A
averheyen
Guest
Does Modern Genetic research disprove that all human beings are descendents of the first two humans Adam and Eve? Yes or no and why or why not.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Didn’t the latest report trace all humans to one mother?Does Modern Genetic research disprove that all human beings are descendents of the first two humans Adam and Eve? Yes or no and why or why not.
A
averheyen
Guest
What about one father?
R
rossum
Guest
Modern genetics indicates that since we split from our common ancestor with the Chimpanzees our population has never dropped below a minimum of 1,000 breeding pairs. a more likely figure is a minimum of 10,000 breeding pairs.Does Modern Genetic research disprove that all human beings are descendents of the first two humans Adam and Eve? Yes or no and why or why not.
We are all descended from a single couple, Mitochondrial Eve’s parents, but they were not the only biological humans alive at the time. There were many other couples who were alive at the time from whom we are also all descended, just not in the exclusively matrilineal line…
There is too much variation in the current human genome to allow for a bottleneck of just one breeding pair. The amount of variation in some alleles that we share with chimps places a lower limit on population size.
This is all biology of course. It is not possible for biology to tell which of these organisms had souls and which did not. That is a question for theologians, not biologists.
rossum
R
razredge
Guest
Yes, there is overwhelming support for polygenism today. Much like with evolution any refutations require us to believe God created a deceptive world to mislead our search for truth.
However Catholics don’t interpret Genesis literally so it doesn’t present a huge problem to us that there was no Adam and Eve per se.
However Catholics don’t interpret Genesis literally so it doesn’t present a huge problem to us that there was no Adam and Eve per se.
W
Windfish
Guest
Per the teaching of the Church, we do interpret all of the Bible literally. It is from the literal sense that all other senses follow. I think what you mean is that we do not interpret Genesis “literalistically.” And while that is true, it is very easy to say that in the face of scientific findings, it is not so easy to say that in light of a Scriptural view of history:Yes, there is overwhelming support for polygenism today. Much like with evolution any refutations require us to believe God created a deceptive world to mislead our search for truth.
However Catholics don’t interpret Genesis literally so it doesn’t present a huge problem to us that there was no Adam and Eve per se.
- The New Creation that is prophesied by the prophets is meant to restore Creation to the way things were in Genesis - harmony between man and nature and so forth. Taking a figurative view of Genesis and going with a naturalistic view of history would totally destroy the notion of the New Creation as a restoration, and that has rather dramatic implications on Scripture. The whole idea of the New Creation is a strand that runs from Genesis to Revelation. We had perfection. We lost it. We will have it again. If we never had it at all, that has implications on the integrity of Scripture.
- Original Sin does seem to entail two first persons from which all of mankind descended. Indeed, I think the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a dogma. However, this does not necessarily have to conflict with science. What is demanded here is theological monogenism, not biological monogenism. If souls cannot be brought about by purely natural means, than God would have to ensoul two individuals, perhaps from a population of modern day humans (save for a rational soul), and it is these two that fell, who then mated with the other modern day humans.
A
averheyen
Guest
That’s I very good point. Obviously, as an issue of Dogma, the catholic Church states, especially in light of Original sin, that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve. But does this mean both theological monogenism AND bilogical monogenism, or just theological? Does Catholic dogma imply both, or just one?Per the teaching of the Church, we do interpret all of the Bible literally. It is from the literal sense that all other senses follow. I think what you mean is that we do not interpret Genesis “literalistically.” And while that is true, it is very easy to say that in the face of scientific findings, it is not so easy to say that in light of a Scriptural view of history:
It just seems to me that the figurative interpretation is all well and good, but it’s not clear what that interpretation does to the integrity of Scripture. I think it’s time we started to get a little more surgical.
- The New Creation that is prophesied by the prophets is meant to restore Creation to the way things were in Genesis - harmony between man and nature and so forth. Taking a figurative view of Genesis and going with a naturalistic view of history would totally destroy the notion of the New Creation as a restoration, and that has rather dramatic implications on Scripture. The whole idea of the New Creation is a strand that runs from Genesis to Revelation. We had perfection. We lost it. We will have it again. If we never had it at all, that has implications on the integrity of Scripture.
- Original Sin does seem to entail two first persons from which all of mankind descended. Indeed, I think the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a dogma. However, this does not necessarily have to conflict with science. What is demanded here is theological monogenism, not biological monogenism. If souls cannot be brought about by purely natural means, than God would have to ensoul two individuals, perhaps from a population of modern day humans (save for a rational soul), and it is these two that fell, who then mated with the other modern day humans.
S
smad0142
Guest
What would theological monogenism look like without biological monogenism?
And here is a good blog on the topic: renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-monogenism.html
And here is a good blog on the topic: renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-monogenism.html
W
Windfish
Guest
What do you mean?What would theological monogenism look like without biological monogenism?
As an aside, a lot of people, I think, are scandalized by this uncertainty. It used to case me some trepidation, for example. But I thought about it, and it is exactly these kinds of situations why people, if they are Christians, should be Catholics. We have an authoritative body that can decide on issues like these. Just think of the early centuries in the Church when teachings on Christology and other things had not been defined thoroughly. What is important are all the other reasons why believe Christianity to be true, and, specifically, why the Catholic Church is the authoritative teacher established by Christ to set forth what is a part of the Faith.
R
razredge
Guest
I think we definitely do not (and should not) interpret all of the Bible literally (which I take to mean the actual and not figurative or metaphorical meaning of the word)- we are not Biblical literalists, certainly no member of the clergy I’ve ever spoken to has said that.Per the teaching of the Church, we do interpret all of the Bible literally. It is from the literal sense that all other senses follow. I think what you mean is that we do not interpret Genesis “literalistically.” And while that is true, it is very easy to say that in the face of scientific findings, it is not so easy to say that in light of a Scriptural view of history:
.
From Dei VerbumCode:Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings *for the sake of salvation*. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)
I have heard that line of reasoning before, the problem with it is that it requires Original Sin to be passed on through reproduction like some sort of genetic disease - which it clearly isn’t as it seems to have something to do with a soul and the church doesn’t believe that the soul arises from procreation but is rather created specially by God at conceptionWhat would theological monogenism look like without biological monogenism?
And here is a good blog on the topic: renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-monogenism.html
W
Windfish
Guest
But we do read the Bible literally, razredge. Open your Catechism to the four sense of Scripture. All the other senses come from the literal sense. It’s just that, the Church defines “literal” differently than you.
And Original Sin may not be genetic, but it is a dogma that is passed on through propagation.
And Original Sin may not be genetic, but it is a dogma that is passed on through propagation.
E
edwest2
Guest
From the Catholic Answers Library:
"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Original Sin is passed on to all.
Peace,
Ed
"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Original Sin is passed on to all.
Peace,
Ed
R
razredge
Guest
Yes, I think you are thinking of ‘literal’ as meaning in the context and intention of the author who wrote them, eg. to show God’s concern for his people or his providence.But we do read the Bible literally, razredge. Open your Catechism to the four sense of Scripture. All the other senses come from the literal sense. It’s just that, the Church defines “literal” differently than you.
And Original Sin may not be genetic, but it is a dogma that is passed on through propagation.
Does not the Church see original sin as simply the inclination of humans to sin? ie. concupiscence?
R
razredge
Guest
Yes, but truth can never contradict truth. Furthermore how old is that CCC article? 1910?From the Catholic Answers Library:
Peace,
Ed
More recently:
Consider the conference entitled “Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life,” put on by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2008. The Pontifical Academy gathered together some of the world’s best scientists to discuss evolution. Pope Benedict XVI not only sanctioned the meeting, he addressed the scientists.
huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/rick-santorum-heed-the-te_b_488759.htmlThe sense of the meeting was well summarized by Nobel laureate Christian de Duve who wrote, “The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories.” He also noted that “the actual occurrence of biological evolution is no longer just a theory, strongly suggested by fossil evidence, but not conclusively demonstrated by it. Evolution is now supported by overwhelming molecular proofs and has acquired the status of established fact. In the words of His Holiness John Paul II, it is ‘more than a hypothesis’.”
Furthermore:
The Pontifical Academy itself, on January 24, 2009 issued a statement arising from the meeting that is as powerful as it is clear. “It is important for scientific knowledge on evolution to become integrated into our world-view and for our world-view to be steadily updated. The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone.”
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Also, more recently:Yes, but truth can never contradict truth. Furthermore how old is that CCC article? 1910?
More recently:
huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/rick-santorum-heed-the-te_b_488759.html
Furthermore:
Here is paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” (emphasis added). Makes you think, doesn’t it?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
- 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 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.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Actually, 1994.Yes, but truth can never contradict truth. Furthermore how old is that CCC article? 1910?
R
razredge
Guest
Yes, thanks for that - you should post that in this thread and view my other posts there which also talk about discussion within the Church on polygenism:Also, more recently:
Here is paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” (emphasis added). Makes you think, doesn’t it?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
- 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 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.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7854043#post7854043
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Will do both, thanks. You can take a look at my other posts on evolution on diverse threads as well (lick on my name, view posts). I think we are relatively like-minded.Yes, thanks for that - you should post that in this thread and view my other posts there which also talk about discussion within the Church on polygenism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7854043#post7854043
E
edwest2
Guest
“divine intervention” rules out a purely natural cause.Also, more recently:
Here is paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” (emphasis added). Makes you think, doesn’t it?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
- 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 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.
Peace,
Ed
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Of course, but that is not the point here. What this document appears to allude to is that it may not just have been two individual creatures that God breathed a soul into, but a population.“divine intervention” rules out a purely natural cause.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.