Polygenism and evolution

[dumbseeker]

The Church teaches us that we should not accept polygenism and we must believe the first parents are Adam and Eve. I have a question about this. If we believe in evolution, do we have to believe that certain organisms evolved into Adam and Eve and they were the first two human beings? Do we have to take the fall of Adam and Eve literally? Then where were Cain and his wife from? Did he marry his mom or something?

 

[Verbum]

Hi D.,

Catholics are free to believe in evolution. However, it is Catholic doctrine that the soul is created directly by God for each human being. And we must also believe that all men presently on earth are descended from one couple.

We can believe that some organisms evolved into Adam and Eve and that God infused human souls at some point in the process.

We must believe that the first humans were submitted to some kind of test and that they failed – that is the fall of man.

The first children of Adam and Eve would naturally have mated with their brothers and sisters. What else could they do?

Verbum

 

[dumbseeker]

Hi D.,

Catholics are free to believe in evolution. However, it is Catholic doctrine that the soul is created directly by God for each human being. And we must also believe that all men presently on earth are descended from one couple.

We can believe that some organisms evolved into Adam and Eve and that God infused human souls at some point in the process.

We must believe that the first humans were submitted to some kind of test and that they failed – that is the fall of man.

The first children of Adam and Eve would naturally have mated with their brothers and sisters. What else could they do?

Verbum

After Cain killed Abel, he went to Nodd and got a wife. Where did that wife come from? Do you think Adam and Eve bore a girl and sent her to Nodd?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The children of Adam and Eve are only noted as the males. Their daughters are not mentioned. The traditional understanding is that Cain married some of his sisters who are not mentioned. The incest laws had not been made at this time, and presumably much of the defects therein were not to have happened except that the fall damaged the body in various ways.

The explicit rejection of Polygenesim follows on the book of Tobit where the statement is made concerning the bringing forth of children for God – that they all come from Adam and Eve.

Tobit 8:6 “You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended … Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose…”

Notice Tobit is marrying a fairly near relative as is the custom of the Jewish tribes.

The consistent teaching of the church which was again ratified by the encyclical on human generation – is that there was only one such couple from whom the entire human race descended. One can’t posit multiple Adams and Multiple Eves in parallel for the reason that then at least some of the human beings would not have been physically related to Adam in his sin, and St. Paul’s comment that all “sinned in Adam” would appear to be false since this clearly relates to the physical descent of the body from Adam.

Eg: The church has not infallibly defined the doctrine with clarifications regarding far fetched possibilities, but there is a demand that in some way we are all related to a “first couple”.

In the many theories of Evolution, Polygenism is one way people think it “could” have happened. But, from what I understand of the various theories – it is not a very likely candidate for the evolution of human bodies in any event.

Fossil records, as far as I have observed, show that although one can argue the slow modification of a limb or other appendages within an existing species – that the genetic modification which leads to a new species does not typically come from many slow and parallel mutations.

Generally speaking, the new species appears rapidly at a given point suggesting that it had a single parent/couple and that it became dominant because of the adaptation.

eg: in plants, a new species of weed is typically marked by a singular genetic modification which can’t breed with the old species by the very fact that the change is no longer compatible with the old species. Eg: Genes are designed to protect the integrity of their copying, and have self defense mechanisms to severely reduce the odds of mutations entering the Gene pool.

Just so, if two separate mutations were to occur both of which were the building blocks of “Human” than these independent strains of Humanity are even Less likely to accept each other as compatible genetically. The far more likely path, theoretically, is siblings from the same parent.

Just so, in plants, a new plant species becomes self reproducing by making a genetic mutation which is at least able to reproduce with another plant having the SAME genetic mutation and I suppose as coming from the same parent plant which originated the mutation.
This extra step is called polyploidy.

Humans are even more advanced than plants, but
just so, Adam and Eve, as Genesis states – had Eve come from Adam – that mirrors closely the more common way (at least that I have verified has any validity at ALL) that a new species MIGHT come into existence.

Eg: Adam and Eve from the point of evolution would need to be sort of “twins” from the same non-human/semi-human parent who transmitted the changed genetics to her offspring.

Or at very least (and far less likely), the human child of the non-human parent would have needed to mate (or be “raped” by) its originating non-human parent who has the genetic change (at least in the reproductive system) in the first place.

The Sister or Brother in that case (and still only in rare instances) could mate with their sibling and produce a new species. Eve would have received her physical humanity from Adam in either event (or possibly vice versa) whereas the “spirit” or “soul” has nothing to do with the inheritance of a physical body and is not at all affected by the theory of evolution.

Both views lead to the same conclusion, that which is human came through a single parent of some kind.

As to my opinion, I don’t rule out miracles … either…
But I tend to think polygenism is a weak theory regardless…

 

[garysibio]

Fifteen or twenty years ago there was an article in Scientific American which dealt with this. First, some assumptions:

The day Adam and Eve left Eden is year 1.

They had one child per year, half boys and half girls.

When they reached puberty (assume 15) they paired off and also had one child per year, half and half. Etc.

Assume no deaths or very few deaths.

By the year 100, the world’s population would be over a million.

We don’t know when Cain killed Abel, but assuming it was 100AE, he had quite a few to pick from. It also explains why he needed a a mark to identify him.

Gary

 

[buffalo]

Catholic Dogma says:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
   
   Adam had other children and early on incest between the offspring was permitted, and not intrinsically evil as parent to child would be.

 

[Ruthie]

Buffalo, what are you quoting?

Thanks in advance,

Ruthie

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, what are you quoting?

Thanks in advance,

Ruthie

Dogmas of the Catholic Church

 

[rossum]

The Church teaches us that we should not accept polygenism and we must believe the first parents are Adam and Eve. I have a question about this. If we believe in evolution, do we have to believe that certain organisms evolved into Adam and Eve and they were the first two human beings? Do we have to take the fall of Adam and Eve literally? Then where were Cain and his wife from? Did he marry his mom or something?

First we need to decide what makes a “human” and what makes an “almost, but not quite yet human”. The difference is presumably the presence (or not) of a human soul. A physically human large brained upright walking ape without a soul is not fully human, it may be human physically with human-compatible DNA, but is not human spiritually since it does not have a human soul. A physically human large brained upright walking ape with a human soul is human, both physically and spiritually.

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve, (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. The children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life. God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair.

This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis. The Fall would have occurred between the creation of Adam and Eve and the conception of their first child.

rossum

 

[garysibio]

This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis. The Fall would have occurred between the creation of Adam and Eve and the conception of their first child.

You claim that this view is a valid interpretation of Genesis but it is not. Someone starting with only the book of Genesis would never have arrived at what you have speculated.

What you have done is start with a set of ideas and are trying to make Genesis say what you already believe to be true. That is not how biblical interpretation works.

I don’t believe that every passage of Scripture has to be taken literally but, in another thread on the evolution-intelligent design-creationism debate, I asked those who reject Gen 1-2 as literal what it is about the text that indicates it was not to be taken at face value and where was there anything in the text that separated the creation account from Noah and Abraham that would say that, starting now, we are speaking literally. No one was able to give me an answer. To put it another way, if I reject a six-day creation, how can I logically accept the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph along with the others?

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

You claim that this view is a valid interpretation of Genesis but it is not. Someone starting with only the book of Genesis would never have arrived at what you have speculated.

What you have done is start with a set of ideas and are trying to make Genesis say what you already believe to be true. That is not how biblical interpretation works.

Then why does the Church not require us to accept the creation story literally?

Peace

Tim

 

[Fox]

A great article to explain this is found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[rossum]

You claim that this view is a valid interpretation of Genesis but it is not.

Why not? What specific part of my scenario is not is accordance with any interpretation of Genesis? While it may not agree with your interpretation of Genesis, I did not claim that it was consistent with all interpretations of Genesis, only that it was compatible with some of them.

Someone starting with only the book of Genesis would never have arrived at what you have speculated.

Agreed. I did not start with only Genesis, what I said was “This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis.” (Emphasis added.)

I don’t believe that every passage of Scripture has to be taken literally but, in another thread on the evolution-intelligent design-creationism debate, I asked those who reject Gen 1-2 as literal what it is about the text that indicates it was not to be taken at face value

Here are a few:* morning and evening before the sun.

• differing order of creation Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
• absence of a solid dome in the sky with water above it - “firmament”.
• plants (photosynthesis) before the sun.
• neither the Moon nor the Sun are “set in” any firmament.
• land plants before life in the sea.

rossum

 

[Jack_245814]

After Cain killed Abel, he went to Nodd and got a wife. Where did that wife come from? Do you think Adam and Eve bore a girl and sent her to Nodd?

Adam and Eve had hundreds of children through the grace of God, as did Noah, etc., but Genesis only talks about the ones that are important to the central narrative - at least, that’s the explanation I’ve read in traditional Catholic commentaries.

 

[Orogeny]

Adam and Eve had hundreds of children through the grace of God, as did Noah, etc., but Genesis only talks about the ones that are important to the central narrative - at least, that’s the explanation I’ve read in traditional Catholic commentaries.

Where in Genesis is that mentioned?

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Then why does the Church not require us to accept the creation story literally?

Peace

Tim

First, you’re answering my question with another question which loses you points.

There are lots of things which are true yet are not binding upon us, as Catholics, to believe. For example, the queenship of Mary is not a dogma like immaculate conception, perpetual virginity or assumption into Heaven yet it has been taught throughout the history of the Church and there is no doubt that it is true.

Although I am a creationist, I have no problem with people rejecting that view for something else provided they can defend that view from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I have a problem with moving from holding a position for academic reasons and trying to force it into Scripture. If you tie the two and the academic position is later discovered to be false, you are already on record as saying that Scripture supports it therefore Scripture must also be in error. Even though it is very widely accepted, the theory of evolution has some very real problems and more and more scientists are beginning to acknowledge that it can’t be true. Yes, it’s a small minority but the theory of evolution was originally supported by a small minority against the majority of scientists which accepted Lamark’s views.

I asked what should be a very simple question, or, at least, should be simple if the non-literal interpreters are correct. What is it about the text that says it should be taken figuratively and what it the indication that the non-literal portion ends and the literal portion begins.

If you are correct, you should be able to defend your view.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

First, you’re answering my question with another question which loses you points.

I am not looking for points, I am interested in your opinion.

There are lots of things which are true yet are not binding upon us, as Catholics, to believe. For example, the queenship of Mary is not a dogma like immaculate conception, perpetual virginity or assumption into Heaven yet it has been taught throughout the history of the Church and there is no doubt that it is true.

Although I am a creationist, I have no problem with people rejecting that view for something else provided they can defend that view from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Well, I see this as a bit different than that teaching about Mary. I see this as an allowed reading of scripture. You said that that is not a proper reading of scripture. Why would the Church allow us to be in error if in fact we are?

I have a problem with moving from holding a position for academic reasons and trying to force it into Scripture. If you tie the two and the academic position is later discovered to be false, you are already on record as saying that Scripture supports it therefore Scripture must also be in error. Even though it is very widely accepted, the theory of evolution has some very real problems and more and more scientists are beginning to acknowledge that it can’t be true. Yes, it’s a small minority but the theory of evolution was originally supported by a small minority against the majority of scientists which accepted Lamark’s views.

So if I don’t accept that there was a morning and night prior to the creation of the sun, I am forcing an academic position into scriputure?

I asked what should be a very simple question, or, at least, should be simple if the non-literal interpreters are correct. What is it about the text that says it should be taken figuratively and what it the indication that the non-literal portion ends and the literal portion begins.

How about the morning/night thingie? How about Cain’s wife (Adam and Eve had no other children mentioned prior to the birth of Seth, which was after Cain was banished).

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Why not? What specific part of my scenario is not is accordance with any interpretation of Genesis? While it may not agree with your interpretation of Genesis, I did not claim that it was consistent with all interpretations of Genesis, only that it was compatible with some of them.

Agreed. I did not start with only Genesis, what I said was “This is a possible scenario that is compatible with current scientific knowledge and with many interpretations of Genesis.” (Emphasis added.)

Your second paragraph answers your first. You don’t interpret the Bible by trying to make it fit something else. You start with the Bible and see what it has to say.

morning and evening before the sun.

Light was also created before the sun. This being the case it’s not unreasonable that God created day and night - whether that refers to a concept or something more substantial - before creating the sun.

differing order of creation Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Not true. Keep in mind the chapter divisions and verses are not part of the Bible. They were added later. Gen 2:4 starts with “Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created.” That ends the general creation account. The remainder of the verse starts off a section dealing in more detail with the creation of humans. The ancient Hebrews were not idiots. They didn’t believe in two conflicting creation accounts.

absence of a solid dome in the sky with water above it - “firmament”.

It’s possible that this was the source of the water for Noah’s flood.

Consider this, that dome would have protected the Earth from a lot of solar radiation. Prior to the flood people regularly lived to be 900 years old. After the flood life expectancy gradually petered out until you have Moses dying at 120. If that dome disappeared with the flood, it would no longer be there to protect us and the gene pool would begin to deteriorate shortening life expectancy

plants (photosynthesis) before the sun.

One day, not a big deal.

neither the Moon nor the Sun are “set in” any firmament.

Same answer as above.

land plants before life in the sea.

So what?

I’m not saying this is what happened. I’m saying it’s possible and it starts with what Scripture says and not trying to force concepts of near-humans into a text which says nothing about them.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

I am not looking for points, I am interested in your opinion.Well, I see this as a bit different than that teaching about Mary. I see this as an allowed reading of scripture. You said that that is not a proper reading of scripture. Why would the Church allow us to be in error if in fact we are?So if I don’t accept that there was a morning and night prior to the creation of the sun, I am forcing an academic position into scriputure?How about the morning/night thingie? How about Cain’s wife (Adam and Eve had no other children mentioned prior to the birth of Seth, which was after Cain was banished).

Peace

Tim

But I asked for your opinion first. You sidestepped my question. Do you have an answer for me?

My point in comparing beliefs about Genesis to Marian doctrines was to point out that, even though the Church teaches the queenship of Mary, you are free to reject it. You’ll be wrong but you’ll still be a Catholic in good standing.

The other points I answered elsewhere.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

But I asked for your opinion first. You sidestepped my question. Do you have an answer for me?

I gave you two reasons.

My point in comparing beliefs about Genesis to Marian doctrines was to point out that, even though the Church teaches the queenship of Mary, you are free to reject it. You’ll be wrong but you’ll still be a Catholic in good standing.

The Church does not teach that the creation story in Genesis has to be taken literally. Why not? I answered your question, now please do the same for me.

The other points I answered elsewhere.

I don’t agree with your answers, so they are not convincing to me.

Peace

Tim