Genesis details

[opusAquinas]

I understand that we cannot know for sure since the Church has not received further revelation on such a matter, but my reason for this thread is to learn more about Catholic teaching on the matter to also ensure any views I may have are not against Church teaching.

I think I answered your other post.

 

[Aloysium]

This is just an assumption based on what I’ve been taught . . . .

You evidently have been led to Christ and therefore value the teachings of the Magisterium.
From your questions, there appears to be a conflict between what has been revealed, and what you have been taught in school, on television, everywhere it seems in secular society.
It should all make sense and what you believe should fall in line with what you have come to consider as being real.

How are you going to put it together: the resurrection, the Eucharist, the transfiguration, the miracles, as well as this matter of Adam and Eve?

Here, you are wanting to understand how it is that all humanity comes from and is one flesh in Adam (and eternally in Christ).
Something happened in time. What was it?
The fact is, that the Holy Spirit has not revealed this to us in any detail other than the basic truth contained in scripture.
I assert that we are unable to comprehend how this was done and that it does not matter.
However, coming here asking the opinion of random people like myself is not a totally valueless exercise.

:twocents:

Perhaps this is test of faith.
Christ shakes our foundations.
Are we prepared to surrender our minds to the Holy Spirit? He offers such a bounty of graces!!
No answer will fulfill this need for the truth, that is not He himself.
So, seek God, pray, study, attend mass, partake of the Eucharist, love your neighbor and, above all, love God.
Ask Him, you will come to know what is important for you to know.
If it is His will, come back and let us know what you’ve found.

 

[grannymh]

Are you trying to say that I should not pursue this question.
Any of my questions on technicalities, evolution, and tying science with Church teaching does not tie in to justify my faith or belief in the church, or trying to be the wiser. Any speculation or thinking on things like this is because of enjoyment of speculation and thinking things out. Unless I’ve completely missed the point of this post and I am doing something wrong or have committed a sin?

I, too, share the enjoyment of speculation and thinking about the details of the first three chapters of Genesis. I am currently relishing Genesis 1: 26-27 and its influence when I receive Holy Communion. The State of Sanctifying Grace was one of the basic things I learned as a child. After many moons, it has dawned on me what that means in real time and space. My “thoughts” will be endless. Some of my thoughts along with others are in the thread “Adam & Logic” in the Philosophy Forum, page 5 of the list of threads. The thread is now closed because it reached the limit of 1,000 posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785994

Caution. When I do have or do read speculations about the first three chapters of Genesis, I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, to make sure I stay on track. Or I ask someone smarter…

You are some weeks ahead of the expanded edition (3rd edition) of Origin of the Human Species by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette. Included in this edition is Appendix One: The Myth of the “Myth of Adam and Eve” which presents the rational credibility of Adam and Eve that answers concerns presented by Kmon23 in post 1 and following. Appendix Two: The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution that demonstrates philosophically why Darwinian naturalism cannot explain the higher philosophical natural species.

Thus, in one volume, there is the necessary basic information about our origin and the up-to-date examination of both the scientific approach and Catholic approach to our existence.

At this point in time, I am not sure when the book will be in the stores.
When it does, the ISBN number is ISBN 13: 978-1-932589-68-9

In the meantime, this citation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Supplement 2012-2013, will answer basic questions regarding Monogenism and Polygenism. It also provides some basic answers to questions posed by natural science.

Bonnette, Dennis. “Monogenism and Polygenism.” New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 1013-1016. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 June 2013.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for the reference to Dr. Bonnette’s work. I was able to access the Supplement to the* New Catholic Encyclopedia* via my library that subscribes to it.

He summarizes the theological necessity for monogenism as “a necessary presupposition of the dogma of original sin.” Indeed, the reality of sin and our need for the Savior are the main theological concerns, as far as I know, related to this question.

I’m glad that Dr. Bonnette cites the article by Kemp (Science, Theology, and Monogenesis) that I cited in an earlier post.

Dr. Bonnette then proceeds to address the science. He write: “Although molecular biologists have been responsible for scientific advances of great benefit to society, it is nevertheless possible for them to make statements that go beyond the evidence, and they seem to do precisely this when they challenge the reality of an individual Adam and Eve when claiming that the hominid population has never experienced a bottleneck (reduced population) of a single mating pair.” His main scientific source is an article written by Ann Gauger and published by Discovery Institute Press in 2012.

I do think it important to provide balance regarding the science. A short and simple blog post is available at
biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple

A more detailed essay is available at
biologos.org/resources/essay/genesis-and-the-genome

 

[edwest2]

From Communion and Stewardship:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

Science has limits. God does not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

Agreed - and that is why we need not fear the science. God can use natural processes that science legitimately describes using impersonal terms and concepts (including deterministic laws as well as random chance) to achieve personal, providential outcomes.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed - and that is why we need not fear the science. God can use natural processes that science legitimately describes using impersonal terms and concepts (including deterministic laws as well as random chance) to achieve personal, providential outcomes.

God works infallibly - random chance is right out. No one fears science as much as some fear Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

Agreed again. God indeed does not make mistakes! And, what appears to us given our limitations - first because we are human mortals and not God, and secondly because the scientific method and the data science uses are limited - might appear very differently from God’s perspective! So for God, indeed, as you put it, random chance might be “right out” (the window, I assume).

 

[edwest2]

Agreed again. God indeed does not make mistakes! And, what appears to us given our limitations - first because we are human mortals and not God, and secondly because the scientific method and the data science uses are limited - might appear very differently from God’s perspective! So for God, indeed, as you put it, random chance might be “right out” (the window, I assume).

Among the numerous threads that relate to this, I’d like to point out that it’s all in the presentation. I do see two problems though.

1. The common prevailing concept regarding creation involves certain assumptions. For example, if a planet is of a certain size, is the right distance from its sun and has water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids). Life will form there. That is speculation only. So students of biology will be more likely to think that the different forms that life takes on earth, including human beings, involved mechanisms that went this way and that without tending to arrive at this or that particular form of life. In other words, had a random event occurred in the past, human beings might look like lizards on two legs.

The conclusion too often drawn from this is that from the beginning of creation, the universe just did whatever it did, and through various mechanisms, here we are. There is no greater intelligence than our own. There is no one that made us, loves us and wants us to be in a relationship with Him. We are accountable to no one for our actions except law enforcement. Our will guides us and our conscience - though we believe it to be our own - is influenced daily by men who generally lack any moral compass, are immoral, or actively want to promote ways of life that are not beneficial to individuals or communities.

This worldview can have a profound effect on individuals.

1. Creation and the weak God connection. I see it written as a soft possibility, like God could, might* or may have used His power as God to guide creation in some way, maybe. But from a scientific view, that’s just not science. It’s not even speculation. By its own rules, souls and God-like beings are not to be considered - ever. Yet there are those who post here with fictional ideas that try to connect established science to souls. They can’t. Science would never back that idea.

I see it as a way to convince Christians that although God might, maybe have been involved in creation, that saying that is only a way to confuse and pacify Christians who know, from Church teaching, that God was intimately involved in creation. Then they quote saints and Popes and that is also followed by “and Genesis can’t be literal because science says…” What does it say? Do they need the approval of Christians to even do science? Of course not! Yet it happens here constantly. There are no peer-reviewed papers like, “Scientific Analysis of Creation Claims in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

Yet what do we get here? An endless stream of posts trying to convince any doubters that God may, might, could have, maybe, kinda sorta been involved in creation. This “god-lite” approach tells us nothing.

Then we get the, ‘but the Church believes, or allows us to believe, in theistic evolution.’ And the theistic part is what? What happened and when? According to who? Certainly not science.

Get it through your heads, dear readers, that the theistic part cannot agree with the biology textbook which tells us in no uncertain terms, that mechanistic processes alone just spit our human beings after a given period of time. Period. That’s the full, complete explanation. Accept that and tack on whatever belief system you want as long as you accept “the book of biology” as the real authority, not some superstitions or old book or outdated ideas.

CRITICAL TRUTH. God, not men, was behind creation. Science cannot examine God or the soul - so that limit needs to be recognized. Only the Catholic Church has the whole story, otherwise the God of creation is the God who did nothing, especially as far as creating human beings.

Too often, people post here about things that cannot be demonstrated by science. Which is why I post in response because although the Church entertains some of this as possible, it’s not a complete, provable theory.

From the Catechism:
“295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. (141) It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

I can’t quite understand everything you are saying, especially in your point 2), but what I do understand I think is very good. Especially this:

CRITICAL TRUTH. God, not men, was behind creation. Science cannot examine God or the soul - so that limit needs to be recognized.

 

[cfauster]

1. Creation and the weak God connection. I see it written as a soft possibility, like God could, might* or may have used His power as God to guide creation in some way, maybe. But from a scientific view, that’s just not science. It’s not even speculation.

[snip]

Yet what do we get here? An endless stream of posts trying to convince any doubters that God may, might, could have, maybe, kinda sorta been involved in creation. This “god-lite” approach tells us nothing…Only the Catholic Church has the whole story, otherwise the God of creation is the God who did nothing, especially as far as creating human beings …

Edwest2, looking again at the post from which I quoted here, and some of your other recent posts on other threads, I think I have a better understanding.

Lots of important points you are making. Indeed, some attempts to integrate theological concepts (such as souls, God, etc.) with scientific theories cause more problems. The theology can get messed up, and the science too. There is much to be said for keeping science and theology separate. Good fences can indeed help make/keep good neighbors.

But, I think many people posing questions that start science-faith threads in this forum display earnest and genuine desire to know the truth. Truth cannot contradict truth, so seeming contradictions can sometimes warrant attention.

Sometimes the solution is to simply recognize the latitude that exists within the Catholic church teaching. For example, on several occasions you’ve reminded readers of your posts that the Church does not take a position on “Old Earth” vs. “Young Earth” timelines for creation.

But of course the Church does draw some lines and define some important doctrines.

I guess where we might differ a bit is in where those lines exist. For example, in the thread on the literal interpretation of Eve coming from Adam’s rib, in one post (April 19) you wrote “God made her from the rib and flesh of Adam. Otherwise, we have a God with zero God-like power.”

As much as I understand and respect the importance of recognizing God’s power, I’m sure you can see that some people would not choose to draw the line there.

The Catechism reads:

*“Each for the other” - "A unity in two"
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.*

That theology is the important thing. Can it survive a non-literal interpretation? Yes, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many Catholic theologians over the centuries.

For example, here’s a short passage from The Fundamentals of Catholic Belief by John Francis Sullivan published in 1925.

*The Creation of Eve. The second chapter of Genesis tells of the forming of the first woman from a rib taken from the side of Adam. Is it necessary that we understand and accept this narrative literally? No. There are two opinions regarding it, among Catholic theologians. The greater number prefer to abide by the literal meaning of the words of Genesis; but there is another theory, ingenious and at least probable, which is held by many reputable scholars and dates back to the time of Origen. It is that in the Biblical account of the creation of Eve we have the record of- -a vision vouchsafed to Adam …
This view of the Biblical account of Eve’s creation has never been censured by the Church. Consequently we Catholics may accept the words of Genesis in their literal sense if we wish, or we may hold the “vision” theory if we prefer it. *

I suspect that today, the greater number of Catholic theologians would no longer “prefer to abide by the literal meaning” of Eve coming from Adam’s rib. In any case, as far as I know, the Church still allows for more than one interpretation as orthodox.

But again, while we might differ on exactly where to draw boundaries of interpretation, I agree with your underlying goals and concerns. I might be Lutheran rather than Catholic - and thus I would broaden the scope of who “has the whole story.” I accept evolution more than you probably do. But, I share your position that God creates everything. We both reject positions in which, as you put it, “God did nothing.”

 

[Kmon23]

Edwest2, looking again at the post from which I quoted here, and some of your other recent posts on other threads, I think I have a better understanding.

Lots of important points you are making. Indeed, some attempts to integrate theological concepts (such as souls, God, etc.) with scientific theories cause more problems. The theology can get messed up, and the science too. There is much to be said for keeping science and theology separate. Good fences can indeed help make/keep good neighbors.

But, I think many people posing questions that start science-faith threads in this forum display earnest and genuine desire to know the truth. Truth cannot contradict truth, so seeming contradictions can sometimes warrant attention.

Sometimes the solution is to simply recognize the latitude that exists within the Catholic church teaching. For example, on several occasions you’ve reminded readers of your posts that the Church does not take a position on “Old Earth” vs. “Young Earth” timelines for creation.

But of course the Church does draw some lines and define some important doctrines.

I guess where we might differ a bit is in where those lines exist. For example, in the thread on the literal interpretation of Eve coming from Adam’s rib, in one post (April 19) you wrote “God made her from the rib and flesh of Adam. Otherwise, we have a God with zero God-like power.”

As much as I understand and respect the importance of recognizing God’s power, I’m sure you can see that some people would not choose to draw the line there.

The Catechism reads:

"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.

That theology is the important thing. Can it survive a non-literal interpretation? Yes, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many Catholic theologians over the centuries.

For example, here’s a short passage from The Fundamentals of Catholic Belief by John Francis Sullivan published in 1925.

The Creation of Eve. The second chapter of Genesis tells of the forming of the first woman from a rib taken from the side of Adam. Is it necessary that we understand and accept this narrative literally? No. There are two opinions regarding it, among Catholic theologians. The greater number prefer to abide by the literal meaning of the words of Genesis; but there is another theory, ingenious and at least probable, which is held by many reputable scholars and dates back to the time of Origen. It is that in the Biblical account of the creation of Eve we have the record of- -a vision vouchsafed to Adam …
This view of the Biblical account of Eve’s creation has never been censured by the Church. Consequently we Catholics may accept the words of Genesis in their literal sense if we wish, or we may hold the “vision” theory if we prefer it.

I suspect that today, the greater number of Catholic theologians would no longer “prefer to abide by the literal meaning” of Eve coming from Adam’s rib. In any case, as far as I know, the Church still allows for more than one interpretation as orthodox.

But again, while we might differ on exactly where to draw boundaries of interpretation, I agree with your underlying goals and concerns. I might be Lutheran rather than Catholic - and thus I would broaden the scope of who “has the whole story.” I accept evolution more than you probably do. But, I share your position that God creates everything. We both reject positions in which, as you put it, “God did nothing.”

This is I believe the closest thing as to my reason for this thread. It has nothing to do with rejecting or lowering the power of God, and I truly believe everything was done through the power of God. Nothing is by chance, and that God was the One who lead humanity to be what it is. However, like you said, truth should not contradict truth, and natural laws being within the realm of God’s creation and design, I am just curious as to how it fits into theological truth from our current understanding of those natural laws and science. It is not in any way meant to lower the value of theological truth. Just trying to fit the puzzle pieces together out of my own curiosity.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I suspect that today, the greater number of Catholic theologians would no longer “prefer to abide by the literal meaning” of Eve coming from Adam’s rib . . .

Hmm, it would be a pity. I think the transfiguration, the Eucharist, walking on water, the loaves and bread, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgement, heaven and hell, all pretty much rank there as being as improbable as Eve being created from Adam’s rib. I don’t understand the difficulty with this creation story when everything else is as miraculous. My guess is that if you don’t see the possibility of Eve formed from Adam, the other stuff will all fall too. This would be because something other than the Word is being held as the greater, more fundamental reality.

 

[Kmon23]

Hmm, it would be a pity. I think the transfiguration, the Eucharist, walking on water, the loaves and bread, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgement, heaven and hell, all pretty much rank there as being as improbable as Eve being created from Adam’s rib. I don’t understand the difficulty with this creation story when everything else is as miraculous. My guess is that if you don’t see the possibility of Eve formed from Adam, the other stuff will all fall too. This would be because something other than the Word is being held as the greater, more fundamental reality.

I definitely hold to those things as being literal as what you have mentioned. However, I consider science and nature itself to be a testament to God’s amazing power and miraculous wonder. To explain something such as the origin story of Genesis in terms of science (at least for what is described as physical events/happenings) is in no way meant to undermine God in any way. It’s just that as a man pursuing scientific studies, it’s just become natural to me at least for the account of Genesis that God used nature and what He already established to accomplish what occurred in Genesis. If it was done literally, then I have no problem with that. But since the Church has not had any further revelation on whether Genesis is literal or not, I’m just accustomed to accepting scientific findings that seem to hold itself against scrutiny, and to see how it fits into the theological understanding or revelation.
However, since current Church teaching isn’t always specific (it’s a Church, not a scientific school after all), is why I ask on these questions on forums to get a better understanding on Church teaching to see whether my current view is against Church teaching (then my view would need altering) or not (then current view is satisfactory). After all, in my view if God created the universe in such a way that would lead to the physical events and happenings in the Genesis account, doesn’t that also show how powerful God is?
Just an explanation for why I ask these questions that seem to mesh science and theology together.

 

[Aloysium]

I definitely hold to those things as being literal as what you have mentioned. However, I consider science and nature itself to be a testament to God’s amazing power and miraculous wonder. To explain something such as the origin story of Genesis in terms of science (at least for what is described as physical events/happenings) is in no way meant to undermine God in any way. It’s just that as a man pursuing scientific studies, it’s just become natural to me at least for the account of Genesis that God used nature and what He already established to accomplish what occurred in Genesis. If it was done literally, then I have no problem with that. But since the Church has not had any further revelation on whether Genesis is literal or not, I’m just accustomed to accepting scientific findings that seem to hold itself against scrutiny, and to see how it fits into the theological understanding or revelation.
However, since current Church teaching isn’t always specific (it’s a Church, not a scientific school after all), is why I ask on these questions on forums to get a better understanding on Church teaching to see whether my current view is against Church teaching (then my view would need altering) or not (then current view is satisfactory). After all, in my view if God created the universe in such a way that would lead to the physical events and happenings in the Genesis account, doesn’t that also show how powerful God is?
Just an explanation for why I ask these questions that seem to mesh science and theology together.

You are certainly not undermining God.
What do you have against the Genesis story that you don’t seem to have with say, the final judgement?
In my opinion, the belief that we will be resurrected and divided as sheep and goats is far more removed from what science tells us about the world.
But, I guess you are on a quest to mix oil and water.

 

[Kmon23]

You are certainly not undermining God.
What do you have against the Genesis story that you don’t seem to have with say, the final judgement?
In my opinion, the belief that we will be resurrected and divided as sheep and goats is far more removed from what science tells us about the world.
But, I guess you are on a quest to mix oil and water.

If there is undeniable understanding that something was done through means outside of the physical world (Jesus healing, walking on water, final judgement), then I will happily take those as how they are explained or understood.

In the case of the Genesis case, if it can be explained through science/natural law, I think it is only logical to take that kind of understanding because if God was the one who created nature/natural law of the world, and if nature/natural law can be sufficient to explain something in the Genesis account, then I think it is only logical to assume that God used nature/natural law to achieve those means.
I am not saying this is fact, as I could be wrong and Genesis is actually literal or my current understanding is completely wrong (which it probably is, who knows). It’s just from assumption from my current knowledge and my current knowledge on revelation in the Church, that I am thinking this way to see how science and nature fits into this. Also, considering how the idea of DNA, evolution, all seems to fit (at least to how I was taught since), I just assumed that such is the will of God.

It’s like this. Everything is part of God’s plan. If something is a certain way, then it is ultimately because God wanted it that way. If something happened a certain way (such as our assumption that evolution and rise of man occurred through natural means), then I would naturally give reason that it’s that way because God worked through those ways to achieve his means.

For example, if we lived 100 years ago and there was a flying machine, I would think of it as a miracle of God that it can do what it can do. However, if it seems through technological marvel that it is able to do what it can do, then it is logical to assume that it is through the technological marvel that God was doing His will.
I just think that if evidence points us in a certain way in explaining things, then it is logical to me that through those means that God accomplished His will.
Same thing with man and evolution and Genesis. If our current (but limited understanding) of human history and science can explain something in Genesis, then I think it is only logical that that is how God is doing His will.

For me, anything is a miracle of God. However, if it can be explained through nature and laws, then God worked through those means to achieve it. If I lost my watch and it was back on my desk, I shouldn’t automatically think that God transported my watch to my desk in the act of a miracle. If it can be explained perfectly in a natural way (friend dropped it off), then that is preferable, and it is through natural means that God got my watch back to me.

Basically, I think God put nature and laws of science for a reason, and if He can achieve His will through those means, then it would only make sense to accept that God worked through natural laws if there is a explanation to suggest that it was done through those natural laws.

Sorry for this long and repetitive answer, not exactly sure how to explain.

 

[cfauster]

True, there are many events described in the Bible that are no less miraculous than Eve being formed by God from one of Adam’s ribs. So indeed the question arises: how does one properly interpret the text? Big question, obviously.

One short (and very incomplete) observation: yes there is a “slope,” but it’s not really that slippery. Rather, there are lots of various plateaus on which one can stand.

For example, for some miracles described in the Bible there seems to be no imaginable possibility of scientific evidence ever being found that could pertain one way or another. I would put the Transfiguration in that category, as well as Jesus walking on water, as well as many more miracles.

For other miracles described in the Bible, the situation is just the opposite: it’s hard to imagine there not being some physical evidence pertinent to the event. Noah’s flood comes to mind.

If Eve were formed from Adam’s rib, likely there would be no possible physical evidence today. However, that is part of a larger narrative concerning the origin of humanity, and at least some parts of that larger story - if interpreted to mean that all humans biologically descend from just one pair of original ancestors - would be expected to have specific genetic consequences today, consequences that differ from what we observe.

Plus, there are lots of important questions regarding the text of Genesis 1 and 2 quite independent of science or physical evidence, and some of these questions are unique to the kind of literature (cosmogony) that we find in those particular chapters and in only a few other places in the Bible outside of Genesis.

All this is just to say that how to interpret a passage of the Bible will depend on lots of things besides how normal/natural versus miraculous (if interpreted literally, at least) the described events might seem.

 

[thomas_yo]

Science gives us no insurmountable cause to question the fact the human race has descended from a primal pair of parents. We call these primal parents Adam and Eve. Scientists like Ayala, et al., contend that genetic studies show that the human race could not have descended from a single pair of humans. This is based on evidence pertaining to allelic diversity and an historical bottleneck in the human line.

However, first, the evidence does not strictly prove that it was not possible for the current allelic diversity to obtain in such a relatively short span of time. The evidence merely suggest that it is highly improbable.

Second, a possible scenario, one not accounted for by many scientists, is that a population sufficiently large enough to account for the current allelic diversity, that was anatomically (and genetically) the same as man (rational animal), though not constituted with a spiritual soul, actually preceded the appearance of true man. And out of this early population two individuals were infused with spiritual souls.

This scenario makes moot and superfluous the question of a bottleneck and allelic diversity. Science cannot tell us when the rational soul first appeared in natural history.

I don’t know that there are any real theological obstacles to maintaining this theory. There are no philosophical obstacles either that I am aware of.

 

[cfauster]

Second, a possible scenario, one not accounted for by many scientists, is that a population sufficiently large enough to account for the current allelic diversity, that was anatomically (and genetically) the same as man (rational animal), though not constituted with a spiritual soul, actually preceded the appearance of true man. And out of this early population two individuals were infused with spiritual souls.

Edwest2 has sensitized me to some of the awkwardness of such accounts, yet I do appreciate your goal of presenting a scenario compatible with genetic evidence.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that more than two individuals were contemporaries of Adam and Eve and, like Adam and Eve, biological ancestors contributing genetic diversity to the human species. Adam and Eve, then, would be the sole spiritual parents of all true humans, but not the only biological parents of all true humans.

It sounds much like Kemp’s theological monogenism which, I agree, might be consistent with genetic data (depending upon genetic details that Kemp does not pursue). Here’s how Kemp puts it in his essay:

“The theological doctrine of monogenesis requires only that all human beings have the original couple among their ancestors, not that every ancestral line in each individual’s family tree leads back to a single original couple. They (and we) can also have even the several thousand hominid ancestors which Ayala says the genetic evidence requires. This theory is monogenetic with respect to theologically human beings but polygenetic with respect to the biological species.”

 

[thomas_yo]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that more than two individuals were contemporaries of Adam and Eve and, like Adam and Eve, biological ancestors contributing genetic diversity to the human species. Adam and Eve, then, would be the sole spiritual parents of all true humans, but not the only biological parents of all true humans.
/QUOTE]

Not exactly. Adam and Eve are most certainly the biological parents of all human beings. The genetic diversity pertains to lineage. The human body had a pre-history in the natural biological process of nature.