PhilVaz

I've discussed this in other threads on the Catholic Answers boards. I thought I would post it here to see if any of you have tried to reconcile this before. I see conflicts in Catholic teaching on Adam/Eve and evolution since the Catholic Church seems to teach

(1) Adam/Eve were historical (see for example all the references to them in the Catechism paragraphs 385-421), that we literally trace our humanity back to these 2 human parents who were fully human, i.e. they had immortal souls, and they passed the "original sin" on to us

(2) evolution is probably true (see same Catechism paragraphs 283-284, and other statements by Pope John Paul II, etc)

Lately, I've been trying to pinpoint when Adam/Eve would have lived, if we take (assume) Genesis as a historical account. There are many different views, depending how you define humanity. Hugh Ross The Genesis Question, dates Adam/Eve at 50000-70000 BC, and Glenn Morton Adam, Apes, and Anthropology, dates Adam/Eve to around 1-2 million years ago based on creatures that "acted" the same way humans do. These are my main sources, I don't have Catholic sources as yet that discuss these questions in detail (Fr. Stanley Jaki might have a book on the question, but I haven't located it), and have only touched upon the paleoanthropological literature (mainly from sources at TalkOrigins and NCSE).

One evangelical article from a Scientific Christian organization (In Search of Historical Adam, two parts by Dick Fischer) suggests 4000-5000 BC based on the Genesis geneologies (chapter 5 and 11) with few gaps, and especially by the references to livestock raising and farming (Genesis 4:2), sophisticated musical instruments (the harp and the flute, Genesis 4:21) and metal working (at least bronze and iron, Genesis 4:22). This would seem to definitively put them AFTER the Stone Age (c. 10000 BC or earlier where only stone tools and weapons existed), and during the Bronze Age (c. about 5000 BC or so).

The problem is we know humanity (homo sapiens sapiens) goes back 100,000 years or more. We have Cro-Magnon skulls (e.g. the "cave man" which are also considered our species homo sapiens) dated at least 30,000-40,000 years ago.

Knowing and accepting this anthropological data, the above article by Fischer suggests Adam/Eve were inserted by God into (already existing) humanity as special creations (so at this point God "bypassed" evolution and we invoke a physical miracle). I don't like that since I would rather try to reconcile with standard evolutionary science and paleoanthropology (which is what Glenn Morton tries to do in his book).

Anyone care to comment? Can we take Genesis as historical, and do I have the above right? That (according to Genesis) Adam/Eve must be after the Stone Age based on the references to livestock/farming and metal working in Genesis chapter 4, which did not exist in the Stone Age. And how do you explain humanity (our species homo sapiens) existing before Adam/Eve?

That's pretty much how I asked this on the Catholic Answers boards. Any of you (former or present Christians) ever tried to reconcile this? And please correct any errors you see.

Phil Porvaznik

Joshua Adams

That verse, coupled with my Catholic school education, leads me to think the Catholic Church currently regards Adam and Eve as symbols of early/first humanity, not to be taken literally. Nor would the inference that their nearly-immediate descendants were artisans of bronze, or musicians, be taken literally.

This outlook, in my opinion, throws much of the Biblical historicity into doubt, though, because (a) they aren't presented as any more mythical than others, (b) supposedly real people traced back their ancestry to Adam (notably Jesus). Even though Luke and others obviously regarded Adam as a real person, the Church doesn't, despite the inspiration doctrine. Enigmatically, they don't consider anything else in the Bible ahistorical; for example the Exodus or, I think, the Flood, despite similar implausibility and lack of evidence.

Based on Biblical timelines, it is generally agreed that Adam and Eve would have lived about 4000-4200 (others say ~6000, some ~10,000, but I'm unfamiliar with how they get these numbers) years before Christ, if historical. Seventy thousand years ago simply cannot be justified by a non-metaphorical reading.

Edit: Interesting. Looking at the Lukan geneaology of Jesus on there, they appear to have made somebody up to put as the son of Heli, and father of Mary. Of course, the insertion of Mary at all is unwarranted, but that's at least to be expected.

Edit 2: Almost forgot. As we all know, the KJV has been an influential translation, and it has a peculiar rendering of Genesis 1:28:
This single word has led some to speculate that, indeed, there were other humans prior to Adam and Eve. Then again, almost all other translations simply say "fill".

JLK

Hi, Phil. See the books I just listed in the "Races" thread by renegadebabe.
Perhaps this should go to the Biblical Forum for discussion.

The Gen geneologies are all specific symbolical numbers. The enormous number mysticism/symbolism in Genesis has been known for a long time. The ASA which you referenced just had a large article by Carol Hill several issues ago and a fascinating response letter in the next issue. Someday maybe someone will get the time to condense all this on a site with the added stuff from http://www.recoveredscience.org/constants_index.htm

Many liberal Christians just read Genesis 1 as very sophisticated mathematical hymn. Gen 2 as a local myth by a tribe. The Flood as a local flood myth. There is so much ethical stuff in the OT to reject, they focus on Jesus' great commandments.

This is just the data the authors of the Mesopotamian myths would have, more or less.

Trying to figure out when 'insertions" happened depends on knowing what the "insertion" is supposed to be. Glenn Morton says it's "religious feelings" about the afterlife or use of ritual symbolism and so you have to go back as far as he says - over a million years. And I'd trust Glenn Morton's scholarship.

PhilVaz

Jagan << That verse, coupled with my Catholic school education, leads me to think the Catholic Church currently regards Adam and Eve as symbols of early/first humanity, not to be taken literally. >>

Thanks for the comment. That's what I want to get settled, does the Catholic Church even allow that Adam/Eve were just symbols of humanity? I'll probably find some opinions on the Catholic Answers board.

Some of the Genesis account I know is interpreted figuratively (eating the "apple", the talking snake, the nature of the Fall), but not sure about Adam/Eve themselves. Cardinal Ratzinger (the head of the doctrinal congregation in the Church) has a short book on Genesis, but I don't think he goes into a lot of detail. It's quoted by Michael Behe in his chapter "A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism" in Dembski's collection Uncommon Dissent, but he doesn't deal with the Adam/Eve question specifically (although Behe seems to accept the common ancestry of humans, apes, and chimps).

The Catechism as I mentioned refers to "our first parents" and "Adam" and "Eve" over and over again, nowhere implying "our first parents" didn't really exist as individuals. It would certainly make it easier to reconcile a "symbolic" Adam/Eve with the evolution of humanity, rather than a literal historical couple. :wave:

Phil P

RBH

Off to BC&H.

RBH
E/C Moderator

Toto

You might get something out of this thread: David Karpeles. Karpeles seems to think that the Bible can be (sort of) historical if you assume that Adam was the first homo sapiens with enough consciousness to make him "human."

Peter Kirby

This is incorrect (although some individual Catholics agree).

In "Humani Generis, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine," the one-time pope declared the "polygenism" theorized by scientists to be contrary to the faith, favoring instead the idea of the descent of all human beings from two and only two people, Adam and Eve who fell with Original Sin.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I think the Church has been attempting to distance itself from this obviously erroneous position. John Paul II's Catechesis on Creation is more ambiguous, but it is not binding. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, reiterates the old position. The index of the Catechism is here. The relevant section on Creation is here and does not appear to directly conflict with evolution. 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:

"337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."206

Further, discussion anybody?

PhilVaz

Toto << You might get something out of this thread: David Karpeles. >>

Thanks, very interesting. Whoah, you've been here a while, 10000 posts since 2000.

Phil P

Peter Kirby

This is old hat. Augustine also recognized that the account of creation in six days need not be taken as individual steps that God achieved in 24 hour periods, taking a snooze at the end. (See book 13 of the Confessions for his allegorical interpretation of Gn 1.)

I haven't seen any "official" pronouncements that a literal two parents of humanity ("monogenism" or "Adam and Eve") is no longer Catholic doctrine.

Concerning the Flood and the Exodus: even if the Pope and all the Cardinals came to the conclusion that the Flood didn't happen, they wouldn't promulgate this as doctrine. The RCC doesn't make it its business to undermine the biblical narrative (upsetting conservatives and probably much of the developing world). Interpreters and scholars make that their business (sometimes). What the RCC does is delineate what is required dogma and doctrine, and say that any other opinions you hold are your own and fine if they don't contradict. So someone could write a book saying the wedding at Cana probably didn't happen, and get an Imprimatur+Nihil Obstat, but if the author denies the Virginal Conception, that wouldn't pass.

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

best,
Peter Kirby