Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve

[Esran]

Today is a trying time for Christians. There is so much division both inside and outside Christendom. A particularly hot issue is evolution. I myself tend to change positions on it inside my head at least twice a day. It’s a fascinating topic. I’ve heard a lot of people say that there is no contradiction between it and what the Bible says about Adam and Eve. However, I can’t find anyone who really explains why and how evolution and the Bible go together. Yes, I’ve checked into the official Church documents and such, but they only give a dry, superficial explanation. I want an in depth theological exposition, not a legal statement of philosophical permissivity.

I know that many think the creation account in Genesis should be treated as mythology of some sort, but then there are passages in the New Testament such as 1 Timothy 2:13-14 that seem to view the creation of Eve after Adam in quite a literal sense. I was hoping that you all could help explain the Evolution-Original Sin-Adam-and-Eve problem? I’ve been really torn and puzzled by it for a long time. On the one hand, Gorillas really do look like us, and I can definitely see one species becoming another. Evolution just feels right and seems cool. However, evolution appears to me to be at odds with Scripture. The only alternative I can see is to camp with those who think God (or Satan, depending on who you ask) put dinosaur bones in the earth to trick unbelievers and test our faith. Honestly, I have a ton of reservations about joining the literal creationist camp (tricking people doesn’t seem like something God would do. I believe He can neither deceive nor be deceived). I feel uneasy about theistic evolution at times, especially when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures in light of it. Can you please explain to me, if possible, how evolution fits the Bible, beyond just saying that it does?

God bless you all for your time.

 

[Nita]

Welcome to the forum Esran.

Evolution is a topic that has been/is often discussed on the forum. You might want to do a search and read some of the previous discussions.

I personally do not believe in evolution. Unless one thinks there was some sort of immediate jump from chimp (was informed on a previous thread that evolution says we evolved from the chimp, not the ape) to man, the obvious question arises - “What happened to all the intervening evolutionary beings?” It’s not a philosophical, theological, or scientific question - just a plain old common sense question and only one of several “common sense” objections I have.

Those who say evolution can be understood and accepted within Catholic teaching would explain it as follows:
Evolution over a long period of time into the physical form of man.
Then God placed a human soul in two of the “evolved” beings - one male and one female. They became the progenitors of the whole human race (Adam & Eve).
(I won’t even go into all the common sense (and even philosophical) questions and objections the above position raises for me.)

Darwinian evolutionists uphold polygenism. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical “Humani Generis” vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html (see paragraphs 36 and 37) said this is not in conformity with Catholic teaching.

Quote: "37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or tht Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. "

Pope John Paul II referenced this encyclical in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. (see paragraph 3) newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Quote: “In his Encyclical Human Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.”
In all the publicity given to Pope John Paul’s address I never saw the above line cited.

Nita

 

[Benadam]

Hello esran and nita,

there is a theological theory attached to what folks call evolution. It is harmonious with Catholic teaching. Our beloved late Pope John Paul II once said and I paraphrase here 'in order for life to rise to a higher state of being, life at a higher state of being must reach down and lift it up. An example of the theology goes something like this; the powers of the animating force of life in plants was offered up in sacrifice in order that their purpose be fulfilled in the higher state of the life of insects and such. Likewise the powers of the life of insects were offered up in sacrifice to be fulfilled in reptiles and then warm blooded creatures and so on untill all the powers of all eartly life are offered up and fulfilled in man. Then in his turn man offers up his life in sacrifice to be fulfilled in God. Jesus rervealed the process with His life and His death and Resurrection…

When God had made the heavens and the earth they were void and without form. The eyes of faith can see that the dust of the earth was gathered into one place for Adam to become an earthly form. Just as the waters gathered into one place in order for land to appear.The dust was gathered into one place for adam to appear. I think the boundaries set by the Church in regards of theories of evololving life will prove to be what was necessary in order for it to be revealed.

 

[Genesis315]

Our beloved late Pope John Paul II once said and I paraphrase here 'in order for life to rise to a higher state of being, life at a higher state of being must reach down and lift it up.

I saw Fulton Sheen speak about this on the old black-and-white reruns on EWTN–just in case anyone might think John Paul was the first to say it–it had been around for a while.

 

[Genesis315]

The Catholic understanding of evolution with regards to man is that God created the bodies of Adam and Eve from pre-existing biological material (which of course He also created) and then created the soul immediately and breathed it into them.

 

[Benadam]

The Catholic understanding of evolution with regards to man is that God created the bodies of Adam and Eve from pre-existing biological material (which of course He also created) and then created the soul immediately and breathed it into them.

hat’s not really how it is understood. The waters above and below were gathered into one place for land to appear. The dust of the earth was gathered into one place for Adam to appear. Water is far different from land. Dust is far different from man and is not what man is but what man returns too. Eve was formed out of a rib but she is not a rib. Plant life could be seen as being gathered into one place to form animal life but is not the same substance nor can it be explained how it could become that. Note that Christ said " I will gather all men unto myself" Christ is God and is infinitely removed from man yet man is gathered into one place for Christ to return and man’s purpose to be fulfilled in the Resurrection. .

 

[Elliott]

My big problem with evolution is that it requires there to be death before the fall. As for God tricking us with Dinosaur bones, that’s ridiculous. Check out Answers in Genesis for some good info.

 

[Nita]

My big problem with evolution is that it requires there to be death before the fall. As for God tricking us with Dinosaur bones, that’s ridiculous. Check out Answers in Genesis for some good info.

You know, I don’t think there is any official Catholic teaching, one way or the other, concerning whether or not there was plant and/or animal death prior to the fall. Church teaching is that human death resulted from the fall.

In Genesis, God’s words speak only of the death of man:
Gen 2:17 “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Also, am not aware of any Scripture that specifically states plant and animal death did not exist before the fall, but rather were a result of it. If there are some, would very much appreciate someone posting them.

I know Romans 8:19-25 is sometimes understood as speaking of plant/animal world. But that seems questionable to me since St. Paul implies the presence of a “will” and “hope” - attributes of a human soul only:
Rom 8:20 *“for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope.” *Given the context of Romans 7 and 8, I think by creation, Paul is referring to our physical flesh which still waits for glorification - glorification that has already begun in our souls through the presence and working of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that the idea of God tricking us with dinosaur bones is ridiculous.

Nita

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If God used evolution, why did he not simply tell Moses, “I made creatures too small to see in the oceans, and they grew into more complex creatures, until one day those creatures became man, adam”?

or could the problem be that Moses copied his account from pre=existing cultures around him?

 

[rwoehmke]

Why is it so difficult, considering the instinctive knowledge that animals such as porpoises, apes, chimps etc. seem to have that God could not have selected a pair and as the man or woman said, lifted them up a little closer to the divine. We really do not know what the original sin was, only that Adam and Eve were guilty of it. By doing so they lost some of the divine, the preternatural gifts, that God had bestowed on them. Adam could no longer pass them on to his progeny because he no longer had them to pass on. So really what is being passed on is a defect in that human nature, as opposed to animal nature, which Adam and Eve may have at first possessed…

If the known fossil records are being interpreted accurately the first humans were structurally not all that different from the chimps, although the differences are evidently real. If it all seems so incredible buy your self a pair of rabbits, feed and care for them and in a couple of years you have oodles of rabbits of more than one generation. No condoms, no pill, plenty of food to be gathered. Would take only a little more time with a pair of humans.

 

[LilyM]

My big problem with evolution is that it requires there to be death before the fall. As for God tricking us with Dinosaur bones, that’s ridiculous. Check out Answers in Genesis for some good info.

The death of animals existed before the fall, yes. It was always God’s plan that animals die.

Animals were never destined to live forever - only man and the angels. That’s why at Jesus’ death it wasn’t the bodies of the dogs and cats and camels and homo habilis-es etc that rose from their graves - only the humans.

 

[drpmjhess]

Check out Answers in Genesis for some good info.

Answers in Genesis is not a science website – it is the website of the creationist Disneyland, where human children played with juvenile T-Rex’s without being goggled up. The problem with creationists (Protestant or Catholic) is that they lie. Duane Gish of ICR will be thoroughly refuted on a point of nonsense and move on to a different gullible audience, trotting out precisely the same lies he used before. Michael Behe has been shown to be a biochemical fraud by his peers many times over, but pops up from the coffin again and again.

There are many trustworthy websites to turn to, but the most useful and compendious is TalkOrigins, http://www.talkorigins.org/. The have an excellent site map at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#where

Creationist argument from thermodynamics are demolished at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html.

Arguments from the impossibility of abiogenesis are demolished on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Prayerfully,
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Animals were never destined to live forever - only man and the angels. That’s why at Jesus’ death it wasn’t the bodies of the dogs and cats and camels and homo habilis-es etc that rose from their graves - only the humans.

That’s because it was humans who wrote the Bible – the Bible is anthropocentric. If cats or camels or Homo habilis had written the Bible, perhaps it would be felocentric or camelocentric.
Petrus.

 

[edwest2]

If you read the Bible without previous assumptions you will see that it is an eyewitness account. However, for various reasons, others wish to confuse the issue. I thank the earlier poster for pointing out how the Church teaches that sin came through a particular pair of individuals, Adam and Eve.

It is easy to call someone a liar but God does not lie. The dinosaurs lived but died, just as many species of animals have been wiped out in recent history. Genesis 1:5 “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” This is repeated for the second day.

What you may read here is a strange insistence for Christians to accept the word of man over the word of God. God cannot be separated from His Creation and the sin of the first man and woman was the cause for Jesus Christ coming to earth as one of us.

Pope Benedict has made certain statements that show the Church is open to science, but that God must be part of Creation. As written, the theory of Evolution makes no allowance for God, and this cannot be. The Church does not support a mechanistic naturalism where we sprang from nothing and will die to nothing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Spirithound]

You know, I don’t think there is any official Catholic teaching, one way or the other, concerning whether or not there was plant and/or animal death prior to the fall. Church teaching is that human death resulted from the fall.

In Genesis, God’s words speak only of the death of man:
Gen 2:17 “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Doesn’t “death” in this context refer to spiritual death? Adam and Eve did not physically die immediately after eating the fruit. If it is only spiritual death that is a consequence of the Fall, and not physical death, then doesn’t that leave the possibility open that the normal departure from this world would be by physical death?

That’s because it was humans who wrote the Bible – the Bible is anthropocentric. If cats or camels or Homo habilis had written the Bible, perhaps it would be felocentric or camelocentric.

Umm…are camels in need of salvation?

Pope Benedict has made certain statements that show the Church is open to science, but that God must be part of Creation. As written, the theory of Evolution makes no allowance for God, and this cannot be. The Church does not support a mechanistic naturalism where we sprang from nothing and will die to nothing.

Theistic evolution allows for God, Darwinian evolution does not allow for God.

 

[First_of_9]

If you read the Bible without previous assumptions you will see that it is an eyewitness account.

Just curious. Who was the eyewitness? I thought it was just God, Adam and Eve? Moses has been traditionally considered the author of Genesis, but wasn’t he born several thousand years after the events of Genesis?

 

[edwest2]

During the Mass, Catholics say: “He (meaning God) has spoken through the prophets.”

All Scripture is inspired by God (see 2nd Timothy 3:16). There are those who come here and talk of the Bible as a myth written by men. Our Church was founded by Christ and St. Peter was the first leader of the Body of Christ on earth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Umm…are camels in need of salvation?
.

Yes, all creation is in need of salvation: Romas 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.”

 

[drpmjhess]

All Scripture is inspired by God (see 2nd Timothy 3:16). There are those who come here and talk of the Bible as a myth written by men. Ed

Ed, you generalize when you suggest that I am calling all the Bible myth. The biblical narrative over its many Old and New Testament books is composed of a wide range of genres, from myth and legend to history, prophecy, apodictic and casuistic law, poetry, and wisdom literature. If you study scripture carefully, you will see that the book of Genesis has the character of foundational cosmogonic myth, much like the myths of other peoples. It is particularly reflective of other Ancient Near Eastern myths. To say that the creation story in Genesis 1-2 is myth is not in any way to suggest that the gospels are myth.

What concerns me about your absolutist position is that it effectively renders Catholic thought and practice a cultural backwater. When Catholics pontificate falsely about natural science – in a way that is recognized as patently false by scientific experts – how can you expect scientists to draw any but negative conclusions about anything a Catholic has to say? your position is terribly damaging to the credibility of the Chruch just at the moment when the integrity of the Catholic voice is sorely needed in important moral debates. Please study some science. Better yet, read the works of Roman Catholic biologists such as Celia Deane Drummond or Ken Miller, or of Catholic theologians who understand science and have articulated sophisticated theological engagement with it, such as John Haught of Dennis Edwards.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[Benadam]

Just curious. Who was the eyewitness? I thought it was just God, Adam and Eve? Moses has been traditionally considered the author of Genesis, but wasn’t he born several thousand years after the events of Genesis?

The account of Adam and Eve was preserved within a relatively small group of people. Like most families like to do, the Genesis account was passed on directly from parent to child as a means of establishing an identity.

Moses did incorporate the concepts and ideas of deity pre-existing in foreign cultures but expressed them in relation to the God Identified with this now large family, a people who have remarkeably preserved their identity as children of Abraham. Abraham of course being a direct son of Sem son of Noe.

Genesis-11 *And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. *

and this rythm continues to beat.

Genesis-26 *And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. 27 And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. *

If you count the years Shem was still alive when God established a new Covenent with Abraham. I’m not absiolutely sure but he died shortly after that as if that was something he was promised to see.

So Moses would not only be familiar with this oral tradition but identify intimately with it as a person.

Moses also had a rare and exclusive education in Egyptian concepts of deity and the cosmology that accompanied it. But he identified with the God of his family origin. The God of his family revealed to Moses who he was in relation to the gods of egypt and consequently a cosmology including them had to be established because this family was becoming a nation among nations. The cosmology revealed the Egyptian gods as creatures, the God of Israel as the source of all existence including theirs " I am that I am", and the nation of Israel as the 'Chosen People" with an exclusive relationship with the God of Abraham the 'Most High God"