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

[Bubba_Switzler]

For what it is worth, here is wikipedia on the subject:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Polygenism

Here is Vox Nova:

vox-nova.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/

My breakout was on the question of Adam and Eve, human origins, and modern genetics. Below is my powerpoint from the talk. Feel free to have a look at it. Basically, I go through Church documents from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical commision assertion that Genesis 1-11 had to be treated as history to the last mention of polygenism by Paul VI in 1966 that it is still not to be taught since it is “not proved.” My basic claim was that polygenism is now essentially “proved,” and since the Church has no trouble at all reconciling science with faith, we need to begin teaching, not polygenism yet as a “doctrine,” but the full debate surrounding it, to our students. They need to know the questions and that there is a good chance that the Church will say something soon about polygenism thanks to the mapping of the human genome.

Has the Church itself moved forward? The nearest indication of this is in the 2004 International Theological Commission document “Communion and Stewardship.” Three quotes in particular:

“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.’”

It does appear that theologians, and not just those bent on watering down Original Sin, are beginning to grapple with the very real possiblity that polygenism is the correct historical account.

 

[buffalo]

It does appear that theologians, and not just those bent on watering down Original Sin, are beginning to grapple with the very real possiblity that polygenism is the correct historical account.

Given the latest in science they should be very careful they don’t end up looking foolish.

 

[grannymh]

Discussion of Adam and Eve which correlates with the OP is allowed on this thread.

Correlating with the OP is extremely important since the comments (regarding the first three chapters of Genesis) reported by The Australian have appeared in some form on past CAF posts.

What is new to me is what Bubba Switzler posted in 120. We had been discussing this off thread and we both agreed that it belongs here so that others can give (name removed by moderator)ut. It is connected to the article’s comment “It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.

From my experience in other forums, it is near impossible to explain evil and suffering in purely human terms. Those who wish to try, should check out the threads in the Philosophy Forum.

From an “evolution” position, there are people who explain evil in terms of a culture or society learning evil or recognizing evil in the world. “Rise of consciousness” is one of the terms. “Emergence of social awareness” is another description. While we do not know the Cardinal’s actual position on original sin, we do know that “sophisticated mythology” (newspeak) needs to be discussed in the terms of an actual Adam and an actual sin which wounded human nature.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Given the latest in science they should be very careful they don’t end up looking foolish.

Perhaps, but here is the thing. The literal interpreation of Adam and Eve implies a very strong, testable hypothesis. It says that scientists who study the genetic history of the human race will find a contemporary MCA and and woman pair. That’s a bold claim.

I think what theologians who follow the science are doing is hedging their bets a little.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

From my experience in other forums, it is near impossible to explain evil and suffering in purely human terms. Those who wish to try, should check out the threads in the Philosophy Forum.

From an “evolution” position, there are people who explain evil in terms of a culture or society learning evil or recognizing evil in the world. “Rise of consciousness” is one of the terms. “Emergence of social awareness” is another description.

I was thinking about this earlier trying to decide if I should post on it. Since you brought it up I will:

What is the theological purpose of the story of Adam and Eve? Why is it in the Bible? Before Paul, it was a bit of theodicy. An explanation of why evil exists in a world created by a good and loving God. But Paul added another element: the fall of Adam necessitated Christ’s sacrifice.

Now you are also introducing another related idea, that is really only relevant under the evolutionary view (because in the Creationist view there are no people prior to Adam and Eve). When and how did man discover his own sinfulness? The story of Adam and Eve also answers that. Evil, in this sense, means not only doing bad but recognizing when bad is done. An emegent social awareness of evil, as you say.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Didn’t Jesus talk about the Garden of Eden and the Flood like they really existed? If Adam never existed why does scripture call Jesus the second Adam?

 

[grannymh]

What is the theological purpose of the story of Adam and Eve? Why is it in the Bible?

I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a bible so I would say that the theological purposes of the first three chapters of Genesis are those found in Catholic teachings. As to why Adam and Eve are in the Bible, my opinion is that humans were interested in their origin.

When and how did man discover his own sinfulness?

The first man Adam discovered his own sinfulness when he committed Original Sin. Adam’s descendents discover their own sinfulness when they commit personal sins. Catholicism teaches that there is a difference between Adam’s Original Sin and my personal sins.

The “how” of Adam’s Original Sin occurred when he preferred himself to God and by that very act, he scorned his Creator.

Catholicism teaches that Adam was established in a relationship with God. The way Adam, with a created material/spiritual nature, lived in friendship with his Creator God was by free submission to Him. Adam, as well as ourselves, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. The laws of creation include the fact that we are dependent on our Creator Who sustains us and enables us to act freely.

Just as we are not part of some mythology, neither was Adam.

 

[grannymh]

Didn’t Jesus talk about the Garden of Eden and the Flood like they really existed?

I do not know the exact answer, but I am sure that Jesus was making an appropriate point.

If Adam never existed why does scripture call Jesus the second Adam?

Adam existed. Jesus came to save all – Because the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 396 - 409.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a bible so I would say that the theological purposes of the first three chapters of Genesis are those found in Catholic teachings. As to why Adam and Eve are in the Bible, my opinion is that humans were interested in their origin.

The first man Adam discovered his own sinfulness when he committed Original Sin. Adam’s descendents discover their own sinfulness when they commit personal sins. Catholicism teaches that there is a difference between Adam’s Original Sin and my personal sins.

The “how” of Adam’s Original Sin occurred when he preferred himself to God and by that very act, he scorned his Creator.

It’s not at all clear to me how any of this theology is undermined if Adam and Eve are not a real individual couple but merely representive of prehistorical man.

Catholicism teaches that Adam was established in a relationship with God. The way Adam, with a created material/spiritual nature, lived in friendship with his Creator God was by free submission to Him. Adam, as well as ourselves, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. The laws of creation include the fact that we are dependent on our Creator Who sustains us and enables us to act freely.

This is not the entirety of it, though. According to the story, there was death or disease. Those only arose after the fall. It’s hard to square that with evolution. Monogenism, alone, does not rescue Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

It’s not at all clear to me how any of this theology is undermined if Adam and Eve are not a real individual couple but merely representive of prehistorical man.

Prehistoric man would not be Adam who is the first historic man who is completely human. One needs to remember that natural science deals with anatomies. Adam, as the first human, is not just a material anatomy which eventually decomposes or becomes a fossil.

This is not the entirety of it, though. According to the story, there was death or disease. Those only arose after the fall. It’s hard to square that with evolution. Monogenism, alone, does not rescue Genesis.

I was just about to post a question to you about the evolution bit you refer to.
Evolution of plants, insects, elephants, and other non-human living organisms does its own thing. It is Adam and Eve and their descendents who would suffer death. And Jesus Christ would conquer human death. Animal death is not the same as human death because humans are not the same exact nature as animals.

Monogenism refers to one human couple. I am not sure what would need to be rescued in the first three chapters of Genesis. Just because Catholicism states the reality of Adam, that does not mean it is a fundamentalist-type faith.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was just about to post a question to you about the evolution bit you refer to. Evolution of plants, insects, elephants, and other non-human living organisms does its own thing. It is Adam and Eve and their descendents who would suffer death. And Jesus Christ would conquer human death. Animal death is not the same as human death because humans are not the same exact nature as animals.

I left out a “no” in my last post: According to Genesis, there was no death or disease before the fall. Of course, evolution depends on death (and disease). Simply saying that Adam and Eve were the first evolved humans in the process of evolution does not resolve the problem.

 

[grannymh]

I left out a “no” in my last post: According to Genesis, there was no death or disease before the fall. Of course, evolution depends on death (and disease). Simply saying that Adam and Eve were the first evolved humans in the process of evolution does not resolve the problem.

Pardon me. but I have not seen a clear statement about no death and no disease of animals before the Fall in the first three chapters of Genesis. There are a lot of living animals which apparently do what animals do. There is no reason to assume that they are on the same level as Adam.

One thing does need clarification is the use of the word “evolved”. In the evolution model, “evolved” does not refer to the fully-complete human. In Catholicism “evolve” can only refer to material anatomy. A fully-complete human is one whose nature is an unique unification of the material anatomy and rational soul. There are not two natures combined. rather, their union forms a single nature.

Those who would like basic Catholic doctrines changed to be in step with the “modern” world are trying to say that the soul evolves as an epiphenomenon of the material body or that human consciousness emerges in response to the cultural environment. It all sounds wonderful and, sad to say, some, not all, Catholics are failing to realize that the emergent theory is newspeak for no spiritual soul. Our spiritual soul is why we can say we are in the Image of God. So at death, where does the “no soul” leave us?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Pardon me. but I have not seen a clear statement about no death and no disease of animals before the Fall in the first three chapters of Genesis. There are a lot of living animals which apparently do what animals do. There is no reason to assume that they are on the same level as Adam.

Well, that was unexpected.

Before:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”

After:

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

The usual interpretation of this is that on the day that they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil death entered and they began to die.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[buffalo]

Many times I had posted - imagine a rolled up measuring tape, God sees the entire tape (time) at once. We live on the tape and have to live and look back according to the graduations. Perhaps this can help explain the creation event and the fall.

Jason Lisle has put forth an interesting idea that takes Einsteins Synchrony further. Thoughts?
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

---

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/arj/v3/Lisle-ASC-fig7.jpg
Fig. 7. All events on plane R are simultaneous with r as observed by O’.

 

[grannymh]

Well, that was unexpected.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to surprise you. I learned Catholic doctrine before I opened the Bible. So I am sure I will say more “unexpected” things.

Before:
Quote:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”

After:
Quote:
"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

The usual interpretation of this is that on the day that they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil death entered and they began to die.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

It was my understanding that we were referring to death due to the natural process of evolution before the Fall. This would involve all non-human living organisms.

I left out a “no” in my last post: According to Genesis, there was no death or disease before the fall. Of course, evolution depends on death (and disease). Simply saying that Adam and Eve were the first evolved humans in the process of evolution does not resolve the problem.

In the above two passages, before and after the Fall, God is talking directly to Adam and Eve. This emphasizes the relationship between God and the first humans. They were the only species which had not been involved with death before the fall. All other species would follow the “evolution model”. In the first three chapters of Genesis, Catholic teachings are focused on human origin, human nature, original sin, and the promise of a Redeemer. This is why there is not much about the rest of creation other than God is the Creator of all.

My guess is that there may be confusion between pre-humans, sometimes known as subhumans, which did die and the first beings of an entirely different species. Evolution theory does not distinguish between subhumans and humans at this point in ancient times. The Catholic Church points to a definite line of demarcation between pre-human archaic beings and Adam and Eve. The glitch is that this line of demarcation is not specified on the human calendar. However, common sense says that since we are essentially different from all other beings, there had to be a point of differentiation.

Actually, according to scientists, there is a very broad line of demarcation between pre-humans and Adam and Eve. Only this line is an evolving one over thousands of years with many beings (polygenism) participating in a long evolving period. This is one of the reasons that the evolution model dilutes original sin. The awareness of sin or whatever is divided among many participants at different times.

Because God is personally involved with each human being in that He directly creates the spiritual soul, Adam and Eve were instantly human beings with a fully-complete human nature. Yikes! is right. When that bit of info popped up in my research, I was floored because I am a student of evolution. Talk about something unexpected…

Enough said for now. I may not be able to post right away. But I shall return.

.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It was my understanding that we were referring to death due to the natural process of evolution before the Fall. This would involve all non-human living organisms.

In the above two passages, before and after the Fall, God is talking directly to Adam and Eve. This emphasizes the relationship between God and the first humans. They were the only species which had not been involved with death before the fall. All other species would follow the “evolution model”.

The story of Adam and Eve is silent on death otherwise but it seems quite clear, and you seem to be agreeing here, that Adam and Eve, and hence humans, were free of death prior to the fall.

The trouble is that the evolution model does not distinghish humans and nonhumans in regard to death. Humans evolved from apes through a process of of natural selection that involved death and death was therefore already in the human DNA prior to the fall. Death does not come as a consequence of the fall but from the nature of evolution itself.

And it seems similarly implausible that killing was new as animals kill one another in this process. Subhumans would, presumably, have been killing one another for some time as the archeological evidence suggests. We might say that they had only a subhuman, or animal level, understanding of killing, if that is even appropriate, but killing, itself, would be nothing new to them.

My guess is that there may be confusion between pre-humans, sometimes known as subhumans, which did die and the first beings of an entirely different species. Evolution theory does not distinguish between subhumans and humans at this point in ancient times. The Catholic Church points to a definite line of demarcation between pre-human archaic beings and Adam and Eve. The glitch is that this line of demarcation is not specified on the human calendar. However, common sense says that since we are essentially different from all other beings, there had to be a point of differentiation.

Let us just assume monogenesis for this discussion and supose that Adam and Eve are the MRCA couple. Whatever it is that distinguished subhumans and humans in terms of intelligence or conscience or self awareness or even spirituality could not explain how death would suddenly depart from the human DNA and then reappear again upon the fall. Death and toil would not be new to them, they would have seen it all around them.

The issue is not when this couple lived or even when they were ensouled but the mere fact that they are, if we are reconciling Genesis and evolution, a couple in the chain of a process of birth and death, killing and being killed.

 

[grannymh]

The story of Adam and Eve is silent on death otherwise but it seems quite clear, and you seem to be agreeing here, that Adam and Eve, and hence humans, were free of death prior to the fall.

The trouble is that the evolution model does not distinghish humans and nonhumans in regard to death. Humans evolved from apes through a process of of natural selection that involved death and death was therefore already in the human DNA prior to the fall. Death does not come as a consequence of the fall but from the nature of evolution itself.

Similarly, it seems similarly implausible that killing was new as animals kill one another in this process. Subhumans would, presumably, have been killing one another for some time as the archeological evidence suggests. We might say that they had only a subhuman, or animal level, understanding of killing, if that is even appropriate, but killing, itself, would be nothing new to them.

Let us just assume monogenesis for this discussion and supose that Adam and Eve are the MRCA couple. Whatever it is that distinguished subhumans and humans in terms of intelligence or conscience or self awareness or even spirituality could not explain how death would suddenly depart from the human DNA and then reappear again upon the fall. Death and toil would not be new to them, they would have seen it all around them.

The issue is not when this couple lived or even when they were ensouled but the mere fact that they are, if we are reconciling Genesis and evolution, a couple in the chain of a process of birth and death, killing and being killed.

I cannot reply completely at this time. However, I do need to update evolution theory.
Humans are no longer considered as evolving from apes. Our non-human ancestors genetically split from chimpanzees way back so that our line and the various lines on the opposite side of the split from the common ancestor are called evolutionary cousins. This link gives a simple diagram with an explanation. Most cladistic diagrams are more detailed. However, it is important to know that we are related genetically in a horizontal line. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Once a line is declared “human” there are no more splits. One needs to remember that scientists can call anything pre-human or human which walks upright and has toes instead of opposable thumbs on its feet. This is because they only deal with the observed anatomy. Catholicism, because it can deal with the non-material, has higher standards for humans.

Regarding human DNA and death. My gut instinct does not agree with some of the posts on DNA. This is because HIV research has discovered beneficial mutations of certain genes. In addition, some descriptions of Adam before Original Sin indicate that Adam did not have to die in order to gain eternal presence in heaven. Personally, I find some of this interesting but not necessary when it comes to basic Catholic doctrines. I like to stick with the facts.

My apology for not completely addressing your very interesting post and especially the “issue.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I cannot reply completely at this time. However, I do need to update evolution theory. Humans are no longer considered as evolving from apes. …
Once a line is declared “human” there are no more splits. One needs to remember that scientists can call anything pre-human or human which walks upright and has toes instead of opposable thumbs on its feet. This is because they only deal with the observed anatomy. Catholicism, because it can deal with the non-material, has higher standards for humans.

Let’s assume all this. (I was speaking loosely to focus on the point which is not the exact lineage but that the lineage, whatever it might be, entails death and violence.)

Regarding human DNA and death. My gut instinct does not agree with some of the posts on DNA. This is because HIV research has discovered beneficial mutations of certain genes. In addition, some descriptions of Adam before Original Sin indicate that Adam did not have to die in order to gain eternal presence in heaven. Personally, I find some of this interesting but not necessary when it comes to basic Catholic doctrines. I like to stick with the facts.

A lot of this is interesting but very speculative. I do remember hearing on Catholic radio the idea that God made lemonade from lemons in the fall; that, as you say, the fall was part of the plan to raise up man beyond his status in the garden of eden.

My apology for not completely addressing your very interesting post and especially the “issue.”

I look forward to your further thoughts.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Many times I had posted - imagine a rolled up measuring tape, God sees the entire tape (time) at once. We live on the tape and have to live and look back according to the graduations. Perhaps this can help explain the creation event and the fall.

Jason Lisle has put forth an interesting idea that takes Einsteins Synchrony further. Thoughts?
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

---

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/arj/v3/Lisle-ASC-fig7.jpg
Fig. 7. All events on plane R are simultaneous with r as observed by O’.

Lovely. Wish i had time to study it.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Looking at the 1,200 population figure from a purely natural science perspective, Adam and Eve could be among the 1,200 so there is no reason to publish a separate scientific research paper on one breeding pair.

And there would be no reason to call them mythological.