- Status
D
dixibehr
Guest
What if God DID use the evolutionary process to form the bodies of Adam and Eve?
There still had to be a first male and first female Homo sapiens, from which all mankind descended. (BTW–Mitochondrial examination shows we are all descended from the same woman.)
But this would NOT explain the infusion of the soul, which makes us uniquely human.
There still had to be a first male and first female Homo sapiens, from which all mankind descended. (BTW–Mitochondrial examination shows we are all descended from the same woman.)
But this would NOT explain the infusion of the soul, which makes us uniquely human.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Let me apologize in advance for saying:
“If monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys?”
The first time I saw that, it cracked me up. Now, to respond the best I can to your real question.
If, indeed, humans evolved from something or other (and the prevailing theory is that both we and modern apes had common ancestors; not that we evolved from apes or monkeys as we now know them) then the question is “when did the line get crossed into humanity, and how and why did it happen?”
I’m not sure we’ll ever really know any of those answers, and the Church does not deny that perhaps a line was crossed at some point. But I don’t see that Divine intervention is precluded. I am aware of the primordial “Eve” that seems to be demonstrated by mitochondrial DNA, and that’s a very suggestive clue that there were, indeed, two fully human “parents” somewhere back down the line. That, of course, is totally consistent with the Genesis account, but neither way of seeing it gives all the details.
So, while the primordial “Eve” of the biologists is suggestive that Genesis is, fundamentally, a true account in some way, it still doesn’t really tell us everything we would like to know.
Most importantly, where, when and how did “full humanity” (us, just as we are; body and soul) come to us? How, exactly, were we “ensouled”? Michaelangelo depicted God touching the tip of His index finger to Adams. Is that how it happened? Or did it happen with a new, and very subtle, change in DNA?
Is it contrary to Genesis to think God rolled up a ball of clay and made Adam out of it? No. Is it contrary to Genesis to think God foreordained, eons in advance, a coming together or change of DNA at a point in time; that point in time being the birth of the primordial “Eve” and perhaps a primordial “Adam”? No.
The following is pure speculation. I have often wondered about the nature of animals. I was raised on a ranch and have always had lots of animals around. One thing that struck me about them very early on is that they are content to be what they are, whereas we are not. Their “rules” are very narrow, and they operate within them without any obvious major discontent that’s fundamental to what they are. A cow eats grass and when winter comes, she eats dried up grass or leaves or bark or (if owned by a rancher who cares) hay and perhaps some grain. But her demeanor and seeming level of acceptance of condition never really changes, even when the grass runs out in this pasture and she breaks the fence into another. It’s always still just “there’s grass.”. Never does she decide “this cow business is no good. I’m going to try something else.” She stays within the narrow path of her nature.
But we’re not that way, except temporarily. Nothing really quite satisfies us, and we don’t really accept our natures all that well. Part of our “animal nature” is to be limited and die, and we don’t accept that. So, I wonder, was there a point in time when the “click” happened in the human mind for the first time? The point at which “I get cold. I get warm. I eat bugs and fruit and meat when I can find it. I like sex. People can be dead.” was not enough? And did God, at that point, answer “No, it isn’t. I give you more, now that I have completed the process of making you such that your “animal nature” is no longer what you are following exclusively. Here is my answer to you. You will live beyond your animal death, and I will let you be satisfied by the only thing that can satisfy your restless self-Me.”
And how, exactly, did that happen? We don’t know. But somewhere along the line, it did happen. And that isn’t contrary to Genesis or evolutionary theory, either one.
But going further, God put it before us that we could “know” evil as well as good. We could attempt to depart from our “made for God alone” natures to see what’s “on the other side”. And that inclination, while it can be resisted, is manifestly inherent to human beings. Do we all “choose” to be that way, or did just Adam and Eve choose to taste the “forbidden fruit” whatever it was. And was there something about the dissatisfaction that makes us human (not cows) which has a “flip side” in that the dissatisfaction can lead us away from our “enhanced nature” as well as toward it? Was there a moment when the second “click”, or even part of the first, was “I want to decide”. When, somehow, God communicated to us (even if only by means of some DNA change) that we could now depart from being “mere animals”, was part of the communication inevitably, “and you can do it badly if you choose”? Is it all part of the same thing? Is it possible that the story of Genesis puts in a serial fashion (made human-given choice-decide to experience evil-experience unhappiness) something that was serial only in causation and not necessarily in time? Is it something we all repeat, due to what we are? I think maybe it is.
So, we could ask, why would God make us capable of evil and, therefore, unhappiness? Well, the Church says He wanted us to be free. If He, for His reasons, wants us to love Him, He had to make us free to do it or not do it. Had he not done that, he could have given us everlasting souls, all right. But we would not be what we are. Maybe, as odd as it sometimes seems to us, He loves us precisely because of what we are, in the same sort of way that a parent often loves the most errant child the most.
T
Tom
Guest
The point where the Ape line and human line depart from the common ancestor is a point where the Ape could have become less human, more Ape. It is also the point at which the human could have continued it’s original course to todays human. You say “no”? Why? Explain why it could not have happened. No, don’t bother, it’s all speculation, and as I said it doesn’t matter at all!
T
Tom
Guest
Very well put Ridgerunner.
D
Della
Guest
In my case, I never hypothesized about the book of Genesis. You asked why God would write a book and not put in all the details. I answered that God never wrote a book (in the sense you mean) and urged you to look into the development of the Bible if you want to understand what it is and what it isn’t.
I’ll explain further. The book of Genesis is not the only source from which we know about the origins of man as believers. That is what I was trying to convey. Others may have brought up interpreting Genesis as a mythology (which it is, which doesn’t at all mean that it is fiction–“What do they teach in these schools these days!”), but I never mentioned that, either.
What is not in debate amongst orthodox Catholics is the fact that we believe Adam and Eve were man’s real ancestors. The Church teaches this based on many sources of which Genesis is only one, which is what we meant by God didn’t just give us a book to know these things. I hope that clarifies things and I hope you will tell us when what we write isn’t connecting with you or we can’t adequately answer your questions.
G
garysibio
Guest
There is no need to reconcile evolution with Catholicism. We didn’t evolve; we were created. See kolbecenter.org/ for some good information on this.
Gary
N
Namesake
Guest
The last two popes said evolution is virtually certain. Do you disagree with them?
B
BRB1
Guest
You came from Piltdown Man … no question there
C
cerad
Guest
Pretty much nothing. Science deals in reality; not wishful thinking.
C
cerad
Guest
Humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. And guess what? That ancestor was also an ape. So yes we did evolve from apes just not modern ones.
E
edwest2
Guest
People do wishful thinking all the time. Science is the new god. But it is performed by flawed human beings. It can be manipulated.
hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html
Human beings had, as their first parents, Adam and Eve. Our relationship to other living things on earth concerns breathing the same atmosphere, living under one gravity, distance from the sun and related body plans. There should be no surprise that similar body plans show similar coding, i.e. humans and apes. Evolution? I doubt it, at least as it’s presented here.
I would remind Catholics that there are things God can do. Otherwise, please consider that in this example, you are not recognizing God’s ability to literally create man. If you believe Jesus Christ performed miracles and rose from the dead then you should, I suggest, factor that into your thinking.
Our Secretary of State recently saw the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and asked, Who painted it? The reply? God. So yes, there are artifacts that any scientist can study if they’d like.
Peace,
Ed
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Somewhat yes. The Bible indicates a much younger earth and so does the chronology in my Douay-Rheims. I feel that saying we evolved from apes denies God of directly creating man, which God did create man and it conflicts with my faith
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I don’t believe that we need to prove the Bible and its contents scientifically. That is putting Science and man ahead of God :tsktsk:
V
VociMike
Guest
Well, snarky-atheist friend (such a common breed
), why don’t you scientifically prove that God doesn’t exist. And don’t say it’s impossible to prove a negative. Provide a scientific, naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.And while you’re at it, prove scientifically that faith is just wishful thinking.
C
cerad
Guest
Well, this thread is really about evolution and I already got chastised once for appearing to take it off topic.Well, snarky-atheist friend (such a common breed
And while you’re at it, prove scientifically that faith is just wishful thinking.
If you wish to start your own thread and offer proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist then I’ll be delighted to apply the same reasoning to your particular deity.
And yes indeed, science does assume the universe exists. Not sure what your point is.
J
JJ59
Guest
Well, not entirely. But there are some excellent comments that made me think a lot more about our origins.
Maybe I should rephrase my question:
The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents.
In evolution, as I understand it, (I’m no biologist
) the first Homo Sapiens would have been born to parents which were one of their ancestors. (Ya know, all the ones who are ape-like and have really long Latin names)Does the fact that Homo Sapiens were born to inhuman parents go against that Church Teaching?
If I didn’t explain this very well, I’ll give it another shot.
God Bless.
V
VociMike
Guest
Interesting level of discourse you seem committed to. Is your aim to convince or merely to mock?
It certainly wasn’t that, as any plain reading of my text would reveal.
T
Tom
Guest
Yes it does.
However, the Church does not define things not revealed to it by the Holy Spirit. In other word, the Church doesn’t define whether or not intelligent life exists on other planets. It hasn’t been revealed by the Holy Spirit, no definition. It may comment on possibilities, but it isn’t a dogma. As such any comments are simply that, not doctrine or teaching. The Church has not defined our roots. The Church document named the Bible simply tells us God created everything including us. It does not go into detail as to how. Formed by God’s hands. What exactly does that mean? Does God have hands as we know them? Or are God’s hands anything He determines them to be? God is not restricted to our understanding of Him. By God’s hands I read He did it, what ever way He desired. Four finger one thumb hands? Possibly, not probable. Are His hands nature? I think so. Did He use nature, His hands, to created humans? Yes, that’s what Scripture leads me to believe. Is that against Catholic Church teaching? No.
Well here is where you’re running into problems. Homo sapien is a scientific term. It does not speak of the soul. It speaks only of physical attributes. Was the first homo sapien a human in God’s eye? We just don’t know. We do know the first human with an eternal soul was Adam. Was he the first homo sapien? Don’t know, possibly, maybe, probably. What does it matter? Humanity is more than bodies. When the eternal soul was infused is when the first man was created, not when the first anatomical human was born. It doesn’t really matter how God created him!
E
edwest2
Guest
- Status