When did Adam/Eve Live?

[marciadietrich]

PhilVaz:

I didn’t buy the book, but have flipped through it. I don’t like Wells, his book has been pretty well demolished by TalkOrigins and the NCSE. He is a Moonie (Unification Church) who has admitted his reason for getting a 2nd Ph.D. in biology was to "destroy Darwinism." So he is not objective, not to say all scientists are of course.

Actually no scientists are objective. I don’t really care so much his reasons for his degree or the book, as there are many in the field of science who don’t mind trying to refute the existance of God and even just plain make fun of religion. But for what I’ve read I think Wells has some points on how things are presented to students, that things mistaken and unproven are presented as absolutes.

I also have him in a 2002 debate with Michael Ruse (philosopher of science, now with Florida State) and Bruce Tiffney (paleobotanist), and though it was a friendly debate, he doesn’t do a good job “explaining away” the evidence for evolution presented. Plus he doesn’t have any alternative to offer.

Debates aren’t really the place to find truth, lots of people just aren’t good thinking on their feet. I would like to see if Wells does have any alternatives beyond just disputing certain facets of evolution. I am looking at his icons of evolution website where there are more articles.

That’s why I like Denis Lamoureux, he too knows his science, but accepts evolution, and offers a solution how to reconcile with Christian faith (though not specifically the Adam/Eve question).

Looking at the link for the video lecture, I can’t get it to run, but printed the pdf file provided. I’m not sure I 100% agree with the belief divisions, though I’m sure there is always overlaps. I wouldn’t have throw ID in with progressive creation as I thought they - usually- accept common descent. The Flood account chart is interesting, but if he says that means it wasn’t something that actually happened literally at least locally, I wouldn’t agree there. I would agree much of the numbering itself is probably symbolic as it is for numbers like 7 and 40 (and 12 and 6) are symbolic in other areas of scripture. But the number being symbolic doesn’t always mean something isn’t a real event … just the numbers give us an aspect such as good or evil, complete or incomplete.

Wells has little to say to refute human evolution (his last Icon) in his book, he basically accepts the hominid evidence.

Actually the last link the refutation of Wells I didn’t find awfully convincing. Only one point really. Despite the put down he had nothing, I felt Wells made his point on the way illustrations can vary widely, how things are presented in texts to not just present science but imply a lack of anything but a materialistic world and man as physical and not anything special or spiritual. I know that man as the reason for creation existing isn’t “science” but there are also many who want to use science to undermine faith. The average person seriously pursuing anthropology is going to be atheist and leans communist as well for what I saw. Those belief systems show through in their presentations and assumptions.

Marcia

 

[Ken]

Marcia,

Thanks for the info on Church teachings about Adam vs everyone else. The text you provided uses the strange term “true men.” And that sets off the speculative in me.

Suppose we consider true men to be the descendents of Adam. Then everyone else who is not a descendent of Adam would not be a true man. They may look human, walk like humans, and quack like humans, but since they lacked an Adam connection, they would not be human (true men).

This would then say only some of the folks around us have human souls. The rest would just be intelligent primates.

As a someone who was not part of the “true men” married someone who was, their descendents became true men.

(I realize this speculation differs from my original.)

 

[Ahimsa]

marciadietrich:

It is totally wrong is why they don’t want it said. But they will honestly say we are evolved from something that people would take as being ape-like have some resemblence to modern great apes.

I would go a step further and say that evolutionary theory proposes that humans evolved not simply from something “ape-like” but from an actual “ape”. Whether that ape species is extinct or not would be irrelevant.

marciadietrich:

Few would notice any differences? But why do you choose the chimp? … why not a gorilla or an orangutan or a gibbon for what that ancestor looked like? You feel people somehow couldn’t tell that ancestor from a chimp, yet people can **easily **indentify those various modern great apes as being quite different from each other? I’m sure the average person could tell the difference. Just as they can easily identify a gorilla as being different than an orangutan. Given a little information they could tell the difference between a male orangutan from Borneo (narrower face) or Sumatra (wide cheek flaps).

The chimp is closer to us -our closest relative genetically, and probably further evolved away from the common ancestor than the other great apes. Chimps appeal to us more because they are genetically closer, we can see more of ourselves in them because of the genetic similarities.

I won’t press too hard for a human ancestor that is more closely related to chimps than to say, gorillas or orangutans. What I was trying to do was propose a psychosocial explanation of observations I’ve made while taking part in evolution debates: a creationist complains that evolutionists are claiming that mankind evolved from apes, and the evolutionist replies (disingenuously, in my opinion) that humans did not evolve from apes, but either (1) humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, or (2) both humans and apes evolved from an ape-like ancestor. I keep thinking to myself, “Come on, now. Current evolutionary theory proposes that humans diverged from a pongid line, some 5 to 7 million years ago. A great ape, a pongid, is not some ‘ape-like’ monkey. It’s a great ape, pure and simple; it’s an ape, period.”

And the best explanation I can come up with is that the evolutionist wants to somehow blunt the impact of the force of such a bold statement: “humans evolved from apes”. *What? You mean that me and my family are not all that much different than a chimp or a gorilla? We’re actually like the apes we see in the zoo? *To call our ancestor’s “ape-like” makes human ancestry safely separated from any sort of real living biological organism that we can point to, capture, or put in a zoo. The obfuscation also presents a harder target for creationists to hit.

Whether the human ancestor was more like a chimp, gorilla, or orangutan, is not a crucial point. The pongids, the great apes, had evolved by 20 mya. The human ancestor appeared around 6 mya. It was a pongid, it was a great ape. There’s no good reason to dance around that fact with terms like “ape-like”. Let the evolutionist boldly proclaim, “We evolved from apes”. Let the chips fall where they may.

Ahimsa

 

[jeffreedy789]

from another perspective - i don’t see how

‘283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121 284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?’

shows that evolution is probable. are there other criteria, from the catholic tradition, upon which you base your statements?

i ask, because my understanding is that the church allows us to accept an evolutionary view, but in no way endorses one. personally, i believe in 6 day creation. i think adam and eve, the first humans, were created by the hand of God about 6,000 years ago.

please explain this to me. i’ve often wondered about this one. we talk about the ‘missing link’, as though there were only one. what about all the other missing links between each step of the way? why don’t we see species that fit each niche along the way? i don’t mean extant, i mean in the fossil record?

 

[PhilVaz]

From the Catechism, paragraph 283

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator…”

jeffreed << from another perspective - i don’t see how [the above] shows that evolution is probable. are there other criteria, from the catholic tradition, upon which you base your statements? >>

No, the above is enough. To what “scientific studies” is the Catechism referring when it says:

“the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of…the development of life-forms, and the appearance of man…”

Since the mainstream scientific view is an evolutionary one, then the many splendidly-enriching “scientific studies” the Catechism must be referring to are those which accept biological evolution – the “common descent” or macroevolution of plants, animals, and mankind (homo sapiens). The Catechism is not referring to Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino), the Institute for Creation Research, or “Answers in Genesis” (Ken Ham and company) or other “creationist” groups as the “many scientific studies” but modern conventional evolutionary science.

Plus I’ll summarize John Paul II in his 1996 statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: that evolution is “more than a hypothesis” and that a significant argument in favor of the theory is that it has been progressively accepted by researchers following independently conducted scientific work in various fields. Sounds like an “endorsement” to me.

Are there theological problems (if evolution is true) that need to be worked out? Yeah, definitely.

jeffreed << i ask, because my understanding is that the church allows us to accept an evolutionary view, but in no way endorses one. personally, i believe in 6 day creation. i think adam and eve, the first humans, were created by the hand of God about 6,000 years ago. >>

Do you have any scientific reason for accepting creation in exactly 144 hours (aside from interpreting Genesis very literally), and a Adam/Eve about 6000 years ago, when all the “scientific studies” to which the Catechism refers point to our species homo sapiens going back 100,000 years or more. And those same “scientific studies” point to a earth that is 4.5 billion years old as well.

You are free to believe in a young earth and that humanity only goes back 6000 years, but just know there is no scientific or anthropological data to support that belief, and much that contradicts it. What I’m trying to do is be honest (and informed) on both the scientific data and Church teaching (and Genesis of course, but there are questions how to interpret that text).

jeffreed << why don’t we see species that fit each niche along the way? i don’t mean extant, i mean in the fossil record? >>

I don’t fully understand your question, but do you deny that the TalkOrigins links I gave above for the transitional fossils among the hominids-humans, the vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc), the whales (or cetacea), and the birds is not good evidence for evolution? How much more do you need in the fossil record?

Phil P

 

[marciadietrich]

Ahimsa:

Whether the human ancestor was more like a chimp, gorilla, or orangutan, is not a crucial point.

Not crucial, but you did claim people would not be able to tell that ancestor from a chimp. Which is an overstatement.

The pongids, the great apes, had evolved by 20 mya. The human ancestor appeared around 6 mya. It was a pongid, it was a great ape. There’s no good reason to dance around that fact with terms like “ape-like”. Let the evolutionist boldly proclaim, “We evolved from apes”. Let the chips fall where they may.

Evolution of humans, like all life on earth, far precedes the split 6 or even 20 million years ago of pongid. All life, including man, is thought to have evolved from very simple organisms at the beginning of life on earth (some say bacteria, not sure how accurate that is but we’ll use it for now) … so the evolutionist should proclaim that “we evolved from bacteria” and let the chips fall where they may.

The focus does get on the ape ancestor situation, but we didn’t suddenly appear in the history of evolution full-formed as a great ape … the ape came from other simpler mammals, which before that came even more primitive life forms and ultimately said to be from some sort of ‘primordial ooze’.

That is where I think the creationists have a stronger argument, that there really is no proof that life could arise from dead chemicals by pure chance. The best, and under false conditions, the scientists can say is that some dead amino acids might form from dead chemicals by pure chance.

That and appeals that life forms tend to be very stable and reproduce their own kind with only minor variation and natural selection would only decrease the variation. I don’t think punctuated equilibrium was ever totally accepted but is a bit more favorable to creationists and was accepted by some mainstream scientists.

I’ll still hold that leading with If we evolved from apes why are they still alive? shows ignorance of what evolution says and will submarine any chance of a serious conversation with evolutionists. It wouldn’t sway anyone on the fence - which I happen to be at the moment.

Good talking to you.

Marcia

 

[Ken]

Has anyone noticed than man is an ape-like creature?

 

[jeffreedy789]

i’d like to read the pope’s statement sans summation if you happen to have a link…

yes, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that points to a young earth. most of what is considered undeniable proof of an old earth is, i think, a result of the flood. i know, i know. it’s all an old argument. hugh ross et al dismiss it completely. i don’t.

i’ve been through the argument so many times i’ve wearied of it. my only question, really, is whether or not the catholic church actually endorses the idea. i do not see, thus far, that it does. i’m glad that it does not, because while it’s important to YOU, i’m sure, to be true to your scientific understanding while keeping your faith intact, it is equally important for me to do so.

i’ll check out the links you posted.

 

[Della]

Recent researches into the mitochondrial connection between humans found that we all had one human female ancestor, although there is some dispute over that conclusion. What do you have regarding this aspect of evolutionary development, Phil? Any links or information on it?

Here are a couple of links I found in a google search:

b17.com/family/lwp/things/genetic_ancestors.html

biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Essays/MitochondrialDNA.html

 

[marciadietrich]

Ken:

…
Suppose we consider true men to be the descendents of Adam. Then everyone else who is not a descendent of Adam would not be a true man. They may look human, walk like humans, and quack like humans, but since they lacked an Adam connection, they would not be human (true men).

This would then say only some of the folks around us have human souls. The rest would just be intelligent primates.

As a someone who was not part of the “true men” married someone who was, their descendents became true men.

Hello Ken,

If your reasoning were correct then there wouldn’t be any worry about how such a thing could be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin - yet that was stated as an obvious concern in Humani Generis. Pope Pius XII was very specific that what was meant was we can’t believe in polygenism. That true men (as opposed to the creatures Adam might have evolved from) must all be directly descended from Adam and not a group of humanoids along with Adam. That seems to exclude the possibility of true men and hominids intermarrying for generations after the fall.

True men by definition are direct descendents of Adam and Eve and not any outside population. Pius XII absolutely excluded polygenism, which is having come from a population or populations, and affirmed monogenism which is descent from a single pair of ancestors - Adam and Eve alone.

The Catechism quotes about humanity being one in Adam - one because even Eve comes from Adam. (404 … The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”…) There is an article that seems to make a strong case for Eve coming literally from the side of Adam: www.kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.html

Also here CCC …

[359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/359.htm’) "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

[360](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/360.htm’) Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226. (my bold and underline) …

226 Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6.

Acts 17:26 He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, …

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.

We are a unity. Adam first. Eve from Adam, and then all humanity from Adam and Eve. It is something that seems impossible to reconcile with standard evolutionary theory. Requires direct intervention and really seems even if there was evolution prior, that humanity is in some way specially created and set aside.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

Della:

Recent researches into the mitochondrial connection between humans found that we all had one human female ancestor, although there is some dispute over that conclusion. What do you have regarding this aspect of evolutionary development, Phil? Any links or information on it?

Here are a couple of links I found in a google search:

b17.com/family/lwp/things/genetic_ancestors.html

biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Essays/MitochondrialDNA.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

Thus the title of Mitochondrial Eve depends very critically on the present human population of the Earth. As people die or are born, the title can change hands. Once a ME is established (via the death of a matrilineal line), further births cannot change the title. Further deaths can, however, transfer the title to a more recent woman. The older ME is still the common ancestor of all humans alive today on Earth with respect to matrilineal descent, but she is not the most-recent …. This is part of the reason why I said that each and every word of that definition was important.

So that “Eve” can change hands to a different woman in a different time and place of the past. There is also a single man all have descended from called the y-chromosome Adam. The Adam and Eve were not married, and the Adam lived at least 10,000 years after the Eve. Some say Y-Adam was 84,000 years after M-Eve.

Also here on the dating dispute:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html

Basically the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not proof of an actual Adam and Eve single couple origin. Not unless the dating is totally wrong and somehow they lived in the same timeframe. And still it would be one couple (big maybe even if same time on that M-eve/Y-Adam) among a population of other humanoid creatures.

Marcia

 

[Ghosty]

Marcia: I don’t think your logic holds up. There were no true men that did not descend from Adam and Eve, but that does not mean that all true men descended only from Adam and Eve. Polygenism refers to the belief that true men sprung from more than one pair, which is a false belief. Polygenists argued that Adam and Eve were not really individuals, but rather representatives of a group.Adam and Eve could be individuals, and their children could still marry “untrue” men and women without violating the prohibition on Polygenism. All offspring of such a pairing would be true humans, and eventually ALL humanoids on Earth would have a soul. May not be the case, and it may not be palattable to all, but this theory falls within the teaching of the Church so far as I know.

 

[marciadietrich]

Ghosty:

Marcia: I don’t think your logic holds up. There were no true men that did not descend from Adam and Eve, but that does not mean that all true men descended only from Adam and Eve. … May not be the case, and it may not be palattable to all, but this theory falls within the teaching of the Church so far as I know.

Hello Ghosty,

I think the idea that there were potentially countless generations before all humanoids were “true men” is very problematic.

Again here is what Pius XII said:

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 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 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.

Original sin is passed on to all and is in everyone. Adam is “the first parent of all” … not just some and then eventually after who knows how many generations and years everyone is at least remotely related to Adam.

Again the teaching in the Catechism is:

360Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226. (my bold and underline) …

226 Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6.

Acts 17:26 He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, …

Acts 17:26 is the quotation in CCC 360 and then crosses to Tobit as well:

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.

Cross to CCC 404 also on “unity of the human race” and propagation of original sin. It seems to me there is a direct tie of Adam as the source of all humanity and original sin, just as Pius XII was concerned with in Humani Generis.

There is no teaching or revelation that says a mix of a true man and a hominid = a true man. I think that is where the speculation is, not in the teaching that we are all descended from Adam - which seems clear even in the new Catechism.

The Church has said we are not prohibited from adhering to evolution given that we don’t deny any doctrine of faith in doing so. That truth cannot contradict truth. But that doesn’t mean there is a guarantee that there will be no conflict in reconciling faith and current scientific thought along the way. If there is a contradiction, it would seem that we should err on the side of faith.

Marcia

 

[Ken]

Well, let’s say that Adam was the first true man. Were there others who were just men? These guys would be men, but not true men.

What would the difference have been between a true man and a man?

How do we know which we are?

 

[Ahimsa]

marciadietrich:

Not crucial, but you did claim people would not be able to tell that ancestor from a chimp. Which is an overstatement.

I plead guilty to overstatement…which wouldn’t be the first time.

marciadietrich:

Good talking to you.

Good talking to you, too.

Ahimsa

 

[Ghosty]

Marcia: Again you are falling into the trap of confusing human-like animals with true men. The Pope’s teaching explicitly deals with the latter, and has no relation at all to the former.

Original sin is passed on to all and is in everyone. Adam is “the first parent of all” … not just some and then eventually after who knows how many generations and years everyone is at least remotely related to Adam.

This statement is not necessarily true, because the Pope’s statement explicitly refers to “true men”, a very unusual term. Original Sin IS in all and everyone in my model. The untrue humans would be soulless, and therefore removed from any consideration, and also absolutely fall outside of the Pope’s teaching. I see no reason to use the term “true men” if untrue men are not also to be accounted for; just saying men, as had been done for centuries prior.

The Church has said we are not prohibited from adhering to evolution given that we don’t deny any doctrine of faith in doing so. That truth cannot contradict truth. But that doesn’t mean there is a guarantee that there will be no conflict in reconciling faith and current scientific thought along the way. If there is a contradiction, it would seem that we should err on the side of faith.

It is noble to err on the side of faith, but in this case erring on the side of faith does not preclude accepting modern evidence in science. A gap is being perceived where none necessarily exists. It’s stubborness and ignorance on the part of those who insist on the strict model of single-parentage that creates this gap; ignorance of the extreme degree of the evidence, and stubborness against studying the ways in which the evidence and faith meet and reinforce eachother. This certainly isn’t meant to say that such people are stupid, far from it! One can be absolutely brilliant and still be stubborn in persisting in ignorance of available information.

 

[Steve_M]

PhilVaz:

SteveM << then you know the 4000-5000 BC is out of the question, since several societies can date themselves older than that >>

I have the Hugh Ross book, but I need to go through it. The guy who proposes the 4000-5000 BC date (see Dick Fischer article linked above) asserts that Adam/Eve were not the first human beings, but that God “inserted” Adam/Eve at a certain point (around 4000-5000 BC) by special creation. He admits that homo sapiens physically go back around 100,000 years.

Hugh Ross points out that the Chinese date their own society older than 4000 BC. Some American Indians date their own origins to 9,500 BC., and Australian Aborigines date their civilization back to 25,000 BC. If these groups can date their own socities back that far, they were far more advanced than just early homo-sapiens.

 

[marciadietrich]

Ghosty:

Again you are falling into the trap of confusing human-like animals with true men.

Hi Ghosty,

It isn’t a trap, it is exactly what was meant in the total context of Humani Generis (have you read the entire document?). The Pope is very critical of evolution, just prior to paragraph 37 the Pope speaks against people assuming origins from pre-existing organic matter as already established fact -thus is distinguishing because people were considering these hominids as men already, and in the paragraph itself refers to traditional teaching on original sin - which seems clear to me as I wrote on that previously.

This idea of true men and not true men mixing leaves the possibility that there are some people even today who are not true men. Yet, the soul is even the* form* of the body - so a different soul will give a different form (the creatures created in Genesis were “living souls” just like Adam was a “living soul” and each has a soul proper to itself):

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Additionally, Adam’s sin is said to have brought death into human history - which would not be true if everyone was evolved and untrue men in the mix with Adam, and the Catechism context it is clear it is physical death (not spiritual) because it says man will “return to the ground”:

[400](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/400.htm’) The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will **“return to the ground”,**285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

Those untrue men would have died anyhow (didn’t have a spiritual nature anyhow as well), nature was hostile to them anyhow, they would have had an inclination to do things we consider sinful anyhow (they never had original holiness and justice) … what is the consequence of original sin that wasn’t already there to the offspring of a mix between a true and an untrue person?

In the past, as a protestant and theistic evolutionist, I just blew off much Genesis as stories, with very little fact or historical reality, because of science. In converting I said I would believe all the Church teaches as true. I am trying to take that seriously.

Marcia

 

[Ghosty]

First off, just because a Pope was skeptical about evolution does not make evolution any less true. There is MORE evidence for evolution on a genetic level than there was for a non-geocentric Universe until very recently. There was a time when non-geocentrism was criticised by the Church as well, and now it is accepted without argument. In the time that Humanae Generis was written we did not have the understanding of genes that we have today, and it was an acceptable, though far out, stance to reasonably claim that evolution did not occur. We don’t have that luxury within reason today. While it’s disappointing that people don’t avail themselves of the genetic knowledge available, it’s not shocking. Quoting non-Dogmatic, non-Doctrinal claims does not make any kind of argument against the facts supplied by reason. If your claims were backed by Dogma, I would submit to them in the face of apparent facts, but they are not, nor are the facts detrimental to the faith.

This idea of true men and not true men mixing leaves the possibility that there are some people even today who are not true men.

No, it doesn’t at all, because we know by revealed Dogma and Doctrine that this isn’t so. End of story. Anyone who claims otherwise is challenging God at Its own game.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

All this says is that human body is human because it is animated by the soul, not because of any genetic quality. A humanoid form is merely an animal body without a human soul. This is stated in the previous paragraph:

**“364 **The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit”

I have no argument against saying that death entered human history with the first sin. Adam and Eve were not meant to die, and neither were their offspring. The animals that God used to evolve the human body were not true humans, and were therefore not included in this grace. There is no reason to believe that the human offspring of the humanoid and human couples were intended to die simply because they had a humanoid parent; they possessed a human soul and were therefore fully human. The “untrue men” have no relation whatsoever to the promises and gifts that God bestowed upon human beings. Heck, there’s no reason to believe that humans were intended to procreate beyond Adam and Eve at all, since they were intended to be immortal.

Incidently, the Catechism affirms that God did not literally mold Adam from the dust in paragraph 362 when it states that:

"The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Since the Catechism states that this language is symbolic and NOT literal, how do you propose that God brought humans into being?

Again, I’m not saying that my proposed model is truth, merely that it conforms to the truth as it has been revealed and discovered.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Phil, I don’t take the early chapters of Genesis as “strictly historical,” so I’d pose the problems a bit differently. It seems to me (though you may see this as too liberal a position) that the OT genealogical narratives frequently collapse the stories of individuals with the stories of nations and clans, and that they often tell the story of a tribe or civilization as if it were the story of an individual. Obviously if this was pushed to the extent of (say) denying that Abraham was a real person, then it would be heretical, but that’s not what I’m saying. I see no reason to think that Genesis 4 is a literal narrative of events that followed within one generation of the events narrated in chap. 3. So I have no problem with the idea that the Fall occurred back at the beginning of the Old Stone Age, while chap. 4 is essentially a summary of the Neolithic period and the early Bronze Age, linking the development of civilization with the further outworking of human sinfulness.

I see that marcadietrich has said many of the same things I’m saying. I will just add in closing that I’m not disputing that Genesis refers to events that really happened (such as a choice to disobey God made by the first pair of human beings); I’m just suggesting that the way in which these events are narrated is not that of literal history.

In Christ,

Edwin

Some of the detail in Genesis recalls details of life in Sumer (roughly, the lower half of Babylonia).​

The “coats of skins” in 3, for instance. Sumerian priests and kings and gods are often shown in long fleecy garments. Sometimes priests are shown naked - as Adam & Eve were naked.

Greek literature has many stories of rivalry - sometimes co-operation - between brethren, followed by murder and the building of a city. A well-known Roman story is that of Romulus & Remus.

The murder of Abel by Cain looks like a story of rivalry between agriculturalists & pastoralists; there are rivalry stories in Sumerian literature - Emesh and Enten (Winter & Summer); Ashnan and Lahar; Dumuzi and Enkimdu.

What sets Genesis 1 to 11 apart from other such tales is - IMO - not that it is more reliable as a record of past happenings than they, but, its theological meaning. Man in Genesis is far more noble than in other tales - he is made in the image of the One God. He is part of a creation which is explicitly called “good”. He is not a slave of the gods, created to do the work that wearies them - his work is a sharing in that of his Creator, and was not meant to be wearisome. Genesis shows us what God did, and what life was meant to be like, and how man freely and deliberately fell out of communion with God. And the consequences, and how those consequences gain a momentum of their own.

The other side of the story, is the patience & faithfulness of God, which never abandons man to his own folly, but always picks out someone to make a fresh start; a Noah, or an Abram. Which may be what the genealogies are there for - there are always those who “call on the name of the Lord” like Seth, or who “walk with God” like Enoch in the Sethite genealogy. (The use of so many of the same names in these two genealogies does not *suggest *that these genealogies are those of historical characters - it looks more like use of the same data in different contexts.)

IOW, God converts (transubstantiates ?) pre-Israelite pagan myths into tales which disclose His character, and that of man. They remain myths on the outside, but their meaning is converted ##