Why should i believe that there was a literlal Garden of Eden?

[davidv]

But they were not the only human couple alive at the time. Never in the course of *Homo sapiens’ *emergence out of its hominid past did the population fall below 3,000 breeding pairs (that is the low estimate).

How do you know this? What scribe recorded a census of these “breeding pairs”?

As has been pointed out by others, what you have espoused is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[GirlyChick092]

Verrrrry funny.

 

[StAnastasia]

How do you know this? What scribe recorded a census of these “breeding pairs”? As has been pointed out by others, what you have espoused is contrary to Church teaching.

No scribe recorded it. This comes from genetic science. There is no evidence in the human genome that the number of individuals ever dropped to a single breeding pair.

Reposting what I have written before, I am a theologian, not a scientist myself. For scientific questions I rely on the work of countless scientists, including geneticists. In everything I have read, and in everything I have heard in papers at numerous conferences (including theology conferences), I have learned that humans evolved as a group. Some paleontologists and anthropologists assume this group was large and widespread; others assume it was smaller (in the tens of thousands). None assume it was smaller than 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs dating back several million years.

Humans never suffered a genetic bottleneck as did cheetahs, which may have been reduced to a few hundred pairs and suffered severed genetic constriction. There was the event of the eruption of Mt. Toba around 70,000 years ago, but that did not reduce the human species to two individuals named “Adam” and “Eve”:

“According to the supporters of the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human population suffered a severe population decrease—only 3,000 to 10,000 individuals survived—followed eventually by rapid population increase, innovation progress and migration. Several geneticists, including Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending have proposed that the human race was reduced to approximately five to ten thousand people. Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

StAnastasia

 

[inocente]

For Catholics however, as stated in one of my earlier posts, it is important to remember that Adam and Eve (specifically) are not myths. Adam and Eve are real people. The Magesterium of the Church has taught so infalliby.

Reference Humani Generis, Paragraph 37.

Catholics are free to believe whatever they want about the Garden of Eden but with regards to one set of human parents from which all mankind descended, Catholics are not free to believe that they are “Representative” of anything other than two real people.

-Tim-

I’m not clear on why original sin has to rely on a single Adam and Eve.

Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor 15:22 are often quoted in support. But if modern theologians try to read scripture through the eyes of the original audience, Paul could have been doing the same in his reading of what came down to us as Genesis. His arguments still have force whether he or we believe in a single Adam.

The development of the concept of original sin has a long history, but do you know if there’s a compelling reason that requires a single Adam? I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, just trying to understand.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No scribe recorded it. This comes from genetic science. There is no evidence in the human genome that the number of individuals ever dropped to a single breeding pair.

Reposting what I have written before, I am a theologian, not a scientist myself. For scientific questions I rely on the work of countless scientists, including geneticists. In everything I have read, and in everything I have heard in papers at numerous conferences (including theology conferences), I have learned that humans evolved as a group. Some paleontologists and anthropologists assume this group was large and widespread; others assume it was smaller (in the tens of thousands). None assume it was smaller than 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs dating back several million years.

Humans never suffered a genetic bottleneck as did cheetahs, which may have been reduced to a few hundred pairs and suffered severed genetic constriction. There was the event of the eruption of Mt. Toba around 70,000 years ago, but that did not reduce the human species to two individuals named “Adam” and “Eve”:

“According to the supporters of the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human population suffered a severe population decrease—only 3,000 to 10,000 individuals survived—followed eventually by rapid population increase, innovation progress and migration. Several geneticists, including Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending have proposed that the human race was reduced to approximately five to ten thousand people. Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

StAnastasia

What does this mean for papal restrictions? Does this undermine papal infallibility? Are you willing to be disobedient on the matter? What does papal infallibility represent to you in reference to Adam and eve? Please get back to me A.S.A.P, I am interested to know what your thoughts are about the consequences of the scientific data on your beliefs as a Catholic.

 

[StAnastasia]

What does this mean for papal restrictions? Does this undermine papal infallibility? Are you willing to be disobedient on the matter? What does papal infallibility represent to you in reference to Adam and eve? Please get back to me A.S.A.P, I am interested to know what your thoughts are about the consequences of the scientific data on your beliefs as a Catholic.

MindOverMatter, I don’t believe advancements in scientific knowledge undermine Catholic belief – that is the view of our secular enemies. Theology is a living dialogue between the Christian faith community and the various cultures in which it is embedded. Once it has ceased to be such a living dialogue, theology becomes a dead relic of a once-living tradition. I believe that God as author of the universe would not be at all displeased that rational creatures have evolved in one corner of it and have grown in moral and spiritual awareness and in relationship with God.

The nearly five centuries since Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium have seen a vast sea change in the way humans view their world. instead of the small, young, static and immutable cosmos of the Hebrew Bible, we now inhabit an immense, ancient, dynamic and evolving universe. A theology that rejects what the science has show about the world – and that clings to a literal interpretation of old cosmogonic stories written in a prescientific culture – is a theology doomed to be discarded in the intellectual dustbin.

I have chosen not to throw theology away, and not to make Christians a laughing stock of the educated world. That is why I studied for a doctorate in theology, and why I am spending my career defending the credibility and intelligibility of religious belief in the face of rampant and advancing atheisms of various sorts. Like most other theologians, I regards the story of Adam and Eve as too important to Christian theology to be threatened by an out-dated interpretation that insists on its literal historicity.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

MindOverMatter, I don’t believe advancements in scientific knowledge undermine Catholic belief – that is the view of our secular enemies. Theology is a living dialogue between the Christian faith community and the various cultures in which it is embedded. Once it has ceased to be such a living dialogue, theology becomes a dead relic of a once-living tradition. I believe that God as author of the universe would not be at all displeased that rational creatures have evolved in one corner of it and have grown in moral and spiritual awareness and in relationship with God.

The nearly five centuries since Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium have seen a vast sea change in the way humans view their world. instead of the small, young, static and immutable cosmos of the Hebrew Bible, we now inhabit an immense, ancient, dynamic and evolving universe. A theology that rejects what the science has show about the world – and that clings to a literal interpretation of old cosmogonic stories written in a prescientific culture – is a theology doomed to be discarded in the intellectual dustbin.

I have chosen not to throw theology away, and not to make Christians a laughing stock of the educated world. That is why I studied for a doctorate in theology, and why I am spending my career defending the credibility and intelligibility of religious belief in the face of rampant and advancing atheisms of various sorts. Like most other theologians, I regards the story of Adam and Eve as too important to Christian theology to be threatened by an out-dated interpretation that insists on its literal historicity.

StAnastasia

Bogus - pure scientism…

 

[StAnastasia]

Bogus - pure scientism…

Not bogus. Not scientism.

 

[davidv]

No scribe recorded it. This comes from genetic science. There is no evidence in the human genome that the number of individuals ever dropped to a single breeding pair.

Reposting what I have written before, I am a theologian, not a scientist myself. For scientific questions I rely on the work of countless scientists, including geneticists. In everything I have read, and in everything I have heard in papers at numerous conferences (including theology conferences), I have learned that humans evolved as a group. Some paleontologists and anthropologists assume this group was large and widespread; others assume it was smaller (in the tens of thousands). None assume it was smaller than 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs dating back several million years.

Humans never suffered a genetic bottleneck as did cheetahs, which may have been reduced to a few hundred pairs and suffered severed genetic constriction. There was the event of the eruption of Mt. Toba around 70,000 years ago, but that did not reduce the human species to two individuals named “Adam” and “Eve”:

“According to the supporters of the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human population suffered a severe population decrease—only 3,000 to 10,000 individuals survived—followed eventually by rapid population increase, innovation progress and migration. Several geneticists, including Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending have proposed that the human race was reduced to approximately five to ten thousand people. Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

StAnastasia

Since there are no data points around the time in question, any claim by scientists outside of their inference space is pure speculation. The claim of a bottleneck is just that, a speculative claim (and likely biased by anti-religious attitudes) that is contrary to the Truth of Church teaching.

 

[StAnastasia]

Since there are no data points around the time in question, any claim by scientists outside of their inference space is pure speculation. The claim of a bottleneck is just that, a speculative claim (and likely biased by anti-religious attitudes) that is contrary to the Truth of Church teaching.

There are plenty of data points. And perhaps you don’t understand what a “genetic bottleneck” is – “A population bottleneck (or genetic bottleneck) is an evolutionary event in which a significant percentage of a population or species is killed or otherwise prevented from reproducing.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck)

A bottleneck is the constriction of a genome so narrowly that the genetic variation within a species is very small. An example is “cheetahs, which are so closely related to each other that skin grafts from one cheetah to another do not provoke immune responses, thus suggesting an extreme population bottleneck in the past. Another largely bottlenecked species is the Golden Hamster, of which the vast majority are descended from a single litter found in the Syrian desert around 1930.”

There is no characteristic signature in the human genome that our species ever passed through a bottleneck smaller than 3,000 breeding pairs.

 

[Pieman333272]

StAnastasia - I don’t think you properly answered MoM2’s question on infallibility. I think he was asking, if polygenism is true, what are its implications to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which specifically condemns polygenism and says A & E are real people?

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia - I don’t think you properly answered MoM2’s question on infallibility. I think he was asking, if polygenism is true, what are its implications to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which specifically condemns polygenism and says A & E are real people?

Good question. Going head to head with science is risky business, as scientific knowledge is always advancing. I heard the Archbishop of San Francisco declare in 1990 that he had personally petitioned Our Lady never again to permit another earthquake like the 1989 Loma Prieta that damaged San Francisco. Since the San Andreas Fault has been moving for five million years, it’s unlikely the earthquakes will stop, which will mean either that Our Lady ignored the archbishop, or that she is personally impotent to interfere with plate tectonics.

I don’t know why Pius XII decided to go head to head with science, nor what bearing the scientific consensus about human evolution will have on the theology of infallibility. Perhaps Pope Pius XII was not speaking infallibly in that particular pronouncement.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Theology is a living dialogue between the Christian faith community and the various cultures in which it is embedded.

Theology is a living dialogue between the Christian faith community and the various cultures in which it is embedded ?? That 'living dialogue" deffinition is one more difference between Catholicism and some of the many faith communities. That may be very beneficial for these other faith communities – I’m certainly not one to judge.

I was taught that Catholic theology concerns God. Even the American Heritage College Dictionary says that theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth. Catholic theology describes the relationship between God and the real person Adam.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not clear on why original sin has to rely on a single Adam and Eve.

Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor 15:22 are often quoted in support. But if modern theologians try to read scripture through the eyes of the original audience, Paul could have been doing the same in his reading of what came down to us as Genesis. His arguments still have force whether he or we believe in a single Adam.

The development of the concept of original sin has a long history, but do you know if there’s a compelling reason that requires a single Adam? I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, just trying to understand.

If you read Humani Generis, you will see that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world. This is in the Bible as well. However, a few members of the Bible Explanation Industry will have you believe that science has the last word. In fact, here, it does not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

That 'living dialogue" definition is one more difference between Catholicism and some of the many faith communities.

Granny, FYI Catholics are Christians. That definition of theology is true for all Christian communities, including Catholic.

I was taught that Catholic theology concerns God.

It does.

Even the American Heritage College Dictionary says that theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth.

That’s a serviceable definition.

Catholic theology describes the relationship between God and the real person Adam.

That’s called “theological anthropology,” and it is one of the many branches of theology, but not the only one.

 

[grannymh]

The development of the concept of original sin has a long history, but do you know if there’s a compelling reason that requires a single Adam? I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, just trying to understand.

From the Catholic view point that Adam was a real person, there could be some compelling reasons. One could point to the Catholic position on monogenism as one. Or one could say that since original sin is a contracted state, it would be transmitted by the progenitor sinner and not by someone else. Maybe the type of sin is the compelling reason. Or maybe the status of Adam in comparison with the Creator. Or maybe Adam and Eve had been waiting to start their family.

If I were a teacher, I would hand my students the *Catechism *section which deals with Adam and human nature and tell them to find their own compelling reason. I am not a teacher, but I will give you the Catechism section just to see what you come up. Take your time with this section. I have been working for a long time on this section and I still find new insights when I open it.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful since the Catechism does expand on the basics and implications.
Do check out the Index.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»Enter the Catechism at this paragraph
»Table of Contents
»Index

 

[StAnastasia]

If I were a teacher, I would hand my students the Catechism section which deals with Adam and human nature and tell them to find their own compelling reason. I am not a teacher, but I will give you the Catechism section just to see what you come up.

Granny, are you imagining you would do this if you were a religion teacher? What if you were a biology teacher – would you hand students the Catholicism instead of their biology textbooks? That would be illegal in some states.

 

[inocente]

If I were a teacher, I would hand my students the *Catechism *section which deals with Adam and human nature and tell them to find their own compelling reason. I am not a teacher, but I will give you the Catechism section just to see what you come up. Take your time with this section. I have been working for a long time on this section and I still find new insights when I open it.

I’m not a Catholic and so as usual may be completely wrong, but as per instructions came up with this.

The paragraphs in the CCC don’t repeat the exhortation from Humani Generis #37, or at least I can’t find it. Pius XII is warning against accepting scientific theories without thinking through the consequences in terms of the truths that came down to us. One of those fundamental truths is that we are all one humanity, that none of us are superior or inferior no matter what the color of our eyes, that we all share the same origin and the same condition. The last sentence in the paragraph is essentially asking a question – tell us, anyone at all, how it’s remotely possible for any theory with multiple first parents to not severely undermine that crucial truth.

Theories have indeed been put forward which undermined that truth big-time, but the modern synthesis isn’t one of them. It makes a good deal of sense in terms of genetic evidence, and the end result is still one humanity in the same way as from single parents, but this time by smearing out our origin so that none of us can claim a higher status or separate lineage.

The CCC speaks of our common origin, our common unity and of our common wound of original sin. These are not undermined, or at least I don’t see how. We still inherit our fallen state from that first ability to freely make a choice. CCC 404 “Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.” Either way, it’s still a mystery.

Now, if some Catholics through their work or studies come to believe in this particular theory, a theory which doesn’t appear to contradict the teaching of the Church about how we behave toward God and each other, it seems strange to think that Pope Pius XII would try to order them to change their belief as if it were a pair of trousers, as if he weren’t concerned with greater things.

On the other hand, there are so many subtleties to this theory of human origins that it’s easy for non-specialists like myself to fill our heads with completely the wrong ideas. Until someone finds a bomb-proof way of teaching it to everyone, there’s a lot to be said for Pius XII wanting to keep things simple.

But then again I’m not a Catholic and so as usual may be completely wrong.

 

[StAnastasia]

There have been at least fifty years of scholarship answering this question! If I referred you to 250 works about it, would you be interested?

 

[buffalo]

There have been at least fifty years of scholarship answering this question! If I referred you to 250 works about it, would you be interested?

Please refer me to an article that states we are not all brothers and sisters with Adam and Eve as our parents that is written by a Cardinal or Pope.