Original Sin & Evolution

[edwest211]

This is speculation.

 

[Wesrock]

Consider a distinction between theological monogenism and a biological polygenism. Kenneth Kemp’s proposal does so:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2a4ZeV4my-E3KbxoOzuz9L

And there are numerous variants.

 

[edwest211]

The Church teaches otherwise.

 

[Wesrock]

It does not. We’ve been over this. Go ahead. Quote HG. I’ll quote it back. We’ll have fun.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is speculation.

What specifically about what I wrote is speculation?

 

[Gorgias]

Mitochondrial DNA studies support that all humans have a common ancestor.

No, it doesn’t. This kind of claim misunderstands who “Mitochondrial Eve” is. She isn’t “the common maternal ancestor of all humans”, she’s the most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans. This means that who M-Eve is depends on us – the current living population of humans, which means that the identity of M-Eve can change over time.

So… no. Mitochondrial Eve is neither the Eve of the Bible, nor is she a single person… and definitely, she’s not the mother of all humans.

I believe the OT begins to describe literal history at the point where Adam and Eve are created. Personally, I prefer to believe the Bible (ie, the inspired Word of God) rather than the opinions of the scientific community

Perhaps you might choose to believe what the Church teaches, then: the events of the “Fall of Man” – in Genesis 3, which happens after “the point where Adam and Eve are created”, as you put it – are a narrative described in figurative language, not literal, historical language.

• What was the act that conferred original sin to humanity?

“Original sin” isn’t the first sin of our first human parents. It’s the way we describe the flawed human nature that we all possess, due to sin.

• Was the act something that was unlikely to have been performed by other humans then and in the future?

This question doesn’t really make sense, if we understand the concept of “original sin” properly.

• Did God speak to the nascent members of humanity?

Immaterial.

• Were the nascent humans who committed this sin aware that it was a sin or even what sin was?

We would expect that, since they had souls – and therefore, conscience – they were capable of understanding the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and therefore, of ‘sin’.

Given that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, all with different interpretations of whatever version of the Bible they use, then I do no see it as wise to claim infallibility.

The claim that there are many people who are mistaken does not disprove a claim that there is one who is right.

Suppose a Pope had claimed “infallibly” that Copernicus was wrong and that the sun went round the earth?

Ahh, but none did, now did they?

There is a very wide range of possibilities for what that act could be. It could not going beyond a certain landmark, killing a certain kind of animal, or saying a particular word.

You’re making the mistake of conflating “the first sin of our first human parents” with “original sin.” The two are distinct concepts. As long as you conflate them, you will not be able to understand what ‘original sin’ means, or what its implications are.

 

[Edgar]

Given that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, all with different interpretations of whatever version of the Bible they use, then I do no see it as wise to claim infallibility. Suppose a Pope had claimed “infallibly” that Copernicus was wrong and that the sun went round the earth?

Lots of folks misunderstand the Catholic teaching on infallibility. It doesn’t extend to science, but is restricted to faith and morals.

Science is not infallible, but it does have a lot of evidence. Do you have any evidence that the human population was ever reduced to two individuals?

I suspect that when it comes to any science regarding the origin of species, there are some tall tales being told in the name of evolution. Some scientists are so sure it’s true, they take unscientific “liberties” and tend to count their chickens before they’ve hatched. Their ideas filter down to the masses via publications like National Geographic and Nature, and all of a sudden, they’re “fact”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

“Original sin” isn’t the first sin of our first human parents. It’s the way we describe the flawed human nature that we all possess, due to sin.

NewAdvent.org disagrees:
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. "

This question doesn’t really make sense, if we understand the concept of “original sin” properly.

It actually makes a great deal of sense when we understand that Original Sin can mean both the act itself and the consequences down through the ages of said act. Besides it’s clear from the context from both my post and the OP which understanding is meant when referring to Original Sin in terms of whether it’s true if we assume evolution is true and thus Adam and Eve were not the only human or proto-human creatures at the time.

Getting back to the question I asked, it’s important to know what the act was that allegedly prevented man from living a life of paradise. If this was an act that could have easily been committed by not only Adam and Eve but also their descendants, then we have to question whether God truly wanted humans not to sin.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s not Church teaching. Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts by God:

impassibility (freedom from pain)
immortality (freedom from death)
integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)
infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)

Source: Catholic Answers

Since in this thread we are assuming that evolution is also true, we can safely say that there were predators at the time. We know that those creature that would eventually evolve into homo sapiens experienced pain and death. Are you suggesting that in a sea of other similar beings who could experience pain and could die that somehow Adam and Eve were immune to those things, that if a carnivore entered the cave where these human creatures were that the ones not named Adam and Eve would die but Adam and Eve could not even get hurt?

 

[edwest211]

There were no hominids. Adam and Eve were special creations. Similar beings to humans are excluded.

 

[Gorgias]

NewAdvent.org disagrees

NewAdvent.org’s copy of the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t magisterial teaching; the Catechism is.

whether it’s true if we assume evolution is true and thus Adam and Eve were not the only human or proto-human creatures at the time.

The point is that the Church doesn’t make any claim about “proto-human creatures”. However, it does claim that we had two first human parents (which implies a soul). Nothing confusing about that.

it’s important to know what the act was that allegedly prevented man from living a life of paradise.

The sin of pride. From the Catechism:

[397] Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.

So, your first question is easy enough to answer. Unless, of course, you think it matters precisely what the particular act was, rather than what it was in terms of sin.

If this was an act that could have easily been committed by not only Adam and Eve but also their descendants, then we have to question whether God truly wanted humans not to sin.

That doesn’t make sense. Whether or not it could have been committed by them or others, does not mean that “God did not want humans not to sin.” Free will means that we have the chance to choose the good or the evil. God wants us to choose the good. He does not prevent us from choosing evil – but this doesn’t imply that He wants us to do so.

Are you suggesting that in a sea of other similar beings who could experience pain and could die that somehow Adam and Eve were immune to those things, that if a carnivore entered the cave where these human creatures were that the ones not named Adam and Eve would die but Adam and Eve could not even get hurt?

Two problems:
First, “could not even get hurt” is not part of the claims of preternatural gifts. So, you’re gonna hafta step that one back.

Second, though, we don’t know how long it took for our first human parents to sin. If it was one day, or one month, or one year, then they had the gift of immortality only that long. That doesn’t stretch the imagination, then.