Evolution, Original Sin, and Death

[mikeledes]

If we are the product of an evolutionary process, how do we explain the existence of death before Adam and Eve? The dinosaurs and all the hominids preceding modern human beings experienced death, and often a violent death. I thought death and violence entered the world through sin? Also, I heard one priest say that polygenism is an acceptable theory. Then how do we explain original sin? Why didn’t God just plainly talk about this “original community” rather than talking about Adam and Eve?

God Bless,

 

[Todd_Easton]

If we are the product of an evolutionary process, how do we explain the existence of death before Adam and Eve? The dinosaurs and all the hominids preceding modern human beings experienced death, and often a violent death. I thought death and violence entered the world through sin? Also, I heard one priest say that polygenism is an acceptable theory. Then how do we explain original sin? Why didn’t God just plainly talk about this “original community” rather than talking about Adam and Eve?

God Bless,

Spiritual death entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve.

Unless something has changed in the past few years, polygenism is not an acceptable theory.

From Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis:
37. 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 parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. [Confer with Romans 5:12-19, Council of Trent, session 5, canons 1-4.] source

 

[Todd_Easton]

Spiritual death entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve.

What I had in mind here was paragraph 310 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, in part:
…with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying " toward its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.
%between%

 

[Donald45]

In his 1996 address titled Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, written to update and revise Pius XII’s 1950 Encyclical *Humani Generis, *John Paul II said the following:

“The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

This last statement calls for further clarification by both theologians and scientists. Is the “soul” the same as “consciousness”? If not, perhaps human consciousness (as a material function of the brain) developed evolutionarily along with the human body, while the soul (as a spiritual substance) was created immediately by God. I’m speculating here, but further contemplation of the issue seems prudent.

In any case, JPII also suggested in 1993 that “the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If we are the product of an evolutionary process, how do we explain the existence of death before Adam and Eve?

Death came with life for all but Adam and Eve.

The dinosaurs and all the hominids preceding modern human beings experienced death, and often a violent death. I thought death and violence entered the world through sin?

hominids? No real change to answer above. Violence is usually forbidden for humans from the mental aspect which does not exist for non humans which lack the mental capability to control violence

Also, I heard one priest say that polygenism is an acceptable theory.

Not sure what you are asking here. Evolution is in God’s control but not human control. It appears God is using evolution to change things, but that has no affect on the descendents of Adam which have conscious and soul. For example the average height of a man has changed from 5’4" to 5’9" but mans responsibility has changed how? None

Then how do we explain original sin?

Original sin was man choosing to accept knowledge, which brought in free will, and thus sin. Sin is the decision to not obey God.

Why didn’t God just plainly talk about this “original community” rather than talking about Adam and Eve?

Huh? I am guessing here but I think you are assuming the hominids were all Adams? There was no community. Did God pick a hominoid to become Adam? Did Adam precede the hominoids? Does any of it matter, probably not; as we have our marching orders. Exactly what God did or how it was done is not that important. If you chose to accept evolution as a substitute for God your decision is made and your faith sealed, or if you accept evolution as part of a substitute for God: same. If you accept evolution as a part of God’s plan (and his works) then it has no affect on your spiritual life. The irony is by rejecting God one fulfills their own destiny.

Another issue you may want to look at is a theory that during the life time of Adam, Eve, and their immediate family other people may have existed. This is a theory based on the account of Cain’s discussion with God in which God eventually marks Cain for his protection. This theory involves the base of a Jew verses Gentile theory. In which the Jew is seen as the chosen one and the Gentile as the non chosen (but coexisting) people. The Catholic Church teaches against this theory, yet the bile is some what supportive of the theory.

Hope this helps

 

[Donald45]

Let me attempt a brief reply to the question of death before the Fall:

The argument goes like this: “If evolution occurred, death must have existed in nature prior to the appearance of humans. If death occurred before humans, then sin is a fiction and, thus, there was no need for a Savior. So, if evolution is a fact, salvation (the gospel) is overthrown.” On the basis of such biblical passages as Gen. 2:17 and Rom. 5:12, some have claimed that physical death—of both humans and the lower animals—did not exist prior to the Fall in Eden. So, obviously, goes the argument, death could not have occurred (as it must have, if evolution is true) prior to the appearance and subsequent fall of human beings.

Yet, is it in fact the case that there was no death of any kind in the world before the sin of Adam? Consider Rom. 5:12. From the immediate context, it’s clear that St. Paul is concerned with human “death” as a punishment for sin, not with biological death in general. As he writes, “…death came to all men, because all sinned” [through Adam]. Now, the obvious fact that only human beings are capable of sinning should be enough to establish that Paul is not here referring to the biological death of animals or plants. In fact, nothing is said one way or the other about animal death in this passage, nor in Gen. 2:17. Also, as has been observed in an earlier post, the “death” discussed here primarily involves the spiritual death (that is, separation from God through sin) of human beings, and is in no way a statement on pre-fall biological death.

A proper understanding of these biblical texts does not require a wholesale dismissal of the substantial evidence of animal death attested by the fossil remains in the lower sedimentary strata long before the appearance of man. Consider, as well, the fact that God’s warning to Adam (“when you eat of it, you will surely die”) would have been incomprehensible if Adam had never observed the death of any plant or animal. Furthermore, since this world has always been a temporal creation, it is problematic to assume that Adam and Eve would have lived “forever,” even if they had not eaten the fruit. (Note that they never did partake of the tree of life.)

In fact, we know that death existed in the vegetable kingdom before Adam’s sin because God created plants as food for humans and other animals (Gen. 1:29-30). If the death of plants (the same Hebrew term is used for the “death” of both plants and animals) was a good and necesary part of the balance of nature in Eden, why should not the death of animals serve a similar useful purpose? Indeed, without animal death, reproduction (“be fruitful and multiply”) would have rapidly caused overpopulation and biological chaos.

This is a just bare-bones outline of the issue, but it’s plain that a proper understanding of the biblical passages involved need not force one into the “no-death-before-the-fall” position.

Truly

Don
+T+

 

[buffalo]

Evolution and Eve coming from Adam have to harmonize. So far they don’t.

However, it can be just that God placed a fully created Adam and then Eve anywhere in the timeline He desired, regardless of what may have been going on on the earth at the time. Why is it either or, when the supernatural is certainly a possibility.

 

[Donald45]

…Why is it either or, when the supernatural is certainly a possibility.

The problem with this, specifically as it relates to science, is that “the supernatural is certainly possible” at any point, and can easily (given that Scripture tells us nothing either way) become a “God-of-the-gaps” exercise in speculation. We don’t have sufficient scientific knowledge in a particular area? Maybe God performed a miracle! In any case, such speculation is theologically based, and is therefore non-scientific in nature. The supernatural is always a possibility, but this is a theological concept, not a scientific conclusion.

The “either-or” you mentioned occurs here: one’s statements are either theological or they are scientific, and the two realms must be carefully distinguished (though not separated).

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[buffalo]

The problem with this, specifically as it relates to science, is that “the supernatural is certainly possible” at any point, and can easily (given that Scripture tells us nothing either way) become a “God-of-the-gaps” exercise in speculation. We don’t have sufficient scientific knowledge in a particular area? Maybe God performed a miracle! In any case, such speculation is theologically based, and is therefore non-scientific in nature. The supernatural is always a possibility, but this is a theological concept, not a scientific conclusion.

Truly,

Don
+T+

Sure, but looking at it only from the limited view of science as the last century or so has pushed is exactly opposite of the “God-of-the gaps”. The Adam and Eve event is not reproducible and also non-scientific.

 

[Donald45]

Sure, but looking at it only from the limited view of science as the last century or so has pushed is exactly opposite of the “God-of-the gaps”. The Adam and Eve event is not reproducible and also non-scientific.

Yes, the last century or so (actually, more than two centuries) has pushed the scientific view as the best way of understanding the forms and functions of the material world. This in no way eliminates the creative activity of God as an issue within theology, but does exclude metaphysical explanations from the practice of *science, *which necessarily limits itself to the objects and phenomena of the physical world.

Your statement that “the Adam and Eve event is not reproducible and also non-scientific” effectively reduces “science” to “laboratory science,” an assumption that no working scientist would be likely to endorse. There is a definite historical aspect to such physical sciences as astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology, and part of the scientist’s task is to answer such historical questions in the course of his work.

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[Liberian]

Mikeledes,

We are, it appears, “the product of an evolutionary process” as far as the creation of our physical bodies is concerned. There is no scientific evidence for or against the evolution versus “in-breathing” of our souls; a lot of scientists have opinions, but they don’t have any solid facts.

My personal explanation of death before Adam and Eve is “reverse temporal engineering”–the idea that the Fall worked backwards in time as well as forwards. I haven’t run it past any ecclesiastical authorities but I haven’t read anything that contradicts it.

The priest who said that “polygenism is an acceptable theory” needs to provide an official source. As another respondent has pointed out, there is a pretty authoritative teaching against it.

• Liberian

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the question is asked in the terms in which it has been asked, I don’t think it’s going to be possible to give a coherent answer - it’s like asking for the address of the Grinch; which exists in a story, but not in the world inhabited by us.​

There can perfectly well be a Fall without an Adam or an Eve - besides, Hebrew (the language from which those names come) is not the oldest language. To require belief in the reality of those particular individuals is completely unnecessary. The theology of the Fall can be a truthful account of human sinfulness and man’s alienation from God, without requiring them to exist. ##

 

[buffalo]

Yes, the last century or so (actually, more than two centuries) has pushed the scientific view as the best way of understanding the forms and functions of the material world. This in no way eliminates the creative activity of God as an issue within theology, but does exclude metaphysical explanations from the practice of *science, *which necessarily limits itself to the objects and phenomena of the physical world.

Your statement that “the Adam and Eve event is not reproducible and also non-scientific” effectively reduces “science” to “laboratory science,” an assumption that no working scientist would be likely to endorse. There is a definite historical aspect to such physical sciences as astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology, and part of the scientist’s task is to answer such historical questions in the course of his work.

Truly,

Don
+T+

Outside of emperical science they are educated guesses. Since no one witnessed the events, they will always remain so. We do have God’s Revelation to fill in the “gaps”.

 

[Donald45]

Outside of emperical science they are educated guesses. Since no one witnessed the events, they will always remain so. We do have God’s Revelation to fill in the “gaps”.

I disagree. I think this would be a distortion of both science and revelation. The fact is that every conclusion in science (empirical or not) is an “educated guess” in the sense that all scientific conclusions are provisional and rest upon present knowledge, which may conceivably change with further research. Scientific discoveries do not carry mathematical certainty. Finally, no, I wouldn’t affirm that “God’s Revelation fills in the gaps,” since this would assume that the biblical writers’ intention was to inform us about properly scientific matters. Yet, as Galileo wisely observed, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[ribozyme]

What I had in mind here was paragraph 310 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, in part:
…with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying " toward its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.
%between%

Nope, evolution is not a teleological force. So evolution strives for “perfection”? Any evidence for this profound assertion? “Evolution” occurs when one adapts to a more difficult niche, not when one becomes more reproductively efficient. If the latter is true, then Eschericha coli is superior to Homo sapiens. Returning to perfection, why is the termnial gene in the L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis pathway disabled in us? So many sailors died of scurvy before James Cook. Also, it stands to ask why meisois has not been perfected. Oh well, just look up Down syndrome, Kleinfelter syndrome, and Edwards syndrome on wikipedia about this.

Darwinian evolution is not egalitarian; it inhibits the proliferation of “unfit” phenotypes. For example, this explains why the frequence for the alleles for hereditary diseases are so low in human population. An example of this is cystic fibrosis, which occurs in about 1 in 25 people of Caucasian and Jewish descent. But it is also thought being heterozygous (having only one copy of the defective allele, which is a chloride ion (Cl-) transport gene is thought to confer an advantage under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is under the presence of cholera toxin, which is “intelligently designed,” by interfering with signal transduction by preventing the hydrolysis of GTP for the alpha unit of the g-protein, thus allowing phosphodiesterase to convert ATP to cAMP, causing the accumilation of that second messenger. (seehere)

Other hereditary diseases such as Lesch Nyhan syndrome (absence of a functional copy of the purine salvage enzyme hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase), and galactosemia (which usually involves the absence of galactose 1-phosphate uridyltransferase, which transfers UMP (from 1-UDP-glucose) anomeric carbon of galactose. This sets up the next reaction to convert galactose into glucose, and then glucose-1-phopshate is converted to glucose-6-phosphate, so it could enter glycolysis, pentose phosphate pathway, or become stored as glycogen. (see here)) These other diseases are recessive, like cystic fibrosis. If such diseases had such devastating effects on phenotype and are dominant, they would be weeded out. But diseases like Huntingtons’ disease are dominant, but they strike when one is past their reproductive age.

I guess evolution has “perfected” HIV’s (which causes AIDS, contrary to what Duesberg and Jonathan Wells’ opinions) ability to mimic a CD4 receptor in leukocytes, so it could enter the immune system. Also evolution has the potential to “perfect” the ability of reverse transciptase of rejecting azidothymidine (in its 5’ triphosphorylated form) as a substrate (AZT is a common medicine in anti-retroviral regiments).

 

[smswife]

" Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
14
For he fashioned all things that they might have being; and the creatures of the world are wholesome, And there is not a destructive drug among them nor any domain of the nether world on earth,"
Wisdom 1:13-14

I am glad this thread was posted. I have been trying to understand and reconcile this verse with exactly what everyone here has been talking about, because obviously this world is teeming with destructive creatures (many of them microscopic, such as viruses and bacteria) and has been for some time.

My ponderings started with my 6yo asking why God made mosquitos so that they needed to drink blood. I don’t know!! Why DID God make mosquitoes so that they need to drink blood? Is this all a result of the Fall? Were there mosquitos in the garden of Eden before the Fall? How did they live?

Please understand that I’m asking these questions seriously. What does our Faith teach us about these things?

Also, I’m sure I’m misunderstanding the above quote from the Catechism (although I followed the link to read it in context) about the world in a “state of journeying” to perfection, but it sounds like heresy to me! Surely the Church doesn’t teach emergent evolution, does it? (For any C. S. Lewis fans, it sounds alarmingly like Weston in Perelandra.)

Please help me to understand.

Thank you

 

[Nullasalus]

Nope, evolution is not a teleological force. So evolution strives for “perfection”? Any evidence for this profound assertion? “Evolution” occurs when one adapts to a more difficult niche, not when one becomes more reproductively efficient. If the latter is true, then Eschericha coli is superior to Homo sapiens. Returning to perfection, why is the termnial gene in the L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis pathway disabled in us? So many sailors died of scurvy before James Cook. Also, it stands to ask why meisois has not been perfected. Oh well, just look up Down syndrome, Kleinfelter syndrome, and Edwards syndrome on wikipedia about this.

Wow, you’re very intelligent. My compliments - and I mean that seriously.

Certainly at a glance, evolution seems progressive in many ways even to the untrained eye. After all, life started as simple cellular life and became increasingly complex over time despite (and in fact, because of) various environmental setbacks. I personally don’t believe in a state of perfection myself - rather, I believe in the infinite, while I lean heavily towards theistic and Catholic. So for me, it’s inspiring that the process of evolution seems ever ascendant. To which I have to ask - ascendant towards what? Well, apparently SOMEthing, with all of this complexity - complexity which eventually endowed us with consciousness, and an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, humanity now is capable of taking over tasks that evolution as we know it once was relied upon - and even atheists like Dawkins and Dennett have to come up for new, human-specific methods by which we ‘evolve’ thanks to that (Meme theory comes to mind.)

On the other hand, I recognize you can argue against this; You’ve already given some examples of ‘perfection’ in evolution (HIV - but really, can’t HIV get better?) Still, you can always shift your perspective to what I and other theistically inclined types are saying - you may not agree, but I’d hope you could at least admit to the validity of it in some way.

smswife:

My ponderings started with my 6yo asking why God made mosquitos so that they needed to drink blood. I don’t know!! Why DID God make mosquitoes so that they need to drink blood? Is this all a result of the Fall? Were there mosquitos in the garden of Eden before the Fall? How did they live?

I’m not certain whether you are a creationist or not - if so, my thoughts on this won’t be of much use to you. But my reply right now (It’s late, forgive me) is that there is not a challenge humanity cannot learn from and eventually overcome, nor anything truly useless in the universe. Even the foulest creatures - indeed, the foulest diseases - are surmountable in time thanks to what we are endowed with, and all things are something we can learn from, even if they are diseases. This may not be satisfying, but it’s worth considering.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mikeledes,

One of the more recent issues of National Geographic highlighted a human genome project aimed at tracing the origins of man. The present evidence suggests that humanity came from two original human beings (male+female). This is extrapolated from evidence that progressively forces the identity of the original race of humans to a specific locale in Africa. If one understands evolution to be a process of adaptive genetic mutation, one can see the reasonableness of this conclusion.

In addition to all that has been said by others, one can also insert the notion that Adam and Eve were “EXPELLED” from Paradise. If Paradise was originally in some alternate plane of reality (i.e., not earth as we know it, a purely physical state subject to entropy), then your scenarios present no problem to the Faith. The fact that “death entered the world” due to sin would not contradict my statements if one understands St. Paul’s words to refer to spiritual death.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Texas_Roofer]

" Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being; and the creatures of the world are wholesome, And there is not a destructive drug among them nor any domain of the nether world on earth,"
Wisdom 1:13-14

I am glad this thread was posted. I have been trying to understand and reconcile this verse with exactly what everyone here has been talking about, because obviously this world is teeming with destructive creatures (many of them microscopic, such as viruses and bacteria) and has been for some time.

My ponderings started with my 6yo asking why God made mosquitos so that they needed to drink blood. I don’t know!! Why DID God make mosquitoes so that they need to drink blood? Is this all a result of the Fall? Were there mosquitos in the garden of Eden before the Fall? How did they live?

Please understand that I’m asking these questions seriously. What does our Faith teach us about these things?

Also, I’m sure I’m misunderstanding the above quote from the Catechism (although I followed the link to read it in context) about the world in a “state of journeying” to perfection, but it sounds like heresy to me! Surely the Church doesn’t teach emergent evolution, does it? (For any C. S. Lewis fans, it sounds alarmingly like Weston in Perelandra.)

Please help me to understand.

Thank you

I think a couple of issues are being mixed and that may be the heart of the confusion. Here is my understanding; in the pre-sin days of man mosquitoes probably existed but probably did not bite man, and certainly could not have killed man by passing disease. I think death and disease both existed but man was immune. Man chose knowledge over Gods instructions and surrendered this immunity. Man from that time forth existed as both human and animal, and thus became exposed to animal problems as mosquitoes, diseases, murder, thief, disrespect, envy, gluttony, on and on. Man also incurred death as a direct result of his sin, this remains until Jesus comes and offers man an opportunity to regain some of the original purpose. We do not know what extent we can regain this status in God’s plan. Our death may return us to a garden of paradise, or something else we simply do not know and have to trust in God.

In the second issue I think it is communicating God does not enjoy the death of even soulless animals however it occurs in the designed plan to support the earth, which was designed for God’s plan. For this reason I think killing animals to eat is acceptable but killing without purpose is displeasing to God

 

[buffalo]

I disagree. I think this would be a distortion of both science and revelation. The fact is that every conclusion in science (empirical or not) is an “educated guess” in the sense that all scientific conclusions are provisional and rest upon present knowledge, which may conceivably change with further research. Scientific discoveries do not carry mathematical certainty. Finally, no, I wouldn’t affirm that “God’s Revelation fills in the gaps,” since this would assume that the biblical writers’ intention was to inform us about properly scientific matters. Yet, as Galileo wisely observed, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

If you follow the God of the gaps to its logical conclusion, we humans will always be limited in our knowledge as we are not God. No matter what we learn, however far science can go, there will always be a gap. God, the creator and designer will always and forever fill the gaps.

God’s word is complete. In it it contains the total truth. Imbedded in the word is both scientific and theological truth. How could it be any other way?

Whether we see this truth or not is a differrent story.