Theistic Evolution: The parents of Adam & Eve

[TerrorDæmonum]

I don't know what is missing or lost.  All I can tell you is what Pius XII said, and that was that Adam and Eve were the sole first pair and the progenitors of all humanity.  That is a statement which impinges on biology.

Do I have only two parents of my own?

I offered that point in a discussion with a creationist once, and she said, "well, how do you know the wives of the sons of Noah weren't Asian and African and Aztec?"  And I said, "do you not see how you've made this even more challenging for your side?  Instead of it taking five thousand years from a population of 8, you are now saying it took only two thousand years from a population of 2."  In the end she decided she wasn't interested in discussing it in terms of genetics, which were all bunkum to her basically.

I am careful not to assume that scripture says something that it does not. Guessing as to the times involved is an error. In fact, Noe and other parts of Genesis are well before what is attested otherwise, and we see that every culture has various ideas, and simply put: there is a gap.

And again, scriptures describes the time of Noe as being very different. So we are back to the ashes issue. Not only is Adam's existence shrouded in antiquity with a lot of unknowns, but there is another instance on a lesser scale with Noe.

Scripture describes more a descent of humanity from being immoral and free in paradise, to being long lived and afflicted with Original Sin and its effects, to being what we know now.

To pretend to be able to put these events on a definitive timeline is an error.

[Mono no aware]

Do I have only two parents of my own?

Biologically, yes.  You had a father and a mother.  I believe there was a user on here who suspected you of being an extraterrestrial of some sort, but I am working from the assumption that you are a human earthling.

I am careful not to assume that scripture says something that it does not. Guessing as to the times involved is an error. In fact, Noe and other parts of Genesis are well before what is attested otherwise, and we see that every culture has various ideas, and simply put: there is a gap.

And again, scriptures describes the time of Noe as being very different. So we are back to the ashes issue. Not only is Adam's existence shrouded in antiquity with a lot of unknowns, but there is another instance on a lesser scale with Noe.

Scripture describes more a descent of humanity from being immoral and free in paradise, to being long lived and afflicted with Original Sin and its effects, to being what we know now.

To pretend to be able to put these events on a definitive timeline is an error.

The Roman Martyrology places the date of creation at 5199 BC, and the deluge at 2957 BC.  This may well be a pretention and an error.  I would say it is refuted by the known of facts of geology, with the sighed caveat that I accept these facts could change in light of new evidence to the contrary.

[Justin Martyr]

Do I have only two parents of my own?

Biologically, yes.  You had a father and a mother.  I believe there was a user on here who suspected you of being an extraterrestrial of some sort, but I am working from the assumption that you are a human earthling.

I am careful not to assume that scripture says something that it does not. Guessing as to the times involved is an error. In fact, Noe and other parts of Genesis are well before what is attested otherwise, and we see that every culture has various ideas, and simply put: there is a gap.

And again, scriptures describes the time of Noe as being very different. So we are back to the ashes issue. Not only is Adam's existence shrouded in antiquity with a lot of unknowns, but there is another instance on a lesser scale with Noe.

Scripture describes more a descent of humanity from being immoral and free in paradise, to being long lived and afflicted with Original Sin and its effects, to being what we know now.

To pretend to be able to put these events on a definitive timeline is an error.

The Roman Martyrology places the date of creation at 5199 BC, and the deluge at 2957 BC.  This may well be a pretention and an error.  I would say it is refuted by the known of facts of geology, with the sighed caveat that I accept these facts could change in light of new evidence to the contrary.

The dates fom the Roman Martyrology are not strictly authoritative as far as I know. If my Douay-Rheims bible did the math on the Vulgate right, creation was in 4004 bc and the deluge in 2348 bc.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The Roman Martyrology places the date of creation at 5199 BC, and the deluge at 2957 BC.  This may well be a pretention and an error.  I would say it is refuted by the known of facts of geology, with the sighed caveat that I accept these facts could change in light of new evidence to the contrary.

It is a naive genealogy and not a doctrine. It is useful to the extent that it is. Attested human civilization is a matter of archeology and it is far from complete.

As far as human history goes, it is almost certainly the extent that attested modern humans have existed, however, this is very much subject to particular questions that are unresolved, and I see no reason to have any particular concrete conclusions other than the timeline is older than we typically think. This leaves a lot of room for unattested shrouded history in science on its own, but also reveals that the mysteries of our past are not known to us.

And as a matter of faith, I accept that it is for the best this is not revealed. It would be convenient I suppose for there to be a complete convergence of science and scripture, to have the location and genes of Adam and Eve known, etc, but I think there is not for a very good reason:

Scatter the proud in thy indignation, and behold every arrogant man, and humble him. Look on all that are proud, and confound them, and crush the wicked in their place. Hide them in the dust together, and plunge their faces into the pit. Then I will confess that thy right hand is able to save thee.

And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Mono no aware]

The dates fom the Roman Martyrology are not strictly authoritative as far as I know. If my Douay-Rheims bible did the math on the Vulgate right, creation was in 4004 bc and the deluge in 2348 bc.

The dates may well be inaccurate; I will leave that dispute to creationists.  I was just responding to the claim that "to pretend to be able to put these events on a definitive timeline is an error."

[TerrorDæmonum]

I was just responding to the claim that "to pretend to be able to put these events on a definitive timeline is an error."

Putting it on a timeline, that is, in some order of events, is not an error.

Creation, Adam, Noe, Jacob, Gamaliel, Niall Noígíallach, Myself is a timeline and definitive, but we can only put definitive dates to some, and we can do our best guess as the rest. By "definitive timeline", I meant to include dates with certainty. We can group everybody together if we want to keep things simple and on the same page, but that should not be understood to be actual dates for what is essentially not knowable.

[Stanley]

If someone claims X goes against "proven metaphysical principles", and I look around in reality and see X, reality wins.

Then I am afraid our paradigms are too different for discussion on this topic to be fruitful at this time. It would be necessary to discuss fundementals, presuppositions, and paradigm level questions first.

Yes, we have a huge difference. You seem to want to "philosophize" about abstract definitions without reference to reality.

If new substances or species can exist potentially in other substances or species, evolution is not "metaphysically impossible".

Already addressed why this does not follow:

This still does not allow for evolution, however, because evolution as typically defined is the creation of entirely new substances ("kinds") by means of two creatures which share the same substance procreating together, with natural selection slowly altering the nature of the offspring over aeons. This is what I called metaphysically impossible. It violates at least three axioms: like begets like, you can not give what you do not have, and the effect can not be greater than its cause.

This is different than the creation of a compound substance, since compound substances are transferred from potency to act by the mixing of two different substances which already potentially contain the compound substance within their own substance.

More "philosophizing" about definitions with no reference to reality. You just define procreation in a way that, within your abstract world of definitions, gives you the conclusion you want.

The form of birds could be potentially contained in the form of therapods and actualized through the powers inherent in creatures, which include the animals and nature/heavens.

This seems a lesser claim than hydrogen and oxygen potentially containing water and all its properties that are in no way present in hydrogen. (So much for nemo dat quod non habet.) And if the elements potentially contain everything they can form, living things are also composed of elements combined in various ways. DNA is a molecule after all.

Furthermore, it's possible that all animals have the same animal form. In which case, all your "axioms" would appear to hold even within your abstract philosophy because there would be no change of substance.

I'm not saying the so-called "axioms" are actually wrong; they have a place. But I think you're badly misapplying them. Indeed, "like begets like" is debatable in this context. It's like bringing up the "axiom" that parallel lines do not intersect in a discussion of non-Euclidean geometries.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Yes, we have a huge difference. You seem to want to "philosophize" about abstract definitions without reference to reality.

Well, he admitted that:

First, I'm not an empiricist. Citing particulars against proven metaphysical principles is to no avail; for principles are metaphysically certain, all empirical data is only morally certain.

I'm not saying the so-called "axioms" are actually wrong; they have a place. But I think you're badly misapplying them. Indeed, "like begets like" is debatable in this context. It's like bringing up the "axiom" that parallel lines do not intersect in a discussion of non-Euclidean geometries.

The more advanced sciences do tend to get quite philosophical and difficult to visualize, but fundamental logic is not defied: it just can surprise us at scales we are not used to (very large, very small, very fast, very cold, etc).

Evolution is very much a matter of very long time scales and "like begets like" has to be true on the scales that are being discussed.

However, the issue I think that inspired this thread is that the evolutionary model seems to indicate that "humans" are a continuous development of a biological series that has no distinct start. That is, if you traced ancestry back, you'd get a gradient of "humanness" which would seem to deny any such idea as an actual first human couple. Or, maybe it would make the idea of the first human couple seem mostly arbitrary.

But the issue, regardless of where one stands on this, is that if we strip out philosophical ideas, and just look at the natural science, we see it is full of questions. Evolution is mostly about general ideas, not specifics. It can only speculate and conject on specifics, including whether the development of new species is gradual or not. The theory seems to have presented the idea that development of species is gradual and continuous, yet, this defies actual evidence.

And most commentary on this is philosophical rather than scientific.

Evolutionary biology does not even restrict the possibilities of aliens manipulating life on earth and cannot only work backwards on specifics with many assumptions, and it completely fails at the origin of life itself.

And even for atheists, this scientific field is not very useful to almost everybody. It seems to be bolstered by the need of atheists for a "new explanation" of their own existence, and it is filled with philosophy. So, it is usually something that is not very useful to consider in detail and it is difficult to actually discuss it in detail without having studied in detail.

So it is probably best not to make it a divisive subject and the truth is more perfect and beautiful than we can imagine, and the effects of the first sin are more profound than we imagine.

[Stanley]

Thank you. The original question of this thread, posted in 2014, was specifically asking theistic evolutionists to resolve why divinely inspired writing resulted in confusion in our modern day.

The answer is simple: because those confused are so because they have ultimately chosen to be confused. This is not anything to do with God, scripture, Genesis or science: one could do this with any matter of scientific inquiry if one chose. 

I see two relevant points here.

First, we are God's children, and God talks to us analogous to how we talk to our children, in simplified terms. "Mommy has a baby in her tummy". It's not wrong except to someone who insists on taking it otherwise than a parent explaining in terms appropriate to a child's understanding.

Second, humans are not smarter individually than our ancestors a few thousand years ago, but as a species, humans pass knowledge on orally or in writing and learn over generations. Knowledge is an aspect of social culture and can be lost with that culture. (Some animals can also pass on processes to their descendants, but their "culture" is by example and survives a generation at a time.) We grow a body of knowledge by building on previous work, and each development has some prerequisites in the body of knowledge. For example, modern cosmology presupposes several things that weren't known 4000 years ago. Those developments were under the rule of Providence.

[Goldfinch]

Should a Catholic be an Evolutionist?

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NetQrus79aM[/yt]

[Buzzard]

so according to materialists, we are just dust, and to dust we shall return.  no resurrection, no forgiveness, no easter.

As one atheist told me, "We're just grubs."

[Goldfinch]

so according to materialists, we are just dust, and to dust we shall return.  no resurrection, no forgiveness, no easter.

As one atheist told me, "We're just grubs."

The logical consequence of atheism is nihilism.

Existence is essentially absurd.