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

[mazsa]

Wonderful! I hold your truths to be self-evident to anyone who believes that God is our Creator. Science and spirituality can mesh or clash. But I’ll always side for God. Maybe I can’t “prove” His existence, but neither can science “prove” He does not exist.

 

[grannymh]

Because of the push to modernize Adam in order to make Divine Revelation [Catholic doctrines] conform to human speculations regarding human origin, Catholics do need a tad more basic information about evolution theories.

By “modernize Adam” I am referring to the modernist movement to change the source for Catholic doctrines from Divine Revelation to natural science via the use of the “mythology” concept. It does get confusing because of media coverage.

As a start, may I respectfully point out that contemporary evolutionary theory has expanded way beyond its original concept of chance happenings.

Currently, the evolution model is used to determine the source of humanity which at this point only refers to human’s anatomy due to the limitations of natural science. This material/physical approach to you and me intersects with the Catholic doctrine that our human nature, as created by God, unites both the material and the spiritual worlds. It is because of its God-created spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person.
(Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421, including footnotes)

Each one of us is called by our Creator to share eternally in His own life. What guarantees this truth is that all of us are descended from one person who is referred to as the living Adam. And how do we know this? We accept the fact that God blest the two sole founders of humanity, Adam and Eve, so that they could be fertile and multiply. (Genesis 1: 27-28) Because of the unity of the human species which is founded in one couple, you and I are assured that we are included in the Salvific Mission of Jesus Christ. (Romans, chapter five)

In other words, Catholics can be evolutionists when it comes to the material/physical world with its animals and plants, etc. (I am this kind of evolutionist.)

But when it comes to the human person, Catholics cannot accept the claim that we slowly descended from 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs which is what current evolution theory is proposing.

 

[grannymh]

I am just trying to picture how this theory of polygenism would work…

God at some point created a soul in the first humans, because without a soul they would not be human (body+soul).

So the scientists look at fossils and try to guess when the human race came into being??? I never imagined that walking upright was indicative of the presence of a soul.(or any other fossil record)

So God must have watched the primates evolve and said to Himself…Look there is a group of about 1200 primates that have bodies that are upright enough, I will implant souls in them.

And thus the human race was created. Perhaps others started to walk more upright many years later so He then implanted souls in them as well.

Since they now had souls they were able to sin, they all started sinning somewhat simultaneously. And this is the basis for the myth/symbol of original sin. Concupiscence must not have been a result of original sin but rather just a cultural influence?

Since original sin was not a definitive act by one man, we don’t need a definitive act by one God-Man to reconcile us. After all, it’s just a myth, right? Death, after all was in the world before the mythical original sin. So it’s a myth to believe one death by the God-Man destroys death and gains eternal life, right? (what did Paul say about this anyway, or was he a mythological figure as well?)

I am just trying to ferret out the theological implications of the polygenistic “scientific” model. I am certainly no theologian, so that must be why I can’t see the continuity between polygenism and Catholic theology :whacky:

Well put.

Catholics do not have to accept the claim that humanity slowly descended from1,000, 1,200 or 10,000 breeding pairs of anatomies that walk upright which is one of the signs of the human species. This is known as polygenism.

Why don’t we have to accept that claim? Because it only takes one breeding pair to begin humankind in the same manner that we descended from our two parents.

Cardinal Pell correctly said “But we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one.”

 

[FaithByProxy]

Are we really having a debate about whether Adam and Eve were real on a Catholic forum?

God made man after laying the foundations of the Earth, exactly as he is today. I would love to see any Evolutionist present actual evidence of creatures of any sort changing into a different kind of creature. In fact, assuming that evolution were true (and that is quite the assumption), I would love to see evidence how insanely complicated single-celled organisms appeared without some sort of divine intervention.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

God made man after laying the foundations of the Earth, exactly as he is today. I would love to see any Evolutionist present actual evidence of creatures of any sort changing into a different kind of creature.

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I’m not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

In fact, assuming that evolution were true (and that is quite the assumption), I would love to see evidence how insanely complicated single-celled organisms appeared without some sort of divine intervention.

Evolution only covers what happened after life came into being; its doesn’t touch on the subject of its origins. What you are asking about is abiogenesis

 

[grannymh]

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I’m not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

Because of the subject matter of the link in post 1, we may discuss evolution as it relates to the topic of Adam and Eve. And of course, discussion must be calm and charitable. In addition, we should not assume the context of Cardinal Pell’s very brief remarks. We need to remember that the article is written by Nicolas Perpitch from his point of view.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

I do not mean this as an insult, but the Cardinal is not original in his remarks. His “comments” are everywhere and as Catholics we need to understand what is being said and how scientific research intersects with our Faith. We should be looking at the article from the reader’s reactions to our secular environment.

Note: check the sticky notes on the top of each forum for information about the ban on evolution and atheism discussions.

 

[Sample]

Are we really having a debate about whether Adam and Eve were real on a Catholic forum?

God made man after laying the foundations of the Earth, exactly as he is today. I would love to see any Evolutionist present actual evidence of creatures of any sort changing into a different kind of creature. In fact, assuming that evolution were true (and that is quite the assumption), I would love to see evidence how insanely complicated single-celled organisms appeared without some sort of divine intervention.

The Index of Forbidden Topics on this site includes discussion of evolution. You shall not receive your answer here.

 

[grannymh]

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I’m not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

One of the more interesting fossils is the Piltdown Man.

Evolution only covers what happened after life came into being; its doesn’t touch on the subject of its origins. What you are asking about is abiogenesis

True. While abiogenesis is fascinating, natural science accepts the existence of material/physical life.

The difference between Catholic teaching and natural science is that Catholicism looks at human life as a total package. Natural science explores human life solely in the material/physical realm. Obviously, natural science helps us get along in our universe.

Natural science per se is a gift from God; but it is not the only gift from God.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty, it is the basic gift of a human relationship with God which makes humankind peerless among animal species. The spiritual gift of a relationship with God cannot be dissected like the human anatomy. The soul does not leave fossils. Yet, Catholicism insists that the human person is real. Thus, it follows that the human person had to descend from a real human. Catholicism calls that first real human, Adam.

Evolution theory is the name of a process, the goal of which is to account for the diversity of species on earth. That is a good goal.

Catholics can accept various aspects of the evolution process regarding their decomposing anatomy. Catholics can accept relationships between humans and animals based on the similarity of anatomies; for example, the immune system or digestive system, etc.

Note: the contemporary evolution model does not teach that humans directly descended from monkeys. Both probably descended from a type of common ancestor. This “probably” does not rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics who are intimidated by those so-called mountains of evidence
against the reality of Adam and Eve need to remember one valuable point.

The anti-Catholicism interpreters (not necessarily scientists themselves) of some natural science research have made an illicit shift from a particular conclusion
to an universal exclusion.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics who are intimidated by those so-called mountains of evidence
against the reality of Adam and Eve need to remember one valuable point.

The anti-Catholicism interpreters (not necessarily scientists themselves) of some natural science research have made an illicit shift from a particular conclusion
to an universal exclusion.

To better understand an “illicit shift” Google “Black Swan”. For example, Black Swan Australia, Black Swan theory, etc. Skip the movies with that name.

svswans.com/black.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

It is religious freedom which allows ordinary folk to look beyond scientific explorations of material anatomies and their origins. Intellectual freedom can lead to the discovery that human nature is uniquely created so that there is* both* a material anatomy *and *a spiritual soul. Catholicism teaches that God calls each person to share eternally (beyond human death) in His life. That is no myth.

Ordinary folk need to remember that Catholic doctrines concern our spiritual journey to eternal peace via the Beatific Vision. Rightly so, scientific explorations stop at the limits of the material physical world. On the other hand, neither God nor humans are limited by the material physical. In the same manner as a black swan, the possibility of Adam’s reality exists.

The “illicit shift” regarding Adam is an unwarranted (by the evidence) assumption that every bit of mother earth has been explored every day for thousands of years going backwards.

Scientific evidence is very useful; but, when it comes to the origin of human nature, indviudal conclusions cannot be turned into an unviersal statement that rules out two sole founders of humankind. Catholics need to keep to the real events in the first three chapters of Genesis. In a sense, mythology does have a place in human history. Catholics need to learn when something can be considered analogical or figurative. At the same time, Catholics may have to remember a black swan when faced with seemingly difficult questions.

 

[grannymh]

From the news article in the OP.

“And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

As a granny from the U.S.A., I stand with our Irish sisters and brothers and others from all over the world here at the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin.
The universal Catholic Church is here in worship of and thanksgiving for the Eucharist, the true presence of Jesus Himself.

In regard to the “religious story” of Adam and Eve, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that there is only one purpose. We do not know how many good, important purposes the Cardinal was thinking about when he made that comment. We can only look into our own lives to see how the real Adam touches us.

The real Adam scorned his Creator. He broke the relationship between God and himself and future descendents. Yet, here am I in Hall 4 of the RDS, sitting before God Himself Who is loving us as individuals, each one needing healing in some form.

As I think about that “religious story” about Adam and Eve, I think about God’s mercy in promising Jesus Christ as our Redeemer. I know from Catholic teaching that all of humanity is as one body in Adam. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus before me in the Eucharist is my Savior. No doubt because that “religious story” is not about a large ancient population developing in their own material anatomies, some kind or variety of something which may be similar to the spiritual.

God gives each human person who is a descendent of Adam, a spiritual soul so that we can truly respond to His Divine call to share eternally in His Divine life full of love and happiness.

That “religious story” assures all humankind that they are made in the Image of God. The assurance is that there is one Adam along with his one wife, who are the one true, sole parents of all humanity.

 

[grannymh]

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.

My apology for taking two months to get this book and start reading it.

The excerpt above is from the Third Homily, “The Creation of the Human Being”. In the section “Creation and Evolution”, the future Pope addresses the work of Jacques Monod and the concept that we are the product of haphazard mistakes. In place of God’s will, Monod postulates chance–the lottery–as having produced us. Contemporary evolution developments in the natural sciences are beyond the crudeness of Monod. Still, there are people who prefer the “mythical Adam” over God’s “divine project” which is human nature.

Further in this section, the Pope writes: " It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error."

For Pope Benedict, the great projects of the living creation is each human person. He writes: “Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love.”

The Pope’s book,* ‘In the Beginning…’* A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and The Fall, ISBN 978-0-8028-4106-3, is based on the first three chapters of Genesis.

His Fourth Homily, “Sin and Salvation” addresses the reality, not mythological in nature, of Original Sin committed by a real living person. The future Pope writes in the section “Original Sin”: “In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins.”

 

[buffalo]

**Interesting new development:
**

**
**

Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions

Let’s step back and examine how Ayala’s analysis was done. His claims against a literal Adam and Eve are based on population genetics models for how gene frequencies change in populations over time, and how ancestral gene lineages tend to coalesce. The equations used to reconstruct these trees, and to calculate ancestral population sizes, depend on simplifications and assumptions to make the mathematics tractable, as I said before. These explicit assumptions include a constant background mutation rate over time, lack of selection for genetic change on
the DNA sequences being studied, random breeding among individuals, no migrations in or out of the breeding population, and a **constant population size **. If any of these assumptions turn out to be unrealistic, the results of a model may be seriously flawed.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

A new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin, has hit the street, and we’ll be having a fair bit more to say about it.
For now, just this: Developmental biologist Ann Gauger, who wasn’t sure whether the human race could have come from one original couple, as opposed to Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim of thousands of people, concludes in Chapter 5 that Ayala was vastly overstating his case, and that it is quite possible that there was one Adam and one Eve.*

more…

 

[ringil]

Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

A new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin, has hit the street, and we’ll be having a fair bit more to say about it.
For now, just this: Developmental biologist Ann Gauger, who wasn’t sure whether the human race could have come from one original couple, as opposed to Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim of thousands of people, concludes in Chapter 5 that Ayala was vastly overstating his case, and that it is quite possible that there was one Adam and one Eve.*

more…

These authors worked with the illustrious Discovery Institute. (sigh)

 

[buffalo]

These authors worked with the illustrious Discovery Institute. (sigh)

How about addressing the scientific arguments.

 

[ringil]

How about addressing the scientific arguments.

Sources are important. Agendas are important.

 

[buffalo]

Sources are important. Agendas are important.

How right you are. (remember the one about not letting “a Divine Foot in the Door”?

But, how about addressing the scientific arguments.

 

[grannymh]

These authors worked with the illustrious Discovery Institute. (sigh)

From the OP news article theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

---

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.

“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.

           "It's certainly not a scientific truth. And it's a religious story told for religious purposes."

---

Regarding any kind of “scientific truth”, analyzing methods and materials is far more important than group affiliation.

 

[grannymh]

Sources are important. Agendas are important.

I agree.

I commented on one of the many, many, many agendas in this early post.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9175826&postcount=79

As anyone can tell from reading the OP link, it is impossible to know Cardinal Pell’s personal agenda.

Please note that my following comment and further comments are not directed at Cardinal Pell personally. My comments come from info referred to in other sources. However, as long as the Cardinal brought up “science”, it is valuable for readers to know what kind of “science” comments deal with Adam and Eve. The Australian article did include the concept of mythology in regard to the real, sole founders of humankind.

Denying that Adam was not an actual person who committed an actual original sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity – is part of the modern (secular) theological movement to change some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.