Many Adams and Eves?

[LittleSoldier]

WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH

From the Abstract: “In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith.”

The theory I set forward (and BTW I have not stated whether I support it) does not involve evolutionary creation of our first parents.

From the Abstract: “…[O]nly science can provide us with a knowledge of our origins and since science is limited to natural causes, nature is all there is, was or will be.”

That is not true. Science can be used as an attempt to explain natural phenomena. It is not a method for transmogrifying religious beliefs into natural beliefs, nor should it ever be regarded as an appropriate method for explaining religious phenomena.

From the Introduction: “Acceptance of naturalism has in turn come from the notion of positivism, which claims that only science, through observation and experiment, can give us the positive truth about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including life on earth.”

I have never claimed (and know of no scientist that claims) that the above is my belief, and in fact it is not my belief. I believe that God created everything from nothing and that He created human beings in His image, that we have souls, and that every action God has ever taken and will ever take is based on His love, as He is Love, and on truth, as He is Truth.

From the Introduction: “In the final analysis the purpose of that research and discussion was to ascertain whether an evolutionary creation of our first parents could ever become a doctrine of the faith.”

By presenting a theory of evolution that can be completely compatible with faith, I did not intend for it to be accepted as doctrine or dogma by the Church. So any discussion about this is moot.

From the Introduction: "The alleged scientific explanation of the origin of all things is today given in most educational text books and journals and in encyclopedias and the media in general as three hypotheses, the Big Bang, Uniformitarian Geology and Organic Evolution, all of which are falsely claimed to be scientifically factual.

There are no facts or proof in science. Any textbook, journal, encyclopedia or medium which makes the claim of scientific fact is not presenting science correctly. I agree with the article. It is incorrect to present scientific theories as scientifically factual.

From the Introduction: "There are many within the Church who say it does not matter whether we believe in a literal Genesis or evolution; either method could be God’s way of creating the first man and woman. This, it is submitted, is a very shortsighted view, because if Catholics concede that there is nothing wrong with theistic evolution or theistic naturalism, they are conceding that, apart from opposing chance, there is nothing wrong with atheistic naturalism per se. "

The second statement does not logically follow from the first statement. It is true that either method could be “God’s way of creating the first man and woman,” but it is not so important how God could have created them, but how God did create them. In this part of the article I see an attempt to limit the omnipotence of God. God could have created human beings in absolutely any way He chose to do so. He could have had them spring full-grown from the mouths of flamingos, grow from the ground like stalks of maize, form in huge seed pods, or fall from the clouds like drops of rain.

From the First Threshold Issue: The “new doctrine” referred to is obviously doctrine that is completely outside of divine revelation: that is, it cannot be said to have been founded upon the divine revelation contained in Sacred Scripture and/or the ApostolicTradition, or in a logical development of doctrine contained in those sources, which has become part of the Deposit of Faith.

It is not obvious to me. It’s not “new doctrine.” They are just theories attempting to explain natural phenomena.

From the First Threshold Issue: “Lumen Gentium”, a document of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), states (with a footnoted reference to ‘Pastor Aeternus’) that the Roman Pontiff and the bishops ‘do not admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.’ What else is human evolution in terms of the Catholic religion but a new public doctrine that can never become part of the deposit of faith?”

The theories of evolution, some of which present the theories of human evolution, are not a new public doctrine, do not claim to be, and are separate from the deposit of faith. The theories are an attempt to explain natural phenomena, nothing more.

From Additional Theological Issues: (a) Sacred Scripture. Genesis 2:7 states that God made man from “the dust of the ground” (RSV Catholic Edition). The molecules of the dust of the ground, being non-living matter, are said to be symmetrical and two directional, whereas the molecules of living matter are said to be asymmetrical and right-handed only.

I am not aware of this and do not understand why the molecules of living matter and non-living matter are separated in this fashion. It may be a reference to an archaic way of understanding amino acids and other chemicals which are present in the human body, or some sort of reference to carbon as an element being present in organic matter but I will need to read more on this in order to understand what the author is attempting to communicate. Chemistry is not my forte and I struggled with it in college.

I’ve run out of space and time, but I will be happy to continue my comments as soon as I am able.

 

[Benadam]

From Additional Theological Issues: (a) Sacred Scripture. Genesis 2:7 states that God made man from “the dust of the ground” (RSV Catholic Edition). The molecules of the dust of the ground, being non-living matter, are said to be symmetrical and two directional, whereas the molecules of living matter are said to be asymmetrical and right-handed only.

.

Right-handed molecules :ehh:

 

[buffalo]

From the Abstract: “In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith.”

The theory I set forward (and BTW I have not stated whether I support it) does not involve evolutionary creation of our first parents.

From the Abstract: “…[O]nly science can provide us with a knowledge of our origins and since science is limited to natural causes, nature is all there is, was or will be.”

That is not true. Science can be used as an attempt to explain natural phenomena. It is not a method for transmogrifying religious beliefs into natural beliefs, nor should it ever be regarded as an appropriate method for explaining religious phenomena.

From the Introduction: “Acceptance of naturalism has in turn come from the notion of positivism, which claims that only science, through observation and experiment, can give us the positive truth about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including life on earth.”

I have never claimed (and know of no scientist that claims, with the except of Dawkins who might agree with this) that the above is my belief, and in fact it is not my belief. I believe that God created everything from nothing and that He created human beings in His image, that we have souls, and that every action God has ever taken and will ever take is based on His love, as He is Love, and on truth, as He is Truth.

From the Introduction: “In the final analysis the purpose of that research and discussion was to ascertain whether an evolutionary creation of our first parents could ever become a doctrine of the faith.”

By presenting a theory of evolution that can be completely compatible with faith, I did not intend for it to be accepted as doctrine or dogma by the Church. So any discussion about this is moot.

From the Introduction: "The alleged scientific explanation of the origin of all things is today given in most educational text books and journals and in encyclopedias and the media in general as three hypotheses, the Big Bang, Uniformitarian Geology and Organic Evolution, all of which are falsely claimed to be scientifically factual.

There are no facts or proof in science. Any textbook, journal, encyclopedia or medium which makes the claim of scientific fact is not presenting science correctly. I agree with the article. It is incorrect to present scientific theories as scientifically factual.

From the Introduction: "There are many within the Church who say it does not matter whether we believe in a literal Genesis or evolution; either method could be God’s way of creating the first man and woman. This, it is submitted, is a very shortsighted view, because if Catholics concede that there is nothing wrong with theistic evolution or theistic naturalism, they are conceding that, apart from opposing chance, there is nothing wrong with atheistic naturalism per se. "

The second statement does not logically follow from the first statement. It is true that either method could be “God’s way of creating the first man and woman,” but it is not so important how God could have created them, but how God did create them. In this part of the article I see an attempt to limit the omnipotence of God. God could have created human beings in absolutely any way He chose to do so. He could have had them spring full-grown from the mouths of flamingos, have had them grow from the ground like stalks of maize, or have had them fall from the clouds as drops of rain.

From the First Threshold Issue: The “new doctrine” referred to is obviously doctrine that is completely outside of divine revelation: that is, it cannot be said to have been founded upon the divine revelation contained in Sacred Scripture and/or the ApostolicTradition, or in a logical development of doctrine contained in those sources, which has become part of the Deposit of Faith.

It is not obvious to me. It’s not “new doctrine.” They are just theories attempting to explain natural phenomena.

From the First Threshold Issue: “Lumen Gentium”, a document of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), states (with a footnoted reference to ‘Pastor Aeternus’) that the Roman Pontiff and the bishops ‘do not admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.’ What else is human evolution in terms of the Catholic religion but a new public doctrine that can never become part of the deposit of faith?”

The theories of evolution, some of which present the theories of human evolution, are not a new public doctrine, do not claim to be, and are separate from the deposit of faith. The theories are an attempt to explain natural phenomena, nothing more.

From Additional Theological Issues: (a) Sacred Scripture. Genesis 2:7 states that God made man from “the dust of the ground” (RSV Catholic Edition). The molecules of the dust of the ground, being non-living matter, are said to be symmetrical and two directional, whereas the molecules of living matter are said to be asymmetrical and right-handed only.

I am not aware of this and do not understand why the molecules of living matter and non-living matter are separated in this fashion. It may be a reference to an archaic way of understanding amino acids and other chemicals which are present in the human body, or some sort of reference to carbon as an element being present in organic matter but I will need to read more on this in order to understand what the author is attempting to communicate. Chemistry is not my forte.

I’ve run out of space and time, but I will be happy to continue my comments as soon as I am able.

Living molecules are left-handed. This goes to abiogenesis and the life formed in a soup idea.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Right-handed molecules :ehh:

I’m thinking it’s a reference to the mirror-image molecules. I don’t remember ever being taught anything about right-handed and left-handed molecules. Maybe this is a newer concept that replaced what I tried to learn so long ago.

It may be absolutely clear to you but that doesn’t mean it’s clear to me. I’m sure there has been some progress in chemistry and biology since I graduated from college and it’s difficult to keep up with everything I studied and am interested in.

“When four different atoms or molecules are attached to a carbon atom, there are two different configurations possible. These are referred to as (+) or (-) (depending on whether they rotate polarized light clockwise or counterclockwise), d or l (as in dextrorotary and levorotary), or as S or R (from the latin sinister or rectus).”

ceri.com/handed.htm

Note the Latin “sinister.”

I have a problem understanding chemistry. I always have. I took organic and inorganic chemistry a long (a looooong) time ago. At that time there were references to (l) and (d) but I don’t remember any references to left-handed and right-handed molecules. I know I give my cat l-lysine every day as a medication and I take l-tryptophan and I believe I was taught that organisms can only synthesize (l) forms and one of the sugar replacements on the market is the mirror image of (l) sugar (I can’t remember if it is glucose or fructose or another sugar). But it’s been so long and I have brain damage in the memory center(s) of my brain and I just can’t remember.

I won’t lie and pretend I understand something I don’t. If I run across something like that I try to find out what I can. I know I’m way behind the times on a lot of chemical and biological concepts. Actually my real interest is lizards.

I don’t want to open my organic chem book. I’d rather run in front of a moving bus.

 

[buffalo]

I’m thinking it’s a reference to the mirror-image molecules. I don’t remember ever being taught anything about right-handed and left-handed molecules. Maybe this is a newer concept that replaced what I tried to learn so long ago.

“When four different atoms or molecules are attached to a carbon atom, there are two different configurations possible. These are referred to as (+) or (-) (depending on whether they rotate polarized light clockwise or counterclockwise), d or l (as in dextrorotary and levorotary), or as S or R (from the latin sinister or rectus).”

ceri.com/handed.htm

Note the Latin “sinister.”

I have a problem understanding chemistry. I always have. I took organic and inorganic chemistry a long time ago. At that time there were references to (l) and (d). I know I give my cat l-lysine every day as a medication and I take l-tryptophan and I believe I was taught that organisms can only synthesize (l) forms and one of the sugar replacements on the market is the mirror image of (l) sugar (I can’t remember if it is glucose or fructose or another sugar). But it’s been so long and I have brain damage in the memory center(s) of my brain and I just can’t remember.

I don’t want to open my organic chem book. I’d rather run in front of a moving bus.

Life is left handed - the challenge to the primordial soup idea is that right handed molecules are a danger to the left and could not evolve life’s genetic material. Mix handedness material cannot copy itself.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Life is left handed - the challenge to the primordial soup idea is that right handed molecules are a danger to the left and could not evolve life’s genetic material. Mix handedness material cannot copy itself.

I was really hoping that I would not be forced to learn what I have missed since I graduated from college. I don’t think that at this point I am capable of comprehending parts of science to which I have never been exposed.

I’ll do the best I can, but please note that some topics that are crystal-clear to certain posters here are not crystal-clear to me.

 

[buffalo]

I was really hoping that I would not be forced to learn what I have missed since I graduated from college. I don’t think that at this point I am capable of comprehending parts of science to which I have never been exposed.

I’ll do the best I can, but please note that some topics that are crystal-clear to certain posters here are not crystal-clear to me.

Not a problem. Don’t underestimate yourself.

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you mean that Catholics are free to dissent ?

Dissent to what, specifically?

Dogma? No.

Other teachings? Maybe.

Can you be more precise?

 

[diggerdomer]

Certainly theologians are free to opine on items outside of magisterial teaching.

With regard to magisterial teaching, I thought they needed to conform. It IS magisterial teaching that some theories of evolution are unacceptable. Just saying “evolution” with no disclaimers includes the unacceptable ones.

As an aside - I’ve been curious about this for a long time. What does it actually say in a “job description” for “Theologian?” If someone has a real world example, I’d love for you to post it here

Good point. Saying “evolution” by itself, with no further explanation, does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

“some evolutionary theories may be completely compatible with faith”? I know of none. Can you be more specific?

God bless,
Ed

I could, but I think it’s more important to note e.g. that Pope John Paul II (citing Pius XII) was:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

 

[vicbermudez]

listen to Catholic Answers on May 4th with Tim Staples he answers it at 41 minutes in.

 

[grannymh]

Completely stumped. I’ve been reading Church documents for about 30 years, and I cannot for the life of me come up with a way that the parenthetical “whether as individuals or in populations” means anything other than “whichever of these possibilities is true, the predicate of this sentence is valid.” So perhaps you can explain what you think it means?

Here’s the whole paragraph;

1. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

From section 70.“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”

explicitly addresses the possibility of a “population” rather than a couple and uses the word “emergence” which supports the idea of humanity arising from an earlier humanoid form.

As one can tell from the opening sentence in section 70, the committee who put together this paper made sure that there was no doubt that the spiritual soul exists as created by God. They are aware that the two “population” theories, Multiregional and Out of Africa are based on the emergence of the first human species members-- as a group more than two individuals or polygenism. Both theories rule out two individuals either as parents of a separate species or as the result of the founder effect which can occur in populations.

One needs to be careful about making assumptions regarding the phrase “Catholic theology affirms”. Affirms what? In my humble opinion, there was pressure to consider polygenism which is why the concept of “population” was parenthetical.
Putting my opinion aside, the parenthetical allows possibilities but does not explicitly address the possibility of a “population” rather than another possibility.

So, in the case of the particular quoted sentence, what is Catholic theology affirming?
It is affirming the real event of the emergence of the human anatomy without deciding on “how”. The paper is very careful not to eliminate the spiritual which is what the scientific theories of emergence do. “not susceptible of a purely natural explanation” is the operative phrase.

In this sentence, Catholic theology is affirming the creative act of God.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[NHInsider]

NHInsider;6634058:

So, in the case of the particular quoted sentence, what is Catholic theology affirming?

It is affirming the real event of the emergence of the human anatomy without deciding on “how”. The paper is very careful not to eliminate the spiritual which is what the scientific theories of emergence do. “not susceptible of a purely natural explanation” is the operative phrase.

In this sentence, Catholic theology is affirming the creative act of God.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Expressly true - in fact the creative act of God and the spiritual nature of human beings is the whole point of the paper. I believe the writers were attempting to say “no matter how the Lord created us, the important thing is that He did, and that He created human beings as something distinctly different from all the other animals - created them in His image.” Which is what Catholic theologians have been saying for centuries.

 

[grannymh]

Expressly true - in fact the creative act of God and the spiritual nature of human beings is the whole point of the paper. I believe the writers were attempting to say “no matter how the Lord created us, the important thing is that He did, and that He created human beings as something distinctly different from all the other animals - created them in His image.” Which is what Catholic theologians have been saying for centuries.

Agreed.

Nonetheless, I need to add one important note.

While the 'how" human anatomy came about is normally assigned to the area of science, there is one “how” which has been ruled out. The idea that humans started as a group of first parents with Adam being the delegate for the other living parents has been ruled out because it contradicts the Catholic doctrines of Adam’s original human nature, his relationship with God, the seriousness of Adam’s first sin, and the effects of Original Sin on Adam’s human nature as transmitted to descendents.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I was really hoping that I would not be forced to learn what I have missed since I graduated from college. I don’t think that at this point I am capable of comprehending parts of science to which I have never been exposed.

I’ll do the best I can, but please note that some topics that are crystal-clear to certain posters here are not crystal-clear to me.

Addendum: In my defense, I graduated with my B.S. and B.A. over thirty years ago and then proceeded to get married, try to start a family, and deal with an economy that was in worse shape than it is now. I went back to college after my husband died and received my M.A. - but it’s been many years since I received it (twenty?). When I was getting my M.A. I was interested in animal behavior, not evolution. After I graduated I studied my real interest, lizards - not in a formal sense in that I conducted research on lizards (that is difficult to do because lizards don’t really do much of anything). I read books, studied lizard anatomy and physiology and continued to learn how to identify different species. I’ve also learned a bit about geology and oceanography.

The most important lesson I learned while receiving three college degrees is that I don’t know ****.

I was taught about evolution at the college level. But the emphasis was on a pure concept. Evolution simply means change in a given population over time. The mechanics of it were not well known (or at least not well taught) at that time. ** The last I remember learning is that there was some indication that we all developed from two specific human beings.**

I didn’t want to bring this up because I’m not an expert and my idea of what evolution is is obviously different from the ideas of people who are younger than me and have gone to college within the last thirty years.

You have to realize I was in college when Nixon was president. Some of you probably weren’t even born yet and the glint in your daddy’s eye was not going to appear for many years. I remember my poly sci instructor (who knew some people) telling us that “something big is going to happen.” And it did, a few days later. It was called Watergate.

This is considered ancient history by some, but I clearly remember it.

Putting a :ehh: next to a scientific concept, implying that it should be clear to any scientist, is kind of rude. All knowledge in science is built on the shoulders of those who learned and presented earlier concepts. When I studied l-tryptophan for my thesis I went back to the beginning of the last century and studied what was known then (it wasn’t much). I would never put a :ehh: in a post to a scientist who in 1943 presented a much simpler and perhaps incorrect theory. I think some people here need to understand that all the honing and shaping and clarifying of evolutionary theory could never have occurred without the contributions of scientists going back to at least Darwin.

Younger scientists should appreciate the contributions of scientists who have studied, erred, attempted, researched, discussed research, made the changes that newer research used, and researched and researched and researched. It’s sad that some don’t appreciate the work of earlier scientists because if they had not done that work, you would not be able to be presenting newer ideas about evolutionary theory.

Give them some credit and some respect, please.

 

[edwest2]

I could, but I think it’s more important to note e.g. that Pope John Paul II (citing Pius XII) was:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

I’ve read that more than once. He refers to “theories,” not just one. He also mentions certain indisputable points.

Communion and Stewardship clarifies his comments (in continuity with Humani Generis):

“Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

The Biology textbook does not support the view that God was a causal agent in any development that may have taken place.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’ve read that more than once. He refers to “theories,” not just one. He also mentions certain indisputable points.

Communion and Stewardship clarifies his comments (in continuity with Humani Generis):

“Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

The Biology textbook does not support the view that God was a causal agent in any development that may have taken place.

God bless,
Ed

Why did you ignore my post #499? I explained there is more than one theory of evolution and I answered you question. You seem to always ignore me. Always, even when you insult me and others.

Biology textbooks in public schools should *never *discuss God. Do you honestly want public schools to teach our children religion? Shouldn’t they be receiving religious instruction from their parents, the CCD, and the Church? What do you expect a biology book to be? It’s a book about biology, not theology. Do you think Catholic theology should be presented in a book in a biology class with students of all faiths? That would really be inappropriate.

I’ve already announced I’m leaving the forums (except for one thread and as a lurker). I give up with you, Ed. You have selective reading and you mock people cruelly.

I have nothing further to say to someone who represents Catholicism as negatively as you do.

 

[ricmat]

Off-topic post (sorry)

I just finished a book that I think most of the folks in this thread would enjoy. It peripherally touches on many of the things we discuss here, although that’s not the main theme of the book.

The Loser Letters

 

[NHInsider]

Agreed.

Nonetheless, I need to add one important note.

While the 'how" human anatomy came about is normally assigned to the area of science, there is one “how” which has been ruled out. The idea that humans started as a group of first parents with Adam being the delegate for the other living parents has been ruled out because it contradicts the Catholic doctrines of Adam’s original human nature, his relationship with God, the seriousness of Adam’s first sin, and the effects of Original Sin on Adam’s human nature as transmitted to descendents.

Completely true - and, as has been pointed out (whether in this thread or the parallel one I don’t have a clue) the scientific cutting-edge now indicates a single “Adam” (male ancestor). . . . although not contemporary with the previously-postulated single female ancestor “Eve” . . . .

Thanks be to God, our salvation does not depend on getting this right!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Off-topic post (sorry)

I just finished a book that I think most of the folks in this thread would enjoy. It peripherally touches on many of the things we discuss here, although that’s not the main theme of the book.

The Loser Letters

I’m sure it’s more on topic than some posts I have written. I love to have books recommended to me and I checked it on Amazon; it sounds very good. I will read it.

Thank you, ricmat. I appreciate your recommendation. I probably would never have found this book without it.