Catholics and Evolution

[Cari]

Ok, my backing for my previous statements:
From Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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” (CCC 390).

Ok, so as Catholics we can’t be faithful to the Magisterium and believe that Adam and Eve was a fictional story.
Now on to that pesky Discovery Channel documentary…

Cheers,
Cari

 

[Atemi]

The Catholic Church does not send “mixed messages.” The Catholic Church proposes the Truth to the world it is up to individuals to embrace the Truth and that is where you will find the problem.

Peace,
David

Telling Catholic kids that evolution is true and that the Genesis account if man is true is indeed a mixed message, IMV.

My opinion doesn’t matter anyway. These kids will tell you themselves as they leave for college as agnostics who have lost all faith.

All I am doing is poiting out a fire that is burning strongly in not only Catholics schools, but many Christians schools everywhere.

Ignoring this reality in the Catholic schools is only to the peril of the Catholic youth.

 

[Atemi]

I don’t see the problem with this. It simply isn’t possible for the entire human race to have decended from two people.

And this is exactly the problem I am trying to highlight here in this thread.

I am sure you are a decently catechised Catholic too. These kids do not believe we descended from a literal Adam and Eve either. These kids are taught in the Catholic High School that they evolved.

There cannot be a Second Adam if there was not a first Adam.

 

[Dauphin]

And this is exactly the problem I am trying to highlight here in this thread.

I am sure you are a decently catechised Catholic too. These kids do not believe we descended from a literal Adam and Eve either. These kids are taught in the Catholic High School that they evolved.

There cannot be a Second Adam if there was not a first Adam.

Evolution is a reality. I will not reject reality. Are you saying that evolutionary theory is incorrect?

I know for a fact that it cannot be incorrect, any more than the theory of gravity can be incorrect. I am forced into an allegorical understanding of Genesis because it is the only interpretation which corresponds to reality.

If I were to affirm that the human race decended from two people, I would be rejecting a scientific truth. I refuse to believe that God would make his word incompatible with science, which is why I must interpret Genesis allegorically. This doesn’t make Genesis any less true; it just means that its truth is much more fundamental that any truth science can reveal. I believe Genesis uses figurative language to describe a real event which caused original sin.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

So Adam and Eve are symbolic but the Eucharist is not symbolic??

your all kidding . . . .

and we descended from apes

your not all kidding . . . .

I am amazed, I couldnt have called this one.

 

[Dauphin]

So Adam and Eve are symbolic but the Eucharist is not symbolic??

your all kidding . . . .

and we descended from apes

your not all kidding . . . .

I am amazed, I couldnt have called this one.

I honestly don’t have a very good answer. I’m not some sort of theologian. I’m trying not to get over my head and start pontificating on things I don’t know the first thing about, but this is the best answer I have:

1. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory which describes a truth which is more fundamental than evolutionary biology. The fact that Genesis is allegorical in nature does not make it any less true.
2. The Eucharist is most certainly not symbolic.
3. Human beings do indeed have a common ancestor with modern apes. This is an established scientific reality.

 

[Atemi]

Evolution is a reality. I will not reject reality. Are you saying that evolutionary theory is incorrect?

First of all, evolutionary theory is in tatters right now and it is not reality.

I know for a fact that it cannot be incorrect, any more than the theory of gravity can be incorrect.

You do not know this for a fact. You believe it to be true.

If I were to affirm that the human race decended from two people, I would be rejecting a scientific truth.

But by not affirming that the human race descended from two people you reject the Church’s teaching on the subject and the testimony of God Himself.

Your position is why many Catholic youths are walking away from faith. Because of their upbringing, they ask: If the Scriptures are wrong about Adam, then why can’t they be wrong about Jesus?

I refuse to believe that God would make his word incompatible with science

Good, because He didn’t. So we don’t need to worry about that.

Did you know most scientists just a few decades ago believed that the Universe was infinite and eternal? (i.e. Carl Sagan)

Did you know that they mocked the idea, as stated in Genesis, that the Universe had a beginning?

It was not “science” they said.

We cannot mistake incredibly fallible and fickle human science for objective reality.

 

[Dauphin]

I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. If you deny the theory of evolution, you deny reality. If anything is crumbling, it’s the absurd case for intelligent design. The theory of evolution is so thoroughly supported that’s it’s no longer necessary for anyone to defend it. It would be like defending the theory of a round earth against an assault from the flat earth society.

I consider all of your words completely worthless at this point (not that you’re worthless, just your thoughts on this matter; it’s not my intent to be uncharitable). I’d be willing to discuss this matter further with someone who accepts reality.

Also, I do not believe that I have rejected any Catholic teaching. If you can point out exactly where the Church infallibly defines that we are the literal descendants of two human beings (a scientific impossibility), please do.

Genesis is true. It uses figurative language (allegory) to describe a fundamental truth about humanity. It cannot be interpreted in a way which contradicts the equally absolute, undeniable, irrefutable, firmly-established truth of the theory of evolution.

 

[Atemi]

I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. If you deny the theory of evolution, you deny reality.

I apologize if my intelligence does not meet your standard.

Actually, you attack my sanity instead.

OK.

If anything is crumbling, it’s the absurd case for intelligent design.

Oh my.

Intelligent design states that the universe and all life was designed by an Intelligence.

Are you Catholic or not? I thought you were for some reason.

If so, you cannot deny that the universe was intelligently designed.

The theory of evolution is so thoroughly supported that’s it’s no longer necessary for anyone to defend it. It would be like defending the theory of a round earth against an assault from the flat earth society.

I consider all of your words completely worthless at this point (not that you’re worthless, just your thoughts on this matter; it’s not my intent to be uncharitable).

First be uncharitable and then simply say you didn’t mean to be uncharitable and everything is OK.

Understood.

I’d be willing to discuss this matter further with someone who accepts reality.

Also, I do not believe that I have rejected any Catholic teaching. If you can point out exactly where the Church infallibly defines that we are the literal descendants of two human beings (a scientific impossibility), please do.

Would you then cease to be a Christian? How deep are you willing to dig in your heels?

I can give you the Word of God on the matter, but I see that you will not even accept that as authoritative.

How about the Catechism?

390 “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”

Here’s a pope:

“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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 37).

What now?

The Catholic Church presently teaches that Adam and Eve were very real people from which all human beings came from.

Now they may change that, but that is what they teach presently…and they are correct.

I am just sitting here wondering why I as a non-Catholic must defend Church teaching on a Catholic forum.

Anyway…

I know you believe the philosophy of evolution very much, but it is never a reason to attack another’s sanity. A moral stance is always superior to a scientific one.

…

 

[rossum]

Wasn’t there some research that claimed humanity was all decended from a common female ancestor? I seem to remember something about that on a Discovery Channel program

This was probably a reference to Mitochondrial Eve. There is also a Y chromosome Adam. Note that they were not contemporaries so they never met each other. These two are not the couple mentioned in Genesis.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If I were to affirm that the human race decended from two people, I would be rejecting a scientific truth.

Looking at this as a non-Christian there is a possible solution.

The lowest proposed minimum human population I have seen was in the range 1,000 to 10,000 about 70,000 years ago (the Toba Bottleneck). There is no evidence for a minimum human population less than that.

What palaeontology cannot tell us is how many humans had souls; souls do not fossilise and souls are not present in DNA sequences. In any past population of physically human apes the number with souls could have been anything from zero to the entire population.

We can take the description in Genesis of God forming man’s body from clay to be an allegory for the evolution of physically human apes. God then chose two of those apes to be given souls: Adam and Eve, the first humans. So far I understand that this is within orthodox Catholic theology.

Of course there is now a problem, where did Mrs Cain and Mrs Seth come from? One solution I have seen proposed is incest: Cain and Seth married their sisters. An alternative is bestiality: there would have been a number of physically human apes around, the other members of the population from which Adam and Eve were chosen. These would have been physically and genetically compatible with Cain and Seth but lacking souls. Cain and Seth could have mated with such unsouled apes and produced offspring. Provided God chose to give those offspring souls they would be fully human, physically and with a soul, and also descended from Adam and Eve. In time the unsouled apes would die out, leaving only the souled descendants of Adam and Eve.

My suggestion does not contradict any scientific results. Others will have to judge whether or not it contradicts theology.

rossum

 

[DanteAlighieri]

For my part, evolution, and most modern science makes a rather compelling case for the origin of the Universe, the Earth and humans. We need to be careful in looking at this though. In the case of the Universe, and in the case of life on Earth, science tells us how they developed from their starting point, they don’t tell us how the starting point got there. They also can’t explain the soul which is created directly by God and did not evolve.

–
Bill

As is my wont, I didn’t read very far into the thread before I found something that prompted me to respond.

The above is a great response, and one with which I agree totally. I took a survey astronomy class at my catholic university years ago, and learning the ins and outs of astrophysics in general and the Big Bang theory in particular really made me think, “Wow, what an amazing God to put all of this in motion!” And that was back in my CINO days!

Truly, the more we learn about the universe, the more awed and humbled we should be. Yes, I am awed and humbled by the idea of God creating man out of earth and breathing life into him, or making the whole shebang in 6 days, but the utter complexity of the universe as we perceive it is mind-boggling, and that understanding gives glory to God.

The same is true of the theory of evolution – I am awed and humbled by the notion that God could bring modern man into existence through a process that takes millenia, and which, on paper, could’ve gone wrong at any point.

Furthermore, let’s look at a logical argument:

1. God gave us the wisdom to perceive His creation and discover things about it.
2. Truths about the universe can be perceived and understood (to some degree or other), or not – there’s no middle ground.
3. Assuming that the universe isn’t deceiving us, scientific study leads us to develop fundamental understandings of how it behaves.
4. These understandings form the basis for conclusions we draw and the jumping-off point for new research – and thereby science builds upon itself.
5. It is illogical to conclude that God created the universe to a) deceive us or b) to stymie our attempts at understanding His creation.

Thus, we can conclude that human science as a whole, and each of the sciences in particular, in that they are based on methodical study and observation, are based on a search for truth within mechanisms that are inherently comprehensible.

In short, God lets us discover things about His creation because he gave it to us to maintain. It makes no sense to accept the basic laws of physics, but to throw out the the Big Bang theory; it also makes no sense to accept the basic laws of biology and biochemistry and genetics, but to discard evolutionary theory.

If these theories are based on truth, it’s because that’s how God wanted it. Why is that difficult to swallow?

Peace,
Dante

 

[mich2]

Looking at this as a non-Christian there is a possible solution.

We can take the description in Genesis of God forming man’s body from clay to be an allegory for the evolution of physically human apes. God then chose two of those apes to be given souls: Adam and Eve, the first humans. So far I understand that this is within orthodox Catholic theology.

That would be a good hypothesis, rossum. Mine, personally is a bit different. The scriptures read :

In the day that the Lord God (7) made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground-then **the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, **and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

. I actually believe that “all forms of Life” was given by God,breathed into Adam, and through Eve, “somehow”, was begotten the first lifeforms that we know and understand as being life, approximately 4 billion years ago .Eve is called the mother of all living (life). She is also named Eve because she “already was” the mother of all living at the time she received her name.She could actually parallel the pagan goddess Mother Earth (Cybele). We know the new Life, given us by Christ, involves not just a new human existance, but also a new creation, implying a new Heaven and a new Earth as well.Therefore, the second story of Genesis, in my opinion, would speak of a spiritual dimention, of which we have no communion with, as of yet. Humans would have been formed on the Sixth Day of the first Genesis account, approximately
200,000 years ago.Such humans would, at a later date, consider the generations of Adam and Eve as being gods and goddesses.
This would also leave room to interpret the great flood as being
real, although again, being a description of the destruction of a spiritual world, lower than the third Heaven (Paradise), but higher than the physical dimention we presently experience ( maybe a 2nd Heaven?).After the destruction of such a higher world, the focus would then be on the world we know and experience.

My suggestion does not contradict any scientific results. Others will have to judge whether or not it contradicts theology.

rossum

I agree that yours is a good hypothesis as well.

Andre

 

[neophyte]

… Do you think that a God driven evolution is plausible for genesis? Or do you reject it entirely, and embrace the more “creationist” viewpoint that evolution is total bunk?

My biggest problems with evolution were the “2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation” and “information entropy” arguments used by creationists, but once I figured out that those arguments are a bunch of bunk I got over it.

I don’t see that the teaching against polygenism is a problem. My understanding is that, on average, about 75% of the genetic variability of a species is transmissable through a single mating pair, and although there can be serious problems with inbreeding there’s no reason to think that they would necessarily cause the human race to die out. God’s certainly capable of taking care of such mundane things.

 

[VociMike]

If I were to affirm that the human race decended from two people, I would be rejecting a scientific truth.

What exactly is the scientific truth that prohibits humanity from beginning with two humans (through evolutionary means)? I simply cannot see it. Scientifically, how many humans was the human race required to have decended from?

I refuse to believe that God would make his word incompatible with science, which is why I must interpret Genesis allegorically.

I completely agree with the first part, but I don’t see how it leads to the second part as the Catholic Church (not the fundamentalists/literalists) interprets Genesis.

Note that, unlike some other questioners here, my questions are not hostile. I come from the same science-doesn’t-(usually)-lie perspective, but that doesn’t translate for me into the conclusions you draw.

 

[clmowry]

Would you kindly provide provide the irrefutable proof for polygenism (and all of its underying assumptions) that has enlightened you to such a point that you are forced to conclude thatany who does not accept it as fact is not worthy of being considered capable of intelligent conversation?

Do you put forth abiogeisis as a fact as well?

Chuck

I refuse to have any further dialogue with you. If you deny the theory of evolution, you deny reality. If anything is crumbling, it’s the absurd case for intelligent design. The theory of evolution is so thoroughly supported that’s it’s no longer necessary for anyone to defend it. It would be like defending the theory of a round earth against an assault from the flat earth society.

I consider all of your words completely worthless at this point (not that you’re worthless, just your thoughts on this matter; it’s not my intent to be uncharitable). I’d be willing to discuss this matter further with someone who accepts reality.

Also, I do not believe that I have rejected any Catholic teaching. If you can point out exactly where the Church infallibly defines that we are the literal descendants of two human beings (a scientific impossibility), please do.

Genesis is true. It uses figurative language (allegory) to describe a fundamental truth about humanity. It cannot be interpreted in a way which contradicts the equally absolute, undeniable, irrefutable, firmly-established truth of the theory of evolution.

 

[Dauphin]

Intelligent design states that the universe and all life was designed by an Intelligence.

Are you Catholic or not? I thought you were for some reason.

If so, you cannot deny that the universe was intelligently designed.

I was referring to a thoroughly debunked ‘scientific’ theory called ‘intelligent design’. It is a flawed theology which is dressed up to look like science. I do not have to accept fake science to accept the book of Genesis.

Would you then cease to be a Christian? How deep are you willing to dig in your heels?

I can give you the Word of God on the matter, but I see that you will not even accept that as authoritative.

How about the Catechism?

390 "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"Here’s a pope:

“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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 37). What now?

The first statement can be interpreted allegorically. The second statement is not an ex cathedra teaching. It is an opinion during a time when much less was known about evolution. Let’s hear the opinion of the only Pope I’ve ever known:

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

*“Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” *

If Pope John Paul II can accept the theory of evolution, I can accept it.

 

[Dauphin]

Would you kindly provide provide the irrefutable proof for polygenism (and all of its underying assumptions) that has enlightened you to such a point that you are forced to conclude thatany who does not accept it as fact is not worthy of being considered capable of intelligent conversation?

Do you put forth abiogeisis as a fact as well?

Chuck

Polygenism is not necessarily true. There are other scientific theories, including the single-origin theory of Darwin. The debate about where exactly humans originated continues. The point is that because the theory of evolution says that the human population on earth was never two, we cannot accept an literal understanding of Genesis.

Call me a heretic, but the truth of Genesis must run deeper than the truth of evolution. Genesis must describe a truth which is more fundamental, which is expressed in figurative language. It’s absurd to contend that Genesis was intended as a scientific document.

 

[rossum]

What exactly is the scientific truth that prohibits humanity from beginning with two humans (through evolutionary means)? I simply cannot see it. Scientifically, how many humans was the human race required to have decended from?

Every human has two copies of almost every gene - one copy from their mother and one copy from their father. The exceptions are some genes on the X and Y chromosomes which males will only have one copy of.

A single couple can have at most four copies of a given gene between them. The copies do not have to be the same, for example dominant brown eyes with a recessive blue eyes. This gives a maximum of four different alleles (such as blue/brown eyes) possible for any given gene. Some human genes are known to have 400 alleles - these are part of the immune system where variety is an advantage.

Given the mutation rates we observe and the number of different alleles present in the current human population it is possible to make estimates of the minimum human population in the past. The smallest estimate for human population I have seen is 1,000 - 10,000 from 70,000 years ago after the Toba eruption: Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans (PDF). This figure is not accepted by everyone, other minimum population estimates are all larger.

Evolution is a population phenomenon. A population of almost-human apes evolved over time to become a population of mixed human and almost-human apes and later to a population entirely of human apes. The minimum size of this population was greater than two.

rossum

 

[Dauphin]

What exactly is the scientific truth that prohibits humanity from beginning with two humans (through evolutionary means)? I simply cannot see it. Scientifically, how many humans was the human race required to have decended from?

I completely agree with the first part, but I don’t see how it leads to the second part as the Catholic Church (not the fundamentalists/literalists) interprets Genesis.

Note that, unlike some other questioners here, my questions are not hostile. I come from the same science-doesn’t-(usually)-lie perspective, but that doesn’t translate for me into the conclusions you draw.

Evolution makes clear that humans slowly evolved from apes, so that the first human population could not have been two.

Let’s assume for a moment, however, that Adam and Eve were literally the first humans and the only humans of their time. The human race would not exist today. The genetic diversity of one human couple is insufficient to support a population for long. Imagine what we’re saying if we say that all human beings descended from two people! We’re saying that brothers and sisters had sex with eachother, and that their offspring procreated as well.

This would be a severe case of inbreeding. Within a few generations, the entire human race would have been mentally retarded and infertile. The fact that we exist today, many hundreds of generations later, refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis.

You can replicate this experiment yourself to see that I’m not lying. Have your kids procreate, and then evaluate the mental health and fertility of their offspring. It won’t be pretty.

(edit: I just saw Rossum’s explanation. It’s alot more scientific. Hopefully my explanation is valid, though )