Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Crisis Magazine ^ | November 24, 2014 | DENNIS BONNETTE

Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer

the-fall-of-man-hendrick-goltzius

Pure myth! That is today’s typical view of a literal Adam and Eve. Yet, contrary to current skepticism, a real Adam and Eve remain credible—both in terms of Catholic doctrine and sound natural science.

By calling the Genesis story a “myth,” people avoid saying it is mere “fantasy,” that is, with no foundation in reality at all. While rejecting a literal first pair of human parents for all mankind, they hope to retain some “deeper” truth about an original “sinful human condition,” a “mythic” meaning. They think that the latest findings in paleoanthropology and genetics render a literal pair of first true human parents to be “scientifically impossible.”

The prevailing assumption underlying media reports about human origins is that humanity evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population (a collection of interbreeding organisms), which itself originally evolved from a Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we are not seen as descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve.

This universal evolutionary perspective leads many Catholics and others to conclude that a literal Adam and Eve is “scientifically impossible” for two reasons: First, paleoanthropologists deny the sudden appearance of intelligent, self-reflective, fully-human primates, but rather view the emergence of consciousness and intelligence as taking place slowly and incrementally over long periods of time. Second, in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially from studies based on genetic data gleaned from the Human Genome Project, it is claimed that the hominin population (the primate group from which modern man is said to have arisen) has never had a bottleneck (reduced population) of a single mating pair in the last seven or more million years: no literal Adam and Eve. Many succumb to the modernist tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest scientific claims—thus intimidating Catholics into thinking that divinely revealed truths can be abandoned—“if need be.”

This skepticism of a literal Adam and Eve begs for four much needed corrections.

First, Church teaching about Adam and Eve has not, and cannot, change. The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that one man, Adam, committed original sin and that through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption was accomplished (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15: 21-22). In paragraphs 396-406, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, speaks of Adam and Eve as a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state” (CCC, 404). “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle” (CCC, 405). The doctrines surrounding original sin cannot be altered “without undermining the mystery of Christ” (CCC, 389).

Today, many think that Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis did not definitively exclude theological polygenism. What they fail to notice, though, is that the Holy Father clearly insists that Scripture and the Magisterium affirm that original sin “proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam [ab uno Adamo]” and that this sin is transmitted to all true human beings through generation (para. 37). This proves that denial of a literal Adam (and his spouse, Eve) as the sole first genuinely human parents of all true human beings is not theologically tenable.

Second, rational human nature itself requires that mankind made an instant appearance on planet Earth. Paleoanthropological claims of gradual appearance of specifically human traits fail to comport with a true philosophy of human nature. Reflecting classical Christian thought, St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that true man is distinguished essentially from lower animals by possession of an intellectual and immortal soul, which possesses spiritual powers of understanding, judgment, and reasoning (Summa theologiae I, 75). While these qualitatively superior abilities are manifested through special forms of tool making or culture or art, they need not always be evident in the paleontological record. Sometimes true men share mere animal survival behavior and sometimes truly human behavior is lost to modern sight due to the ravages of time. What matters is that genuinely spiritual powers are either present or not, and that these alone bespeak the presence of true man. Irrational animals, including subhuman primates, are capable of complex sentient behaviors often approaching or imitating the rational activities of true man. But an animal either possesses a spiritual, intellectual soul or not. Thus at some point in time, true man suddenly appears—whether visible to modern science or not. Before that time, all subhuman behavior manifests merely material sensory abilities. The fact that positivistic scientists cannot discern the first presence of true man is hardly remarkable.

Third, a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity. Natural scientific studies employ the inductive method of reasoning. Empirically observed data is employed to form testable hypotheses. Molecular biologists use computer models in an attempt to validate such hypotheses and reach conclusions about genetic conditions in early primate populations. In this process, some researchers have committed the logically invalid move of inferring from particular data to the universally negative claim that a literal Adam and Eve is impossible. Such methodology produces, at best, solely probable conclusions, based on available evidence and the assumptions used to evaluate the data. There is the inherent possibility that an unknown factor will alter the conclusion, similarly as was the unexpected discovery of black swans in Australia, when the whole world “knew” all swans were white.

Fourth, specific scientific arguments against Adam and Eve have proven not as forceful as many presently believe (Gauger 2012). For example, some have claimed that effective population size estimates for the last several million years would not permit just two true humans to have lived during that time. Still, the technical concept of average effective population size estimates should not be confused with an actual “bottleneck” (a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. Effective population size estimates can vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007), depending on the methods used.

Such calculations rely upon many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are known to vary widely. All of this entails retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have no directly verifiable data. For such reasons, some experts have concluded that effective population size cannot be determined using DNA sequence differences alone (Sjödin 2005; Hawks 2008).

Indeed, the most famous genetic study proclaimed as a “scientific objection” to Adam and Eve turned out to be based on methodological errors. An article by geneticist Francisco J. Ayala appearing in the journal, Science (1995), led many to believe that a founding population of only two individuals was impossible. Ayala based his challenge to monogenism (two sole founders of humanity) on the large number of versions (alleles) of the particular gene HLA-DRB1, which are present in the current population. Accepting the common ancestor theory, he claimed that there were thirty-two ancient lineages of the HLA-DRB1 gene prior to the Homo/Pan split (approximately seven million years ago). Over time, these “pre-split” lineages, themselves, evolved into the new additional versions present today. Because each individual carries only two versions of a gene, a single founding pair could not have passed on the thirty-two versions that Ayala claimed existed some seven million years ago—either at that time or at any time since. A bottleneck of just two true humans, Adam and Eve, was “scientifically impossible.”

However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years. A still later study coming out of Bergström’s group inferred that just four such lineages existed more than five million years ago, but that a few more appeared soon thereafter (von Salomé 2007). While two mating hominins can transmit four lineages, the few additional later ones still require explanation.

These genetic studies, based on many assumptions and use of computer models, do not tell us how the origin of the human race actually took place. But, they do show (1) that methodological limitations and radical contingency are inherent in such studies, which are employed to make retroactive judgments about deeply ancient populations that can never be subject to direct observation, and (2) that present scientific claims against the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve are not definitive (Gauger 2012, 105-122).

Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of God’s plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).

The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human race’s very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.

Moreover, given the marked reduction in the number of ancient HLA-DRB1 alleles found by the later genetic studies of Bergström and von Salomé, it may turn out that no interbreeding is needed at all, or at most, that very rare instances of it may have occurred. Such rare events might not even entail the consent of true human beings, since they could result from an attack by a subhuman male upon a non-consenting human female.

A literal Adam and Eve remains rationally, scientifically credible.

Since the same God is author both of human reason and of authentic revelation, legitimate natural science, properly conducted, will never contradict Catholic doctrine, properly understood. Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Editor’s note: The image above is a detail from “The Fall of Man” painted by Hendrik Goltzius in 1616.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: adam; adamandeve; creation; crevo; crevolist; eve; evolution; fazalerana; gardenofeden; genesis; hughross; originalparents; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
To: Verginius Rufus

>>despite some verses in the Bible that suggest otherwise.<<

Which verses?


181 posted on 11/24/2014 8:33:08 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
>>Is the exact number of human beings who caused original sin any more essential than the names of the rivers in the Garden of Eden?<<

Well St. Paul thought so:

Romans 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

182 posted on 11/24/2014 8:41:09 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter; allendale

>> “Did God part the Red Sea?” <<

.
That one has been proven to be fact; we have the Ron Wyatt video footage of demolished chariots on the floor of the Red Sea.


183 posted on 11/24/2014 8:48:18 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The problem with the so called chariot remains is that a small bronze tag recovered at the scene states that it is property of Paramount Pictures. :)


184 posted on 11/24/2014 8:55:25 PM PST by Holdem Or Foldem (My sources are anonymous and tightly held. :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2; Zionist Conspirator; boatbums; metmom; daniel1212

The creation account is short and sweet. There’s a reason for that. The Bible is not about God trying to prove His existence and works to atheists.

The Scriptures are about God’s revelation to mankind on how we fell from His Grace, and how He promises us a plan of deliverance from the fallen state.

That is why more than 90% of the Bible is about God’s plan for deliverance and redemption.

Genesis is short and sweet. It should be. God made all things perfect. Adam rebelled, disobeyed then separated from God.

God did not have to tell Moses and the early Hebrews He created all. They knew and those today thus discerned know.

So the details you seek and some demand from God, by recorded revelation was clearly not His focus. This does not say we should ignore scientific studies, observations and experimentation. It just means such was not the main effort of God’s revelation to mankind.

Trying to wrestle with Big Bang was not and is not Christ’s command to preach to all nations. It was to preach His death and resurrection. Which is why Genesis is short and sweet. All the rest leads to Christ and His work.

I find it odd Christians grapple with creation. I can understand why skeptics, atheists and agnostics do, but not those proclaiming Christ as Lord and Savior.

For if a Christian believes Jesus performed miracles defying our physical laws how is Genesis 1-3 so hard to accept?


185 posted on 11/24/2014 9:20:08 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

>>According to the Bible we humans are products of the incestuous relationship between Noah and his daughter(s).<<

Are you Roman Catholic? I ask because the above is not found I scriptures. Noah entered the ark with three sons all married to women.


186 posted on 11/24/2014 9:24:45 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Are you responding as a Roman Catholic?


187 posted on 11/24/2014 9:27:33 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

LOL 2001 the movie is a great remedy for insomnia:)


188 posted on 11/24/2014 9:29:15 PM PST by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Again the point of Genesis was that all of creation was from God. At the time of Jesus the little history that people knew was that Kingdoms were conquered by other kingdoms and the current rulers were not the founders. For example Israel , the Kingdom of David , was conquered and now ruled by Rome. So what about creation. Who made it? Did the God of Israel find it? Take it over from someone other. No. The answer that Jesus gave and taught over and over through his ministry was that there was but one God and that he was the Creator of all, which is the heart of the Genesis message. Jesus reaffirmed the message of Genesis. As far as is known He never sat down in a seminar and deconstructed his parables, symbols nor did he dissect the Scriptures as one does today other than to disparage and humiliate those who sought to justify themselves with the common “It is written...”


189 posted on 11/24/2014 10:01:02 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Yep. That’s them in that picture. I’d recognize them anywhere. That be them.

Yep! 'cept, it wasn't an apple Eve ate but a banana...because it had appeal. ;o)

190 posted on 11/24/2014 10:47:00 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: erkelly; UCANSEE2
(If Genesis is to be believed, then we all sprang from incestuous relationships, the children of Adam and Eve had to marry and mate one another.)

I don't see any reason why Genesis should NOT be believed. Don't forget, these first humans lived hundred of years and we don't know how long they remained in childbearing condition. If you look at cats, for example:

    Eighty million cats is a lot of cats. However, you would be surprised how quickly two cats can become that 80 million. If you let two cats breed at will — and then allow their offspring to breed at will, these two cats will have 80 million progeny within a decade! This assumes two litters per year and 2.8 surviving kittens per litter. Here are the numbers:

    First year: 12

    Second year: 66

    Third year: 382

    Fourth year: 2,201

    Fifth year: 12,680

    http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-long-does-it-take-2-cats-to-turn-into-80-million.html/2

Granted, humans aren't cats and they don't have "litters", though we hear of women giving birth to multiples all the time. Plus, a cat's lifespan is 15 - 20 years AT BEST. It's only around 5 for feral cats these days. For humans who lived for hundreds of generations it's not unfeasible that a man might mate with a distant relative and it not BE incest at all.

191 posted on 11/24/2014 11:20:58 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf; editor-surveyor
Yes, that works out fine until God rests on the seventh day and then says, in verse 4 these are the generations in which the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that God made the earth and the heavens. So it took generations according to verse 4 but was counted as one day.

I don't think it does. The Hebrew word that you are reading translated as "generation" is a word that means an account, or a record or telling of the events and is translated that way in a number of Bible versions.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. (Gen. 2:4 NIV)http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-4.htm

192 posted on 11/24/2014 11:29:20 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator; NYer; ebb tide; KC_Lion; wideawake
One need not believe in the truth of ancient Catholicism or Orthodoxy to admit that the current position of both churches is a modern reaction to Protestantism, not the ancient immemorial "unchanged" teaching . . . however many would like to claim otherwise.

I disagree with your conclusion here that the current position of Catholicism and Orthodoxy WRT creation and evolution is a reaction to Protestantism. I see it as their reaction to modern agnostic and atheistic "scientific" theories on the origin of the universe and life itself and a fear of appearing as nonscientific or "fundamentalist" and being open to criticism and mockery. It's more of having your cake and eating it, too.

Instead of trusting that what God said in His sacred word concerning what, how and when He created all things and standing by that while modern "science" tries to figure it all out in fits and starts - sometimes contradicting previous absolute proofs - without acknowledging there even IS a Creator, is cowardly. I think it's hilarious watching the fools who say in their hearts, "There is no God.", backtrack on previous heralded "discoveries" that supposedly proved a theory beyond all doubt when something new is discovered that exposes their foolishness and makes them start all over again. God truly mocks them in holds them in derision. The wisdom of man is foolishness with God and, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

193 posted on 11/24/2014 11:50:17 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
The trouble with writing off so much of Scripture as mere allegories, myths, legends or folk tales is that, with that kind of hermeneutic, NOTHING can be taken literally and EVERYTHING can be written off if one finds the literal not to their liking. What I have found in my forty-five plus years of Bible study is that God means what He says and says what He means. IF something is a parable, He insures it is explained to those with ears to hear. When He uses allegory, it clearly spells that out, too, and Scripture interprets Scripture.
194 posted on 11/25/2014 12:03:47 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
For if a Christian believes Jesus performed miracles defying our physical laws how is Genesis 1-3 so hard to accept?

Amen! Is anything to hard for God?

195 posted on 11/25/2014 12:06:11 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

2 additional points.

1) For a proper study of human growth rates, we only have to study that documented for Israel during the Exodus.

Reverse calculations of the growth rates give an age closer to the dates documented in Scripture than the billions and billions of years commonly assumed.

2) The first generation after the flood is a unique generation, in that the parents outlived their grandchildren. Rmember how the first generations didn’t just live 72 some odd years, but for a thousand plus years. It is very likely that many stories were spread amongst their remnant of ancient history, which were then carried into other bloodlines and then future lineages.


196 posted on 11/25/2014 1:40:19 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington

“If other humans existed elsewhere, that would explain Genesis 4:14. If there were no other humans besides the first four, what exactly was Cain afraid of? That would also explain where Cain got his wife.”

We are told that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. These and their offspring are the ones of whom Cain was afraid. It would also be from among these that Cain got his wife. No reason to think otherwise.

Incestuous relationships were not inherently sinful. They only became unadvisable after the degenerative effects of sin had had an effect. The first few generations would have shown very little of the future ill effects.


197 posted on 11/25/2014 2:07:10 AM PST by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

You are wrong.


198 posted on 11/25/2014 2:20:54 AM PST by verga (You anger Catholics by telling them a lie, you anger protestants by telling them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Most that question the word do so because they’ve no idea of the plan.

I believe that is part of it. There is a certain percentage that don't care that there is a plan and also a certain percentage that believe that they know better than God.

199 posted on 11/25/2014 2:47:02 AM PST by verga (You anger Catholics by telling them a lie, you anger protestants by telling them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
<>I>That one has been proven to be fact; we have the Ron Wyatt video footage of demolished chariots on the floor of the Red Sea

I have told this to the Mormons that come to visit. To compare it to the epic battle that supposedly took place near Hill Cumorah in upstate New York. Do you have a link?

200 posted on 11/25/2014 2:52:27 AM PST by verga (You anger Catholics by telling them a lie, you anger protestants by telling them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,041-1,053 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson