Did God create people before Adam and Eve?

[Cory_G]

Electricity is a theory too. So is gravity. They are also facts. Just like it’s a fact that all life arose through the process of evolution, and that our species is over a 100 000 years old and originated in Africa.

Bran, your argument that electricity and gravity exist therefore our species is over 100,000 years old is illogical.

 

[Bran]

That is not my argument. You are committing the straw-man fallacy.

My point is that you are setting up a false dichotomy between fact and theory. Some theories have become facts through overwhelming evidence. Before the theory of gravity, the motions of bodies were explained by the theory of the 4 elements. It was said that each element had its natural place in the cosmos and tended towards this place. Earth was the heaviest and tended towards the middle, then water, then air, then fire. We now have the theory of gravity to explain physical motion - is gravity not also a fact?

The fact is, the theory of evolution and our species’ genesis in Africa are also facts. (Edited)

 

[NotWorthy]

The fact is, the theory of evolution and our species’ genesis in Africa are also facts. (Edited)

My only problem with the theory of evolution is, why haven’t we seen any proof of it. With ants and bees reproducing in a matter of hours or days, why haven’t they evolved since science began?

But I’ll accept the Theory of evolution, and even the Big Bang Theory, as long as it is accompanied with a Guiding Hand.

 

[redhen]

My only problem with the theory of evolution is, why haven’t we seen any proof of it. With ants and bees reproducing in a matter of hours or days, why haven’t they evolved since science began?

But I’ll accept the Theory of evolution, and even the Big Bang Theory, as long as it is accompanied with a Guiding Hand.

We’re digressing from the OP’s question, but I’ll throw this in since you asked.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

 

[Bran]

I have just read the article “Adam, Eve, and Evolution” on this site. Pope Pius XXII (in Humani Generis) seems adamant about the historicity of Adam and Eve and that all humans have descended from this one pair.

Perhaps the failure to understand how this can be reconciled with modern theories is a failure on my part. My question is, around when did Adam and Eve live?

 

[itinerant1]

Recently I’ve been delving into the Church’s stance on evolution and its implications for the interpretation of Genesis and original sin. From what I have read, I get the impression that theologians are trying to work-out a reconciliation between modern science and the scriptural account of creation and the fall.

Our current Catechism contains Augustine’s theory of original sin and the origin of humankind, which is irreconcilable with modern science. According to scientists, modern homo sapiens arose in Africa about 150 thousand years ago and spread throughout the world in a series of mass migrations. And according to geneticist FJ Ayala, the population of homo sapiens has never been below 10 000.

We need to understand the implications of evolution. We cannot simply say that human beings are physically descended from lower life forms, but at some point (no more than 10 000 years ago according to the genealogies in the Bible) God inserted a rational soul into Adam and Eve and the rest of soulless humankind went extinct. What about the humans who have been in North America for about 11 000 years? Or the aborigines of Australia and New Guinea who have been there for about 50 000 years? And according to evolution all life can trace itself through an unbroken lineage to the first single-celled organisms. So Adam and Eve had parents - were their parents soulless humans?

The need for redemption through Christ does not depend on common descent from Adam and Eve. All humans are united not in Adam and Eve, but in the small group of humans that inhabited Africa 150 000 years ago. The Church needs to develop a theology that is in harmony with the facts of modern science, because it is embarrassing that the Catechism says that all humans are descended from one couple and that many Catholics still believe this.

Let us pray that Catholic theologians work quickly so that our antiquated Augustinian theories do not continue to serve as a stumbling block that prevents scientifically-educated people from finding Christ in His holy Church.

Read this article in the Jesuit magazine “America” to see why descent from Adam and Eve is not a necessary component of Catholic doctrine: americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

Peace.

I disagree with all of your comments made above.

First, contrary to what you imply, the Church is not and cannot change its doctrine of Original Sin. Theologians may look to modern science to see what light it may throw on human origins, but it is not a matter of changing doctrine that is “de fide”. The article you link to from that Jesuit rag “America” represents dissident and confused thinking. I’m sure if St. Ignatius of Loyola was around he would give these dissident Jesuits the boot. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin denied the doctrine of Original Sin, which led to his asserting all manner of absurd ideas.

You speak of soul-less humans. That is a contradiction in terms. What defines human is the rational soul that animates or informs the body. Man is a “rational animal” who differs radically in kind from anthropoid apes and higher animals by his possession of reason and propositional speech.

Next, you made reference to geneologies in the Bible. It is a mistake to cite Biblical geneologies to make a scientific point because the Bible does not contain our notions of history. We cannot surmise the time in which Adam and Eve lived from Biblical time lines.

If we want to know when humans, rational animals, appeared on earth, we look to the paleoanthropologists. However, the fossil record is far from complete, and interpretations of fossils vary. At this point, many scientists show themselves to be quite confused as to how man differs from anthropoid apes and higher animals.

It is the errant philosophical assumptions about man, which are made by many scientists that is the primary and real problem, and not the Church’s doctrine of Original Sin or the profound theological views of St. Augustine.

 

[Bran]

I have just read the article “Adam, Eve, and Evolution” on this site. Pope Pius XXII (in Humani Generis) seems adamant about the historicity of Adam and Eve and that all humans have descended from this one pair.

Perhaps my failure to understand how this can be reconciled with modern theories is a failure on my part. My question is, around when did Adam and Eve live?

Hi Itinerant,

Perhaps you missed this last entry of mine, which I posted after my original comments. I agree that I was out of line with my original post and I realize how arrogant I sounded. I am just struggling to understand how St Augustine’s theory of original sin and descent from Adam and Eve fits in with current paleoanthropology.

You surely cannot disagree with all of my comments. Let’s meet each other halfway. Do you not agree that humans have been in the Americas for about 10 000 years, and in Australia for 50 000 years? Genesis locates Adam and Eve at around 12 000 years, since this is about the time when agriculture was invented in the Near East. Are the references to agriculture in the Cain and Abel story merely symbolic? Were Adam and Eve actually Upper Paleolithic humans, as this was the time when modern behaviour arose, or are they located 100 000 years earlier when anatomically modern homo sapiens arise in Africa? Or are paleoanthropologists hundreds of thousands of years off with their dates?

In addition, as I said, “according to evolution all life can trace itself through an unbroken lineage to the first single-celled organisms”. So when I asked if Adam and Eves parents were soulless humans I was not involved in a contradiction of terms. Either Adam and Eve were specially created, body and soul, or they had parents who were either soulless or of a different species. Are there any other alternatives, itinerant?

Evolution works on populations, so I’m struggling to understand how humans arose from one couple. How do we account for the great amount of genetic diversity if Adam and Eve were at one time the only two humans in existence - is that your argument?

By the way, I have the utmost respect for St Augustine. When I said “antiquated Augustinian theories” I was referring only to his theory that all humans have descended from one original couple. Please help me to understand what this means and how this is possible.

 

[Bran]

Furthermore, my criticism of St Augustine has nothing to do with his ability as a thinker, as he is one of the greatest theologians of Church history. We must acknowledge, however, that his views regarding human origins were worked out in a time long before we knew the vast age of the universe and how species have developed over this great span of time. For this reason, his views MAY be mistaken when it comes to these scientific issues. But just as St Augustine worked out the doctrines of our faith in light of the philosophy and science of his time, we must do the same.

And, before judging “America” to be a Jesuit rag of dissident thinking, I suggest you read more than one article.

 

[itinerant1]

Furthermore, my criticism of St Augustine has nothing to do with his ability as a thinker, as he is one of the greatest theologians of Church history. We must acknowledge, however, that his views regarding human origins were worked out in a time long before we knew the vast age of the universe and how species have developed over this great span of time. For this reason, his views MAY be mistaken when it comes to these scientific issues. But just as St Augustine worked out the doctrines of our faith in light of the philosophy and science of his time, we must do the same.

And, before judging “America” to be a Jesuit rag of dissident thinking, I suggest you read more than one article.

Greetings,

The references to agriculture in Genesis 4 are merely background details for the story. They are part of the setting of the story. The Fall of Adam in Genesis 3 explains why man has to work so hard. It is due to his turning away from God. Adam and his descendants must now work to eat: “…cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 3 explains why it is that man must toil and then die. It was not part of God’s plan for the human race but it is a result of man’s loss of that original relationship he had with his Creator. It was not revealed to the biblical writer when and where Adam and his immediate descendants lived, so the writer creates a setting for his story to teach that which was made known to him. So, the references to agriculture in the story of Cain and Abel are not exactly symbolic. They are just the setting for the story, necessary details, and it is a mistake to use those details for literal historical purposes. Such purposes are alien to the biblical writer’s intent and knowledge.

The creation account(s) in Genesis teach that all humans are descended from a single pair. Since we know that the chronology in Genesis is not a literal chronology there can be no objection about the known genetic diversity not having sufficient time and opportunity to manifest itself.

Your phrase “soulless humans” remains a logical contradiction. I know what your question is about, yet before one can address the questioin, one must clarify it by at least using correct terminology. Otherwise, the issue will remain hopelessly muddled from the outset. There must be some agreement on the meaning of terms before a subject can be logically discussed. I maintain that if a being is human, then it cannot be soulless.

There is nothing antiquated about St. Augustine’s teaching the human race is descended from a single pair. The doctrine is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and modern scientific theories do not disprove the teaching. What is antiquated is extreme Darwinism. When we move beyond extreme Darwinism to a more non-Darwinistic theory of biological evolution then we shall make better progress in understanding human origins from the scientific perspective.

Also, I did not judge the journal “America” by a single article. I have some familiarity with the journal’s history and its editorial changes from being theologically sound to sporting dissident and illogical theories.

 

[Bran]

Hi Itinerant,

Itinerant: Your phrase “soulless humans” remains a logical contradiction. I know what your question is about, yet before one can address the question, one must clarify it by at least using correct terminology.

Definition of terms:

humans: the species with a rational soul - a spirit - self-conscious and capable of making moral decisions.

soulless homonids: all other human-like species, including our ancestors, who lacked rationality and the ability to make moral decisions.

Issue number 1:

Evolutionary theory states that we are all descended, through an unbroken lineage, to the earliest life forms. So either a) this is not true and 2 humans were specially created, body and soul, at some point in history, or b) Adam and Eve had parents - and if Adam and Eve were the first humans, their parents were soulless homonids

Issue number 2:

Itinerant: *There is nothing antiquated about St. Augustine’s teaching the human race is descended from a single pair. The doctrine is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and modern scientific theories do not disprove the teaching. *

Although modern scientists are not all in agreement on the details, there is no scientific text that I have read supporting the idea that at one point in history, there were only two human beings from whom we all descend. Can you find any scientific theory supporting this assertion?

 

[itinerant1]

Hi Itinerant,

Itinerant: Your phrase “soulless humans” remains a logical contradiction. I know what your question is about, yet before one can address the question, one must clarify it by at least using correct terminology.

Definition of terms:

humans: the species with a rational soul - a spirit - self-conscious and capable of making moral decisions.

soulless homonids: all other human-like species, including our ancestors, who lacked rationality and the ability to make moral decisions.

Issue number 1:

Evolutionary theory states that we are all descended, through an unbroken lineage, to the earliest life forms. So either a) this is not true and 2 humans were specially created, body and soul, at some point in history, or b) Adam and Eve had parents - and if Adam and Eve were the first humans, their parents were soulless homonids

Issue number 2:

Itinerant: *There is nothing antiquated about St. Augustine’s teaching the human race is descended from a single pair. The doctrine is found in both the Old and New Testaments, and modern scientific theories do not disprove the teaching. *

Although modern scientists are not all in agreement on the details, there is no scientific text that I have read supporting the idea that at one point in history, there were only two human beings from whom we all descend. Can you find any scientific theory supporting this assertion?

Bran,
Your definition of “human” is much better now. Almost all philosophers throughout western civilization, except perhaps Rene Descartes, have defined “man” as a “rational animal”. That is, he is an animal capable of reason. Also, man is the only animal capable of propositional speech.

However, there is another stipulation to be made with the term “soul”: while man is the only animal possessing a rational soul, the term soul in traditional philosophy includes the vegetative and sensitive souls. Animals lower than man posses a sensitive soul; that which enables sense perception, movement, reproduction, and everything characteristic of animals. Plants possess a vegetative soul; that which enables growth, reproduction, and all of the characteristics we see in living plants.

Soul is the principle of life in living beings. Only the rational soul of man is spiritual and eternal. The souls of plants and animals are an immaterial component that is not a spiritual substance. We need not discuss this point of metaphysics here, as it is rather complex. Let us just agree for now that man possesses a rational soul.

This means we will have to drop the phrase “soulless hominids” since all living things possess soul. In modern usage of the word “soul” most people tend to think of a spiritual entity, and so on. However, to discuss the evolution of life we must use “soul” in the broader metaphysical sense. Otherwise, we fall into the crass materialism characteristic of Darwin and many atheistic evolutionary theorists who follow radical Darwinism. Unfortunately, this includes many Catholic scientists, some who are even members of this forum, who hold to conceptual contradictions and ontological fantasies and fail to correctly understand what the Church is saying about evolution.

Now, to issue number 1:
If all life arose on earth in an unbroken line, it does not follow that we have to choose between your “A” or “B” options. For instance, I may say that man’s human body has its origin in the natural biological processes of the planet. That is, the human body has a pre-history in biological evolution while the creation of his rational soul requires a specific creation by God. The existence of a rational soul cannot arise from matter and its natural processes.

Whether Adam’s parent was non-human is an issue that depends on one’s particular understanding of biological evolution. Darwinism is inadequate to give us an answer. Eve, I must maintain was somehow derived from Adam. This I cannot explain in scientific terms, but I maintain it because a proper reading of Genesis requires us to believe that the first woman was somehow derived from man. Genesis describes Eve’s origin in metaphorical language, so we do not know the exact details.

Issue #2:
I do not need science to confirm for me what is clearly a matter of Revelation. The question or issue here is whether the theologian is correct in his interpretation of Revelation or whether science is correct in what it asserts that appears to contradict the theologian. If it is a matter of a genuine contradiction as opposed to an apparent contradiction, then it needs be decided who is in error. Is it the scientist or the theologian? The truth of science will not contradict the truth of theology since God is the author of all truth. He is the Author of both nature and the Bible.

I see no reason whatsoever from scientific data to question the assertion of the theologian who teaches that all humans are descended from a first man and first woman. This rules out Ernest Haeckel’s theory of polygenism as a possibility. I see the current genetic information as supporting the single parent origin of the human race.

We need to be cautious when asserting what we think is scientific fact. For instance, many scientists claim that modern research proves that higher animals do no not differ from man in any radically way. On the contrary, the research actually supports the opposite conclusion: that man differs radically from anthropoid apes and higher animals. One needs to look closely at how scientific data is being interpreted.

 

[Bran]

Itinerant: This means we will have to drop the phrase “soulless hominids” since all living things possess soul.

I apologize for my inaccuracy in speech. If you refer to my definition of “human” I mentioned that a rational soul is a spirit. I am thus aware that there are irrational souls and what I meant to write was “spiritless hominids”.

Itinerant: I may say that man’s human body has its origin in the natural biological processes of the planet. That is, the human body has a pre-history in biological evolution while the creation of his rational soul requires a specific creation by God.

Please explain: by the human body having its origin in natural processes do you mean that humans have a continuous biological lineage with the rest of creation? If this is so, did the first human have biological parents?

Itinerant: Whether Adam’s parent was non-human is an issue that depends on one’s particular understanding of biological evolution.

My understanding of evolution is that one species does not give birth to another species. From what I understand, evolutionary development is a punctuated equilibrium (SJ Gould). This means that species remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time (periods of equilibrium), but during times when they are subjected to environmental changes to which they must adapt, there are shorter periods of rapid evolutionary change (periods of punctuation). Environmental changes may be due to climate change, migration to new climates, or an environmental catastrophe. So the development of a new species is described by Gould like this: a population section of a species breaks off from the main population and is subjected to new environmental pressures, which favour genes that were not necessarily favoured in their homeland. This breakaway group eventually develops enough genetic difference from the main group (during a relatively short period of punctuation) that they are no longer able to interbreed with the main group and are thus considered a new species. Do you have a different understanding of evolution that shows how Adam can suddenly arise?

Itinerant: Eve, I must maintain was somehow derived from Adam. This I cannot explain in scientific terms, but I maintain it because a proper reading of Genesis requires us to believe that the first woman was somehow derived from man. Genesis describes Eve’s origin in metaphorical language.

It is difficult to discern what a proper reading of Genesis is. Why should we take Eve’s derivation from Adam literally if it is described in metaphorical language? There are other Genesis metaphors that we don’t take literally – eg, Adam shaped from clay (symbolizes humankind’s biological continuity with the natural world), the eating of the apple (symbolizes transcendence of instincts through knowledge of good and evil, and beginning of guilt and moral responsibility), the talking serpent (not sure about this one – explain please), etc. Eve’s derivation from Adam may symbolize the intimacy of man and woman who are one flesh through marriage - why take it literally?

Itinerant: I see the current genetic information as supporting the single parent origin of the human race.

I don’t know much about genetics but I have read that geneticist Francisco J Ayala has theorized that the homo sapiens population has never been below 10 000. He reached this conclusion based on the current genetic diversity of our species. Can you tell me which genetic data supports the single parent origin of the human race (perhaps give me a link).

Itinerant: We need to be cautious when asserting what we think is scientific fact.

I agree. I was overzealous in my original post. Keep in mind, I am Catholic and I am genuinely seeking to find out how scripture and science can be harmonized in a reasonable way. Thank you for helping me along, Itinerant.

 

[rotlex]

I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be a myth. It’s a great allegory, but not much else. Its bottom-line: don’t defy God.

I come from this same school of thought. To me, the story of Adam and Eve is meant to teach us, to help us comprehend something that we cannot possible comprehend. We are meant to learn from it, not take it literally, or as “history”. It is salvation history, not literal “history”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are we not allowed as Catholics to have this view? It is my understanding that the Church allows belief in either view in many cases of Bible “stories”.

 

[buffalo]

** How to read the account of the fall**
[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) 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.264 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.265
** II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS **
[391](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/391.htm’) Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268
[392](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/392.htm’) Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably *rejected *God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271
[393](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/393.htm’) It is the *irrevocable *character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
[394](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/394.htm’) Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
[395](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/395.htm’) The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275

** III. ORIGINAL SIN **
Freedom put to the test
[396](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/396.htm’) God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man’s first sin
[397](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/397.htm’) Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

 

[redhen]

Also, man is the only animal capable of propositional speech.

Your definition of “man” need revising. Neanderthal has been found to have the same two amino acid substitutions in the FOXP2 gene that is thought to be responsible for speech in modern humans, and is lacking in all other primates. They also had a hyoid bone that allowed for the full range of modern human vocalizations.

Krause, J. et al (2007) The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern
Humans Was Shared with Neandertal
Current Biology 17, November 6, 2007

Eve, I must maintain was somehow derived from Adam. This I cannot explain in scientific terms, but I maintain it because a proper reading of Genesis requires us to believe that the first woman was somehow derived from man. Genesis describes Eve’s origin in metaphorical language, so we do not know the exact details.

The first account of creation in Genesis appears to borrowed from the Akkadian “Enuma ELish” saga. The second account seems to based on the “Enki and Ninhursag” legend, complete with the creation from a rib. Except in the Akkadian account, the genders are reversed.

ssue #2:
I do not need science to confirm for me what is clearly a matter of Revelation.

Well, I suppose that’s one way to handle the issue.

Seriously, the harder I look for one good reason to believe in the Abrahamic God, the more I feel I am just banging my head against the wall.

 

[itinerant1]

Your definition of “man” need revising. Neanderthal has been found to have the same two amino acid substitutions in the FOXP2 gene that is thought to be responsible for speech in modern humans, and is lacking in all other primates. They also had a hyoid bone that allowed for the full range of modern human vocalizations.

Krause, J. et al (2007) The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern
Humans Was Shared with Neandertal
Current Biology 17, November 6, 2007

The first account of creation in Genesis appears to borrowed from the Akkadian “Enuma ELish” saga. The second account seems to based on the “Enki and Ninhursag” legend, complete with the creation from a rib. Except in the Akkadian account, the genders are reversed.

Well, I suppose that’s one way to handle the issue.

Seriously, the harder I look for one good reason to believe in the Abrahamic God, the more I feel I am just banging my head against the wall.

Your reference to Neanderthal does not contain any information that challenges my definition of man as “rational animal”. Genetic components alone cannot acccount for rationality. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for propositional speech. On the other hand, if there is adequate scientific evidence to show that organisms other than Homo sapiens possess rationality, then paleoanthropologists will need to revise their fossil classifications to include this previous mis-classified organism as actually human. In summary, it would be the scientists who makes the revision, since to date there is no philosophical, theological, or sound scientific reason to define man as other than I have presented previously.

In regard to the creation account in the Bible, it is not correct to view it as a borrowing of the ancient Near Eastern Enuma Elish saga. Certain stories in Genesis are responses to Babylonian mythologies. They constitute theological polemics which present a corrected theology for the Israelites. In this regard, the Biblical accounts are unique.

 

[Bran]

Itinerant, please address my last post - before redhen, rotlex, etc.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant: This means we will have to drop the phrase “soulless hominids” since all living things possess soul.

I apologize for my inaccuracy in speech. If you refer to my definition of “human” I mentioned that a rational soul is a spirit. I am thus aware that there are irrational souls and what I meant to write was “spiritless hominids”.

Itinerant: I may say that man’s human body has its origin in the natural biological processes of the planet. That is, the human body has a pre-history in biological evolution while the creation of his rational soul requires a specific creation by God.

Please explain: by the human body having its origin in natural processes do you mean that humans have a continuous biological lineage with the rest of creation? If this is so, did the first human have biological parents?

Itinerant: Whether Adam’s parent was non-human is an issue that depends on one’s particular understanding of biological evolution.

My understanding of evolution is that one species does not give birth to another species. From what I understand, evolutionary development is a punctuated equilibrium (SJ Gould). This means that species remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time (periods of equilibrium), but during times when they are subjected to environmental changes to which they must adapt, there are shorter periods of rapid evolutionary change (periods of punctuation). Environmental changes may be due to climate change, migration to new climates, or an environmental catastrophe. So the development of a new species is described by Gould like this: a population section of a species breaks off from the main population and is subjected to new environmental pressures, which favour genes that were not necessarily favoured in their homeland. This breakaway group eventually develops enough genetic difference from the main group (during a relatively short period of punctuation) that they are no longer able to interbreed with the main group and are thus considered a new species. Do you have a different understanding of evolution that shows how Adam can suddenly arise?

Itinerant: Eve, I must maintain was somehow derived from Adam. This I cannot explain in scientific terms, but I maintain it because a proper reading of Genesis requires us to believe that the first woman was somehow derived from man. Genesis describes Eve’s origin in metaphorical language.

It is difficult to discern what a proper reading of Genesis is. Why should we take Eve’s derivation from Adam literally if it is described in metaphorical language? There are other Genesis metaphors that we don’t take literally – eg, Adam shaped from clay (symbolizes humankind’s biological continuity with the natural world), the eating of the apple (symbolizes transcendence of instincts through knowledge of good and evil, and beginning of guilt and moral responsibility), the talking serpent (not sure about this one – explain please), etc. Eve’s derivation from Adam may symbolize the intimacy of man and woman who are one flesh through marriage - why take it literally?

Itinerant: I see the current genetic information as supporting the single parent origin of the human race.

I don’t know much about genetics but I have read that geneticist Francisco J Ayala has theorized that the homo sapiens population has never been below 10 000. He reached this conclusion based on the current genetic diversity of our species. Can you tell me which genetic data supports the single parent origin of the human race (perhaps give me a link).

Itinerant: We need to be cautious when asserting what we think is scientific fact.

I agree. I was overzealous in my original post. Keep in mind, I am Catholic and I am genuinely seeking to find out how scripture and science can be harmonized in a reasonable way. Thank you for helping me along, Itinerant.

You have raised many important questions. This is good. However, in a forum it is cumbersome to address many things at once. I suggest you pick one thing at a time and then let us see how we can discuss it.

Your questions about reading Genesis are good but it is difficult to discuss so many points in a post. May I suggest some titles that will help you with reading the Bible. The first is and excellent work called “A Path Through Genesis” by Bruce Vawter. Second is “Dictionary of the Bible” by Fr. John L. McKenzie. Fr. Mckenzie, S.J. has been a leading Old Testament scholar. St. Augustine has a classic work entitled “De Doctrina Christiana”. This title is various translated into English as “On Christian Doctrine”, or “On Christian Teaching”, and so on. This work contains rules for interpreting Scripture: The rules of Tychonius the Donatist. You should be able to easily locate all of these books.

I will be back on the forum later today and will attempt to address one or two of the several issues you have raised.

 

[Bran]

Much appreciated, bro.

 

[itinerant1]

My understanding of evolution is that one species does not give birth to another species. From what I understand, evolutionary development is a punctuated equilibrium (SJ Gould). This means that species remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time (periods of equilibrium), but during times when they are subjected to environmental changes to which they must adapt, there are shorter periods of rapid evolutionary change (periods of punctuation). Environmental changes may be due to climate change, migration to new climates, or an environmental catastrophe. So the development of a new species is described by Gould like this: a population section of a species breaks off from the main population and is subjected to new environmental pressures, which favour genes that were not necessarily favoured in their homeland. This breakaway group eventually develops enough genetic difference from the main group (during a relatively short period of punctuation) that they are no longer able to interbreed with the main group and are thus considered a new species. Do you have a different understanding of evolution that shows how Adam can suddenly arise?

One of the problems with trying to answer questions relating to human origins is there is so much we do not yet know. We can talk about Punctuated Equilibrium, which is the new orthodoxy. However, Punctuated Equilibrium is a hypothesis only. Darwin supposed that speciation ocurred gradually. T.H. Huxley opposed gradualism with the idea of saltation. Darwin prevailed and gradualism was the new “truth” about speciation.

However, there was really no evidence for gradualism and it was finally abandoned and replaced by Gould’s hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. The Modern Synthesis is dead, as Gould stated. So, where does this leave us? With a new and supposedly better hypothesis?? We are still in the area of scientific hypothesis and not proven fact. The Darwinist Michael Ruse amusingly referred to Punctuated Equilibrium as neo-saltation.

In any case, when addressing the origin of man or any other new species, what hypothesis is adaquate to the task? There is a true ground for evolutionary theory, but we are still very much in the dark. Intermediate types are almost completely absent from the fossil record. This is a problem that is not adequately addressed by the fact fossilization is a rare occurrence.

The next major difficulty with a neo-darwinist approach to evolution is the wide spread failure of scientists to understand properly how man differs from anthropoid apes and higher animals. Neo-darwinists assert (Ernst Mayr, et al.) that man differs in kind but that the difference is merely superficial. There is a failure here to understand such necessary distinctions as a radical difference in kind, a difference in degree, and so on.

Darwin held that the mind of man differs from anthropoid apes and higher animals only in degree. This is crass materialism. Neo-darwinist have abandoned Darwin’s difference in degree theory but have not come far enough toward the proper conception of man and how he actually differs from lower forms.

Hence, to even begin to discuss man’s origin correctly we need to move beyond the limitations of neo-Darwinism and incorporate the traditional notions of a hierarchy of being into the evolutionary scheme. What we have is phylogenetic continuity “within” stages of the hierarchy. Also, a more accurate picture of life on earth will not divide species into two kingdoms, of plants and animals, with man belonging to the animal kingdom. Man’s radical difference in kind requires a third kingdom for classification.

You are probably wondering what kind of answer to your question have I given. I think it is the only one I can give right now.