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

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Man came from clay?
Woman from the rib of Adam?

ummmmm !!!
Did God ran out of imagination ?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Adam and Eve were definitely real people. However, that does not mean that the rest of Genesis is to be taken literally.

You may call Adam and Eve to whom you want but the real Adam and Eve of Genesis never put their feet on the site it is described in Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

Man came from clay?
Woman from the rib of Adam?

ummmmm !!!
Did God ran out of imagination ?

**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, your thinking is limited.
When I talked about Science what experimental science done for the sake of it. Science as you define goes before the invention of the wheel. You knew I was not talking about that.
The Universe does not talk about God? Just Listen to Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,****
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.

Of course, I knew exactly the kind of scientific methods you are referring to.

My point was that science, as the knowledge of the material/physical world, has existed since the beginning of human history. Science, in all its modern glory – and I mean that as a compliment to the women and men in the various fields of science – is still the basic seeking of knowledge about the material/physical world.

Regarding the relationship of the created material/physical universe with its Creator.
This relationship is not an equal two-way street. To illustrate my point, I often use this logic example: All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.

I do have some friends in the philosophical realm. And I get an email about my awful sense of logic when I use my green grass example. I learned about green grass from one of the toughest professors I have ever had. His point, at the opening of his logic course, was that there is a lot more to logic than the connecting word “therefore.”

Of course, the created universe sings its praise of its Creator. The fact that the universe is intelligible can be used as a demonstration, not proof, of the existence of God. Often, we use attributes of the created universe as an analogy of what the Creator must be like. Nonetheless, the created universe is still material/physical.

As you have often said, we humans have a spiritual, non-material soul created by God. God specifically calls each one of us to share in His own life. God is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit without restrictions. With the first two humans, God called them to eventually and completely share in His eternal love, face to face. At the beginning, He established Adam and Eve in His friendship and thus communicated with them because like us, they are in the image of God.

After Original Sin, God continued to communicate with Adam and Eve and their descendents. The teachings Adam received, aided by the prophets, were passed on independently of the material/physical universe.

Jesus Christ is the fullness of God’s Divine Revelations to humans. The Catholic Church is entrusted with proclaiming God’s words. Science, in whatever definition one uses, because it is restricted by material/physical limits was not chosen by God as the vehicle for His salvific teachings. God does not teach the way to salvation through science because the way to salvation is basically a spiritual route.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Jesus Christ is the fullness of God’s Divine Revelations to humans. The Catholic Church is entrusted with proclaiming God’s words. Science, in whatever definition one uses, because it is restricted by material/physical limits was not chosen by God as the vehicle for His salvific teachings. God does not teach the way to salvation through science because the way to salvation is basically a spiritual route.

Science, these days, is delving into these areas and I wouldn’t presume to limit how God chooses to send a message. But, to get the discussion back on topic:

Could you post again exactly what from the Catechism you believe compels us to accept that the human race is sprung from a single mated pair of human beings? Also, could you post a link to whichever article online you think best describes the “genetic bottleneck” you believe supports this scenario?

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Science, these days, is delving into these areas and I wouldn’t presume to limit how God chooses to send a message. But, to get the discussion back on topic:

Could you post again exactly what from the Catechism you believe compels us to accept that the human race is sprung from a single mated pair of human beings? Also, could you post a link to whichever article online you think best describes the “genetic bottleneck” you believe supports this scenario?

Thanks.

The context for two sole founders of the human species is found in paragraphs 355 - 421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. I realize that this is a tough read. However, there are many facets to the issue of human origin. One facet is the unity of the human race. Another facet is the importance of the spiritual soul. Or one might approach human origin from the reality of the Creator’s existence as God.

The first link will get you into the Catechism at paragraph 355 so you can skim through the section at your leisure. Or you can use the second link to go straight to the basic paragraph 390. It is important to check the footnotes for the historical background such as the Council of Trent. A modern citation is Humani Generis.

My suggestion is to use a paperback copy of the Catechism, ISBN 1-57455-110-8. This has the section, “Index of Citations.”

Links to Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/390.htm

As far as the bottleneck theory, this refers to a reduced population.
Here is one of the best evolution websites. Enjoy! evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Another good evolution website is tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Scientists normally interpret individual “genetic bottleneck” research in the light of the genetic diversity of the current human population. This research is significantly more detailed than what the media presents. Thus, when interpreters claim that a specific “genetic bottleneck” research project denies the existence of two sole founders of humankind, ordinary folk are left in the dark as to what actually was going on in the research project.

The solution is not to bash science. Women and men in the various fields of science are sincere, hard working people. From what I have observed on CAF, there are as many solutions as there are posters. Yes, that is a slight exaggeration.

From what I have learned, both online and offline, there are two areas of concern when it comes to human origin. On the one hand, not all Catholics have a working knowledge as to what Original Sin entails. On the other hand, not all Catholics have a basic knowledge of the domain of scientific knowledge. Post 222 above presents an analysis of some of the individual research in genetics. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9200113&postcount=222

As far as answering your request – Also, could you post a link to whichever article online you think best describes the “genetic bottleneck”.

My basic knowledge of the genetic bottleneck is mostly from CAF posters, the above mentioned websites, research papers, a few book sources, and occasionally from articles online. At this point, I do not have a best source of information. In addition, I am slowly shifting my “learning” to anthropology due to being a guest student in a few classes of John Hawks and in his community outreach summer forum on human genetics. Personally, in spite of popular opinion, I have started thinking that the Multi-regional theory holds promise in regard to the possible existence of Mr. and Mrs. Adam Smith. I have a lot of study ahead of me.

Regardless of any scientific theory, the existence of a real Adam and Eve remains possible.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, your thinking is limited.

After two hours of driving, mostly across farm land, I will concede, with huge qualifications, to your thinking that God teaches through natural science, especially contemporary science. Two examples came to mind–HIV research and very large airplanes.

The reason I concede this tiny bit is that you are firm on the existence of the intellective spiritual soul. In my humble opinion, the spiritual soul is the reason we can learn anything from either God through Divine Revelation safeguarded by Catholicism in the form of doctrines or from natural science through observation, exploration for evidence, comparison, experiment, and putting the creative side of our brain to work.

Qualifications of my concession are the answers to the questions – who? how? what? when? where? why? and cost?

 

[Julia_Mae]

The context for two sole founders of the human species is found in paragraphs 355 - 421 of the Catechisim of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. I realize that this is a tough read.

Not particularly. Now, having read this before, and reviewing it now, I am not seeing anything that requires anyone to profess a belief in a mated couple as the sole progenitors of humankind. Which was what I asked for. Please be specific and quote what you believe demonstrates this requirement.

My basic knowledge of the genetic bottleneck is mostly from CAF posters, the above mentioned websites, research papers, a few book sources, and occasionally from articles online. At this point, I do not have a best source of information.

You don’t have the “best source of information” because there is no such thing. There is just the discussion. Try this, for instance: genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full

What I was asking for was something you read that led you to believe that the present population of 6 billion humans could have arisen from a single mated pair within a time-span that would approximate the generations found in Scripture. Apparently this isn’t something you have, so there is no way to discuss the specifics of your beliefs.

I’m going to try and explain about bottlenecks and deal with human populations since that is the topic here.

You have the entire population of a species. It’s spread across the world. You could have a bottleneck, as some propose, that would spring from a worldwide catastrophic event. This doesn’t leave 70k people huddled together in a mass. It leaves pockets of small, separated populations.

“Bottlenecks” are not body counts, they are a genetic phenomenon that can be related to population sizes, but not necessarily to total species populations. And, they may not relate to population size at all.

For instance, Hawaiian Islanders (native) were a very inbred population of low genetic diversity when discovered. This bottleneck was within the larger human population.

Now - you can create a bottleneck within a species through artificial selection. When dealing with non-human populations, it’s less likely that this can occur. However, humans have the habit, culturally, of self-selecting by putting artificial selective processes in place that are actually unrelated to, or sometimes in direct opposition to, biological necessity.

All of this is about gene distribution and only about a very limited number of genes and their alleles.

The point is: nothing can be determined from any of this. It’s nascent science at best, narrowly focused, and has no relevance to the theological realities discussed in the Catechism, which itself, is not intended as an exhaustive source.

The existence of a “real Adam and Eve” is not possible, if you mean to take Genesis as a fairly literal description of events.

 

[grannymh]

Not particularly. Now, having read this before, and reviewing it now, I am not seeing anything that requires anyone to profess a belief in a mated couple as the sole progenitors of humankind. Which was what I asked for. Please be specific and quote what you believe demonstrates this requirement.

The second link to CCC 390 is my answer. I will post it later.

You don’t have the “best source of information” because there is no such thing. There is just the discussion. Try this, for instance: genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full

Yes. the link is a discussion. It is "Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Edited by James F. Crow and William F. Dove." I am familiar with the late James Crow because one of my heroes is Motoo Kimura who co-authored with Crow a landmark textbook. This textbook is considered an excellent source of genetic information.

To get back to Cardinal Pell’s references to “mythology” and “science”, one should consider Francisco J. Ayala’s research paper, The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins" published in* Science*, December 22, 1995. Ayala’s thoroughness is a good source of information as to how the size of an archaic population can be estimated. According to retrospective calculations (using computer experimental simulated populations) Ayala presented the hypothesis that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples could not have occurred in human ancestral history. What his concept of no Adam, no Eve did was to add “scientific authority” to the struggle over Catholic doctrines.

Consequently, those writers who had been touting symbolism (a form used in mythology) due to the inherent “literal” difficulties in Genesis found a recognized scientific authority for their brazen attack on the first human.

The interesting thing is that a poster (on an old thread) recognized one of the problems connected with the method used by Ayala. Recently, scientists have presented new insights on Ayala’s original research. Refer to post 222 above.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9200113&postcount=222

From the OP article.
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.

There is no way I can know what the Cardinal knows about science. But I do know that in this century, it is a matter of science. Those who believe in the Catholic doctrine of monogenism should avoid the cop-out of a mythological account or a religious story for religious purposes.

If nothing else, Catholics need to hold on to the first fact which is the existence of God as the Creator, and the second fact which is the existence of the spiritual soul in the first, real human beings known biblically as Adam and Eve. This unique spiritual soul is directly created by God and is why human nature is peerless. Both these facts of life are not part of the material/physical world of science. Is there a choice involved? The material/physical world of decomposing anatomies or the spiritual world of eternal love in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

Or is it possible that when science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood, the truth of God is evident.

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[grannymh]

You may call Adam and Eve to whom you want but the real Adam and Eve of Genesis never put their feet on the site it is described in Genesis.

The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Divine Revelation trumps!

Uh-huh. But the issue is that what you believe the revelation is and what Pell thinks it is and what I think it is differs. You seem to think your version is “the Church’s” version. I don’t. Fr. Barron doesn’t. John Paul II didn’t. And still doesn’t, I am sure. I imagine Cardinal Pell believes it more likely that his is.

And that’s the real point of the thread. All this that you so enjoy pontificating about is actually irrelevant, except that God did not drop two Homo sapiens on earth like a kid putting Ken and Barbie into the dream house. Our species, as a species, evolved like all other species did.

How we come to be the children of God with the spiritual soul you constantly refer to, well, that’s another matter. But I have no wish to become embroiled in a lot of speculation about it, except to say: speculation is all we can possibly have.

 

[grannymh]

Could you post again exactly what from the Catechism you believe compels us to accept that the human race is sprung from a single mated pair of human beings?
Thanks.

Passionate sex.:clapping:

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” CCC 372

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **

Could you make a resume of it, please?
Men and Women’s body came from Evolution.
Men and Women’s Souls were created by Go at the moment of conception.
I have nothing against animals you call “beasts”.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Of course, I knew exactly the kind of scientific methods you are referring to.

My point was that science, as the knowledge of the material/physical world, has existed since the beginning of human history. Science, in all its modern glory – and I mean that as a compliment to the women and men in the various fields of science – is still the basic seeking of knowledge about the material/physical world.

Regarding the relationship of the created material/physical universe with its Creator.
This relationship is not an equal two-way street. To illustrate my point, I often use this logic example: All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.

I do have some friends in the philosophical realm. And I get an email about my awful sense of logic when I use my green grass example. I learned about green grass from one of the toughest professors I have ever had. His point, at the opening of his logic course, was that there is a lot more to logic than the connecting word “therefore.”

Of course, the created universe sings its praise of its Creator. The fact that the universe is intelligible can be used as a demonstration, not proof, of the existence of God. Often, we use attributes of the created universe as an analogy of what the Creator must be like. Nonetheless, the created universe is still material/physical.

As you have often said, we humans have a spiritual, non-material soul created by God. God specifically calls each one of us to share in His own life. God is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit without restrictions. With the first two humans, God called them to eventually and completely share in His eternal love, face to face. At the beginning, He established Adam and Eve in His friendship and thus communicated with them because like us, they are in the image of God.

After Original Sin, God continued to communicate with Adam and Eve and their descendents. The teachings Adam received, aided by the prophets, were passed on independently of the material/physical universe.

Jesus Christ is the fullness of God’s Divine Revelations to humans. The Catholic Church is entrusted with proclaiming God’s words. Science, in whatever definition one uses, because it is restricted by material/physical limits was not chosen by God as the vehicle for His salvific teachings. God does not teach the way to salvation through science because the way to salvation is basically a spiritual route.

No, the scientific world is part of the Salvific Way to God.
God DOES teach the way to salvation through science because the way to salvation is also a material route. Look: the sins are related to material things. And people will be judged by the way they used the Earth:

***Mathew, 25:35
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ***

Moreover if you see the Ignatian Contemplation or pray at all times it means discover the presence of God everywhere.

The example of logic you gave is the 2 first minutes of a course of logic. It makes no sense. It is part of Maths Theory of sets (is it the right translation?). The lion is an animal but not all animals are lions.

No, we must not despise material things and pay attention only to the Spiritual. Remember that the greatest mystery is how The Son of God became material !!!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

After two hours of driving, mostly across farm land, I will concede, with huge qualifications, to your thinking that God teaches through natural science, especially contemporary science. Two examples came to mind–HIV research and very large airplanes.

The reason I concede this tiny bit is that you are firm on the existence of the intellective spiritual soul. In my humble opinion, the spiritual soul is the reason we can learn anything from either God through Divine Revelation safeguarded by Catholicism in the form of doctrines or from natural science through observation, exploration for evidence, comparison, experiment, and putting the creative side of our brain to work.

Qualifications of my concession are the answers to the questions – who? how? what? when? where? why? and cost?

Hummmmm, I wish I was sitting besides you on that trip, it should be beautiful.
Look, that is the middle point we Christians must make.
To go against evolution is to put the head under the sand like the ostrich.
To say that MAN, as a person, came from evolution, is a big pitfall. How come I have never seen a monkey in College?
So, I do not see other solution but proclaim the truth of Science and the Truth of Theology.
Science says the body came from evolution. OK. I agree.
But when the scientists start saying that intelligence comes from evolution, I say STOP and demand my monkey graduated from College. Up to now, no one has shown me one.
Then, we must proclaim the Glory of the Lord. We must proclaim that since sperm and ovula join, God creates a Soul. That is something that Catholic Scientists accept but non-Catholics reject. And in this we must be adamant. We are Souls, eternal, intelligent, driving to God, free to be for or against God, created to be with God forever and ever…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.

I could not get the 2 sentences…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Passionate sex.:clapping:

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” CCC 372

Birds and Bees do it, from the beginning of times, millions of years ago.

 

[grannymh]

No, the scientific world is part of the Salvific Way to God.

One needs to understand that most, not all, of life is a both…and situation. But, a both…and situation does not necessarily mean that both are equal or are the same or one is part of the other. Understanding both… and situations is one of the main ways to learning why my green grass example does not make sense. My professor was teaching us how to think in real life.

If one is to understand the Salvific Way to God, then one has to take into consideration the practical details of both God’s world of the spiritual (non-material) and natural science (material) of the universe.

May I answer your comments about both…and before continuing with my reply?

 

[grannymh]

From granny’s post 338.

“The physical site of the Garden of Eden is not a Catholic doctrine. The original relationship between Adam and God had the beauty and peace found in lovely gardens.”

I could not get the 2 sentences…

Above all, I appreciate honesty (phrased charitably) in a discussion. Thank you.

As a child, I observed my parents solving problems in parish life from a both…and perspective. Currently, one of my sons uses the both…and approach successively in negotiating certain kinds of compromises within businesses. I view the first three chapters of Genesis as containing both Catholic doctrine and analogical teaching.

As I review the two sentences I wrote in post 338, I can only say that they are the shortest explanation of “both…and” that I have ever attempted.

Because of family events, I may not get back to CAF promptly. In addition, what I consider as an intellectual tool (both/and) is not popular on CAF. Too often, posts on Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis present an “either…or” position. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the “mutually exclusive or”. Only that is not easy to do.
Nonetheless, I believe it is important to hash it out, i.e., take the time to carefully review ways to approach both the first three chapters of Genesis and the corresponding Catholic doctrines.

In my humble opinion, this would help clear up the use of the word “mythology” when used in reference to the real Adam and Eve.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I asked for this: I am not seeing anything that requires anyone to profess a belief in a mated couple as the sole progenitors of humankind. Which was what I asked for. Please be specific and quote what you believe demonstrates this requirement. To which you responded:

The second link to CCC 390 is my answer. I will post it later.

Now, you have your interpretation of what it says in the CCC. I have mine. While I do not insist mine is correct, I will post it here because it explains how clergy like Cardinal Pell, well-versed in theology and aware of biological evolution, can make the statements he made and still be consistent with Church teaching. He might not see this as I do, of course. CCC in red and I have edited to operative phrases for length:

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. 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

They do not specify what or how much is figurative.

This is the simplest definition of primeval: adj. Belonging to the first or earliest age. “Man” is not defined here as being a member of the species Homo sapien. Assuming it refers to us, the children of God, we are later referred to as “creatures.” But first, there is a description of the fall of angels, also described as “creatures” and also described as “pure spirit.”

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature.

Next we come to the description of man in the primeval state, that is, in the earliest age of his existence:

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.

This statement describes not a person, a singular human being, but “man” as what God created and as a “spiritual creature.” In this earliest part of the interpretation, there is no reference yet made to a material form of man.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

This is a description of what the figurative language symbolically tells us. Still, man, the spiritual creature, committed these acts. Note the similarities and differences to the other spiritual creatures, angels, and their fall.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

“Return to the ground.” In the NAB:** “You are dirt and to dirt you shall return.” ** But God made all things from NOTHINGNESS. The firgurative language refers to that from which God called the spiritual creature: man, the nothingness. Matter/energy, that which makes up “reality” is actually, nothingness - God placed the spiritual creature, man, into the nothingness from which He called him, which He sustains for us so that we can return to Him (through the death that enters our history) and not be lost as the angels were. This happens after “the fall.”

Scripture depicts events that happened to spiritual creatures not on the material earth, but those creatures were, by Love and necessity, then sent to earth to exist in material nothingness: the bodies of Homo sapiens. This interpretation is entirely consistent with both science and the CCC explanation of Scripture.