Can I stay Catholic and not believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[Gorgias]

So the genes they have in common do not indicate mating.

Not by the individuals themselves, no. Rather, by their ancestors.

I have only seen the argument that there were either common genes, common physical traits, or that there is evidence that they shared a similar habitat range and so they “likely would have mated.” Which doesn’t follow. I went to college with plenty of attractive members of my same species of opposite gender, and it does not follow that I then “likely would have mated.”

LOL!

No, but their argument doesn’t have to do with a particular set of individuals mating, as yours does.

Their argument points to other considerations. After all, the alternative is that modern humans evolved from Neandertals, and the DNA evidence does not tend to support that theory.

then we have to say common DNA with fruit flies (60%) means we mated with this at some point, quite frequently. Even more so mice—90% shared genetic code!

Except the rest of the model demonstrates that the divergence between fruit flies and us or mice and us happened way up the chain, whereas there’s not that evidence for human / Neandertal divergence.

And yes, we diverged from the fruit fly way, WAY up the evolutionary chain according to all evolutionary theories—and yet share 60% of our genes. Still. With no mating.

You’re looking at cause and effect, then, and saying “so what?”…?!?

As far as having to have mates to share DNA—apply Ockham’s Razor. The theory that most simply explains the observation is likely to be the best one.

Yes. Neandertals and humans co-existed, and in contact with each other. You know what the most simple explanation is, don’t you (even if it doesn’t hold with your undergrad experience)?

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

The ensouled human theory makes some sense to me.

 

[Teek]

I don’t think God cares how you think he created mankind, it just matters that you believe he did.

That is an important point.

However, the concern is not simply whether it is important to God what we believe about how He created mankind, but that it is important for us because of all of the conclusions that follow from how we believe we were created. What do we believe about the fall and how sin entered the world? Life, death, judgement, Heaven and Hell—ALL are dramatically altered if deception is allowed to enter the narrative.

If we get confused about where we came from, we also lose clarity on where we are heading.

There is an objective truth about the created world. God communicated it to us because it is important for us to know for our good, not because it is important to him that we know. The Church exists to protect and pass on unchanged all that God has taught us.

There are a lot of mysteries that we can approach and still not fully comprehend. Man and women in the beginning is one of them. So we preserve what we can approach, without going beyond into what we do not know. The Church doesn’t operate in speculative science. The Church is about Truth.

Having two original parents doesn’t make sense. But neither does any other theory for how we managed to find ourselves with souls in need of Salvation. Mankind came up with all sorts of myths and theories and deities to try to explain it. This is the explanation God gave us.

We ought to tread very lightly when thinking that we know better than God. Oh that sounded so presumptuous! Sorry! I will explain.

Also remember that there is a deceiver who doesn’t care how we do it, he just wants us to get it wrong.

If I am wrong for giving my assent of faith to the teaching that Adam and Eve are our literal first parents, what happens, worst case scenario? I might look silly in a theological conversation about hominids.

But if I deny it, what happens, worst case scenario? I begin to question good and evil—wouldn’t that just be an expression, like Adam and Eve are an expression for all that mankind stuff from the beginning? Doesn’t sin become blurred into a sort of natural development? Doesn’t it all become arbitrary and ill-defined?

What did Jesus come to save us from? He becomes a philosopher about being good people and living a better way, rather than a Savior that came to wrench us from the jaws of eternal damnation so that we can live an eternity of joy with Him in heaven, by pouring out his very blood, his life, so that we might be forgiven!

So it is very important to US that we understand our situation. God cared enough to communicate it to us—he wants us to know because he cares how we respond to our situation. That is why He died for us.

Slurring the story of our origin does not serve us well because of our destination.

 

[Teek]

But in essence, to say God’s explanation doesn’t make sense is not surprising. Does the Incarnation make sense? The Trinity? The Eucharist? The intelligence and goodness of my children even though I am their parent? None of these makes SENSE. That does not make them untrue.

I agree that Adam and Eve don’t make sense biologically. They sure do theologically.

 

[Teek]

You know what the most simple explanation is, don’t you (even if it doesn’t hold with your undergrad experience)?

HAHAHAHA!!!

I need to a better job articulating.

I have been humbled. Out of stubborn pride I must say in my defense that I’m not writing a thesis here, just having fun with an idea.

But I don’t think it is simple to assume that two similar species in the same habitat must necessarily mate. The common porpoise and the bottle nosed dolphin don’t. Large mouth bass and small mouth bass. Paper wasps and mud daubers. And a million other examples. Where are the examples of ones that do, that are so obvious that we would assume two divergent branches of theoretical humans must necessarily do so?

 

[Teek]

“I have only seen the argument that there were either common genes, common physical traits, or that there is evidence that they shared a similar habitat range and so they “likely would have mated.” Which doesn’t follow. I went to college with plenty of attractive members of my same species of opposite gender, and it does not follow that I then “likely would have mated.””

LOL!

No, but their argument doesn’t have to do with a particular set of individuals mating, as yours does.

Ha! Right, mine does.

But our thought experiment does, too. The two ensouled humans—what would they and their progeny do in a population of hominids. It’s almost a “last man on earth” theory, only it is a “first man on earth” theory.

 

[po18guy]

The thread title.

 

[Teek]

I think our premises are different. I am assuming that the insertion of a soul makes a fundamentally enormous difference.

You know, gorillas are super intelligent and complex and community oriented. But you don’t think, “well, she IS a fine specimen of gorilla…maybe I’ll give it a go.” Even if you are lonely.

But here we are talking about genetically the same species, one without a soul and one with.

I can’t imagine if a human was sitting next to me without a soul, looking the same, but with no faculties of the soul. Would that be an acceptable alternative? No fit helper, as Genesis says.

I can’t step out of my own predjudiced view (there HAS to be a soul or the game is off). And that is not my only criteria. For the record.

So I have to go back to animal behavior and biological sciences. Animals, without the faculties of a soul, don’t interbreed with even similar species.

Would a Labrador retriever with a soul mate with a Labrador retriever without a soul? Next time if see a talking dog I’ll ask. Har har.

I think I reached the end of my ability to hold on to a thread of objectivity when I hit this question. I’m at the “No they wouldn’t!” “Yes, they would!” level of arguing now.

And no they would NOT!

 

[Gorgias]

You know, gorillas are super intelligent and complex and community oriented. But you don’t think, “well, she IS a fine specimen of gorilla…maybe I’ll give it a go.” Even if you are lonely.

But here we are talking about genetically the same species, one without a soul and one with.

I can’t imagine if a human was sitting next to me without a soul, looking the same, but with no faculties of the soul. Would that be an acceptable alternative? No fit helper, as Genesis says.

Ahh, but the Bible says that this is exactly what Cain and Seth did, no? In Genesis 4:16, he high-tails it out of there, settles in Nod, and gets a wife there (and raises a family). In Genesis 4:26, Seth marries and starts a family. This, by the way, is the “uncomfortable fact” in the Bible narrative for those who wish a more literalistic interpretation: where did all these other people come from, with whom our (named & identified) characters married and raised families? Some have claimed that the Bible lists only some, but not all, of Eve’s children… and thus suggest that incest is the answer to the problem we’ve identified (whether between siblings or between parent and children). That’s not a particularly satisfying answer, either…

Would a Labrador retriever with a soul mate with a Labrador retriever without a soul?

I think there’s an example in the animal kingdom that allows for the answer ‘yes’, although propriety will prevent me from mentioning it here.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Actually while this post has diverged a bit, I would allow it , since I think I got a satisfying answer. Its not too off topic though as it is still talking about the ensoulment theory which is part of my thread

 

[Teek]

Ahh, but the Bible says that this is exactly what Cain and Seth did, no? In Genesis 4:16, he high-tails it out of there, settles in Nod, and gets a wife there (and raises a family). In Genesis 4:26, Seth marries and starts a family. This, by the way, is the “uncomfortable fact” in the Bible narrative for those who wish a more literalistic interpretation: where did all these other people come from, with whom our (named & identified) characters married and raised families?

I was hoping we wouldn’t go there.

People always balk at this one.

Sister or niece.

There were no laws against incest. There were a lot of f1 progeny of the first humans. And a lot of f2.

Catholic Study Bible

Genesis 5:3-8

3 When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 6When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of E’nosh.
7 7Seth lived after the birth of E’nosh eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
8 8Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

But, you might say, ew, yuck, mutations.

Right. Which is when the two hominids from many breaks down.

For us to worry about this, they would have had to already been subject to genetic mutations. But the fall had not happened! How was evolution going on, one might wonder? There is no survival of the fittest when all of Creation is in harmony. No evolutionary pressure. Evolutionary adaptations occur due to damage to DNA that is accidentally advantageous. Damage to DNA doesn’t happen in the original state of man, before the fall. The fall can’t happen without the soul and free will. There can’t be a theory that humans evolved to a pleasing point and then God gave them souls. And then they fell.

This is where the Creation of Adam and Eve, in original harmony in the Garden, not only makes sense but is necessary. In the Garden with their souls, they fell. And then evolution began.

But not with them quite yet. Genetically perfect (original justice/harmony). Takes a LOOOOONG time for mutations to arise. So it isn’t a problem if Adam and Eve give rise to the entire human race. Scoff at the mitochondrial proof of a common mother all you want. It is there.

Incest became an issue later, when genetic imperfections arose now that humans were subject to the disharmony of the created world.

It’s still fun to play with the theories.

God just does it better than we do. He always ends up right.

 

[edwest211]

That answer is incomplete and not compatible with Divine revelation.

Humani Generis -

"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.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

 

[edwest211]

UH… God can and did raise the dead. He had no crash cart. He called out to Lazarus who walked out of the grave. How did Pope John Paul II become a saint? Miracles from God. Miracles that are just as real as any science. Man has a lot to learn but he will never be God.

 

[edwest211]

We are taught by the Church about souls. The idea that God picked two random almost humans and dropped souls into them cannot be proved. It is a story - nothing more.

 

[Teek]

I think there’s an example in the animal kingdom that allows for the answer ‘yes’, although propriety will prevent me from mentioning it here.

God bless you! I will just believe you and concede the point. Argument withdrawn.

I thought you’d say an absence of positive proof is not proof of the negative.

Either way…you “win” that round.

 

[Teek]

UH… God can and did raise the dead. He had no crash cart. He called out to Lazarus who walked out of the grave. How did Pope John Paul II become a saint? Miracles from God. Miracles that are just as real as any science. Man has a lot to learn but he will never be God.

Uh-oh. I agree with all of that. What did I say poorly enough to communicate otherwise? I need to fix that.

I meant that all of the most beautiful doctrine of the faith hit a point where people say “How can this be?” and they require faith.

Now if you are saying my kids being good people are a miracle from God in spite of me—agreed. Direct act of God. But I prayed to too many Saints and saints about it, so we can’t use it to forward anyone’s cause for canonization.

If you don’t mind, please read my post again and tell me where I lost coherency so I can fix it. Thank you!

 

[Teek]

“And yes, we diverged from the fruit fly way, WAY up the evolutionary chain according to all evolutionary theories—and yet share 60% of our genes. Still. With no mating.”

You’re looking at cause and effect, then, and saying “so what?”…?!?

Well, fruit flies branch off super early. The other branches are “relatively” recent. But not so recent that the branching itself cannot explain the differences or exclude the similarities. I am trying clumsily to say: if fruit flies branched off that long ago and can be that similar, then it does not require a later interbreeding to explain similarities.

I’m not looking at cause and effect and saying “so what.” I’m still looking at my theoretical cause and saying, “it still works and is sufficient to explain the data, though it is not necessarily the only explanation, or even the right one. But it is not excluded.”

Also, parallel adaptations (and the genetic reprogramming that accompanies them) do not necessarily have to arise from a common ancestor. Common evolutionary pressure, or accidental coincidence can explain them as well. In theory. I’m not saying it is probable. But they are not excluded either—they are possible.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Then explain how the facts don’t fit the scriptures?
We know (not 100% but its pretty high up there) that humans never were present in a pair of 2 thanks to modern day genetics and the evolutionary theory. (And no I am not going to debate if evolution is true, I keep saying this but some people decide to do it anyway)

 

[Gorgias]

Sister or niece.

Not “sister or niece”. You’d have to be ok with “mother/son”.

There were no laws against incest. There were a lot of f1 progeny of the first humans. And a lot of f2.

If I recall correctly, incest between parent and child contravenes the divine law, not the merely ecclesiastical law. So, it’s not a matter of whether there was any human law against it at that point…

But, you might say, ew, yuck, mutations.

Actually, that’s not my objection. Mine is that it goes against God’s eternal law.

Right. Which is when the two hominids from many breaks down.

“Two from many”? Do you mean “many from two”?

For us to worry about this, they would have had to already been subject to genetic mutations. But the fall had not happened!

It’s immaterial at this point, I’d guess, but… the record of childbearing among ‘true human beings’ in the Bible begins after the fall.

Damage to DNA doesn’t happen in the original state of man, before the fall. The fall can’t happen without the soul and free will.

Right. And Adam and Eve aren’t recorded as having had children until after the fall.

There can’t be a theory that humans evolved to a pleasing point and then God gave them souls. And then they fell.

Interesting. How so?

This is where the Creation of Adam and Eve, in original harmony in the Garden, not only makes sense but is necessary. In the Garden with their souls, they fell. And then evolution began.

That would be problematic. You’re positing that an end product (modern humans) existed prior to evolution, but were already exhibiting the genetic results of evolution?

Scoff at the mitochondrial proof of a common mother all you want. It is there.

I don’t scoff at it – but I do know that many, many people misinterpret what it means…

 

[Gorgias]

That answer is incomplete and not compatible with Divine revelation.

You realize that the ‘conjecture’ we’re discussing is precisely constructed so as not to stand against Humani generis’s prohibition against polygenism, don’t you?