Question on human origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rben20

Guest
Does the existence of the Neanderthal disprove anything according to what the Bible says?

Also, if Adam and Eve had children and all were males, how did the human population propagate when incest is considered a sin?

Sorry but I have been trying to say that science and religion can co-existent, but these arguments have been made that I did not know how to answer. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
 
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, (Later Pope Benedict XVI)

Religion and Science complement each other.
 
Does the existence of the Neanderthal disprove anything according to what the Bible says?
No. AFAICT Neanderthals are not mentioned in the Bible, unless they are the Nephilim.
Also, if Adam and Eve had children and all were males, how did the human population propagate when incest is considered a sin?
The Bible is not good at mentioning female children. The usual assumption is that Adam and Eve had female children as well as the three male children directly mentioned. I have seen different resolutions to the incest issue.
Sorry but I have been trying to say that science and religion can co-existent, but these arguments have been made that I did not know how to answer. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
It is much easier if you do not take such a literal approach to Genesis. To my mind a story with a talking snake and two magic trees does not have the feel of a scientific description of events, it should be read on a different level.

rossum
 
Does the existence of the Neanderthal disprove anything according to what the Bible says?

Also, if Adam and Eve had children and all were males, how did the human population propagate when incest is considered a sin?

Sorry but I have been trying to say that science and religion can co-existent, but these arguments have been made that I did not know how to answer. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
The commandment against incest wasn’t given until afterward.
 
Does the existence of the Neanderthal disprove anything according to what the Bible says?

Also, if Adam and Eve had children and all were males, how did the human population propagate when incest is considered a sin?

Sorry but I have been trying to say that science and religion can co-existent, but these arguments have been made that I did not know how to answer. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
The story of Adam and Eve cannot co-exist with modern science. It didn’t happen.
 
First of all, Monogenesis is enjoined on us because there is no clear way in the minds of the Popes to reconcile Polygenesis with the doctrine of the Sin of our first parents and the Fall. If there were a way to do so, then it could be allowed. Several scholars have proposed solutions but none have been accepted.

Secondly, if God truly made a first pair of humans by a special act of creation, it is possible that he “reset” their genetics to make it “safe” to practice incest at least for the first several generations. God could even have given them “low probability” genetic combinations at first to prevent problems.

In one of his Lazarus Long novels Robert Heinlein describes a brother and sister of the same parents who share NO genes in common. They each received half of their parents genes but none from the same half. Now there are a virtually infinite number of combinations you can make like that from just two parents. And then you can get variants where only 0.1% genes are held in common and any fraction in between that and 100%.

That may be how God did it in the beginning. This would take several generations of miracles, but it would royally screw up all the attendant probabilities. None of the scientists takes this possibility into account.

And then we need to be frank. We know very little about human origins. It appears that BIOLOGICAL humans of some kind have been around for about 2 million years give or take). BIOLOGICAL Homo sapiens has been around for ~130,000 years. But there is something very strange that happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens became an artist, a linguist, a complex tool maker, a religious believer, a member of a society with family structures and pair-bonds, and several other things that distinguish him from the BIOLOGICAL humans that came before. Was this new kind of H. sapiens not only BIOLOGICALY human but newly made as THEOLOGICALLY human? Was this the historical point of ensoulment?

And after that happened, the other species of man all died out and were replaced by the New Man. So if THEOLOGICAL humans arose not from pre-humans but WITHIN a BIOLOGICALLY human community in which they kept to themselves, the issue of Polygenism becomes moot.

These are just some of the possibilities.

Another note on Dr. Collin’s book. He warns that a Fundamentalist literal reading of Genesis is dangerous because when a naive believer discovers the overwhelming scientific case for evolution, it can endanger his faith. Well, here we are! What he predicted has happened.

The problem is neither in science or religion but rather in a type of religion that does not respect the important distinctions between science and theology.

Humility is the point to be taken. We are not asked by God to understand all things but rather to believe in some things. Sometimes belief is easy. Sometimes it is hard. That is why one must have a prayer life and devotions to keep one properly in touch with God and His providence.

by Art Sippo, M.D.
surprisedbytruth.com/forum/
 
It is much easier if you do not take such a literal approach to Genesis. To my mind a story with a talking snake and two magic trees does not have the feel of a scientific description of events, it should be read on a different level.

rossum
I understand where you are coming from. Mixing literal events and figurative language can be hard to deal with.

In my humble opinion, the story of human origins should be read from the Catholic perspective.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Human Origins is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»


Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top