Zygotes and heaven?

[StAnastasia]

See this? People always ask me, “How can it harm our theology, to believe in the theory of evolution?”
Here is exactly the reason - this is the harm - that people then come to believe that Adam, our first ancestor in the flesh, was a common ancestor to every animal, and not only to human beings…It is because God created Adam and Eve, one man and one woman - our first parents, from whom we are all descended as children in one family - male and female created He them, in His own likeness, they were created.

No, Adam wasn’t the common ancestor. The earliest common ancestor probably preceded archaea and bacteria 3.7 billion years ago; it certainly preceded eukaryotes, which are any life forms with a cell nucleus, including mammals. Pope Benedict has written about this common ancestor.

Homo sapiens did not evolve from one primal pair, as the species would have suffered a catastrophic genetic collapse. The number of hominids evolving into full-blown humanity is estimated to have been between three and ten thousand individuals.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Without an immortal soul, how would such enjoy the benefits of anything after death? Except that Fido’s soul dies as well, and ours continues through eternity.

Do you have empirical evidence to support this claim, or is it mere religious prejudice?

 

[jmcrae]

No, Adam wasn’t the common ancestor. The earliest common ancestor probably preceded archaea and bacteria 3.7 billion years ago; it certainly preceded eukaryotes, which are any life forms with a cell nucleus, including mammals. Pope Benedict has written about this common ancestor.

Homo sapiens did not evolve from one primal pair, as the species would have suffered a catastrophic genetic collapse. The number of hominids evolving into full-blown humanity is estimated to have been between three and ten thousand individuals.

StAnastasia

Like I said, the belief in evolution completely undermines the very foundations of the Christian faith.

If there was no Adam, then there was no original sin, and no need for Christ to come.

 

[vz71]

Do you have empirical evidence to support this claim, or is it mere religious prejudice?

I have the testimony of God. There is no prejudice to it.

 

[StAnastasia]

Like I said, the belief in evolution completely undermines the very foundations of the Christian faith. If there was no Adam, then there was no original sin, and no need for Christ to come.

That would be a surprise to the thousands of non-Fundamentalist Catholic theologians who accept the evidence for evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

Like I said, the belief in evolution completely undermines the very foundations of the Christian faith. If there was no Adam, then there was no original sin, and no need for Christ to come.

This is simply not true. There are a number of very good theologians – Celia Deane Drummond in England, Ilia Delio in New York, Dennis Edwards in Australia, John Haught in Washintgon, Cardinal Josef Zycinski in Poland – who accept evolution completely, and who have made substantial contributions to interpreting theology in light of what we know from science.

StAnastasia

 

[jmcrae]

This is simply not true. There are a number of very good theologians – Celia Deane Drummond in England, Ilia Delio in New York, Dennis Edwards in Australia, John Haught in Washintgon, Cardinal Josef Zycinski in Poland – who accept evolution completely, and who have made substantial contributions to interpreting theology in light of what we know from science.

StAnastasia

We are permitted to believe in evolution, so long as we accept that God created everything, and that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, our first parents.

You have already amply demonstrated that this is impossible, however - the evolutionary theory does not admit of these tenets.

 

[StAnastasia]

We are permitted to believe in evolution, so long as we accept that God created everything, and that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, our first parents.

The Church does not ask us to believe incoherent things. There is no genetic evidence that all humans trace their descent from one ancestral pair, any more than that all squirrels trace their descent from one ancestral pair of squirrels. In fact, we know that genetically it is impossible for the breeding population of humans to have fallen much below three thousand breeding pairs. You misunderstand the Hebrew scriptures if you insist on a literal “Adam” and “Eve,” rather than reading them for what the author(s) and the believing community intended. “Adam” or man is made from Adma, earth. “Eve” is not a proper name, but “living being.”

StAnastasia

 

[jmcrae]

The Church does not ask us to believe incoherent things. There is no genetic evidence that all humans trace their descent from one ancestral pair, any more than that all squirrels trace their descent from one ancestral pair of squirrels. In fact, we know that genetically it is impossible for the breeding population of humans to have fallen much below three thousand breeding pairs. You misunderstand the Hebrew scriptures if you insist on a literal “Adam” and “Eve,” rather than reading them for what the author(s) and the believing community intended. “Adam” or man is made from Adma, earth. “Eve” is not a proper name, but “living being.”

StAnastasia

According to the Universal Catechism, to be a Catholic in good standing, we must believe that Adam was our first ancestor. See paragraphs 356-361 - especially paragraph 360.

I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223

359 "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 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

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227

361 “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

The genetic evidence has nothing to do with it. We are not believers in science; we are believers in God.

 

[StAnastasia]

The genetic evidence has nothing to do with it. We are not believers in science; we are believers in God.

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict and with most Catholic theologians on evolution,

 

[jmcrae]

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict and with most Catholic theologians on evolution,

I’m pretty sure that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) were involved with producing the Universal Catechism.

I have read Pope Benedict’s book on Genesis - he makes it very clear in that book that belief in Adam and Eve is absolutely essential to our Catholic faith.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have read Pope Benedict’s book on Genesis - he makes it very clear in that book that belief in Adam and Eve is absolutely essential to our Catholic faith.

I too believe in “Adam” and “Eve,” both theologically and liturgically. I love hearing the story of the Garden of Eden during the Easter Vigil.

However, I would be willing to bet real money that if Pope Benedict were standing before a thousand scientists at the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies, he would not take the absurd approach of defending a literal reading of the Genesis story that rejects outright everything we know about human genetic evolution. He would probably take a much more theologically sophisticated approach than you are taking. That’s my gut feeling.

StAnastasia

 

[vz71]

I too believe in “Adam” and “Eve,” both theologically and liturgically. I love hearing the story of the Garden of Eden during the Easter Vigil.

However, I would be willing to bet real money that if Pope Benedict were standing before a thousand scientists at the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies, he would not take the absurd approach of defending a literal reading of the Genesis story that rejects outright everything we know about human genetic evolution.

Did anyone else notice the scope creep going on here?
We went from a question concerning Adam and Eve to the whole of the creation story inside a single sentence.

 

[jmcrae]

I too believe in “Adam” and “Eve,” both theologically and liturgically. I love hearing the story of the Garden of Eden during the Easter Vigil.

Do you believe that we are all one human family, descended from one set of parents, as the Catechism teaches?

However, I would be willing to bet real money that if Pope Benedict were standing before a thousand scientists at the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies, he would not take the absurd approach of defending a literal reading of the Genesis story that rejects outright everything we know about human genetic evolution.

I am not taking a “literal reading of the book of Genesis.” The only part that we “have to” take literally are that Adam and Eve are one man and one woman, and that God created everything. The rest, we work out for ourselves, what makes the best sense to us.

But, if your working out of what makes sense to you involves rejecting that God created everything, and rejects that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, then you have fallen out of the Ark of Salvation, which is the Catholic faith.

He would probably take a much more theologically sophisticated approach than you are taking. That’s my gut feeling.

He would use longer words than I am using, certainly - but they would mean the same things that I am saying. He would not obscure the facts that God created everything - and that Adam and Eve are our primordial ancestors, making the whole human race kin to one another.

 

[BiologyBrain]

belief in Adam and Eve is absolutely essential to our Catholic faith.

Belief in evolution is not excluded by belief in Adam & Eve, nor vice versa. Genetically speaking there is documentable proof of a common “Eve” ancestor. By examining the mitochondrial DNA of as many races as possible, scientists have established that there was indeed one common lineage. “Adam’s” lineage has also been traced. From estimates, Adam existed prior to Eve (in accord w/ Genesis - see my later thought on that). Source

Since God is all powerful and all knowing would it not be possible for him to use evolution in His creation? The days spoken in Genesis do not have to be literal days b/c as we’ve already established, God’s time is not ours. Since evolution (to a point) can be shown via common ancestry, etc, I’m not going to jump off the deep end & say it can’t have happened that way. What I believe is that evolution was God-directed instead of merely directed by survival of the fittest/etc (although, these facts are part of God’s plan IMO). My personal belief, which at this time is neither refuted or confirmed by science (to my knowledge) is that the ‘missing link’ everyone is searching for is actually the miracle that God put an immortal soul into that creature to change it from an animal to a human. The reason the ‘link’ cannot be found is that the imposition of an immortal soul did more than just metaphysically/spiritually change the organism, it also physically changed it.

Back to the original question…

Zygotes are human. Human souls are in Heaven - not necessarily our physical bodies from here on Earth. We rely on a merciful God to allow these innocents into Heaven, but we do not know b/c it is not our place.

To my way of thinking (not necessarily doctrine), aborted babies have a more assured place in heaven b/c they suffered during their death. The same may be true for naturally aborted (miscarried) babies, although their suffering is unknown. There is the school of thought that suffering leads to salvation - that whole Take up your Cross and Follow Me and/or offer it up to God.

Abortion can never be thought of as better for the babies than life b/c it robs them of their fundamental right to life & ability to use their free will God gave them. To say they are better off aborted would be like saying we should kill all children b/4 they are capable of sin to ensure their salvation. Salvation can be helped along (IMO) by suffering, but it is also generally thought that free will is necessary for salvation. In other words, simply being alive then killed prior to the ability to make any choices for or against God, does not guarantee salvation. Salvation/damnation requires a conscious decision (as I understand it). I think that is where Limbo came into effect b/c aborted (naturally or unnaturally) babies do not have the capability of conscious decision-making prior to their deaths. Neither do infants or unbaptized children. However, even though baptized children/infants may not have made a conscious decision, one was made on their behalf to begin their salvation path. At the point of baptism, the child is washed clean of original sin and becomes a clean slate. Since that original sin stain is removed, they are in a ‘better’ position than the unbaptized to reach salvation. However, even their salvation is not guaranteed (to my knowledge) b/c again they have made no conscious decision to follow/reject God’s path.

 

[StAnastasia]

But, if your working out of what makes sense to you involves rejecting that God created everything, and rejects that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman, then you have fallen out of the Ark of Salvation.

Glub, glub!

He would not obscure the facts that God created everything - and that Adam and Eve are our primordial ancestors, making the whole human race kin to one another.

I’d love to see the title of Pope Benedict’s proposal to the American Genetics Society conference: “A literal reading Adam and Eve disproves evolutionary genetics.”

 

[jmcrae]

I’d love to see the title of Pope Benedict’s proposal to the American Genetics Society conference: “A literal reading Adam and Eve disproves evolutionary genetics.”

I have no idea what Pope Benedict is likely to say to the American Genetics Society conference, other than to encourage them to keep working and studying, and seeking out the truth, and to remind them of the teachings of the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have no idea what Pope Benedict is likely to say to the American Genetics Society conference, other than to encourage them to keep working and studying, and seeking out the truth, and to remind them of the teachings of the Church.

A sound plan!

 

[vz71]

However, I would be willing to bet real money that if Pope Benedict were standing before a thousand scientists at the International Federation of Human Genetics Societies, he would not take the absurd approach of defending a literal reading of the Genesis story that rejects outright everything we know about human genetic evolution. He would probably take a much more theologically sophisticated approach than you are taking. That’s my gut feeling.

Surely you can create a much more solid basis for an argument then this.

You think the pope might possibly say something that agrees with you if he were in a fictional event.

 

[StAnastasia]

Surely you can create a much more solid basis for an argument then this.

You might not follow a solid argument from genetics, and even if you did, you would just end up rejecting the science as being not in conformity with a literal interpretation of the biblical story of Adam and Eve!