Humani Generis, tool for modern apologetics

[grannymh]

Thanks Grannymh.

This sounds straight forward enough for me :

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin’s theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

The attitude of the Catholic Church (from first sentence above) has not been slowly refined. Instead, many, not all, current Catholics do not fully comprehend what is really involved in the science of evolution.

It may be helpful to read about the Father of Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel. Gregor Mendel, along with Mooto Kimura and Carl Woese, are at the top of my list of favorites when I was first learning evolution theory on CAF.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks Grannymh.

This sounds straight forward enough for me :

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin’s theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

Regarding this point from the above article.
“The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory
of creation or evolution, …”

Apparently, the article’s author does not understand that the Catholic Church has official Catholic teachings about God and creation. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 27-28.

In the Catholic Church, the human person includes both the material decomposing anatomy and the spiritual rational soul so uniquely joined that there is only one single human nature. In the Catholic Church, the Science of Human Evolution is separate. Pope Pius XII recognized that separation.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.
Humani Generis.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks Grannymh.

This sounds straight forward enough for me :

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin’s theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church

From the article above.
“Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.”

The possible confusion regarding the verb “supports” is totally understandable given the general lack of knowledge regarding the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

This ends my observations of post 60 above. If someone has a question, I will do my best to answer.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

This answers my question :

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[grannymh]

From Paragraph 36, Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“36. For these reasons 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.”

Words are important–especially when the present state of science now divides evolution biology into the Science of Human Evolution and the remaining material science of bears, bananas, birds, bacteria, and busy beavers. The speciation event aka Homo/Pan split needs to be revisited. From the 1940’s to the current Science of Human Evolution, the speciation event (human origin) has not been confined to a single source such as the Catholic teachings regarding the origin of the human species – Adam and his spouse Eve.

My personal observation is that Pope Pius XII comprehended where the “doctrine of evolution” was headed which is why he specifically understood the need for research and discussions. “Research and Discussions” does not automatically mean approval of the basic evolution model which is based on the theory that the new human species evolved as an indiscriminate random breeding humanizing large population coming from a previous indiscriminate random breeding humanizing large population. Refer to the hominin line descending from the Homo/Pan split. Each designated population is a polygenesis (polygenism) population. Individuals do not evolve. Polygenesis (polygenism) populations are responsible for new species, including the present human species.

This link has important natural science information.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

 

[grannymh]

This website has good general information about evolution.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

The following article link below is a good reason why Humani Generis is needed in order to evaluate some misleading ideas in the article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”

The complete evolution theory is based on large random breeding polygenesis (polygenism) populations descending from the Homo/Pan split. No Way. The Adam and Eve theory is an original population of two.

Therefore, we have to be careful about sweet talking articles which proclaim the following.

From the article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

“…I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.”

“…we have nothing to fear in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time”

“The number-one thing to get straight about evolution and chance is to simply pray the Creed and mean it.”

 

[grannymh]

I wish that more people could understand the depth of the Catholic Faith.

 

[grannymh]

From the article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution
“…I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.”

“…we have nothing to fear in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time”

“The number-one thing to get straight about evolution and chance is to simply pray the Creed and mean it.”

It is in the above three interesting comments that the depth of our Catholic Faith is being challenged.
Interestingly, CCC 389 points to the challenge.

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows
very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation
of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Interestingly, many persons cannot spot the article’s quoted danger to young people who understand the full evolution theory and also hear about the metaphor replacements in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

Are there any readers who understand what I am saying?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

This website has good general information about evolution.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

The following article link below is a good reason why Humani Generis is needed in order to evaluate some misleading ideas in the article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”

The complete evolution theory is based on large random breeding polygenesis (polygenism) populations descending from the Homo/Pan split. No Way. The Adam and Eve theory is an original population of two.

Therefore, we have to be careful about sweet talking articles which proclaim the following.

From the article “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

“…I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.”

“…we have nothing to fear in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time”

“The number-one thing to get straight about evolution and chance is to simply pray the Creed and mean it.”

Well, these are two of my very favorite websites:

1. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
2. **The Pontifical Academy of Sciences **: EVOLUTION
   accademiascienze.va/content/accademia/en/search.html?q=Evolution

I also like the latest article:
Biological Extinction

How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend
PAS-PASS Workshop, Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

Extinction is Forever: How To Avoid It

A study week was convened at the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican on February 27-March 1, 2017, by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to review what we know about biological extinction, its causes and the ways in which we might limit its extent. The participants concluded, based on comparisons with the fossil record, that the current rate of loss of species is approximately 1,000 times the historical rate, with perhaps a quarter of all species in danger of extinction now and as many as half of them may be gone by the end of the present century. Since we depend on living organisms for the functioning of our planet, our food, many of our medicines and other materials, waste absorption and the mediation of our climate, and for much of the beauty of the earth, these losses will inflict incalculable damage on our common prospects unless we control them. We have discovered and described less than one fifth of the species that are estimated to exist, and so we’re throwing away unknown potential and threatening the basic functioning of our planet.

Prior to the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, human beings lived as bands of a few dozen individuals for whom survival was an all-encompassing challenge. At that time, there were perhaps one million of us living in the entire world. As our numbers grew, however, we began to form the villages, towns, and cities from which our civilizations were developed. A third of the earth was gradually converted to agriculture. By two hundred years ago, we had grown to one billion people for the first time, and then to two billion in 1930 and shooting upward to the 7.4 billion of today. Since 1950, world GDP has grown 15 times while the world population has tripled. This five-fold increase in per capita income has brought huge gains to the contemporary human condition.
Besides threatening millions of species with extinction, this enormous increase in economic activity based on profit and on the use of fossil fuels is putting huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably. The most obvious associated signs include global climate change and the concomitant damages to the earth’s system that it brings in its wake, such as sea level rise as well as ocean acidification and anoxia, these feeding back on biological extinction directly.

. . .]
accademiascienze.va/content/accademia/en/events/2017/extinction/statement.html

I don’t really need nor do I agree much with the below article: “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

 

[grannymh]

Well, these are two of my very favorite websites:

1. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
2. **The Pontifical Academy of Sciences **: EVOLUTION
   accademiascienze.va/content/accademia/en/search.html?q=Evolution

I also like the latest article:
Biological Extinction

How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend
PAS-PASS Workshop, Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

Extinction is Forever: How To Avoid It

A study week was convened at the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican on February 27-March 1, 2017, by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to review what we know about biological extinction, its causes and the ways in which we might limit its extent. The participants concluded, based on comparisons with the fossil record, that the current rate of loss of species is approximately 1,000 times the historical rate, with perhaps a quarter of all species in danger of extinction now and as many as half of them may be gone by the end of the present century. Since we depend on living organisms for the functioning of our planet, our food, many of our medicines and other materials, waste absorption and the mediation of our climate, and for much of the beauty of the earth, these losses will inflict incalculable damage on our common prospects unless we control them. We have discovered and described less than one fifth of the species that are estimated to exist, and so we’re throwing away unknown potential and threatening the basic functioning of our planet.

Prior to the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, human beings lived as bands of a few dozen individuals for whom survival was an all-encompassing challenge. At that time, there were perhaps one million of us living in the entire world. As our numbers grew, however, we began to form the villages, towns, and cities from which our civilizations were developed. A third of the earth was gradually converted to agriculture. By two hundred years ago, we had grown to one billion people for the first time, and then to two billion in 1930 and shooting upward to the 7.4 billion of today. Since 1950, world GDP has grown 15 times while the world population has tripled. This five-fold increase in per capita income has brought huge gains to the contemporary human condition.
Besides threatening millions of species with extinction, this enormous increase in economic activity based on profit and on the use of fossil fuels is putting huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably. The most obvious associated signs include global climate change and the concomitant damages to the earth’s system that it brings in its wake, such as sea level rise as well as ocean acidification and anoxia, these feeding back on biological extinction directly.

. . .]
accademiascienze.va/content/accademia/en/events/2017/extinction/statement.html

I don’t really need nor do I agree much with the below article: “What You Absolutely Need to Understand about Evolution”
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

May I respectfully ask what you do not agree with in the article?

 

[grannymh]

Well, these are two of my very favorite websites:

1. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
2. **The Pontifical Academy of Sciences **: EVOLUTION
   accademiascienze.va/content/accademia/en/search.html?q=Evolution

I also like the latest article:
Biological Extinction

How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend
PAS-PASS Workshop, Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

**“Extinction is Forever: How To Avoid It” **
Please go to post 69 to read it. My reply was too long to include it here.

Thank you.

I often use this Berkeley link.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

I started to look through the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: EVOLUTION link.
I did not start a video because I was hoping to find a printed copy. Are there printed copies?

I did read “Extinction is Forever: How To Avoid it.” in your post. The second reading started me thinking that maybe species extinction can be seen in a good light. Not sure where I am going with that.

Most likely, I will never grow up. When I read about the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, I imagine Adam training a dinosaur to plow the field.

On the other hand, I do refer to Adam as an expert in agriculture, Genesis 2:15.
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

And I treasure these two truths in the first amazing chapter of Genesis.
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

28
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Note: The words: “fill the earth and subdue it” can mean bringing the earth out of wildness making it fit for humankind’s survival. For example farms and fishing. It can mean caring for both domestic and wild species as an essential part of our earth environment. “Subdue” is used when the item is already hostile. God did not give humans the authority to destroy the earth. He tells humans to subdue the earth into a peaceful environment where humans can live in the image of God.

Adam may not have had a pet dinosaur. Still, since he worked in a garden, I imagine him with a handsome tan and a strong muscular body.

 

[grannymh]

A major reason for using Humani Generis as a modern tool for Catholic apologetics is that it supports Original Sin. Seriously, the below paragraph sweet talks how we should ignore Original Sin.

From catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution
“If we can profess that Jesus Christ, our Lord, was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, was buried, descended to the dead, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, then* we have nothing to fear* in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time. If God can resurrect the body and grant life everlasting, then he surely can design the material of the universe to become all it is meant to be. To believe anything less of him is heresy.”

The really sad thing is that the author of the above paragraph has left out the fact that a particular scientific theory naturally includes tampering with Original Sin.

Here is what the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition teaches about tampering.

CCC 389, last sentence.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Humani Generis, paragraph 37 w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“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.”

 

[Huldrich]

Hello,

I saw that you are talking about evolution. You maybe interested in my article on ResearchGate.net about the probability of a nucleotide sequence to be formed by random mutations. I use Richard Dawkins Weasel algorithm to show that the Pan/Homo split would take billions of years to occur if natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. However, the fossil record shows that it happened millions of years ago, which shows that evolution cannot be a random process.

 

[grannymh]

Hello,

I saw that you are talking about evolution. You maybe interested in my article on ResearchGate.net about the probability of a nucleotide sequence to be formed by random mutations. I use Richard Dawkins Weasel algorithm to show that the Pan/Homo split would take billions of years to occur if natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. However, the fossil record shows that it happened millions of years ago, which shows that evolution cannot be a random process.

This is interesting to me because large random breeding populations are basic to the Science of Human Evolution.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing random regarding humans in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Your book mentioned on your Public Profile also interests me. At first glance, it seems to start salvation history after the first three chapters of Genesis. I may be wrong about that.

 

[Huldrich]

My book is subdivided into three parts: the first is about the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I examine the question whether the creation account is compatible with modern science, with the result that, indeed, it is. The second part is on salvation history, which, in my opinion, is unfolding according to four typical phases that repeat themselves through the whole history up to the end times. The third part is about Saint Mary, in which I give a possible explanation why there are Marian apparitions. You can read the book for free on historycycles.org. I am working on a revised edition, but this takes a lot of time and effort, so I don’t know when it will be ready…

 

[grannymh]

My book is subdivided into three parts: the first is about the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I examine the question whether the creation account is compatible with modern science, with the result that, indeed, it is. The second part is on salvation history, which, in my opinion, is unfolding according to four typical phases that repeat themselves through the whole history up to the end times. The third part is about Saint Mary, in which I give a possible explanation why there are Marian apparitions. You can read the book for free on historycycles.org. I am working on a revised edition, but this takes a lot of time and effort, so I don’t know when it will be ready…

Genesis 2: 18 is not compatible with evolutionary science which is based on large rather interesting populations as a source of a new species. The new human species, Genesis 1: 27, is founded by an original population of two.

 

[Huldrich]

Well I use the word evolution in a broader sense. It is just something that evolves from lower to higher species, without precising how it evolves. Thereby, it includes creation and the possibility that humans stem from single parents. But in that case we need to ask ourselves among what species did Kain find his wife? If we strictly suppose that humanity stems from Adam and Eve without mixture with preceding hominids, then it was his sister. Can you live with this?

 

[grannymh]

Well I use the word evolution in a broader sense. It is just something that evolves from lower to higher species, without precising how it evolves. Thereby, it includes creation and the possibility that humans stem from single parents. But in that case we need to ask ourselves among what species did Kain find his wife? If we strictly suppose that humanity stems from Adam and Eve without mixture with preceding hominids, then it was his sister. Can you live with this?

The effects of brother/sister “incest” would take a few generations for genetic mutations. Thus, marriage between brother and sister could take place at the very beginning. Incest between parent and child would be wrong because it would destroy the family relationship. Given the length of female fertility and over lapping generations, the status of descendants would no longer need brother and sister marriage. At some point, marriage between brother and sister became an issue in regard to legal marriage.

Regarding sex between humans and non-humans which would produce a valid human baby, there are still questions about that happening. In any case, Adam and Eve would still be credited with independently producing the human species.

 

[grannymh]

Well I use the word evolution in a broader sense. It is just something that evolves from lower to higher species, without precising how it evolves. Thereby, it includes creation and the possibility that humans stem from single parents. But in that case we need to ask ourselves among what species did Kain find his wife? If we strictly suppose that humanity stems from Adam and Eve without mixture with preceding hominids, then it was his sister. Can you live with this?

Unfortunately, because evolution requires a polygenesis population such as the Homo/Pan ancestor population aka a speciation event, the Catholic Church cannot close its eyes to the fact that there has to be a single Adam and a single Original Sin. Multiply Adam and thus multiply Original Sin in multiple times and places, then the answer is multiple redeemers, not necessarily the One Fully Divine Person. Please refer to John 3: 16-17.

Here is what the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition teaches about tampering with Adam and Original Sin.
CCC 389, last sentence.

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

**
**
**
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950, paragraph 37 refers to indiscriminate large polygenesis random breeding humanizing populations. The word Polygenism is used.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“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.”

 

[Huldrich]

Regarding sex between humans and non-humans which would produce a valid human baby, there are still questions about that happening. In any case, Adam and Eve would still be credited with independently producing the human species.

With that saying you recognize the complexity of the subject. As I said before, I am not opposed to the view that humanity stems from single parents. In my book, I even defend this view. But I also listen to the other side. And as you admit, there are open “technical” questions. How did God create Adam and Eve? Did God form them literally out of dust as adults and with full physical and intellectual power as imagined by young earth creationists? Sorry but I can’t believe that. A more plausible scenario is that Adam was normally born from a woman but genetically more advanced than her. However, this difference was slim, otherwise a normal development in the womb of his mother would not have been possible.