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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
polygenism in the context of Catholic teaching
From Humani Generis:

“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 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.[12]”
 
The ability to interbreed with ‘modern’ humans is all it takes.
Still, there is not a scientific reason to come to any theological conclusion, one way or the other, concerning the presence of an immortal soul. They did not survive as a species to the present day, so we do not know that. There is some evidence (as an example) that they buried their dead with some care and–as you note–were capable of art, but it is possible that they were sentient and yet not capable of a fully human form of religion or the moral life. They may have been innocents, incapable of sin because they were objectively incapable of awareness of divine law. It is impossible to know exactly what sort of creatures the Almighty intended them to be…that is, like the great apes, like Homo sapiens, or even unlike either one, something we cannot comprehend because it did not please Providence to require us (or allow us) to understand it.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the species Homo sapiens was given the gift of an Adam and Eve created incarnate directly from mud, made in the image and likeness of God. If their contribution to the human race was only male, then as a biological matter that Eve would not be identical to “mitochondrial Eve.” There is no reason Providence would have to make them biologically discernible from other people, but only spiritually different.

I’m not saying this happened, but by the Incarnation (if nothing else) we know that nothing is impossible for God. We cannot exclude possibilities merely because they would have required supernatural intervention. We can’t propose “then a miracle occurred” as a scientific theory, but we have to be aware that we know by divine revelation that turning points in human history can sometimes be beyond the forensic capacity of anthropologists and archaeologists.
 
Last edited:
And I do NOT find the writings to be problematic. Again, as I said above, faithful Catholics have disagreement over the monogenism question. Until the Vatican starts hushing these theologians and views, we have no real reason to think they are incorrect. True, they aren’t the most popular theories, but our job as Catholics (as we have realized since Galileo) is not to be so quick to dismiss science in favor of a per-conceived theological construct.

Again, the Vatican since Humani Generis has hardly even used terms like “monogenism.”
 
Last edited:
Right, and as faithful theologians and others make use of this passage, they understand HG to be saying here that polygenism cannot be accepted if its not reconcilable with Original Sin. But the orthodox theologians who speculate about polygenism do just that: Try to reconcile Original Sin with it.

And it makes since in Pope Pius’ day, for I believe the major theories were that humans arose in independent populations throughout the globe — obviously hard to reconcile with common descent and original sin. But that’s not even what scientists today mean by polygenism: there’s much more evidence of common location (e.g., Africa) of our human ancestors.
 
Scientists stated that the whole human race can be traced back to one person, because of a common gene we all share, and I think the term they called it is the ‘Eve Chromosome’

I will have to find this website and post it here ☺️
 
You imply that Scripture has limited inerrancy, which is not the case. Sacred Scripture indeed teaches about creation and history as part of salvation history.
No I don’t imply that. The Church says that the Bible has full inerrancy, but only on a theological point of view. It only tells us about true historical facts when it is useful for our salvation. Knowing the name of the fist moron who messed up will not help us to be more saint.
Some things are not to be taken completely literalistically but literally.
Yes and it is the task of the Church to tell us which parts must be taken literally and which not. Until now, as I said, monogenism is not an infallible teaching and debate is permitted.
God does not lie or mislead as primary author of Sacred Scripture.
Writing a poem or an allegorical text is not lying.
But by no means is that blanket permission to wipe out teaching to accommodate the whims of scientific theory.
I don’t “wipe out teaching” since, as already stated, monogenism is not an infallible teaching an the Church allows debate on the matter. You can believe in the historicity of Adam and I’m sure many theologians do. But you don’t have the right to say that all Catholics are obliged to believe in it as well, because this is simply not true.
The big bang has nothing to do with Adam and Eve, polygenism, original sin, etc. The big bang is not proven, it is just the prevailing theory of the day.
The big bang itself is not proven, but it is proven that the universe is billions years old. What I was trying to say is that in the same way that the Church Fathers believed in a six days creation is not a good reason to deny a billions years old universe, the fact that the Church Fathers believed in monogenism is not a good reason to deny polygenism.
 
Scientists stated that the whole human race can be traced back to one person, because of a common gene we all share, and I think the term they called it is the ‘Eve Chromosome’

I will have to find this website and post it here 🙂
That is what I meant by the mitochondrial Eve. The DNA is in the mitochondria, and mitochondria are passed on in the egg only, the sperm being too stripped-down to include mitochondria. (Mitochondria are essentially intercellular symbiots, little nations of their own with their own DNA.)
 
Last edited:
With the scriptures tell a much different history of the migration spread, what evidence or arguments could you say would convince me that Adam and Eve are real?
In my opinion the Adam & Eve story was not a history episode, nor is it seeking to explain a scientific truth. Were there individuals named Adam & Eve in a special garden? Most likely not. The story has a much deeper meaning, and that is man becoming fully human when God gave him a conscience (they ate from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”). This holds true whether a person believes in a slow evolutionary development or an instantaneous creation.

The conscience is the source of all of man’s achievements. It is the spark for the imagination and creative thought as it creates in us the desire to find a greater good…caves over living in the open, huts over caves, houses, skyscrapers… or a greater evil… stones over bare hands, spears over stones, bows & arrows, guns, thermonuclear weapons. What those who are good among us are ultimately seeking is the greatest good which is God. What those who are evil are seeking the greatest evil.

The story can be seen to be an evolutionary development. Man while still in his animal state was blissfully unaware of the “punishments” given for their “sin”: pain, suffering, toil, and death. It is not that they did not experience these things but rather they just did not think about them before they happened. A dog lives by the status quo. If he loses a leg he adapts and learns to run on three. He doesn’t moan about his missing leg he just lives his life as it has been given him. The reason is because he is unaware that there could be something better, a “greater good”. Man on the other hand being aware of good and evil knows that there could be something better than using a wheelchair and so he moans for his lost leg. In the same way he may moan over the work he has to do, the pain in his back or the death of a loved one.

But what is the goal? Why would a good God have us endure pain, suffering? Isn’t He horrible for allowing children to die of starvation? When you think about it you will realize that without a conscience we would never even care about such things. Without the existence of evil we would never learn what is good. Without pain and suffering we could never learn compassion and sympathy. Without compassion and sympathy we could never learn to care about those outside of our own social circle. Without first learning to care about others we could never learn to love selflessly. Without first learning to love selflessly we cannot hope to be one with He who IS love.

This is why I look on the Adam & Eve story as one of the most profound in all of literature. Behind its words it points to the entire purpose of life.
 
"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
  • Catholic Answers
 
And I do NOT find the writings to be problematic.
Really? What passages of Scripture relative to Adam and Eve did you test his theories against?
faithful Catholics have disagreement over the monogenism question.
Catholics are not allowed to have conjectural opinions about the truth of monogenism. Here is how Pope Pius XII defined theological polygenism:
  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.
Many are familiar with this paragraph. However, almost all seem to neglect what is said in #20. He writes:
  1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Clearly, the faithful do NOT have the option to disobey his acceptance of monogenism in favor of conjectural opinions regarding polygenism as defined in #37. Paragraph #371 of the Catechism states:
God created man and woman together [this and the next are my emphasis] and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.”(242) None of the animals can be man’s partner.(243) The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”(244) Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.
As part of the Theology of the Body, Pope St. John Paul II in his talk titled The Original Unity of Man and Woman uses his knowledge of the hermeneutical sciences to unpack Gen. 2:21-23 (creation of Eve from Adams rib) and Genesis 2:23 (Eve is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh). His exegesis clearly indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve should be taken as literal. My comments on this can be found in the section titled, Is the Creation of Eve Meant to be Interpreted as Historically Accurate?
 
Last edited:
His exegesis clearly indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve should be taken as literal.
What in his exegesis gives you this impression? A few weeks earlier, JP2 wrote:
The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect.
He seems pretty clear on the nature of the text, and the literal exegesis would not be that it is historically accurate. It is “the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge.”
 
His exegesis clearly indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve should be taken as literal.
The answer to that question is in the link.
A few weeks earlier, JP2 wrote:
The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect.
I find nothing you quoted as contradicting my original statement. In the same talk I referenced, he explains the word myth does not mean what you are thinking. He writes:
Following the contemporary philosophy of religion and that of language, it can be said that the language in question is a mythical one. In this case, the term “myth” does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content.
Mythic does not mean the Genesis account of Adam and Eve are mere allegory or made up story. It means that the language used expresses a deeper content … not an allegorical content. You would have seen that if you bothered to follow the link.
 
Your original statement was:
His exegesis clearly indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve should be taken as literal.
I still have not seen anything that supports that, here or at your linked site. He pretty clearly sees the literal sense of the 2nd chapter of Genesis as mythic. This does not mean it is ahistorical, but the historical is not obligatory as far as I can see. Does he even address historicity?
 
Scientists have proven ALL of humanity can be traced back to ONE human ancestral mother and father, (and that humanity cannot be traced back any earlier)

The call these the Mitochondrial Eve and the Y Chromosomal Adam,



Adam and Eve are referred to as people by The New Testament.

Many saints who saw visions of the Old Testament and Genesis saw Adam and Eve.

The church calendar has a feast day for ‘Saints Adam and Eve’ (as we believe they are now in Heaven).

Saint Paul states in the New Testament that when Jesus died, He went to preach to Adam and Eve and the patriarchs, before opening the doors of Heaven for them and for all mankind.
 
Last edited:
Scientists have proven ALL of humanity can be traced back to ONE human ancestral mother and father, (and that humanity cannot be traced back any earlier)

The call these the Mitochondrial Eve and the Y Chromosomal Adam,
No, no, no.

It means all men can be traced back to a single man, the Y-chromosome Adam and all women can be traced back to a single woman, the mitochondrial Eve. That is quite different. Why? Because it has been estimated that a mitochondrial Eve probably lived around 150,000 years ago and a Y-chromosomal Adam about 275,000 years ago…and these can change. I don’t just mean that the way of estimating who it was and when they lived can change. I mean if the identity could be ascertained with 100% certainty, it is possible for the identity of the actual person to change.

Consider a woman named Betsy who has 2 daughters and 2 sons who each have two daughters and two sons who each in turn have two daughters and 2 sons. Her four children gave her sixteen grandchildren who turned around and had a total of 64 great grandchildren for her. Although 32 of those great grandchildren are female, only 8 of the 32 girls are females who can pass on Betsy’s mitochondrial DNA. Likewise, the Y-chromosome from Betsy’s husband, Bob, would only be carried by 8 of their great grandsons.

Let’s say that none of those 8 females who carry Betsy’s mitochondria have female issue. In that case, Betsy’s mitochondrial line dies, even though she has lots of living descendants. The Y-lines of Bob’s contemporaries, meanwhile, might all fail to carry an unbroken male line all the way down through history. If Bob becomes the most recent man who has contributed his Y-chromosome to every man alive, Bob becomes the Y-chromosome Adam. Let’s say these all came through two of his grandsons, though, let’s call them Luke and John, and over time Luke’s line no longer has any males that can trace an unbroken line back to Luke (and therefore to Bob) through the male line alone. If that happened, John would be the Y-chromosome Adam, not Bob, because every male with Bob’s Y-chromosome got it via John and the Y-chromosome Adam is the most recent male ancestor to have contributed a Y-chromosome to all living men.

Therefore, because males and females have different survival rates, it is easy to see how the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam might not have lived anywhere near each other in either time or history. Bob and Betsy had lots of children together and a big family, but Betsy’s mitochondrial line could die while Bob’s Y-chromosome line was still going strong.

It is similar to a surname dying out even though the family still has lots of descendants.

This is very different than being the human couple through whom came the first rebellion from a state of moral awareness of divine law. First of all, the line isn’t carried just on the male or female line. Secondly, the Fall isn’t kicked forward if someone–like, say, Noah–were to be the most recent relative shared by all humanity. Even if that were to happen, the Fall is still on the moral and spiritual Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top