PhilVaz

Vork << The section on Adam is hard to see as anything other than affirmed truth and denial of evolution. But in the section on Creation: the Visible World, the Catechism says >>

Yeah, that seems to be my problem. I have reconciled myself to the scientific evidence for evolution, and the Catholic Church seems to have also (see JPII 1996 statement I linked from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), but the Church still holds to the concept of a literal historical Adam/Eve.

The Catechism (while refering to Adam/Eve as real historical people, repeatedly as "our first parents") also says this (paragraph 283) :

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....

The many splendidly enriching scientific studies on "the appearance of man" affirm that homo sapiens go back 100,000 or more years but the "biblical" or "historical" Adam/Eve date back to 5000 BC, perhaps 10000 BC at most. I think there are earlier commentaries by Pope John Paul II himself on Genesis, and he's no dummy (several Ph.D.'s, not in science but philosophy). I'll have to find them to see what he says....

And then we have this book by noted end-of-the-world prophet Harold Camping called Adam When? He dates Adam at precisely 11,013 BC.

I'm also looking for some good "liberal" commentaries on Genesis 1-11. Treating this whole account (up to Genesis 1-11) as symbolic or mostly figurative is certainly the easiest way to reconcile with science, but not sure if that is really an "orthodox Catholic" option. I'd like to be orthodox and remain "on the side of the angels" (quoting Benjamin Disraeli). :angel:

Phil P

PhilVaz

From the "Races" thread on creation/evolution

<< Three excellent newer popular books on the evolution of various human groups genetics are The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey - Spencer Wells >>

Ah, I just bought The Journey of Man paperback a few weeks ago. Fascinating, I was so happy that science seems to have found the real "Adam" and "Eve", only problem is they are separated by about 100,000 years, with mt-Eve before Y-Adam if I remember right.

Phil P

PhilVaz

PKirby << If anything has been written that goes against the "Humani Generis" encyclical, please post it. >>

Yeah I think it's still the teaching. Humani Generis by Pius XII was written in 1950, and was more cautious/tentative on evolution, with John Paul II in 1996 being more emphatic/definitive. But the teaching on Adam/Eve as historical seems to have not changed. Darn it. To quote Frank Zindler, without the Fall (original sin) of a real Adam/Eve that we trace all humanity back to, this would place Jesus "into the ranks of the unemployed." Not to be sacrilegious but I know this is mainly a skeptical board. :devil1:

Phil P

Joshua Adams

Well, I'm rather confused now, Peter, but I stand corrected. My school=a buncha apostates, a la section 13.

At any rate, if the fruit, days, snake, and garden are all metaphorical imagery--which I remember someone saying in here--I would have thought the couple was too. Where do you draw the line? I didn't read the entire thing... maybe about the first and last fourths of it... are you sure there's no way to construe Adam and Eve as shorthand for "the first humans, whoever and whenever they were", given the details of the story aren't literal? What does he have to say about the fact that science contradicts the creation order?

PhilVaz

<< At any rate, if the fruit, days, snake, and garden are all metaphorical imagery--which I remember someone saying in here--I would have thought the couple was too. >>

Basically everything but the couple themselves is figurative or metaphorical as I understand. But some individual Catholics interpret Adam/Eve as figurative as well, I just want to get straight on what the "official" Catholic teaching is. I guess I should know, as I call myself a "Catholic apologist" but it's not an issue I've studied. :huh:

Phil P

PhilVaz

Ah ha, this guy (evangelical Christian I think) claims to have "ended" the debate. Another book to get.

The Origins Solution

Same guy (Dick Fischer) who wrote the "Search for Historical Adam" articles above. Maybe a little too Protestant fundamentalist for my taste, but might answer some questions.

Phil P

Dean Anderson

I'm not sure how the 'six metaphorical days' solves anything. If we look at the Torah, it quite clearly gives a direct male-line descendant list with the ages of each father when the son is born.

A few minutes with a calculator gives Adam's creation as being specifically 1656 years before the flood, and the period of Egyptian bondage as being from 582 years after the flood until 982 years after the flood.

If Adam is to be pushed back by 5,000 - 10,000 years, then the whole history must be. I don't see how the latter part of that history can be pushed back by another 5,000-10,000 years. Egypt, for example, would not have existed at this point.

If you wish to reconcile the Torah accounts with what we know as history, you must accept that pretty much the whole of the Genesis account is metaphorical and not trusted history. A literal reading of Genesis with the exception of first chapter and a half is simply not possible.

Either the whole thing must be 'history' - in which case mankind has only existed since about 4,000BC, or the whole thing is 'metaphor'.

Since we have no archaeological evidence for anything prior to David - and even then the evidence is extremely sketchy - and since we have plenty of evidence that mankind has been around far longer than 6,000 years, the only sensible conclusion is that the Genesis account is not true history.

Chili

That calculation would take you back to the beginning of Jewish mythology and the beginning of Judaism only. It can therefore still be true history.

Chili

. . . and don't forget that the RCC allows it to be a metaphor and therefore they will not remove anything form the narrative. Personally I doubt that they will ever go against the wedding in Cana for as long as they are a Marian people in the effeminate "she" of the mother Church. The wedding in Cana is where Mary became the bride of Christ in the metaphor.

Jabu Khan

So what did we just forget how to farm, breed domestic animals and build ships for a few thousands years then after being fully formed with the ability already intact?