Many Adams and Eves?

[sulkow82]

April Fool’s day is past.

Could you give me a response which offers insight please.

 

[grannymh]

Could you give me a response which offers insight please.

My sincere apology.

But the post was so similar in style to some links, etc. which appeared on CAF a few weeks ago, that I couldn’t imagine the bit about “We are, however, required to believe that all of humanity came from the Tigress/ Euphrates valley area.” as being Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

Hello,
On the evolution vs. creation debate, I have heard a couple of points.

I’ve heard claim that as Catholics we are not required to believe in the literal Adam and Eve. We are, however, required to believe that all of humanity came from the Tigress/ Euphrates valley area.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve are the real two sole parents of all human beings. Adam was created in friendship with God as would be all his future descendents. Unfortunately for himself and his descendents, Adam freely chose to scorn his Creator and thus yielded to the temptation of Satan. This original sin broke the original friendship of Adam and his descendents with God. Yet, God did not abandon Adam’s descendents. He promisted a Savior.

There are some Catholics who refuse to believe that Adam existed as a real person. This is the source of a lot of confusion about Adam and consequently the meaning of Jesus Christ’s life on earth. There are some Catholics who kind of – maybe – believe in some kind of truth represented by some kind of Adam. Basically, they sidestep the issues surrounding Original Sin and ignore basic teachings of Catholicism.

The source for accurate Catholic teaching about Adam is below.

It is my guess that the comment about the Tigress/ Euphrates valley area comes from someone’s attempt to locate the Garden of Eden. Catholicism doesn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the Garden of Eden as a doctrine. The location is not necessary information compared to the results of Adam’s actions.

As the Church believes, that everything that lives has a soul. What sets humanity apart from the rest of creation is we have souls that continue after death of the physical body.

Saying that everything that lives has a soul is a reference to a particular philosophical definition of soul as an animating principle of life. It is Catholic teaching that the spiritual, immaterial soul of the human person is immortal and that is what sets us apart from the rest of living creation.

My belief is that there was a tribe of hominoids living where the Bible tells us. This tribe had souls which terminate at death. Then, two (2) individuals in this tribe were granted (by God) souls which continue after death. These two (2) were Adam and Eve.

Depending on which scientific source one uses, it can be difficult to sort out hominoids from extinct hominids especially when the word primate can be used to refer to the anatomy of both a human and an ape. This is where the erroneous idea of many Adams comes from.

One can believe that there were tribes of hominoids/hominids living all over the world at some time or another. Scientific study of fossils supports this. Scientific research cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact location and time of the creation of human nature, that is, Adam and Eve who have both a material anatomy and a spiritual, rational soul. Thus, it is erroneously assumed that they didn’t exist. This flies in the face of the fact that we exist in the same nature as our first parents.

Here is where there is difficulty. Catholics do express opinions and will speculate on the origin of human nature. But Catholic teaching, itself, is in the realm of faith and morals and not in science. Thus, Catholicism refrains from an official position on how the human material anatomy came to be because some would consider that this is in the area of science, which by definition is limited to the material/physical realm. In all cases, God is the Creator of both the material and spiritual.

Catholic teaching insists on the uniqueness of Adam. Because of this uniqueness, his human nature was passed on by procreation to all human descendents. When one compares the differences between us and animals, one has to conclude that we had to have descended from two sole parents who were gifted with human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[mlund]

Of course all human beings descend from a common ultimate ancestor. That’s how the evolution of a species is theorized to work. Isolated mutation is passed on through breeding across generations. Without ancestry from the core mutation you can’t be part of the evolution of the species.

If you suppose that man’s physical form was developed from the stuff of a lesser animal through the evolutionary process it conforms with the core of the biblical narrative. All varieties of animals came before man, and then God made Adam.

The above-linked apologetic article really cuts right through to the heart of the matter in clear terms.

• Marty Lund

 

[edwest2]

Of course all human beings descend from a common ultimate ancestor. That’s how the evolution of a species is theorized to work. Isolated mutation is passed on through breeding across generations. Without ancestry from the core mutation you can’t be part of the evolution of the species.

If you suppose that man’s physical form was developed from the stuff of a lesser animal through the evolutionary process it conforms with the core of the biblical narrative. All varieties of animals came before man, and then God made Adam.

The above-linked apologetic article really cuts right through to the heart of the matter in clear terms.

• Marty Lund

I don’t think there is much clarity. As referenced in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) and in continuity with it, there is the document Communion and Stewardship.

It is not evident how an animal could be elevated by God to become a human being. Science cannot fully answer this question since there are aspects that operate outside of its given field of inquiry.

What science cannot speak to is the special creation of Eve from Adam’s side.

God bless,
Ed

 

[twinc]

I would say you are not understanding correctly.
And here is why.

As it stands, for me, the crux of the problem lies with the nature of the argument - it is theory versus truth.

A theory - before it is proven true according to the methodology that governs it - does not contradict an established truth. Only another proven truth can contradict an established truth. Many people have graduated some scientific theories beyond the realm of possible and beyond the realm of probable and into the realm of absolute truth. This is a diploma prematurely awarded.

"in said case* all ***major and accepted scientific **theories **concerning the descent of the current human population are wrong,"

First, I would say that these theories are not right or wrong - yet - because they are theories and remain in the process of becoming right or wrong.
Second, it is telling that there are many theories - note my added bold - and not one single theory. I say this not to emphasize ‘wrongness’ but to emphasize incompleteness. The process is still ongoing. I can imagine that when one theory is actually proven true and accepted as fact it will be just that - **one **theory that proved true and was accepted as such.
Other proofs might certainly build upon and follow.

Science admittedly self limits its methodology to the exploration material reality. And that’s fine. The Church, most philosophers and theologians do not impose a materialistic limitation on reason. As a result their reasoning* also *considers ideas that are super-natural or outside of nature or the observable material world. Because of this difference in scope it is possible for the Church to arrive at truths that are outside the materialistic parameters of science. This should not surprise anyone. This also does not automatically pit the two rational approaches into contradiction. It makes perfect sense that the scientist cannot prove there is a god using scientific methodology. It make perfect sense that faith did not lead to the discovery of penicillin.

Regarding the human origin question at hand, the Church, employing reason and Revelation, holds the common ascent of all humankind to be from a single pair of human parents - one man and one woman. Of course, science wants to know all the materialistic details, the hows, whats, whens and wheres, and there is nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of this inquiry, but it is certainly going to stretch the methodology.

In my humble non-scientific opinion, even outside of any faith considerations, it is going to be very difficult for science to prove the details of the human origin question, yea or nay, without hard evidence.

The Church promotes certain truths regarding human origins. They are based on a super-natural truth that God exists. While reason is heavily employed in this assertion, it is outside the parameters of materialistic science to verify.

It would be naive not to mention the very real desire of some to bind all reason exclusively to materialistic reality.

Just some thoughts which I hope work for clarity and not confusion.

Petek

since one of the greatest achievements of science was the dematerialisation of matter,so now materialistic scientists are in the dark,looking for a black cat that just is not there - twinc

 

[sulkow82]

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve are the real two sole parents of all human beings.

Could you give me a document which expressly denounces evolution. I had thought that the Catholic Church decided to take itself out of that debate. Polygenism, as I understand it, claims that there were multiple couples understood God’s commandment not to eat of the tree of life. I stated that there was only one couple, Adam and Eve.

Adam was created in friendship with God as would be all his future descendents. Unfortunately for himself and his descendents, Adam freely chose to scorn his Creator and thus yielded to the temptation of Satan. This original sin broke the original friendship of Adam and his descendents with God. Yet, God did not abandon Adam’s descendents. He promisted a Savior.

I wholeheartedly believe this. I also stated that there were two (2) distinct individuals who had souls which survive after death. So, I believe what you say and my statement is not contradicted.

There are some Catholics who kind of – maybe – believe in some kind of truth represented by some kind of Adam. Basically, they sidestep the issues surrounding Original Sin and ignore basic teachings of Catholicism.

Sad to say that people do that.

It is my guess that the comment about the Tigress/ Euphrates valley area comes from someone’s attempt to locate the Garden of Eden. Catholicism doesn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the Garden of Eden as a doctrine. The location is not necessary information compared to the results of Adam’s actions.

True it is not necessary information to the actions of Adam. However, it is Biblical (Gen 2:14). Also, there are theories which have come up claiming that humans also developed in the Americas. The Church has directly denounced this theory.

Saying that everything that lives has a soul is a reference to a particular philosophical definition of soul as an animating principle of life. It is Catholic teaching that the spiritual, immaterial soul of the human person is immortal and that is what sets us apart from the rest of living creation.

The existence of the eternal human soul does not deny the existence of an animal soul which terminates at death. Could you supply me with a Catholic document (from the Holy See) which expressly says that animals don’t have souls of any type (including ones which are destroyed at death).

Depending on which scientific source one uses, it can be difficult to sort out hominoids from extinct hominids especially when the word primate can be used to refer to the anatomy of both a human and an ape. This is where the erroneous idea of many Adams comes from.

I also stated in my post that there was only one (1) Adam and one (1) Eve.

Adam and Eve who have both a material anatomy and a spiritual, rational soul. Thus, it is erroneously assumed that they didn’t exist. This flies in the face of the fact that we exist in the same nature as our first parents.

Here is a good place to restate the central point of my post. It is my belief that Adam and Eve were two members of a larger community living in a specific area. These two individuals received something which other members of their same species did not receive… immortal souls. When the only two (2) individuals who have immortal souls sin against God, it carries throughout all generations.

Thus, Catholicism refrains from an official position on how the human material anatomy came to be because some would consider that this is in the area of science, which by definition is limited to the material/physical realm. In all cases, God is the Creator of both the material and spiritual.

Thus, Catholics are free to accept evolution as long as the divine nature of God is maintained and that all of Creation owes its existence to God.

Catholic teaching insists on the uniqueness of Adam. Because of this uniqueness, his human nature was passed on by procreation to all human descendents.

This is true! Adam and Eve were unique in their receiving immortal souls.

Blessings,
granny

God be with you.
sulkow82

 

[ricmat]

Sulkow82 - the basic problem with polygenism (IMHO) is that if there were multiple genetic parents (even if only 2 of them had real souls), then there would have been a time when “real humans” would be walking around right next to “not-real humans” (i.e. don’t have real souls). In fact, there could be those folks walking around today, right next to you and me. Descendants of the non Adam-Eve couple.

Our image and likeness of God resides in our souls. Our human dignity is based on our image and likeness of God.

Can you imagine the moral havoc that could be wreaked if someone were to point around and say “even though that looks human it is not really human”?

 

[grannymh]

Thus, Catholics are free to accept evolution as long as the divine nature of God is maintained and that all of Creation owes its existence to God.

This statement applies to non-human living organisms. Catholics are bound by additional teachings regarding human beings.

Regarding human beings, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve are the real, two sole parents of the human species – monogenism. It is this doctrine itself which denounces a disputed element of science.

 

[awatkins69]

My main problem is trying to reconcile the widely-accepted scientific view that all humans descend from a very small group rather than a very small couple. Charles Darwin even stated this directly in his “Origin of Species”.

There is still much we don’t know. Maybe somebody could speculate better than I can. Firstly, the encyclical Humani Generis uses very specific language: “…The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains 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.”

So a couple of points to analyze. First, the encyclical doesn’t even mention Eve. Secondly, the encyclical uses the words “true” men. Now, we know that the y-chromosomal Adam goes back to just a little before the so-called “Great Leap Forward”. The Great Leap Forward has been presented by some theistic evolutionists as proof of the infusion of the human soul, and the shift from homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapien. Maybe somebody better than I can speculate on this? There are also other possibilities suppose. How can we reconcile these views? Also, has anybody read the book “Origins of Human Species” by Dennis Bonnette, and if so, does he present a good explanation?

 

[grannymh]

My main problem is trying to reconcile the widely-accepted scientific view that all humans descend from a very small group rather than a very small couple. Charles Darwin even stated this directly in his “Origin of Species”.

There is still much we don’t know. Maybe somebody could speculate better than I can. Firstly, the encyclical Humani Generis uses very specific language: “…The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains 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.”

So a couple of points to analyze. First, the encyclical doesn’t even mention Eve. Secondly, the encyclical uses the words “true” men. Now, we know that the y-chromosomal Adam goes back to just a little before the so-called “Great Leap Forward”. The Great Leap Forward has been presented by some theistic evolutionists as proof of the infusion of the human soul, and the shift from homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapien. Maybe somebody better than I can speculate on this? There are also other possibilities suppose. How can we reconcile these views? Also, has anybody read the book “Origins of Human Species” by Dennis Bonnette, and if so, does he present a good explanation?

I’ve read Origin of the Human Species, second edition, Sapientia Press, by Dennis Bonnette and it is excellent.

Once people recognize that the “widely-accepted scientific view” is the brain-child of the media fueled by a lot of very vocal materialists and those who disagree with some basic teachings of Catholicism,
the so-called problem lessons. And Catholic teaching remains.

 

[Faith1960]

Earlier this month it was announced that fossilized skeltons were found in a cave in South Africa, belonging to a previously unknown human ancestor. They’re thought to be a link between tree dwelling apes and the first hominids that took steps on two feet.

 

[buffalo]

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS

…
To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled by doing statistical analysis on the evolutionary possibilities if the 38 men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the population at large. Based on this analysis, they concluded that men’s forefather – a single individual, not a group – lived no more than 270,00 years ago.
The challenge this study presents to Darwinism is profound. The study of women offered a shred of support for micro-evolution. The Y chromosome research lends no support for micro-evolution. As for macro-evolution, the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans.4
When the Y chromosome of modern humans is compared with that of modern chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, another great challenge arises. Large species-to-species genetic variations occur, but within each species very little, if any, variation is found. According to the Darwinist model, the common ancestor of modern primates dates back only seven to twenty million years. If this model were accurate, we would expect to find either less genetic diversity among the species or more variation within each species.

IDvolution…

 

[Faith1960]

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS

…
To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled by doing statistical analysis on the evolutionary possibilities if the 38 men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the population at large. Based on this analysis, they concluded that men’s forefather – a single individual, not a group – lived no more than 270,00 years ago.
The challenge this study presents to Darwinism is profound. The study of women offered a shred of support for micro-evolution. The Y chromosome research lends no support for micro-evolution. As for macro-evolution, the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans.4
When the Y chromosome of modern humans is compared with that of modern chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, another great challenge arises. Large species-to-species genetic variations occur, but within each species very little, if any, variation is found. According to the Darwinist model, the common ancestor of modern primates dates back only seven to twenty million years. If this model were accurate, we would expect to find either less genetic diversity among the species or more variation within each species.

IDvolution…

This article was written in 1995. Do you have anything more recent?

 

[buffalo]

This article was written in 1995. Do you have anything more recent?

Chimpanzee?

 

[Faith1960]

Chimpanzee?

Do you have any information to refute the newest finding we’ve learned about, the one I mentioned a few posts ago? It sounds very promising to me. And what if it is?
I once spoke to my pastor about evolution, telling him that I tend to believe in it being true and he told me that many Catholics do and that it’s okay, as long as we believe that God infused us humans with a soul.

 

[buffalo]

Do you have any information to refute the newest finding we’ve learned about, the one I mentioned a few posts ago? It sounds very promising to me. And what if it is?
I once spoke to my pastor about evolution, telling him that I tend to believe in it being true and he told me that many Catholics do and that it’s okay, as long as we believe that God infused us humans with a soul.

Which one?

 

[buffalo]

Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Faith1960]

Chimpanzee?

< In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.>

Isn’t 72% a rather large percentage?

 

[Redratfish]

Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000. Offiial Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?

I think that the only thing a Catholic must agree is that Adam and Eve were the first full humans, don’t quote me on that though