Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[ChesterBeach]

The most clear ( to me at least ) reason for evolution is: all life is from one source. All life comes from one spark of life 3.5 billion years ago. All life evolved from one source. It’s beautiful and theologically non-contradictory… if you credit God with the spark

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ultimately, if there is an argument for evolution, He had to have a greater purpose for it. Now, for One who tells us we are made in his image, there needs to be an explanation why He would put us through a billion years (or whatever) of an evolutionary process from a fish (or whatever) in order to create us, when the very earth this evolution supposedly took place on was created without any mediation whatsoever.

Yes, exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. We have plenty of other similar examples, as I have cited, so that this is not out of character of God.

(Note, btw, that cosmological evidence is that the earth was not instantly created. See the Big Bang. The place to look for the hand of God is the initiation of the Big Bang.)

But while there is probably a good explanation it doesn’t follow that if we don’t know the explanation then there must be no explanation. In other words, we need to exercise a little humility when it comes to understanding God’s purpose.

Since God has no lack of power, He could not make us less than perfectly in His image. And since there was no sin, there was nothing in us which needed to be perfected, eliminating the idea of evolution.

Well, this is the problem of theodicy and it doesn’t go away by dismissing evolution.

(God could have created the universe and then planted the dinosaur bones and other evidence to mislead us about evolution.)

 

[tm30]

Yes, exactly! This is what I have been saying all along. We have plenty of other similar examples, as I have cited, so that this is not out of character of God.

(Note, btw, that cosmological evidence is that the earth was not instantly created. See the Big Bang. The place to look for the hand of God is the initiation of the Big Bang.)

Science admits that roughly 96% of the universe (dark energy and dark matter) cannot be observed. I have a problem with a theory which is built on only 4% of quantifiable evidence; so Big Bang is a non-starter for me.

it doesn’t follow that if we don’t know the explanation then there must be no explanation. In other words, we need to exercise a little humility when it comes to understanding God’s purpose.

We do know the explanation and we do know God’s purpose. It’s in Scripture. It’s the whole point of Scripture.

Well, this is the problem of theodicy and it doesn’t go away by dismissing evolution.

(God could have created the universe and then planted the dinosaur bones and other evidence to mislead us about evolution.)

As I mentioned above, evolutionists need to square up the genetic ancestry of Christ Himself, since He carried the DNA of a human being who supposedly evolved from other life forms.

 

[ChesterBeach]

As I mentioned above, evolutionists need to square up the genetic ancestry of Christ Himself, since He carried the DNA of a human being who supposedly evolved from other life forms.

All life derived from one initial source organism. Jesus being God is the source of life. Becoming corporal he becomes part of time and life. He is the source and part of life.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Given the topic of this thread, it was hardly unexpected that someone would post the widely popularized claim that Adam and Eve were “impossible” in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest findings of science – thus scandalizing Catholics into thinking that fundamental revealed truths are not well founded.

The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption came (Rom 5:12-21). The Catechism cites St. Paul, and speaks of Adam and Eve as of a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin” (CCC, 399-404).

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates, which vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007) depending on the methods used, with an actual “bottleneck” ( a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. We must also realize that these calculations depend on many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are now known to vary widely, and that all depend on retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have almost no information.

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

Since the Class II region where HLA-DRB1 resides recombines only rarely, the region behaves as a unit during reproduction. It is inherited as a block, referred to as a haplotype. It is now known that there are only five basic haplotypes (Andersson 1998), and their particular identity is specified by which HLA-DRB1 allele they carry. Depending on the accuracy of the dating and tree drawing, there may have been between three and five haplotypes at the time of the Homo/Pan split. We share four of them with chimps. Since a single mating pair could pass on a maximum of four haplotypes, the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve. *

The point of all this is to show that the science which is so dogmatically employed to undermine Catholic doctrine regarding Adam and Eve is itself not definitive. Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.

What is most important for purposes of this thread is the realization that, since the same God is Author of both human reason and authentic revelation, legitimate science will never contradict Catholic doctrine – and Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.

In my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, second edition, 2003), I offer extensive analysis of the interface between evolutionary theory, philosophy, and theology – including a most detailed explanation of how the existence of a literal Adam and Eve remains rationally credible, even to well educated Christians at the beginning of the twenty-first century.*

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We do know the explanation and we do know God’s purpose. It’s in Scripture. It’s the whole point of Scripture.

I recommend Job, especially God’s speech to Job at the end.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

First, I want to welcome you to this thread.

What is most important for purposes of this thread is the realization that, since the same God is Author of both human reason and authentic revelation, legitimate science will never contradict Catholic doctrine – and Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.

One thing I hope that you will agree on is that if Adam and Eve are to be regarded as the literal first humans then that implies monogenism which is a falsifiable scientific prediction. It may well be that the science is not firm or resolved on this question but that doesn’t mean it will always be so. Would you agree?

But while the poly/monogenism debate is certainly interesting, it is not the simplest reason for regarding the Adam and Eve as mythological rather than literal. Simply inserting Adam and Eve into the evolutionary scheme as the first fully human man and woman won’t do the job.

What the theory of evolution tells us is that death and violence are inherent to biology and therefore preceeded the first humans. The first humans would have been born into a world of death and violence. It may be that they were the first to recognize the tragedy of death or sinful nature of violence, but they would not have been unaware of it.

Which brings us to the work of Professor Daryl P. Domning which I am discussing here: “Original Selfishness vs. Original Sin”. I would be interesting to hear your take on him.

 

[grannymh]

First, I want to welcome you to this thread.

One thing I hope that you will agree on is that if Adam and Eve are to be regarded as the literal first humans then that implies monogenism which is a falsifiable scientific prediction. It may well be that the science is not firm or resolved on this question but that doesn’t mean it will always be so. Would you agree?

But while the poly/monogenism debate is certainly interesting, it is not the simplest reason for regarding the Adam and Eve as mythological rather than literal. Simply inserting Adam and Eve into the evolutionary scheme as the first fully human man and woman won’t do the job.

What the theory of evolution tells us is that death and violence are inherent to biology and therefore preceeded the first humans. The first humans would have been born into a world of death and violence. It may be that they were the first to recognize the tragedy of death or sinful nature of violence, but they would not have been unaware of it.

Which brings us to the work of Professor Daryl P. Domning which I am discussing here: “Original Selfishness vs. Original Sin”. I would be interesting to hear your take on him.

Please explain.

What exactly is this falsifiable scientific prediction for monogenism?
Simply saying that there are mountains of evidence doesn’t count. Mountains of evidence could be ant hills of unverifiable assumptions. In other words, in scientific circles, the evidence has to warrant the conclusion.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Please explain.

What exactly is this falsifiable scientific prediction for monogenism?
Simply saying that there are mountains of evidence doesn’t count. Mountains of evidence could be ant hills of unverifiable assumptions. In other words, in scientific circles, the evidence has to warrant the conclusion.

Of course, nothing in science is ever final. In theory, at least, even the roundness of the earth is open to contradictory evidence. But as a practical matter, we generally regard the roundness of the earth as settled science.

What I mean, then about falsifiability, is that the claim of a literal Adam and Eve makes a prediction about what geneticists will uncover. A literal reading of Adam and Eve is a predictive claim about genetics that scientists can test in their labs.

Contrast that with the theological claim that man is created in God’s image. That is not testable in the lab.

 

[grannymh]

Of course, nothing in science is ever final. In theory, at least, even the roundness of the earth is open to contradictory evidence. But as a practical matter, we generally regard the roundness of the earth as settled science.

What I mean, then about falsifiability, is that the claim of a literal Adam and Eve makes a prediction about what geneticists will uncover. A literal reading of Adam and Eve is a predictive claim about genetics that scientists can test in their labs.

Contrast that with the theological claim that man is created in God’s image. That is not testable in the lab.

The prediction that monogenism makes is that the human species can be procreated.

You exist and are of the human species. Therefore, the prediction is validated. I do believe that when you send your DNA to one of the various companies offering DNA sequencing, i.e., information about certain genes, their geneticists will tell you that you are human. Therefore the prediction is validated. Side note: having attended an university public outreach summer forum on the human genome, I caution people to do some research about various companies offering this service, because methods do vary.

Therefore the existence of a “falsifiable scientific prediction” in post 236 is unfounded.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The prediction that monogenism makes is that the human species can be procreated.

That is not the only prediction that follows from monogenism and it is certainly not the one that we have been discussing.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have not read the thread, I was just advised to post a reference here. Maybe someone already did. I think the most enlightening book on this topic is “In the Beginning…”
A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

An excerpt:

Creation and Evolution

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

In this book, iirc, our future Pope characterizes Genesis in it’s first 13 chapters as “mythological in nature.” Not false, not fantasy, but based in something actual, to explain certain things: what we are and what our relationship to God is.

It’s a really remarkable piece of writing, I encourage folks to find it. I bet Amazon has it used really cheap.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Having already published one book and several articles on this general topic, I have no intention of becoming entangled endlessly in myriad side issues on this thread and forum.

My sole intent was to address the widespread scientific mythology that Adam and Eve had somehow already been proven to be “impossible” by science, particularly by alleged “findings” of molecular biology and the Human Genome.

Now it appears that some are willing to concede that “the science is not firm or resolved on this question…”

That admission is sufficient for me at present.

I am sure some may wish to ensnare me in further debate, but that was not my intention in posting this clarification of these popularized hyper-claims about our first parents’ alleged “impossibility.” What matters is that Catholic doctrine has not been disproven. There are always those who will seek to find ways to disprove what the Catholic Church teaches. I am not one of them.

Those wanting to explore some of my writings on this and other topics are invited to examine my web site at drbonnette.com.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Having already published one book and several articles on this general topic, I have no intention of becoming entangled endlessly in myriad side issues on this thread and forum.

My sole intent was to address the widespread scientific mythology that Adam and Eve had somehow already been proven to be “impossible” by science, particularly by alleged “findings” of molecular biology and the Human Genome.

Now it appears that some are willing to concede that “the science is not firm or resolved on this question…”

That admission is sufficient for me at present.

I am sure some may wish to ensnare me in further debate, but that was not my intention in posting this clarification of these popularized hyper-claims about our first parents’ alleged “impossibility.” What matters is that Catholic doctrine has not been disproven. There are always those who will seek to find ways to disprove what the Catholic Church teaches. I am not one of them.

Those wanting to explore some of my writings on this and other topics are invited to examine my web site at drbonnette.com.

Since you quote me I will assume that this is directed at me. I have, all along, said that the issue of poly vs. monogenism is unsettled. Others have claimed that monogenism is, if not impossible, at least contradicted by the available science. Whether or not you have changed their minds is not something that quoting me will answer.

However, I offered a much simpler reason to question the literality of Adam and Eve.

Nobody is trying to ensnare you. You presented yourself as an expert on the subject and so I naturally put questions to you. It’s your peragotive not to answer.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking of questions…

Here is a very interesting question from the article linked in post 1.

“Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.”

Taking that quote at face value,
was Cardinal Pell’s answer directed to an actual Garden of Eden or an actual Adam and Eve?

 

[grannymh]

.

My sole intent was to address the widespread scientific mythology that Adam and Eve had somehow already been proven to be “impossible” by science, particularly by alleged “findings” of molecular biology and the Human Genome.

Emphasis mine.

For the full text regarding scientific issues about the real Adam and Eve,
please refer to post 234 above.

“The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine.” statement from post 234. Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9200113&postcount=234

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[ChesterBeach]

“The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine.”

That is not true. This has been posted earlier but bears repeating.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 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.265

Original sin is the important part. The event.

 

[cornbread_r2]

That is not true. This has been posted earlier but bears repeating.

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 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.265

Original sin is the important part. The event.

While I agree that a particular event seems to be an essential element in the doctrine of Original Sin, it also seems that our culpability for that act is also essential. If we were created with a capacity for good and evil, then The Fall wasn’t our fault. If it wasn’t our fault, then we didn’t need a savior.

One other thing I’ve noticed about these OS discussions is that no one who supports the doctrine, in any of it’s various non-YEC iterations, is willing to p(name removed by moderator)oint when this event was supposed to have happened – as demonstrated with the imprecise language high-lighted in the above quote. IMO, the reason for that coyness is obvious: once a specific time frame is proposed, it becomes scientifically testable and that’s something clever theologians try to avoid at all costs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

While I agree that a particular event seems to be an essential element in the doctrine of Original Sin, it also seems that our culpability for that act is also essential. If we were created with a capacity for good and evil, then The Fall wasn’t our fault. If it wasn’t our fault, then we didn’t need a savior…

But it might not have anything to do with “fault” in actuality. The figurative or mythological story may present it that way, but what it represents might be that it is simply our nature in Time to be in the state of sin. But the “state of sin” is to be “separate from God.” Not “bad.”

God created all of this from nothingness: from not-God. That means, if we exist as physical beings, we are attached to a bit of the nothingness, the not-God.

In the story, God puts a flaming sword at the entrance to the garden, we can’t get back the way we came. We have to go through life to get to Life. That path to Life, the Way, is to chose God over not-God.

In the book by then-Cardinal Ratzinger I linked, one of the things he keeps pointing out is that we cannot makes sense of this story without relating it to the Incarnation.

 

[ChesterBeach]

While I agree that a particular event seems to be an essential element in the doctrine of Original Sin, it also seems that our culpability for that act is also essential. If we were created with a capacity for good and evil, then The Fall wasn’t our fault. If it wasn’t our fault, then we didn’t need a savior.

One other thing I’ve noticed about these OS discussions is that no one who supports the doctrine, in any of it’s various non-YEC iterations, is willing to p(name removed by moderator)oint when this event was supposed to have happened – as demonstrated with the imprecise language high-lighted in the above quote. IMO, the reason for that coyness is obvious: once a specific time frame is proposed, it becomes scientifically testable and that’s something clever theologians try to avoid at all costs.

If it agragorical it doesn’t need to factually proven. The story conveys our discordant relationship to God. A theme found in most religions. We are responsible for seeking reconciliation. Reconciliation is offered through Christ’s sacrifice. We are responsible to seek Christ.