Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I used the wrong example, Gary, by saying heathens. I know a lot of Protestants feel Catholics…don’t read the Bible, if we do, we don’t accept what’s in the Bible, only know what is fed to us by the Pope or the priests’ sermons at Mass, without any knowledge of the new or old Testament & just thoughtlessly, recite the rosary…and many Catholics are just like that!

Good evening TruetoFaith: Yes, I’m aware of that perception.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Hans_W]

Pardon my ignorance. What is really Intelligent Design Creationism?

That’s a long story. I have written a thesis on this very topic of Intelligent Design. It would be difficult to summarise it in a few sentences.

The Catholic Church makes it easy for us. We basically can believe anything, from a 6000-year old universe to Theistic evolution and anything in between - as long as we accept that God has given us humans an immortal soul.

If you are only interested in the spiritual side, then there are no problems. If you are also interested in the question of how we got our physical body, then you need to look into what we’ve learned from science. As you know, and we should be grateful for that, the Church has always been very open to the latest scientific findings. And the theory of Intelligent Design contradicts those findings. It’s not a scientific theory to start with anyway.

The Church officially rejects ID. You are welcome to accept it, but we shouldn’t stand in the way of other people who want to know more and are interested in proper science. The Catholic Church fully accepts Theistic evolution. Intelligent Design rejects Theistic evolution. There are lots of Catholics who support ID, and there are lots of Catholics who believe in a 6-day creation. That’s fine, but please don’t exclude Theistic evolution. Please don’t stand in the way of people who accept Theistic evolution.

If somebody is more interested in these topics, I am happy to explain things in more detail and point them to the right literature.

 

[grannymh]

That’s a long story. I have written a thesis on this very topic of Intelligent Design. It would be difficult to summarise it in a few sentences.

The Catholic Church makes it easy for us. We basically can believe anything, from a 6000-year old universe to Theistic evolution and anything in between - as long as we accept that God has given us humans an immortal soul.

If you are only interested in the spiritual side, then there are no problems. If you are also interested in the question of how we got our physical body, then you need to look into what we’ve learned from science. As you know, and we should be grateful for that, the Church has always been very open to the latest scientific findings. And the theory of Intelligent Design contradicts those findings. It’s not a scientific theory to start with anyway.

The Church officially rejects ID. You are welcome to accept it, but we shouldn’t stand in the way of other people who want to know more and are interested in proper science. The Catholic Church fully accepts Theistic evolution. Intelligent Design rejects Theistic evolution. There are lots of Catholics who support ID, and there are lots of Catholics who believe in a 6-day creation. That’s fine, but please don’t exclude Theistic evolution. Please don’t stand in the way of people who accept Theistic evolution.

If somebody is more interested in these topics, I am happy to explain things in more detail and point them to the right literature.

For readers information.

When I contact scientists who work in the area of human origin, I say up front that I am not a creationist and I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design.

As for Theistic Evolution, when one includes current suppositions (originating human population of thousands) one slips away from Catholic teachings.

As for proper science, I have presented a general view of current proper science involving human origin.

I have not addressed the emergence or epiphenomenon theory of human nature. In general, this involves the material DNA as being capable of creating something similar to the idea of a spiritual soul with added scenarios such as culture being responsible for local morality. In my opinion, these science endeavors do not really concern the reality of Adam and Eve as taught by the Catholic Church. Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve immediately had a spiritual rational soul. Genesis 1: 26-27. Adam and Eve were immediately subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. CCC 396.

 

[Hans_W]

For readers information.

… I am not a creationist and I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design.

But your Dr Bonnette clearly is a supporter of ID.

As for Theistic Evolution, when one includes current suppositions (originating human population of thousands) one slips away from Catholic teachings…

EVOLUTION AND POLYGENISM

Presupposing all this, according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin.

One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine.

Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin.

It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men.

These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.

Which is preferable? To answer such a question various proposals have been and are still being put forward.

This is copy/pasted from: ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM
(Paul VI, 1969)

I hope I haven’t taken it out of context and the reader is encouraged to read the whole story.
Let me assure you that we presently probably know 100 times more about human origins than we knew in 1969. We only found more confirmation.

 

[grannymh]

EVOLUTION AND POLYGENISM

Presupposing all this, according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin.

One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine.

Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin.

It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men.

These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.

Which is preferable? To answer such a question various proposals have been and are still being put forward.
This is copy/pasted from: ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM
(Paul VI, 1969)

And this is written by Roberto Masi who is not the pope.

L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
17 April 1969, page 5

For those unfamiliar with Catholic protocol.
Everyone has the right to free speech and can express their opinions.

In the past, this entire article was considered a reliable source of the various ideas intended to update Divine Revelation.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Hans, thank you for posting that essay by Masi. If I may supplement it with one of G.K. Chesterton’s essays: “The Outline of the Fall”. From his book “The Thing: Why I am a Catholic”.

Actually, here is that very essay.

…ome shadow of a comparison could be made out of the modern myths. I mean the sort of myths that men like Mr. Wells generally do believe in; such as the Myth of the Magna Carta or the Myth of the Mayflower. Now many historians will maintain that the Magna Carta was really nothing to speak of; that it was largely a piece of feudal privilege. But suppose one of the historians who holds this view began to argue with us excitedly about the fabulous nature of our ordinary fancy picture of the Magna Carta. Suppose he produced maps and documents to prove that Magna Carta was not signed at Runnymede, but somewhere else; as I believe scholars do maintain. Suppose he criticised the false heraldy and fancy-dress costumes of the ordinary sort of waxwork historical picture of the event. We should think he was rather unduly excited about a detail of medieval history. But with what a shock of astonishment should we realise at last that the man thought that all modern attempts at democracy must be abandoned, that all representative governments must be wrong, that all Parliaments would have to be dissolved, and all political rights destroyed, if once it were admitted that King John did not sign that special document in that little island in the Thames!

 

[Hans_W]

And this is written by Roberto Masi who is not the pope.

L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
17 April 1969, page 5
​

Of course, the Pope doesn’t write directly on scientific matters. That’s not his job. But he has his science advisors and that article certainly went past the Pope and he obviously didn’t condemn it.​

 

[grannymh]

Of course, the Pope doesn’t write directly on scientific matters. That’s not his job. But he has his science advisors and that article certainly went past the Pope and he obviously didn’t condemn it.

So?
The Catholic Church position was already in the article’s beginning.

 

[Hans_W]

So?
The Catholic Church position was already in the article’s beginning.

Yes, we all got a soul from God. Full stop. Science will never contradict that.

Some people really struggle to match historical facts with their spiritual beliefs. If it makes you more comfortable to believe in a literal Adam & Eve, nobody will stop you. But please do not stand in the way of other people who are interested in the question of our origins. The Church, and that includes our Pope Francis, are open to new discoveries which are being made all the time.

There are lots of strange ideas out there under the umbrella of being Catholic. Can you point us to link where the Catholic Church refers to Dr Dennis Bonnette and his Intelligent Design movement?

 

[grannymh]

Informative links.

drbonnette.com/

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

 

[Hans_W]

Informative links.

drbonnette.com/

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

We don’t need links to your Dr Bonnette and his ID theory. We want to see links from the Catholic Church, or the Vatican linking TO Bonnette. There are none, because the Church does not subscribe to Intelligent Design.

Once again, the Church does NOT support Bonnette’s viewpoint.

Here are links from the Vatican to statements concerning questions about evolution:

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html (Pius XII, 1950)
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM (Paul VI, 1969)
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm (John Paul II, 1996)

The first is from the Encyclical Humani Generis from 1950. The second is taken from the newspaper of the Holy See. The third are St John Paul’s own words.

Please supply a similar link from the Church to anything supporting Intelligent Design.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Hans, in the name of charity, since the Church allows us ID, creationism, and/or evolutionism as potential scientific explanations for the Creation myth, why not drop it? In the name of charity? No point in beating a dead unicorn. And there isn’t official, binding support for ID, creationism, or theistic evolution. There is only condemnation of atheistic evolution and materialism.

So both you and granny are wrong.

 

[Hans_W]

Hans, in the name of charity, since the Church allows us ID, creationism, and/or evolutionism as potential scientific explanations for the Creation myth, why not drop it? In the name of charity? No point in beating a dead unicorn. And there isn’t official, binding support for ID, creationism, or theistic evolution. There is only condemnation of atheistic evolution and materialism.

So both you and granny are wrong.

Thank you for your kind words. As I mentioned before, the Catholic Church accepts any belief between Young Earth Creationism and Theistic evolution. I will never criticize anybody subscribing to any of these ideologies.

However, I do get upset if somebody attacks the idea of Theistic evolution (that’s what Dennis Bonnette does under the mantle of Catholicism). I have seen many examples (mostly in the Protestant world) where people have lost their belief in God because they were confronted with the false dichotomy: belief in God or belief in science.

ID is not science. We just had a weekend with Stephen Meyer here in Auckland, one of the founding fathers of ID. His slogan was: “The scientific evidence for the existence of God”. Sorry, but science does not and cannot prove the existence of God, nor can it disprove it. Especially children get drawn into this either/or nonsense. You end up with bad science and bad theology.

Granny is welcome to believe Dennis Bonnette’s view of creation, but don’t attack Theistic evolution, which is the official standpoint of the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

Hans, in the name of charity, since the Church allows us ID, creationism, and/or evolutionism as potential scientific explanations for the Creation myth, why not drop it? In the name of charity? No point in beating a dead unicorn. And there isn’t official, binding support for ID, creationism, or theistic evolution. There is only condemnation of atheistic evolution and materialism.

What Christian myth? The Catholic Church has doctrines which are not “Christian myths.” FYI Catholic doctrines are based on Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church opposes the current scientific position that there was an originating humanizing population in the thousands.

The Catholic doctrine is that the originating human population is a population of two. :extrahappy:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

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).

Typical naturalistic origins for the origin of humanity would generally don’t leave room for a first couple- that is, a single pair of human beings from which all later humans were descended. Would this run afoul of Pius XII’s statement above? He specifically targets polygenism, which isn’t exactly what I’m talking about here. Polygenism generally means that different groups of humans are descended from different “first communities”, which isn’t an idea that has broad support as far as I know.

The view I’m getting is one where humans emerged gradually, as a single large community. That is, there would have been thousands of first humans, rather than two. If this is impermissible, I feel that Catholics which claim that evolution and Catholicism are compatible are either misinformed or disingenuous.

 

[grannymh]

Typical naturalistic origins for the origin of humanity would generally don’t leave room for a first couple- that is, a single pair of human beings from which all later humans were descended. Would this run afoul of Pius XII’s statement above? He specifically targets polygenism, which isn’t exactly what I’m talking about here. Polygenism generally means that different groups of humans are descended from different “first communities”, which isn’t an idea that has broad support as far as I know.

The view I’m getting is one where humans emerged gradually, as a single large community. That is, there would have been thousands of first humans, rather than two.

The Catholic Church opposes the concept of thousands of first humans. It maintains its doctrine that humankind descended from two sole real true fully-human parents.

When one considers the capabilities of the human’s rational mind, a survival of two is a clear possibility.

 

[brian_custer]

i try not to over-think issues like this. we live in the here & now which is all the space/time we have been given; with instructions trom God the Father to live our lives the way Jesus taught us

to nit-pick, over-analyze and put under the microscope passages of Genesis just seems to me to be a complete waste of time

 

[Thorolfr]

The Catholic Church opposes the current scientific position that there was an originating humanizing population in the thousands.

The Catholic doctrine is that the originating human population is a population of two. :extrahappy:

One of the problems I have with the Adam and Eve story is where do Neanderthals fit in? I’ve done DNA testing at the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, and they determined that 2.1% of my genome was composed of Neanderthal DNA which shows that some of my distant ancestors were Neanderthals. Most people with ancestors outside of Africa have some Neanderthal DNA showing that humans interbred with the Neanderthals. So were both the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens sapiens (humans) descended from Adam and Eve?

Also the Genesis stories seems rather confuses. In Genesis 1:24-26, God created animals first and then He created man:

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind[c] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

But Genesis 2: 15-19 says that God created man first and then created animals:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

These two version of creation cannot both be true. So why should we believe either one?

 

[Hans_W]

i try not to over-think issues like this. we live in the here & now which is all the space/time we have been given; with instructions trom God the Father to live our lives the way Jesus taught us

to nit-pick, over-analyze and put under the microscope passages of Genesis just seems to me to be a complete waste of time

That’s the problem with many people, including Christians. Science has been so successful in the last 400 years, so we need to put the Bible under the microscope, Genesis in particular, and analyse it with logic.

God made the world and gave us souls by “breathing” them into us. That’s all I need to get out of Genesis.