Thank God for Evolution!

[SpiritMeadow]

Is it Catholic Dogma that Eve was created from Adam?

No matter how many times I ask this I’m always answered with silence. Why? Wouldn’t the answer to this question have some kind of bearing on the extent of evolution apart from any intervention of God who started it?

I don’t think it does. If you look at JPII’s Theology of the Body for instance, he discusses in separate chapters the two creation stories. In it he describes the two different authors, the time when they both were reduced to written form. He refers to the 2nd account, which is the more ancient of the two, as “primative mythical character”. Although I do not think he anywhere says that the accounts of adam and eve are fictional, he certainly spends most of his time on the theological truths to be gleaned rather than dissecting the “facts” as it were.

I’m just not sure why it is so important to make these determinations about fact or myth/allegory etc when the message is what is important. That seems to be the main thrust of JPII’s analysis anyway. He seeks to inform us of the truths which one should understand and thus how Jesus impacted those truths.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m just not sure why it is so important to make these determinations about fact or myth/allegory etc when the message is what is important.

SpiritMeadow, you are woman indefatigable! I’m still reeling from the 1400+ posts on the Genesis Vs. Evolution thread, and here we go again…
Petrus

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

To God, since he is self-existant and eternal, all things would have happened simultaneously at the “same time” to him. But to us, locked as we are in time and space, the appearance of the simultaneous divine creation event could indeed manifest within his creation in stages, just as the Genesis account claims.

Your interpretation is interesting but the fathers of Lateran IV and Vatican I gave no indication that their words were meant to be understood other than literally. Such a practice would quite out of step with such important declarations.

In any case the purpose of the Council’s dogma was to oppose the concrete but heretical belief:

1. of the world being eternal, as proposed by many Aristotelians - thus the definition states the world was created in the beginning of time to make clear the exact meaning of finitude.
2. by the Manichees of the visible material world not being within God’s power, by declaring that “all visible…things…were created from nothing” de nihilo (i.e.instantly).
3. that the world was not created solely (unum) by God’s omnipotent power omnipotenti virtute (i.e. without cooperation of instruments) as believed by the medieval Neo-Platonists. The Council’s formula was certainly meant to be undertood literally

References to the Lateran IV text by such emnent theolgologians as Thomas Aquinas Francesco Suarez showed they took it in the same way.

You also write:

Consequently, if your interpretation is correct, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that recent popes are in error on this manner-- since they do permit theistic evolution.

This would not be the first time; the Arian dispute as an example which went from the 4th to the 6th century.

Peter

 

[edwest2]

From the Library of this site:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Genesis is not a legend, and Adam and Eve were real people.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Genesis is not a legend, and Adam and Eve were real people.God bless,Ed

Parts of it are legend (e.g. willing daughter sacrifices, walking dryshod through seas), and parts are cosmogonic myth, like the bits about hexameral creation and the talking snake. And yes, “Adam” and “Eve” were groups of real people, even if we don’t know there names. 1400+ posts, and so the argument continues…

 

[Orogeny]

This would not be the first time; the Arian dispute as an example which went from the 4th to the 6th century.

The Arian dispute? newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
What is the first line in that article?

Is it your claim that, if they teach that evolution is true, the current and most recent popes are “in error” like those who were in error regarding Arianism?

Come on, Pete. Can’t you just say that which you have been implying?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Parts of it are legend (e.g. willing daughter sacrifices, walking dryshod through seas), and parts are cosmogonic myth, like the bits about hexameral creation and the talking snake. And yes, “Adam” and “Eve” were groups of real people, even if we don’t know there names. 1400+ posts, and so the argument continues…

According to the Library on this web site and Humani Generis, at present, the Church holds to Adam and Eve being two individuals.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

According to the Library on this web site and Humani Generis, at present, the Church holds to Adam and Eve being two individuals. Ed

Ed, if “Adam” and “Eve” were real, historical individuals, was the moral prohibition of incest suspended for one, two, or more generations? Or was there no such prohibition until the deuteronomic law came in?

 

[Peter_Wilders]

wildleafblower writes:

You missed the mark again Peter I’m a woman. You also negleted to notice that I caught your scriptual error which is ancient. Go thee to the Vatican and read the 2002 New American Bible, the new Catechism of the Chruch (which is the teachings of the Chruch), and Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

She does not say which “scriptural error” she caught. However, the quotation she gives from Pascendi should be taken negativel: not positively as she seems to be suggesting. It illustrates what the Church considers as error. Pope Pius X is condemning Modernism. The passage wildleafblower highlights in red:

Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.

is an example Pius X gives of the modernist approach. He is not saying that dogmas are liable to change; just the opposite, i.e. what the modernists think.

Peter

 

[drpmjhess]

Pope Pius X is condemning Modernism. He is not saying that dogmas are liable to change; just the opposite, i.e. what the modernists think.
Peter

But dogma is scientifically irrelevant, and therefore not binding on he women and men working daily with evolution in their biology labs.

 

[buffalo]

But dogma is scientifically irrelevant, and therefore not binding on he women and men working daily with evolution in their biology labs.

But truth is binding on us all.

Faith and Reason cannot be opposed for they come from the same God. Therefor a harmony must exist without resorting to syncretism. It is up to us to work harder.

 

[drpmjhess]

But truth is binding on us all.

True. What I am saying is that working scientists are not bound by any out-of-date dogmatic pronouncements about biology, or geology, or physics, or cosmology, or neuroscience, whether by Catholics or Muslims or any other religious body.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

True. What I am saying is that working scientists are not bound by any out-of-date dogmatic pronouncements about biology, or geology, or physics, or cosmology, or neuroscience, whether by Catholics or Muslims or any other religious body.

Petrus

Dogma and scientific pursuit must harmonize.

If science does not support revealed truth then one must kepp working for they cannot be opposed. Revealed truth is direct from God and trumps human reason.

If you do not agree with this then you are saying that Revelation is not truth.

 

[Ahimsa]

I guess I’m going to have to read through this more. There are some things that I find hard to understand. I have to admit that I believe that Adam and Eve are real people too.

Would this view be compatable if they were considered real?

Yep, it would be compatible. Even scientifically speaking, one could argue that at some point in time, the first true human was born from not-quite-yet-fully-human parents, and so that first human could be termed “Adam”, and the next true human to be born was a woman, “Eve”.

I think the narrative of Eve coming from Adam’s rib is an account that attempts to explain why men and women relate to another the way they do: since Adam was, in some sense, Eve’s “father”, and since Eve and Adam got “married”, the story of Eve coming from Adam’s rib explains why women tend to marry guys who remind them of their fathers; and why men say regarding women: can’t live with them (since one could make the argument that Adam’s extra rib was actually causing him chest pains), can’t live without’em (since Adam needed Eve, however much he didn’t want to need her).

But, seriously, back to the story of the Fall. In order to fall, you must be at some higher position. Whatever distinguishes humans from animals, it is somehow connected to the greater potential within humanity for rational, logical thought. The very first true human couple had tremendously more advanced abilities to think, compared to their not-yet-quite-true-human parents. But the first human couple mis-used their potential, thus creating a sort of “Fall” from what could have been.

There’s a secret, hidden meaning found in the rib story. You know that there are two sets of ribs, one on each side of the body. Genesis only explicitly mentions Eve being made, from one side, one rib. What about the other side, the other rib? To leave Adam with one-half of the rib missing, would have been senseless. So Mary represents this other one-half of the missing rib, and Mary then represents that part of humanity free from the results of the “original” sin of Adam and Eve. So, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is actually hidden within the Genesis story. And guess how Adam’s rib was actually taken out of his body? Who actually performed the operation? It was God the Son who did it, thus making Mary’s sinlessness a result of the actions of the saving power of God the Son.

 

[edwest2]

I suggest those who are curious pick up a Catechism or read the one online. The “God did this but not that, maybe” camp for explaining the Bible is not convincing in the least.

This is why reading the Catechism is so important for Catholics. Adam and Eve are described as our first parents; that is, as individuals. Sometimes, science needs to step aside and let God perform miracles as He will.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Sometimes, science needs to step aside and let God perform miracles as He will.
God bless,
Ed

Science does not step aside for religion. There are many many religions. Which should science bow to? Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Anglicans, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Sufis, Ahmadiyya Islam, Spiritualists, Unitarians, Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism, Hasidic Judaism Shinto, jainism, Rastafarianism, Scientology? With all their own peculiar ideas about the natural world.

Science acknowledges only evidence and logic. As it should be.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

The Church combines science with divine revelation, giving the Body of Christ the complete answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

The Church combines science with divine revelation, giving the Body of Christ the complete answer. God bless,
Ed

Rather, according to your view, the Church combines selected bits of revelation with selected bits of science that happen to be palatable. Many traditions do that – skewing their interpretation of science to fit a particular world view.

 

[edwest2]

Yes? And this is a problem why? All science is brought under review by the Church as it always has been. Pope Benedict looks at science and divine revelation as complementary, don’t you?

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes? And this is a problem why? All science is brought under review by the Church as it always has been. Pope Benedict looks at science and divine revelation as complementary, don’t you?God bless,Ed

Of course. But religion-science complementarity for me does not mean (as it evidently does for you) that science needs to reject the antiquity of the earth nor the evolutionary history of its many species. Science is not the handmaiden of theology; nor is theology the handmaiden of science. True complementarity lies in each discipline respecting the integrity and competence of the other in its own sphere.

Petrus