Proof of evolution and hominids beside Adam in Genesis

[ChristMyLife]

That’s what I believe, too.

It’s really crude, but it’s a good rough sketch to start from.

Remember, this is all “theologoumena” - theological speculation/opinion.

The only things which the Church has defined is this: God created everything, he created the world, he created life on Earth, he created mankind, Adam and Eve were the first human beings, he created their souls instantly.

Everything in between and the how’s and specifics are all up for theological debate.

 

[semper_catholicus]

God formed man (Adam) from the slime of the earth, and woman (Eve) from man’s rib.

 

[angel12]

but I’m not sure about the hypothesis that animal souls formed into human souls.

I’ve never seen anyone claim that.

 

[Hope1960]

It’s really crude, but it’s a good rough sketch to start from.

Remember, this is all “theologoumena” - theological speculation/opinion.

The only things which the Church has defined is this: God created everything, he created the world, he created life on Earth, he created mankind, Adam and Eve were the first human beings, he created their souls instantly.

Everything in between and the how’s and specifics are all up for theological debate.

Yes, And it’s been debated a lot, not just here.

 

[skelly]

I would be afraid of creating a race of humans in my mind that I didn’t consider having a soul as I do. That would seem me to be racist or more literally what I think a racist actually believes about other races…

 

[sagemage]

For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.

• Pope Leo XIII

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

• Fr. Victor Warkulwiz

Furthermore… no one, relying on his own skill, shall—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture… contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…

• Council of Trent

…not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times…

• Pope Leo XIII

The progress of the sciences demands that the concept of Christian doctrine about . . . creation . . . be recast.

• Condemned by Pius X

 

[Gorgias]

Why not? God could create other humans as he did Adam and Eve. There is no necessity that they come into existence by normal biological means.

Why not? Because then, you’d have humans who didn’t share in “original sin” and would not require a savior. So, that’s a pretty big “no”.

I agree they are not literal, but what are they symbolic of?

Look at the progression of the ages of humans. They generally get smaller and smaller, until they reach the ages that we’re used to seeing as a lifespan. The implication is that humanity, through sin, is becoming less and less of what God intended us to be when He created the first humans.

 

[Gorgias]

• Pope Leo XIII
• Fr. Victor Warkulwiz
• Council of Trent
• Pope Leo XIII
• Condemned by Pius X

That’s a good list of quotes. It’s somewhat selective, though, don’t you think? What of Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who all allowed for investigation into evolution (given that it didn’t fall afoul of established doctrine regarding original sin)?

 

[Hope1960]

That’s a good list of quotes. It’s somewhat selective, though, don’t you think? What of Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who all allowed for investigation into evolution (given that it didn’t fall afoul of established doctrine regarding original sin)?

And let’s not forget that PiusXII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were popes in more recent times when we knew more about this subject.

 

[sagemage]

who all allowed for investigation into evolution

If the Pope asks you to investigate the historiciry of Christ does that mean you can say: “The Gospel is not literal there was no Jesus” ???

When the Pope asked the theologians to research birth control did that mean that birth control was now okay?

Research does not mean you can believe whatever you want.

 

[Gorgias]

If the Pope asks you to investigate the historiciry of Christ does that mean you can say: “The Gospel is not literal there was no Jesus” ???

Nice. And… has any pope ever asked anyone “hey… would you mind looking into the possibility that Jesus never existed?” No? Ok, then… straw man.

When the Pope asked the theologians to research birth control did that mean that birth control was now okay?

The pope then wrote a document saying, “nope… not okay.” You’ve got a papal document saying that about evolution, right?

Research does not mean you can believe whatever you want.

I’m guessing you’ve read Benedict’s statements, right? They’re not just “please research”. You might want to review what he’s said.

 

[sagemage]

Has any Pope ever asked anyone to research the life of Jesus? Hmm… I’m gonna say probably.

But birth control had already been condemned by the Church, right? So even though he had people look into it, they were still not allowed to believe it was okay because the answer was already known. And yeah i do have a bunch of Popes saying Genesis is literal history, i just quoted some of them.

Benedict has an opinion. His opinion is not binding on the faithful. Leo XIII wrote encyclicals that were binding on the faithful and in those he said that Genesis was literal history. Just one example among many. There is no authoritative document that overturns his proclamations.

 

[guanophore]

In the first 16 verses of this chapter, it seems on the surface to indicate that there are only 4 human beings on the entire planet - Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel.

The absence of mention does not equate to absence of being.

However, when we look a little deeper, we see a problem. It is STRONGLY implied that there are MANY other “people” around.

And where did your “deeper look” find this implication? And if there are other human beings, how is this a “problem”?

Since their bodies are fully developed, they are able to embody all of the highest capabilities of the sensitive/animal soul - they have a crude language, they can use crude tools, they have a very basic community, a crude understanding of social norms and right/wrong, etc. But they lack the ability to grasp abstract concepts like eternity, God, advanced language, sin, etc.

Sounds like you are describing Neanderthals!

In this community of Hominids, God creates Adam and Eve.

Are you suggesting that God created Adam and Eve out of persons who were members of a community of hominids?

Well, if Genesis is interpreted in a certain way, it doesn’t make any sense since there are only 3 people alive on earth - Cain and his parents Adam and Eve.

You won’t get an argument about that!

This is absolute, indisputable evidence that there are other people alive walking Earth besides those explicitly mentioned in Genesis.

Is this sufficient to dispel the fundamentalist perspective?

So either Adam and Eve had an unmentioned daughter who Cain is married to, or he took a wife from a near-human tribe he lived near and mated with her, and God created that person also with a fully rational human soul, and on and on down to our day.

Would that be a form of bestiality?

Now I know my theology on this is rather crude in and of itself, but I think this line of exegesis can be expanded upon greatly, and we can have a solid understanding as to how our theology can complement instead of contradict modern science.

I don’t think it is crude. I think you bring good points and good evidence.

 

[KevinK]

Why not? God could create other humans as he did Adam and Eve. There is no necessity that they come into existence by normal biological means.

Not share in original sin? What’s wrong with that? Sounds like a good idea,

 

[KevinK]

Look at the progression of the ages of humans. They generally get smaller and smaller, until they reach the ages that we’re used to seeing as a lifespan. The implication is that humanity, through sin, is becoming less and less of what God intended us to be when He created the first humans.

Except human lifespans are increasing.

 

[Gorgias]

Except human lifespans are increasing.

No they’re not. Medicine is allowing folks to live longer. Without it, our lifespan would be no longer than it was in Jesus’ day.

 

[Gorgias]

Would that be a form of bestiality?

I love this argument!

Incest among Adam & Eve and their children? Not a problem – God willed it!

‘Bestiality’ among ensouled humans and physically-identical unensouled humanoids? Perish the thought!

 

[Gorgias]

Has any Pope ever asked anyone to research the life of Jesus?

You’re moving the goalposts. The question – which you originally posed! – was an investigation into whether Jesus was a real, historical, literal human! But hey… if you can’t defend your point, change it!

But birth control had already been condemned by the Church, right? So even though he had people look into it, they were still not allowed to believe it was okay because the answer was already known.

Look at the statements by popes from Pius XII onward. They’re not saying “it’s not ok, but go ahead and look into it.” Instead, they’re saying what you wish to ignore: it’s ok, within certain well-defined boundaries.

Benedict has an opinion. His opinion is not binding on the faithful.

Annnnnnd… there it is! That’s the way these arguments always tend to go: my argument is supported by the Church and is binding on the faithful, but yours is just a papal opinion!

OK… whatev’s…

Not share in original sin? What’s wrong with that? Sounds like a good idea

Psst… it also means that you don’t have a share in Christ. Sounds like a really bad idea…

 

[KevinK]

It is indisputable fact that lifespans are increasing. You can speculate on the reasons but you are wrong to say “No they’re not”.

 

[guanophore]

God formed man (Adam) from the slime of the earth

Slime really? Oh that is so much more fun that just dust!