"Neanderthals were People too" -- what are the implications for faith?

[catholic1seeks]

The Church has never declared “infallibly” that the account of the creation of Adam & Eve and the fall is a literal, historical event. That was the point of the linked article suggesting as much.

Infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra statements or the great councils.
It extends to the universal, ordinary magisterium.

That original sin corresponds to a real event is of official Catholic teaching.
Without the concept of original sin, there is no redemption.

 

[catholic1seeks]

III. 6 We come now to the final magisterial intervention to be considered in this part of our study, namely, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909, on the interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1 to 3. The main point of this document that interests us is the third question addressed by the Commission:
Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).30

rtforum.org/lt/lt97.html

Monogenism and original sin are both official Catholic teachings. That Eve literally came from Adam’s side is not. As far as I know, this is the only recent reference to this tradition. But it is pretty clear that Catholics can believe in the evolution of the human body. Several popes have said this. The teaching Church is more and more accepting this.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So I would like to continue this discussion, but again, I’m nervous of those who perceive unnecessary conflict with evolutionary theory and Catholic doctrine. I do not take Genesis literalistically, and I do not think the author(s) of Genesis cared to provide a geological or biological account of the world. I accept the evolution of the human body.

So for those who have contributed with this in mind, I have overall gained these thoughts:

1. there’s no problem because Neanderthals are part of the basic human family, anyway.
2. Neanderthals would also be descended from Adam and Eve… which means our first parents lived over 500,000 years ago
3. perhaps Neanderthals bury their dead and have symbolic thought despite not actually having a spiritual nature. But this would seem odd, considering they bury their dead
4. maybe the spiritual soul is not a true concept, but that would contradict Catholic teaching
5. maybe monogenism or orginal sin are not true, but that is also against catholic teaching

 

[Tim_D]

That original sin corresponds to a real event is of official Catholic teaching.
Without the concept of original sin, there is no redemption.

And who here has denied the concept of original sin?

 

[catholic1seeks]

And who here has denied the concept of original sin?

Original sin defined by the Catholic Church means a real event of our first parents, which caused their fall from grace and vulnerability to bodily death, as well as our inheritance of original sin, because we all descend from Adam and Eve.

 

[Rau]

There is a difference between the material world in the first section of the first tremendous chapter of Genesis and the spiritual world. See dramatic shift of Genesis 1:25 to Genesis 1:26-27.

The current Science of Human Evolution is set in stone because it is based on the Evolution Model regarding large originating populations. Catholicism will not budge from an human originating population of two.

Science is rarely set in stone. It tends to offer the “most likely” explanations that fit the observable world.

 

[grannymh]

Science is rarely set in stone. It tends to offer the “most likely” explanations that fit the observable world.

True.

However, the Evolution Model is set in stone when it comes to the human species. It should be obvious that the Science of Human Evolution (check the Homo/Pan cladistics, that is, the speciation event) has never declared that the human species was founded by two sole immediately fully-complete originating human parents.

This link describes one area of the Evolution Model. The bottom is interesting even though it is brief.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Note that the Evolution Model is used in medical research. Science is not a bad guy. It is how it is revered that needs careful thought.

 

[Rau]

True.

However, the Evolution Model is set in stone when it comes to the human species. It should be obvious that the Science of Human Evolution (check the Homo/Pan cladistics, that is, the speciation event) has never declared that the human species was founded by two sole immediately fully-complete originating human parents.

Nor should it - until scientific evidence points to that as the most like scenario that fits observation.

 

[grannymh]

Nor should it - until scientific evidence points to that as the most like scenario that fits observation.

It sounds like you are totally aware that natural science cannot universally rule out the possibility of two unique original fully-complete humans as the sole founders of humankind? That is a good point.

 

[Tim_D]

Original sin defined by the Catholic Church means a real event of our first parents, which caused their fall from grace and vulnerability to bodily death, as well as our inheritance of original sin, because we all descend from Adam and Eve.

And no one here has denied that. That doesn’t mean, however, that we have an obligation to take every word of the creation story as “gospel,” being a record of historical events as they happened. The simple truth is that we don’t know what primeval event caused us to be in the state that mankind finds itself. The only thing we know for certain is that God is the source of life.

 

[Tim_D]

However, the Evolution Model is set in stone when it comes to the human species.

That’s not true. There is no end of debate in scientific circles to describe, not only the emergence of life but of mankind itself. Even the boob Richard Dawkins admits as much, falling back on the standard “it must have been by some kind of Darwinian method.” Classic Darwinism cannot answer the multitude of the necessary questions and neo-Darwinism has run into a brick wall. Any “scientist” who claims that he knows with absolute assurance how mankind arose is fooling himself and anyone who listens to him.

 

[Wesrock]

So I would like to continue this discussion, but again, I’m nervous of those who perceive unnecessary conflict with evolutionary theory and Catholic doctrine. I do not take Genesis literalistically, and I do not think the author(s) of Genesis cared to provide a geological or biological account of the world. I accept the evolution of the human body.

So for those who have contributed with this in mind, I have overall gained these thoughts:

1. there’s no problem because Neanderthals are part of the basic human family, anyway.
2. Neanderthals would also be descended from Adam and Eve… which means our first parents lived over 500,000 years ago
3. perhaps Neanderthals bury their dead and have symbolic thought despite not actually having a spiritual nature. But this would seem odd, considering they bury their dead
4. maybe the spiritual soul is not a true concept, but that would contradict Catholic teaching
5. maybe monogenism or orginal sin are not true, but that is also against catholic teaching

Just to give my take again:

**1) there’s no problem because Neanderthals are part of the basic human family, anyway.
**

Correct. Though it’s still an “if” as to whether they had souls at this point, or whether physiological homo sapiens had souls at that point. Even with customs of burial of the dead, we still seem to see drastic shifts in behavior and culture more recently than that.

2) Neanderthals would also be descended from Adam and Eve… which means our first parents lived over 500,000 years ago

Same “if” as above. But if they did have souls, you’re right, I’d see no contradiction. Adam and Eve would just have to predate them.

**3) perhaps Neanderthals bury their dead and have symbolic thought despite not actually having a spiritual nature. But this would seem odd, considering they bury their dead **

There’s only so much we can infer from behavior patterns. At some point there’s a line that’s crossed. I can’t say with certainty where it is, and the fact that we can’t exactly test the limits of abstract/rational thinking of the past subjects is a hindrance here.

**4) maybe the spiritual soul is not a true concept, but that would contradict Catholic teaching **

This spiritual soul is a true concept. (I think of the soul in a Thomist sense, not as some ghost in a machine, but that’s a separate discussion).

**5) maybe monogenism or orginal sin are not true, but that is also against catholic teaching
**

In regards to sin and metaphysical humanity, monogenism is true, we can all claim ancestry to two first parents.

 

[grannymh]

That’s not true. There is no end of debate in scientific circles to describe, not only the emergence of life but of mankind itself. Even the boob Richard Dawkins admits as much, falling back on the standard “it must have been by some kind of Darwinian method.” Classic Darwinism cannot answer the multitude of the necessary questions and neo-Darwinism has run into a brick wall. Any “scientist” who claims that he knows with absolute assurance how mankind arose is fooling himself and anyone who listens to him.

Sorry Charlie…

It is time for CAF participants to catch up with the real world of natural science. See post 106 as a start.

Here is the link to a major website
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

This is another recommended website.
tolweb.org/tree/

It is time to consider the simple Evolution Model which has been in existence since the beginning. All the chatter about Richard Dawkins and Neo-Darwinism is simply sidestepping the reality of the Evolution Model. One might be interested in how the Evolution Model works (new species appear as a large population evolving from an indiscriminate random breeding population) in the Science of Human Evolution. Here is one link which may help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Evolution

 

[Wesrock]

It is time to consider the simple Evolution Model which has been in existence since the beginning. All the chatter about Richard Dawkins and Neo-Darwinism is simply sidestepping the reality of the Evolution Model. Or you might be interested in how the Evolution Model works (new species appear as a large population evolving from an indiscriminate random breeding population) in the Science of Human Evolution. Here is one link which may help. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Evolution

We’re all quite aware of this.

 

[grannymh]

We’re all quite aware of this.

Hopefully, that is true.

However, within the posts I have read since I landed on CAF, there are people who are not aware that the Evolution Model refers to population in the plural. This is similar to the confusion about polygenism which actually requires a large population.

There are some Catholics who cannot grasp what happens when the Science of Human Evolution intersects with major Catholic doctrines.

Again, I hope that your comment is true today.

In addition, considering the few theistic evolution proposals that I have seen, the population issue is dropped as if the Evolution Model no longer existed. This is a difficulty for some Catholics.

And if we consider the “Eve” research paper…that is another story.

I do see hope that ordinary folk are catching up…

 

[buffalo]

And no one here has denied that. That doesn’t mean, however, that we have an obligation to take every word of the creation story as “gospel,” being a record of historical events as they happened. The simple truth is that we don’t know what primeval event caused us to be in the state that mankind finds itself. The only thing we know for certain is that God is the source of life.

Yet God tell us Himself how it happened.

 

[buffalo]

That’s not true. There is no end of debate in scientific circles to describe, not only the emergence of life but of mankind itself. Even the boob Richard Dawkins admits as much, falling back on the standard “it must have been by some kind of Darwinian method.” Classic Darwinism cannot answer the multitude of the necessary questions and neo-Darwinism has run into a brick wall. Any “scientist” who claims that he knows with absolute assurance how mankind arose is fooling himself and anyone who listens to him.

 

[buffalo]

Hopefully, that is true.

However, within the posts I have read since I landed on CAF, there are people who are not aware that the Evolution Model refers to population in the plural. This is similar to the confusion about polygenism which actually requires a large population.

There are some Catholics who cannot grasp what happens when the Science of Human Evolution intersects with major Catholic doctrines.

Again, I hope that your comment is true today.

In addition, considering the few theistic evolution proposals that I have seen, the population issue is dropped as if the Evolution Model no longer existed. This is a difficulty for some Catholics.

And if we consider the “Eve” research paper…that is another story.

I do see hope that ordinary folk are catching up…

Catching up? The modern synthesis is dead. The top evo’s all know it now. Information killed it.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I have not read the entire thing, but this article from New York Times Magazine suggests that science has long gotten Neanderthals wrong, and that they displayed many behavioral characteristics that were similar to their Homo sapien neighbors in Africa. Note that the last common ancestor with neanderthals was over 500,000 years ago. But anyway, they too, apparently, buried their dead and made specialized tools and jewelry. They also painted their faces or bodies, which could represent symbolic thought.

Personally, human evolution has never really threatened my faith. I have always been open to science, and I think evolutionary biology expresses the creative work of God.

However, I wonder how this understanding of Neanderthals can be consistent with the uniqueness of the human person, who is not just body but soul as well. From the time of our “first parents,” we bodily creatures also have a spiritual aspect, made in the image of God, and can relate to God. Features such as self-consciousness and symbolic thought were thought to be particular attributes of humans made in God’s image, with an immortal soul.

So how this square with Catholic teaching?

Much is assumed about the history of prehistoric man that we know little or nothing about. I recommend reading GK Chesterton’s ‘Everlasting man’. It’s almost a hundred years old but still applicable. Much has been assumed about ‘prehistoric’ man from the imaginations of men rather than actual recorded history. The theories that they come up with from a few bones in the ground are believed over written eyewitness testimonies of the life, death and Resurrection of Christ. Notice how the article paints them as primitive and naked. Big assumptions right there.

If Neanderthals existed and had an intellect and a will like us they could be considered human and have descended from a common ancestor, namely Adam and Eve. They would just be a variation in the human genome that died out.

As GK Chesterton says the only thing we know about the cave man is that he was an artist. (We don’t even know if he lived in a cave. Yet, none of the animals are artists. You only see humans drawing pictures of animals like deer. But you never see animals like deer drawing pictures of humans. Man’s intellect can still not be explained by evolution alone.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I agree with Chesterton who said that the doctrine of original sin is the one doctrine that you can really prove. You just have to look at the state of the world today and ask yourself how did all this begin? It had to start somewhere.