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

[kama3]

Jesus refered to Abel (who was murdered) as a real person with Zacharias (who was murdered in Chronicals) Luke 11:51. A line of blood that is fictional?

Your argument only holds if Jesus was omniscient. If Jesus was not omniscient than he could have mistakenly believed the myth to be literally true.

Another possible take on this: Jesus (and possibly his listeners) knew that this is a myth, but he used it as a literary device to make a point.

Then there is another possibility – the blood line that goes back, but it does not go all the way back, but ends in the place where the record (or the oral tradition) starts, and that point later becomes mistakenly equated to the origin (when it’s not).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What are you arguing here?

A. That the Catholic Church does not teach Creationism (although it does, strictly speaking, not teach evolution either).

B. That the story of Adam and Eve immediately follows one of the two creation stories and is intertwined with the other.

C. It is therefore reasonble to consider if we ought to regard the story of Adam and Eve in the same way that we regard the creation story.

 

[buffalo]

Polygenism already is established science.

In genetic terms, monogenism means that there was a time when there was a population bottleneck with the size of 2, or, that there was a time when the effective population size of humans was 2.

Past effective population size can be calculated from an analysis of genetic diversity of the present population. Basically, there are some statistical laws which govern how genes change (so-called genetic drift) and they allow you to back-calculate what the human population would have to be in the past to get to the present state. Here is (one of many) technical paper which does that: genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/520.long

Here’s the important result: there is no evidence of any population bottleneck with the population size of 2. Nothing. Nada. The lowest estimate of a population bottleneck we have is 1200 and it is linked to the Toba catastrophe. Also, this is not a new development either: there are papers from at least 20 years ago discussing that. The evidence simply continues to mount.

Here is a quite understandable treatment of the subject written by a Catholic priest and a biologist: 3op.org/nicanor_austiaco_article.pdf

So yes, the claim made in Humani Generis #37 has been falsified. With all the nasty consequences. Meaning, it appears that we have to throw out everything, starting from papal infallibility, through Orginal Sin and ending with Redemption. Or, as you prefer, the whole religion appears to collapse.

That said, it appears that the writer of Humani Generis #37 did leave us an escape hatch. The hatch is a essentially a technicality, so I’m not quite convinced that he did it on purpose; nevertheless; the hatch is there. Make of this what you will.

The escape hatch works like this. The text in #37 says it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled [with faith]. So it doesn’t say that polygenism cannot be objectively reconciled with faith; but that the writer of Humani Generis does not see how it can be reconciled. The implication is that if someone can propose a theological reasoning which reconciles Christianity with polygenism then the prohibition in #37 is void. See e.g this: vox-nova.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/

Of course how to do that technically is no way apparent but there are some papers out there with different ideas, written by theologians wrestling with the problem. The very existence of these papers proves that – as minimum – the theologians believe that the problem is not unsolvable.

In my opinion, while Catholicism can indeed escape through that escape hatch, it will end up badly wounded. The problem is that #37 still contains a definitive prohibition: the faithful cannot embrace the notion… So even if someone finds a theological way to integrate polygenism into Christianity, we are still talking a major doctrinal revision. So one still has to (1) salvage papal infallibility and (2) explain what happened to the poor souls who were condemned to hell for believing in polygenism. Basically, it’s the Gallieo blunder all over again.

Fun times

Yup - you are on the mark. Either the constant teaching of the Church is affirmed by science or it is not. Most evo’s see this while theistic evo’s do not. My position is this:

Revelation is true, and therefore we must challenge science to dig deeper to find the truths. Faith and reason cannot be opposed.

Now onto your claims: Consider that the genetic lookback may have a horizon problem in that it cannot see farther back that a few generations form Adam and Eve.

The underlying assumptions are a constant mutation rate and the current genetic diversity cannot be accounted for. Remember, this is a model and not actually proved. The current estimate is 1200 down form a high of 6000 (moving in the right direction) There is well over 50 uses of the word estimate/d in the document. It also assumes a constant generation length across the populations. Adma and Eve both could have started with more heterozygosity than assumed.

Since we now know that DNA effectively fights mutations - how many does a current human have due to mutations only?

On top of that epigenetics may have much to say on this subject.

There is still much to know.

We do not know the actual diversity between Adam and Eve.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Polygenism already is established science…Here’s the important result: there is no evidence of any population bottleneck with the population size of 2. Nothing. Nada…So yes, the claim made in Humani Generis #37 has been falsified.

Wait a minute! Lack of evidence is not falsification. You might say that the best scientific evidence is that monogenism is improbable but that’s not falsification either.

The text in #37 says it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled [with faith]. So it doesn’t say that polygenism cannot be objectively reconciled with faith; but that the writer of Humani Generis does not see how it can be reconciled…In my opinion, while Catholicism can indeed escape through that escape hatch, it will end up badly wounded.

Spare me.

The problem is that #37 still contains a definitive prohibition: the faithful cannot embrace the notion… So even if someone finds a theological way to integrate polygenism into Christianity, we are still talking a major doctrinal revision. So one still has to (1) salvage papal infallibility and (2) explain what happened to the poor souls who were condemned to hell for believing in polygenism. Basically, it’s the Gallieo blunder all over again.

I think that’s a bit overdramatic but your point is essentially correct.

 

[buffalo]

A. That the Catholic Church does not teach Creationism (although it does, strictly speaking, not teach evolution either).

B. That the story of Adam and Eve immediately follows one of the two creation stories and is intertwined with the other.

C. It is therefore reasonble to consider if we ought to regard the story of Adam and Eve in the same way that we regard the creation story.

This ignores the constant teaching and understanding of Catholics over the ages. We could look at it like that if the Bible just recently was discovered, but we have a strong tradition.

In any case, I would need a clear magisterial admission that shows how we got it wrong for so long and if the Holy Spirit was sleeping. The gradual drift toward scientism doesn’t cut it however.

I will continue to challenge science to dig deeper on these issues. (as we all should) One thing to note - many of the papers referenced are researched and written form the “evolution must be true” perspective building on the same basic assumptions.

Remember that old story that goes something like this: In the old story scientists labored for centuries to climb the mountain of truth; and when they reached the summit they found the philosophers and theologians already there, sitting in a circle smoking their pipes and drinking brandy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Some theologians believe Pius XII does not explicitly exclude polygenism. …But in opposition to that Mark Shea believes it may not be impossible for Catholics to believe in polygenism:
​

Everything you quote is interesting and relevant to the discussion. I would only add that anyone who tries to end the discussion by asserting that it is a settled matter is doing a disservice to the pursue of truth.

To illustrate, let us contrast two claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first man and woman who acted out ther roles as described in Genesis.
2. Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead as described in the New Testament.

Clearly Christianity hinges on the truth of #2. But does it really hinge on the truth of #1? Paul said that if this were not true then Christianity is a lie. Would you say that Christiantiy is a lie if polygenism turned out to be correct?​

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus refered to Abel (who was murdered) as a real person with Zacharias (who was murdered in Chronicals) Luke 11:51. A line of blood that is fictional? As well the blood of Abel is referenced in connection to the blood of Jesus. Is Jesus’ blood better than a "fake’ Abel’s( Heb. 12:24). Abel was a good part of the creation event.

It is true that Jesus referred to Abel but it is unclear that he was referring to a historical person as opposed to making a moral or theological point by use of accepted accounts. I don’t read Luke 11:51 as hinging on Abel being a historical person. His point is not lost if Abel was not historical.

 

[M-Dent]

This still seems applicable to this discussion.

Evolution and the Church’s Magisterium

1. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

1. The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet”; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

 

[tomarin]

That’s why I feel sorry for all those folks looking for Noah’s ark on Mt. Ararat.

I’d like to nominate this for post o’ the day.

 

[johnnyjones]

It is true that Jesus referred to Abel but it is unclear that he was referring to a historical person as opposed to making a moral or theological point by use of accepted accounts. I don’t read Luke 11:51 as hinging on Abel being a historical person. His point is not lost if Abel was not historical.

Is Zacharias fictional too? He is murdered in a historical account because he went against the King in Chronicals. It doesnt make sense to mix a historical person with a fake person.

Do you read the upscaling of Jesus’ blood which is real and significant to save the world with the blood of a fake person, Abel? Heb. 12:24.
The geneology of Jesus is essential for his messiah status. Geneologys make people relevant . Check Luke 3:38 that traces back to Adam. Adam has to be real. Creation in the Genesis account happened.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Scientists robustly say humans did originate from one woman, ‘mother of all humans:’

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is Zacharias fictional too? He is murdered in a historical account because he went against the King in Chronicals. It doesnt make sense to mix a historical person with a fake person.

I don’t see why that doesn’t make sense. If Abel is an mythological representation of murderers from prehistory and Zacharias represents a particular historical individual then Jesus would be making a perfectly reasonble point. All the more so since Jesus’ audience is not listening for historical accuracy but for theological and moral lessons.

Do you read the upscaling of Jesus’ blood which is real and significant to save the world with the blood of a fake person, Abel? Heb. 12:24.

“Fake” is not a reasonable understanding of the alternative to historical. The alterantive view is that Abel represents the murderousness of prehistoric mankind and so, yes, that is at least as significant as the actions of an individual.

The geneology of Jesus is essential for his messiah status. Geneologys make people relevant . Check Luke 3:38 that traces back to Adam. Adam has to be real.

If Adam represents prehistorical man then, of course, we would expect a geneology to trace back to “him”. It doesn’t mean that Adam has to be a real, individual person.

Creation in the Genesis account happened.

But what, precisely, happened? Creation in six days? Or that the animals were created to give Adam companionship? Is that really what you are claiming?

 

[kama3]

Wait a minute! Lack of evidence is not falsification. You might say that the best scientific evidence is that monogenism is improbable but that’s not falsification either.

Well, depends on what your standard for proof is

The reasoning is quite simple. We know what the genetic diversity is (i.e. how many different versions of each gene there is today). New versions of a gene are produced in mutations and mutations happen with some rate. Basically, the idea is that given two original individuals and the measured mutation rate, the predicted diversity is less than observed. To get to the present diversity, you have two options, neither of which work:

• you can postulate a longer timeframe, but that will disagree with the fossil record.
• increase the mutation rate (a lot), but (1) an increased mutation rate is bound to start producing hordes of malformed individuals (think Chernobyl on a global scale), which would show in a fossil record (including non-humans!), and (2) you’d have to provide some convincing reason for the changing mutation rate.

Then of course, we have the alleged biblical timeframe of 6000 years, which is too short by at least one order of magnitude. So trying to uphold YEC would move the mutation rate from impossible to insane

Of course, you can try to assert that God intervened selectively with only beneficial mutations (thus achieving present diversity without producing hordes of cripples). But if it were so, then the observed probability distributions of genes would be different than expected from the laws of statistics and natural selection.

In other words, there would be an immediately obvious “smoking gun” somewhere in our DNA. And so far, nobody has seen one.

Spare me.

Hahaha! If you followed the link, you’d know that I got this argument from a Jesuit priest. I wouldn’t try to hang the whole religion on a technicality, but hey – they have many years of tradition in casuistry .

I’d simply say that Humani Generis was not infallible and be done with it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, depends on what your standard for proof is

You’re misusing the term “falsification” in an important way.

The reasoning is quite simple…In other words, there would be an immediately obvious “smoking gun” somewhere in our DNA. And so far, nobody has seen one.

The fact that nobody has seen one is not evidence it is not there.

I understand and appreciate your argument in all other respects. But you need to be more careful about claims of falsification. This is not a small point.

 

[_Abyssinia]

“Fake” is not a reasonable understanding of the alternative to historical. The alterantive view is that Abel represents the murderousness of prehistoric mankind and so, yes, that is at least as significant as the actions of an individual.

If Adam represents prehistorical man then, of course, we would expect a geneology to trace back to “him”. It doesn’t mean that Adam has to be a real, individual person.

What do you mean by ‘prehistorical man?’

Cain and Abel are referred to as being actual human persons twice:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=cain+and+abel&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What do you mean by ‘prehistorical man?’

Cain and Abel are referred to as being actual human persons twice:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=cain+and+abel&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I would take issue with your citations as necessitating an actual humam person. In fact, in both the citations general human nature, and not the particular choices of an individual, is the subject:

1. “In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man…”
2. “There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin…”

What do I mean by “prehistorical man”?

Literally, mankind existed long before the recording of history. But the recording of history did not begin on some specific date. Instead what we see is a very gradual development of a sense of history, of a desire for making accurate representations of who lived and what they did. Long before our modern obsession with historical accuracy, you had moral stories where historical accuracy was of secondary importance.

The general view of Biblical scholars is that, prior to the conquest of Cannan, the Bible was an oral tradition only. During the first temple period some of these traditions began to be written down but not in any consistent way. And it may not have been until the Babylonian exile that the various oral traditions and written documents were merged into the books we have today.

 

[johnnyjones]

I don’t see why that doesn’t make sense. If Abel is an mythological representation of murderers from prehistory and Zacharias represents a particular historical individual then Jesus would be making a perfectly reasonble point. All the more so since Jesus’ audience is not listening for historical accuracy but for theological and moral lessons.

“Fake” is not a reasonable understanding of the alternative to historical. The alterantive view is that Abel represents the murderousness of prehistoric mankind and so, yes, that is at least as significant as the actions of an individual.

If Adam represents prehistorical man then, of course, we would expect a geneology to trace back to “him”. It doesn’t mean that Adam has to be a real, individual person.

But what, precisely, happened? Creation in six days? Or that the animals were created to give Adam companionship? Is that really what you are claiming?

“If” Abel if a mythological representation. You’ve started with a speculative premise. Jesus spoke in the vernacular. If the Jews of that time believed the Genesis account to be fictional it would have been odd to put a fictional person with a real one. It would be like saying today, “from the murders of Michael Myers to the murders of Ted Bundy…” Silly and inappropriate.

Jesus’ blood is not representitive, our souls depend on the real-ness of his blood. It (his blood) certainly would not be compared to the “symbolic blood” of a fictional character.

A symbolic Adam =a symbolic Jesus. Otherwise, throw geneologies out the window. How then could we trust that Jesus was from the root of David which is a must in prophecy?

What exactly happened in Genesis happened. The Catholic church does not say you MUST believe in a theistic evolutionary approach, it is permissable, and opinions have been given by the church. There is as much speculation in regards to a big bang as there is in a creation account.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“If” Abel if a mythological representation. You’ve started with a speculative premise.

Absolutely. All I am arguing here is that this is an open subject for debate, that it is not obvious either way. That it is not a settled matter.

Why are we speculating about this in the first place? Because while Genesis is more or less internally consistent, it is hard to square with evolution. It is one thing to say that there existed, on Earth, upon creation in six days, a Garden of Eden and an Adam and Eve who were immortal and who subsequently fell from grace. It is quite another thing to try to insert an immortal Adam and Eve after the evolution of apes to men and before the development of human civilization.

That is why we speculate.

Jesus spoke in the vernacular. If the Jews of that time believed the Genesis account to be fictional it would have been odd to put a fictional person with a real one. It would be like saying today, “from the murders of Michael Myers to the murders of Ted Bundy…” Silly and inappropriate.

But you are overlooking the possibility that the Jews of 1C AD did not make the same distinction between “ficational” and “historical” as we do today. If they did not make such a distinction then it would not be at all unreasonable for Jesus to ignore that distinction as well.

Jesus’ blood is not representitive, our souls depend on the real-ness of his blood. It (his blood) certainly would not be compared to the “symbolic blood” of a fictional character.

A symbolic Adam =a symbolic Jesus. Otherwise, throw geneologies out the window. How then could we trust that Jesus was from the root of David which is a must in prophecy?

What exactly happened in Genesis happened. The Catholic church does not say you MUST believe in a theistic evolutionary approach, it is permissable, and opinions have been given by the church. There is as much speculation in regards to a big bang as there is in a creation account.

Again, though, all I am arguing for here is to keep an open mind on the subject, not to hitch the reputation of Catholicism to a historical and scientific question that is hotly debated especially if, as I have argued, Catholic theology does not depend on the historical accuracy of Genesis.

On the other hand, I have also argued with atheists that their evolutionist dogma doesn’t make sense; there is no reason, and this is what the Church has recognized, that we must believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise. The truth of Genesis far outweights the value of the theory of evolution for the vast majority of individuals.

 

[_Abyssinia]

2004 report of the International Theological Commission says:

'In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[buffalo]

Well, depends on what your standard for proof is

The reasoning is quite simple. We know what the genetic diversity is (i.e. how many different versions of each gene there is today). New versions of a gene are produced in mutations and mutations happen with some rate. Basically, the idea is that given two original individuals and the measured mutation rate, the predicted diversity is less than observed. To get to the present diversity, you have two options, neither of which work:

• you can postulate a longer timeframe, but that will disagree with the fossil record.
• increase the mutation rate (a lot), but (1) an increased mutation rate is bound to start producing hordes of malformed individuals (think Chernobyl on a global scale), which would show in a fossil record (including non-humans!), and (2) you’d have to provide some convincing reason for the changing mutation rate.

Then of course, we have the alleged biblical timeframe of 6000 years, which is too short by at least one order of magnitude. So trying to uphold YEC would move the mutation rate from impossible to insane

Of course, you can try to assert that God intervened selectively with only beneficial mutations (thus achieving present diversity without producing hordes of cripples). But if it were so, then the observed probability distributions of genes would be different than expected from the laws of statistics and natural selection.

In other words, there would be an immediately obvious “smoking gun” somewhere in our DNA. And so far, nobody has seen one.

Hahaha! If you followed the link, you’d know that I got this argument from a Jesuit priest. I wouldn’t try to hang the whole religion on a technicality, but hey – they have many years of tradition in casuistry .

I’d simply say that Humani Generis was not infallible and be done with it.

What genetic diversity was present in the first two humans? Do you know?

How many mutations are deleterious and produce malformations? Do you have a number?

Catholics do not hold to Ussher. According to the geneoalogies Adam may have lived around 12,000 years ago.