Who were Adam's womb based parents?

[thistle]

God fashioned man from the earth and breathed life into his Nostrils
no where does this imply evolution of species.

An extract from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.

“What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow, and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. … More reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: ‘creation or evolution’, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - realities.”

 

[goout]

I am done…pearls before swine at this point…

2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

And so we have the uncharitable-ness that you cast on to those you don’t understand and refuse to listen to.
They are swine evidently.

 

[goout]

sevenswords:

God fashioned man from the earth and breathed life into his Nostrils
no where does this imply evolution of species.

An extract from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.

“What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow, and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. … More reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: ‘creation or evolution’, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - realities.”

This is a very well articulated Catholic position.
This passage ought to cause some pause for thought here, and maybe even put a logical end to the discussion, but I doubt it.
The protesters against Catholic thought are numerous and obstinate.

 

[Sonic]

An extract from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.

“What response shall we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow, and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith.

Part 1 of 2:

This citation is on pg. 50 of this book for anyone interested. It’s the third Homily entitled The Creation of the Human Being. In full context (pg. 41-58), Benedict explains the primacy of the use of moral reasoning over that of theoretical and practical reason. He emphasizes the importance of man being created in the image of God in order to understand who and what we are as human beings, and that we are called to be more than just a scientific definition of a human being. We are both all equal as human beings (coming from the same dust), and also called out of ourselves… that there is something more to human being-ness than a cold hard scientific classification.

“Thus the image of God means first of all, that human beings cannot be closed in on themselves. Humans who attempt this betray themselves. To be the image of God implies relationality. It is the dynamic that sets the human being in motion toward the totally Other. Hence it means the capacity for God.” -Pg 47

In the section of the homily entitled, Creation and Evolution, Benedict first emphasizes the separateness of creation (as understood from a theological stand point) and evolution (as a theory of biological science) to explain why evolution cannot address or answer theological questions. He then goes on to address, not only how a purely scientific understanding of humanity, through evolution, can lead to a distorted picture of who we are as human beings, but he also addresses it’s limitations and negative affects on society. For example, he explains how it is leading many young people to a loss of faith through a lack of knowledge of their special relationship with God. While Benedict addresses the positive contributions of science to our understanding of the created universe, he does not make a defense of the theory of evolution in this homily. Quite the contrary, he states:

 

[Sonic]

Part 2 of 2 -

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes , Father, you have willed me. -pg. 56-57

He goes on to say…

Yes, Pilate is correct when he says: “Behold the man.” In him, in Jesus Christ, we can discern what the human being, God’s project, is, and thereby also our own status. In the humiliated Jesus we can see how tragic, how little, how abased the human being can be. In him we can discern the whole history of human hate and sin. But in him and in his suffering love for us we can still more clearly discern God’s response: Yes, that is the man who is loved by God to the very dust, who is so loved by God that he pursues him to the uttermost toils of death. And even in our own greatest humiliation we are still called by God to be the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and so to share in God’s eternal love. The question about what the human being is finds its response in the following of Jesus Christ. Following in his steps from day to day in patient love and suffering we can learn with him what it means to be a human being and to become a human being. -pg. 57-58

Pope Benedict makes a good point in this homily. When we approach this question, which of the two is apt to tell us more about ourselves as human beings: science or theology? His answer is quite clear and in favor of the primacy of the theological truth found in the creation story. The limitation of knowledge based purely on empirical data is a theme I’ve encountered many times in Pope Bendict’s writings. So, this is not a unique theme for him.

To sum up, this Homily is not a defense of evolution. It’s rather a plea to restrain using empirical knowledge to interpret theological truth.

 

[Wesrock]

Typically when we refer to parents we are referring to natural generation. The only manner in which this can be applied to God is in the relationship between Paternity and Filiation in him, the Father and the Son of the Trinity. God does not have that relationship to the rest of his creation.

We can speak of a parental relationship with Creation and of his covenant with Israel. In a more literal sense of the word Father, we can call him such because we have been raised up as brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son by natural generation from the Father. We are adopted sons and daughters of God through Jesus.

Still, while we call God Father, speak of paternal and maternal and parental relationships with God, I am strongly hesitant to God the parent of Adam and Eve, because in such a simply stated description it sounds like Adam and Eve proceeded from some natural generation of God, can claim physical descent, like ancient pagan claims, or create a type of pantheism. I’m much more comfortable speaking of a parental relationship than calling him a parent. It’s too anthropomorphic. And God is the immediate creator of each and every one of us, anyway.

 

[edwest211]

Pope Benedict

“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.

“… made it impossible to conduct experiments…”

 

[goout]

Ok. And?
This says nothing opposed to evolutionary science. It just points out the general difficulties involved in doing research.

Ed, have you read Pope Benedict’s book?

 

[Richca]

Adam was the first man and the first human being. He did not have any womb based parents. I believe Adam was created and formed immediately by God both as to his human spiritual soul and his human body according to the scripture:

‘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’ (Gen. 2: 7). Again, according to the scripture, I believe the body of the first woman, Eve, was also created and formed immediately by God out of some material from the rib or side of Adam. From this first couple of the human race descended all other human beings living or dead.

 

[goout]

Pope Benedict makes a good point in this homily. When we approach this question, which of the two is apt to tell us more about ourselves as human beings: science or theology? His answer is quite clear and in favor of the primacy of the theological truth found in the creation story. The limitation of knowledge based purely on empirical data is a theme I’ve encountered many times in Pope Bendict’s writings. So, this is not a unique theme for him.

To sum up, this Homily is not a defense of evolution. It’s rather a plea to restrain using empirical knowledge to interpret theological truth.

His thoughts in no way encourage the fideism and ignorance of legitimate scientific endeavor we witness on this thread.
His perspective is wholesome. It is both/and, not the timid and fearful either/or that is so pervasive in fundamentalism.

everyone: faith and reason are not opposed to one another. If Adam did come from a womb, it doesn’t begin to threaten God and the awesome mystery of creation. It might threaten you, but not God.

 

[steve-b]

Catholic are free to theorize within the realms of common sense on this. We know that Adam was the first human. Did God literally mold him from nothing, or was he result of generations of evolution, or something in between, or something else entirely? Those questions are for scientists. However, we know that something about Adam made him “in God’s own image” apart from any biological parent he might have had.

Re: The highlighted text We must believe as Catholics in Monogenism Monogenism as Humanity's Origin | Catholic Answers

And Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers

 

[goout]

Allegra:

Catholic are free to theorize within the realms of common sense on this. We know that Adam was the first human. Did God literally mold him from nothing, or was he result of generations of evolution, or something in between, or something else entirely? Those questions are for scientists. However, we know that something about Adam made him “in God’s own image” apart from any biological parent he might have had.

And Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers

This particular blog post is inadequate. It doesn’t consider the definition of what it means to be human, which definition MUST include body and God-given rational soul. And so it implies that there is no possibility of pools of “prehumans” (pick your own term, doesn’t matter), and it gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on polygenism is incompatible with such a theory, when it is not.

Polygenism refers to true humans.
True humans are a unity of body and God given rational soul.
Prehumans, or hominids, or whatever you want to call them, are not human beings. So those pools of beings are not addressed by polygenism.
(I am surprised that a CAF apologetics missed this important point.)

this is a key concept for Catholics to grasp: the uniqueness of humanity.
The same concept of uniqueness applies to the problem of gay marriage when it is equated to true marriage. The marriage of a man and woman is unique, and the fact that other unions look like or mimic it does not make it the real thing.

this same concept is key to understanding polygenism. If we can’t make use of sound reasoning along these lines, we cannot expect to change hearts and minds in other areas.

 

[bobperk]

No passage of Scripture suggests that the earth rotates around the sun. Are you going to argue for that notion, too?

Totally escapes my original point. No passage of Scripture gives the impression of the “infused souls” theory.

And Jesus used the seed as an analogy of His death and rising. So He used it in a sense of a death to a new rising. But typical Gorgias, reading Scripture so fundamentally where “die” just means “die!” j/k I will take up the challenge of looking at the many other NT instances.

Thanks for the replies / continued conversation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Allegra:

Catholic are free to theorize within the realms of common sense on this. We know that Adam was the first human. Did God literally mold him from nothing, or was he result of generations of evolution, or something in between, or something else entirely? Those questions are for scientists. However, we know that something about Adam made him “in God’s own image” apart from any biological parent he might have had.

And Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers

This particular blog post is inadequate. It doesn’t consider the definition of what it means to be human, which definition MUST include body and God-given rational soul. And so it implies that there is no possibility of pools of “prehumans” (pick your own term, doesn’t matter), and it gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on polygenism is incompatible with such a theory, when it is not.

Polygenism refers to true humans.

[snip for space]

I didn’t just give that link. I also gave Monogenism as Humanity's Origin | Catholic Answers

The CCC
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

connects with monogenism which is Fr Barbour’s point,

Polygenism is NOT Catholic teaching.

I will also add from Pius XII

“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). “

From: Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

BTW, here’s Humani Generis scroll down to paragraph 37, Catholics are NOT to accept polygenism

 

[bobperk]

Great post, steve-b. You are helping defend the traditional account of our first parents, a very holy and pious cause. Thank you.

 

[goout]

goout:

steve-b:

Allegra:

Catholic are free to theorize within the realms of common sense on this. We know that Adam was the first human. Did God literally mold him from nothing, or was he result of generations of evolution, or something in between, or something else entirely? Those questions are for scientists. However, we know that something about Adam made him “in God’s own image” apart from any biological parent he might have had.

And Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers

This particular blog post is inadequate. It doesn’t consider the definition of what it means to be human, which definition MUST include body and God-given rational soul. And so it implies that there is no possibility of pools of “prehumans” (pick your own term, doesn’t matter), and it gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on polygenism is incompatible with such a theory, when it is not.

Polygenism refers to true humans.

[snip for space]

I didn’t just give that link. I also gave Monogenism as Humanity's Origin | Catholic Answers

The CCC
…,
Catholics are NOT to accept polygenism

I have no issue with the other link. That’s why I left if lay.
Yes, the CCC, by all means.

Catholics are not to accept polygenism. Yes

Steve you completely missed the point I made, or you don’t understand it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

goout:

steve-b:

Allegra:

Catholic are free to theorize within the realms of common sense on this. We know that Adam was the first human. Did God literally mold him from nothing, or was he result of generations of evolution, or something in between, or something else entirely? Those questions are for scientists. However, we know that something about Adam made him “in God’s own image” apart from any biological parent he might have had.

And Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers

This particular blog post is inadequate. It doesn’t consider the definition of what it means to be human, which definition MUST include body and God-given rational soul. And so it implies that there is no possibility of pools of “prehumans” (pick your own term, doesn’t matter), and it gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on polygenism is incompatible with such a theory, when it is not.

Polygenism refers to true humans.

[snip for space]

I didn’t just give that link. I also gave Monogenism as Humanity's Origin | Catholic Answers

The CCC
…,
Catholics are NOT to accept polygenism

I have no issue with the other link. That’s why I left if lay.
Yes, the CCC, by all means.

Catholics are not to accept polygenism. Yes

Steve you completely missed the point I made, or you don’t understand it.

Here’s what you wrote that I responded to.

"This particular blog post is inadequate. It doesn’t consider the definition of what it means to be human, which definition MUST include body and God-given rational soul. And so it implies that there is no possibility of pools of “prehumans” (pick your own term, doesn’t matter), and it gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on polygenism is incompatible with such a theory, when it is not.

"Polygenism refers to true humans.
True humans are a unity of body and God given rational soul.
Prehumans, or hominids, or whatever you want to call them, are not human beings. So those pools of beings are not addressed by polygenism.
(I am surprised that a CAF apologetics missed this important point.)

this is a key concept for Catholics to grasp: the uniqueness of humanity.
The same concept of uniqueness applies to the problem of gay marriage when it is equated to true marriage. The marriage of a man and woman is unique, and the fact that other unions look like or mimic it does not make it the real thing.

this same concept is key to understanding polygenism. If we can’t make use of sound reasoning along these lines, we cannot expect to change hearts and minds in other areas."

You are selling polygenism as being “true humans” . What did Pius XII write?

 

[mVitus]

Pope Pius XII did say what he said in 37, but where it gets interesting is immediately following what you bolded.

Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled…

Back when Pope Pius XII was writing Humani Generis, the Out of Africa theory had not yet come about. At the time he was writing, polygenism meant separate groups of humans appearing in Australia, Africa, the Americas all at the same time. And why would a sin from people in Australia affect humans in Europe? It was, as he said, not apparent how polygenism and Catholic faith could be reconciled. But now, polygenism would refer to multiple individuals in the same region, not all around the globe. And that is a significantly different lens on the issue than Pope Pius XII was dealing with.

Fr. Nicanor Austriaco explains in a more elegant way than me: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

 

[Gorgias]

Totally escapes my original point. No passage of Scripture gives the impression of the “infused souls” theory.

No… totally addresses it, I’d say. You’re talking science here, not theology: is it possible that there were more than two first hominins who are the ancestors of all later humans? That’s a scientific question. Just like heliocentrism is a scientific theory… and it doesn’t appear in Scripture, either. So, saying “I don’t find this theory in Scripture” doesn’t really hold water, here…

And Jesus used the seed as an analogy of His death and rising. So He used it in a sense of a death to a new rising.

Yeah, but here’s the thing: Jesus really died. So, I don’t know if we can make much hay trying to say “it’s the appearance of death”.

But typical Gorgias, reading Scripture so fundamentally where “die” just means “die!” j/k I will take up the challenge of looking at the many other NT instances.

LOL!

Please do take a look – there are over 100 uses of the word in the NT, and they all speak to dying rather than appearing to die. So, I get that there’s the desire to say “this can’t mean ‘death’, since that would mean that there was ‘death’ prior to the Fall”. But, if that’s where the data is leading us…

 

[Sonic]

since that would mean that there was ‘death’ prior to the Fall”. But, if that’s where the data is leading us…

How is it that death entered into the world retroactively after the fall? You’ve yet to fully explain your position in a way I can understand.