Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

  • Thread starter Thread starter martinez7251
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t impugn the data (observed facts, apart from interpretations of them) just because a hypothesis is wrong. That genetic evidence (among much else) indicates certain things, like a continuum of inheritance among man from the earliest hominids to homo sapiens sapiens, should not be something easily discarded.

My point (likely very deficient in how I stated it) was that I don’t think that we are free to dismiss observed data about nature. We will always struggle to understand and describe what we observe, and our hypotheses and theories are always subject to change, but the evidence itself must be dealt with. We can re-examine and question it, but to ignore it is not an option. To attack inconvenient or unpalatable theories while refusing to engage in an analysis of the data (rather than remaining silent if we don’t have the expertise, time, etc. to address the data in some fashion) would be dishonest, and a disservice to the truth.

This is what bothers me about many people on both extremes of the debate. Evolutionists often reject data about the existence of the immaterial, and often dismiss weaknesses in their theories (like the as-yet insufficient explanations for the introduction of constructive, useful physical changes). Creationists often seem to refuse to address the strong evidence for continuous genetic descent, and similar difficulties.

Re: your example of geocentrism, it was known that this theory had deficiencies; the data illustrating those was not ignored. Eventually, heliocentrism was offered. Both theories were engaged by Faith. And that’s the key. Faith, if it is to be strengthened by its complementary mate, Reason, must engage the data and the theories, and not dismiss them, but see if they are workable.

The Church has engaged evolution. It so far finds options that are not objectionable to Faith. It is those options that warrant further exploration. The article that I re-referenced is just such exploration, and charts a path that accommodates both the data from science and the knowledge from faith.

**Grannymh, ** I’m sorry if I offended. It was not my intend to be disrespectful. I am still confused, however.

Can I just ask you this: What do you think happened? What’s your best guess (or leading guesses) as to the physical origin/formation of the human body?

(We agree on the special creation of the human soul, which no form of evolution had any part in. And of course we agree on God as Creator and Designer, the special place of humans and their status as children in the image and likeness of God, quite different from all other organisms, etc.)

Please don’t assume that I know or should know what you mean if you make reference to Genesis, because we obviously have a disagreement in interpretation somewhere (and I see no clearly-set Church doctrine on our areas of disagreement that would settle them).

You said that you’re not rejecting some kind of evolutionary mechanism for the generation of the human body, nor many of the other things that I mentioned. So I’d like to know what you do think happened, with particular emphasis on when you deem most likely, and how you would explain such things as the various hominid/hominin species and the apparent genetic relation among them.

This would really help me understand much that is in your posts, I think, to know where you’re coming from.

Thank you.
 
Arandur said:
I wouldn’t impugn the data (observed facts, apart from interpretations of them) just because a hypothesis is wrong. That genetic evidence (among much else) indicates certain things, like a continuum of inheritance among man from the earliest hominids to homo sapiens sapiens, should not be something easily discarded.

My point (likely very deficient in how I stated it) was that I don’t think that we are free to dismiss observed data about nature. We will always struggle to understand and describe what we observe, and our hypotheses and theories are always subject to change, but the evidence itself must be dealt with. We can re-examine and question it, but to ignore it is not an option. To attack inconvenient or unpalatable theories while refusing to engage in an analysis of the data (rather than remaining silent if we don’t have the expertise, time, etc. to address the data in some fashion) would be dishonest, and a disservice to the truth.

This is what bothers me about many people on both extremes of the debate. Evolutionists often reject data about the existence of the immaterial, and often dismiss weaknesses in their theories (like the as-yet insufficient explanations for the introduction of constructive, useful physical changes). Creationists often seem to refuse to address the strong evidence for continuous genetic descent, and similar difficulties.

Re: your example of geocentrism, it was known that this theory had deficiencies; the data illustrating those was not ignored. Eventually, heliocentrism was offered. Both theories were engaged by Faith. And that’s the key. Faith, if it is to be strengthened by its complementary mate, Reason, must engage the data and the theories, and not dismiss them, but see if they are workable.

The Church has engaged evolution. It so far finds options that are not objectionable to Faith. It is those options that warrant further exploration. The article that I re-referenced is just such exploration, and charts a path that accommodates both the data from science and the knowledge from faith. . .
Click to expand...
This is not a science forum. You know what faith teaches. Accept it or reject it; it is your choice. It has been revealed that there were two original parents.

Now one could look at the data (which is always determined by an underlying theoretical system) searching for where and when these founders existed or continue believing that scientific Homo sapiens = theologically defined man, or whatever genetic, moral or other factors are believed to preclude the existence of two original parents.

Since God maintains the universe; since from the depths of the macrocosm to the endless fields of galaxies that are the macrocosm, over billions of years, it is He who brings this all into being, I choose to believe that however He did this, He created man as is revealed: Adam and Eve.
 
Aloysium said:
This is not a science forum. You know what faith teaches. Accept it or reject it; it is your choice. It has been revealed that there were two original parents.

Now one could look at the data (which is always determined by an underlying theoretical system) searching for where and when these founders existed or continue believing that scientific Homo sapiens = theologically defined man, or whatever genetic, moral or other factors are believed to preclude the existence of two original parents.

Since God maintains the universe; since from the depths of the macrocosm to the endless fields of galaxies that are the macrocosm, over billions of years, it is He who brings this all into being, I choose to believe that however He did this, He created man as is revealed: Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Me too, God Bless, memaw
 
Incest?

To those people who know better than God

how to create humankind…

May I gently suggest that you read Genesis 1: 26-28 with all the reverence due to the Almighty Creator.

Incest?
If you, who know so much more than God, were honest about your position as creature, you would actually come to know the glory of created humanity as evinced in the first two human persons.

Incest?
It is time that you, who hide behind natural science, open your eyes to the Creator Who calls you to eternal joy.
 
Arandur said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.
 
Arandur said:
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.
Click to expand...
In an attempt to understand this issue more thoroughly, I have spent time researching it. As a result, I would like to amend my opinion on the point of incest.

The CCC defines incest this way:

2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.180 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father’s wife… In the name of the Lord Jesus … you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh…"181 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

As a matter of reference, the current degree of prohibition is the fourth. A further point to note is that intimate relations between relatives within the fourth degree is incest whether in or out of marriage. This is because if a couple is married and they are within the fourth degree, their marriage is rendered illicit, thus making the act one of adultery.

This is an important point because all incestuous acts, then, are firstly adulterous, but carry a special shame due to the fact of consanguinity or affinity. Further to this, if a marriage is deemed to be licit (and currently that can only occur if the degree of closeness is beyond the fourth), then the degree of closeness becomes irrelevant to the question of incest, because the act of intercourse would be a valid and good act between a husband and his wife, and would not be classed as incest.

This must be understood, because if the law regarding the degree of prohibition changes, then some sets of intimate relations would be classed incestuous that once weren’t, or some sets would no longer be classed incestuous that once were. This has happened several times in the past, with the degree of prohibition being as wide as the seventh at one time.

A distinction must be made, however, regarding this question. No intimate relations from the Direct Line can ever be considered non-prohibitive. The Direct Line refers to relationships of ancestry. That is to say, parent-child relationships, grandparent-grandchild relationships, great-grandparent-great-grandchild relationships, etc. These relationships will always be considered incestuous because marriage between such partners can never be licit, or even valid. This is due to the fact of the respect relationship that exists here, whereby one has authority and position, by virtue of the relationship, over the other. In a marital union, the relationship is that of coequals. Therefore, the Direct Line relationship is unfit for marital union.

However, parallel consanguinity or affinity (brother-sister, cousins, etc), may be licit given the state of the current law. The definition from the CCC references Leviticus 18 with regard to the degree of prohibition. However, one should note that in Leviticus 18, intimate relations with one’s brother’s wife was illicit and considered incest by affinity. Yet, in the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy, it is the duty for the brother of a deceased husband to take his brother’s wife as his own. This seems contradictory, until you realize that this is a law that can change over time, and has done so several times both in OT history, as well as in our own Church history.

All of this is important to understanding how Adam and Eve’s children may have married one another and it was considered okay. This is because in that period of history, there wasn’t a ban on marriage between close relations to any degree (except of course for Direct Line relationships). Thus, their children didn’t actually engage in incest as defined by the Church. It was not a gravely sinful act because their marriages were licit. It wasn’t until later, when bans were put in place on certain degrees of closeness that parallel consanguinity and/or affinity became matters of marital incest.

Thus, I change my answer from before. The children of Adam and Eve did not engage in incest (except where they may have had intercourse with each other outside of marriage, which is entirely a possibility). Cain’s marriage to his wife, for example, wasn’t an incestuous marriage because it was valid and licit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top