Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[grannymh]

If you are disturbed by the possibility of intercourse between humans with rational souls and biologically-identical hominid relatives, I would also have to ask why the different standard on incest?

Incest when?

Medically, there is a problem related to inheritance from one’s ancestors. It is my understanding that Adam and Eve did not have any human ancestors. Genesis 1: 28 has a helpful insight which would apply to the first few “survival” generations. Due to the length of female fertility, overlapping generations would broaden the population so incest would not be an issue.

 

[MrSnaith]

It does address the issue of bestiality, briefly.
Moreover, it seems fairly consistent with the common relic among human communities (such as even the Greeks) to conclude that other humans are sub-human, animals even–and yet they still interbreed, even though that may be considered distasteful or illegal in the culture.

Additionally, I forgot to mention another merit:
8. It potentially avoids the need for any special dispensation for incest. Thus marital law could remain consistent.

If you are disturbed by the possibility of intercourse between humans with rational souls and biologically-identical hominid relatives, I would also have to ask why the different standard on incest? Which is worse, and, granted a dispensation towards one or the other might have been necessary, why would a special dispensation be improper in one case and not the other?

As I’ve said, there also seems to be numerous instances in Genesis of likely support for such a theory. If the possibility disturbs you, one might ask about the “sons of heaven” (Adam and Eve’s children, those possessing rational souls) having intercourse with “daughters of man” (in this case, other homo sapiens sapiens, possessing sensitive souls but not fully rational). This seems to specifically address intercourse between two distinct peoples. Unquestionably, that passage at least identifies a significant distinction between the two peoples, though it has been interpreted in many different ways.

I just read the article in full. Regarding the question of beastiality, the author indicates that the interbreeding of a theologically human being and a biologically human being would be less akin to beastiality than to promiscuity, being an impersonal sexual union.

Regardless, the way the author deals with the question is to say that early man was sinful (after the fall), so it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to assume they would sin in this way as well. The problem with this thought is that when God created Adam and Eve, He commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply.” So, if interbreeding with non-theologically humans was sinful, then their only option was to “multiply” incestually. That is problematic because the genetic diversity would be limited from the outset, and the health problems associated with incestually conceived children would be rampant.

So, if this article’s theory is correct in the distinction between theological humans and biological humans, then we would have to assert that it is not sinful at all to breed with non-theological humans.

A potential way around this is his third distinction of a philosophically human being. The difference between the philosophical and theological humans being that philosophical humans are capable of rational thought, conceptualization, self-awareness, etc, while theologically human beings are all of that, and also bear the Image of God, having an eternal destiny of friendship with God, and have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is, what St. Paul calls “heart.”

I would suggest this is an important distinction because it answers the question of artificial intelligence, and whether such a thing could have a spiritual soul. It is conceptually possible to create a computer that is complex enough to think, learn, manufacture, even perhaps conceptualize. Yet, it would be hard to imagine such a machine being capable of having an eternal destiny and relationship with God.

One could argue that the population out of which Adam and Eve came was as much as philosophically human, yet not theologically human.

 

[Abu]

Once again:
“684. Besides Adam and Eve we read only of Cain and Abel. Whom did Cain marry?
Your knowledge is inadequate. Had you read on, you would have seen in the fifth chapter of Genesis that Adam begot Seth, and after that lived on for some 800 years, begetting sons and daughters. Cain very probably married a sister. He could even have married a niece! But that would involve the marriage of a brother and sister at some stage, or indeed of several brothers and sisters. With the cessation of necessity, such close inter-relationship was forbidden. But special conditions naturally prevailed in such special circumstances as the starting of the human race. God exercised a special providence to safeguard the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with close inter-marriage. And after all, a sister would not be so closely related to Cain as Eve was to Adam. Cain’s wife was not made out of his own rib! Whom Cain married precisely is not mentioned, as not being very important. One book cannot give all the names that have occurred in history, and the Bible gives but a summary outline of chief events.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Cain&db=1

 

[Arandur]

Incest when?

Medically, there is a problem related to inheritance from one’s ancestors. It is my understanding that Adam and Eve did not have any human ancestors.

Oh? What problem?
You don’t think Adam and Eve had anything in common (DNA-wise, let’s say) with any preceding mammal or hominid?
I think that is completely untenable.

Genesis 1: 28 has a helpful insight which would apply to the first few “survival” generations. Due to the length of female fertility, overlapping generations would broaden the population so incest would not be an issue.

It’s possible, but it wouldn’t reflect the genetic diversity we see today, and the lack of such a minimal bottleneck (as referenced in the article).

And it doesn’t get around the issue that I was really talking about: the moral question of incest. You are assuming it was permissible. We have no Scripture stating a granted dispensation for it, only Scriptures condemning it (later). If it was permissible by special dispensation, then why wouldn’t it be similarly permissible to have a special dispensation for intercourse with biological humans?

Abu’s reference, IMO, still doesn’t get you out of this. It relies on an implicit special dispensation allowing incest. No such thing is ever spoken of in Scripture. That’s not to say that it’s not possible, or even likely, but it seems to me no more so than the dispensation for intercourse with biological humans.

 

[Arandur]

Regardless, the way the author deals with the question is to say that early man was sinful (after the fall), so it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to assume they would sin in this way as well. The problem with this thought is that when God created Adam and Eve, He commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply.” So, if interbreeding with non-theologically humans was sinful, then their only option was to “multiply” incestually. That is problematic because the genetic diversity would be limited from the outset, and the health problems associated with incestually conceived children would be rampant.

There is another way “out,” but it’s not a great one, IMO. Either way, a special dispensation is required (for incest or for interbreeding with biological humans). The physical evidence tends very strongly towards the latter happening, whether there was a dispensation or not.

The question is, what did God intend for Adam and Eve to do to multiply? He could have Planned to:

1. Permitted incest among theological humans–and miraculously intended to provide for the genetic diversity required (if that would even have been required in a state of Original Justice), the same way that He miraculously provided for the state of Original Justice itself (which is beyond the natural order). If this was the case, we would not necessarily see any evidence of it, because the Fall seems to have happened before the first children of Adam and Eve, so no more Original Justice.
2. Permitted intercourse with biological humans, infusing a rational soul into any offspring, thus bringing them into a state of Original Justice (had such a state persisted).

Or 3. Both. 1 we cannot expect to observe; 2 would have left the same evidence whether it was sinful or not.

So, if this article’s theory is correct in the distinction between theological humans and biological humans, then we would have to assert that it is not sinful at all to breed with non-theological humans.

Only if God had intended it. After the Fall, the children of Adam and Eve could have done it regardless, and as long as God still granted their offspring a rational soul, the evidence would be the same (and would fit exactly what evidence science seems to be uncovering).

A potential way around this is his third distinction of a philosophically human being. The difference between the philosophical and theological humans being that philosophical humans are capable of rational thought, conceptualization, self-awareness, etc, while theologically human beings are all of that, and also bear the Image of God, having an eternal destiny of friendship with God, and have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is, what St. Paul calls “heart.”

I am less comfortable with this than with a special dispensation, because it either:

1. Places the capabilities normally attributed to a rational soul to merely biological organs (as Skadi advocates), leaving the physical capable of creating immaterial things and rendering the immortal soul an arbitrary thing with no known properties to distinguish it (other than immortality, which would be an arbitrary gift, since the faculties making true, godly love possible are now seated in the merely biological);

or 2. Grants a rational soul to philosophical humans, but arbitrarily excludes them from that unique union with God. This approach may be a little more possible, because it is somewhat like the inclusion of only a subset of people within a Covenant (i.e., the Chosen People of Israel), but as we know, Jesus came with the New Covenant to include ALL those not originally chosen. This would leave creatures with rational souls capable of true godly love permanently excluded from the Covenant, and mortal. It would also (because of the infusion of a nearly-identical rational soul) be much closer to the objectionable polygenism the argument tries to refute.

I would suggest this is an important distinction because it answers the question of artificial intelligence, and whether such a thing could have a spiritual soul. It is conceptually possible to create a computer that is complex enough to think, learn, manufacture, even perhaps conceptualize. Yet, it would be hard to imagine such a machine being capable of having an eternal destiny and relationship with God.

One could argue that the population out of which Adam and Eve came was as much as philosophically human, yet not theologically human.

If true artificial intelligence is possible (rather than just complexity to the point of superficial mimicry), what keeps God from infusing a rational soul–exactly as this argument says He granted to theological humans for the same reasons (biological hardware having achieved sufficient complexity).

 

[Abu]

Here is another reference to the testimony of the account:
“Since Adam and Eve were created in a state of high perfection, with the full complement of genetic material, this would have allowed substantial variety to arise quickly among human beings, who were free from inherited defects. Thus it would have taken a long time for the gene pool within mankind to become contaminated enough to prohibit intermarriage between relatives.

“Although incest was later forbidden by God at the time of Moses (Leviticus 18), procreation must have occurred, by definition, between the earliest human beings. Marriage between closely related human beings could not have been regarded as sinful by God at that time.” Creation Rediscovered, Gerard J Keane, TAN Books, 1999, p 85-86].

 

[Michael_Allen]

Genetically speaking, however, if a female descendant of Mitochondrial Eve mated with a male descendant of Y-Chromosome Adam then all of humanity could trace its origins to this union.

This would only be the case if the descendent of Mitochondrial Eve only had children by Y-Chromosome Adam. If that were the case we would expect to find a later Mitochondrial Eve.

My understanding of the current state of scientific knowledge (which can always change) is that humanity appeared from a ‘bottleneck population’ (i.e. a small population of inter-breeding individuals) rather than a couple.

 

[grannymh]

A really snarky post.
The man who you are referring to is a priest.

Here is the original post 55 referred in post 96. Thank you for reminding me.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11753761&postcount=55

I noticed your reference to the book of Genesis which has 50 chapters. Wow!

My understanding is that God’s Divine Revelation about the existence of an eternal heaven and human’s ability to go there is initially presented in the first three chapters of Genesis. I like the fact that the Catholic Church’s interpretation puts God’s presence up front and personal.

It is very important to know that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a scientific textbook. We would be up the creek without a paddle if it were. While natural science is a gift from God, it stops with the decomposing anatomy of humans. It is comforting to know that the Catholic Church can tell the difference between rotting skin and bones and a spiritual rational soul in the image of God the Creator.

Of course, we realize that a biopsy of our spiritual principle is a futile procedure. While some folks may not agree with the Catholic Church’s insistence that human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world, I personally prefer that doctrine over science which is confined to blood and guts. Divine Revelation trumps!

Now one would think that the human author, who is definitely not a Ph.D. scientist , would emphasize the glory of the population in which he lives. Where was that man’s pride? Instead, he makes sure that every reader recognizes the uniqueness of the individual by describing a human gardener with an unique rational mind like ours. This uniqueness is the reason for John 3: 16.

Logically, the author first demonstrates the uniqueness of the human population. He makes sure that readers understand that the human population was different in kind from all other species. The interesting detail about this ancient observation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is that the author did not use any current population as the comparison to other species. He chose only one individual as being different in kind from all other species. This, in itself, demonstrates that Adam and his spouse would be the sole progenitors of the peerless human species. The unity of one dominant human species, classified as vertebrate, testifies to the necessary existence of a real Adam and Eve as the first human vertebrates. Speaking of fellow vertebrates, do we ever wonder why birds who can fly do not build space stations and humans who cannot flap their arms in flight can sit in the comfort of an airplane?

By giving the first human gardener rational abilities for his personal use, the author demonstrates that this gardener is perfectly capable of making choices apart from a population. Being apart from a population signifies that there can be no “population” influences with the very first propagation of the human species. Quick point – the Catholic Church teaches that all humankind is in the first real, fully complete human as one body of one man. This insures that all humankind receives, by propagation, that same human vertebrate anatomy as the first human. No going from dinosaurs to birds type of development.

It is obvious, or should be obvious, that the spiritual soul is not material. Of course, the spiritual soul hinges on the existence of God. The existence of God and the existence of God’s relationship to His first human creature is front and center in those mysterious first three chapters of Genesis. What is fascinating about this aspect is that further on in Genesis, we learn about God and His relationship with His chosen people. But when it comes to the dawn of human history, God’s interaction with humans is explained in terms of one human and his spouse. Not only that, but St. Paul describes the first human as one human person. Certainly St. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit promised in chapter 14, Gospel of John, would be able to tell the difference between one initial human and a population.

Now comes the tricky statement – The person biblically known as Adam was not a real person.

If you and I are real humans, our first natural ancestor had to be a real human with a spiritual soul. Catholics know this because the belief in a super-natural Creator is professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now add the Catholic belief that God calls us to share in His divine life. You and I are individuals with our own individual intellect and will according to the Catholic Church. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that each of us is in the hand of our own counsel so that each of us independently can seek God, know God, serve God and be happy with God in heaven. By the way, we serve God because we do not have the same nature as God our Creator. As creatures, we maintain a relationship with God by our free obedience to God our Creator. We inherited this freedom to love God or deny God as part of our unique human nature demonstrated by a real Adam. God’s Divine Revelation appears in the first three chapters of Genesis…according to the Catholic Church.

At the beginning of human history, one real person had the choice of remaining in God’s friendship or of leaving God’s friendship. This is a logical teaching because human nature, by definition, has the choice to love God or deny God. With one real person who, with his spouse, has children, all the children would either contract that person’s state of original holiness or they would contract that person’s state of deprivation of original holiness. Going forward to Jesus hanging bloody on His cross, we know that He opened the gate of heaven for all, so now we can reason that all had contracted the state of deprivation of original holiness which can only be the result of the original Adam’s real, very real Original Sin. It is that simple.

 

[Memaw]

And that is the problem. Science cannot include a soul, so people can and do regard man as nothing more than a walking, talking bag of chemicals that responds to outside stimuli, reproduces, or not, and dies. This is not Church teaching which must be expressed clearly.

Peace,
Ed

And we are to have Faith in the ONE, TRUE, GOD, and HIS Church. NOT science. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Arandur]

I’m seeing a lot of statements that are ultimately dismissive of science, rather than considering its claims or discoveries, as if you are dismissing Natural Revelation without even attempting to either challenge interpretations of it (related to evolution, human origins, or just DNA and genetics), or attempting to see how it complements and informs what we know from Divine Revelation (what we really should be doing first).

“Since Adam and Eve were created in a state of high perfection, with the full complement of genetic material, this would have allowed substantial variety to arise quickly among human beings, who were free from inherited defects.

You realize, I hope, that this is pure speculation, not doctrinal at all, and nowhere stated in Scripture or Tradition. You cannot take this as a given, and I don’t think there is any physical evidence to demonstrate it, so it remains a hypothetical with no backing of any authority or evidence whatsoever. It could be possible, and I have admitted as much, but we really have nothing suggesting this possibility over any others, particularly others with more evidence to them.

“Although incest was later forbidden by God at the time of Moses (Leviticus 18),procreation must have occurred, by definition, between the earliest human beings. Marriage between closely related human beings could not have been regarded as sinful by God at that time.”

Again, pure speculation, with no doctrinal authority or Scriptural statement backing it up. This is the “dispensation for incest” that I have been referring to, one that we find completely unmentioned in Scripture or doctrine. People usually take it as implied, because they** ignore the other possibilities**, such as that proposed in the article I reposted, Theology and Monogenesis.

The “procreation [that] must have occurred” need not have been between siblings. That is not the only logically possible form of procreation, unless your premises are very narrow. And claiming that it “could not have been regarded as sinful by God at that time” is a very strong statement, putting words in God’s mouth that we have no record of Him ever speaking (through Scripture or Tradition, or Magisterially-verified doctrine). I would shy away from this sort of attempt to appeal to an authority by creating an authoritative statement that doesn’t exist.

The unity of one dominant human species, classified as vertebrate, testifies to the necessary existence of a real Adam and Eve as the first human vertebrates. …
Being apart from a population signifies that there can be no “population” influences with the very first propagation of the human species. Quick point – the Catholic Church teaches that all humankind is in the first real, fully complete human as one body of one man. This insures that all humankind receives, by propagation, that same human vertebrate anatomy as the first human.** No going from dinosaurs to birds type of development. **

Granny, I’m having trouble following you. Singling out this part of your post, I need to ask a clarifying question:
Are you claiming that Adam and Eve have NO relation whatsoever in their physiology to any other creature?

That there can be no continuity of DNA, no shared biological ancestor whose genetic traits (and artifacts thereof remaining in our DNA) show any commonality?

The last statement I bolded seems to indicate that you are completely rejecting any form of evolution for the human body? That the human body MUST have been created “from whole cloth,” so to speak, plopped down in the midst of the rest of the organic world without any relation to it except the fact that its physical composition seems to be similar to other creatures, in body type and organs and such?

Moreover, are you claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that, and is not open at all to any form of evolution contributing to the formation of the human body?

This (from your last post) seems a contradiction to your previous posts, which seemed favorable to some form of biological evolution affecting the composition of the human body, prior to its re-creation into a new kind by the ensoulment of a rational soul in the image and likeness of God.

It would also flat out deny most of medical science and genetics, as if they have no predictive or prescriptive value (and thus a great many therapies really shouldn’t work at all, or “just happen” to work, “despite” being developed from an understanding of studies of and testing on genetically similar creatures, etc.). You would have to completely discard all anthropology and genetic research that has discovered common, inherited markers among hominids and prior ancestors.

For a brand-spanking-new body dropped into the middle of things would share NO such genetic artifacts with other or prior creatures, especially if you’re going with Abu’s claim of Adam and Eve being “genetically pure.” Well, unless you say that all the vast evidence contrary to the fact (the evidence demonstrating inheritance of genetic artifacts) are either later accretions somehow acquired totally (and conveniently) obscuring the original genetic purity; or you are positing a Deceptive God who merely creates the appearance of such commonalities (or an Overpowering Satan capable of entirely obfuscating God’s work in such a manner, thus casting into doubt all Natural Revolution and utterly hijacking Creation).

I don’t think you want to do any of those things, so I’m hoping I just misunderstood your last post

 

[Arandur]

Note: Of course, as you know, I’m on board with you about the soul and that the infusion of a soul ends up meaning a re-creation into a wholly new type of being, even if the original body into which the soul was infused shared prior traits and is not observably materially different–like the Incarnation itself, and the Transubstantiation of the Eucharistic species, which to science will still appear to have all the traits of the physical substances from which they came, down to the subatomic particles and energy states of bread and wine.

In fact, the Incarnation itself and the Eucharist may be two very illuminating examples of what happened in the creation of Adam and Eve. Take bread and call down the Holy Spirit, by the power of Christ, through consecration, and you get transubstantiation of bread and wine, whose accidents remain the same, but whose substance becomes the Body and Blood, bearing the Soul and Divinity, of our beloved Savior.

Take a hominid form at the appropriate time and development (of God’s choosing), and through the Holy Spirit “breathe” into it a rational soul in the image and likeness of God, and you have a sort of transubstantiation of a physical form into a whole new being: Adam, the first (theological) human being, a “living soul.” The physical accidents, and all physically-inherited traits, remain the same as before that moment, but all spiritual properties are transformed, and new faculties gained that can be expressed through the physical. So to science, the human body looks the same (has all the same accidents, bears the same physical makeup and properties) as that which it was just before God breathed the rational soul into it, and, just like the Bread of the Eucharist looks like any other bread from the same bakery that has not been consecrated, and will react the same way to any physical stimuli, so too with the human body.

Similarly with the Incarnation, and the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ; by all physical appearances, still “merely” human, but wholly transformed in union with the Divine, completely human and completely divine at the same time.

Along this line of reasoning, I would posit that evolution demonstrates a MORE PERFECT analogy, deepens the our understanding of the reality of the nature of the Christ, the Eucharist, and the Church. And that to reject it, to introduce a discontinuous human form, is to open up, by the very same logic, attacks on the humanity of Christ, on the Transubstantiation of the Eucharistic species, and on the Divinity of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Do so at your own peril.

And we are to have Faith in the ONE, TRUE, GOD, and HIS Church. NOT science. God Bless, Memaw

We cannot just reject science, which is the discipline of investigating Natural Revelation. To do so would be to discard God’s gift of Reason and the senses, and to ignore His Revelation of Himself and His wonders in Creation. It would also be to undermine evangelization in the classic manner that St. Augustine identified–that Christians ignorant of or blatantly contradicting what non-Christians clearly can know through natural reason cast into doubt the credibility of all else they assert. This, because to discard reason and Natural Revelation is to create a contradiction of truths, and thus is a form of denial of God who is Truth.

 

[MrSnaith]

There is another way “out,” but it’s not a great one, IMO. Either way, a special dispensation is required (for incest or for interbreeding with biological humans). The physical evidence tends very strongly towards the latter happening, whether there was a dispensation or not.

The question is, what did God intend for Adam and Eve to do to multiply? He could have Planned to:

1. Permitted incest among theological humans–and miraculously intended to provide for the genetic diversity required (if that would even have been required in a state of Original Justice), the same way that He miraculously provided for the state of Original Justice itself (which is beyond the natural order). If this was the case, we would not necessarily see any evidence of it, because the Fall seems to have happened before the first children of Adam and Eve, so no more Original Justice.
2. Permitted intercourse with biological humans, infusing a rational soul into any offspring, thus bringing them into a state of Original Justice (had such a state persisted).

Or 3. Both. 1 we cannot expect to observe; 2 would have left the same evidence whether it was sinful or not.

Only if God had intended it. After the Fall, the children of Adam and Eve could have done it regardless, and as long as God still granted their offspring a rational soul, the evidence would be the same (and would fit exactly what evidence science seems to be uncovering).

I am less comfortable with this than with a special dispensation, because it either:

1. Places the capabilities normally attributed to a rational soul to merely biological organs (as Skadi advocates), leaving the physical capable of creating immaterial things and rendering the immortal soul an arbitrary thing with no known properties to distinguish it (other than immortality, which would be an arbitrary gift, since the faculties making true, godly love possible are now seated in the merely biological);

or 2. Grants a rational soul to philosophical humans, but arbitrarily excludes them from that unique union with God. This approach may be a little more possible, because it is somewhat like the inclusion of only a subset of people within a Covenant (i.e., the Chosen People of Israel), but as we know, Jesus came with the New Covenant to include ALL those not originally chosen. This would leave creatures with rational souls capable of true godly love permanently excluded from the Covenant, and mortal. It would also (because of the infusion of a nearly-identical rational soul) be much closer to the objectionable polygenism the argument tries to refute.

If true artificial intelligence is possible (rather than just complexity to the point of superficial mimicry), what keeps God from infusing a rational soul–exactly as this argument says He granted to theological humans for the same reasons (biological hardware having achieved sufficient complexity).

All points well taken. My conclusion, then, is this:

Due to the fact that our genetic reality implies a “bottleneck” of no less than approximately several thousand, we can infer that, given the distinction between “biological” and “theological” humans is correct, interbreeding between biological and theological humans occurred. This is perhaps supported in the reference to the interbreeding of the “Sons of God” and the “Daughters of Men.”

However, just because it is a fact doesn’t mean it was intended in God’s original plan. Thus, we may agree with the author that although it was sinful to have non-personal sexual relations, the fallen nature of man would not impede such sin.

The question remains, however, whether incestual relationships would have been granted a special dispensation in God’s original plan. It is my understanding, and I’m certainly open to correction on this point, that incest is prohibited due to the genetic defects associated with it in the offspring of such a union. If this is the case, then we could understand that a dispensation would have been allowed for in Original Justice, if you could even call it a dispensation. In the state of Original Justice, man would have been protected from such genetic defects, thus making incestuous relationships viable.

Further to this point, we can observe that the defects we associate with the fall didn’t take immediate and full effect. Consider simply the life expectancy of people during the first 1500-2000 years after the fall. It may be that incestuous relationships after the fall were granted a special dispensation as for a time they may have remained protected from such genetic defects as are normally associated with incest.

I would suggest that this distinction (between biological and theological humans) is keen, and that it is likely that both incest and interbreeding between biological and theological humans occurred during the years after the fall, and that incestuous unions would not have been prohibited in God’s original plan.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We cannot just reject science, which is the discipline of investigating Natural Revelation. To do so would be to discard God’s gift of Reason and the senses, and to ignore His Revelation of Himself and His wonders in Creation. . .

For upteen centuries, the geocentric model of the universe was the cutting edge of “science”. It was superseded by a simpler, more predictive, better explanatory solar-centric theory. According your view, to have denied that it was not as simple as saying the sun rises in the east would be the same as denying ithe sun’s existence, discarding the gift of reason and ignoring God Himself. I liken the current “scientific facts” about our origin to be on the same level of explanatory worth as the Ptolemaic system.

My profession is in applied science. This isn’t about my credentials, but about the reality of science. At the level where it serves a purpose, it is all ad hoc; if it works, good, if not you use something that does. It is funded by political and economic forces which thereby dictate its direction. “Science” serves a purpose; in this area that purpose is to create an understanding of mankind which will facilitate a diminution of true human rights that spring from our having been created in the image of God. This is seen in communist, consumerist societies, mind-boggling rates of abortion, increasing use of euthanasia, not to mention the horrors of war that have taken place in the last hundred years.

“Science” is replete with loose ends, including this area that seeks to understand our origins. They have not IMHO even got a valid definition as to who was human.
Reason, which God has gifted to us, tells us that God is central to any model that seeks to explain reality. By discarding this necessary requirement, “science” has taken the wrong route.

 

[tdgesq]

For upteen centuries, the geocentric model of the universe was the cutting edge of “science”. It was superseded by a simpler, more predictive, better explanatory solar-centric theory. According your view, to have denied that it was not as simple as saying the sun rises in the east would be the same as denying ithe sun’s existence, discarding the gift of reason and ignoring God Himself. I liken the current “scientific facts” about our origin to be on the same level of explanatory worth as the Ptolemaic system.

I sincerely hope you aren’t arguing that because the geocentric model was falsified that all other scientific theories and conclusions contain no truth value, particularly biological evolutionary theories. Because that would be a non sequitur.

In any case, this is a terrible argument. Ptolemy’s geocentrism was widely accepted in part because it fit the religious presuppositions of its adherents, including the Catholic Church.

 

[Aloysium]

I sincerely hope you aren’t arguing that because the geocentric model was falsified that all other scientific theories and conclusions contain no truth value, particularly biological evolutionary theories. Because that would be a non sequitur.

In any case, this is a terrible argument. Ptolemy’s geocentrism was widely accepted in part because it fit the religious presuppositions of its adherents, including the Catholic Church.

Guess I wasn’t clear:
The current scientific understanding of the origins of man is as unfinished and as off the mark as was the Ptolemaic.
Any idea and model that gets the job done is useful in that regard.
If we are seeking to find truth, to understand the glories and mysteries of creation, if the Creator is not part of the equation, that model is useless.

 

[Rau]

If we are seeking to find truth, to understand the glories and mysteries of creation, if the Creator is not part of the equation, that model is useless.

While I understand your point, the domain of science is the creator’s creation, not the creator or his “mind”. Whether science might usefully draw conclusions about the mind of the creator is, for me at least, an entirely open question, but not something I look to science to do.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I’m having trouble following you. Singling out this part of your post, I need to ask a clarifying question:
Are you claiming that Adam and Eve have NO relation whatsoever in their physiology to any other creature?

No.

That there can be no continuity of DNA, no shared biological ancestor whose genetic traits (and artifacts thereof remaining in our DNA) show any commonality?

No.

The last statement I bolded seems to indicate that you are completely rejecting any form of evolution for the human body?

No.

That the human body MUST have been created “from whole cloth,” so to speak, plopped down in the midst of the rest of the organic world without any relation to it except the fact that its physical composition seems to be similar to other creatures, in body type and organs and such?

No.

Moreover, are you claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that, and is not open at all to any form of evolution contributing to the formation of the human body?

No.

This (from your last post) seems a contradiction to your previous posts, which seemed favorable to some form of biological evolution affecting the composition of the human body, prior to its re-creation into a new kind by the ensoulment of a rational soul in the image and likeness of God.

There is no contradiction.

It would also flat out deny most of medical science and genetics, as if they have no predictive or prescriptive value (and thus a great many therapies really shouldn’t work at all, or “just happen” to work, “despite” being developed from an understanding of studies of and testing on genetically similar creatures, etc.).

There is no problem with medical science.

You would have to completely discard all anthropology and genetic research that has discovered common, inherited markers among hominids and prior ancestors.

I cannot imagine why.

For a brand-spanking-new body dropped into the middle of things would share NO such genetic artifacts with other or prior creatures, especially if you’re going with Abu’s claim of Adam and Eve being “genetically pure.”

If you are referring to pseudogenes, I have no answer.

Well, unless you say that all the vast evidence contrary to the fact (the evidence demonstrating inheritance of genetic artifacts) are either later accretions somehow acquired totally (and conveniently) obscuring the original genetic purity; or you are positing a Deceptive God who merely creates the appearance of such commonalities (or an Overpowering Satan capable of entirely obfuscating God’s work in such a manner, thus casting into doubt all Natural Revolution and utterly hijacking Creation).

I am not aware of all the 21st century scientific terms. If genetic artifacts are pseudogenes, then I see no problems when they are inherited.

Are you asking about published research in peer reviewed journals? If so, there is plenty of published research which modifies the original 1995 paper.

As for original genetic purity, that exists in every conception of a human, who, by definition is both original and individual.

I do not consider the term “Deceptive God” as a respectful reference.

As for commonalities, there could be millions when one considers our material world.

Regarding “an Overpowering Satan capable of entirely obfuscating God’s work”, I wonder what kind of God you are trying to describe.

As for “utterly hijacking Creation”, where would the hijacking take it?

 

[Aloysium]

Re:

In any case, this is a terrible argument. Ptolemy’s geocentrism was widely accepted in part because it fit the religious presuppositions of its adherents, including the Catholic Church.

Ptolemy’s work had an important place when God spoke through the heavens. One could predict where the various important celestial bodies would be, indicating the arrival of an important event (e.g., the Star of Bethlehem).
In terms of discerning meaning, it did its job.
This all went bad, turning into astrology. Where we had found truth, there was now only superstition.
So as our interest in general turned to the workings of nature, a shift occurred in our understanding of these bodies in terms of forces and the behaviour of matter. Copernicus and Galileo fit right in.

The situation now is entirely the converse. All we are seeing when we look out is matter. This is reflected in how we see ourselves. Materialism has replaced superstition as the lie that keeps us from truth. A cognitive cage has been created through the steady indoctrination in the schools and the media, that science can provide ultimate truth. It can, as in the case of the Big Bang, provide support for the revelation of creation. In terms of our origins, it has, as yet, failed to do the same; for this and other reasons, I take “facts” about what is human with a grain of salt.

 

[grannymh]

Please allow me to explain that the Catholic Church looks first at the eternal goal of human nature which is eternal joy in heaven. This does not mean that the Church excludes the material world. By Divine Revelation, the Church has to consider both the immortal soul and the decomposing anatomy. (*CCC,*355)

I definitely do not dismiss science. I look at its reality. Since we live in the 21st century and not in the 1940-50’s, it is important that we update our knowledge of natural science – especially in the areas where it intersects with Catholic doctrines.

In natural science, the very first propagation of the human species would not refer to two single hominins, because archaic genes (regardless of speciation) are described as existing in common ancestor populations. Mixed populations diverge; for example the Homo/Pan split. This theory assumes that an “eventual” population is responsible for the “eventual” actual first population of humans aka polygenism.

However, Genesis, first three chapters, does not describe a first population in the Garden at the beginning of human history. Even the literary structure demonstrates a sharp shift between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26. While the Genesis writer observed that tribes, etc. (populations) are the norm for humankind, he deliberately described humankind’s arrival as a single original fully-complete individual person, from God’s creative power and not from the power of a population. (Genesis 1: 26-27; Genesis 2: 7-8). Therefore, the first generation of human children did not have progenitors in addition to Adam and his spouse Eve who shared Adam’s singular nature, aka monogenism.

Seriously, we should be amazed that the non-scientist Genesis author found a way to describe the natural science aspect of our nature and the spiritual image of our Maker in Genesis 2: 7. When it comes to human nature per se, the Catholic Church thinks in terms of *both *spiritual and material worlds especially when natural science intersects with Catholic Doctrines.

I admit I was a tad creative when I used “population” influences in post 325. I was thinking about inheritance of certain features. A person’s genetic makeup could have the influence of their parent’s ancestral relatives; for example, red hair can pop up unexpectedly. Scientifically, we could say that the red-haired kid descended from some red-haired ancestor who bred with a blond-haired ancestor. The breeding of the two produced descendants with blond hair and years (more breeding) later there was a descendant kid with red hair.

On the other hand, Catholicism goes back to one first human and his spouse whose genetics would also be transmitted to their children and so on. Because they did not descend from multiple sources (polygenism), children of Adam and Eve (monogenism) would simply transmit their own genetics which would normally adapt or modify as humans married and migrated.

Because of the scientific (inductive) method, assumptions are used to figure out what happened to genes millions of years going backwards; therefore, the existence of two sole parents of humankind procreating in the midst of diverse living beings is a strong possibility.

God’s Divine Revelation says that the scientific possibility is reality.

At this point, one could deny Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church. Since at this point, I am not verifying the existence of God, readers are on their own when it comes to God’s Divine Revelation and the Catholic Church.

 

[Arandur]

It is my understanding, and I’m certainly open to correction on this point, that incest is prohibited due to the genetic defects associated with it in the offspring of such a union.

Given that bans on incest predate understanding of genetics, and often include ideas of consanguinity created by in-law relations (where genetics is not a factor), I think that one must consider that there could be other reasons for incest bans, even primary reasons. I would propose that those reasons are the very reasons we feel that it is wrong–close family relations (parent-child, sibling, first cousin, uncle-nice, etc.) are too familiar. Those family bonds are not meant to be exploited by either party in a predatory marriage arrangement (remember that most marriages throughout human history were arranged), nor violate trust bonds, nor do anything that might otherwise corrupt the intended, wholesome, supportive, unitive close family structure.

I will grant that millenia-old bans contribute to our cultural aversion to incest, but I would submit that a good part of that aversion is that, just by the very nature of the family, we know that such a thing is improper, even abhorrently so. We feel that it is a corruption of what should be family bonds that are entirely non-sexual. This instinct, I argue, is truthful, and not just an emotion derived from such ancient cultural bans.

Yet for some reason, most people seem to discard that aspect entirely, because it’s easier, in our modern minds, to link it with a practical reason (genetics).

I submit that incest is and has always been wrong more for the above reasons than for matters of genetics. If what I am arguing is any part of what makes incest a sin (and surely it must, because ever since Christ pointed out the problem with old Mosaic impurity laws, we know that what may be materially unwise–like uncleanliness–is not the cause of sin, but the intent of a man to violate a right relationship, whether with God, man, or Creation), then incest during the very first days of humanity would also have borne this same improper use of familial bonds and thus been sin.

That’s why I struggle with the idea of a dispensation for incest (well, that and the only Scriptural discussions of the topic never involves a dispensation, but always a ban), and find this other method more plausible and palatable.

I would suggest that this distinction (between biological and theological humans) is keen, and that it is likely that both incest and interbreeding between biological and theological humans occurred during the years after the fall, and that incestuous unions would not have been prohibited in God’s original plan.

Yes, I suspect both occurred–we have strong physical evidence through genetics to suggest the interbreeding, and sin, in any case, would have resulted in incest, whether it was allowed or not. Whether either (or which one) was permitted by God is less clear, and to me it would seem that if one were permitted, the other is not so different as for it to be unthinkable that it was permitted (in other words, if you think incest was permitted, why not interbreeding with biological humans?). I lean away from the incest option, though, as discussed.