Is this acceptable to believe

[ThePuppyTurtle]

That, after God gave Adam and Eve Rational spirits, their children mated with nearby spiritless “Humans”, with the children of such unions possessing spirits, until spirits took over the population (As they eventually would, for the same reason anyone who lived more than 2500 years ago is the ancestor of either everybody or nobody alive today).

The strength in this view is it seems to account for the Genetic evidence against monogenism, without admitting

that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

If we can apply this to Adam, can we also let some of our Pseudo-men explain the fact that there is no bottleneck corresponding to the flood either?

 

[Hokomai]

Well, it might help explain what the catechism says, but this would suggest God had always planned, even before the fall, that people would be mating with soul-less beings which if I understand Catholic teaching correctly are known as umm - animals, with animal souls, and the mating would therefore be classified as ummm - well, what I’m saying is top marks for creativity in attempting to reconcile the ireconcillable with reality, but don’t expect a new edition of the CCC anytime soon!

 

[grannymh]

That, after God gave Adam and Eve Rational spirits, their children mated with nearby spiritless “Humans”, with the children of such unions possessing spirits, until spirits took over the population (As they eventually would, for the same reason anyone who lived more than 2500 years ago is the ancestor of either everybody or nobody alive today).

The strength in this view is it seems to account for the Genetic evidence against monogenism, without admitting

If we can apply this to Adam, can we also let some of our Pseudo-men explain the fact that there is no bottleneck corresponding to the flood either?

There is a lot more to “Adam and Eve” than what is found in the cutesy children’s books where there are enough leaves to appropriately cover a handsome, smiling couple.

As for genetic research, when one actually reads it, one finds that the “scientific method” allows for assumptions and estimates to substitute for hard data going thousands of years backwards.

While Romans 5: 12-21 accounts for the Catholic approach to Original Sin, natural science is limited to the decomposing human anatomy.

Natural science is a gift from God and as such has benefited humankind. However, the conclusions in a real, scientific research paper have to flow from the presented evidence. Valid interpretations of these conclusions cannot go beyond the presented evidence, period. It is the interpretations about natural science which can be invalid in regard to the real, two, sole founders of the human species.

 

[grannymh]

Well, it might help explain what the catechism says, but this would suggest God had always planned, even before the fall, that people would be mating with soul-less beings which if I understand Catholic teaching correctly are known as umm - animals, with animal souls, and the mating would therefore be classified as ummm - well, what I’m saying is top marks for creativity in attempting to reconcile the ireconcillable with reality, but don’t expect a new edition of the CCC anytime soon!

It is personally interesting to me that the partial quote in the opening post comes from a document which explains and affirms the basics of the crucial Catholic doctrines on Original Sin and the Divinity of Jesus Christ as taught in the Catechism. The document is Humani Generis vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Humani Generis section is #37. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition paragraph is #390. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

While Humani Generis #37 does not directly address Jesus Christ, it does refer to the sources of revealed truth in regard to Original Sin which does necessarily demand reconciliation by Jesus Christ Who is True Man and True God. The whole picture is explained in the Catechism’s paragraphs 355 - 421. For those who enjoy trivial questions, the Catechism in general, from start to finish, includes over 100 references to the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Actaeon]

That, after God gave Adam and Eve Rational spirits, their children mated with nearby spiritless “Humans”, with the children of such unions possessing spirits, until spirits took over the population (As they eventually would, for the same reason anyone who lived more than 2500 years ago is the ancestor of either everybody or nobody alive today).

The strength in this view is it seems to account for the Genetic evidence against monogenism, without admitting

If we can apply this to Adam, can we also let some of our Pseudo-men explain the fact that there is no bottleneck corresponding to the flood either?

Um… evidence against monogenism? You do realize that they have discovered that all humans share a single genetic “mother”, right? You also realize that there was a more recent Y-Chromosomal “adam” discovered as well?

I mean, scientists have IMMEDIATELY jumped to explain how this evidence doesn’t negate their theory that man has been around for a million years… but it certainly caused a lot of controversy when it was first realized that without a doubt we ALL have a common mother from 200,000 years ago (in africa).

While all of this CAN be explained in a different context, it really makes a lot of sense regarding biblical description: a single female ancestor and a single male ancestor who was much later (because y-chromosomal adam should properly be called y-chromosomal Noah… of Noah’s ark fame… but scientists knew that such a naming discrepancy would lend a sort of assent to Judeo-Christian theology).

All that, of course, doesn’t PROVE that there were other non-true humans in existance at the time of adam and eve, that adam and eve were merely the first true humans (in the spiritual sense) and were capable of reproducing with non-true humans (that they were the first self-aware and morally cognizent beings, which made them different spiritually from others at the time)… but the idea that humans DON’T have common ancestors is outdated.

 

[grannymh]

Um… evidence against monogenism? You do realize that they have discovered that all humans share a single genetic “mother”, right? You also realize that there was a more recent Y-Chromosomal “adam” discovered as well?

I mean, scientists have IMMEDIATELY jumped to explain how this evidence doesn’t negate their theory that man has been around for a million years… but it certainly caused a lot of controversy when it was first realized that without a doubt we ALL have a common mother from 200,000 years ago (in africa).

While all of this CAN be explained in a different context, it really makes a lot of sense regarding biblical description: a single female ancestor and a single male ancestor who was much later (because y-chromosomal adam should properly be called y-chromosomal Noah… of Noah’s ark fame… but scientists knew that such a naming discrepancy would lend a sort of assent to Judeo-Christian theology).

All that, of course, doesn’t PROVE that there were other non-true humans in existance at the time of adam and eve, that adam and eve were merely the first true humans (in the spiritual sense) and were capable of reproducing with non-true humans (that they were the first self-aware and morally cognizent beings, which made them different spiritually from others at the time)… but the idea that humans DON’T have common ancestors is outdated.

With respect to this ban in this Forum Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads Please see Post 2:

The research of Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson, 1987, is not in accord with the Catholic doctrine that one, sole, real, fully-complete human mother and her one, sole, real, fully-complete human spouse became the founders of mankind.

We need to realize that natural science has its own specialized terminology and that the media often misuses that terminology. Therefore, common sense would say that in order to understand the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, one first has to study human nature as created by God. Then one needs to recognize that the domain of natural science is limited to the decomposing human anatomy.

Here is a link which may help discerning the difference between the material/physical domain of natural science and the spiritual domain of God as taught by the Catholic Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9615600&postcount=53

 

[Actaeon]

With respect to this ban in this Forum Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads Please see Post 2:

The research of Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson, 1987, is not in accord with the Catholic doctrine that one, sole, real, fully-complete human mother and her one, sole, real, fully-complete human spouse became the founders of mankind.

We need to realize that natural science has its own specialized terminology and that the media often misuses that terminology. Therefore, common sense would say that in order to understand the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, one first has to study human nature as created by God. Then one needs to recognize that the domain of natural science is limited to the decomposing human anatomy.

Here is a link which may help discerning the difference between the material/physical domain of natural science and the spiritual domain of God as taught by the Catholic Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9615600&postcount=53

Um… I didn’t mention anything about evolution at all, you brought that up. What I mentioned was that all humans appear to share related mitochondrial DNA and related Y-Chromosomes from a later male.

That’s in the field of genetics, not human evolution. And the only reference was in pointing out that science has not utterly ruled out some kind of monogenism (or at least a hybridized poly-monogenism)… so please stay on topic and don’t detract by bringing up evolution as a subject.

 

[Hokomai]

With respect to this ban in this Forum Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads Please see Post 2:

Until now, there has been nothing at all in this thread about evolution, or atheism. Evolution is the fact that all living things share common ancestry, and that species diverge. The ensoulment or not of some of these individual members of species, or of entire species is nothing to do with evolution. I also note that the ban is not on ‘mentions’ or ‘references’ to evolution, but on threads. Any mention of any species, including human beings, is a reference to evolution, and if there were no such mentions allowed, there would not be many posts!

 

[grannymh]

Um… I didn’t mention anything about evolution at all, you brought that up. What I mentioned was that all humans appear to share related mitochondrial DNA and related Y-Chromosomes from a later male.

That’s in the field of genetics, not human evolution. And the only reference was in pointing out that science has not utterly ruled out some kind of monogenism (or at least a hybridized poly-monogenism)… so please stay on topic and don’t detract by bringing up evolution as a subject.

Perhaps we are talking past each other when it comes to Catholic doctrines especially those concerning Adam and Eve as sole parents of the human species. If that is the case, then please accept my apology.

On the other hand, maybe I need to be more clear about the difference between interpretations of natural science research in the 21st century and the actual Catholic doctrine of human origin which is the foundation, so to speak, of the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

It is my opinion that the opening post is asking “what” is to be believed about Adam and Eve according to Catholicism.

So what exactly is to be believed about our real, first parents?

 

[Ghosty]

The short answer is that this is an acceptable belief. It is what I happen to believe in fact. So long as you believe that we are all descended from one human couple you are free to speculate, within reason, about other aspects of our biological origins. I agree with you that this belief avoids almost all the difficulties of other possible explainations, though we must be open to the possibility that our scientific applecart could be overturned by new information, as that’s simply the nature of good science.

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

The short answer is that this is an acceptable belief. It is what I happen to believe in fact. So long as you believe that we are all descended from one human couple you are free to speculate, within reason, about other aspects of our biological origins. I agree with you that this belief avoids almost all the difficulties of other possible explainations, though we must be open to the possibility that our scientific applecart could be overturned by new information, as that’s simply the nature of good science.

Peace and God bless!

My apology, but I am not sure what possibly could be new information which could overturn our scientific applecart in regard to our lovable first parents. According to Catholicism, the basic, primary, essential information about human origin comes from Divine Revelation and not from a scientific anything. As I understand natural science, its information comes from observing the surrounding material/physical environment including our decomposing anatomy.

Normally, natural science is not involved with God calling us to partake in His divine life through knowledge and love. When natural science does intersect with Catholic doctrine, Divine Revelation trumps.

It seems to me that within recent history, there has been a kind or type of movement to undercut the real meaning of Original Sin by substituting symbolism. Catholicism teaches that not only are we descended from one human couple, we are descended from the only one couple who existed at the beginning of human history. Post one had a partial quote from section 37 of Humani Generis. The whole of #37 should be studied. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Catholicism does not stop with “one couple”. It answers the questions about Original Sin and the need for a Divine Savior. The Catholic Church knows full well that we cannot tamper with Original Sin which is directly connected with only the first human, without undermining the mystery of Christ. (Sources: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 388-389 and 402-405; Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; Humani Generis 37; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1)

More complete information can be found in paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Ghosty]

My apology, but I am not sure what possibly could be new information which could overturn our scientific applecart in regard to our lovable first parents. According to Catholicism, the basic, primary, essential information about human origin comes from Divine Revelation and not from a scientific anything. As I understand natural science, its information comes from observing the surrounding material/physical environment including our decomposing anatomy.

Normally, natural science is not involved with God calling us to partake in His divine life through knowledge and love. When natural science does intersect with Catholic doctrine, Divine Revelation trumps.

It seems to me that within recent history, there has been a kind or type of movement to undercut the real meaning of Original Sin by substituting symbolism. Catholicism teaches that not only are we descended from one human couple, we are descended from the only one couple who existed at the beginning of human history. Post one had a partial quote from section 37 of Humani Generis. The whole of #37 should be studied. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Catholicism does not stop with “one couple”. It answers the questions about Original Sin and the need for a Divine Savior. The Catholic Church knows full well that we cannot tamper with Original Sin which is directly connected with only the first human, without undermining the mystery of Christ. (Sources: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 388-389 and 402-405; Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; Humani Generis 37; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1)

More complete information can be found in paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was referring to new scientific evidence overturning the current model of biological polygenism. Spiritual monogenism, that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, but may have other biological ancestors that are not truly human, is not something that can be touched by science.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

My apology, but I am not sure what possibly could be new information which could overturn our scientific applecart in regard to our lovable first parents. According to Catholicism, the basic, primary, essential information about human origin comes from Divine Revelation and not from a scientific anything. As I understand natural science, its information comes from observing the surrounding material/physical environment including our decomposing anatomy.

Normally, natural science is not involved with God calling us to partake in His divine life through knowledge and love. When natural science does intersect with Catholic doctrine, Divine Revelation trumps.

It seems to me that within recent history, there has been a kind or type of movement to undercut the real meaning of Original Sin by substituting symbolism. Catholicism teaches that not only are we descended from one human couple, we are descended from the only one couple who existed at the beginning of human history. Post one had a partial quote from section 37 of Humani Generis. The whole of #37 should be studied. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Catholicism does not stop with “one couple”. It answers the questions about Original Sin and the need for a Divine Savior. The Catholic Church knows full well that we cannot tamper with Original Sin which is directly connected with only the first human, without undermining the mystery of Christ. (Sources: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 388-389 and 402-405; Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; Humani Generis 37; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1)

More complete information can be found in paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I have checked all of your prooftexts except Aquinas, who is not infallible, or even a church father. And the Very long stretch of the CCC.

I found nothing that refutes the idea I proposed.

 

[Ghosty]

I have checked all of your prooftexts except Aquinas, who is not infallible, or even a church father. And the Very long stretch of the CCC.

I found nothing that refutes the idea I proposed.

So long as you believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, and that Adam and Eve alone were the first true humans and really sinned against God, there is nothing inherently wrong in believing that there were animals that were biologically identical to them but which lacked the spiritual soul.

Such creatures would obviously be highly intelligent, likely the more intelligent than any animal in the world today, but they would lack aspects spiritual intelligence such as abstract concepts and metaphorical thinking. If they mated with true humans then the offspring would also be true human, “inheriting” the spiritual soul (along with Original Sin) from the true human parent; I believe this explains Cain’s wife, incidentally. Eventually every child born would be true human, and the animal-humans would have been silently and completely replaced. This would likely have happened far back in pre-history, when all humanity still lived in a small area of Africa and numbered a thousand or so. It wouldn’t have taken more than a few generations for true humans to replace animal-humans through simple intermarriage and procreation.

That’s just my thinking, and it’s only a viable hypothesis.

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

With free speech, it is acceptable to propose many hypotheses regarding the beginning of the history of true man.

The origin of true man is an event both spiritual and material orchestrated by God. The Catholic Church not only has the audacity to preserve Divine Revelation, but also to publically declare that the realm of God the Creator supersedes that of the purely material/physical created realm of natural science.

Divine Revelation explains Cain’s wife with Genesis 1: 26-28. The Catholic Church does not consider a “Divine blessing” frivolous. Furthermore, this blessing was given at the beginning of human history. At this point in historical time, God clarified that “mating” would be between two fully-complete human natures. (Genesis 2: 20)

 

[Ghosty]

With free speech, it is acceptable to propose many hypotheses regarding the beginning of the history of true man.

The origin of true man is an event both spiritual and material orchestrated by God. The Catholic Church not only has the audacity to preserve Divine Revelation, but also to publically declare that the realm of God the Creator supersedes that of the purely material/physical created realm of natural science.

Divine Revelation explains Cain’s wife with Genesis 1: 26-28. The Catholic Church does not consider a “Divine blessing” frivolous. Furthermore, this blessing was given at the beginning of human history. At this point in historical time, God clarified that “mating” would be between two fully-complete human natures. (Genesis 2: 20)

You can say what you want, and I understand your argument, but the fact remains that the Church teaching is open on this point. Since the teaching is open enough to include our hypothesis at this point, we prefer to hold it as it best reconciles our scientific understanding and our Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

You can say what you want, and I understand your argument, but the fact remains that the Church teaching is open on this point. Since the teaching is open enough to include our hypothesis at this point, we prefer to hold it as it best reconciles our scientific understanding and our Faith.

Peace and God bless!

Every hypothesis about human origin must include the intentions of the Creator; otherwise, one is implying that God is only partially necessary. The Catholic teaching on God’s necessity is not open for speculation as to the human calculation of the amount of God’s power to be used.

Furthermore, the scientific understanding of the results of incest in the 21st century cannot be applied to the first generations of the human population. Why? Because inherited diseases need multiple ancestors to develop the genetics needed for a chance inherited disease or abnormality. The inheritance of brown eyes in the 21st century is a benign example of genetics. Once multiple genomes are affected adversely by the transfer or inheritance of genes, over the time frame needed for mutations, then an individual disease or abnormality can be established provided certain additional conditions can be met.

 

[Ghosty]

I completely agree that every hypothesis requires total participation by God, and mine does.

As for modern science regarding incest, that’s not much of an issue.
The bigger issue is that population bottlenecks show up in DNA, and human DNA shows that the lowest number of humans at one time was about a thousand. Given that information I prefer to go with the hypothesis that fits both revelation and science, as Augustine recommended

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

I completely agree that every hypothesis requires total participation by God, and mine does.

As for modern science regarding incest, that’s not much of an issue.
The bigger issue is that population bottlenecks show up in DNA, and human DNA shows that the lowest number of humans at one time was about a thousand. Given that information I prefer to go with the hypothesis that fits both revelation and science, as Augustine recommended

Peace and God bless!

Before I point out the realities of research on 20,000 to 25,000 genes including the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA, may I ask Augustine’s recommended choice between natural science and Divine Revelation in scripture and tradition of Church Councils? I am, of course, referring to the point of intersection between natural science and Divine Revelation–what would Augustine advise?

As for the comment “I completely agree that every hypothesis requires total participation by God, and mine does.” Yes, that is a valuable statement; however, I was referring to something slightly different when I distinguished the intentions of the Creator as found in Genesis 2: 20 and in Genesis 1: 26-18. (posts 18 & 16)