‘We all know that [Adam and Eve] is just plainly not true,’ said a commenter, scathingly, on another blog.
Wrong assumption, said I. Which led to quite a discussion, culminating in the request: ‘where in hominid development did God come down and create Adam and Eve? I’m interested in how you can rationalise this out.’
So here goes. First, I’ll cover off the articles of faith that I accept because they are Catholic doctrine. Then I’ll outline the scientific theories that seem to me to have the weight of evidence behind them. With that foundation laid, I’ll launch into my explanation of the puzzle, with due thanks to those who have provided part of the picture.
Catholic doctrine
God created space and time, and everything that exists. He created two realms, spiritual and physical. Both were perfect, and perfectly beautiful. He created intelligent spiritual beings to fill the spiritual realm.
God created the earth and filled it with plants and animals.
We are given no information about his process or methodologies, but we know he liked what he had done.
God created the first parents of humankind: the two people we know of as Adam and Eve. In doing so, he created a bridge between the spiritual and physical realms – a creature that is physical but that also has a spiritual soul. The union of body and soul produces a single being, a human being. God creates each soul individually – you receive your body from your parents, but your soul straight from God.
This man and woman were created in a state of ‘original justice’ – divine intimacy and harmony between God and humankind, between the man and the woman, between the first couple and all creation. They were given mastery – particularly over themselves: free from what the Catechism calls ‘triple concupiscence’. Triple concupiscense is ‘subjection to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason’.
Adam and Eve failed in a task God gave them – a metahistorical event we call ‘the Fall’. Humankind were no longer in a state of original justice, and were subject to concupiscence. This condition was inheritable.
This is all in the Catechism.
Theories of the evolution of humankind
It seems likely that humankind has a single origin (since all races can interbreed), and that this origin was Africa no earlier than 70,000 BCE and no later than 50,000 BCE. (There is a counter theory that multiple species capable of interbreeding developed in various parts of the world during a 2.5 million year period – the multi-regional evolution theory. DNA evidence supports the out-of-Africa theory, though.)
There’s also some evidence to suggest that the Lake Toba extinction event reduced the total homo-sapiens population to as few as a thousand breeding pairs. This happened around 70,000 years ago.
Then something changed – some experts speculate it was language – and soon the slow step-by-step process of development seen in stone tools gave way to what some have called ‘the great leap forward’. From 50,000 years ago, people started burying their dead, making clothes out of animal skins, painting on cave walls, and using sophisticated hunting techniques. From that point on, technological progress was rapid (in evolutionary time-terms).
Our ancestors boiled out of Africa and covered the world in a few tens of thousands of years. During that expansion time, the last surviving populations of other hominid types became extinct.
A unified theory of our origins and our destination
I believe God used the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution to create different species in the physical realm and probably other mechanisms that we don’t understand yet. For example, I am interested in the research into genetic switches that are responsive to environmental changes.
This ‘good basic design followed by limited intervention’ theory fits with His known preference for setting up the mechanism and letting it operate as much as possible without interference. I think some interventions must have been necessary, and I speculate that some of the key intervention points are listed in Genesis chapter 1: period 1, creating space and time; period 2, collecting appropriate gases; period 3, forming a workable solar system with the planets at the right distances and a working moon; period 4, getting plant life started; period 5, starting and guiding the development of the first animal life – in the sea, initially; period 6, starting and guiding the development of life on land, culminating in hominids.
Then God gave a single male and a single female a human soul each. This was the intervention we see in Genesis 2; it’s an intervention He repeats with every conception.
It seems clear to me that God raised at least the man Himself, giving him everything necessary for his comfort, including, eventually, a female counterpart to be his partner and companion.
Now the man and the woman were bridge creatures, as I’ve said: both body and soul. But in a sense they were not yet fully human. God had made them with free will precisely so that they could participate in completing the design. A fully complete human is one that chooses partnership with God.
For this reason, He allowed the man and the woman to be challenged; He gave them the opportunity to show their love and trust for Him. Just as we have inherited their tendency to concupiscence, so – if they had passed the test – we would have inherited their state of original justice, and their innocence of concupiscence. This means that there must be a physical basis for this state of innocence, since the body, not the soul, is inherited.
Scott Hahn points out that Adam was present during Eve’s temptation (‘she also gave some to her husband, who was with her’), and suggests that he acted out of fear – the serpent being a fearsome creature that was promising to kill him if he didn’t co-operate. Be that as it may, they failed the challenge, and lost the opportunity to pass their state of innocence onto their offspring.
My theory is that they then went to live with or near the main homo-sapiens population. Their sons and daughters took mates from the main population. God gave each of their offspring a human soul, and the parents and grandparents gave the power of naming, or human language, and the concept of God and the spiritual realm.
These innovations fueled ‘the great leap forward’. Over time, the genetics of those first parents were spread throughout the population, and so were their radical ideas.
In due course, Jesus came as the new Adam, to do what the first true man failed to do. Having obeyed God even to death, He was the first fully complete human being. He couldn’t pass this state of being to the human race by being their parent – that opportunity passed with the first parents. Instead, He instituted the Eucharist, where we take into our physical selves a particle of the Body and Blood of Jesus (disguised as bread and wine). Over time, and given that we co-operate, this changes us to be holy, as Christ is holy.
I think this is a very good summary and set of speculations.
I’ll admit, I find myself wondering at times about whether polygenism might in some sense be true — but while I’m not sure it has been authoritatively condemned by the Church, it is clearly not the favored view. And honestly, I don’t think that there is a need to decide. After a certain point, one can allow one’s demand for history to get in the way of truth.
Genesis tells us about the history of God’s relationship with creation, and of humanity’s relationship with God, in the terms that we were able to understand at the time. While we may know a good deal more about genetics and fossils now than we did then, I’m not convinced we know anything more about humanity than the Israelites did, and in that sense, the story is still right for us. For all my fascination with evolution and anthropology, it seems to me trying to figure out exactly what Adam and Eve’s story was like from an evolutionary point of view misses the point of the story.
Agreed – the key thing is that God created us and redeemed us. Speculation is just for fun. If it helps us find insights in the story, well and good; if it gets in the way, ditch it.
Do you think my speculations are polygenism? I’m positing one set of parents, one man and one woman, and one point of origin. In my scenario, only those descended from the first parents were true humans (though not full humans, as noted in the post). In Humani genesis Pius XII said:
It was an encyclical, not an infallible declaration, but it’ll do to be going on with.
No, I don’t think your speculations are polygenism at all.
And don’t get me wrong — I like what you have to say here quite a bit.
I meant my remarks about not being caught up in speculation as a brake to my own tendency to wonder if there was in fact some wider population of early humans — who were all ensouled at once. With Adam and Eve serving either as a metaphore for some general test which our ancestor’s failed, or being in some way specially chosen to represent their people.
However, I don’t think that kind of speculation is well in line with the Church (as Pius XII words above indicate), though I’m not sure it’s formally forbidden either. But rather than push the envelope, I basically tell myself: That’s not my story. What God has told us is what we need to know, and it’s not necessary to achieve a literal reconciliation between anthropology and scripture — they’re simply telling the story in such different ways.
Fair enough. Which prompts me to reiterate that I’m telling a story in the post above, illustrating one way in which the anthropological and genesis accounts could dovetail. But – as you point out – they have fundamentally different approaches and purposes.
I, too, have theorized along these same lines. I’m terrible with science, but good with philosophy and literature. It was C.S. Lewis’s “The Magician’s Nephew” that got me thinking along the lines of your theory. Aslan creates Narnia. In it are plants, trees, wild animals, etc. He calls out some animals to be unique. Their uniqueness is reason, language, and the ability to love. They become the stewards over Narnia; they are to always be kind to the “dumb” animals and are warned that disobedience can lead them back into being wild animals again.
I agree with this modified polygenist/spiritual monogenist idea. Science fiction author Michael Flynn wrote something very similar about the “great leap forward.” One question, you suggested in another article that Adam and Eve would see God in the next life and have knowledge of the spiritual realm. Does this mean that Adam and Eve would die at some point or be resurrected with a soma pneumatikon – that they were not complete to begin with? Furthermore, does this mean that Heaven and Earth were not complete to begin with – not “married together,” in the words of N.T. Wright? In other words, the prelapsarian reality was not “perfected” in the same sense as in the eschaton (“Eye has not seen, ear has not heard,” “no one has ever seen God,” etc.). I believe Irenaeus and some Church Fathers held to this. I personally find this idea amenable; otherwise, earthly immortality would result in overpopulation (?). Of course, then to what extent could the soma pneumatikon be said to be a physical reality?
I apologize for the myriad of questions.
I’m very taken with the idea that the creation of humankind was not completed in prelapsarian times – that, in fact, our potential as a species could not be achieved without our freely willed obedience. Thus, Adam and Eve failed to become fully human, and the rest of us inherited precisely what they had to offer – human nature without the essential element to make us fully human. By this theory, the first fully human person was Christ, who was ‘obedient unto death’. Earthly immortality would not be an issue if our wills were fully under our own control, and that control was exerted in obedience to God.
So would that mean Adam and Eve theoretically would die – or be assumed – even if they had not sinned so as to pass into God’s presence more fully? Of course, what then would be the relationship between material Creation and uncreated “realm” of God?
Scott Hahn, in one of his books, suggested that death was a real potential consequence of obedience – that the serpent was implying a physical threat (‘if you eat this fruit you will not die [but if you don’t I’ll kill you] ).
But death, as we know, is not the end.
In my view, we are designed for material bodies in a material world, but that world (the new earth under the new heaven) will be subtly unlike this one. Jesus, in his resurrected body, interacted with the material universe, but in ways that don’t fit what we expect (translocation, passing through solid walls, being in more than one place at a time). Is that what we’re meant to be like when we are completed? David Schutz has posted on the new heaven and the new earth in the post on the Singer/Purcell debate I link to elsewhere. Here is the link again: http://scecclesia.com/?p=6339
If yes, then would this reduce the physical universe to a mere “testing ground” rather a true home for God to interact with His creatures? This is kind of what I meant by the second question.
Not in my view. In my view, the physical universe is still in development, and won’t be our true home until it is completed.
Interesting. So, from the beginning, the whole universe was still “evolving” towards the Final End where God and world are brought together in completion. Good or bad, this echoes of Teilhard de Chardin though I think some of his ideas had merit albeit he was a little too optimistic about human progress. Christ truly was then a Plan A rather a Plan B. Thanks.
I think it is more that a risen and completed human being was Plan A, and (Adam having fallen at the first gate) Christ was first risen and completed human being.
By the way, I did not mean to disparage the idea by linking that with Teilhard (who, in turn, received many of his ideas from the Eastern Fathers). I meant it as a compliment.
I find it interesting that you can have a discussion based around ‘guesses’ and make it sound as though it’s based on sensible and rational thought. There is absolutely no evidence for what you’ve speculated here, and it seems that you’re just making stuff up to satisfy your delusions.
KA
True, KA. A bit like multiverse theory, or – indeed – the theory of natural selection when it was first proposed by philosophers such as Abu Rayhan Biruni and Erasmus Darwin. http://www.rps.psu.edu/sep93/thinking.html
The theory of natural selection, first proposed by Erasumus Darwin has, in the less than three centuries since, been confirmed with a wealth of physical evidence that shows the theory does indeed both adequately explain the facts and natural phenomena associated, and can be used to make predictions.
The theory of Adam and Eve has had at least four millennia since it was first proposed. I would imagine that in this time the amount of physical evidence for it would be overwhelming… or that reasonable and rational people would accept that it does not adequately explain the natural universe and the origin of mankind and would look for some other explanation that fits the evidence.
Eh what? What physical evidence would you expect to find of one individual 50,000 or 100,000 years ago? The idea that the human race had a start – that in one generation there were pre-human hominids and in the next there was at least one individual with the same number of chromosones in the same order as us’ns – is not controversial. Nor is it controversial that we are all descended from that one or more individuals – indeed, research suggests that our most recent common ancestor was a mere 5,000 to 15,000 years ago, and that we hold all our ancestors prior to that in common, all the way back to one-celled protozoans.
So the two controversial bits – on a non-literal reading of the story, you understand – are God’s creation and original sin. What physical evidence are you proposing that we look for?
I must admit to being fascinated with your approach which seems to take the theory then find the ‘facts’ that fit. I note that you state ‘This is in the Catechism’ but I was wondering whether you can offer any primary sources for these articles of faith.
Again, I am fascinated by your assertion and would love to see what primary sources you have for being able to define his design style and preferences.
I would also like to see what evidence you have for the interventions at the various stages you list and I wonder whether you think that divine intervention was necessary or superfluous at these stages in order for things to turn out the way they have. If logical and plausible natural processes can be shown by which these things would have happened naturally anyway does this affect your basic underlying premise that ‘God dunnit!’
Finally, I think that your theory of God raise Adam and Eve himself is a classic case of fitting the facts to the theory. There is absolutely no possibility of ever proving or disproving it so we can easily dismiss is – except that you can’t as it is an integral part an overarching theory that sees humans as set apart from all other creatures and endowed with an immortal soul. Which of course, means you are forced to construct a fanciful ‘what if’ to explain why the overwhelming
balance of evidence shows us that the Genesis account of the creation of the universe and of mankind can not be read with any degree of literalism – which ultimately makes it no different from the creation stories of any other culture. I often wonder, if Constantine hadn’t given Christianity political legitimacy and power, whether our creationists today would be explaining how the Roman and Greek myths are consistent with modern scientific discoveries and thinking.
Seeker, you’re giving this more dignity than it deserves. A commenter on Being Frank said that he’d never read a speculation that coherently reconciled the Genesis Garden of Eden account with the fossil record. So I had a go at showing one way it could be done. Given that the Garden of Eden account doesn’t need to be read with such a degree of literalism as I have offered, I can think of at least two other stories that could also provide such a reconciliation. But I don’t insist on any of them.
Regarding God’s design style and preferences, that’s a large question. I’ll try and pull together a blog post on it.
You are right, I am giving your speculations more dignity than they deserve. *consigns them to the rubbish heap where they belong*
By the way, I do think that you failed to show how the Genesis Garden of Eden account could be coherently reconciled with the fossil record. I think the best way to read it is as a creation myth with no basis in reality. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with Catholic faith as belief in a single woman and single man is non-negotiable.
Technically, what is non-negotiable is belief in a single man as the father of all human kind, and in a single failure of obedience by that man. A single woman isn’t mentioned in the dogma, which I take it means we are free to regard her as a literary device, if we so wish.
Were you at the conference Mr Seeker?
KA
Im assuming you mean the Global Atheist Convention last weekend? I was. The better half and I decided to dip our toes in and we found it very interesting. It confirmed for me that I am not first and foremost an atheist. What I actually am is a scientific materialist (with the caveat that I include energy as well as matter) and because of that I am an atheist. I am Seeker because more than anything else I want to know what is true. I started this journey looking for the facts I needed to prove the reality of God and the truth of the Catholic Church, but the evidence was less than compelling and eventually I was forced to abandon God as a working hypothesis to explain the world and everything in it. I enjoyed the conference because the focus wasn’t a rant against religion or proselytizing what we should believe but contained a diverse range of talks from politics to astrophysics to paleogeology. You would have enjoyed it!
Oh I did enjoy it, I was there too 🙂 I thought that the diversity of subjects was excellent, the only part I didn’t really enjoy was the political panel. I’ve started saving for the 2014 one already. Bring on the DVD – I’ll let JP borrow it; she may learn something 😀
I’m just wondering whether you Catechism the source for these dates?
My understanding was the the great ape family (hominidae) evolved 15 million years ago with homo sapiens appearing around 500,000 years ago. Are you sure that you haven’t misplaced a few zeros somewhere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Unless you are tallking about geographic origin – and making the assumption that god waited some 400,000 years after homo sapiens diverged genetically before scooping up a pair of children and endowing them with an immortal soul.
I wonder whether homo sapiens hung around in Africa simply because they didn’t have a soul and that the inference you make by citing the out of Africa theory means that you draw a correlation between the union of physical and spiritual through the ensoullment of the already existing homo sapiens and the exit from the so called cradle of humanity. Was a soul necessary for exiting Africa? If so, how do you understand the 60,000 years between when modern humans first began leaving Africa and when they were able to do so successfully enough to have modern descendants?
Otherwise, what is the point you are trying to make with your reference to the migration of moden humans from Africa between 70,000-50,000 BCE?
By ‘origin’ I’m not talking about when human kind began, but about when they began to leave Africa. Any Adam and Eve event has to have happened before the various groups went their separate ways. Homo Sapiens Sapiens will have been well established prior to this, according to my speculative story.
However, your 500,000 seems a bit on the long side. I’ll take your Wiki and raise you a Wiki. 🙂 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
This article suggest 250,000 for homo sapiens, between 200,000 and 100,00 for homo sapiens sapiens, and a dramatic increase in technology use and human-type behaviour about 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.
I found JP’s thoughts on the impact of language on our human development, and relating it to Adam naming the animals, and about Jesus being the first fully human human, and us being not yet fully human (Toad would presumably say we are still animals), to be very helpful.
Thanks JP!
God Bless