Two questions about Adam and Eve

[Gorgias]

Despite this fact which some ignore.-- the Catholic Church opposes the population concept within the science of human evolution where paleoanthropology is prominent.

The Church does not make theological, doctrinal statements about science.

Here is a recent evaluation of the Adam and Eve puzzle.

Odd that you should cite this article, since what it says seems to contradict what you’re saying:

“This universal evolutionary perspective leads many Catholics and others to conclude that a literal Adam and Eve is ‘scientifically impossible’ … This skepticism of a literal Adam and Eve begs for four much needed corrections.”

“A literal Adam and Eve remains rationally, scientifically credible.”

 

[tdgesq]

I totally agree with the need for citations. Shall we start with these?

Citations:
Romans 5: 12-21
1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

Thank you. Rather than risk dueling interpretations of Scripture, I thought it might be better to set forth the de fide teachings of the Church that are based on these Scriptural passages:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

[2]. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: Council of Trent.

In summary: (1) Adam was the first man, who transgressed God’s command in paradise; and (2) Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.

Taking proposition (1), Catholics must believe that Adam was the first man. A “man” is a rational animal infused with a human soul formed in the image of God, and it is God who infuses the soul at the moment of conception. If there is any doubt this is Catholic teaching I can provide the authority. The Church is not describing a group of primitive hominids, or even a biological genus and species e.g. Homo sapiens. It does not particularly concern me then if there were prior primitive hominids from which the first man biologically evolved. Neither does it concern me if there was an existing group of the same biological species at the time the first man, Adam, was ensouled.

Proposition (2) states that original sin is transmitted to all men by descent; by natural generation. Thus, all men (as defined above) are ultimate biological descendants of Adam. How exactly original sin is transmitted in this process is unknown, as is admitted by CCC 404. Again, even if there was a group population of the same species existing at the time of Adam, it does no violence to the doctrine that all subsequent men descended from Adam, thereby inheriting original sin.

I’m not maintaining that the “group concept,” as you put it, is a viable scientific evolutionary theory. I’m simply asserting that even if it is, it doesn’t contradict the dogma of the Catholic Church set forth above.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does not make theological, doctrinal statements about science.

The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, makes theological doctrinal statements regarding Divine Revelation**.** Therefore, it has the duty to declare that all humankind descended from two sole human parents. Therefore, it has the duty to oppose the theory that humankind descended from an effective population numbering in the thousands. It should be apparent that a founding population of two opposes a founding population of thousands.

If one wishes to talk about science, then I strongly suggest that one first find out what is scientifically being proposed. Even science knows the difference between a founding population of thousands and a founding population of two.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you. Rather than risk dueling interpretations of Scripture, I thought it might be better to set forth the de fide teachings of the Church that are based on these Scriptural passages:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

[2]. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema:
Council of Trent.

In summary: (1) Adam was the first man, who transgressed God’s command in paradise; and (2) Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.

Taking proposition (1), Catholics must believe that Adam was the first man. A “man” is a rational animal infused with a human soul formed in the image of God, and it is God who infuses the soul at the moment of conception. If there is any doubt this is Catholic teaching I can provide the authority. The Church is not describing a group of primitive hominids, or even a biological genus and species e.g. Homo sapiens. It does not particularly concern me then if there were prior primitive hominids from which the first man biologically evolved. Neither does it concern me if there was an existing group of the same biological species at the time the first man, Adam, was ensouled.

Proposition (2) states that original sin is transmitted to all men by descent; by natural generation. Thus, all men (as defined above) are ultimate biological descendants of Adam. How exactly original sin is transmitted in this process is unknown, as is admitted by CCC 404. Again, even if there was a group population of the same species existing at the time of Adam, it does no violence to the doctrine that all subsequent men descended from Adam, thereby inheriting original sin.

I’m not maintaining that the “group concept,” as you put it, is a viable scientific evolutionary theory. I’m simply asserting that even if it is, it doesn’t contradict the dogma of the Catholic Church set forth above.

First of all, the scientific community has done some language changes to reflect current research. The lineage from the Homo/Pan split is now known as hominins.

Second, Adam and Eve could have a similar biological makeup as any hominin population. We are vertebrates and therefore share similarities with other vertebrates.

Adam and Eve could be a separate part of a group. Speaking from the science position, the science of human evolution does not plot a group of two complete human beings on the cladistics diagram. The groups in the language of science do not include an individual group of two fully-complete humans.

On one hand, science does not have a discernible group of two true fully-complete human persons. Adam and his spouse Eve did not exist.

On the other hand, is the absence of a group of real two fully-complete human parents a Catholic doctrine? Nowhere in the proper documents presented in post 81, is there a statement that says that a group of rational real two fully-complete humans did not exist.

On the other hand, in 1995, the paper The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins by Francisco J. Ayala states in the “Population Bottlenecks” section.
“Neither the mtDNA results nor the ZFY results lead to the conclusion that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples have occurred in human ancestral history.”

In the language of ordinary folk, this was interpreted as no Adam and Eve.

In the language of science, this was interpreted as the necessity of large populations in order to produce the human population.

From the viewpoint of science, there is no individual group consisting of two founders of the human species.

From the viewpoint of Divine Revelation, there is an individual group consisting of Adam and his spouse.

In my humble opinion, the above demonstrates that the current science of human evolution does contradict the Catholic dogma on human origin.

 

[Gorgias]

The Catholic Church…has the duty to declare that all humankind descended from two sole human parents. Therefore, it has the duty to oppose the theory that humankind descended from an effective population numbering in the thousands.

We’ve been around this block before, granny.

The Church defines a human as a person with a soul. Science doesn’t talk about ‘souls’. Therefore, the Church doesn’t have to refute what science says about ‘hominins’, since science can’t point to any two (or ten, or ten thousand) hominins and say "here! these are humans with souls!’

It should be apparent that a founding population of two opposes a founding population of thousands.

The founding population of two are humans with souls. The founding population of thousands are hominins. No need to posit conflict, since the two statements are fundamentally different in a qualitative sense.

If one wishes to talk about science, then I strongly suggest that one first find out what is scientifically being proposed.

That’s funny. I mean, really funny. In the other thread, I asked you for a scientific definition of ‘human.’ Do you recall your response? It was along the lines of “in the process of developing the traits that modern humans have.” I asked – and found out from you – what “is scientifically being proposed.” It’s not “humans with souls”, which is the subject matter of Church teaching. Unless you can demonstrate that science trucks in souls, there’s really no substance to your assertions.

Even science knows the difference between a founding population of thousands and a founding population of two.

Even theologians know the difference between hominins and humans.

 

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, the above demonstrates that the current science of human evolution does contradict the Catholic dogma on human origin.

THE GOOD NEWS IS

At the same time that we can understand that the Science of Human Evolution does not allow the existence of a population of two, Adam and Eve, we can examine the methods and materials which provide the evidence.

The first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.

Because it is difficult to observe active genes in living organisms going thousands of years backwards, theories are formed. For example. From The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins by Francisco J. Ayala.
Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995.
page 1931. “The coalescence theory examines the genealogical relations between genes (footnote 11). According to this theory, all genes (alleles) present in an extant population must have descended from a single gene, to which they coalesce.”

page 1932. Section “Experimental Simulated Populations”. The coalescence theory draws inferences about past events on the basis of observations about current polymorphisms."

page 1934. “Computer-simulated populations are useful for exploring the minimum bottleneck size that would allow the persistence of the DRB1 polymorphisms.”

Sidebar: The Wright-Fisher model is the simplest population genetic model in use. However, I recently saw a claim that a new model was compensating for some of the drawbacks in the Wright-Fisher model. Whether or not this claim has been sufficiently tested, I do not know. The point is that in every model going thousands of years backwards, assumptions are necessary.

Regarding Adam and Eve.

With all the new technology and the completion of the Human Genome Project, assumptions are still part of a “human” research project. This means that a research paper can only say that available data points to probability. The research paper cannot universally rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve. An universal denial of the possibility of Adam and Eve is not warranted by the available evidence going thousands of years backwards.

We need to respect natural science because it is a “gift” from God. Natural science has benefited humankind especially in the medical arena. Still, we need to recognize that science is an on-going work project. People like Motoo Kimura and Carl Woese are continually discovering more ways in which “genetics” operate. The media delights in paleoanthropology discoveries.

The simple fact of lean data going thousands of years backwards continues to point to the possibility of Adam and Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

For example. From The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins by Francisco J. Ayala. Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995.

From the article which you previously cited: “Indeed, the most famous genetic study proclaimed as a ‘scientific objection’ to Adam and Eve turned out to be based on methodological errors. An article by geneticist Francisco J. Ayala appearing in the journal, Science (1995), led many to believe that a founding population of only two individuals was impossible… However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors.”

The simple fact of lean data going thousands of years backwards continues to point to the possibility of Adam and Eve.

This is what atheists and agnostics refer to as the “god of the gaps” – that is, they claim that we can only posit God where science cannot refute Him. It’s not a terribly effective (or valid) approach…

 

[Kelt]

The simple fact of lean data going thousands of years backwards continues to point to the possibility of Adam and Eve.

No it doesn’t!

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*

The simple fact of lean data going thousands of years backwards continues to point to the possibility of Adam and Eve. *

No it doesn’t!

There is no need for me to derail this thread by getting into a discussion of what is lean data and what is not lean data. That is up to the editors of peer reviewed journals.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no need for me to derail this thread by getting into a discussion of what is lean data and what is not lean data. That is up to the editors of peer reviewed journals.

Hmm… is Kelt’s objection based on the notion of ‘lean data’ or the notion that, devoid of scientific evidence, Scriptural texts are presumed scientifically true? My comments – and my guess at Kelt’s objection – were addressed against the latter…

 

[grannymh]

Hmm… is Kelt’s objection based on the notion of ‘lean data’ or the notion that, devoid of scientific evidence, Scriptural texts are presumed scientifically true? My comments – and my guess at Kelt’s objection – were addressed against the latter…

Either pro or con — The “notion that, devoid of scientific evidence, Scripture texts are presumed scientifically true” belongs in another thread.

 

[Kelt]

Hmm… is Kelt’s objection based on the notion of ‘lean data’ or the notion that, devoid of scientific evidence, Scriptural texts are presumed scientifically true? My comments – and my guess at Kelt’s objection – were addressed against the latter…

Yup, you’re right there. 2 single humans could not start the human race. It’s only hard to understand when religious dogma gets in the way.

 

[Kelt]

The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, makes theological doctrinal statements regarding Divine Revelation**.** Therefore, it has the duty to declare that all humankind descended from two sole human parents. Therefore, it has the duty to oppose the theory that humankind descended from an effective population numbering in the thousands. It should be apparent that a founding population of two opposes a founding population of thousands.

If one wishes to talk about science, then I strongly suggest that one first find out what is scientifically being proposed. Even science knows the difference between a founding population of thousands and a founding population of two.

If you believe that the elders in the Catholic Church can somehow tap into divine guidance, what happened when they got it wrong about Galileo?
They are men doing their best with the knowledge and influences of the times.

 

[grannymh]

If you believe that the elders in the Catholic Church can somehow tap into divine guidance, what happened when they got it wrong about Galileo?
They are men doing their best with the knowledge and influences of the times.

From post 92.
“If you believe that the elders in the Catholic Church can somehow tap into divine guidance, what happened when they got it wrong about Galileo?
They are men doing their best with the knowledge and influences of the times.”
Thank you. This is an excellent example that hundreds of Catholic CAF members are not aware of the comprehensive protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth when it comes to the extensive process of properly declaring. Divine Revelation during a major ecumenical council.

If you want information about the issues in the local trial of Galileo, you need to discuss this on another thread. It is off topic here.

 

[grannymh]

From Post 1.
Question 2. “Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?”

From Neofight, post 4.
Answer. “Yes. All of the human race descended 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”
Tobit: 8:6

When we add in Romans 5: 12-21,1 Corinthians 15: 21-22, and Eucharistic Prayer IV, we discover that the importance of the first human individual is a consistent theme starting with the first three chapter of Genesis. This importance is one of the building blocks for the Catholic teachings that all humankind is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Information source. St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1; CCC 404) During a major ecumenical council, dots are connected.

Joseph and Mary are truly and deeply significant because their valid inclusion within the descendants of Adam underscores the necessary connection between Jesus Christ and Original Sin. It is Christ’s victory over death which makes it possible for us to receive the grace of Baptism.

 

[tdgesq]

From Post 1.
Question 2. “Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?”

From Neofight, post 4.
Answer. “Yes. All of the human race descended 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”
Tobit: 8:6

When we add in Romans 5: 12-21,1 Corinthians 15: 21-22, and Eucharistic Prayer IV, we discover that the importance of the first human individual is a consistent theme starting with the first three chapter of Genesis. This importance is one of the building blocks for the Catholic teachings that all humankind is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Information source. St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1; CCC 404) During a major ecumenical council, dots are connected.

I did read your earlier response about your take on the current state of scientific evolutionary theory. While you conclude that there is a conflict with Catholic teaching, I don’t follow the reasoning. I’m quite willing to accept your interpretation of Tobit that from Adam and Eve the entire human race descended; that is if the entire human race means people with souls as opposed to human-like animals without souls.

Science cannot falsify that two ensouled human beings ultimately begat all subsequent ensouled human beings, even at a genetic level. I do not have any genetic material from most of my ancestors, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t truly my ancestors. In fact, it is statistically improbable that that we would all today have genetic material from our first parents - Adam and Eve.

So again, I don’t perceive the same conflict you do on this issue.

 

[grannymh]

I did read your earlier response about your take on the current state of scientific evolutionary theory. While you conclude that there is a conflict with Catholic teaching, I don’t follow the reasoning. I’m quite willing to accept your interpretation of Tobit that from Adam and Eve the entire human race descended; that is if the entire human race means people with souls as opposed to human-like animals without souls.

Science cannot falsify that two ensouled human beings ultimately begat all subsequent ensouled human beings, even at a genetic level. I do not have any genetic material from most of my ancestors, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t truly my ancestors. In fact, it is statistically improbable that that we would all today have genetic material from our first parents - Adam and Eve.

So again, I don’t perceive the same conflict you do on this issue.

Not seeing the conflict is common because many people have not caught up with the science of human evolution in the 21st century. Thus, they are somewhat blinded when it comes to nailing the actual conflict. Also, there can be a narrow view of science research because most people do not have access to methods, materials, and supplementary information. Nor do many people grasp the difference between probable and impossible which is tad removed from the lack of falsification.

My use of Tobit had nothing to do with people with souls as opposed to human-like animals without souls. The misunderstanding is most likely due to the fact that few Catholics are aware of the protocol for defining Catholic doctrines. I often repeat that not every verse of every chapter of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. This is a basic in the protocol of the visible Catholic Church.

Another problem that some Catholics are having is that a truly deep study of the first three chapters of Genesis is rarely undertaken. The basic problem, which I observe, is that it is extremely difficult to go from our human nature to the human nature of Adam. That may be because some people are intimidated by the opposition of the “god of the gaps” theory. Or that “perfect” is the current word of the day.

Another basic part of Church protocol is to spend time connecting the dots in order to understand Divine Revelation in a correct manner. I gave as an example of the dots, Tobit 8:6, Romans 5: 12-21;1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; and Eucharistic Prayer IV. I added Eucharistic Prayer IV because it refers back to the first three chapters of Genesis.

All of the above impacts the OP question 2. “Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?” It should be obvious that in order for Adam and Eve’s descendants to include the names of real people, Joseph and Mary, Adam and Eve had to be real.

I am a simple granny who did not do well in math. However, I can understand that a scientific population of thousands as the source of human nature (Adam’s) does contradict the Catholic teaching of a founding population of two.

A small note about genetic material. If you are a vertebrate with both digestive and immune systems, you have plenty of genetic material from the first two humans, that is, if you consider the first two humans as having a true human nature. The Catholic Church teaches that the first two humans did have a true human nature.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Pain is a consequence of mortality, and for man, mortality (death)was a consequence of sin. So, before the fall, man did not know pain, because up to that point he was immortal.

Was it “physical death” that “was a consequence of sin” or was it “spiritual death”?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Adam and Eve are two literal, actual, real persons. That is Catholic Dogma, revealed to us by God and requires the assent of faith.

-Tim-

Really?

And the whole story is literal?

Or should I say both stories since there are two accounts and they are not both the exact same, are you saying that both are literal and true?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by TimothyH forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Adam and Eve are two literal, actual, real persons. That is Catholic Dogma, revealed to us by God and requires the assent of faith.
*
-Tim-

Really?

And the whole story is literal?

As I said in post 96 .
“The misunderstanding is most likely due to the fact that few Catholics are aware of the protocol for defining Catholic doctrines. I often repeat that not every verse of every chapter of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. This is a basic in the protocol of the visible Catholic Church.”

You might be interested in some of the other problems (post 96) that some Catholics have regarding the OP question 2.