N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
You do know that an argument “Ad Hominem” is a logical fallacy.
You must debate the idea, not attack the credibility of the one saying it.
- Status
You must debate the idea, not attack the credibility of the one saying it.
E
elgnosis
Guest
Well you can’t judge by art when it says Jesus skin was bronze and hair like wool, whereas the constant image is an Europeanized version through most churches.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I ask what are your ideas regarding the reality or mythology of Adam and Eve?
E
elgnosis
Guest
Adam = Atom Eve = Electrons and as these particles are combined and split so are new creations and so on.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Ringil, I have no idea how much of this applies to Cardinal Pell; But I will comment, that one one point – that Ayala did not account for selection on the Genes; I agree. Or Rather, before the article came out – (and I have NO affiliation) – I myself pointed this out.
Mutations in the Genetic code between codons are not of equal frequency or importance. Certain codons can be interchanged without affecting the meaning of the Gene whatsoever. It is simply a matter of their being redundant codons because certain thermal processes statistically cause damage to DNA; and predictable damage can be compensated for by making the damaged DNA have the same meaning as the original.
Ayala does not account for this in the slightest; nor do I have access to his Gene lists and codon sequences to be able to verify what he said – (their lack of availability even in the Human Genome project is a serious difficulty in believing or verifying his work.)
I don’t agree with the linked article’s view on the flaws of Ayala’s models based on population size needing to be constant. Ayala did do calculations to compensate for that issue. It isn’t the model of population which is the problem, its the suppositions and model of mutation rates and their significance which clearly IS the problem. He puts too much faith in the model itself which is nothing more than a very crude estimate.
I do find that the assumption of “Random mating” to be very humerous.
Even today, most human beings DON’T randomly mate…
Nor do bald eagles, for that matter. They pair for life…
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Now you’re just stretching words.
G
grannymh
Guest
Speaking of stretching words — while it is impossible to know exactly the Cardinal’s doctrinal position in this news article written by Nicolas Perpitch (posted in the OP), what would be the key words expressed in Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and Eve?
link to article.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Adam and Eve (according to Catholic Doctrine (which I firmly and totally believe)) were real, literal human beings, from which all men are descended (And no man on earth (alive or dead) was ever descended from any other couple). Adam and Eve are not myth according to Humani Generis, or according to all of Catholic tradition. Adam and Eve were directly created by God as full humans (Adam from the dust of the Earth, Eve from Adam’s rib) and did not descend from any man, nor did they evolve from monkeys, nor were they monkeys.
Y
YanniP
Guest
For being “Not Sure”, you are definatley correct! In 557 A.D., Pope Pelagius I, in a profession of faith called Fides Pelagii, declared:For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of the man [cf. Gen. 2:7, 22], Will then rise again and stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10]; and indeed by the very bountiful grace of God he will present the just, as vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory[Rom. 9:23], with the rewards of eternal life; namely, they will live without end in the society of the angels without any fear now of their own fall; the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction Rom. 9:22], who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end. This, then, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of the mercy of God, in defense of which blessed PETER taught [cf.1 Pet 3:15] that we ought to be especially ready to answer everyone who asks us for an accounting. Denz 228a
Adam and the New Adam were men, without which our redemption would not be possible. People need to strip the blinders of modern scientism and re-read Scripture with the traditional Catholic literalism we are called to follow.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Welcome to the Forums, YanniP.
With 15 posts as of this writing
With 15 posts as of this writing
G
grannymh
Guest
Opening Post
On the other hand, while we should not question the beliefs of the Cardinal (since we do not fully know them) readers should question various values of this out-of-context statement.
From Link
“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.”
Is there value in considering that science is involved with the true origin of the human species as recounted in the first three chapters of Genesis?
Please note that because of the way the news article is written, the real position of Cardinal Pell is not given. So the question of “heresy” in his words cannot be fairly answered.
On the other hand, while we should not question the beliefs of the Cardinal (since we do not fully know them) readers should question various values of this out-of-context statement.
From Link
“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.”
Is there value in considering that science is involved with the true origin of the human species as recounted in the first three chapters of Genesis?
G
grannymh
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Those who cannot deal with a real Adam often ridicule the belief in a talking snake which inhabits a garden of some kind where an organic tree has the power to kick innocent humans into a cold world. Obviously, the world is cold because naked Adam and Eve need clothes.
The final blow to helpless Adam is the familiar accusation that the first three chapters of Genesis is not science. With a smile, one can say that while the real primeval event which marks the course of human history (Original Sin) is not described in 21st century terminology, the source of the knowledge of this dramatic event happens to be Divine Revelation. (Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraph 390. The complete explanation is in paragraphs 355 - 421.)
One of the difficulties some people have with Adam as a blood and guts founder of humankind is that they are not quite sure of how the Catholic Church, based on Divine Revelation, deals with the material realm of natural science.
What follows is a rather long explanation of natural science’s relationship to Catholicism. So grab some chocolate and find a comfy chair.
There are two principles, material and spiritual, that are often referred to as “worlds”, “domains” or “realms” which contribute to Adam’s existence as a person with a real human nature. Adam’s human nature (like ours) is an unique unification of *both *the material world and the spiritual world. In Genesis 2: 15-16, God gives Adam directions about what to eat so that his material anatomy could be nourished. It is also important that Adam spends time in a strong friendship relationship with God so that his spiritual life grows in God’s loving presence. The garden or the living space of Adam is seen as sign of God’s ongoing relationship with our first parent.
The emphasis on new and improved technology in our century draws our attention to the marvels of science. And yes, science has benefited our society. Dedicated scientists deserve our sincere respect. However, there is also the tendency to take our spiritual nature for granted. Catholicism, when it comes to the physical/material world surrounding us, does not take our spiritual soul or our material body for granted. The spiritual and material need to be kept in balance as a single human nature.
Natural science, a gift from God, needs to be practiced properly in order to seek the truth of our created material/physical universe.
The proper domain of natural science is the material world. But, and this is an important but, Adam’s nature is both rational spiritual soul *and *material decomposing body. The domain of the spiritual soul directly created by God is beyond the domain of natural science.
When the Catholic Church looks at Adam and his descendants, it deeply understands the eternal importance of the spiritual. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 14, Gospel of John) the Catholic Church has defined basic doctrines concerning the origin of humankind and the existence of Adam who committed the real original sin. These particular doctrines have the purpose of leading us to happiness forever with our Creator.
Here is where common sense is useful.
When natural science research is involved with rocks, weather, plants, insects, and the thousands of different animals, birds, and fish, all of which belong in the material domain, all kinds of theories can be explored. The decomposing material anatomy of humans can be included in the material domain. The key is that interpreters of [material/physical] research cannot substantiate claims which are outside the natural science domain. In other words, scientific research cannot dogmatically declare that the spiritual soul of human nature, directly created by God, does not exist. In our century, it has been claimed that the wishful feelings of the so-called soul are the result of some kind of cultural awareness of society.
Because of its spiritual principle, human nature is correctly considered outside the domain of science even though its anatomy benefits from scientific and medical research. It is our supernatural spiritual soul which enables us to be in a real relationship with our supernatural God.
In everyday terminology, natural science can only go so far in its study of humans. Normally, the scientific material/physical domain, with its various theories about the physical/material aspects of creation, is not a problem for Catholicism. It is when some interpreters of science research deny individual Catholic doctrines, that the Catholic Church steps in. Now, there is a dramatic intersection of both the material and spiritual domains. At the point of intersection, Divine Revelation trumps.
Please note:
The basic principle of natural science is that the evidence has to warrant the conclusion. A scientific conclusion is limited to the results obtained from the “methods and materials” within the specific research paper. In actual research, it is possible to include assumptions and estimates when hard data is not available.
What some interpreters of research have done is to extrapolate or extend a particular valid conclusion beyond the inherent limitations of its evidence.
In the case of two, sole parents of the human species, some interpreters will assume an universal exclusion which cannot be substantiated by the evidence in the individual research project. Interpreters might say such and such is probable, but that cannot rule out the possibility of the biblical Adam and Eve.
G
grannymh
Guest
A basic tool of anthropology is the comparison of characteristics found in fossils. Every fossil which shares some physical characteristics with contemporary humans such as yourself can be considered human or pre-human whatever that means. By definition, anthropology can measure the scull, chin, and ability to walk on two feet, but cannot measure the spiritual soul of a true human such as yourself. Thus, it can be anyone’s guess as to the anthropological demeanor of Adam. Personally, I like to think of Adam and Eve in a loving way as I do with my immediate parents.Yes, but given what I’ve read about anthropology, Adam and Eve would have looked rather brutal and likely closer to apes, though they’d be fully human, than to the way they’re usually portrayed in art.
G
grannymh
Guest
This is an update on the current evolution theory regarding the ancestor of chimps and humans approximately at the time of the homo/pan divergence.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
Please scroll down to “Misconceptions about humans”. Notice that the first human with a special spiritual soul is not part of the picture. Also notice the diagram which is American based. Across the pond, there are still some anthropologists debating whether the gorilla or the chimp is human’s closest relative. In addition there are debates about some of the homo and animal species.
Personally, I find the link’s description of the common ancestor rather interesting since it points to an easy denial of human nature as an unique unification of both the material and spiritual realms.
Personally, I have a deep respect for paleoanthropologists. Nonetheless, we need to respect the limitations of natural science when it comes to defining the human person.
The link to the news article theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822
refers to the same old/same old idea that the first three chapters of Genesis is not science. That is a cop-op. Catholics who defend their first ancestor as a real human being should both recognize the value of all natural science and understand the limitations of all natural science when it comes to our own origin.
G
grannymh
Guest
This is an excellent question because a number of Catholics have difficulty separating the Catholic Church’s domain of faith and morals from the material/physical domain of natural science.
I am sure that high ranking clergy have expressed their opinions on anthropology and archaeology finds at some point. However, these opinions are opinions and not formal Magisterial documents. Magisterial documents concern the theological doctrines and related moral teachings which are necessary to get you and I to happiness eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.
In the 21st century, there are points where a scientific opinion intersects with a Catholic doctrine. If there is an especially interesting intersection related to this thread’s news article, it can be discussed.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you have to believe in Adam and Eve?
It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Professor Jerry Coyne, but this is one of those occasions. Over at his Website, Why Evolution is True, Professor Coyne has written a lengthy post entitled, Catholics proclaim complete harmony between science and their faith, trot out Aquinas again, in which he cites (without naming me) a post of mine from 2010 on Why Aquinas’ views on Scripture would have prevented him from becoming a Darwinist.
I stand by the conclusions I reached in that post, regarding Aquinas’ views on God, creation and Scripture, and I share Coyne’s sense of indignation with the following statement, made by a prominent Catholic theologian from the University of Oxford and a scientist from the American Museum of Natural History:
Evolutionary biology and faith in God are not incompatible, two professors asserted at the international Rimini Meeting, an event that brings hundreds of thousands of people to Italy.
“A proper understanding of creation, especially an understanding set forth by a thinker such as Thomas Aquinas, helps us to see that there is no conflict between evolutionary biology or any of the natural sciences and a fundamental understanding that all that ‘is’, is caused by God,” Professor William E. Carroll of Oxford University’s theology faculty told CNA Aug. 22…
Professor Carroll was a keynote speaker at the Rimini Meeting, an international gathering organized by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation…
Sharing a platform with him was Professor Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Unlike Aquinas, I happen to be a Catholic who believes in common descent. However, I know enough about the history of the Church’s teachings on human origins over the last 2,000 years, to realize that some things are not up for grabs for Catholics, as Professor Carroll seems to think they are. The contemporary scientific consensus on evolutionary biology clearly contradicts Catholic teaching on several points – notably, Adam and Eve. I thought I’d assemble the evidence here, and let readers judge for themselves.
As I’ll show below, the Catholic Church is still committed to the view that the human race is descended from a single original pair, Adam and Eve, and from nobody else. I’d also like to mention that Fr. Brian Harrison, a conservative Catholic priest who is Associate Professor of Theology, at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, has written a two part article entitled, Did Woman Evolve From the Beasts? – A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine – Part I and Part II, has gone further, and argued that argued that Catholics are, to this day, bound to believe as infallible Catholic teaching the proposition that Eve was formed from Adam’s side, and that IF Adam was descended from the animals, the final step in his physical evolution must have been accomplished not naturally, but by supernatural intervention: “Hence, … a last-minute supernatural intervention at the moment of Adam’s conception would have been necessary in order to give his embryonic body the genetic constitution and physical features of a true human being.” Fr. Harrison defends the same view in another article entitled, Did the Human Body evolve naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration. As I am not a theologian, I will content myself with presenting the evidence, so that people can judge the matter for themselves. I will say, though, that Fr. Harrison makes a very good case for his view that while Adam may have evolved, Eve was created.
more…
It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Professor Jerry Coyne, but this is one of those occasions. Over at his Website, Why Evolution is True, Professor Coyne has written a lengthy post entitled, Catholics proclaim complete harmony between science and their faith, trot out Aquinas again, in which he cites (without naming me) a post of mine from 2010 on Why Aquinas’ views on Scripture would have prevented him from becoming a Darwinist.
I stand by the conclusions I reached in that post, regarding Aquinas’ views on God, creation and Scripture, and I share Coyne’s sense of indignation with the following statement, made by a prominent Catholic theologian from the University of Oxford and a scientist from the American Museum of Natural History:
Evolutionary biology and faith in God are not incompatible, two professors asserted at the international Rimini Meeting, an event that brings hundreds of thousands of people to Italy.
“A proper understanding of creation, especially an understanding set forth by a thinker such as Thomas Aquinas, helps us to see that there is no conflict between evolutionary biology or any of the natural sciences and a fundamental understanding that all that ‘is’, is caused by God,” Professor William E. Carroll of Oxford University’s theology faculty told CNA Aug. 22…
Professor Carroll was a keynote speaker at the Rimini Meeting, an international gathering organized by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation…
Sharing a platform with him was Professor Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Unlike Aquinas, I happen to be a Catholic who believes in common descent. However, I know enough about the history of the Church’s teachings on human origins over the last 2,000 years, to realize that some things are not up for grabs for Catholics, as Professor Carroll seems to think they are. The contemporary scientific consensus on evolutionary biology clearly contradicts Catholic teaching on several points – notably, Adam and Eve. I thought I’d assemble the evidence here, and let readers judge for themselves.
As I’ll show below, the Catholic Church is still committed to the view that the human race is descended from a single original pair, Adam and Eve, and from nobody else. I’d also like to mention that Fr. Brian Harrison, a conservative Catholic priest who is Associate Professor of Theology, at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, has written a two part article entitled, Did Woman Evolve From the Beasts? – A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine – Part I and Part II, has gone further, and argued that argued that Catholics are, to this day, bound to believe as infallible Catholic teaching the proposition that Eve was formed from Adam’s side, and that IF Adam was descended from the animals, the final step in his physical evolution must have been accomplished not naturally, but by supernatural intervention: “Hence, … a last-minute supernatural intervention at the moment of Adam’s conception would have been necessary in order to give his embryonic body the genetic constitution and physical features of a true human being.” Fr. Harrison defends the same view in another article entitled, Did the Human Body evolve naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration. As I am not a theologian, I will content myself with presenting the evidence, so that people can judge the matter for themselves. I will say, though, that Fr. Harrison makes a very good case for his view that while Adam may have evolved, Eve was created.
more…
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology for taking so long to reply to your post. I still have not read every link, but from what I have read, this is the author’s personal way of defending the reality of Adam and Eve.
Back to the OP.
Here is the only sentence in post one.
“Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?”
In order to answer that question, one needs to present all proper Catholic doctrines related to human origin and, obviously, the proper doctrines relating to peerless human nature. In addition, there needs to be a proper understanding of the information provided by natural science.
Currently, there are plenty of Catholics who have had their faith shaken by the claims that Adam and Eve are part of some kind of sophisticated myth which is no longer needed in the 21st century of natural science. I am one of those Catholics. I do understand how difficult it is to hold on to Catholic truth in the face of mountains of evidence against our origin and ultimately against our personal purpose in life.
After a long time, including breaks, I now would like to take the information I have gathered and put it into an easy format so that ordinary folk, like myself, can prove to ourselves that the Catholic Church is right about Adam, Original Sin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Any thoughts?
Please note that I will still be taking breaks as needed.
- Status