Descendants of Adam and Eve mated with pre-humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Administrator
Staff member
Would it be safely orthodox to theorize that the children of Adam and Eve, or at least some of them, may have mated with “almost-human” beings, and that the children of these unions would have been human, with immortal souls and having inherited original sin from the human parent?

This becomes more credible if we assume that Adam had two natural “almost-human” parents, and that the creation story (“dust of the earth”) is just an allegory. In other words, if Adam had parents, they were right on the cusp of being human, but did not have human reason or immortal souls, they gave birth to Adam, and he transcended that cusp and was the first human being. (Eve doesn’t easily fit into this theory, so that’s another problem.)

I am not saying that I believe in this, but it is one way to explain the propagation of the human race.

Any thoughts?
 
Catholic Kenneth Kemp put forward that idea in his paper Science, Theology, and Monogenism. You can find it in a Google search. Ed Feser agrees with him.

Note that they don’t prove this is exactly what happened. They just believe it is a possible explanation consistent with Catholic teaching on monogenism.

One could even take this approach but propose Adam was specially made in a Garden, and Eve from his rib, but when cast out of the Garden their children mated with “proto-humans” in a similar manner to what you describe, with the same physiology, if that suits your fancy.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
One could even take this approach but propose Adam was specially made in a Garden, and Eve from his rib, but when cast out of the Garden their children mated with “proto-humans” in a similar manner to what you describe, with the same physiology, if that suits your fancy.
Click to expand...
“Proto-humans” — that’s the term I was looking for. Thanks.
 
I think you’re asking where the wives and other people referred to in Genesis 4 came from. (For instance: If Adam and Eve had only Cain and Abel as sons, why was Cain concerned that somebody might come and kill him as he wandered about the earth? And where did his wife come from?)
 
I don’t know of any reason why this idea would be forbidden. It doesn’t violate the teachings that rational souls are created directly by God and that all “true men” descend from Adam and Eve. For what it’s worth this idea is one that I personally hold as well.

These “almost human” beings would be of the same genetic, biological species as Adam and Eve, but animated by sensitive souls rather than rational souls. Their intelligence would be beyond anything we see in the animal world today, and their behavior would likely be very similar to that of “true men” apart from thoughts and ideas. They wouldn’t be great conversationalists, but they could feed, protect, and be affectionate with “true men” in a way that would feel very natural.

Personally I imagine that the earliest communities were fairly mixed, so there would be few rational humans who lived alone among irrational human groups. Since each child born from a rational human would have a rational soul regardless of their other ancestry, it wouldn’t take long at all for “true men” to completely replace the irrational humans. It might have even happened before the split between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, as these are purely biological distinctions that can’t account for rational ensoulment. Regardless, every human alive today has a rational soul and is descended from Adam and Eve.

Peace and God bless!
 
Wesrock said:
One could even take this approach but propose Adam was specially made in a Garden, and Eve from his rib, but when cast out of the Garden their children mated with “proto-humans” in a similar manner to what you describe, with the same physiology, if that suits your fancy.
Click to expand...
This would certainly fit more literalisticly with the Genesis narrative, and would still match the known biological data. I’ve always been partial to a more poetic reading of Genesis, but I have to admit that this interpretation is equally plausible and fitting.

Peace and God bless!
 
HomeschoolDad said:
“Proto-humans” — that’s the term I was looking for. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’m not a scientist, but “proto-humans” doesn’t sound right to me. “Proto” means first, so Adam and Eve should properly be the proto-humans, while their parents would be the last “pre-humans.”
 
There is no evidence for proto-humans. There may have been animals that looked somewhat human but that’s it. Neanderthals were fully human, otherwise we would not have their DNA. Adam and Eve are our first parents.
 
Not for sure of the definition of “proto-humans”, but if those were the predecessors (and their descendant s) to humans before Adam and Eve were conceived wiith an immortal soul (thus being the first humans), then the answer is yes. It’s a theory, but it makes a lot of sense.
 
It doesn’t make any sense. Science can say nothing about souls. No one can say God dropped souls into two random almost humans.

I wish this idea would go away. It’s faulty.
 
My understanding is that Adam and Eve’s children were able to marry and were supernaturally protected from genetic abnormalities that would have normally come about in ‘incest’. They multiplied in this manner and the earth was populated by their descendants
 
Last edited:
I never said God “dropped” souls into two “almost humans”. Two “almost humans” were conceived and God chose them to be the first two humans and created a immortal soul for them at the moment of conception. I really hate your term almost human, because that implies there was not much difference, but a rational immortal soul as opposed to an animal’s soul is a huge difference.

Science only tells us about the evolution of the body, you are free to disagree with that. But if you think it’s the most likely means of God’s creation,than the rest of my speculation fits. Although it’s not my speculation.

Regardless, the Church has been clear, one can accept the theory of evolution. It’s not going to go away anytime soon.
 
I don’t think they were conceived but that they were created as adults.
 
That is a possibility, but there are indications in the Bible that is not the whole story. Cain, for instance, was exilied away from Adam and Eve’s family, yet had a wife. It’s not clear if he marrried before he murdered Abel.
 
I’ll go back and read that bit of Genesis. Not now though it’s 11.30pm in Blighty 😉
 
That would be the literal interpretation of Genisis. You are free to accept that as a Catholic. It is not the dogma of the Church.

My thoughts on the subject are congealing around this point of view:

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/
 
Last edited:
I don’t like these theories. They all sound extremely unlikely. I think we should all accept the scientific view and stop reading everything in the Bible literally, as Vatican 2 teaches. Science is not opposed to our faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top