Another difficulty of theistic evolution

[Marocchino]

Catechism 390:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The Catechism affirms that the fall of Adam and Eve was a historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man. For Catholics who espouse theistic evolution, how do you reconcile the evolutionary timescale, which suggests that man has existed for over 100 thousand years, with the Genesis genealogies, which, even if they contain some gaps, cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale?

 

[edwest2]

It is unclear that Adam and Eve evolved. The evolutionary time scale is speculative. Since science, supposedly, cannot comment on supernatural events, whereas the Catholic Church can, we are told by the Church that Adam and Eve are two individuals and the parents of all human beings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marocchino]

Thanks, Ed. I understand your position and it is entirely consistent with what the Church teaches and what Scripture asserts. I am more interested in learning how proponents of TE attempt to explain the difficulties that I propose.

But feel free to join me in evaluating their arguments.

 

[Orogeny]

Catechism 390:

The Catechism affirms that the fall of Adam and Eve was a historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man. For Catholics who espouse theistic evolution, how do you reconcile the evolutionary timescale, which suggests that man has existed for over 100 thousand years, with the Genesis genealogies, which, even if they contain some gaps, cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale?

The Catechism is clear that the story of the fall uses figurative language to describe an actual event. It does not say when that happened. As you noted, you cannot use geneologies to date that event.

Peace

Tim

 

[Marocchino]

As you noted, you cannot use geneologies to date that event.

I said that the Genesis genealogies cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale.

 

[Orogeny]

I said that the Genesis genealogies cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale.

Right. And then you posed the question as to how those of us who accept some form of theistic evolution reconcile the scientific dates with the genealogies. If you agree that the genealogies cannot be used to date the event, then your question is no longer valid.

Peace

Tim

 

[Marocchino]

If you agree that the genealogies cannot be used to date the event, then your question is no longer valid.

The genealogies can be used to date the event to at a maximum of about 15 thousand years ago. Can you stretch the timeline further without doing violence to the text?

 

[Orogeny]

The genealogies can be used to date the event to at a maximum of about 15 thousand years ago. Can you stretch the timeline further without doing violence to the text?

Genealogies are not a valid way to date the event. You can evaluate them any way you want, but you are not using a valid method. I don’t have to reconcile anything with those genealogies.

Peace

Tim

 

[Marocchino]

Genealogies are not a valid way to date the event.

Why not?

 

[cpayne]

Logically, at some point in time there were a first male and female Homo sapiens couple. Why is that a problem for theistic evolution?

 

[VociMike]

Two questions seem appropriate:

• Do you have particular knowledge when the first creatures received human souls?
• How exactly can the geneologies be understood? Does “begat” only ever mean “father of” and never anything more general like “ancestor of”? This question must be answered using knowledge of the original languages, of course.

 

[Marocchino]

Logically, at some point in time there were a first male and female Homo sapiens couple.

Evolutionists speak in terms of evolving populations – not the sudden emergence of a first couple.

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

read this article, it’s quite interesting:

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504&page=1

 

[Marocchino]

Do you have particular knowledge when the first creatures received human souls?

I don’t. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first two humans (unless monogenism has been abandoned) and Scripture implies that they did not exist as long as 100 or 200 thousand years ago, which is how long ago evolutionists place the emergence of the human species.

How exactly can the geneologies be understood? Does “begat” only ever mean “father of” and never anything more general like “ancestor of”? This question must be answered using knowledge of the original languages, of course.

From what I have read begat can mean “ancestor of”, which is why I said that there may be numerous gaps in the genealogies. But are there enough gaps to stretch the timescale to 100 or 200 thousand years?

 

[Namesake]

Evolutionists speak in terms of evolving populations – not the sudden emergence of a first couple.

That isn’t quite right. Biologists generally don’t speak in terms of populations when evolution is discussed. That’s because genes are the fundamental unit of evolutionary change. Populations don’t evolve but individuals do evolve.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Catechism affirms that the fall of Adam and Eve was a historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man. For Catholics who espouse theistic evolution, how do you reconcile the evolutionary timescale, which suggests that man has existed for over 100 thousand years, with the Genesis genealogies, which, even if they contain some gaps, cannot be stretched to fit the evolutionary timescale?

We don’t know when God made our first parents, but I’m sure at some point science will tell us when our parents came into the world. That is, if their bones or traces of bones are still around.

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

That’s because genes are the fundamental unit of evolutionary change. Populations don’t evolve but individuals do evolve.

Err…Populations evolve…natural selection works on individuals…

If an individual ‘evolves’ (i.e. mutates), it doesnt mean that its genes will be passed on…especially if it is in a large community, where the gene can easily be hidden. The gene can be passed on only if it means a better survival for the species, or is in a small community. Good example would be people at Pingelap Atoll. Source

wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_a_population_evolve_but_an_individual_can_not

 

[cazayoux]

Does “begat” only ever mean “father of” and never anything more general like “ancestor of”? This question must be answered using knowledge of the original languages, of course.

‘begat’ would mean ‘proceeding from’.

**Proverbs 8:22 **(God regarding ‘wisdom’)
"The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

Obviously there hasn’t been a point where God was without Wisdom. In the proverb, ‘begot’ means ‘proceeding from’. This same definition applies to John 3:16.

John 3:16 (God regarding Jesus)
… he gave his only begotten son

as we state in the creed ‘begotten, not made’.

Using the genealogies alone would not be sufficient as it is unlikely that every ancestor in the lineage is listed.
To say ‘this guy’ was begat by ‘that guy’ might leave out generations between them.

michel

 

[Marocchino]

Using the genealogies alone would not be sufficient as it is unlikely that every ancestor in the lineage is listed.
To say ‘this guy’ was begat by ‘that guy’ might leave out generations between them.

My point is that not enough generations could have been left out to stretch the timeline back to 100 or 200 thousand years – the date of the evolutionary timeline for the emergence of human beings.

 

[cazayoux]

My point is that not enough generations could have been left out to stretch the timeline back to 100 or 200 thousand years – the date of the evolutionary timeline for the emergence of human beings.

My point seems to have been missed. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

My point is that some (incorrectly) look at the genealogical lists and think it is complete.
‘Bob begat Bill’ doesn’t necessarily mean Bob is Bill’s father. There could be multiple generations between these two.
‘Begat’ in this sense only means that Bill proceeds from Bob, without designation of how closely they are related.

michel