Is it possible to reconcile polygenism with original sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke_K

Guest
I was reading this site: biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ , and if the scientific evidence points to a population of thousands in Africa that we all descended from, not two (from the area of the Tigris, Euphrates, etc. rivers), would it be possible to reconcile this with the Catholic dogma of original sin?

I know of the quote from Pope Pius XII saying that we Catholics do not enjoy the liberty of believing in polygenism. I also read this: markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html which said that it may not be impossible for a Catholic to believe in polygenism and original sin.

I do not know every implication with other aspects of the Catholic faith that polygenism may have, which is why I’m asking for some help. I know for example that it affects the concept of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and being defeated by one man, Jesus.

With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
 
Luke_K said:
I was reading this site: biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ , and if the scientific evidence points to a population of thousands in Africa that we all descended from, not two (from the area of the Tigris, Euphrates, etc. rivers), would it be possible to reconcile this with the Catholic dogma of original sin?

I know of the quote from Pope Pius XII saying that we Catholics do not enjoy the liberty of believing in polygenism. I also read this: markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html which said that it may not be impossible for a Catholic to believe in polygenism and original sin.

I do not know every implication with other aspects of the Catholic faith that polygenism may have, which is why I’m asking for some help. I know for example that it affects the concept of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and being defeated by one man, Jesus.

With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not possible. I personally doubt that science will prove beyond any doubt polygenism.
 
Luke_K said:
With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
Science deals with the material, so from the scientific point of view it is looking at bones, DNA and the like. Science does not examine souls. From the theological point of view a human soul is what makes humans actually human; something without a human soul is not human whatever its DNA or bones look like.

Putting these two together we can come up with a possible scenario. Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call them “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve are theologically distinct from the huma, they have souls. They are not biologically distinct, they have the same bones and the same DNA. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest and the consequent inbreeding the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc. This scenario neatly solves the problem of Mrs Cain - she was a huma, which may explain why she remains nameless.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding huma/human population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair and so can inherit original sin.

That scenario will not satisfy hyper-literalists, and it does replace incest with a form of bestiality. I would however claim a theological distinction with current bestiality. Today bestiality has no possibility of producing life, wheras intercourse between human and huma would have been open to the possibility of producing new life because of the compatibility between human and huma DNA. Just as early incest is justified in the more traditional monogenism scenario, so can early bestiality be justified in this modified scenario.

rossum
 
The scenario I envision is something like this…

Every member of a large hominid troupe has a common ancestor – let’s say a pair of great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents. (This isn’t novel or odd. If you are in a football stadium with 50,000 other people, you are in a football stadium with 50,000 blood cousins, a few close cousins, most of them distant cousins.) That descendancy satisfies the “monogenesis” requirement.

Two of the hominids, male and female, are attracted to each other. Let’s say God ensouls them. These are our “first parents.” Ensoulment, generating an intellect and a free will, immediately creates problems with the rest of the troupe – the ensouled pair are “people.” The rest are animals. The ensouled couple splits off from the troupe. They have children. God, in his wisdom, ensouls the hominids from the couple’s former troupe who will be the mates of their ensouled children. This model fulfills the monogenesis requirement, avoids violating pre-wired incest taboos by sex with close relatives, and avoids technical bestiality by sex with unensouled hominids.
 
Rock and a hard spot? – not really – It’s more like :banghead:

Why not try an end run? :onpatrol:

Approach all possibilities analytically. :hmmm:

Question all assumptions :confused: – –

– – Does polygenism really apply to Homo sapiens? How? Why? Why not?

– – Has the theory of “primordial soup” been replaced? Or added to?

– – What does the theory of “Out of Africa” really tell us?

– – Are there limitations to the first life forms, the first organisms?

It is time to use the right side of one’s brain! :newidea:

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
 
Luke_K said:
I was reading this site: biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ , and if the scientific evidence points to a population of thousands in Africa that we all descended from, not two (from the area of the Tigris, Euphrates, etc. rivers), would it be possible to reconcile this with the Catholic dogma of original sin?

I know of the quote from Pope Pius XII saying that we Catholics do not enjoy the liberty of believing in polygenism. I also read this: markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html which said that it may not be impossible for a Catholic to believe in polygenism and original sin.

I do not know every implication with other aspects of the Catholic faith that polygenism may have, which is why I’m asking for some help. I know for example that it affects the concept of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and being defeated by one man, Jesus.

With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
Well Luke, I have no problem believing in a 6000 year old earth having studied the matter for many years now. Given that every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the discoveries made over the past 200 years can be challenged, ‘science’ no longer has an ‘infallible’ hold on my intellect any more. I have returned to the only infallible source of truth known about these things, the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you want to know what Catholic life is as a ‘fundamentalist’ just let me know. It is remarks like yours that have resulted in Modernism - the heresy that leaves all Christian understanding in CHAOS.

The human race descends from one single pair. END OF STORY

SIR –
Peter Wilson (Letters, April 24) points out that the Church has no competence “in questions of paleontological fact”. Quite so. The Magisterium has no competence or authority to affirm any of the theories of science. She cannot affirm, nor even “accept”, theories of universal gravitation, of electro-magnetism, of nuclear physics or of astronomy. (Though the vast majority of Catholics believe that the earth revolves around the sun, it is not part of the teaching of the Church, and the Church, as the Church, has no means of “accepting” heliocentrism. It is not part of the faith.)

Likewise, the Catholic Church cannot (ever) affirm or accept the theory of evolution, which arose outside of Revelation and is therefore “alien” to the teaching of the Church, as are other theories of science. The Catholic Church, quite simply, does not have a divine “mandate” to affirm the theories of science.

However, the Catholic Church does have a competence, negatively, to deny that any theory of science is true if she judges the theory to be contrary to the faith of the Church. For this, the Church does not require any competence in any particular area of science but makes the judgment from her own divinely given “competence” to infallibly judge matters relating to faith and morals.

Thus the Church does not need to know any of the science involved, or what scientific theories may be contradicted, in affirming that Jesus walked on the water, and that He rose from the dead. Similarly, whereas the Magisterium of the Church cannot affirm that the theory of evolution is true, if she came to believe that the theory of evolution was contrary to Revealed Truth, she has the competence (without any competence in palaeontology) to repudiate the theory of evolution as contrary to the faith.

Yours faithfully,
Fr. Neil Evans
St Benedict’s church,
Sketty, Swansea
 
cassini, I am glad for the fervor with which you place your faith in the infallibility of the Church. Like you, I also believe that the Catholic Church was established by God with the authority to infallibly interpret sacred scripture.

I am troubled by your remark that my statements result in heresy and a chaos in Christian understanding. Does God not also speak to our senses? If there is an apparent conflict between nature and scripture, it is our duty to reconcile those differences under the guidance of the Church, which is why I created this thread, to see if what natural evidence seems to show us is compatible with our faith.

You seem to be hostile towards “modern” interpretations of scripture. Consider these quotes from the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved, not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.”

“47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church” emphasis added

“48. This true liberty of the children of God, which adheres faithfully to the teaching of the Church and accepts and uses gratefully the contributions of profane science, this liberty, upheld and sustained in every way by the confidence of all, is the condition and source of all lasting fruit and of all solid progress in Catholic doctrine, as Our Predecessor of happy memory Leo XIII rightly observes, when he says: “unless harmony of mind be maintained and principle safeguarded, no progress can be expected in this matter from the varied studies of many.””
 
Luke_K said:
If there is an apparent conflict between nature and scripture, it is our duty to reconcile those differences under the guidance of the Church, which is why I created this thread, to see if what natural evidence seems to show us is compatible with our faith.
Click to expand...
There are three ways to reconcile polygenism with the “Original Sin” of Adam.
  1. Move the current estimate of dates for the polygenism bottleneck backwards.
    Revisit the evidence of the human common ancestor’s divergence. It is my understanding that genomic evidence shows relationships between Homo sapiens and chimps as well as lesser relationships with other species on the tree of life. To me, there is still the question-- Does relationship show a separate common ancestor or actually a common source of the lineages that goes farther back in time. In other words, describe the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of the common ancestor.
  2. Revisit the evidence supporting the first life forms or first organisms. I am not referring to the origin or beginning of life itself. My right brain likes the theory of “primordial soup” because that allows for chance. With all the results which chance can produce at this first step, questions must be asked-- Why only one tree of life?
    Could the major domains produce two or more trees of life?
  3. Given the uniqueness of humans, could there have been a separate tree of life for Homo sapiens? While some argue that humans are only different by degrees from other animals, there is the magnitude of degrees which denote difference in kind. The roots for human lineage would still be the same “primordial soup” or whatever theory is now in favor. Enviornment would be basically the same as for other living animals. Taken together, both these factors account for relationships between humans and animals.
Because I am doing a major project regarding the Catholic Eucharist which requires my total attention span, I have to give up my favorite topic of a literal Adam and Eve. Thus, I have to bow out of this interesting conversation and unsubscribe.

If you find some viable answers to your opening post, please save them for my return.

Blessings and good thoughts to all,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17
 
Luke_K said:
cassini, I am glad for the fervor with which you place your faith in the infallibility of the Church. Like you, I also believe that the Catholic Church was established by God with the authority to infallibly interpret sacred scripture.

I am troubled by your remark that my statements result in heresy and a chaos in Christian understanding. Does God not also speak to our senses? If there is an apparent conflict between nature and scripture, it is our duty to reconcile those differences under the guidance of the Church, which is why I created this thread, to see if what natural evidence seems to show us is compatible with our faith.

You seem to be hostile towards “modern” interpretations of scripture. Consider these quotes from the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved, not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.”

“47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church” emphasis added

“48. This true liberty of the children of God, which adheres faithfully to the teaching of the Church and accepts and uses gratefully the contributions of profane science, this liberty, upheld and sustained in every way by the confidence of all, is the condition and source of all lasting fruit and of all solid progress in Catholic doctrine, as Our Predecessor of happy memory Leo XIII rightly observes, when he says: “unless harmony of mind be maintained and principle safeguarded, no progress can be expected in this matter from the varied studies of many.””
Click to expand...
Luke, you say: " Does God not also speak to our senses?"
I say yes he does of course, Is it not a dogma that we can know God by what we see in the world around us?

But watch now as I show how ‘science’ made nonsense of this dogma. The world of men,and of the Apostles, clearly showed them the universe turning around them with the sun, moon and stars. The great doctrine of geocentricism was developed in the Church and God, man and the universe were fully united.

But then what happened? Men said what you see is not truth. God has deceived you, creating all to look geocentric but in fact it was as the pagans of Egypt said all along, heliocentric with their god the sun fixed at the centre.

In time even Churchmen of the Catholic Church joined in in the theory of the great sense deception. No we on earth are not special as those early Churchmen thought.

So much for “Does God not also speak to our senses”
 
Luke_K said:
I was reading this site: biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ , and if the scientific evidence points to a population of thousands in Africa that we all descended from, not two (from the area of the Tigris, Euphrates, etc. rivers), would it be possible to reconcile this with the Catholic dogma of original sin?

I know of the quote from Pope Pius XII saying that we Catholics do not enjoy the liberty of believing in polygenism. I also read this: markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html which said that it may not be impossible for a Catholic to believe in polygenism and original sin.

I do not know every implication with other aspects of the Catholic faith that polygenism may have, which is why I’m asking for some help. I know for example that it affects the concept of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and being defeated by one man, Jesus.

With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
I don’t think polygenism can be entirely reconciled with Original Sin, which is transmitted through natural generation; we are all biologically descended from Adam and Eve.

But couldn’t the genetic diversity of people living today be explained otherwise? Think of the earlier subspecies of modern humans, like homo sapiens idaltu (“elder wise man”). I think a theologian can make a case that Gen. 6: 1-4 is a metaphorical allusion to the interbreeding between Adam and Eve’s decendants (the “Sons of God”) with other, older subspecies of humans (“daughters of man”).

When we note that Mitochondrial Eve lived just at the cusp between the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens (“wise wise man”) subspecies to which all human beings today belong and the extinction of antecedent evolutionary subspecies, this hypothesis makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps we needn’t decide between monogenism and polygenism strictly defined, as it is entirely plausible that Adam and Eve were the original pair of homo sapiens sapiens, whose children and grand-children etc. interbred with older subspecies inhabiting surrounding areas (e.g. Ethiopia).
 
Luke_K said:
I was reading this site: biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ , and if the scientific evidence points to a population of thousands in Africa that we all descended from, not two (from the area of the Tigris, Euphrates, etc. rivers), would it be possible to reconcile this with the Catholic dogma of original sin?

I know of the quote from Pope Pius XII saying that we Catholics do not enjoy the liberty of believing in polygenism. I also read this: markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html which said that it may not be impossible for a Catholic to believe in polygenism and original sin.

I do not know every implication with other aspects of the Catholic faith that polygenism may have, which is why I’m asking for some help. I know for example that it affects the concept of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and being defeated by one man, Jesus.

With Pope Pius XII’s statement, I feel like we Catholics may end up being put between a rock and a hard place, being forced to choose between scientific evidence and fundamental aspects of our faith. I do not want to end up like fundamentalists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old because they feel their faith is incompatible with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
I don’t think polygenism can be entirely reconciled with Original Sin, which is transmitted through natural generation; we are all biologically descended from Adam and Eve.

But couldn’t the genetic diversity of people living today be explained otherwise? Think of the earlier subspecies of modern humans, like homo sapiens idaltu (“elder wise man”). I think a theologian can make a case that Gen. 6: 1-4 is a metaphorical allusion to the interbreeding between Adam and Eve’s decendants (the “Sons of God”) with other, older subspecies of humans (“daughters of man”).

When we note that Mitochondrial Eve lived just at the cusp between the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens (“wise wise man”) subspecies to which all human beings today belong and the extinction of antecedent evolutionary subspecies, this hypothesis makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps we needn’t decide between monogenism and polygenism strictly defined, as it is entirely plausible that Adam and Eve were the original pair of homo sapiens sapiens, whose children and grand-children etc. interbred with older subspecies inhabiting surrounding areas (e.g. Ethiopia).
 
I find it less and less possible to believe that these debates are about a search for actual truth. Not when I know that the current advertising message regarding evolution and removing man from being made in God’s image and likeness are two key goals.

So, I turn to this which was printed in the April 19,2009 edition of Our Sunday Visitor:

“It [the Church] is saying, in effect, that no matter what current scientists think, no matter how well established their theories of human origins seem to be, that in the end, when all the evidence is finally in, science will not contradict the fact (italiscs mine, Ed) that human beings have a single set of parents. Note, I am not saying that science will at last prove that Adam and Eve existed. The point is much more startling. I am saying that, try as it might, wander where it will, science will find that all its attempts to investigate the possibility of human polygenism ultimately fruitless, and all its attempts to investigate the possibility of monogenism will prove wonderfully fruitful. The Church is declaring that faith cannot be contradicted because the God of revelation is the Creator God.”

The author of the quote is Benjamin Wiker, author of Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God, among others.

I think this sums up my view and it plainly places God and Divine revelation first, as it should be. He represents no Fundamentalism but the sure fact that through “one” man sin entered the world.

Peace,
Ed
 
Luke_K said:
Jimmy Akin discussed this subject: jimmyakin.org/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html
Click to expand...
I read this and simply expanded on the second hypothesis given in Akin’s introduction (re: Gen. 6: 1-4). Some important qualifications should be made, as I think it would be highly unlikely that children of Adam and Eve could interbreed with “unsouled hominids.” Scientifically, I believe that any offspring of creatures not within the same species are necessarily sterile. I would suggest interbreeding between human subspecies occurred, which was fertile (and not really “bestiality” either).
Also, Akin seems here to have an almost protestant understanding of the human soul. It’s not some external entity that God puts into us, but the very form of our bodies; i.e. a human body necessitates a human soul. So any hominids wouldn’t be “unsouled”; they would have hominid souls, and any earlier human subspecies likewise. Whether those earlier human subspecies (e.g. homo sapiens idaltu) had souls that survived physical death is another theological discussion (but I would lean to the opinion that homo sapiens sapiens are the first and only creatures with truly incorruptible, spiritual souls).
 
Neithan said:
I read this and simply expanded on the second hypothesis given in Akin’s introduction (re: Gen. 6: 1-4). Some important qualifications should be made, as I think it would be highly unlikely that children of Adam and Eve could interbreed with “unsouled hominids.” Scientifically, I believe that any offspring of creatures not within the same species are necessarily sterile. I would suggest interbreeding between human subspecies occurred, which was fertile (and not really “bestiality” either).
Also, Akin seems here to have an almost protestant understanding of the human soul. It’s not some external entity that God puts into us, but the very form of our bodies; i.e. a human body necessitates a human soul. So any hominids wouldn’t be “unsouled”; they would have hominid souls, and any earlier human subspecies likewise. Whether those earlier human subspecies (e.g. homo sapiens idaltu) had souls that survived physical death is another theological discussion (but I would lean to the opinion that homo sapiens sapiens are the first and only creatures with truly incorruptible, spiritual souls).
Click to expand...
Thanks for this post. I was struggling with the link in post 12. 😦
When you get a moment, would you mind giving me your opinion on post 9?

Regarding Genesis 6: 1 -6. The footnotes in my Catholic bible make more sense. Apparently, when the Israelites invaded Palestine, they found the tall aboriginal Anakim. Not being aware of some of the “Out of Africa” migrations, they used fragments of an old legend to figure out the stature of these strange “giants.”

To me, there are a lot of people who put aside the concept of a spiritual soul. That is understandable since a spiritual soul and its functions are hard to grasp–but that is not a reason to ignore the fact that original sin affected the soul. Personally, I have a simple definition of soul – My spiritual soul is that which connects me to God. 😃

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
 
Neithan said:
I read this and simply expanded on the second hypothesis given in Akin’s introduction (re: Gen. 6: 1-4). Some important qualifications should be made, as I think it would be highly unlikely that children of Adam and Eve could interbreed with “unsouled hominids.”
Click to expand...
This reminds of “A New Synthesis” from the humor book Science Made Stupid.
 
DavidHume said:
This reminds of “A New Synthesis” from the humor book Science Made Stupid.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

I guess every family has someone who lays down on the job.😃

Seriously, really, the drawings reminded me of an old bible commentary which suggested that writers often left out details which were common knowledge, like it takes two to tango. There were plenty of unnamed “dancers” that were human descendents of the first two human parents.

Blessings
granny

“male and female He created them.” Genesis Chapter 1.
 
I have always wondered about how Adam and Eve’s historicity compares with the historicity of Genesis 1. Given that since Aquinas, the Church has been seeking to reconcile scientific inquiry with doctrines, I think we should be able to handle this one alright. If evolution is considered to be an explanatory theory of change within biological systems with sufficient evidence and one compatible with Catholic teaching and doctrine, in some manner don’t we interpret Genesis 1 in some sense as metaphorical or allegorical? For completeness, I would also throw in cosmological and geological theories for celestial and planetary development.

Given that Genesis 1 may be read non-literally, must we also view Genesis 2-3 in that manner? It seems to me reasonable to expect that evolutionary theory doesn’t do away with “first parents” altogether (though as Jimmy Akin’s piece on evolution points out, explaining the genetic variability in the human population would seem to require a large base population). In both an evolutionary and a theological sense, couldn’t the first humans (i.e., Homo sapiens sapiens) who were in possession of free will and conscience, have confronted with a paradise called Eden, within which temptation and “the fall” occurred? The doctrine of original sin seems to work in that situation… but I’m treading heavily on ground where I really am not an expert (though a scientist by profession).

On a related note, has anyone thought about how original sin interacts with the basic concept in genetics that one’s parents pass on genes, while the environment within which a person develops affects which genes get expressed? I think it’s in all likelihood ludicrous (and pantheistic) to expect to find a “sin gene,” but how do we dismiss physically-based transmission of sin without becoming hard “dualists” where the soul and body are independent (the bodily resurrection being an example of why we don’t maintain a hard soul/body split).
 
That’s why I like the Orthodox view of original sin better… it’s less explicit and doesn’t necessarily involve a physical transmission via DNA or something like that (nor is guilt necessarily imputed as a result of the Fall). I am just becomming more and more Eastern all the time… probably too Eastern to continue to be Anglican. I should probably talk about it with a priest.

Genesis is thoroughly a metaphor, it isn’t literal. Even what we think of as sin, probably isn’t always a sin in some kind of objective way. Religion is largely therapeutic in my mind, although it is a spiritual therapy rather than something mundane or “natural” (as St. Paul might say). I’d rather leave stuff vague and hopefully, in the fullness of time, God explains it, rather than trying to nail faith down. When you do that often enough, you can end up with an inflexible religion. Even alot of the Jewish and Christian writers didn’t view the Genesis 1-3 accounts as some kind of literal history, they read them very esotericly (Philo of Alexandria is a good example, he sees the Genesis story more as a story about the mind being corrupted away from God by the senses).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top