Genetic Adam and Eve

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, it is time to insert what is in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

As I stated before, you run into all sorts of problems if you start applying the “scientific method” and logic to religion and faith.

When it comes to the observance of life, there are two separate realms or worlds. The first is the spiritual world of God . The second is material creation. The Catholic Church bases its doctrines on the spiritual world of God, including God’s plans for humankind. It is human nature per se which unites both the spiritual world and the material world.
(Information source: Genesis 1: 26-27; *CCC *355; *CCC *1730-1732)

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 26-28 are Catholic doctrines. The first chapter of Genesis physical description of the natural, physical, material nature of the universe is not a Catholic doctrine. The scientific method is known as the Inductive Method. Interested readers can refer to Google for the difference between the Inductive Method and the Deductive Method. In reality, both methods play a part in reasoning to the truth. Basically, the Inductive Method uses Mother Nature, which can be physically observed without prejudice, as the authority.

The Catholic Church teaches that Divine Revelation trumps.

One example is the quibble about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam.

Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the difference between the lineage of a specific gene and the hominin lineage which leads to an originating population of thousands as the founders of humankind. Some people are not aware that the Science of Human Evolution cladograms directly omit an originating human population point of two.

All these problems disappear if you read Genesis as a metaphor (I know people jump up and down when they hear that).

Personally, I jump up and down because the Book of Genesis has 50 chapters.

Read what every theologian has to say about this topic. Robert Barron will be familiar to many Catholics. Go on YouTube and look up what he says about the interpretation of Genesis. If you agree with him or not, you can rest assured that this is not against official Catholic teaching.

It is a lot easier to read about human origin and Original Sin in paragraphs 355-421, the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I would have thought that 400 years after the Galileo debacle we would have got over the problem of literal Bible reading. Most people on this thread will be comfortable with the idea that this universe was and is being created over the last 13.6 billion years and not over six days, and that there was not a worldwide flood 4000 years ago.

For general information.
A 13.6 billion years old earth, movements of a planet, and a flood have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and his spouse Eve as the original first sole true fully-human parents of humankind.

We should get used to the idea that there was a small pool of people from which all of us came from.

Today’s Science of Human Evolution posits a pool consisting of thousands of people which are the “creators” of humankind. With the recent amazing fossil finds, that pool could be larger and more diverse than what was originally thought in regard to the hominin lineage which followed the Homo/Pan split. You may define small in any way.

The Catholic Church officially directly opposes any pool larger than two people, lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

The question of when and how God supplied them with a soul does not give me sleepless nights. I can look up and see how theologians tackle this problem. I currently read Keith Ward, John Haught (a Catholic), Howard Van Till and Ernan McMullin (also a Catholic priest).

Obviously, you may choose any source for information.

From my experience, not all authors seriously promote the Catholic doctrines on human origin and subsequently Original Sin.

 

[Gorgias]

A 13.6 billion years old earth, movements of a planet, and a flood have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and his spouse Eve as the original first sole true fully-human parents of humankind.

Precisely.

Today’s Science of Human Evolution posits a pool consisting of thousands of people which are the “creators” of humankind.

The Catholic Church officially directly opposes any pool larger than two people, lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

You and I have gone around on this topic at CAF a number of times.

Suffice it to say that science and the Church use the term ‘people’ (or, more properly, ‘human’) in different ways; therefore, there is no conflict.

 

[grannymh]

You and I have gone around on this topic at CAF a number of times.

Suffice it to say that science and the Church use the term ‘people’ (or, more properly, ‘human’) in different ways; therefore, there is no conflict.

Science is properly in the material realm and Catholic teachings are properly in the spiritual realm. Thus, it is correct to say that science and Catholicism use the term “human” in different ways. We can properly picture two parallel lines headed in the direction of truth.

Now, picture these two lines, science and Catholicism, as intersecting lines like a street corner instead of parallel lines like a divided highway.

Car accidents often happen at intersections in the same manner that there can be conflicts between the road of science and the road of Catholicism. The Science of Human Evolution and some of the doctrines of Catholicism do intersect at the point of human origin. They intersect because both have theories about human origin.

It is precisely the point of intersection (human origin) where the Catholic Church challenges the Science of Human Evolution that there is an immediate conflict.

 

[Hans_W]

In my humble opinion, it is time to insert what is in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

When it comes to the observance of life, there are two separate realms or worlds. The first is the spiritual world of God . The second is material creation. The Catholic Church bases its doctrines on the spiritual world of God, including God’s plans for humankind. It is human nature per se which unites both the spiritual world and the material world.
(Information source: Genesis 1: 26-27; *CCC *355; *CCC *1730-1732)

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 26-28 are Catholic doctrines. The first chapter of Genesis physical description of the natural, physical, material nature of the universe is not a Catholic doctrine. The scientific method is known as the Inductive Method. Interested readers can refer to Google for the difference between the Inductive Method and the Deductive Method. In reality, both methods play a part in reasoning to the truth. Basically, the Inductive Method uses Mother Nature, which can be physically observed without prejudice, as the authority.

The Catholic Church teaches that Divine Revelation trumps.

You can quote as many passages from Holy books and figures of authority as you want, the final arbiter is nature. And by nature I mean nature as God made it, not how individual scientists interpret it.

Your distinction between inductive and deductive logic “the Inductive Method uses Mother Nature, which can be physically observed without prejudice, as the authority” is not correct and misleading.

Not sure what your last statement (“The Catholic Church teaches that Divine Revelation trumps”) means. Does it trump over nature? Our knowledge of nature? Where does the Church teach that? St Augustine warned us not to make fools of ourselves as Christians. If our observations of nature differ from what the Bible tells us, then we need to go back to the good book and revise our interpretation of the text. He said that 1,600 years ago. What a wise man!

 

[Hans_W]

Science is properly in the material realm and Catholic teachings are properly in the spiritual realm. Thus, it is correct to say that science and Catholicism use the term “human” in different ways. We can properly picture two parallel lines headed in the direction of truth.

Now, picture these two lines, science and Catholicism, as intersecting lines like a street corner instead of parallel lines like a divided highway.

Car accidents often happen at intersections in the same manner that there can be conflicts between the road of science and the road of Catholicism. The Science of Human Evolution and some of the doctrines of Catholicism do intersect at the point of human origin. They intersect because both have theories about human origin.

It is precisely the point of intersection (human origin) where the Catholic Church challenges the Science of Human Evolution that there is an immediate conflict.

Good grief! The “Catholic Church challenges the Science of Human Evolution” - You are more than 60 years behind Church teaching. Just fast-forward to October last year and look up what Pope Francis said about evolution. I know, many conservatives are not comfortable with it and look the other way. Here it is, presented in a Catholic publication: religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-evolution-inconsistent-notion-creation/

It will take another 50 years before it finds its way into the Catechism. The Church is a bit slow; it took them 400 years before they acknowledged that they were wrong with Galileo. The Church is right in moving slowly and making sure that any changes are well founded and substantiated. But our knowledge of nature increases almost exponentially in our age. Thanks goodness we have a Pope who goes out and listens to the world and doesn’t bury himself in century-old doctrines.

 

[Hans_W]

…the Catholic Church challenges the Science of Human Evolution that there is an immediate conflict.

Somebody once said, I think it was an atheist, but that doesn’t matter: Science does not need to listen to religion, but religion needs to listen to science (to what scientists discover about nature). And that is so true.

 

[Hans_W]

For general information.
A 13.6 billion years old earth, movements of a planet, and a flood have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic doctrines regarding Adam and his spouse Eve as the original first sole true fully-human parents of humankind.

I know, you guys are not Young Earth creationists. But 200 years ago you would have been very upset with somebody challenging the 6,000 year-old universe.

Do you think it possible that we have discovered some more detail about nature which is just as upsetting for many people?

 

[grannymh]

With courtesy and charity, I will let posts 43, 44, 45, stand on the principle of free speech.

In reply to this question from post 46.

“Do you think it possible that we have discovered some more detail about nature which is just as upsetting for many people?”
My answer is that I currently subscribe to two major scientific journals and I can assure everyone that more details about nature are constantly being discovered. I can also say that the article “An Archaeal Origin of Eukaryotes Supports Only Two Primary Domains of Life” (Nature, 12 December 2013) would be upsetting to many people. Something more commonly known would be the Out of Africa theory which upset the current popular theory.

My position on this thread is to present actual Catholic teachings based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Primarily, I defend the Catholic doctrines regarding the origin of the human species, including human nature.

Natural science is a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena. Personally, I love natural science because I am extremely curious. However, my curiosity does not replace my Catholic Faith.

Those familiar with the current Science of Human Evolution should be able to spot the area which is challenged by Catholicism. This is not always the case because some, not all, Catholics, do not accept the historical reality of Adam. All Catholics, including myself, have the right to free speech.

That being said. I will discuss specific individual questions regarding the intersection of Catholicism and natural science.

 

[Hans_W]

With courtesy and charity, I will let posts 43, 44, 45, stand on the principle of free speech.

That is very gracious of you, but I would love to know where you disagree.

If you are a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, then you have no choice - you have to accept the literal reading of Genesis.

The Catholic Church does not impose these restrictions. You can be a Young-Earth or an Old-Earth Creationist, a Gap-Theorist or a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement. Whatever you are comfortable with. Or you can also accept what practically all biologists have come to accept now for more than a century. There must be tens of thousands of them, probably hundreds of thousands, who also believe in God. I don’t know of any Catholic school or university which doesn’t teach proper biology.

You can also agree with Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham when they tell you that belief in evolution automatically means rejection of God. (Yes, they have found some common ground).

The Catholic Church does not think so and Pope Francis reiterated this recently. If you are not comfortable with the findings of modern science, then stay away and don’t listen to atheistic interpretations of these findings. Unfortunately, these people always seem to have the loudest voices.

In reply to this question from post 46.

“Do you think it possible that we have discovered some more detail about nature which is just as upsetting for many people?”
My answer is that I currently subscribe to two major scientific journals and I can assure everyone that more details about nature are constantly being discovered. I can also say that the article “An Archaeal Origin of Eukaryotes Supports Only Two Primary Domains of Life” (Nature, 12 December 2013) would be upsetting to many people. Something more commonly known would be the Out of Africa theory which upset the current popular theory.

Are these serious scientific journals, or popular science or ID literature? The “Out of Africa theory” must be a lot more than 100 years old and will hardly upset anybody.

My position on this thread is to present actual Catholic teachings based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Primarily, I defend the Catholic doctrines regarding the origin of the human species, including human nature.

Natural science is a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena. Personally, I love natural science because I am extremely curious. However, my curiosity does not replace my Catholic Faith.

Those familiar with the current Science of Human Evolution should be able to spot the area which is challenged by Catholicism. This is not always the case because some, not all, Catholics, do not accept the historical reality of Adam. All Catholics, including myself, have the right to free speech.

That being said. I will discuss specific individual questions regarding the intersection of Catholicism and natural science.

Good on you. But don’t create an artificial rift between science and religion where there is none.

 

[edwest2]

I know, you guys are not Young Earth creationists. But 200 years ago you would have been very upset with somebody challenging the 6,000 year-old universe.

Do you think it possible that we have discovered some more detail about nature which is just as upsetting for many people?

What does it matter?

Ed

 

[Hans_W]

What does it matter?

Ed

This is your reaction to my question of whether discovering new details about how nature operates does upset some people.

Agreed, it shouldn’t matter. I personally find it exciting to discover more about nature. Most people don’t care. But you are the one who gets upset. In post #19 you wrote

Of course there’s a conflict. That’s why threads like this appear on a regular basis. Science has nothing to say about faith. I trust science less and less about this particular topic

Nature doesn’t contradict our Catholic faith. I keep repeating: Don’t pay attention to atheists who interpret scientific findings to “prove” their personal views.
In the same way, don’t try to use science to prove that there is a God. That’s what ID does.

 

[grannymh]

I hope that some day the Church will make a definitive statement of whether or not this specific argument is compatible with doctrine; I cannot see a problem with it, though some of y’all are troubled by it, which concerns me. I’m still not convinced by grannymh’s argument against it, but I’d hate to be erring.

The Encyclical Humani Generis denies any proposal that the human species originated from a group of any size greater than two. This is considered a definitive statement because it is based on the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Link to Humani Generis. Specific paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and footnotes.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[grannymh]

For General Information
in answer to questions about Dr. Dennis Bonnette’s Expanded Third Edition of *Origin of the Human Species, *this is a link to a book review.
drbonnette.com/articles/6/evolution-micro-macro-book-review-wanderer/

For General Information,
in answer to questions about Dr. Dennis Bonnette.
This is a recent interview with Dr. Bonnete. irishthomist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/interview-with-dr-dennis-bonnette.html

 

[j_pat_h]

Is it acceptable for a Catholic to believe in a genetic Adam and Eve, which were not our first parents, but common human ancestors to all mankind. Since we would have inherited Original Sin from our first common parents, it would be in compliance to the Catholic faith, correct? Even if they did not mate with one another?

nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/our-genetic-adam-and-eve/

Pope John Paul II said that the Church doctrine is that the whole human race originated from one common set of parents. They are refered to, from Holy Scripture, as Adam & Eve.

 

[Hans_W]

The Encyclical Humani Generis denies any proposal that the human species originated from a group of any size greater than two. This is considered a definitive statement because it is based on the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Link to Humani Generis. Specific paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and footnotes.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

There you have it. The way nature operates is determined by the Encyclical Humani Generis. That reminds me of Galileo pleading with his adversaries to look through his telescope. No, we don’t need that. It’s all written down. We have the Truth.

 

[Hans_W]

For General Information
in answer to questions about Dr. Dennis Bonnette’s Expanded Third Edition of *Origin of the Human Species, *this is a link to a book review.
drbonnette.com/articles/6/evolution-micro-macro-book-review-wanderer/

For General Information,
in answer to questions about Dr. Dennis Bonnette.
This is a recent interview with Dr. Bonnete. irishthomist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/interview-with-dr-dennis-bonnette.html

Grannymh, I have no desire to convince you of anything. That would be futile anyway. You have made up your mind and no amount of evidence would allow you to admit that you could be wrong.

But you keep going on about your Dr Dennis Bonnette. The obvious reason is to convince your undecided readers to believe what Dr Bonnette believes.

So, I take the liberty of repeating my story about Dennis Bonnette PhD. He is a retired philosophy professor who supports the Intelligent Design movement on philosophical arguments. He is not a biologist, nor is he a scientist. If I need clarification on questions within biology I go to biologists, not philosophers. There are plenty of religious biologists (I list a few later on).

The ID movement states that there are features in the natural world which cannot be explained through natural causes. In other words God has to step in from time to time with a kind of magic wand to fix things up. Pope Francis warns us against such a picture of God. I also believe that the laws of nature (which come from God) have been laid out in such a way that the world has no functional deficiencies, no gaps in its economy that would require God to act immediately. This in no way denies or even calls into question the creative work of God, but God’s creative action is not empirically accessible. In other words, it is not detectible through scientific means. And that’s what ID wants to do: prove God scientifically.

I repeat: the Catholic Church does NOT support Intelligent Design. Pope Francis has reiterated this recently and very clearly. He doesn’t know the scientific details either, but he obviously gets his information through his science advisors who keep in touch with the scientific world. You can’t accuse them of being anti-religion either.

Science uses methodological naturalism in its way of investigating nature. This means that only naturalistic explanations are allowed in science. But this does NOT rule out that there are supernatural explanations. They simply are not part of science. If a biologist tells you that mutations are random, or “by chance” only, it does not mean that there is no supernatural cause behind those random mutations. But there simply is no way for science to detect them.

If biologists or other scientists tell you that there is no God, then they step outside their profession and trumpet their personal belief. Don’t listen to them.

I only show you a list of three Christian scientists. There must be hundreds of thousands who quietly do their work and couldn’t be bothered with this silly dispute. But these three are reputable scientists who have done great work in their field.

• **Francis Collins **(a leading geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project)
• **Ken Miller **(Catholic and author of many biology textbooks)
• **Denis Lamoureux **(has a PhD in theology and a PhD in biology)

There are plenty more, but these three people have come out to educate the general public. Look them up on YouTube.

 

[Hans_W]

Here is an interesting article from a Catholic publication. It describes the constant struggle the Church has with accommodating new findings coming from our increasing understanding of nature (note that I am avoiding the dreaded word “science”).

catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

Also note that this article features as a reference in one of Dr Dennis Bonnette’s article. He obviously disagrees with the article. But it’s the way the Church has to accommodate new findings which disagree with century-old dogma.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, I have no desire to convince you of anything. That would be futile anyway. You have made up your mind and no amount of evidence would allow you to admit that you could be wrong.

But you keep going on about your Dr Dennis Bonnette. The obvious reason is to convince your undecided readers to believe what Dr Bonnette believes.

Belief is not the issue nor is Intelligent Design the issue.

Readers are respected for both their intelligence and their capability to make their own evaluations.

Regarding evidence. In this thread, I have clearly presented the basic foundation for the Science of Human Evolution. And I have clearly pointed out that the current system of cladograms based on genetic relationships does not posit an originating population of two. I have also been clear about Catholic teachings.

In addition, may I gently point out that there is a major difference between a philosophical argument and a scientific argument. A reader will notice that in Dr. Bonnette’s work, there are citations or credit correctly given to scientists.

If there is something which is not understood about scientific methods, I will research an answer. However, up front, I have difficulty understanding how people can find hard data going millions of years backwards. And of course, there is the difference between probable and possible.

 

[grannymh]

Is it acceptable for a Catholic to believe in a genetic Adam and Eve, which were not our first parents, but common human ancestors to all mankind. Since we would have inherited Original Sin from our first common parents, it would be in compliance to the Catholic faith, correct? Even if they did not mate with one another?

nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/our-genetic-adam-and-eve/

Going back to the opening post, it is proper to check Sacred Scripture. For example, we need to compare Genesis 1: 26-27 with the confirmations, found in Genesis 2: 20-22 & Genesis 3: 8, that there is one original mating human couple who are the only sole original parents of humankind. The reality of Adam and Eve is Catholic doctrine which will not change to meet personal wishes.

 

[Neofight]

God created and is creating this wonderful universe …

Stop the presses. God’s creative endeavors ended on the sixth day, when he entered his rest from creating

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.

The Holy Bible. (2006). (Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition., Ge 2:1–3). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.