Having a problem with Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter had_matter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
had_matter said:
Or, perhaps, could Adam and Eve be homo erectus? Thus they would be ancestors of us, Neanderthals, and Denisovans? Is it possible that (HE emerging 2 million years ago) there could have been two of them? Is the timeline long enough for the current diversity to arise? Or does it not work like that? Again, I know absolutely next to nothing about the topic, so just asking some questions. Any biologists here?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, you’re trying to mesh biblical exegesis with science. The CCC puts forth it’s theology in harmony with the allegorical nature of Genesis. ‘First man’ is not literal. The CCC clearly states that the advent of the belief in our one God coincidences with original sin. There is no time or place or number assigned to that event.

Bottlenecks, genetic mutation rates and population dispersion theories don’t apply to the Church’s teaching on soul’s or the advent of human consciousness of God.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Ultimately, you’re trying to mesh biblical exegesis with science. The CCC puts forth it’s theology in harmony with the allegorical nature of Genesis. ‘First man’ is not literal. The CCC clearly states that the advent of the belief in our one God coincidences with original sin. There is no time or place or number assigned to that event.

Bottlenecks, genetic mutation rates and population dispersion theories don’t apply to the Church’s teaching on soul’s or the advent of human consciousness of God.
Click to expand...
Citations please.

Here are two links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition so that you can report to readers what exactly the CCC clearly states.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
Thanks for all the replies. But I don’t think I will be getting any answers. Probably the closest to it would be the post by the Buddhist user. I think I’ll just keep researching stuff elsewhere.
40.png
1Lord1Faith:
The CCC puts forth it’s theology in harmony with the allegorical nature of Genesis. ‘First man’ is not literal.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but ‘first man’ is exactly literal. If he’s not then the whole religion is a big mistake, not to say a joke. I might sound silly for you all, making a fuss about genetics, bottlenecks, and mathematics, but for me ultimately it all can be narrowed down to this issue. I have no problems with priesthood, transsubstantiation and whatnot. I have a problem with this.

So yes, I hope I won’t lose the faith over that issue.
 
Lion_IRC said:
How so?

Why does the presence of genetic diversity in a huge modern population contend with the fact that it originally came from a smaller, narrower genetic population?
Click to expand...
Because incestual breeding brings out the flaws in genetic makeup. There was a case of a very heavily inbred family in Australia that showed this example. 8 people cannot bring about thousands let alone hundreds.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Nice info. However it’s nothing new to me. The info puts the emergence of the human species at between 100,000 to 400,000 years ago. No one knows what happened in that period of time, not even geneticists. They say a group of what MAY have been a few thousand left Africa around 100,000 years ago. The statements made in that info are so broad and general, they are hardly worth hanging details on.

The first 11chapters of Genesis are allegorical. Not sure why you brought Noah into this
Click to expand...
Because some people find Genesis literal instead of a myth of how the Jewish people came to be.
 
had_matter said:
Thanks for all the replies. But I don’t think I will be getting any answers. Probably the closest to it would be the post by the Buddhist user. I think I’ll just keep researching stuff elsewhere.

I’m sorry, but ‘first man’ is exactly literal. If he’s not then the whole religion is a big mistake, not to say a joke. I might sound silly for you all, making a fuss about genetics, bottlenecks, and mathematics, but for me ultimately it all can be narrowed down to this issue. I have no problems with priesthood, transsubstantiation and whatnot. I have a problem with this.

So yes, I hope I won’t lose the faith over that issue.
Click to expand...
You can’t take “first man” to be literal. Here is a bit of history of Mitochondrial Eve.
 
Lion_IRC said:
How can we instantly get from NO humans to humans numbering in their thousands without violating a mathematical requirement…
Click to expand...
God, who is all powerful, does not need to violate mathematical requirement to create the first humans.
1 human mother + 1 human father
Click to expand...
Now, of course you could argue that there was a magical singularity whereby there suddenly, and simultaneously, appeared thousands of human mothers and fathers (perhaps all arriving from outer space) or all of them spontaneously mutating from one species to another in the blink of an eye.
Click to expand...
A scenario like that would enable you to make the astonishing claim…'never fewer than’.
Click to expand...
But that’s clearly not what evolutionary biology claims is it?
Click to expand...
That’s right, just claims, no facts. No one recorded when, and how, humans came into existence. What scientist claim about our beginnings is not science. It is human speculation.
 
NM505StKate said:
Because some people find Genesis literal instead of a myth of how the Jewish people came to be.
Click to expand...
If it is only a myth about Judaism, then it would be valueless for all of us goyim.

Like I said, I don’t know or care enough about genes to study this issue. I trust the Church, full stop. The Church does not a priori have an issue about evolution. OK.

But there is, faith wise, an issue about Genesis that does not go away by calling it a “myth.”

ICXC NIKA
 
davidv said:
God, who is all powerful, does not need to violate mathematical requirement to create the first humans.

That’s right, just claims, no facts. No one recorded when, and how, humans came into existence. What scientist claim about our beginnings is not science. It is human speculation.
Click to expand...
That begs the question about God breaking the set laws of the universe.

Yes we don’t know how life began, abiogenesis, but we can make hypothesis about it.
 
Kay_Cee said:
There’s a book about this very subject:* Adam and Eve Versus Evolution* by Catholic writer Ronald L Conte, Jr.

I’ve read a little bit of of it so far, and he does quote both the Bible and Church Councils.

You can find it on Amazon here: amazon.com/Adam-versus-Evolution-Ronald-Conte-ebook/dp/B00OO65KME
Click to expand...
Another good Catholic book on Amazon

Origin of the Human Species, Third (expanded) Edition

by Catholic philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

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

From review on Amazon, “Read more”

“This expanded third edition includes two new appendices: the first defends a literal Adam and Eve against recent claims that a single mating pair of first true human parents is scientifically impossible; the second shows why a purely Darwinian naturalistic explanation for the evolution of new and essentially superior forms of life is philosophically impossible. This work resolves many philosophical and theological issues raised by evolutionary theory.”

Articles by Dr. Bonnette

Did Adam and Eve Realy Exist?
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
 
  1. It is rather firmly established that human population never dropped anywhere below a few thousand individuals, let alone two. Evolution doesn’t really has much to do with this thing. Someone’s simply done the maths.
  2. Real Adam and Eve as our progenitors are absolutely necessary for the doctrine of original sin to make sense.
  3. Therefore, a problem.
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert theologian, biologist or philosopher, but I understand the issue you’re having, and I’m sorry it’s causing a crisis of faith for you.

For the doctrine of original sin to make sense, then everyone must have been physically related to each other at the time of Christ. That is in fact the case: everyone alive at the time of Christ was descended from two parents who sinned and passed on their deprivation of grace (Original Sin) to their posterity.

For your first point, there is no strict necessity (but it’s not discouraged) to parse out exactly how a literal-historical Adam and Eve as the only two human beings on earth led to our genetic diversity. There are innumerable possible solutions to that problem, several of which have been suggested on this thread.

On the other hand your first point is not technically a problem at all; only two homo sapiens existing on earth at the time of our first parents is not a De Fide dogma of the church.

There is a complex intersection of science, philosophy and doctrine here that I think you are mixing up in ways that appear irreconcileable. Keep the faith, brother! “Truth does not contradict truth.” 🙂
 
davidv said:
Really? How?

On what basis can the hypotheses be used to deny God?
Click to expand...
Well if God is capable of just poofing more humans into existence than why do a study on how humans came about? I don’t think abiogenesis is being used to deny God, it is pondering how life started.
 
Neithan said:
I’m not an expert theologian, biologist or philosopher, but I understand the issue you’re having, and I’m sorry it’s causing a crisis of faith for you.

For the doctrine of original sin to make sense, then everyone must have been physically related to each other at the time of Christ. That is in fact the case: everyone alive at the time of Christ was descended from two parents who sinned and passed on their deprivation of grace (Original Sin) to their posterity.

For your first point, there is no strict necessity (but it’s not discouraged) to parse out exactly how a literal-historical Adam and Eve as the only two human beings on earth led to our genetic diversity. There are innumerable possible solutions to that problem, several of which have been suggested on this thread.

On the other hand your first point is not technically a problem at all; only two homo sapiens existing on earth at the time of our first parents is not a De Fide dogma of the church.

There is a complex intersection of science, philosophy and doctrine here that I think you are mixing up in ways that appear irreconcileable. Keep the faith, brother! “Truth does not contradict truth.” 🙂
Click to expand...
Truth does not contradict truth provided science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood.

In my humble opinion, it is the interpretations of science in the material/physical realm of scientists which is not always being understood properly. :o
 
NM505StKate said:
Well if God is capable of just poofing **more **humans into existence
Click to expand...
Is that the claim?
than why do a study on how humans came about? I don’t think abiogenesis is being used to deny God, it is pondering how life started.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with pondering how life started except when some of the evidence is excluded.
 
had_matter said:
I’m basically considering leaving Catholicism, I’m on the fence. Consider this:
  1. It is rather firmly established that human population never dropped anywhere below a few thousand individuals, let alone two. Evolution doesn’t really has much to do with this thing. Someone’s simply done the maths.
  2. Real Adam and Eve as our progenitors are absolutely necessary for the doctrine of original sin to make sense.
  3. Therefore, a problem.
Now I know of this theory that postulates there was a group of a few thousand individuals without human souls among whom God chose Adam and Eve and gave them immortal souls. Adam and Eve’s descendants mated with some of the ‘not-really-human’ individuals. God gave immortal souls to all children born thusly.

Everything seems fine, Catholicism and science again not in conflict.

But there are still some difficulties, and I would welcome any answers helping me in understanding the issue.
The most important issue, which I would like to consider here, is this: it is always assumed when such theories are given, that the earlier population of ‘unensouled’ humans eventually died out, given that most children were ensouled.
However, this is only an assumption. If we accept such a scenario, can we be 100% sure that no such single hominid is alive today (or even in Jesus’ times)? If so, how can we be sure? Wouldn’t accepting this outline allow for theories which would assume mentally ill, or mentally disabled people are therefore not ensouled? If not, on what grounds?

How would you answer my doubts? Also, perhaps monogenism (biological) is not absolutely disproved? Although I would think it is. Is it so that the the maximum bottleneck of a few thousand individuals happened for the homo sapiens - but the ‘bottleneck’ for earlier hominids could have once been two (Adam and Eve)? I know next to nothing about all this, so just looking for answers.
Click to expand...
I really don’t see much of a difficulty in what you have written…certainly nothing to leave the Catholic faith over.

After all, while it may be an assumption that the unensouled branch(es) of the species eventually died out, so what? Aren’t there assumptions in the idea that they didn’t?

Would God have any difficulties in pulling this off? 🤷
 
NM505StKate said:
Well if God is capable of just poofing more humans into existence than why do a study on how humans came about? I don’t think abiogenesis is being used to deny God, it is pondering how life started.
Click to expand...
For many humans, it is very important to study how our life started. Some of us automatically ponder how our unique nature, the pinnacle of all earthly creation, came about.

The Catholic Church not only considers that the human species is distinctive in kind, it profoundly proclaims that the goal of a human’s life is found in Genesis 1: 27. usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.
There is no problem that Adam and ourselves have a genetic decomposing anatomy.

We are the only species on earth that is “called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” (CCC 356) This sharing is known as Adam’s State of Original Holiness. Today, the same state is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)
The human species is described as unique (different in kind from every living organism) in CCC 355.

355 “God created man in his own image, in the image ofGod he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
It is this unique nature of the human person which trumps conflicting information found in the natural material physical world of science.

Note: Those interested in genetic assumptions might find this post interesting.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13537953&postcount=186
 
NM505StKate said:
Well if God is capable of just poofing more humans into existence than why do a study on how humans came about? I don’t think abiogenesis is being used to deny God, it is pondering how life started.
Click to expand...
Any assertion that life started is a denial of God since God is alive (Psalm 42:2) and therefore there is no start to life: it is co-eternal with God.

Of course this means that God is incapable of creating the first living thing, at best He can only create the second living thing.

$0.02

rossum
 
rossum said:
Any assertion that life started is a denial of God since God is alive (Psalm 42:2) and therefore there is no start to life: it is co-eternal with God.

Of course this means that God is incapable of creating the first living thing, at best He can only create the second living thing.

$0.02

rossum
Click to expand...
So Yahweh created something from nothing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top