Adam and Eve real people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
michael-kaw said:
So apparently the church has said that Adam and Eve were real. But how then would someone explain evolution which I think is a position that a huge amount of Catholics have?
Click to expand...
No offense, but this might be the most discussed topic here. Is it possible to do some reading before opening another thread on it?
 
michael-kaw said:
So apparently the church has said that Adam and Eve were real. But how then would someone explain evolution which I think is a position that a huge amount of Catholics have?
Click to expand...
It’s not nearly as hard as you think. It is fine for Catholics to believe that humans came from primates but its logical to believe that at some point in the evolution process a man and woman evolved with genes different than primates. We can call them Adam and Eve. From a scientific perspective, evolution only works with a large population, but it still makes sense that a mutation starts with one or two people Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
michael-kaw said:
So apparently the church has said that Adam and Eve were real. But how then would someone explain evolution which I think is a position that a huge amount of Catholics have?
Click to expand...
Yes, esus Himself spoke about Adam the man.Genesis states that “God made Man from the slime or dust (depending on translation) of the earth”. Interpret that as you will. Burt to go from slime/dust to rational man implies some sort of evolution. But long before Charles Darwin it was St Augustine who proposed the notion that God made man from lower forms. The Book of Genesis was not written to explain biology or genetics.
 
Hereiam said:
“Adam” and “Eve” represent the original humans created by God, from which all mankind traces its lineage. The Creation Story can be viewed as myth or reality, but the fact that the first man and woman was created and not born or evolved is non-negotiable.

The belief or denial of evolution, other than the creation of this man and woman is fair game.
Click to expand...
That’s not completely accurate, and it’s the cause of endless circular discussion.
The soul cannot be a product of evolution.
Material side, probably is if you accept mainstream science.

The Church speaks about true humans. We are a unity of body and soul. When the Church speaks about polygenism, it is referring to true humans as the Church sees the whole person, not making a scientific pronouncement.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Do you or do you not believe in evolution?
 
Of course I do. But I believe God created us too. And that God created evolution
 
goout said:
That’s not completely accurate, and it’s the cause of endless circular discussion.

The soul cannot be a product of evolution.
Click to expand...
Take a breath, and go back and read my post and you will find we are in agreement…the problem with the argument of creation vs. evolution is how poorly catechized people are in this area of Church teaching.
 
Whether there is evolution or not isn’t really a question that Catholics have a problem with. God could have created Adam from dust or put an immortal soul into an existing life form. Much of the creation account speaks poetically (though Catholic are required to believe much of it is true, such as the occurrence of original sin which is an instinsic part of Catholic beliefs).

Obviously though there were first humans. We know that there were no human on the earth, and then suddenly the first humans must have appeared. So there actually must have been an Adam and Eve. (And actually geneticists are able to tell we were all descended from the same woman, as a matter of fact.)
 
Last edited:
Coincidentally, I posted this thought before in its own separate category, but perhaps it is more fitting as a response here. My proposition is that, using the type of Scriptural mining used to justify the Assumption as a dogma, there is a much stronger case to declare the immediate creation of Adam, body and soul, as an adult, with Eve taken from his side:

The fact that the Assumption of Mary is a dogma, based not on eyewitness accounts but on Scriptural foreshadowing and allusion combined with theological reasoning, should be seen as providing an even stronger basis for proclaiming the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve - both body and soul - an infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. In Scripture, this event and references to it is described not only in Genesis but also (to name just a few passages) 1 Chronicles 1, Tobit 8:6, Wisdom 10:1, Sirach 33:10, 40:1 and 49:6, Hosea 6:7, 2 Maccabees 7:28, Luke 3:38, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2, and Jude 1:14. So the totality of direct references to the instantaneous creation of Adam in Sacred Scripture far outweighs the rather scant allusions to the Assumption. Humani Generis requires only a belief in the immediate creation of Adam’s soul, which leaves open the possibility that God simply infused and intangible, rational soul into the already-existing animal body of Adam. This is problematic in that 1) it reduces God’s miraculous capability to create a man, body and soul, instantaneously if He so wished, 2) it separates God from material creation in that it is implied He is spiritual and unproven, able to intercede only in matters outside the physical realm and 3) it contradicts the Church’s current teaching that a soul is formed at the moment of conception. Albeit invisible to the naked eye, at conception a physical human is present, complete with an instantaneously created soul. Hence, Adam can just as well have been formed miraculously as an adult, which is clearly, definitively, and unambiguously stated in Scripture. And, once again, held up to the criteria used to dogmatically declare the Assumption, the creation of Adam and Eve has strong grounds to stand on as a dogmatic tenet of the Faith.

In the realm of evolutionary science, nothing stands in the way of a proclamation of such dogma, for science can trace back the biological beginnings of mankind, but cannot exactly p(name removed by moderator)oint the first occurrence of human beings made in God’s image.

The Church’s current teaching on the origin of human beings, in my opinion, shortchanges God’s power and allows for thoughts of separation between the spiritual and the physical. Humani Generis allows this belief but does not emphatically require it. Personally, I hold the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis as a true literal account due exactly to our required belief in the Assumption.

Genesis itself contains both literal and figurative history; yet, because of the constant admission of the immediate creation of Adam throughout Scripture, I believe there is a strong basis to solidify the teaching of Humani Generis to conclude that Adam was created immediately as an adult, body and soul, in the image of God.
 
Personally, I dropped creation not too long ago. I hold the belief that there were many groups of humans before Adam and Eve, but they were the first to be “created” in the image of God. Aka: Given rational souls.
 
Yes they were real.

Consider that God created them as the prototypical humans with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness.

Evolution would say God allowed millions of years of destruction that led up to Adam and Eve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top