definitely not the first woman nor the only woman alive at the time. Mitochondrial Eve hasn’t always been the same person either.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I’m not smart enough to figure all this out!

It may also surprise some to learn that the most recent common ancester of all human alive today may have lived as little as 1,000 years ago,

how’s that?

 

[paarsurrey]

At some point the first homo sapiens was born. This parent would have been the final genetic mutation and was definably human and this trait has survived to this very day. The mate of this person would have been similar to that person in a way that would be indistinguishable. These two would carry practically identical genes as us. There would have to be a large breeding population that already existed that these two came from. This is evolution. I see it as the hand of God. What looks like random chance at first glance, would be completely calculated by an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being such as God. In fact, I believe this moment was the reason for the creation of the universe. God’s creation of us was began at the big bang. If you look at the laws of physics and nature you can inherently see God. This universe was created to foster life such as us. It is, however, important not to view God as too distant. In ways we can hardly understand He is still active in our lives. We must also not anthropomorphize God. To view Him as human is to trivialize Him. Anyway, this is just how I reconcile what seem to be scientific realities with my profound experiences in faith.

Hi
I also agree with you.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faithin Islam, bridging gaps between faith/denominations/religions

 

[Godhead]

I don’t know where I stand on this theologically, but I will give it a go. Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They were the first to be created in the image and likeness of God, hence they have a soul.

Genesis does not say, nor do I think the Church says (someone correct me if I am wrong) whether they were the first homo sapiens. If I remember Genesis correctly, Cain even complains to God that “other people will kill me.” My question was, what other people? There was only his mom and dad - that we knew of.

My personal opinion is that Genesis conveyed that Adam and Eve were the first homo-sapiens with a soul. I will even go further to speculate that the reason that God didn’t just pick out another homo-sapiens to be Eve was because he wanted someone to be “flesh of his flesh” etc., or for him to be equally yoked. Afterall, how could God expect a man to have a wife who literally had no soul.

I am not even saying that there was no Garden of Eden. I just think that part of Adam’s (and mankind’s) punishment was that in order to survive, the Children of Eden had to mingle - and thus mate - with the other homo sapiens in order to survive. Adam also needed to know how to work - he could have picked up a thing or two from other homo sapiens.

Keep in mind that I am not a theologian and do not speak for the Catholic Church, so don’t say that this post proves that the Catholic church does not believe in Genesis…yada yada yada. And if the Church outright condemned what I said, please know I am a heretic out of ignorance

Actually in the original hebrew text, there was no adam and eve. In the original hebrew text Adam meant male human being and eve was the feminate hebrew word for female human being. The whole story about Adam and eve that you and I know, berates the truth of what was actually contained in the original text.

 

[DiscernVoc]

The teaching of the Church is that the first two human beings, whom we call Adam and Eve, are the ancestors of not only every human being alive today, but also of every human being who has ever lived. (Humani Generis, paragraph 37)

The Church doesn’t really speculate about the “how” since we have no way of knowing that.

This has nothing to do with “anthropomorphizing God.” God can still be God, and create “first” of every creature, just as it records in Genesis.

We know that there have been other species of hominid on the Earth. Whether Austrolopithecus or homo sapiens or something in between was the Adam and Eve referred to in the Bible we don’t know. We do know that many of these species were contemporaries of each other. We do speculate the "how."That’s called science and the church officially acknowledges evolution as a perfectly acceptable theory that doesn’t violate its teachings on the genesis of man. To take the creation story literally is to deny the brain that God has given us. We have discovered many great truths through science and to deny them would be doing yourself and God, who created them, a great disservice.

 

[jmcrae]

We know that there have been other species of hominid on the Earth. Whether Austrolopithecus or homo sapiens or something in between was the Adam and Eve referred to in the Bible we don’t know. We do know that many of these species were contemporaries of each other. We do speculate the "how."That’s called science

Yes, it is, and science is not the domain of the Church. The Church does not create dogma on the basis of theoretical science. The “we” in your statement is scientists; not the Church.

By the way, what we have are bones that appear to be those of human-like creatures. We do not know how they lived. Anything where you read “they did this,” or “they lived like this” is all speculation. Nobody has a time machine to go back and look at what they really did, or what they really looked like.

Just as a basis of comparison, if we had never seen a gorilla before, but we found the bones of a gorilla, we might think that the gorilla was a human-like creature, too - obviously, it is not.

… and the church officially acknowledges evolution as a perfectly acceptable theory that doesn’t violate its teachings on the genesis of man.

Not “that” but rather “insofar as it” - evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory insofar as it doesn’t violate its (the Church’s) teachings on the genesis of man.

To take the creation story literally is to deny the brain that God has given us.

First, why are you assuming that I’m taking the entire story literally? And second, how would taking it literally mean that I’m thinking any less than someone who buys into evolutionary theory?

Rephrasing the question, how is blindly buying into Darwinism more like “thinking” than blindly buying into a literal interpretation of Genesis? (Which I by no means hold to, anyway - I do hold that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman because that’s what the Church teaches me, and I made a vow on April 14, 2001 at about 9:00 in the evening that I will accept whatever the Church teaches me as being true - but I don’t believe in a literal 6-day Creation, and I have many questions about the rest of the story.)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Polygenism is a heresy. The Catholic Church teaches that we have one set of human parents.

Adam and Eve had to be the first Homo Spaiens.

They could Have Been birthed by another species as spontaneous mutations as long as the preceeding species did not Generate them.

On the other hand they could have been specially and miraculously created by God in Eden as the first Homo Sapiens with souls.

This would allow for literal creationism and evolution–in other words there could have been people that were not Homo Spaiens outside of Eden at the time that did not have souls.

And Eden could be beneath the elements of Iraq similiar to the way that Jesus is beneath the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

In other words Eden could really be in Iraq but on another dimension that we cannot see.

Some will say but what about disease outside of Eden–if you believe in a literal Eden don’t you have to believe that it could only happen after Adam and Even left Eden–don’t we have evidence of disease many years before on Earth?

Well if Eden was in another dimension it is altogether possible that the time scale did not run there at the same pace as on the rest of the Earth.

It would be possible for Adam and Even to have existed even billions of years in Earth time in Eden with it only seeming like a short time to them before they were banished.

In other words I do believe it is possible that evolution is completely true and that the account of Adam and Eve is also completely true.

Regardless of how much of Genesis is literally true I do believe that at some time in history on Earth that God really did create a literal Adam and Even and I do think that we’re all realted to them.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve are all of our parents. Why argue with the Catholic Church?

I don’t believe it’s a matter of Genesis OR Evolution. I think both are true–I don’t know how you reconcile all of it–all I know is I wasn’t there. Anyway God wanted to do it is OK with me. And that also includes the possibility that the Genesis account should be taken allegorically.

 

[DiscernVoc]

Polygenism is a heresy. The Catholic Church teaches that we have one set of human parents.

Adam and Eve had to be the first Homo Spaiens.

They could Have Been birthed by another species as spontaneous mutations as long as the preceeding species did not Generate them.

On the other hand they could have been specially and miraculously created by God in Eden as the first Homo Sapiens with souls.

This would allow for literal creationism and evolution–in other words there could have been people that were not Homo Spaiens outside of Eden at the time that did not have souls.

And Eden could be beneath the elements of Iraq similiar to the way that Jesus is beneath the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

In other words Eden could really be in Iraq but on another dimension that we cannot see.

Some will say but what about disease outside of Eden–if you believe in a literal Eden don’t you have to believe that it could only happen after Adam and Even left Eden–don’t we have evidence of disease many years before on Earth?

Well if Eden was in another dimension it is altogether possible that the time scale did not run there at the same pace as on the rest of the Earth.

It would be possible for Adam and Even to have existed even billions of years in Earth time in Eden with it only seeming like a short time to them before they were banished.

In other words I do believe it is possible that evolution is completely true and that the account of Adam and Eve is also completely true.

Regardless of how much of Genesis is literally true I do believe that at some time in history on Earth that God really did create a literal Adam and Even and I do think that we’re all realted to them.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve are all of our parents. Why argue with the Catholic Church?

I don’t believe it’s a matter of Genesis OR Evolution. I think both are true–I don’t know how you reconcile all of it–all I know is I wasn’t there. Anyway God wanted to do it is OK with me. And that also includes the possibility that the Genesis account should be taken allegorically.

I don’t disagree but I was wondering if you could explain what you mean by as long as the species that birthed them didn’t generate them? Isn’t birthing them generating them? If I understand you correctly you are saying that physically they were descended from them but their spiritual soul was generated separately.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I just believe that they would have to be a different species than the species that birthed them.

And yes God would have to give them a soul–none of that soul would come from the preceeding species–if it did they couldn’t be considered our first parents.

I believe that birthing is not the same as generating if a new species results.

I just mention this as a possibility.

It is also possible that God could have allowed evolution and had specially and miraculously created Adam and Eve in Eden.

One thing is for sure–God did create Adam and Even and they were our first parents. All Catholics must believe that.

Whether they evolved from another species as a spontaneous mutation or whether they were specially and miraculously created is a question that can be speculated on.

It is possible to believe in Adam and Eve and also believe in evolution and be Catholic.

It’s also possible to Not believe in evolution and to believe in Adam and Eve and be Catholic.

It is not possible to be in union with the Catholic Church’s teachings and Not believe in Adam or Eve or that they were our first parents.

You can believe in an actual Adam and Eve and still believe that much of the Genesis account is not literal but allegorical.

You can also believe it is literal.

But no matter which way you must believe in Adam and Eve!

 

[DiscernVoc]

I just believe that they would have to be a different species than the species that birthed them.

And yes God would have to give them a soul–none of that soul would come from the preceeding species–if it did they couldn’t be considered our first parents.

I believe that birthing is not the same as generating if a new species results.

I just mention this as a possibility.

It is also possible that God could have allowed evolution and had specially and miraculously created Adam and Eve in Eden.

One thing is for sure–God did create Adam and Even and they were our first parents. All Catholics must believe that.

Whether they evolved from another species as a spontaneous mutation or whether they were specially and miraculously created is a question that can be speculated on.

It is possible to believe in Adam and Eve and also believe in evolution and be Catholic.

It’s also possible to Not believe in evolution and to believe in Adam and Eve and be Catholic.

It is not possible to be in union with the Catholic Church’s teachings and Not believe in Adam or Eve or that they were our first parents.

You can believe in an actual Adam and Eve and still believe that much of the Genesis account is not literal but allegorical.

You can also believe it is literal.

But no matter which way you must believe in Adam and Eve!

This I agree with. Believing its literal I don’t necessary agree with. Just because the Church doesn’t speculate on something doesn’t mean that it is intellectually honest. Now there definitely are some things that the church teaches that doesn’t jive with science such as the transsubstantiation and miracles in general, but the Church officially teaches these things and this is where faith comes in. Literalist interpretation of scripture is not something that the Church teaches as doctrine. Now the Church leaving the account of Genesis open to speculation in terms of the “how” with certain stipulations doesn’t mean all theories that are speculated on are equally reasonable. There is much evidence that points to evolution or something very close to it being the tool God used in His creation of the world and man. Notice I leave in the possibility of something that isn’t quite evolution but is nonetheless something that wouldn’t be disproved by what we know about our physical world. This very evidence points to literal biblical creationism being impossible. The only way that it could be possible is for God to have intentionally placed evidence that would point to creationism being false.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Where I differ from alot of theistic evolutionists is I believe that God could have imperceptibly influenced evolution to work out perfectly.

Why would God do it that way?

Well in the Gospels we have the story of Jesus spitting on some clay and putting it on a man’e eyes to give him sight.

This is a case of the Divine God Jesus curing Both by miraculous and ordinary means.

I believe if Jesus Cured by both miraculous and ordinary means at least this one time-He could have Created by ordinary means such as evolution but also kept a miraculous hand in it–but doing it so sublimely to where we wouldn’t be able to tell that He did it that way.

Why would he do it that way? Maybe so there would be enough ambiguity about how He created that it would force each man to make a leap of faith because he never would be 100% certain.

And while I don’t believe in literalistic Eden of 6,000 years ago I do believe that there could have been an Eden somewhere when Adam and Eve were first on the Earth.

Remember–alot of legends and stories have basis in fact.

The flood of Noah could have been a local flood somewhere such as the Black Sea.

I really do believe that once you get to Abraham in Genesis you are dealing with literal people in literal history that can be traced back from Jesus.

In other words there really was a literal Abrahm who didn’t live too many thousands of years before Jesus.

You can believe such things and still believe that God created the universe by evolution.

Now many will argue about How Much of Genesis is true or based on fact and how much of it is to be taken allegorically with the main thrust of explaining the God we believe in and what we must to do join with him.

I would urge all Catholics who believe more in the literal interpretation of Genesis and all the Catholics who believe more in theistic evolution and a allegorical Genesis to just have a mind open enough to grant the possibility that some of the things that the opposing side says might be true.

The main thing to get out of Genesis is what it does to our relationship with God who is Infinite and created the universe and what we can do to be His beloved children.

God doesn’t mind his children asking questions–even ones about how He created the universe. Sometimes He gives us answers and hints.

But what God loves the most is when He doesn’t give us all the answers and like little children we trust Him and love Him as our Father!

If we can grasp that then we are well on our way to when after death and the final judgement we will see God face to face and will see Him and KNOW him clearly! Literal creationists and theistic Evolutionists alike!

 

[DiscernVoc]

Where I differ from alot of theistic evolutionists is I believe that God could have imperceptibly influenced evolution to work out perfectly.

Why would God do it that way?

Well in the Gospels we have the story of Jesus spitting on some clay and putting it on a man’e eyes to give him sight.

This is a case of the Divine God Jesus curing Both by miraculous and ordinary means.

I believe if Jesus Cured by both miraculous and ordinary means at least this one time-He could have Created by ordinary means such as evolution but also kept a miraculous hand in it–but doing it so sublimely to where we wouldn’t be able to tell that He did it that way.

Why would he do it that way? Maybe so there would be enough ambiguity about how He created that it would force each man to make a leap of faith because he never would be 100% certain.

And while I don’t believe in literalistic Eden of 6,000 years ago I do believe that there could have been an Eden somewhere when Adam and Eve were first on the Earth.

Remember–alot of legends and stories have basis in fact.

The flood of Noah could have been a local flood somewhere such as the Black Sea.

I really do believe that once you get to Abraham in Genesis you are dealing with literal people in literal history that can be traced back from Jesus.

In other words there really was a literal Abrahm who didn’t live too many thousands of years before Jesus.

You can believe such things and still believe that God created the universe by evolution.

Now many will argue about How Much of Genesis is true or based on fact and how much of it is to be taken allegorically with the main thrust of explaining the God we believe in and what we must to do join with him.

I would urge all Catholics who believe more in the literal interpretation of Genesis and all the Catholics who believe more in theistic evolution and a allegorical Genesis to just have a mind open enough to grant the possibility that some of the things that the opposing side says might be true.

The main thing to get out of Genesis is what it does to our relationship with God who is Infinite and created the universe and what we can do to be His beloved children.

God doesn’t mind his children asking questions–even ones about how He created the universe. Sometimes He gives us answers and hints.

But what God loves the most is when He doesn’t give us all the answers and like little children we trust Him and love Him as our Father!

If we can grasp that then we are well on our way to when after death and the final judgement we will see God face to face and will see Him and KNOW him clearly! Literal creationists and theistic Evolutionists alike!

I really do agree with you on everything but the part of literal interpretation of Genesis. In terms of miracles I see no greater miracle than the creation of the universe and the harmony which is inherent. I also believe in miracles such as those that Christ did and that over the years God has worked miracles through the saints. I would even go as far as to say miracles happen to us many times in our own life. I have no problem believing that God uses miracles for revelation. When it comes to Genesis I feel that taking it completely literal misses the point. I do however believe that certain parts of Genesis are meant to be taken literal. I also believe that science has its realm and faith has its realm. God resides in both of these realms. As long as scientific discovery doesn’t challenge faith as is the case with theistic evolution I think we have an obligation to use what knowledge we have to understand the world God has given us. You are definitely correct that one day literalists and theistic evolutionists will see the clear truth of God. One thing I can tell you is I actually see a lot of literalists that make more sense to me than atheists. I don’t see how you can see God’s creation such as the universe and dna and not see design.

God bless

 

[DiscernVoc]

Where I differ from alot of theistic evolutionists is I believe that God could have imperceptibly influenced evolution to work out perfectly.

Why would God do it that way?

Well in the Gospels we have the story of Jesus spitting on some clay and putting it on a man’e eyes to give him sight.

This is a case of the Divine God Jesus curing Both by miraculous and ordinary means.

I believe if Jesus Cured by both miraculous and ordinary means at least this one time-He could have Created by ordinary means such as evolution but also kept a miraculous hand in it–but doing it so sublimely to where we wouldn’t be able to tell that He did it that way.

Why would he do it that way? Maybe so there would be enough ambiguity about how He created that it would force each man to make a leap of faith because he never would be 100% certain.

And while I don’t believe in literalistic Eden of 6,000 years ago I do believe that there could have been an Eden somewhere when Adam and Eve were first on the Earth.

Remember–alot of legends and stories have basis in fact.

The flood of Noah could have been a local flood somewhere such as the Black Sea.

I really do believe that once you get to Abraham in Genesis you are dealing with literal people in literal history that can be traced back from Jesus.

In other words there really was a literal Abrahm who didn’t live too many thousands of years before Jesus.

You can believe such things and still believe that God created the universe by evolution.

Now many will argue about How Much of Genesis is true or based on fact and how much of it is to be taken allegorically with the main thrust of explaining the God we believe in and what we must to do join with him.

I would urge all Catholics who believe more in the literal interpretation of Genesis and all the Catholics who believe more in theistic evolution and a allegorical Genesis to just have a mind open enough to grant the possibility that some of the things that the opposing side says might be true.

The main thing to get out of Genesis is what it does to our relationship with God who is Infinite and created the universe and what we can do to be His beloved children.

God doesn’t mind his children asking questions–even ones about how He created the universe. Sometimes He gives us answers and hints.

But what God loves the most is when He doesn’t give us all the answers and like little children we trust Him and love Him as our Father!

If we can grasp that then we are well on our way to when after death and the final judgement we will see God face to face and will see Him and KNOW him clearly! Literal creationists and theistic Evolutionists alike!

I almost forgot to ask. Wouldn’t God influencing evolution to work be a form of theistic evolution? This is where as Catholics we will always differ with secular evolutionists. What they see as random, we see as a course of events layed out by an omniscient, omnipotent being. I even think that this was began before the big bang. God set up the dominoes, to use a very poor metaphor, and then pushed them over and watched them fall. Of course this really is a poor analogy for a Catholic to make because it leaves out the times when God intervenes. Of course God exists outside of the bounds of time so what looks like present time intervention could actually be a perfectly placed domino by an all-powerful, all-knowing God, to once again use an imperfect analogy. Its an interesting thought anyway.