Theistic Evolution: The parents of Adam & Eve

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Think about the contradiction - beasts are below men, but we have a commandment to respect our parents. So if Adam and Eve were born from some soul-less humanoids they are left with two choices each of which would be to disobey God (respect parents despite being beasts or disrespect parents). To suggest that God allowed such a moral conundrum is blasphemy but probably more so just stupidity and blind arrogance.

To play devil's advocate, if Adam's parents were monkeys then Adam would not be morally bound to honour them.  The honouring of parents is based in the natural hierarchy and monkeys are hierarchically lower than man so there's no obligation to honour them according to natural law.  Adam should still be grateful to God for providing him with monkey parents that provided for his material needs when he was a child though.

[GloriaPatri]

This is hardly an "obvious trap" Voxx.

To answer the OP: there are several options. There is the path of the fundamentalist, which is to reject all of the experimental and empirical evidence in favor of one's literalistic reading of Genesis. Such a view is unreasonable and is a mockery of the Christian Intellectual Tradition. There is of course the general response of atheists/deists/etc, which holds that because Genesis, as written and interpreted literally, grossly contradicts what all the evidence tells us. Then there is the traditional theistic view, which attempts to reconcile the two by treating Genesis as allegory. This is perhaps the most reasonable option, with one fatal flaw. By eliminating an actual Adam and Eve, there then seems to be no way to arrive at the doctrine of original sin. Thus, I propose a modified version: The Universe is, as the evidence shows us, ~13.5 billion years old. The Earth, in turn, is ~4 billion years old. God created the first single-celled life. Over the next 4 billion years these single-celled organisms evolved and differentiated into the host of living creatures we see both today, and in the fossil record. This includes those early species in the genus Homo. At some point in time, ~150,000 years ago, God elected to create a new species for the genus Homo, Homo Sapiens. This species, unlike the others in the genus, possessed a rational soul. In order to procreate, our First Parent's sons and daughters bore children with the Neanderthal stock already available. This both explains the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our gene sequence, and helps eliminate the incest that would otherwise be present amongst the first generations of mankind. That's how I reconcile them anyway. Take it as you will.

[Basilios]

Think about the contradiction - beasts are below men, but we have a commandment to respect our parents. So if Adam and Eve were born from some soul-less humanoids they are left with two choices each of which would be to disobey God (respect parents despite being beasts or disrespect parents). To suggest that God allowed such a moral conundrum is blasphemy but probably more so just stupidity and blind arrogance.

To play devil's advocate, if Adam's parents were monkeys then Adam would not be morally bound to honour them.  The honouring of parents is based in the natural hierarchy and monkeys are hierarchically lower than man so there's no obligation to honour them according to natural law.  Adam should still be grateful to God for providing him with monkey parents that provided for his material needs when he was a child though.

You've begged the question here.

The whole point is that we are bound to honour our parents; however, if the parents of Adam were monkeys, he cannot honour them by another of God's law's - that animals are below humans. You suggest this is not problematic but it absolutely is. Nowhere in God's law does it make space to say, "Honour parents except when not human". It's absurd and ridiculous and a mockery of Holy Scripture. Fatherhood is more than just natural heirarchy, come now, even playing devils advocate you can understand this is a spiritual concept too. Could Adam have eaten his father? Did Adam eat his father? It just makes absolutely no sense for Adam to have had a soul-less animal for a dad. That would make Adam a sort of chimera, which is a disgusting perversion of the beauty and perfection of God's creation particularly before the Fall.

[Basilios]

This is hardly an "obvious trap" Voxx.

To answer the OP: there are several options. There is the path of the fundamentalist, which is to reject all of the experimental and empirical evidence in favor of one's literalistic reading of Genesis. Such a view is unreasonable and is a mockery of the Christian Intellectual Tradition. There is of course the general response of atheists/deists/etc, which holds that because Genesis, as written and interpreted literally, grossly contradicts what all the evidence tells us. Then there is the traditional theistic view, which attempts to reconcile the two by treating Genesis as allegory. This is perhaps the most reasonable option, with one fatal flaw. By eliminating an actual Adam and Eve, there then seems to be no way to arrive at the doctrine of original sin. Thus, I propose a modified version: The Universe is, as the evidence shows us, ~13.5 billion years old. The Earth, in turn, is ~4 billion years old. God created the first single-celled life. Over the next 4 billion years these single-celled organisms evolved and differentiated into the host of living creatures we see both today, and in the fossil record. This includes those early species in the genus Homo. At some point in time, ~150,000 years ago, God elected to create a new species for the genus Homo, Homo Sapiens. This species, unlike the others in the genus, possessed a rational soul. In order to procreate, our First Parent's sons and daughters bore children with the Neanderthal stock already available. This both explains the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our gene sequence, and helps eliminate the incest that would otherwise be present amongst the first generations of mankind. That's how I reconcile them anyway. Take it as you will.

What seems strange with this is that you admit this is your own reconciliation - your own take on the facts. How can an objective fact (as you call it) lead to speculation as above? As far as a modern naturalistic atheist is concerned, the "empirical evidence" completely disproves my view and your view. In other words, if you're going to use the "empirical evidence" you have to use it in a consistent way otherwise you're just like the "anti-scientists" around here. Both of us would get laughed out of a modern secular classroom. So why do you get a free pass? Because you've synthesized two contradicting views? But that's just Modernism and fence-walking. I don't see why you call us anti science when you know full well that your own views would not be acceptable to most of these evolutionary scientists. You're just sweetening the deal for your own view. Why not just take the plunge and say scripture is wrong - because this is what the so-called empirical evidence points to. Just ask any evolutionary scientists. Dawkins admits it almost consistently that his field completely shows that there is no God. And since you constantly tell people that they should listen to the experts - why does your synthesis not fall under this category of "ignorant" too? The experts tell us that evolutionary science completely and utterly destroys any Christian concept of creation. So my point here is that you're a hypocrite at least in this regard because you're constantly willing to villify others for rejecting science and the experts, but your own way to reconcile science and Christian doctrine is to reject and accept a little bit of both. Epistemologically, you're in the same camp as us. You're willing to accept a little bit more, but you're still anathema to the scientific community. Which is an eye opener for us here, because you've essentially pulled the carpet out from under yourself - you've shown that you have as much right to claim scientific superiority as we do. That's good to know.

By the way, the above is written on the acceptance of your premise that the empirical evidence overwhelmingly and undeniably confirms evolution and an old earth. For the sake of argument I accepted this but it's false.

[Arun]

This is hardly an "obvious trap" Voxx.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=757059674358789&set=vb.446262852105141&type=2&theater

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=757059674358789" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=757059674358789">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Keenancorneliusfans">Keenan Cornelius</a>.</div></div>

[red solo cup]

If we're going to go the evolution route then two monkeys aren't going to give birth to two humans. There would have to be intervening
forms between the monkeys and humans. Plus it's more likely that apes would spawn humans as they're DNA is closer.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

This is hardly an "obvious trap" Voxx.

To answer the OP: there are several options. There is the path of the fundamentalist, which is to reject all of the experimental and empirical evidence in favor of one's literalistic reading of Genesis. Such a view is unreasonable and is a mockery of the Christian Intellectual Tradition. There is of course the general response of atheists/deists/etc, which holds that because Genesis, as written and interpreted literally, grossly contradicts what all the evidence tells us. Then there is the traditional theistic view, which attempts to reconcile the two by treating Genesis as allegory. This is perhaps the most reasonable option, with one fatal flaw. By eliminating an actual Adam and Eve, there then seems to be no way to arrive at the doctrine of original sin. Thus, I propose a modified version: The Universe is, as the evidence shows us, ~13.5 billion years old. The Earth, in turn, is ~4 billion years old. God created the first single-celled life. Over the next 4 billion years these single-celled organisms evolved and differentiated into the host of living creatures we see both today, and in the fossil record. This includes those early species in the genus Homo. At some point in time, ~150,000 years ago, God elected to create a new species for the genus Homo, Homo Sapiens. This species, unlike the others in the genus, possessed a rational soul. In order to procreate, our First Parent's sons and daughters bore children with the Neanderthal stock already available. This both explains the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our gene sequence, and helps eliminate the incest that would otherwise be present amongst the first generations of mankind. That's how I reconcile them anyway. Take it as you will.

Like a moth to a bugzapper.....basillios basically just closed the trap ...now I suppose this thread will consist of us watching you gnaw  your own limbs to attempt  an escape.
Well done basillos...bullseye post.

[Basilios]

If we're going to go the evolution route then two monkeys aren't going to give birth to two humans. There would have to be intervening
forms between the monkeys and humans. Plus it's more likely that apes would spawn humans as they're DNA is closer.

The point isn't biological here it's philosophical and the implications of that theologically.

The point isn't monkey gave birth to humans. It's non-rational soul (animal) gave birth to rational soul (human).

[Daniel]

You've begged the question here.

The whole point is that we are bound to honour our parents; however, if the parents of Adam were monkeys, he cannot honour them by another of God's law's - that animals are below humans. You suggest this is not problematic but it absolutely is. Nowhere in God's law does it make space to say, "Honour parents except when not human". It's absurd and ridiculous and a mockery of Holy Scripture. Fatherhood is more than just natural heirarchy, come now, even playing devils advocate you can understand this is a spiritual concept too. Could Adam have eaten his father? Did Adam eat his father? It just makes absolutely no sense for Adam to have had a soul-less animal for a dad. That would make Adam a sort of chimera, which is a disgusting perversion of the beauty and perfection of God's creation particularly before the Fall.

The law is to honour your parents except when the honouring of them requires that we dishonour a higher authority.  e.g. If your parents tell you to disregard Church teaching or to commit objective sin then you are not to do it.  So, the law is contingent upon the fact that our parents have authority over us.  Since monkey has no authority over man then man's obligation to honour his monkey parents does not even exist in the first place.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

If Adam came from two apes/hominids/whatever, then he was conceived in the womb of one of these creatures and by extension he was immaculately conceived.

Therefore, to believe this is to deny various dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Faith: the Creation account as traditionally taught by the Church, the dogma of Our Lady being "THE" Immaculate Conception, the Church teaching on Original Sin, the inerrancy of Scripture ... a few off the top of my head, I'm sure that this list can be added to by others more knowledgeable than myself.

[Daniel]

Some traditional Catholics accept the theory of evolution.  But if evolution is true, then the Biblical account of the dawn of mankind appears far removed from reality.  Instead of being created by God, an Adam & Eve arrived at by evolution would've had parents.  The Bible does not mention these parents, but you would think that would be an important part of their story.  If Adam & Eve were given immortal souls, and their parents did not have immortal souls, then Adam & Eve stood in relation to their parents as humans do to other primates.  Their parents were essentially animals.  And animals, in Catholic theology, are divinely intended as subservient to humans.

Even according to atheistic evolution, it's possible that Adam had no parents.
Atheistic evolution is driven entirely by random chance.  The origin of life itself happened completely due to chance (just the right chemicals randomly mixing together in just the right way to form a primitive prokaryotic lifeform).
And if life began once completely by chance then certainly it can begin twice (or thrice or any number of times) completely by chance.  So polygenesis (the theory that not all organisms share a common ancestor) is certainly possible.  So, maybe there were several original prokaryotes who each came into existence independently of one another.
Suppose that one such prokaryote evolved into present-day man and did not evolve into anything except present-day man.  If God gave that prokaryote a soul then that prokaryote (who had no parents) would have been human from the get-go.  So that prokaryote could be "Adam".
And then I'll take it one step further.  If everything happened by chance then what's to stop a eukaryote from coming into existence spontaneously through the correct mixing of chemicals?  Why does it need to evolve from prokaryotes?
And going from that, why can't a multicellular organism come into existence completely through chance (without evolving from eukaryotes)?
And going from that, isn't it possible that a biological human came into existence from a random mixing of chemicals (not through evolution)?  The chance would be very low but even monkeys with typewriters can sometimes produce Shakespeare.
So, a biological human just spontaneously came into existence from a random mixing of chemicals in just the right way (and God gave it a human soul).  But if we're going to throw God into the equation then we can remove the randomness altogether and just say that God created Adam.

[red solo cup]

Some traditional Catholics accept the theory of evolution.  But if evolution is true, then the Biblical account of the dawn of mankind appears far removed from reality.  Instead of being created by God, an Adam & Eve arrived at by evolution would've had parents.  The Bible does not mention these parents, but you would think that would be an important part of their story.  If Adam & Eve were given immortal souls, and their parents did not have immortal souls, then Adam & Eve stood in relation to their parents as humans do to other primates.  Their parents were essentially animals.  And animals, in Catholic theology, are divinely intended as subservient to humans. 

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "dumb animals are devoid of the life of reason," so Adam's father would've lacked both a soul and the ability to reason.  Imagine how strange this would've been for Adam growing up.  This would've been a strange family.  But there is nothing in Genesis to indicate this.  If evolution were true, it seems like the Bible would have passages that went something like: "and Adam was much saddened, seeing himself to be unlike his father and his mother.  And the Lord said unto Adam, 'you are emancipated from your father and your mother; their kind is not your kind; go ye therefore into the land of Eden, where another awaits for you.  Her name is Eve."  But there's nothing like this at all.  If evolution is true, why does the Bible give no explicit indication?  Why does the Word of God appear so contradictory to this theory?  Why did even Catholic bishops and theologians embrace creationism?

These are questions for theistic evolutionists.  This thread assumes, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true.  And if it is, then why did God, who is omnipotent and can see the future, inspire a creation account that causes so much confusion and division in the Body of Christ?

According to chapter 1 of Genesis.  God starts with lower animals and finishes with Adam. Chapter 2 seems almost opposite. Adam first then the lower animals. What are
we to make of that?

[GloriaPatri]

My attempt to reconcile the evidence of evolution with Genesis is merely that, an attempt. There is of course no empirical evidence stating that Homo Sapiens were a special creation of God rather than an evolution of earlier hominids. It is complete speculation on my part, but is (to me at least) the only means of reconciling evolution, which reason compels me to believe to be true, with Scripture, which faith compels me to believe is true. Any other attempt is unsatisfactory and requires a denial of something that is empirically verifiable, or requires a repudiation of the Christian religion.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Gloria Patri, I have a genuine question: Can Transubstantiation be empirically proven, or is there at least empirical evidence for it? Is there empirical evidence that baptism removes Original Sin?

[GloriaPatri]

Lydia:

No, there is no empirical evidence for these things. Empirical evidence is that which is physical in nature, and can be observed by the senses and are quantifiable. The closest we have for empirical evidence would be the Bleeding Hosts. But if you're talking about a "regular" consecrated Host, then no, there is no empirical evidence. These are things we believe by faith, though we do not perceive them by sight.