What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

[edwest211]

Pope Benedict

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Is this supposed to contradict something I said?

 

[opop]

This is not completely accurate.

We are obligate as part of Church doctrine to acknowledge the existence of our first parents, Adam and Eve, and that these two were the first to sin. We are free to believe that there were other human-like entities at this time, but in Catholic parlance, the soul is what makes us truly human, and it is the presence of the soul which distinguishes our first parents as separate from their potential evolutionary brethren.

What is your source? The Church document I showed explicitely contradicts this. It clearly considers polygenism a viable option. And it is also what is said in many other catholic sources a read or listen. For example this: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

 

[opop]

As stated, we’re obligated to believe in a historical first man and a historical first woman who sinned, not that man in general collectively sinned. We are free to understand the related history to be told in a mythological style.

Same answer than to ProdglArchitect: What is your source? The Church document I showed explicitely contradicts this. It clearly considers polygenism a viable option. And it is also what is said in many other catholic sources a read. For example this: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

As stated, we’re obligated to believe in a historical first man and a historical first woman who sinned, not that man in general collectively sinned. We are free to understand the related history to be told in a mythological style.

Same answer than to ProdglArchitect: What is your source? The Church document I showed explicitely contradicts this. It clearly considers polygenism a viable option. And it is also what is said in many other catholic sources a read. For example this: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

There’s a difference between biological polygenism and theological polygenism. Kenneth Kemp wrote an interesting proposal on how the two might be reconciled. As for source: Humani Generis.

1. 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 that either 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 that 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.

While I think there are things Pope Pius XII did not consider about how the situation could be reconciled, the bolded are absolute truths about what Catholics cannot profess.

I would also direct you to my first post in this topic (post# 4): What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians - #4 by Wesrock

 

[Wesrock]

@opop

For the Kenneth Kemp proposal I mentioned, refer to https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw2Ktin5dAK1i387rHys-0wr

The distinction I’m making should be clearer after reading that.

 

[opop]

the bolded are absolute truths about what Catholics cannot profess.

First, this encyclical is not infallible. Secondly and more importantly, it has been contradicted by the more recent document from International Theological Commission. What do you say about this document?

While waiting for your answers, I will read the Kemp’s proposal you showed me.

 

[Wesrock]

First, from the Thomist Evolution website:

In other words, at face value, Pope Pius XII ruled out polygenism because he could not imagine how an account of several original first couples could be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. As we will discuss in the essays that follow, this is not surprising because scientists in 1950 believed that the human race was descended from several original first non-human couples who were scattered throughout the planet.

As we will also see, scientists today now think that our species is descended from several first human couples living in the same geographical area. Therefore, in the fourth essay on the historicity of Adam and Eve, I will propose that this contemporary scientific account on human origins can be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. Thus, I will argue that an account of polygenism that is in accord with everything that we know and believe about original sin remains true to the magisterial statement of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis.

This, and everything else about their own position that they say, sounds perfectly in accord with my own beliefs and what I stated previously. They did not deny Adam’s historicity or advocate for original sin being done by a population of humans in general.

Do you have a link to the references paper by the theological commission?

 

[Wesrock]

Your own Thomistic Evolution Essays actually overlap very much with what I’ve been saying.

With God’s infusion of the human soul, they would be the first instances of behaviorally modern human infants surrounded by a tribe of closely related anatomically modern relatives who would not have full language capacity.

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...and-eve-part-ii-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...ity-of-adam-and-eve-part-iii-scientific-data/

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...adam-and-eve-part-iv-a-theological-synthesis/

It’s all very similar to what I’m saying, and does not suggest that there were ever true men not descended from Adam or that Adam “represents” a number of first parents, but makes pretty much the same distinction I have and Kenneth Kemp does.

 

[opop]

This, and everything else about their own position that they say, sounds perfectly in accord with my own beliefs and what I stated previously. They did not deny Adam’s historicity or advocate for original sin being done by a population of humans in general.

Do you have a link to the references paper by the theological commission?

They say here that the non-historicity of Adam is compatible with faith: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...adam-and-eve-part-iv-a-theological-synthesis/

Extract: I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative. First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.

And here’s the document from the commission: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This, and everything else about their own position that they say, sounds perfectly in accord with my own beliefs and what I stated previously. They did not deny Adam’s historicity or advocate for original sin being done by a population of humans in general.

Do you have a link to the references paper by the theological commission?

They say here that the non-historicity of Adama is compatible with faith: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...adam-and-eve-part-iv-a-theological-synthesis/

Extract: I am often asked three questions in response to this theological narrative. First, does the narrative presuppose single or multiple original parents? Neither. It suggests that both possibilities can be reconciled with the theological data because there could either have been one contemporaneous original couple or a handful of original contemporaneous and even related members of a family. In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same.

We posted at about the same time. The article is saying the same thing I’m saying. It specifically makes the same distinction. It does not affirm Adam represents a certain number of first parents or that there are any true men not descended from him. It affirms him as a historical figure and is in accord with what Pius XII stated in Humani generis. It makes a distinction almost exactly similar to the one Kenneth Kemp makes between what I will call biologically similar but unensouled humans and true humans.

It supports and harmonizes with Humani generis, not disputes it.

And here’s the document from the commission: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Thank you. I’ll give it a look

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[edwest211]

Adam and biology do not go together where the soul is concerned. This is strange speculation. Eve was not born in the conventional way.

 

[opop]

The article is saying the same thing I’m saying. It specifically makes the same distinction. It does not affirm Adam represents a certain number of first parents or that there are any true men not descended from him. It affirms him as a historical figure

Then how do you interpret this sentence:

In the same way that Eve led Adam to sin, if there was in fact a first community, one or more of the original speaking bipeds could have led his or her relatives to do the same

Aren’t they explicitely saying here that it is a possibility that the original sin was committed by a community instead of a single couple? “Speaking bipeds” here means theological humans.

 

[wiggbuggie1]

you can believe in evolution as long as you say God guided it and not by mere chance, as for adam and eve they were the first couple with a soul given from God.

 

[edwest211]

Adam and Eve started with preternatural gifts given to them by God:

impassibility (freedom from pain)
immortality (freedom from death)
integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)
infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)

When they committed Original Sin, God the Father later sent His Son to be born.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@opop It’s one of those things that faithful, orthodox Catholics have different views on. Of course monogenism is the more popular view now, just as 300 years ago (before Darwin), I suppose a literalistic view of Genesis was the popular view.

I suppose the common perception among many Catholics is that monogenism is 100% fact, even if that’s only monogenism in the sense of two “true” humans with immortal souls. But even here, I am of the opinion that that remains a perception that is largely skewed based on how the popular Catholic consensus talks about the issue. Whereas, when you look deeper into the scientific developments and how Catholic theologians (including Vatican) interact with them, it suggests more of a grey area.

Faithful Catholics who argue that polygenism can be reconciled with the Church still do so in a way that maintains the doctrines of Original Sin and the Redemption. As the theological commission indicated above, the Church is gradually opening up to alternative theories.

As the Catholic Answers article stated above (linked in a previous post), the magisterium has generally not used terms like “monogenism” and “polygenism” since the time of Humani Generis. There have been many scientific developments since then, and the magisterium has tended to be more in listening mode.

 

[PetraG]

Nah, we’re Star Dust

The Big Bang came from a monsignor:

The Vatican astronomical observatory commemorates the monsignor who discovered the Big Bang - La Stampa

We are celebrating a very fervent Belgian priest, who became Monsignor and was part of the Priestly Fraternity of the Friends of Jesus, founded by Cardinal Mercier Bishop of Malines. Every day he would meditate for one hour and attend 8 week long spiritual retreats . He was also a great cosmologist. It was he who had the first idea of the big bang, and was opposed until close to death in 1965, when the underlying radiation of the cosmos was discovered, proving he was right and that Fred Hoyle’s concurrent theory of the stationary model of the Universe was wrong.

Stars are the nuclear reactors of the cosmos, so yes, the scientists at the Vatican Observatory would confirm that the dust we come from and will return to is indeed star dust.

 

[opop]

I read the Kemp’s proposal. It is interesting, but I’m far from convinced. There are two huge difficulties:

First, if God gave rational souls to only two humans, it means that God’s original intention was that the first theologically human population reproduce by brother-sister incest. Which would imply that brother-sister incest is not intrinsically wrong. I find that hard to swallow. But apart from this moral problem, there is also the fact that genetics and experience show us that brother-sister incest is not a viable option. It produces disabled offsprings and the gene pool is therefore too small for successful breeding.

Secondly, the Kemp’s theory also implies that God can choose to give or not a soul to a human body. This would mean that, if God wanted, he could refuse to give a soul to any embryo conceived by theologically human parents. So humans with souls could give birth to a mere animal. This, although not proved wrong until now, seems utterly wrong in every aspect. Kemp also admits that it presents a problem for the hylemorphic view of the body-soul relationship

 

[PetraG]

I read the Kemp’s proposal. It is interesting, but I’m far from convinced. There are two huge difficulties:

First, if God gave rational souls to only two humans, it means that God’s original intention was that the first theologically human population reproduce by brother-sister incest. Which would imply that brother-sister incest is not intrinsically wrong. I find that hard to swallow. But apart from this moral problem, there is also the fact that genetics and experience show us that brother-sister incest is not a viable option. It produces disabled offsprings and the gene pool is therefore too small for successful breeding.

Secondly, the Kemp’s theory also implies that God can choose to give or not a soul to a human body. This would mean that, if God wanted, he could refuse to give a soul to any embryo conceived by theologically human parents. So humans with souls could give birth to a mere animal. This, although not proved wrong until now, seems utterly wrong in every aspect. Kemp also admits that it presents a problem for the hylemorphic view of the body-soul relationship

Not if it is in the nature of the gift that it elevates the entire line by elevating the first parent of the line.

How would this be different than a spontaneous mutation in one mother’s mitochondrial DNA, which obviously arises in a single individual and then is passed down thereafter in every egg in her line? That’s pure biology, conjectured to be a feature of a common female ancestor of all humans who it has been guessed lived approximately 150,000 years ago and it works out just fine. The math works for it, and the mechanism exists for it, so it is possible on a merely physical level, even.

On the a biological level (as something of an aside, but bear with me) a ‘mitochondrial Eve’ would be whatever woman is the first one whose entire line happens to coincide with today’s entire population. Let’s say she had five great great granddaughters, but the human population shifted so that one of them had her mitochondrial DNA in all humanity that remained alive. In biology, that great granddaughter who is the most recent ancestor to be the ancestor of all the living would become the 'mitochondrial Eve." I mean to point out that biology’s popular ‘mitochondrial Eve’ doesn’t imply the same thing as Biblical Eve. It is a romantic reference, never meant to be a direct analogy, let alone the identical single person.

Having said all of that, isn’t it quite possible on a spiritual plane that every child begotten of a human with an immortal soul would also have an immortal soul? Isn’t it possible that this is the nature of the gift? It is also possible that there was one couple with immortal souls who were also the historical progenitors of original sin. It is the effect of that act that makes that couple the singular Adam and Eve. If only the children of Noah survived to the present day, Noah wouldn’t be the human responsible for the Fall, so Noah wouldn’t gain the mantle of “Adam” just because everyone with a soul was descended from him.

Does that work for you, theoretically?