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 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
To: Boogieman
No, if I had assumed something, then I wouldn’t have bothered to ask you the question. I observed that something might be the case, and asked a question to determine if it was true or not. You’re really reaching here trying to condemn me for asking you a question.

Would you condemn me for asking if you were a serial killer? Of course I will call you on it. You're planting seeds of untruth.

621 posted on 11/28/2014 3:12:57 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Matthias is definitely NOT an apostle!

They prayed and he ignored them, because it was none of their concern, so they ignored him, and drew lots.

It pays to read carefully!
.


622 posted on 11/28/2014 3:13:27 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Says who? Black Americans are easily observed to be several shades lighter, generally, than black Africans. I’m sure if anyone bothered to do a scientific analysis, they could find other similar changes due to interbreeding.

I said "to a great degree". A slight change in skin color isn't much compared to what would have had to happen after Noah.

623 posted on 11/28/2014 3:14:39 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Are you saying people recently became “squeamish” about the “historical” belief that supernatural fallen angels bred hybrids? You’re saying that the historical interpretation of Gen 6 is that those were fallen angels mating with daughters of men?


624 posted on 11/28/2014 3:18:01 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

If Adam were a son of God in the sense we are discussing, he would have been immortal from the start.

Yes, he was a special creation of God, not by biological means, yet he was biological, and corruptible.

We, and Adam will be made incorruptible at the last trump.


625 posted on 11/28/2014 3:19:13 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“I’ve told you the principle, to rightly divide the word as we’re instructed to do:”

Well, that is not an answer to the specific question you were asked. If I asked you “how do you multiply two numbers” and you said “study math”, I would categorize it similarly as a non-answer.

“I guess that may not mean much to some but to me it means to think of the situation and use discernment to put the verses being studied in the proper context.”

What you state here is a subjective method, not an objective one. In order for it to be a sound method for interpreting Scripture, anyone should be able to apply it and achieve similar results.

“Of course there is a special way to understand God’s Word! It’s not meant for hypocritical Pharisees, scripture lawyers with evil intentions, or those who do not study to show themselves approved. Jesus himself said it is meant for only those that He wants to understand:”

Yes, yet we are all Christians here (save a few strays that wander into these threads), so we have no excuse for claiming some special method for understanding Scripture that others would not be able to apply. Christ may not have expected the Pharisees to understand mysteries, but He certainly expected His disciples to understand and be in agreement.


626 posted on 11/28/2014 3:21:48 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Hey, just reading what the bible says, and it says Adam was a son of God. Take your argument up with Luke.


627 posted on 11/28/2014 3:23:18 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“Would you condemn me for asking if you were a serial killer?”

Honestly, I would probably just laugh, because why would anyone ask that? It’s not like a serial killer would admit it.

I see what you are getting at, but still, I merely asked a question, to make sure I knew who I was dealing with. Some of the ideas you were expressing were identical to those espoused by people who also espouse the idea I asked you about, so I don’t see how that was an inappropriate question to ask. If I started saying that I believe that Jesus visited North America to preach to the Indians, I could not rightly get offended if people asked if I was a Mormon.


628 posted on 11/28/2014 3:26:40 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“A slight change in skin color isn’t much compared to what would have had to happen after Noah.”

Yes, but that’s only a superficial observation. I don’t think anyone has done any rigorous study on this, so we can’t quantify the effects of interbreeding. Without that, we can’t know how much of any changes we do observe are due to interbreeding, or might be due to environmental adaptation.

In other words, it’s a badly compromised example, since you can’t control for other experimental variables.


629 posted on 11/28/2014 3:30:08 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“Are you saying people recently became “squeamish” about the “historical” belief that supernatural fallen angels bred hybrids? You’re saying that the historical interpretation of Gen 6 is that those were fallen angels mating with daughters of men?”

Well, perhaps squeamishness is not the best way to characterize their motivations, but yes. That is the traditional interpretation, not an innovation.


630 posted on 11/28/2014 3:32:53 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, that is not an answer to the specific question you were asked. If I asked you “how do you multiply two numbers” and you said “study math”, I would categorize it similarly as a non-answer.

I can't help you understand the Word, I'm not a pastor, just a discusser. You're going to have to take it up with the Holy Spirit and ask Him for discernment and understanding. I can plant a seed, that's all. I hope you come around.

What you state here is a subjective method, not an objective one. In order for it to be a sound method for interpreting Scripture, anyone should be able to apply it and achieve similar results.

Yep. It works for me. No unworkable theories from me.

Yes, yet we are all Christians here (save a few strays that wander into these threads), so we have no excuse for claiming some special method for understanding Scripture that others would not be able to apply. Christ may not have expected the Pharisees to understand mysteries, but He certainly expected His disciples to understand and be in agreement.

Well, let's look at who the Pharisees were. Paul was a Pharisee. What did Paul do at first? He held the coats for those that would kill a man of God, Stephen, to shut him up. So a Pharisee to me is someone who allows non-biblical traditions to be a stumblingblock to learning truth. Political correctness is certainly a huge stumblingblock and Satan's greatest weapon right now to keep people from understanding God's Word. God had to go to the extreme of striking Paul down to change his ways. There's a lot of Pharisees today that try to exercise that same power that Paul exercised, by playing games (maybe expressing false assumptions to plant seeds of untruth) to shut people up. Sound familiar?

Political correctness wipes out a large portion of the bible and makes those whose learning suffers from that to be easy prey for the antiChrist when he arrives.

631 posted on 11/28/2014 3:39:05 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Honestly, I would probably just laugh, because why would anyone ask that? It’s not like a serial killer would admit it. I see what you are getting at, but still, I merely asked a question, to make sure I knew who I was dealing with. Some of the ideas you were expressing were identical to those espoused by people who also espouse the idea I asked you about, so I don’t see how that was an inappropriate question to ask. If I started saying that I believe that Jesus visited North America to preach to the Indians, I could not rightly get offended if people asked if I was a Mormon.

I believe your intention was to plant seeds of untruth.

632 posted on 11/28/2014 3:40:39 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Well, according the rules of the religion forum, what you think my motivations were is not a fit topic for discussion on this thread.


633 posted on 11/28/2014 3:42:45 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Yes, but that’s only a superficial observation. I don’t think anyone has done any rigorous study on this, so we can’t quantify the effects of interbreeding. Without that, we can’t know how much of any changes we do observe are due to interbreeding, or might be due to environmental adaptation. In other words, it’s a badly compromised example, since you can’t control for other experimental variables.

A very unconvincing example. I can easily recognize people descended from non-European ancestors that have been here 400 years.

634 posted on 11/28/2014 3:42:49 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, perhaps squeamishness is not the best way to characterize their motivations, but yes. That is the traditional interpretation, not an innovation.

If it is the traditional interpretation of Gen 6, can you show me a paper from medieval times discussing it, or up to 1800 or so?

635 posted on 11/28/2014 3:45:41 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“I can easily recognize people descended from non-European ancestors that have been here 400 years.”

Which still does nothing to demonstrate what you were trying to demonstrate with this example, for reasons I have already explained (it’s an apples to oranges comparison, and you can’t control for other variables).


636 posted on 11/28/2014 3:47:20 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, according the rules of the religion forum, what you think my motivations were is not a fit topic for discussion on this thread.

You went first with your false assumptions.

637 posted on 11/28/2014 3:48:24 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Which still does nothing to demonstrate what you were trying to demonstrate with this example, for reasons I have already explained (it’s an apples to oranges comparison, and you can’t control for other variables).

What was true for 2350BC to 1950BC should be true for 1614AD to 2014AD, and there is no evidence that our temperate climate has changed anyone to a great degree who descend from tropical climates.

638 posted on 11/28/2014 3:51:25 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Luke was only making the point that Adam was created, not born of woman.
.


639 posted on 11/28/2014 4:16:22 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
There will be 7000 of us, not just me. Only 7000 will not worship antiChrist when he arrives. The rest are more into playing games and playing church rather than preparing themselves for the great deceiver. It's so easy to one of the 7000 out of 7 billion, don't fall for the great deceiver.

You've mentioned this "7000" figure several times on this thread. I'm curious where you get this from.

640 posted on 11/28/2014 4:18:24 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 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