What do Catholics think of Kemp's Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter swamidass
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
swamidass said:
See this link: www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Catholic Philosopher Kenneth Kemp proposes and example of a Genealogical Adam and Eve, focusing on genealogical ancestry rather than genetic ancestry to affirm monogenesis. Ed Feser commented favorably on it, and Protestants are picking it up.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Entirely plausible (if you are a Catholic). It bridges the gap between the biological evidence and what the church teaches. It’s been suggested before within this forum. By @rossum I believe.
 
Last edited:
Yes, though Dr. Kemp has put a lot more work into the idea than I have. As he says, the apparent contradiction is resolved by distinguishing between a biological human with human genes and a theological human with both human genes and a human soul.
 
I posted the paper here before because I find it interesting. Note, it isn’t history or belief, but an argument that our theological monogenesis is not necessarily opposed to current science. I like the argument.

One could actually take Kemp’s proposal and still go with a nearly taking Genesis as literal history, with a literal garden, a literal fruit, Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam from clay, etc… Just when they were kicked out of the Garden Cain and Abel and Adam and Eve’s other children mated with the others from Kemp’s proposal. I don’t say I do that, but it could work. One would just need to go back much further than 6,000 year, but otherwise…

Others here dislike it.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Yes, though Dr. Kemp has put a lot more work into the idea than I have. As he says, the apparent contradiction is resolved by distinguishing between a biological human with human genes and a theological human with both human genes and a human soul.
Click to expand...
Not to belittle your contribution, but it’s a very simple and straightforward idea. But one that everyone who hears it thinks: ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Which is a mark of all great ideas.
 
Wesrock said:
One could actually take Kemp’s proposal and still go with a nearly taking Genesis as literal history, with a literal garden, a literal fruit, Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam from clay, etc…
Click to expand...
Yup. That’s what I did in my book, adding a lot of science to strengthen the case.
Wesrock said:
One would just need to go back much further than 6,000 year, but otherwise…
Click to expand...
Actually that isn’t right. It could be as recent as 6,000 years ago.


 
Last edited:
swamidass said:
40.png
Wozza:
Others here dislike it.
Click to expand...
Why don’t they like it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Because…it contradicts their fundamentalist beliefs…
Click to expand...
 
I know about Protestant fundamentalists. I don’t know much about Catholic fundamentalists. What would they say are their fundamental beliefs?
 
Last edited:
Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums!
swamidass said:
I’d link it to you but I can’t (why no links?).
Click to expand...
The system places a number of restrictions on new members until they accumulate a certain small amount of forum activity:
Get to trust level 1 by…
  • Entering at least 5 topics
  • Reading at least 30 posts
  • Spend a total of 10 minutes reading posts
Click to expand...
Source

Edit: I see that you’ve got past that now, and have successfully posted links. Great!
 
Last edited:
Are they literalists? Does AE have to be recent? Or could they be 200 Kya ago?
 
swamidass said:
Are they literalists? Does AE have to be recent? Or could they be 200 Kya ago?
Click to expand...
In my experience it varies. It would be unbecoming to name names, but I’m sure there’ll be one or two along in this thread shortly.
 
swamidass said:
So, some creationists are convinces over by this view. It will be interesting to see what they think.

The Genealogical Adam and Eve - InterVarsity Press
Click to expand...
Fascinating to see that you are ahead of the pack in regard to this matter. I was going to fork out a few $$ for your book but I see it’s not available until December. I’ll check out one or two of the Veritas discussions in the meantime (
). But I can see that you may well turn out to be the go-to guy whenever there are Genesis v Science discussions.

Welcome to the forum, SJS.
 
Wesrock said:
Others here dislike it.
Click to expand...
I have seen some Catholic theologians dislike this, not because they are creationists, but more like the opposite: they don’t want to add unproven assertions to science based on religious beliefs, they want to accept scientific consensus as is or not mix religion into scientific discourse.
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli said:
40.png
Wesrock:
Others here dislike it.
Click to expand...
I have seen some Catholic theologians dislike this, not because they are creationists, but more like the opposite: they don’t want to add unproven assertions to science based on religious beliefs, they want to accept scientific consensus as is or not mix religion into scientific discourse.
Click to expand...
And I would say it doesn’t do that. It’s not adding anything to science. It’s just an argument to show that the monogenesis of our faith isn’t necessarily contradictory to the current scientific consensus. It’s doesn’t need to be taken as an assertion that “this is how it happened.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top