Just to frame up the question briefly, let me quote the same passage Kyle did from Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, in which Pius addresses the question of the Church's understanding of human origins in light of modern (evolutionary) science. In summary, Pius sees no conflict between a Catholic understanding of humanity and evolutionary science, but he does lay out one possible area of conflict:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For 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 sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.So while Pius XII is quite comfortable with the evolutionary account of human origins so long as there is one clear ancestral couple who were first infused by God with a soul, and who are described in the Bible in the story of Adam and Eve, he expresses grave reservations as to whether we can accept a view of human history in which not all humans are descended from a single ancestral couple, who fell and thus bequethed us original sin. However, as Kyle points out, modern evolutionary science (sixty years further down the road from Pius XII's encyclical) suggests with near certainty that there was at any given point in time a population of humans from whom the subsequent generation was descended -- there never was a population bottleneck after which all subsequent humans were descended from one ancestral couple. (There are single ancestors, and doubtless single ancestral couples, whom all modern humans share as an ancestors, "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" for example, but in the generations immediately after these individuals there were many humans who were not related to them. It was only over tens of thousands of years of genetic mixing that we reached a point where all humans shared those single ancestors.) Further, there is very strong genetic evidence that on a few (rare) occasions, archaic human populations in various parts of the world interbred with the ancestral modern human population which spread out of Africa and which all humans share. Thus, those of European descent have a tiny genetic contribution which appears likely to have derived from Neandertals, but people who no European ancestry do not share this genetic heritage. Thus, mixing with Neandertals clearly came at some point after the otherwise common origin of all humans.
Let me see if I can step back to the basic question here (whether our understanding of original sin is modified if we accept a scientific understanding that we are descended not just from one unique pair of original humans, but rather from a population of original humans) and take a run at it, because this is something which has always seemed pretty straight-forward to me whereas many people find it rather worrying. (Whether this means I have any particular insight on the matter, or if it simply means I'm theologically tone deaf, you shall have to tell me. I hesitate to find little difficulty where a recent pope found much -- but perhaps there are some areas in which the passage of time is helpful.)
If I were to summarize the doctrine of Original Sin as I undertand it, leaving all questions of evolution aside, I would say: Original Sin is a stain, defect, or corruption which marks the soul of every human born since the fall. We are born with it, and it inclines us to sin. All humans (Mary aside) have been born with Original Sin since the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve.
Now, let us bring into mind the apparent scientific truth that there was never a single "first" human couple (at least in the biological sense) from whom all modern humans are descended, but rather that there was a small population of humans who are the ancestors of all of us, some descendants of whom on a few subsequent rare occasions appear to have mixed with some regional archaic human populations elsewhere in the world as they spread out.
What of the above definition of original sin would we need to change in light of this? To think about it, I'd like to break the definition into two parts:
a) Original Sin is a stain, defect, or corruption which marks the soul of every human born since the fall. We are born with it, and it inclines us to sin. All humans (Mary aside) have been born with Original Sin
b) since the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve.
First let us address a). It seems to me that within a Catholic understanding of God's revelation to us, we probably do not need to see any problem with a) as a result of accepting a scientific account of the history of humanity in which there was never a single original couple whose children made up all the rest of humanity.
On the face of it, one might ask, "But if our understanding of original sin is derived from thinking that the story of Adam and Eve was a basically historical account, doesn't that mean that with Adam and Eve removed, we must revise our understanding of what original sin is, or if it exists at all?"
I think, however, if we take a Catholic approach to scripture and to Church teaching, this is not the case. First, we understand that the Bible consists of a number of genres and that they contain several levels of meaning. I would propose that the opening chapters of genesis belong to the genre of mythology. This does not mean (as some people seem to take the word to mean) that they are nice stories to read to children under the age of ten but are essentially false and of no relation to "reality". Rather, mythology is a way of expressing deep truths about ourselves and the world through a narrative which may well not be historically true. However, myths are not "just a story", nor are they "false". They're simply not meant to be true in the same way that a history book or a newspaper story is meant to be true.
While many in the history of the Church may have assumed (for lack of any reason to think otherwise) that the story of Adam and Eve (and other Genesis stories such as the story of Cain and Able and the story of Noah) was historically true -- our understanding of what scripture is does not require that we believe so. Further, as Catholics we believe that Christ instituted the Church in order to safeguard His teachings, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and protect her from teaching error.
Now, if original sin were just some theological gloss which people had proposed in order to explain certain elements of the Genesis story, then I could see proposing that it needed to be revised or abandoned given a change in our understanding of the genre and historical accuracy of parts of Genesis. However, original sin is clearly a doctrine of the Church which has been taught authoritatively since the time of the Church Fathers. If we believe at all that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error, then clearly we can accept the Church's basic account of original sin as correct -- even if it was in part arrived as through taking a mythological narrative to be more historically accurate than it now appears to have been.
Because of this, it seems to me that everything contained in a) can be taken as true, regardless of whether one takes the story of Adam and Eve literally or mythologically.
Now as to b), here it seems that we have several possible ways we can consider the story of Adam and Eve as presented in Genesis in light of what we currently believe we understand about the history of the human species due to the discoveries of modern science.
1) We could hold that at some point in the distant past, God chose a single pair of humans and made them like himself by infusing them with immortal, rational and moral souls. These first parents fell in some way which was best described to God's chosen people through the Genesis story. Their children all had souls, and at some points interbred with the rest of the early human population, with the result that at some point in the still quite distant past all humans had "Adam and Eve" as one of their ancestors and possessed a soul.
2) We could hold that at some point in time God infused the entire population of humans with souls, and one couple from among them were tested and fell. Given this eventuality, one could hold either that 2.a) as a result of the sin of the representative couple, all humans were stained with original sin at once or 2.b) only the descendants of this fallen couple had original sin, but through some sequence of events, all of us are direct descendants of them. (It strikes me that this leaves the most room for a really fascinating set of fantasy novel plots.)
3) One could hold that they may well never have been a single couple who went through a fall, but that this mythological story was inspired or guided in development by the Holy Spirit in order to describe to the Israelites (and eventually to us) the fallen nature of humanity and the nature of humanities relationship with God. In this way of thinking, we pretty much have to admit that while there was clearly some "fall" at some point after humans came to have souls and be able to have a moral consciousness and awareness of God, and after which humanity possessed original sin and all that that entails, we really have no idea what it was that happened other than that God chose to describe it and its results to us via the story of Adam and Eve.
To the extent that I have an opinion on the matter, I might lean towards 3), but honestly I'm a bit hesitant to even pick one. This is in part because, given the stance outlined by Pius XII above, I don't want to head off in directions which are in any way incompatible with our Church, but more so because I really don't think that it matters. What we do have in Genesis is the story that God chose to place (or allow to develop, depending on how you want to look at it) in the sacred writings of His chosen people. As such, I'm fairly confident that it tells us what we need to know about our nature and our relationship with Him. And given that we, at this remove, have no way of actually finding out "what really happened", I can't see that it's worth speculating much over or putting deep thought into. After all, the best we could do is build our own "just so" story, based on what we think most likely, and unlike God, we don't have the benefit of having been there.
26 comments:
"...we have several possible ways we can consider the story of Adam and Eve as presented in Genesis in light of what we currently believe we understand about the history of the human species due to the discoveries of modern science."
It's hard to get excited about the issue for a different reason. There are already numerous ways in which Catholic teaching already apparently clashes with science. Did Jesus walk on water? Scientific methodology would say no. Did Jesus turn water into wine? Scientific methodology would say no. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Scientific methodology would say no.
So, while it is always extremely important not to clash with science unnecessarily, there are certainly going to be unavoidable apparent clashes. A new one isn't likely to make a particular difference.
And where science clashes in singular events, the clash is less serious. Is there video from the time of Jesus, demonstrating a failure those things that are claimed? No, there isn't. Surely, if things always work as they appear to work in this world, with scientific methodology, then the claims of the Gospels are false.
But Christianity is irrevocably committed to the idea that the world as it appears to work has been overcome.
Paul, there is a big difference between the miracles you refer to, and the biological origin of the human race. Jesus did not walk on water, nor turn water into wine, nor rise from the dead, in such a manner as made it appear that he did so by a very specific natural process. To do so wouldn't have manifested his glory or his divine power the way that miracles did.
Man's genes, however, appear as having arisen by a very specific natural process, the process of evolution occuring in a population of primates. Science does not point to many genetic ancestors of the human race merely in the sense that natural processes are inadequate to explain how man's genes could have derived from a single couple, but in the sense that there are very specific characteristics of man's genes that point to a specific history, a history passing through a breeding population that always consisted of more than a single couple.
The Christian believes in a God who intervenes in the world, but also believes in a God who is the Truth, and this poses a problem for a hypothesis that would say God created a world or a human race with a misleading and false apparent history.
Interesting post! I have been rejecting polygenism because of the encyclical you quoted. Your 2b is an interesting "solution", if one is needed.
I always smiled when a catholic apologist would ask a Protestant, regarding the Eucharist, "Don't you believe that God *could* do this, if He wanted to?". They may not agree that He did, but they must agree that He could because he is God, right?
Then I heard an evangelical ask a Catholic the same question, but about creation and the flood and Jonah, etc. And I thought, well, He is God, isn't He?
As Fr Corapi says (back on Eucharist) He made everything from nothing - surely He could make something from something else! I guess that applies as well to making the body of Christ from bread as Adam from dust.
At any rate, I quit worrying about it. But I do appreciate the speculation from time to time.
Joseph Bolin: "Man's genes, however, appear as having arisen by a very specific natural process..."
To explain things via a natural process is an ordinary first step to take. But sometimes that doesn't work.
For example, the physical origin of Jesus: he appeared as a human male, and it would be an ordinary deduction to conclude that he originated in a natural process, and had a human for a mother and a human for a father. But that would be an incorrect deduction, because we have been given information otherwise (information not derived from a scientific process).
That Adam's body came to be as the end point of an evolutionary natural process is compatible with science and the scriptural record. However, going forward from that point, for all of us to be descended from Adam and Eve leads to scientific problems with explaining the genetic variety we currently observe. So we ask, have we been given any information that shows a non-natural process in the origin of Adam and Eve?
"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."
Whatever that is, it is not a description of a purely natural process.
So, a hypothesis such as: "we must explain our genetic derivation from Adam and Eve in a purely scientific way" is not necessary.
I've assumed that the most logical place for a bottleneck in human ancestry
would have been during the intial speciation of Homo Sapiens or that of an ancestor species.
BTW ever since I learned about the different hominids in our past, I've been open to the idea that Adam and Eve need not have been modern Homo Sapiens.
If Neadertals had (as seems not impossible) freewill and reason, there is no reason that Adam and Eve could not be their ancestors as well as ours.
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
Paul,
Certainly, if Adam and Eve were specially created with sufficient genetic diversity to be the sole parents of all humans through some miraculous event, that's something that's well beyond the ability of science to discuss in any way.
I would tend to assume that both the "male and female he created them" creation account and also the one you quote with Adam's rib are examples of an origins story being told in mytholical language, rather than clear evidence for some sort of intervention in human biological history. (Obviously, there was a major intervention in the history of human nature, in that we became creatures with an immortal soul -- I'm just not sure that there was a chance a scientist could have detected in the human body at the same point.)
Now, if there was something really odd about human DNA that evolutionary biology just couldn't explain in light of the fossil evidence out there and the DNA of other related species, I could see saying, "You know, this could be because there was some sort of specific intervention here," but it doesn't seem to me that that's what we're seeing, so I tend to, myself, assume there was biological continuity with our un-ensouled ancestors.
I wouldn't say that's the only position Catholics could hold by any stretch. It may even be a minority or marginal one. It just seems to me to fit best with the facts we know and our ability to process them through reason. It seems to me that if there had been some sort of unique event through which we all descended from one couple at a specific point in historical time, that we'd see genetic evidence suggesting that, rather than the contrary, in the human race.
ekbell,
If I put my speculative hat on (and I guess really, it's pretty firmly on through this whole post) I'd agree it's entirely possible that the point at which humans became "truly human" in the sense we mean theologically could indeed have been farther back in the human family tree than the development of the homo sapiens species -- making both us and the Neanderthal's "fully human".
On speciation, however, the one thing to keep in mind is that speciation in biological history is something of a construct. Given a fragmentary fossil record, paleontologists assign individuals to different species (and chart when species started and ended) based on characteristics that seem significant, but if you were able to look at every individual in every generation, you'd find that there's never a clear dividing line between one species and another. There's drift, divergence or stasis within a breeding population as a result of selection, but picking the point of speciation is something we can only do after the fact and somewhat arbitrarily. In this sense, there wouldn't have been a point, biologically speaking when you could say, "This couple were the first true Homo erectus."
This is one of those things that tends to get downplayed a lot in science education, even at the intro college level, because it tends to confuse students. But it's important to understanding what evolutionary biologists are actually talking about.
Robert,
I read your site, but I have to say (nothing personal) that I don't find the idea that the story of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Eternal Life (and the fall of Adam and Eve for eating from the wrong one) is an allegory of Adam and Eve having anal rather than vaginal sex very convincing.
Darwin: "I would tend to assume that both the "male and female he created them" creation account and also the one you quote with Adam's rib are examples of an origins story being told in mytholical language, rather than clear evidence for some sort of intervention in human biological history."
However, there is a ruling by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909 (and ratified by the Pope) that rejected the ideas that the first three chapters of Genesis are only mythology, or only allegory, or only a composed story; also indicating that there are particular conclusions made from a study of Genesis that are historically correct. E.g. see here
There's more I could say, but I can't without knowing your attitude to that ruling, or even if you were aware of it.
Paul,
No, I hadn't been specifically aware of the 1909 biblical commission ruling, though reading it over now, it seems to me pretty clearly to be some of what Pius XII was looking back to as he laid out the Catholic position on evolution in Humani Generis.
Reading over the eight questions answered by the commission in 1909, I'm having a little difficulty understanding where I would stand with them since the answers are all simply "in the negative" or "in the affirmative", but addressing the parts which seem most relevant:
Dubium II: Whether... it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to both parts.
I'd like to distinguish what I find myself thinking from the Dubium as it's expressed here in there:
- I certainly assent that there were in fact historical events between God and those humans whom he first infused with rational and immortal souls which are accurately described to us by the Genesis accounts.
- I wouldn't propose that the accounts are "only" fables or mythologies of other ancient people adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine. This seems to me to suggest that they are some sort of narrative detritus which has simply attached the bible, or at best that they teach some sort of moral or truth, but are not in fact "true" in the sense that myth can be true when it accurately describes things even if it fails to describe a set of historical events accurately. Nor would I suggest that it was composed as fiction, but in order to be instructive.
- The above said, it seems to me likely that, given what we do know at this point about the history of humans from a biological point of view, that the Genesis accounts relate to something that actually happened so long ago (tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before Christ) that there was no persisting knowledge of the actual events on the human side of the relationship, only of the result. So I would speculate that God inspired through the Holy Spirit the writing or development of the stories we do find in such a way as to accurately tell us the truth of what happened between Him and humanity long before via a mythological form.
[continued]
Now, I don't now if the 1909 biblical commission would accept this as a valid distinction -- that this is God inspiring an author to produce a mythological narrative which describes the essential truths of the initial stages of God's relationship with us as human creatures while not necessarily communicating all "the facts" as a historian might think about it.
On the other hand, I think that the amount of development in evolutionary science since 1909 might lead a consideration by the Vatican at this time to be a little more open-ended on the topic.
That said, I realize what I'm saying here is somewhat on the edge of possible Catholic belief, and I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to teach it as Catholic teaching if I were in a position to do so. It's simply the best that I have been able to do to reconcile what I understand of evolutionary history with Church teaching, and I bring it up at this point primarily to make the point that I do not think that we would need to in any way reconsider or change our understanding of original sin even if we accept a reading of Genesis 1-3 that is more mythological and allow that polygenism (in the sense that Pius XII uses the term -- not in the turn-of-the-century sense of claiming that the different "races" do not in fact share recent common ancestry) does appear to be an accurate description of human history.
[conclusion]
In the mean time, this results in the perhaps curious phenomenon of my on the one hand treating the account of Adam and Eve's fall as being true as related in Genesis (as, indeed, I think it is, in the sense that I mean 'true') and at the same time and independantly, when discussing evolution and the history of the earth, simply going with a straightforward account of what science has found thus far about hominid evolution.
I myself am pretty confident that there is no conflict between these two, and while I'm generally pretty quiet about this out of respect for the fact that the Church has not fully sorted out all these issues as they relate to human evolution, this post is something of an attempt on my part to think outloud through how these can both be true.
I always find it remarkable how modest the Commission's goal was, and how qualified the questions were: the first is only about exegetical systems that had been proposed at the time; the second, about mythology, is about whether it describes something true, not about the manner in which it does so (i.e., it's not about whether one has to interpret it in a strictly literal way but about whether one can interpret the story as having no objective foundation in reality); and so forth. It's a pretty minimalist document, and deliberately so.
Also, it's worth keeping in mind when dealing with Commission documents, even those ratified by Popes, that they only deal with issues raised at the time, and therefore need crucially to be understood in their context (the fight against the Modernist heresy, in this case) with their original aim (discouraging exegesis on Modernist assumptions and encouraging it on properly Catholic assumptions).
In reading the statement from the Commission, I think that their answer to Question III is specially relevant: that it is not possible to call into question the historical truth of certain statements (regardless of how exactly Genesis is to be read):
- the special creation of man;
- the formation of the first woman from the first man;
- the oneness of the human race;
- the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality;
- the command given to man by God to prove his obedience;
- the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent;
- the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence;
- the promise of a future restorer.
Given that (and given various Scriptural passages etc.), I do not see in the slightest how it is possible to hold anything except that, as a matter of Catholic faith, we are all descended from Adam and Eve.
It is also true that a good scientific understanding from genetics would say that we are not all descended in such a manner (i.e. from just two first parents), but that there must have been a larger original population -- in order to explain the genetic diversity that is measured today.
Hence, there's a conflict. Not a conflict in logic -- which would be serious -- but a conflict between faith and scientific understanding. Such conflicts are not to be entered into lightly but they need not be serious. (Similarly, it is a good scientific deduction that Jesus did not walk on water, but that does not prove that he didn't. We hold that he did.)
So, we have two propositions:
(1) it is true that we are not descended from an original pair;
(2) it is true that we are descended from an a original pair.
If (1) is held, I think that is a logical clash with Catholic faith.
Hence (2) is true. Is this a new clash with scientific understanding, or is there already something in Catholic belief that suggests an event from this part of Genesis that cannot be understood in a natural, scientifically-compatible way? This: "the formation of the first woman from the first man". That's not a natural process (any more than a virgin giving birth to Jesus). The implications of such an event for genetic diversity are not scientifically predictable.
Would holding (2) affect the ability of Catholics to fully engage in genetic scientific research? How so? Fully engaging in research on hydrodynamics does not affect the belief that Jesus walked on water.
"I do not see in the slightest how it is possible to hold anything except that, as a matter of Catholic faith, we are all descended from Adam and Eve."
Like other statements of the Magisterium, statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission are not subject to private judgment, but are to be interpreted as the Church interprets them.
The Pontificial Biblical Commission writes, in 1948, in a reply approved by Pope Pius XII, that the replies of the Commission in 1909 and earlier are not to be understood as resolving the issue in such a manner as to hinder further examination in accordance with the knowledge acquired between 1909 and 1948:
" 'The Pontifical Biblical Commission… desires to promote biblical studies by assuring to them the most complete liberty within the limits of the traditional teaching of the Church. This liberty has been proclaimed in explicit terms by the present Pope in his Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: “The Catholic exegete… ought not by any manner of means to debar himself from taking in hand, and that repeatedly, the difficult questions which have found no solution up to the present time… in an attempt to find a well-founded explanation in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with that of biblical inerrancy, and at the same time capable of fully satisfying the certain conclusions of the secular sciences....' "
"If this recommendation of the Pope’s is borne in mind in the interpretation of the three official replies given formerly by the Biblical Commission... namely June 23, 1905..., June 27, 1906..., and June 30, 1909, on the historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, it will be agreed that these replies are in no way a hindrance to further truly scientific examination of these problems in accordance with the results acquired in these last forty years." (Emphasis added).
...
"To declare a priori that these narratives [in the first chapters of Genesis] do not contain history in the modern sense of the word might easily be understood to mean that they do not contain history in any sense, whereas they relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding f mankind at a lower stage of development, the fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as well as a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people."
This seems to imply that though a Catholic is free to hold that Genesis can only be rightly interpreted as affirming that all men are descended from a single couple who themselves had no biological parents, he is not free to assert that the Catholic Church requires one to hold that this is the meaning of Genesis.
Regarding the scientific evidence, it is not only the amount of genetic diversity that points to a population always larger than 2 (in fact always larger than 32), but the specific nature of this diversity. This article by Francisco Ayala, "The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins" (access is limited to subscribing universities or individuals) describes one such aspect of the evidence. The specific genetic composition of the human race shows marks that in biology are somewhat analagous to the ruins of a city in archaeology, that is, it indicates not only a long history, but a very specific history of biological descent, just as the ruins of a city indicate that men lived there. To say that God directly created this specific genetic composition and diversity is similar to saying that God directly created a specific fossil history of animals that never really existed, ruins of cities that never existed, light from stars that never existed, or the like. Bl. John Henry Newman pointed to this analogy a long time ago:
There is as much want of simplicity in the idea of the creation of distinct species as in that of the creation of trees in full growth, or of rocks with fossils in them. I mean that it is as strange that monkeys should be so like men, with no historical connexion between them, as that there should be no history of facts by which fossil bones got into rocks. ... I will either go whole hog with Darwin, or, dispensing with time & history altogether, hold, not only the theory of distinct species but that also of the creation of fossil-bearing rocks. (The Philosophical Notebook, Dec. 9. 1863)
It is far from clear that the text that you quote actually relates to the question at hand. The Commission was replying to a question from Cardinal Suchard about "the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis". That is a question focused on how best to understand what kind of history was being written in those chapters, how they came to be written, at what times, by who, and thus how best to interpret them. The Commission (whose whole reply can be seen here) indicates that those kind of studies can continue unhindered. And those studies have continued to this day.
The Commission was not somehow saying that every conclusion reached by the Commission in its prior 1909 statement could be henceforward be freely contradicted. For example, one of the statements made by this Commission was that Genesis records the historical fact of "the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time". That's not open for contradiction.
The Commission, in 1948, also indicates that the kind of investigation it was looking for was: "a well-founded explanation in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with that of biblical inerrancy". For example: "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20 NAB)". And there are other passages that become extremely difficult to interpret if there were somehow in actuality numerous Adams and numerous Eves.
The Commission also indicated that it was looking for investigations that were "at the same time capable of fully satisfying the certain conclusions of the secular sciences". All that science has concluded at this point is that in the ordinary course of events there is insufficient genetic diversity to be consistent with human origins from an original pair. Science has not shown with certainty that the ordinary course of events actually occurred. (Similar to my example of Jesus walking on water.)
[Editor: Paul submitted the following comment which somehow isn't showing up on the site.]
It is far from clear that the text that you quote actually relates to the question at hand. The Commission was replying to a question from Cardinal Suchard about "the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis". That is a question focused on how best to understand what kind of history was being written in those chapters, how they came to be written, at what times, by who, and thus how best to interpret them. The Commission (whose whole reply can be seen here) indicates that those kind of studies can continue unhindered. And those studies have continued to this day.
The Commission was not somehow saying that every conclusion reached by the Commission in its prior 1909 statement could be henceforward be freely contradicted. For example, one of the statements made by this Commission was that Genesis records the historical fact of "the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time". That's not open for contradiction.
The Commission, in 1948, also indicates that the kind of investigation it was looking for was: "a well-founded explanation in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with that of biblical inerrancy". For example: "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20 NAB)". And there are other passages that become extremely difficult to interpret if there were somehow in actuality numerous Adams and numerous Eves.
The Commission also indicated that it was looking for investigations that were "at the same time capable of fully satisfying the certain conclusions of the secular sciences". All that science has concluded at this point is that in the ordinary course of events there is insufficient genetic diversity to be consistent with human origins from an original pair. Science has not shown with certainty that the ordinary course of events actually occurred. (Similar to my example of Jesus walking on water.)
All that science has concluded at this point is that in the ordinary course of events there is insufficient genetic diversity to be consistent with human origins from an original pair. Science has not shown with certainty that the ordinary course of events actually occurred. (Similar to my example of Jesus walking on water.)
The thing I'm not comfortable with in relation to the analogy to Jesus walking on water is that walking on water was explicitly a miracle. A miracle is, definitionally, something which cannot be explained by natural processes. So Jesus walking on water or multiplying the loaves and fishes or rising from the dead was completely unpredictable by and unexplainable by science because it was specifically a miracle. If someone goes on pilgrimage to Lourdes and is cures of metastatic cancer, this too might be considered a miracle. Science knows of no way in which cancer could simply vanish, and if this happened, then a Church committee investigating the case might well conclude it was a miracle.
If, on the other hand, I have a cold and after a week I get better, I would have a hard time convincing someone that this was a miracle, even if I had prayed to be cured of my cold, because it's completely normal and natural to be cured of a cold after a week just in the normal course of things.
Now, in this case, I am certainly willing to concede that it could be that God miraculously intervened in human evolution at some point, took aside a single male/female pair, infused them with souls, named them Adam and Eve, and put them in a place of perfect bliss where they remained until they fell through violating his command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Plus on the side, made sure that all the rest of the hominids walking around went extinct at the same time, so that Adam and Eve would be the sole parents of all subsequent humans.)
However, I do find it strongly contrary to that theory that if God did choose to do this, he did so in a way which thoroughly covered his tracks and makes it appear to our sense of reason and examination that in fact there was always a human population of some sort, not just one couple. And I do find that a bit hard to believe.
Perhaps the other part of this is, and I hope I've been clear on this, I am strongly against the idea that because something is expressed as a myth that it is "just a myth" as the modern saying goes, as in: not true, only a story, just a fable, etc. Mythology can, I think, be one of the deeper forms of truth. So I don't find it hard to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis being true with their being mythology.
And finally, I'd note that given how long ago some populations of humans reached the isolated places they've been up until the last century (such at the Australian Aborigines) the very latest we could have had whatever events are described in the Adam and Eve story is around 40,000 years ago -- which means that what we find in Genesis was either a case of God directly inspiring the story in the author, or God guiding the modification and accretion of Mesopotamian mythology into something which correctly described the origin of the relationship between God and humanity. There's no way the story itself could have been passed down orally all the way from when it happened, however many tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that was, until the time of the writing of Genesis.
Given some of the oddities of the early chapters of Genesis, of those two alternatives I personally tend to find the idea of God guiding the accretion and modification of local mythology into something true more plausible than God effectively whispering in the ear of Moses. But I certainly don't claim to have any particular insight into the question.
With hesitant curiosity: Did the biblical commission have anything to say about the historicity of the story of Noah? Not that I want to get into that kettle of fish at this point...
The Commission was not somehow saying that every conclusion reached by the Commission in its prior 1909 statement could be henceforward be freely contradicted.
But why would you think that this was Joseph's argument, or even relevant to the question at hand? Nobody is talking about "freely contradicting" the Commission conclusions, when properly understood in accordance with their context and aim, or any sort of contradiction at all, so talk of such a thing is not even relevant.
Likewise, nobody is saying that it isn't "extremely difficult to interpret" certain things in accordance with Catholic standards if a basic kind of polygenism is posited; at least, everyone could concede it for the sake of argument because it is irrelevant. You need to show not that orthodox interpretation is extremely difficult but that it is on this point impossible. All you've really given so far is some loose personal estimations -- that you don't see how it's possible. That's entirely reasonable; and I and everyone else in this comments thread can see entirely how someone could reasonably be in such a position. But as Joseph noted, it's one thing to hold as a personal opinion that the only right interpretation here is that all men are descend from a single couple with no biological parents, and another thing to say that the Catholic Church requires one to hold this.
I find it a little unclear what position you are advocating here. If all you mean to say is that no scientific account can rule out the possibility of a miracle, that's certainly true, but no one here disagrees with the fact that God can work miracles that scientific study could miss entirely; what is at issue is whether there can be an interpretation of Genesis in accordance with Catholic principle if one posits a minimal polygenism. If you're denying that, you need much stronger arguments than you've been giving. Such a denial can only be established if the Church has explicitly required precisely that or if the conclusion follows with demonstrative certainty from what the Church does so require. In such a case it's the demonstration that is really needed.
I've always thought the obvious position for Catholics to hold on this matter is the following: the Fall is an event whose causal ramifications extend backward and forward in time. As a result, the entire history of the universe is altered via the Fall -- we switch from a universe which has always been faultless, to a universe which has always been fallen. In the new timeline, death has always been a part of the natural order, and life develops through the evolutionary mechanism. There is, as the standard scientific story holds, no clear point at which the human species begins. But that's not a problem, because we've already located the unique moment of the Fall on the original, unfallen, timeline. As a side benefit, you get a better answer to the problem of evil, too -- the ultimate redemption of creation is also an event whose causal ramifications extend backward and forward in time, and the fully redeemed creation will be not only without evil, but without ever having had evil, so there's no evil to be explained.
Can't say I've ever seen that answer adopted by anyone, though. I'm not sure there's a coherent theory of time that allows it to avoid contradictions, but I suspect with a bit of work and metaphysical cleverness, something could be rigged up.
Hmmm, kind of a Schrodinger's Fall solution, eh?
It strikes me as at least as ingenious a solution, with a modern flavor, as Aquinas' attempt to deal with the problem of how things could have changed their natures from immortal to mortal because of the fall.
Which also serves to emphasize, I guess, that reconciling the early chapters of Genesis with informed opinion (whether now, Aquinas' time, or in Augustine's) has always been hard.
Darwin: "I am certainly willing to concede that it could be that God miraculously intervened in human evolution at some point, took aside a single male/female pair, infused them with souls, named them Adam and Eve, and put them in a place of perfect bliss where they remained until they fell through violating his command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Firstly, we know that God intervened miraculously: since, at the least, the natural world is not capable of producing, by its own methods, a creature with a spirit.
"...took aside a single male/female pair..."
Why not simply have Adam be Adam from the moment of his conception?
"...a single male/female pair..."
The author of Genesis describes things in a quite significantly different way. God does not just outright create a pair, but first Adam is created, and then God derives Eve from Adam's body.
"...named them Adam and Eve..."
There isn't a specific naming of Adam by God. And Eve is named by Adam.
"Plus on the side, made sure that all the rest of the hominids walking around went extinct at the same time, so that Adam and Eve would be the sole parents of all subsequent humans."
I'm not sure why you insist on that as being significant. Adam would be well aware of the difference between himself and the rest (Gen 2:23-24). And ordinary evolutionary competition would, over time, eliminate competitors. Miracles aren't required at that point.
Darwin: "...I do find it strongly contrary to that theory that if God did choose to do this, he did so in a way which thoroughly covered his tracks and makes it appear to our sense of reason and examination that in fact there was always a human population of some sort, not just one couple. And I do find that a bit hard to believe."
And I'm not sure why you think that way, either. What is the problem with God doing something that we only later on deduce He must have done?
Darwin: "I don't find it hard to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis being true with their being mythology."
I don't disagree with that. But I do think that extraordinary care has to be taken. A part of every mythological story contains truth, and a part contains superstructure. These two parts can be intricately woven together, such that disentangling them the wrong way causes the whole thing to fall into pieces. In the case of Genesis, it's the whole subsequent history of salvation that is at stake.
Darwin: "...what we find in Genesis was either a case of God directly inspiring the story in the author, or God guiding the modification and accretion of Mesopotamian mythology into something which correctly described the origin of the relationship between God and humanity."
I think that the author of Genesis (the human author, that is) had pondered long and hard about what he knew about humans, what he knew about God, and what he knew about what God was doing with humans. Then he came up with the text to describe the truth. The Spirit guided him into coming up with a correct text.
You know, I hate to admit that a conversation has reached the point of futility, but reading over this last comment I can only assume that we're either talking past each other or coming to this question with such different assumptions about what parts of the Adam and Eve story are theologically important, that we'd need to either start writing book length expositions or drop the exchange. I have enjoyed the give and take, though.
Futile? Ouch.
Post a Comment