@Flimzy In not immediately available on chat, nor for some time; but respective of our discussion on comments about Adam and Eve: the Catholic Church holds no official position on evolution, but we are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. See the encyclical "Humani Generis* of Pope Pius XII.
Just wanted to put that down before I forgot. I even have an answer to that effect somewhere on the site.
And yes, the two views are compatible; I deleted my comment, but it mentioned "Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve", articles for whom you can find on Wikipedia.
The Spanish Inquisition was a shameful historical period in the history of Christianity. What were the motivations behind those who started the Inquisition? What factors gave them the support needed to start the Inquisition?
@MattGutting Your answer is here. The view of a literal Adam and Eve is, without question, incompatible with modern evolutionary theory. Whether this makes the Catholic doctrine inconsistent with scientific theory is, of course, a secondary question.
@MattGutting: In defense of Catholic theological consistency, your answer states:
> Pope Pius continues, however:
> The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. **Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original…
Maybe Catholic authors use "It is in no way apparent" when they mean "it's irreconcilable", but a normal reading of that passage would not lead me to believe that Catholicism directly demands belief in a literal Adam and Eve.
And your own statement , "To believe that there were two humans who were the ancestors of all subsequent humans is scientifically reasonable"... is completely inaccurate. It may have been true 20 years ago, but modern understanding of biology renders a single set of parents for all of humanity (or any race with the same level of genetic diversity as modern humans) an impossibility.
Of course there's nothing preventing Catholic dogma from flying in the face of scientific fact. YECs do this all the time. But it does seem that more recent Catholic authors have made a concerted effort to not demand that their faith contradict science. It would be very odd for the Catholic church to take a general attitude of willingness to accept science to explain the physical world, except in the area of biology.
@Flimzy how do you reconcile that with statements like "the most important recent common ancestor of all currently living human beings", made [here] (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)?
That should say "the most recent matrilineal common ancestor".
"Y-chromosome Adam" is a most recent common ancestor of all currently living human beings as well. If such beings are not incompatible with current scientific theories, I see no reason why a literal Adam and Eve would be incompatible.
As far as the Catholic requirement for believing in a literal Adam and Eve, r technically what he's saying is of course that he doesn't see a way, not that there is no way. However, since he doesn't see a way, he's forbidden the statements to be taught in Catholic institutions. He is in fact requiring, at least subject to further theological investigation, belief in the statement.
@MattGutting Neither the Mitochondrial Eve theory nor the Y-chromosomal Adam theory holds that these two individuals were the only ancestors of present-day humanity, and both posit that there were many ancestors previous to those two individuals. So these scientific theories are in no way compatible with a literal Adam and Eve as presented in the Bible, nor with Pope Pius's statements as quoted by @Flimzy above.
Also, it is highly unlikely that the female and male individuals in those theories existed at the same time as one another or mated with one another as in the Biblical story of Adam and Eve.
@intex There's nothing we can do about that from here. If you're under threat, you'll need to find help locally.
@LeeWoofenden I understand and agree. I'm not saying that either of those two were in fact Adam or Eve; I'm simply saying that based on their existence, it doesn't appear to me incompatible with current scientific understanding to say that there was a pair of biologically human beings who were the first given souls by God, and who were the ancestors of all subsequent beings who were human in body and soul.
Actually, let me rephrase. I agree that these two weren't the Adam and Eve. But I don't believe you can state that the scientific theories on which the deductions of their existence are based are necessarily (logically) incompatible with the existence of an actual Adam and Eve.
Particularly in light of the fact that there's a difference between what it means to have a human body and what it means to be human (have a body and soul).
@MattGutting I don't believe it can be reconciled with the most current information on the biological evolution of humanity. I believe that is now considered an outdated, obsolete model.
Of course that is, in itself, incidental to the conversation at hand. There may be competing contemporary theories of the details of human origins. The relevant point is that the Catholic church has made a point not to dictate which science is deemed correct. So Catholicism has made it a point to allow any/all competing scientific theories to be battled out on their own merits, and still retain compatibility with Catholic dogma and theology.
@MattGutting: Your interpretation of the Pope's words violate that principle. Now, let me hasten to add that I think your interpretation of the Pope's words (that Catholics "must believe in a literal Adam & Eve") seems logical on the surface, and when taken in isolation. But it doesn't make sense in the context of the point being made, over the last several decades, by the Catholic church, that religion and science operate in separate realms.
@Flimzy I'm not sure you can reconcile that statement with Humani Generis' statement "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, ... provided that
all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. ("Humani Generis" paragraph 36, emphasis added)
I'm checking to see whether the Church believes that its dogmas are consistent with scientific theories, and if they don't appear to be, what should be done. Ultimately I'm trying
to get back to the question of whether the Church insists that one must believe in Adam and Eve literally. I think it does.
And in that light I think you may be wrong to say the
Well, I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not entirely sure how the Catholic church does things, but I've yet to see anything to suggest that it does insist upon that, other than your opinion.
The way I understand things (and I admit outright that my understanding is limited), the Pope is free to offer his interpretation and opinion on things, and these are not dogmatic (they don't automatically mean that all Catholics must agree).
I see the Pope's statement, which you quoted, as saying "the important dogma is original sin, and that seems to require a literal Adam and Eve"
However, it doesn't necessarily preclude other alternate explanations for original sin (which some others have attempted to provide)
I sure hope it's not an issue... because it if its, then it lumps the Catholic church in with the YECs
And it sure seems that the Catholic church has been making a concerted effort, especially over the last few decades, to not make dogmatic assertions about scientific inquiry.
Which have lead to so much egg on the Catholic church's face in the past (insisting the world is flat, etc)
No, it wasn't. Check your science - geocentrism didn't require a flat earth; the man who discovered the earth was round still believed it was the center of the universe.
The quotes I remember reading from various Catholics on the theory of evolution seem to have a common theme, to my sensibilities: "The Catholic church should not be in the business of making dogmatic assertions about scientific issues, because sooner or later it will be proven wrong. Again."
As the same quotes go into specifics about Adam and Eve, I think there's a lot of room for them to possibly be simply responding to the "current state of science"--at the time of the quotes.
Science in this area changes quickly.
As I understand, as recently as 5-10 years ago, the idea of a single common ancestor (or pair of ancestors) was considered plausible within the biological community.
Now, the best data suggests that there were never fewer than about 50,000 humans, meaning an entire population had to evolve together.
But after several thousand years, when the descendants of the two groups were reunited, they discovered that one group had pale skin and blonde hair, the other dark skin and black curly hair.
But even if that was in an instant, it would have to be to an entire population at once, or, the in-Gods-image humans had to mate with "animals" (pre-humans not in his image).
And while there's no evidence one way or the other in scripture about that, it seems somewhat "gross" to assume such bestiality was necessary :)
But even the most hard-core abortion advocates will admit that there's nothing especially magical about the moment of birth that changes the nature of the fetus from "non-person" (or "human tissue") to "person" (or "human being").
I said "A large part of our society is built up on the concept that it's a gradual process." You said "No" then "I've seen indications that we believe that"
You're talking about a noun "a human" versus an adjective "human". As they're two different categories of word, differences in definition will inevitably appear,.
I'm specifically talking about the noun.
From Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of HUMAN : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
No, babies are bipedal (their genome, at least unless there are pathologies, codes for two lower limbs suitable for walking - that's what makes bipedalism)
@LeeWoofenden @Mr.Bultitude I have revised my answer in response to your critique. I think it better stands alone as its own answer now and also better explains the relevance of the source ciriticism.
@ThaddeusB Without having carefully re-read the whole answer, it does look much improved in that it now directly addresses the question from the outset rather than responding to another answer as its keynote.
@Flimzy Perhaps not "magical," but at the moment of conception, or shortly thereafter, the genetic material from the sperm links with that of the egg to form a full, viable DNA strand that forms the blueprint for a unique human being. Neither the egg nor the sperm by itself has such a full, viable DNA strand that could, by itself, develop into a fully formed human being.
Per your earlier conversation with @MattGutting this still doesn't solve the problem of how to define "a human being," but there certainly is a distinct event that takes place at conception, after which there is a different order of "humanness" than before.
Birth is another such event, in that after birth, the baby is no longer exclusively dependent on his or her mother, and can survive without the mother if necessary.
Viability, though less well-defined, is also such an event, in that the fetus could survive without the mother at that point.
@MattGutting However, the Bible (literally understood) says that God created Adam from the dust of the ground, and Eve from Adam's rib. Evolution says that the first humans evolved by genetic mutation and other forces from previously existing animals. Even if we speak of Adam and Eve as the first humans into which God infused souls, the mode of their creation in the Biblical account is still contradicted by evolutionary theory.
Further, as @Flimzy has pointed out, evolutionary theory as currently held to states that humans did not come from two individual "first" human beings, but rather from a group consisting of tens of thousands of individuals. Even Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam theories posit that there were tens of thousands of other individuals existing at the times of those particular individuals, whose DNA and other genetic material forms parts of the blueprint of present-day humans.
The difference is that the genetic material of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are in all present-day humans, rather than only in some present-day humans as is the case for the rest of the human individuals that existed at the time of "Eve" and at the time of "Adam."
@Flimzy To finish the thought above, every one of these events, conception, viability, and birth, represents a distinct development in the level of "humanness." And not coincidentally, every one of these events has been adopted by one group or another as the proper time at which a human being exists, should have rights, etc.
@MattGutting But that brings us right back to the main issue of your earlier conversation with @Flimzy: How can the Catholic Church both affirm the existence of two human individuals named Adam and Eve who, together, are the ancestors of all present-day human beings and at the same time not take a position on what science has discovered about human origins—which conflicts with the Biblical account that is necessary for Catholic doctrine to be true?
The Spanish Inquisition was a shameful historical period in the history of Christianity. What were the motivations behind those who started the Inquisition? What factors gave them the support needed to start the Inquisition?
The Upper Room
The Upper Room