Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect that those who hear about evolution on a regular basis often do not have a clear understanding of what the Church teaches or somehow believe that science has disproved something. It is either exciting to them or they have not examined what the Church teaches in the same depth as they have examined certain scientific claims.

At the present time, Secularists very much want the purely Biology textbook version of evolution to be true. We, meaning human beings, are simply collections of chemicals that became more complex for no particular reason. We look like human beings because that’s how ‘natural selection’ picked out certain elements of the primordial soup as we became more complex. Once again, God is, and must be ignored by these Secularists who seek to find a common answer. Saying God did something like adding an invisible (to science) soul is meaningless and easily discarded. This is not good enough for Catholics.

Genesis is the most often attacked book of the Bible by those who believe science has ‘proven’ something. Let’s look at Romans 5:12:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all had sinned:”

Here we clearly see that by one man sin entered the world.

Apparently, to find this ‘common ground,’ God does nothing. Evolution is let loose as if it has a mind to create and select. This makes no sense as a stand alone idea. Evolution has no creative force or selecting ability.

To the purely Secularist mind, we are simply matter in motion. A ball of rock orbiting a star that spontaneously produced life because a bunch of chemicals got together?

No scientist can produce life in the lab, yet a great faith is exhibited by some that life arose by itself. There is no evidence for this.

So, people post here as if most of the answer is proven with certainty: we are simply chemicals in motion. Nothing more.

Who did Jesus Christ die for? A hominid? A proto-human? No. Science cannot provide an answer.

The link between Adam and Jesus is direct. Jesus, Himself, was far more than a man but the Word made Flesh.

It would be fruitful, I think, for those who consider scientific claims to imagine how He fits into any sort of evolution. He chose to be born and to enter human history. He manipulated the wind and the storm without technology. He raised the dead and mutiplied the loaves and fishes, creating matter from nothing, just as the Bible tells us.

At present, science does not have any credible explanation for this reality. Catholics need to realize that there are some who are desparate to separate us from the reality of the Living God. After we die, we will meet God. All of us, believers and nonbelievers.

God bless,
Ed
Hi, Ed!

…but that’s just it! We must accept theory and hypothesis as fact and shun Yahweh God as myth; though they claim purity in research their goals always point to the self-emergence of life where God does not exist and everything that cannot be explained by science must wait till a theory or hypothesis is engineered… it’s the old ‘order created out of chaos’ through sheer will of a non-intelligent non-existing “nature.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
In the realm of posibilities your theory has as much value as the next; yet, when mergin science and Faith you do have a problem: Faith does not accept a reinvented Adam and Eve!
Could you explain to me how it is a “reinvented Adam and Eve.” Please give me the long winded answer to that request.👍

As the links I posted show, the Church leaves open the possibility of evolution. As long as any presentation of evolution shows God as in control all the way from the beginning and through every step along the way, it is acceptable. My personal belief is that God directly engineered every last DNA strand that ever existed on Earth. He did this with the directed goal of creating Adam and Eve and every living organism since then.

sulkow82 SFO
 
Could you explain to me how it is a “reinvented Adam and Eve.” Please give me the long winded answer to that request.👍

As the links I posted show, the Church leaves open the possibility of evolution. As long as any presentation of evolution shows God as in control all the way from the beginning and through every step along the way, it is acceptable. My personal belief is that God directly engineered every last DNA strand that ever existed on Earth. He did this with the directed goal of creating Adam and Eve and every living organism since then.

sulkow82 SFO
Please reconcile Catholic teaching that Eve came from Adam.
 
Could you explain to me how it is a “reinvented Adam and Eve.” Please give me the long winded answer to that request.👍

sulkow82 SFO
Have time for just a short gasp of breath. 😉 Will go into it further, depending on questions.🙂

The human nature you see in your mirror is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body intimately together as one person, you.

The reinvented Adam has an animal nature. Dependent on degrees of sentience but with no intellect, no will. Existing in an environment of no internet and with raging fires out of control. Like my cousin chilly chimp, the reinvented Adam has no clue as to the meaning of life and eternal life but yet, can be happy under a forest canopy or behind glass and bars depending on the food supply.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is called to eternal life with his Creator.
 
As the links I posted show, the Church leaves open the possibility of evolution. As long as any presentation of evolution shows God as in control all the way from the beginning and through every step along the way, it is acceptable. My personal belief is that God directly engineered every last DNA strand that ever existed on Earth. He did this with the directed goal of creating Adam and Eve and every living organism since then.

sulkow82 SFO
Thanks for posting that sulkow82. It clarifies (for me) some things you said earlier.

Unfortunately, the mechanism of operation for the official TOE is “random mutations” being filtered by natural selection. “Random” and “God being involved directly…” are contradictory (IMO). However, in a more general context where evolution just means change over time, there is some room to maneuver.
 
Why not? Can you cite a Church document that supports this?
God bless,
Ed
You are certainly free to interpret Eve-from-the-rib literally. There is no Church teaching, to my knowledge, that says one must interpret it literally.
 
You are certainly free to interpret Eve-from-the-rib literally. There is no Church teaching, to my knowledge, that says one must interpret it literally.
Read this and then let’s discuss:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?

The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.


more…
 
From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

I’m afraid that the teaching of what is contained in the Deposit of Faith over the last 40 years has been gradually pushed into the symbolic as demonstrated here, over and over again.

There might as well be a book titled: The God Who Did Nothing, or The God Who Does Not Act In His Own Creation.

He just let evolution out of its cage and it did whatever it wanted.

God forbid,

Ed
 
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?
That’s not quite true. There is, at some point in our evolutionary past, one individual who is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. It is possible that this is, for example, one male who had several descendants by several females or the reverse or one male and one female.

I’m curious where you were told that this was the scientific consensus. A good book on this question, hopefully without starting a fight about evolution as such is Richard Dawkins’s The Ancestor’s Tale.
 
That’s not quite true. There is, at some point in our evolutionary past, one individual who is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. It is possible that this is, for example, one male who had several descendants by several females or the reverse or one male and one female.

I’m curious where you were told that this was the scientific consensus. A good book on this question, hopefully without starting a fight about evolution as such is Richard Dawkins’s The Ancestor’s Tale.
At this point, the Church does not confirm that idea. It is not a fact. Scientific consensus does not translate into scientific certainty. Polygenism is right out. Science cannot comment on the contents of the Bible.

God bless,
Ed
 
At this point, the Church does not confirm that idea. It is not a fact. Scientific consensus does not translate into scientific certainty. Polygenism is right out. Science cannot comment on the contents of the Bible.
Thanks.

Though I’m not quite sure it’s fair to say that science cannot comment on the contents of the Bible. Where the bible makes historical or factual claims (e.g. a bunch of Egyptian slaves rose up and were freed/fled the Egyptians–without getting into the miracles) science–including anthropology–can comment as it would on any other claim of the kind. I’m not saying there is any reason to doubt that story, frankly I haven’t looked at the data so I’m not qualified to say, but simply saying any claim made in that book are out of bounds from examination isn’t quite fair.
 
Have time for just a short gasp of breath. 😉 Will go into it further, depending on questions.🙂
Fair enough. 🙂
The human nature you see in your mirror is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body intimately together as one person, you.
I agree with you here.
The reinvented Adam has an animal nature. Dependent on degrees of sentience but with no intellect, no will. Existing in an environment of no internet and with raging fires out of control.
Then going by this, I have not re-invented Adam. My OP was to intended to agree with what you say. It was to say that the granting of intellect (and everything that goes with it) to two (2) individuals is the exact and very act of God which made them different then any other individual present. That is the act which made him Adam and her Eve.
Blessings,
granny
God be with you.
sulkow82 SFO
 
Could you explain to me how it is a “reinvented Adam and Eve.” Please give me the long winded answer to that request.👍

As the links I posted show, the Church leaves open the possibility of evolution. As long as any presentation of evolution shows God as in control all the way from the beginning and through every step along the way, it is acceptable. My personal belief is that God directly engineered every last DNA strand that ever existed on Earth. He did this with the directed goal of creating Adam and Eve and every living organism since then.

sulkow82 SFO
The Church is wise to not set unkowns as fact simply because it seems plausible; however, her stance does not automatically give veracity to the multiples of theories that are engaged.

If we factor evolution into the Creation of Adam as part of Yahweh God’s machination we cannot simultaneously accept a subhuman species living amongst and interbreading with Adam (Genesis 2:7).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Thanks.

Though I’m not quite sure it’s fair to say that science cannot comment on the contents of the Bible. Where the bible makes historical or factual claims (e.g. a bunch of Egyptian slaves rose up and were freed/fled the Egyptians–without getting into the miracles) science–including anthropology–can comment as it would on any other claim of the kind. I’m not saying there is any reason to doubt that story, frankly I haven’t looked at the data so I’m not qualified to say, but simply saying any claim made in that book are out of bounds from examination isn’t quite fair.
Perhaps the point being made was that science will always seek to find a material explanation for those Biblical accounts that express a direct supernatural intervention by Yahweh God.

Science always looks to types in nature then usually attempts to explain away the spiritual as having its origins in a plausible theorized element. (i.e.: Moses’ parting of the sea–one of the science/history channels had a take on this… the geste being that somehow Moses knew about planetary formations and that this one particular allignment would cause the shallow end of the Red Sea to recede allowing the Hebrews to escape the Egyptians… the problem with this particular theory is that it depends on Moses being the only one with such knowledge, makes all of the wisemen/scholars of Egypt dotes, and the Pharaoh’s high officials the the most incompetent statesmen/warriors ever to hunt down unarmed civilians fleeing on foot with the added burden of logging about women, children and the old.)

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top