Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[edwest2]

That isn’t the position our Church takes. The Bible is not an exact historical record. The Catholic Church does not teach that creation is only 6000 years old.

Actually the first humans appeared over 1 million years ago.

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Aloysium]

. . . When there is an intersection of science and Catholic teachings – Divine Revelation trumps!

As to:

Natural science is a gift from God which benefits society especially in the medical arena.

In a postdoctoral lab a few decades ago, we were investigating cardiovascular response to a variety of agents, to gain a deeper understanding of how the mechanism works.
As in similar labs, we used dogs.
It was such a good doggie and made you feel like giving it reassuring strokes that everything was alright. But it wasn’t; it would die at our hands
A sedative was injected intramuscularly to numb brain functioning and prevent movement. After strapping down this healthy example of mammalian physiology, various wires and tubes were inserted to obtain the measurements we were looking for. We raised the blood pressure; we lowered it. We altered the respiratory rate every which way, determined oxygen and carbon dioxide blood saturations. If I am remembering correctly, urine output was measured to demonstrate how changes in blood pressure were related to the changes in the water balance within the system. An EKG visually described how the heart’s conduction system responded to the various drugs. We made the heart beat faster and slower; we caused it to fibrillate, and then go back to normal. We made it stop and we started it again. And, when we were through getting our fill of knowledge, we let the probably by then, brain-dead dog go.

This is not what I do for a living and I respect, passing no judgement on those who do. I do have to say, that we become ourselves through our actions.

This being the reality of “Biology”, is there any doubt as to why we are now killing others who are as yet unborn and why, with more constituencies legalizing euthanasia, it will eventually become the norm to do away with each other when we are old and infirm?

Contrasted to what transpires within the same amount of time spent in silent communion with nature, “science” as it is practiced: lots of magic, smoke and mirrors.
Today, outside of forums, science fiction, science centres and such, where contemplation of God’s creation is entertained in people’s imaginations, science is but a political and economic social activity, governed and directed by those forces.

Sorry to be so grim, but that’s my take on it.

If you believe, with all the raw data and the detailed statistics that you have developed and conducted that monogenism cannot be, you obviously have to follow your judgement (the final arbiter of truth?).
If you have picked up your “science” from school, books, novels, movies and the media, I would suggest that you think deep and hard about this: you are choosing.

In the next world there will be science: the study of creation which revolves around the ultimate Reality that is God.

I suppose all we can do is accept whatever gifts the Holy Spirit bestows upon us. Let’s pray for each other.

 

[Arandur]

Granny and Ed, I think we’re talking past each other again.

I am trying to point out just what Ed quoted JPII as saying–that there is not one theory of evolution, but many, some of which, in their proper place, are acceptable. He gets into the philosophy of it, and the roles of philosophy and theology, precisely to take a stand against the materialist philosophy that Granny is identifying.

Yes, Granny, I know that there are many who advance materialism through science, disregarding all immaterial reality. It is a philosophical error like many others, and not a new one. It does need to be understood and confronted, as JPII remarks.

As with many ideas, it is the extremes that are in error. The Great Heresies fought by the Early Church demonstrate this, as the nature of Christ and the Trinity were reduced to various extremes on both sides, each identified rightly as false, with the “both-and” realities of the hypostatic union and the Triune God proving themselves.

So it is in many other areas, and I mark this as no exception. It is surely false for people to attach materialistic philosophy to science as if it were necessary requirement of scientific study. It is also false to assume that science and faith need be in conflict, or that true natural data is not itself a part of God’s own Revelation of Himself through Creation.

Thus Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Creation AND Evolution.”

But I’m with you both, of course, that we must work to dispel the notion being put forth throughout the world that scientific materialism is truth or the only way that science can be conducted. It must be understood in its proper, limited sphere, with philosophy and theology having greater spheres and representing true knowledge, as well.

 

[Abu]

Obviously, Darwinian evolutionism is an historical assumption which seeks to affirm its beliefs with empirical science, and it has not been scientifically verified, as Pope Benedict XVI has suggested.

The opinion of Bl John Paul II that “the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” refers to what the Pope had been told and does not have the status of being even equivalent to, much less superior to, his doctrinal affirmation of Pius XII’s teaching. Fr David Becker in his letter to John Paul II pointed out: “Fr Jaki, we must note, played a major role in composing the Message which Your Holiness signed and sent to the Pontifical Academy.” [Dec 25, 1996. *WatchMaker, Nov-Dec 1996].

The above opinion by Bl John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes.

Note that Pope John Paul II reiterated the teaching of Pope Pius XII in *Humani generis *that the evolution of the human body “should not be adopted as though it were a certain and proved doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises.” *Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences *on October 22, 1996, 4].

“33. Pope John Paul said in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.”
Answer: What is more than a hypothesis is a theory, not necessarily a fact. As Pope Benedict XVI later explained this statement at a meeting with a group of his former postgraduate students: “When the Pope said that, he had his reasons. But at the same time it is true that the theory of evolution is still not a complete, scientifically verified theory. 16
**Note: **
16 Horn and Wiedenhofer, eds., *Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict *XVI (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008) p. 162.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html

Dr Benjamin Wiker (who co-authored with Dr Scott Hahn Answering The New Atheism – Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God, Emmaus Rode, 2008) writes: “….prominent evolutionists, astronomers, physicists, and chemists are beginning to voice their disagreements with ideological Darwinism, and the reason is revolutionary. The evidence for evolution itself seems to be pointing decidedly away from Darwinism, and to God.

“Let’s put these discoveries in context. Darwin believed that the evident appearance of design in biology could be explained entirely as the result of two non-intelligent causes, random variation and natural selection. Against this, the authors of Fitness of the Cosmos for Life argue that the appearance of design occurs on the pre-biotic level, the level of chemistry and biochemistry, before natural selection can occur. In fact, biology depends upon the optimality of chemistry for biological form. The recognition of such optimality strikes a death blow to Darwinism. Evolution depends upon this optimality to function at all, and the optimality explains why life is so robust and evolution is so startlingly effective. Such optimality, like the fine-tuning of the Big Bang, leads us to an intelligent cause of the universe, not to mere randomness.”

There is no question of Adam and Eve being our first parents and tainting us with the facts of Original Sin.

 

[Rau]

Wow…what is it that some find so disturbing about the evolution of species? It is as if it stands in opposition to their faith and God. It does not.

 

[grannymh]

Wow…what is it that some find so disturbing about the evolution of species? It is as if it stands in opposition to their faith and God. It does not.

The difficulty is that the spiritual does not evolve. Why is that disturbing?

The Catholic Church teaches that each of us (humans) is a spiritual creature capable of accepting God’s call to share in His divine life. (CCC, 374; CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 396; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867) What is so disturbing about that?

We are a peerless species. We are the pinnacle of earthly creation. How is that disturbing?

What can possibly be disturbing about two sole founders (Adam & Eve) of the spiritual, peerless, made in the image of God species?

The issue of the first Human Beings
is not about plants and polar bears.

It never was.
​

 

[Skadi]

The difficulty is that the spiritual does not evolve. Why is that disturbing?

The Catholic Church teaches that each of us (humans) is a spiritual creature capable of accepting God’s call to share in His divine life. (CCC, 374; CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 396; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867) What is so disturbing about that?

We are a peerless species. We are the pinnacle of earthly creation. How is that disturbing?

What can possibly be disturbing about two sole founders (Adam & Eve) of the spiritual, peerless, made in the image of God species?

The issue of the first Human Beings
is not about plants and polar bears.

It never was.
​

I find the last two claims VERY disturbing and its one of the reasons I am no longer catholic.

 

[Rau]

The difficulty is that the spiritual does not evolve. Why is that disturbing?

The Catholic Church teaches that each of us (humans) is a spiritual creature capable of accepting God’s call to share in His divine life. (CCC, 374; CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 396; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867) What is so disturbing about that?

We are a peerless species. We are the pinnacle of earthly creation. How is that disturbing?

What can possibly be disturbing about two sole founders (Adam & Eve) of the spiritual, peerless, made in the image of God species?

The issue of the first Human Beings
is not about plants and polar bears.

It never was.
​

So do you reject all elements of evolution, or do you simply require that God intervened when appropriate?

 

[grannymh]

I find that claim VERY disturbing and its one of the reasons I am no longer catholic.

I respect your decision and your reasons.

Would you describe what it is that is disturbing. I have read enough posts by Catholics to have a good idea of what disturbs them. I know some history of opposition to real first Human Beings. I know some of the issues which disturb people.

Nonetheless, I would l appreciate hearing from you as an individual.

 

[Skadi]

I respect your decision and your reasons.

Would you describe what it is that is disturbing. I have read enough posts by Catholics to have a good idea of what disturbs them. I know some history of opposition to real first Human Beings. I know some of the issues which disturb people.

Nonetheless, I would l appreciate hearing from you as an individual.

I believe the assertion that man is alone as the only physical being with a soul, and is alone made in the image of god, are very… Arrogant. Very self centered. It degrades all other life and creates an image of man as seperate from and above nature. I see why the idea developed, sense we are far more inteligent than other species on this particular planet, but the people who conceived this had no knowledge of evolution. They did not know that inteligence comes from the physical brain, rather than the immaterial soul, or that our brain is simply more developed than other species to compensate for our general lack of other physical advantages.

I believe all living things have a soul. I think to claim that only we do and that all of existence was put here to serve us, the divinely chosen race, is remarkably arrogant and ultimately leads to mans disassociation from nature. I’m a soft-polythiest, meaning that I am panetheistic aswell as Polythiestic. To see the divine spark within all life rejected, and them reduced to sacks of meat created to serve humans, as nothing more than robots of flesh and blood, well that disturbs me to my very core. I feal with all myself that is wrong.

 

[Protector]

Gorgias;11756373]Giving the cardinal the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was thinking of the second set of tablets – the ones that eventually were placed in the ark of the covenant – and not the first set that Moses smashed against the mountain.

Sorry Gorgias; Same Author, and apparently, same Finger

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Exodus 34:1

Protector.

 

[Blitzwing]

Science can’t even begin to understand the Mysteries of God and I think that’s what bothers them. So they have to try to figure out another explaination. I wonder where that “missing link” is that they have been looking for. for sooo many years. God Bless, God Bless. Memaw

Which missing link do you mean?

evolutionevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/image-05-large.jpg

stablemade.com/horsecare/images2/eval/eq-toes.jpg

 

[Nelka]

Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. This is why a man leaves his father and mother, and the two become one flesh. They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 Because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin.

 

[grannymh]

So do you reject all elements of evolution, or do you simply require that God intervened when appropriate?

To answer the first question.

I consider the human species as a separate, distinct, peerless, different in kind species. Off CAF, I write and edit about the human species from a Catholic theological position. As far as natural or physical science, in general, I accept the founder effect, types of mutations, and genetic drift. Motoo Kimura is my hero. Recently, I read an article, not the actual research, which referred to improvements of the Wright-Fisher model. That is positive news. In an actual research paper, I saw a “new” model but this specific research was beyond my comprehension. However, the paper was noted because better mathematics may solve some of the problems associated with original assumptions used for finding data in the dark recesses of millions of years going backwards.

As various assumptions are revised, the existence of two real first human parents becomes more natural. I reject in part the original concept of diversification based on the original molecular clock. And I reject certain parts of phylogeny, but am open to revisions. I have personal reservations about the time frame that true, fully-complete humankind appeared on planet earth .

Natural Science is fascinating because it is not set in stone.

To answer the second question " Do you simply require that God intervened when appropriate?" I do not require God to do anything. Sorry, I could not resist that answer. :blushing:

I do my best to stay away from God intervening as if He were a God of the gaps. When it comes to God’s interaction with humans (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730-1732) I start from the theological doctrines which logically flow from Genesis 1:1. Because the spiritual world of God does exist, it is possible that two first Human Beings did, in fact, exist, and are, in fact, our unique ancestors. Because “Divine Revelation trumps!” I accept the existence of Adam and Eve. Natural Science, conducted properly, cannot deny the possibility of Adam and Eve. Normally, natural science pertains to plants and polar bears and not necessarily to the actions of their Creator.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Natural Science is fascinating because it is not set in stone.

It actually is set in stone. What is not set in stone is our understanding of it.

To answer the second question " Do you simply require that God intervened when appropriate?" I do not require God to do anything. Sorry, I could not resist that answer. :blushing:

I also do not put limits on God, as others have implicitly done.

 

[anthonymarie]

It sure does.

Pope Benedict:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

The rest of the story from Pope John Paul II:

"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, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

“5. 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” (No. 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:3:5, 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 fulfillment 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, 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 take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit 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.”

Peace,
Ed

Peace,

You quote John Paul II as saying: “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.” But the point I think he and Benedict were making is that any talk about the origin of man from a purely scientific stand point is insufficient. The article you site quotes Pope Benedict as cautioning “that evolution*** raises philosophical questions*** science alone cannot answer.”

In “In the Beginning” Cardinal Ratzinger states:

We must ourselves recognize what Kant recognized and knew perfectly well - that there are two kinds of reason, as he says: a theoretical and a practical reason. We may call them the physical-natural scientific and the moral-religious reason. It is improper to refer to the moral reason as gross unreason and superstition simply because its contours and the scope of its knowledge are not mathematical. It is in fact the more fundamental of the two reasons, and it alone can preserve the human dimensions of both the natural sciences and technology and also prevent them from destroying humankind.

I think that both popes were trying to stress that:

(a) evolution as a branch of science is less secure than the traditional sciences due to the nature of the evidence that is used and that this should always be born in mind.

(b) science (in the Baconian sense) raises questions that it can neither answer nor merely ignore (which is where religion comes in).

(c) because of this, at best, science can only answer/explore half of the mystery of the origin of man and the Church still has a valid contribution to make regarding this mystery.

 

[Arandur]

The difficulty is that the spiritual does not evolve. Why is that disturbing?

I wouldn’t take that as answering the question. Yes, as you’ve said, SOME people are claiming that evolution explains the creation of (or lack of) a soul. But that is by no means a universal conclusion, nor a necessary one. It is very easy (and I think best fits the evidence) to keep evolution narrowly defined within its scope as a description of a mechanism by which BODIES change and develop over generations, and making no comment whatsoever about immaterial souls.

Thus it is likewise easy to see how this:

Gen 2:7–then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[a] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

is harmonized, with “formed” being the physical form, ultimately from dust, through the process of evolution; and “breathed into” being the immaterial soul, immediately and specially created, the chief difference in the creation story between man and animal, and what makes us unique.

Note that “breathed” is consistent with language continually used in Scripture for actions of the Spirit, and relating to souls, while dust and form we use to refer to physicality.

Thus, Benedict XVI’s Creation AND Evolution; Pius XII’s insistence on the special creation of the human soul; JPII’s distinction that the human soul was not subject to evolution.

Seriously, it’s all harmonized by one little verse (Gen 2:7). I don’t know why it’s such a big deal. Others I know, like Peter Kreeft and many Thomists who have remarked on how Aquinas would likely have approached the matter, similarly are left wondering why people get so upset over this or why they don’t see it as easily harmonized, the data of natural revelation merely giving us insight into how God chose to “form” us (and other creatures) “from the dust.”

 

[edwest2]

Peace,

You quote John Paul II as saying: “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.” But the point I think he and Benedict were making is that any talk about the origin of man from a purely scientific stand point is insufficient. The article you site quotes Pope Benedict as cautioning “that evolution*** raises philosophical questions*** science alone cannot answer.”

In “In the Beginning” Cardinal Ratzinger states:

I think that both popes were trying to stress that:

(a) evolution as a branch of science is less secure than the traditional sciences due to the nature of the evidence that is used and that this should always be born in mind.

(b) science (in the Baconian sense) raises questions that it can neither answer nor merely ignore (which is where religion comes in).

(c) because of this, at best, science can only answer/explore half of the mystery of the origin of man and the Church still has a valid contribution to make regarding this mystery.

Referring to (c), those who are anti-religion and anti-belief, discard anything the Church has to say in the matter. For example, “The Church is only concerned with faith and morals, not science. Would you hire a plumber to fix your car?” In other words, the Church has no standing, no competence to make any claims regarding the subject.

It is foundational to their belief system. On this message board, literalism is automatically bad, listening to Divine Revelation is fantasy, and being a young earth creationist automatically disqualifies “those people” from the discussion. Otherwise, there is obvious evidence here of an ongoing campaign to bring up this subject on a regular basis in order to weed out unacceptable ideas such as YEC, Divine Revelation, and Literalism, which appears to be right up (down?) there with YEC. The science is set in stone and we must accept it.

My question to you, or anybody reading this is: why does this matter? What are the practical results for being outside the ‘set in stone’ science? It appears anyone can do what they want, but for this, people need to be steered in the direction desired.

Or, to be blunt, why does this matter so much? I follow what the Church teaches to the letter. Divine Revelation comes first and then science is considered, both pro and con.

"23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

"24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

The Church judges and all involved should be prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tdgesq]

My question to you, or anybody reading this is: why does this matter? What are the practical results for being outside the ‘set in stone’ science? It appears anyone can do what they want, but for this, people need to be steered in the direction desired.

Or, to be blunt, why does this matter so much? I follow what the Church teaches to the letter. Divine Revelation comes first and then science is considered, both pro and con.

Because truth is truth regardless of how it is derived. Denying scientifically derived truth is little better than denying revealed truth. Yes, scientific theories are not above scrutiny and criticism. There is evidence that contradicts various theories for the age of the Earth, Big Bang and the various forms of biological evolution. No scientist who is actually doing real science can claim that they couldn’t be subject to revision.

On the other hand, rejecting legitimate scientific evidence on the basis of revelation that may be purely philosophical, theological and/or allegorical is hardly a truth seeking endeavor. What the Church actually teaches must be accepted, not what individual Catholics might wish the Church to teach.

Why does it matter? Because former Christians keep coming here to CAF and posting threads like this one asking why scientifically derived evidence and conclusions appear to contradict revelation. Truths can be derived from science. Truths can be derived from revelation. Whether the various truth claims actually contradict each other is what everyone seems intent on arguing.

 

[Abu]

tdgesq #217
Truths can be derived from science. Truths can be derived from revelation. Whether the various truth claims actually contradict each other is what everyone seems intent on arguing.

Naturally. And revelation as doctrinally defined by the Catholic Church is unalterable, such as the reality that Adam and Eve are our first parents and tainted us with the results of Original Sin.

The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.

Thus is pseudo-science revealed.