Adam and Eve - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

2022-12-13T08:58:41Z

Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 13 December 2022
Line 339:		Line 339:
	:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.		:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.

	:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that ~~â€“~~ however stammeringly ~~â€“~~ was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.		:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that - however stammeringly - was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

	=== Chastek ===		=== Chastek ===

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:03:58Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€”" to " — "

2022-12-10T09:35:08Z

Text replacement - "â€”" to " — "

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 10 December 2022
Line 436:		Line 436:
	:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the “generation” by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.		:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the “generation” by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.

	:: Why not hold instead that Adam and ~~Eveâ€”whoever~~ they really were, and wherever they really ~~livedâ€”were~~ the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.		:: Why not hold instead that Adam and Eve — whoever they really were, and wherever they really lived — were the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.

	=== Valicella ===		=== Valicella ===

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

2022-12-10T09:20:40Z

Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 10 December 2022
Line 339:		Line 339:
	:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.		:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.

	:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.~~â€~~ The first Thou that â€“ however stammeringly â€“ was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.		:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that â€“ however stammeringly â€“ was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

	=== Chastek ===		=== Chastek ===
Line 345:		Line 345:
	:; [http://thomism.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/mere-monogenism-and-adam-and-eve/ James Chastek, "Mere Monogenism, and Adam and Eve.]		:; [http://thomism.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/mere-monogenism-and-adam-and-eve/ James Chastek, "Mere Monogenism, and Adam and Eve.]

	:: We descend from some first man who has had a male descendant in every generation. This is the definition of the “Y-Chromosome Adam“, and (adjusting for sex) the “mitochondrial ~~Eveâ€~~. Assume that Adam’s daughter went off, east of Eden, and married some human outside of her family. Then Adam could not be a “Y- Chromosome ~~Adamâ€~~ for that line of persons, though he is clearly responsible for the line. All that would be required for the ~~“literalâ€~~ truth of Genesis is that at some point in time, all lines not descended from Adam either died off or merged with him. Given that we know as a fact that this has happened for at least one man, who also exists under the additional stipulation of having only male descendants, there is nothing odd whatsoever in assuming the far more possible case of a man being the parent of the whole human race who did not exist under this restriction.		:: We descend from some first man who has had a male descendant in every generation. This is the definition of the “Y-Chromosome Adam“, and (adjusting for sex) the “mitochondrial Eve”. Assume that Adam’s daughter went off, east of Eden, and married some human outside of her family. Then Adam could not be a “Y- Chromosome Adam” for that line of persons, though he is clearly responsible for the line. All that would be required for the “literal” truth of Genesis is that at some point in time, all lines not descended from Adam either died off or merged with him. Given that we know as a fact that this has happened for at least one man, who also exists under the additional stipulation of having only male descendants, there is nothing odd whatsoever in assuming the far more possible case of a man being the parent of the whole human race who did not exist under this restriction.

	=== Masi ===		=== Masi ===
Line 357:		Line 357:
	:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html "Modern biology and original sin, Part I."]		:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html "Modern biology and original sin, Part I."]

	:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article “Science, Theology, and ~~Monogenesisâ€~~ (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) “Human ~~beingâ€~~ as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be ~~“humanâ€~~ in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)		:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis” (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) “Human being” as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be “human” in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)

	:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be ~~“humanâ€~~ in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style ~~“humanâ€~~ would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.		:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

	:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.		:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.

	:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human ~~beingâ€~~ described above.		:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.

	:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]		:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]
Line 382:		Line 382:
	:; 231		:; 231

	:: I think that Alexander’s distinction between the biological species (the population of beings capable of interbreeding) and the philosophical and theological species “human ~~beingâ€~~ is the key to the solution of this problem, but that his emphasis on genetics (a crucial mutation) may be misplaced. It creates for him the necessity to posit a not impossible but extremely unlikely co-occurrence of exactly two instances of the same mutation (one in a man and one in a woman) at roughly the same time.		:: I think that Alexander’s distinction between the biological species (the population of beings capable of interbreeding) and the philosophical and theological species “human being” is the key to the solution of this problem, but that his emphasis on genetics (a crucial mutation) may be misplaced. It creates for him the necessity to posit a not impossible but extremely unlikely co-occurrence of exactly two instances of the same mutation (one in a man and one in a woman) at roughly the same time.

	:: The hylomorphic philosophy, which fits so naturally the relation of body and soul implicit in the Bible, requires a body adapted to the powers which the soul brings. A rational soul could not be the form of a piscine, or even a simian, body. Still a rational soul, being more than the power of any bodily organ, cannot be the necessary form of any kind of body, and a fortiori not of a human one. So, Alexander’s association of mutation and hominization is too close. A certain bodily form (and a fortiori a certain mutation) may be necessary for hominization, but it is not sufficient, as Alexander surely would acknowledge. Hominization requires the presence of a created rational soul. The mutation itself, therefore, in fact bears a looser connection to hominization than it does in Alexander’s account.		:: The hylomorphic philosophy, which fits so naturally the relation of body and soul implicit in the Bible, requires a body adapted to the powers which the soul brings. A rational soul could not be the form of a piscine, or even a simian, body. Still a rational soul, being more than the power of any bodily organ, cannot be the necessary form of any kind of body, and a fortiori not of a human one. So, Alexander’s association of mutation and hominization is too close. A certain bodily form (and a fortiori a certain mutation) may be necessary for hominization, but it is not sufficient, as Alexander surely would acknowledge. Hominization requires the presence of a created rational soul. The mutation itself, therefore, in fact bears a looser connection to hominization than it does in Alexander’s account.
Line 396:		Line 396:
	:; 233		:; 233

	:: God did not owe Adam and Eve’s cousins a rational and therefore immortal soul. The hominization of Adam and Eve was a free gift. Since Alexander called his article “Human Origins and Genetics,~~â€~~ I might highlight the point at which my idea differs from his by calling my account “Human Origins and Grace.~~â€~~		:: God did not owe Adam and Eve’s cousins a rational and therefore immortal soul. The hominization of Adam and Eve was a free gift. Since Alexander called his article “Human Origins and Genetics,” I might highlight the point at which my idea differs from his by calling my account “Human Origins and Grace.”

	:; 234		:; 234
Line 434:		Line 434:
	:::: In famous cases, of course, such as the trial of Galileo, and acceptance of the reality of heliocentrism, the answer is yes, though it took the Catholic Church a long time to officially come around.		:::: In famous cases, of course, such as the trial of Galileo, and acceptance of the reality of heliocentrism, the answer is yes, though it took the Catholic Church a long time to officially come around.

	:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the ~~“generationâ€~~ by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.		:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the “generation” by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.

	:: Why not hold instead that Adam and Eveâ€”whoever they really were, and wherever they really livedâ€”were the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.		:: Why not hold instead that Adam and Eveâ€”whoever they really were, and wherever they really livedâ€”were the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

2022-12-10T09:20:33Z

Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 10 December 2022
Line 339:		Line 339:
	:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.		:; ''Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo,'' Stephan Horn (ed), pp. 15-16.

	:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of ~~â€œGod~~.â€ The first Thou that â€“ however stammeringly â€“ was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.		:: The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.â€ The first Thou that â€“ however stammeringly â€“ was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

	=== Chastek ===		=== Chastek ===
Line 345:		Line 345:
	:; [http://thomism.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/mere-monogenism-and-adam-and-eve/ James Chastek, "Mere Monogenism, and Adam and Eve.]		:; [http://thomism.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/mere-monogenism-and-adam-and-eve/ James Chastek, "Mere Monogenism, and Adam and Eve.]

	:: We descend from some first man who has had a male descendant in every generation. This is the definition of the ~~â€œY~~-Chromosome ~~Adamâ€œ~~, and (adjusting for sex) the ~~â€œmitochondrial~~ Eveâ€. Assume that Adam’s daughter went off, east of Eden, and married some human outside of her family. Then Adam could not be a ~~â€œY~~- Chromosome Adamâ€ for that line of persons, though he is clearly responsible for the line. All that would be required for the ~~â€œliteralâ€~~ truth of Genesis is that at some point in time, all lines not descended from Adam either died off or merged with him. Given that we know as a fact that this has happened for at least one man, who also exists under the additional stipulation of having only male descendants, there is nothing odd whatsoever in assuming the far more possible case of a man being the parent of the whole human race who did not exist under this restriction.		:: We descend from some first man who has had a male descendant in every generation. This is the definition of the “Y-Chromosome Adam“, and (adjusting for sex) the “mitochondrial Eveâ€. Assume that Adam’s daughter went off, east of Eden, and married some human outside of her family. Then Adam could not be a “Y- Chromosome Adamâ€ for that line of persons, though he is clearly responsible for the line. All that would be required for the “literalâ€ truth of Genesis is that at some point in time, all lines not descended from Adam either died off or merged with him. Given that we know as a fact that this has happened for at least one man, who also exists under the additional stipulation of having only male descendants, there is nothing odd whatsoever in assuming the far more possible case of a man being the parent of the whole human race who did not exist under this restriction.

	=== Masi ===		=== Masi ===
Line 357:		Line 357:
	:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html "Modern biology and original sin, Part I."]		:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html "Modern biology and original sin, Part I."]

	:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article ~~â€œScience~~, Theology, and Monogenesisâ€ (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) ~~â€œHuman~~ beingâ€ as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be ~~â€œhumanâ€~~ in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)		:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article “Science, Theology, and Monogenesisâ€ (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) “Human beingâ€ as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be “humanâ€ in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)

	:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be ~~â€œhumanâ€~~ in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style ~~â€œhumanâ€~~ would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.		:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be “humanâ€ in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “humanâ€ would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

	:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.		:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.

	:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of ~~â€œhuman~~ beingâ€ described above.		:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human beingâ€ described above.

	:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]		:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]
Line 382:		Line 382:
	:; 231		:; 231

	:: I think that Alexander’s distinction between the biological species (the population of beings capable of interbreeding) and the philosophical and theological species ~~â€œhuman~~ beingâ€ is the key to the solution of this problem, but that his emphasis on genetics (a crucial mutation) may be misplaced. It creates for him the necessity to posit a not impossible but extremely unlikely co-occurrence of exactly two instances of the same mutation (one in a man and one in a woman) at roughly the same time.		:: I think that Alexander’s distinction between the biological species (the population of beings capable of interbreeding) and the philosophical and theological species “human beingâ€ is the key to the solution of this problem, but that his emphasis on genetics (a crucial mutation) may be misplaced. It creates for him the necessity to posit a not impossible but extremely unlikely co-occurrence of exactly two instances of the same mutation (one in a man and one in a woman) at roughly the same time.

	:: The hylomorphic philosophy, which fits so naturally the relation of body and soul implicit in the Bible, requires a body adapted to the powers which the soul brings. A rational soul could not be the form of a piscine, or even a simian, body. Still a rational soul, being more than the power of any bodily organ, cannot be the necessary form of any kind of body, and a fortiori not of a human one. So, Alexander’s association of mutation and hominization is too close. A certain bodily form (and a fortiori a certain mutation) may be necessary for hominization, but it is not sufficient, as Alexander surely would acknowledge. Hominization requires the presence of a created rational soul. The mutation itself, therefore, in fact bears a looser connection to hominization than it does in Alexander’s account.		:: The hylomorphic philosophy, which fits so naturally the relation of body and soul implicit in the Bible, requires a body adapted to the powers which the soul brings. A rational soul could not be the form of a piscine, or even a simian, body. Still a rational soul, being more than the power of any bodily organ, cannot be the necessary form of any kind of body, and a fortiori not of a human one. So, Alexander’s association of mutation and hominization is too close. A certain bodily form (and a fortiori a certain mutation) may be necessary for hominization, but it is not sufficient, as Alexander surely would acknowledge. Hominization requires the presence of a created rational soul. The mutation itself, therefore, in fact bears a looser connection to hominization than it does in Alexander’s account.
Line 396:		Line 396:
	:; 233		:; 233

	:: God did not owe Adam and Eve’s cousins a rational and therefore immortal soul. The hominization of Adam and Eve was a free gift. Since Alexander called his article ~~â€œHuman~~ Origins and Genetics,â€ I might highlight the point at which my idea differs from his by calling my account ~~â€œHuman~~ Origins and Grace.â€		:: God did not owe Adam and Eve’s cousins a rational and therefore immortal soul. The hominization of Adam and Eve was a free gift. Since Alexander called his article “Human Origins and Genetics,â€ I might highlight the point at which my idea differs from his by calling my account “Human Origins and Grace.â€

	:; 234		:; 234
Line 434:		Line 434:
	:::: In famous cases, of course, such as the trial of Galileo, and acceptance of the reality of heliocentrism, the answer is yes, though it took the Catholic Church a long time to officially come around.		:::: In famous cases, of course, such as the trial of Galileo, and acceptance of the reality of heliocentrism, the answer is yes, though it took the Catholic Church a long time to officially come around.

	:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the ~~â€œgenerationâ€~~ by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.		:: But a conflict with current science arises only if we assume that the “generationâ€ by which original sin is transmitted logically entails that a first couple, Adam and Eve, were the first humans in a purely natural sense, i.e. the genetic sense. Nothing in magisterial documents requires adopting that assumption. So it is no more theologically irreformable than scientifically defensible. We may and should dispense with it.

	:: Why not hold instead that Adam and Eveâ€”whoever they really were, and wherever they really livedâ€”were the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.		:: Why not hold instead that Adam and Eveâ€”whoever they really were, and wherever they really livedâ€”were the first humans in a supernatural sense? As a couple, they were the first people to be called and elevated by grace to a state of fellowship with God meant to culminate in a greater union with him. That doesn’t entail that they were genetically the first humans. It entails only that they were the first humans God gave a destiny beyond Nature. So when they sinned and lost his grace, they largely reverted to Nature, which is the state all of us since then find ourselves in until we are somehow incorporated into Christ.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

2022-12-10T08:33:36Z

Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

Show changes

Mxmsj: /* Feser */

2019-01-14T07:00:50Z

Feser

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 14 January 2019
Line 369:		Line 369:
	:: So there is no problem of reconciling the claims in question. On the scenario proposed, the modern human population has the genes it has because it is descended from a group of several thousand individuals, only two of whom had immaterial souls. But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone. As Flynn points out, critics like Jerry Coyne confuse the claim that there is one man from whom all modern humans are descended -- a claim that is part of the doctrine of original sin -- with the claim that all modern humans are descended from only one man -- a claim which need not be understood as part of the doctrine. And as Flynn also points out, it is arguably only the male of the pair, and not the couple, that the doctrine requires all modern humans to be descended from.		:: So there is no problem of reconciling the claims in question. On the scenario proposed, the modern human population has the genes it has because it is descended from a group of several thousand individuals, only two of whom had immaterial souls. But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone. As Flynn points out, critics like Jerry Coyne confuse the claim that there is one man from whom all modern humans are descended -- a claim that is part of the doctrine of original sin -- with the claim that all modern humans are descended from only one man -- a claim which need not be understood as part of the doctrine. And as Flynn also points out, it is arguably only the male of the pair, and not the couple, that the doctrine requires all modern humans to be descended from.

	As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adamâ€™s soul was infused directly by God. It does not require that Adam was literally made directly from dust or clay. And though Rosenhouse is correct that Genesis is interested in the formation of Adamâ€™s body and not merely the origin of his soul, that too is consistent with the Flynn/Kemp account if we think of the matter God used to form that body as derived from pre-existing hominids rather than straight from the earth. I know Rosenhouse, Coyne, and Co. would like it to be the case that all Christians are crude literalists --after all, that would facilitate atheist combox smart-assery and other forms of Serious Thinking. But it just isnâ€™t so. As a matter of fact, the most traditional Christians are not crude literalists. As Mike Flynn emphasizes in his post, that the literal and figurative senses of statements in the book of Genesis must be carefully distinguished is a long-standing theme in traditional biblical exegesis, and was famously explored by St. Augustine.		As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adamâ€™s soul was infused directly by God. It does not require that Adam was literally made directly from dust or clay. And though Rosenhouse is correct that Genesis is interested in the formation of Adamâ€™s body and not merely the origin of his soul, that too is consistent with the Flynn/Kemp account if we think of the matter God used to form that body as derived from pre-existing hominids rather than straight from the earth. I know Rosenhouse, Coyne, and Co. would like it to be the case that all Christians are crude literalists -- after all, that would facilitate atheist combox smart-assery and other forms of Serious Thinking. But it just isnâ€™t so. As a matter of fact, the most traditional Christians are not crude literalists. As Mike Flynn emphasizes in his post, that the literal and figurative senses of statements in the book of Genesis must be carefully distinguished is a long-standing theme in traditional biblical exegesis, and was famously explored by St. Augustine.

	=== Kemp ===		=== Kemp ===

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2014-07-25T14:34:53Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 25 July 2014
Line 484:		Line 484:

	== Links ==		== Links ==
			* [http://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/ Bonnette, "Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?"]

Mxmsj: /* Flynn */

2014-05-27T15:06:51Z

Flynn

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 27 May 2014
Line 474:		Line 474:
	:: But Adam is different. Having a rational human form in addition to his sensitive animal form, he is capable of knowing the good. As Paul writes in Romans 2;12-16, the law is written in the heart.(^12) God being the author of natures, is in the Christian view the author of human nature in particular; hence the law "written in the heart" was written there by God. But for Adam to know the good means that Adam is now capable of turning away from the good. Thus, when Adam wills some act that is contrary to what his intellect tells him is good, he is acting in disobedience to "God's commands written in his heart." A turning away from the good is called "sin" and, since no one had ever been capable of doing so before, it was the original sin. This is communicated by allegory in the tale of the tree.		:: But Adam is different. Having a rational human form in addition to his sensitive animal form, he is capable of knowing the good. As Paul writes in Romans 2;12-16, the law is written in the heart.(^12) God being the author of natures, is in the Christian view the author of human nature in particular; hence the law "written in the heart" was written there by God. But for Adam to know the good means that Adam is now capable of turning away from the good. Thus, when Adam wills some act that is contrary to what his intellect tells him is good, he is acting in disobedience to "God's commands written in his heart." A turning away from the good is called "sin" and, since no one had ever been capable of doing so before, it was the original sin. This is communicated by allegory in the tale of the tree.

	:: Most sin, the old joke runs, is not very original. But supposedly the "sin of Adam" has been inherited by all his descendents. This hardly seems fair. If we didn't do the deed, why should we bear the mark?		:: Most sin, the old joke runs, is not very original. But supposedly the "sin of Adam" has been inherited by all his descendents. This hardly seems fair. If we didn't do the deed, why should we bear the mark? But this misses the mark. Thomas Aquinas made note that original sin is not a particular transgression, like a crime committed for which one deserves particular punishment, but is the origin or source of such positive sins. It is a predelection inherent to human nature.
	But this misses the mark. Thomas Aquinas made note that original sin is not a particular transgression, like a crime committed for which one deserves particular punishment, but is the origin or source of such positive sins. It is a predelection inherent to human nature.

	:: Doctrine is concerned with the origin of sin, not the origin of species. Hence, "origin-al" sin.		:: Doctrine is concerned with the origin of sin, not the origin of species. Hence, "origin-al" sin.

Mxmsj: /* Flynn */

2014-05-27T15:05:53Z

Flynn

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 27 May 2014
Line 458:		Line 458:
	:: Dr. Coyne's primary error seems to be a quantifier shift. He and his fundamentalist bedfellows appear to hold that the statement:		:: Dr. Coyne's primary error seems to be a quantifier shift. He and his fundamentalist bedfellows appear to hold that the statement:

	:::: A: "There is one man from whom all humans are descended"		:::: A: "There is one man from whom all humans are descended."

	:: is equivalent to the statement:		:: is equivalent to the statement:

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 10 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ''"by propagation, not by imitation"'' and that it is... 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG Â§ 16; ''emphasis added'').		* "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ''"by propagation, not by imitation"'' and that it is... 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG Â§ 16; ''emphasis added'').

	"Reification" means treating something that is not a thing as if it were a thing. This is a normal feature of our minds, which are powerfully adapted to think about things that are objects of our senses. If we didn't associate concepts with images, we would be unable to tell one concept from another or to store the ideas in such a way that we can retrieve them again for future reference. Problems arise from reification when we accidentally attribute physical existence to things that do not physically exist. So, for example, "nothing" is not a thing in and of itself, but is the absence of all things. Nor is darkness a thing; it is just the absence of light--and yet, I need to call it "it," treating it as if it were a physical thing, in order to say that this "it" that I am thinking about is nothing.		"Reification" means treating something that is not a thing as if it were a thing. This is a normal feature of our minds, which are powerfully adapted to think about things that are objects of our senses. If we didn't associate concepts with images, we would be unable to tell one concept from another or to store the ideas in such a way that we can retrieve them again for future reference. Problems arise from reification when we accidentally attribute physical existence to things that do not physically exist. So, for example, "nothing" is not a thing in and of itself, but is the absence of all things. Nor is darkness a thing; it is just the absence of light — and yet, I need to call it "it," treating it as if it were a physical thing, in order to say that this "it" that I am thinking about is nothing.

	Reification is good for beginners. The images of Original Sin as a "thing" is a first approximation. But that imagery needs to be surpassed, as with Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. Original Sin is not a physical thing that we hand on like a baton from parent to child, but a spiritual condition or state of dwelling in darkness, disconnected from the power and the light of God. The effect of Adam and Eve's disobedience is that we lack a relationship with God, a relationship for which we were designed and intended and that we need desperately in order to be happy. In the state of being disconnected from God, we have no power, no light, no grace, no goodness, no love.		Reification is good for beginners. The images of Original Sin as a "thing" is a first approximation. But that imagery needs to be surpassed, as with Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. Original Sin is not a physical thing that we hand on like a baton from parent to child, but a spiritual condition or state of dwelling in darkness, disconnected from the power and the light of God. The effect of Adam and Eve's disobedience is that we lack a relationship with God, a relationship for which we were designed and intended and that we need desperately in order to be happy. In the state of being disconnected from God, we have no power, no light, no grace, no goodness, no love.
Line 77:		Line 77:

	=== Romans ===		=== Romans ===
	:: "Therefore, just as through one person '''sin entered the world''', and through sin, death, and thus '''death came to all''', inasmuch as all sinned--for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come." (5:12-14)		:: "Therefore, just as through one person '''sin entered the world''', and through sin, death, and thus '''death came to all''', inasmuch as all sinned — for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come." (5:12-14)

	:: The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, '''grace abounded all the more'''" (CCC #420; Rom 5:20).		:: The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, '''grace abounded all the more'''" (CCC #420; Rom 5:20).
Line 263:		Line 263:
	'''Anyway, have you found that a lot of the theological discussion of evolution involves a sort of covert traducianism? Or, at least, a neglect of the huge metaphysical difference between an animal (however clever) and a being with a rational, immortal soul?'''		'''Anyway, have you found that a lot of the theological discussion of evolution involves a sort of covert traducianism? Or, at least, a neglect of the huge metaphysical difference between an animal (however clever) and a being with a rational, immortal soul?'''

	: Yes. The materialists necessarily want to treat humans as nothing but animals that have evolved by accident--and as animals that can be bred or engineered to new standards of excellence (C.S.L., ''Abolition of Man'').		: Yes. The materialists necessarily want to treat humans as nothing but animals that have evolved by accident — and as animals that can be bred or engineered to new standards of excellence (C.S.L., ''Abolition of Man'').

	'''Do you think it would be possible to know at some point, or will this event remain forever in the "mists" of prehistory?'''		'''Do you think it would be possible to know at some point, or will this event remain forever in the "mists" of prehistory?'''
Line 329:		Line 329:
	:; 180		:; 180

	:: Conclusion of Chapter 12, "Adam and Eve's Origin": "The philosopher is less concerned with what a thing looks like [perinoesis] than how it acts, for activity reveals nature itself [dianoesis: 'Actio sequitur esse'--'As a thing is, so it acts']. The first true human beings, Adam and his controversial spouse, Eve, appeared on Earth whenever animals with an intellective, and therefore spiritual, soul first appeared. Philosophically, the essentially distinct natural human species is so defined."		:: Conclusion of Chapter 12, "Adam and Eve's Origin": "The philosopher is less concerned with what a thing looks like [perinoesis] than how it acts, for activity reveals nature itself [dianoesis: 'Actio sequitur esse' — 'As a thing is, so it acts']. The first true human beings, Adam and his controversial spouse, Eve, appeared on Earth whenever animals with an intellective, and therefore spiritual, soul first appeared. Philosophically, the essentially distinct natural human species is so defined."

	:; 213		:; 213
Line 359:		Line 359:
	:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis” (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) “Human being” as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be “human” in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)		:: Kenneth W. Kemp says in his important recent ''American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly'' article “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis” (see ACPQ Vol. 85, No. 2) “Human being” as used in A-T philosophy and Catholic theology is a metaphysical concept, and does not correspond exactly to (even if it overlaps with) the modern biological concept ''homo sapiens sapiens.'' (In fact, some A-T philosophers would hold that the specific genetic and phenotypic traits typical of ''homo sapiens sapiens'' are not even essential to human beings considered as a metaphysical category: Anything that was both animal and rational would arguably be “human” in the relevant sense, even if it had a body plan radically different from ours. See Oderberg’s ''Real Essentialism'' for a useful discussion.)

	:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures -- even if there had been only two of them -- would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul -- that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.		:: The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures — even if there had been only two of them — would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul — that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

	:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.		:: Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.

	:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair -- when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.		:: This scenario raises all sorts of interesting questions, such as whether any of these early humans (in the metaphysical sense of having a human soul) mated with some of the creatures who were (genetically and, in part, phenotypically) only human-like. (If any of the latter looked like Linda Harrison in Planet of the Apes, the temptation certainly would have been there.) Mike Flynn and Kenneth Kemp have some things to say about this, but it does not affect the point at issue here, which is that there is nothing in the biological evidence that conflicts with the doctrine that the human race began with a single pair — when that doctrine is rightly understood, in terms of the metaphysical conception of “human being” described above.

	:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]		:; [http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/monkey-in-your-soul.html Edward Feser, "Monkey in your soul?"]

	:: So there is no problem of reconciling the claims in question. On the scenario proposed, the modern human population has the genes it has because it is descended from a group of several thousand individuals, only two of whom had immaterial souls. But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone. As Flynn points out, critics like Jerry Coyne confuse the claim that there is one man from whom all modern humans are descended -- a claim that is part of the doctrine of original sin -- with the claim that all modern humans are descended from only one man -- a claim which need not be understood as part of the doctrine. And as Flynn also points out, it is arguably only the male of the pair, and not the couple, that the doctrine requires all modern humans to be descended from.		:: So there is no problem of reconciling the claims in question. On the scenario proposed, the modern human population has the genes it has because it is descended from a group of several thousand individuals, only two of whom had immaterial souls. But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone. As Flynn points out, critics like Jerry Coyne confuse the claim that there is one man from whom all modern humans are descended — a claim that is part of the doctrine of original sin — with the claim that all modern humans are descended from only one man — a claim which need not be understood as part of the doctrine. And as Flynn also points out, it is arguably only the male of the pair, and not the couple, that the doctrine requires all modern humans to be descended from.

	As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adam’s soul was infused directly by God. It does not require that Adam was literally made directly from dust or clay. And though Rosenhouse is correct that Genesis is interested in the formation of Adam’s body and not merely the origin of his soul, that too is consistent with the Flynn/Kemp account if we think of the matter God used to form that body as derived from pre-existing hominids rather than straight from the earth. I know Rosenhouse, Coyne, and Co. would like it to be the case that all Christians are crude literalists -- after all, that would facilitate atheist combox smart-assery and other forms of Serious Thinking. But it just isn’t so. As a matter of fact, the most traditional Christians are not crude literalists. As Mike Flynn emphasizes in his post, that the literal and figurative senses of statements in the book of Genesis must be carefully distinguished is a long-standing theme in traditional biblical exegesis, and was famously explored by St. Augustine.		As I noted in my previous post, what Catholic theology requires is that all humans living today have Adam as an ancestor, and that Adam’s soul was infused directly by God. It does not require that Adam was literally made directly from dust or clay. And though Rosenhouse is correct that Genesis is interested in the formation of Adam’s body and not merely the origin of his soul, that too is consistent with the Flynn/Kemp account if we think of the matter God used to form that body as derived from pre-existing hominids rather than straight from the earth. I know Rosenhouse, Coyne, and Co. would like it to be the case that all Christians are crude literalists — after all, that would facilitate atheist combox smart-assery and other forms of Serious Thinking. But it just isn’t so. As a matter of fact, the most traditional Christians are not crude literalists. As Mike Flynn emphasizes in his post, that the literal and figurative senses of statements in the book of Genesis must be carefully distinguished is a long-standing theme in traditional biblical exegesis, and was famously explored by St. Augustine.

	=== Kemp ===		=== Kemp ===

Adam and Eve - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€”" to " — "

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

Mxmsj: /* Feser */

Mxmsj: /* Links */

Mxmsj: /* Flynn */

Mxmsj: /* Flynn */

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"