Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I understand. It is also the opinion of many other people.

The difficulty in our current century is that the term "evolution" has morphed beyond its original use as a descriptive explanation for observable diversity among species.

Usually it is said that Man came through evolution. Stop.I cannot accept that.

I think that is up to us, Christians, to proclaim the creation by God of the Soul. I do not think that we should go head-on against evolution. I think that we should accept the evolution of the Body and clash and proclaim the creation of the Individual Human Soul. That is a duty of every christian to do that.

If we deny the evolution of the Body we lose credibility as evolution is practically accepted unanimously and the scientific data are huge.

But we should preach the Church Teaching: that the Human Soul is created individually by God on the act of conception.

And the reasons are huge too: I have never seen a monkey get through University nor high school. The abstract thought is not within material scientific explanation. How do you explain the idea "JUSTICE" through material atoms and protons and neutrons? Where is there that idea?

Even the hypothesis that quantity generates quality is yet to be proven. If complexity generated quality, the elephant or the whale should be super-intelligent and we do not see that.

The hazard does not seem to go far away. If you throw all the letters of "Hamlet" and gyrate through billions of years, you will never get the Hamlet together. Hazard does not lead to intelligence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all tend to entropy not the reverse.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by Nec5

But scientists do because they are human. And evolution is a question of belief. Do you believe the evidence presented/uncovered fits the theoretical model of evolution to the point that it is pretty much established fact?

Many do. Many do not.

If Adam and Eve were metaphors, then I guess Christ and Paul were playing the metaphor game as well in the New Testament when they reference the happenings in the Old Testament (Noah's Flood, Jonah, "the first Adam"). Of course, the text does not read that way at all. That's just rationalization by people who believe what the secular world gives them and try to fit it into what the Lord revealed to us.

It would be far more consistent to simply reject the Bible as a legit tome of Truth as many non-Chrstians do. At most, they call it a book of sound teaching. At least, they're honest in their doubt or rejection. But to twist the text to fit what you want it to is neither honest nor accurate. It is the musings of a weak will that cannot make a decision.

Come on. You should study the Bible. It seems that you are putting the page one and the last page in the same bag.
The first page was written maybe 1200 before Christ and the last page maybe 70 after Christ. The difference is more than from the Middle Ages to 2012.
There are 70 and so books written by hundreds of writers.
The variety is huge, from books of prayers, poetry, history in a variety of styles.
If you are aware of the literature genres, you will know that theoretics divide into 3: dramatic, narrative, lyric. Inside the Narrative, there is the epic style. What is the epic style? It is the one that put emphasis in the "hero", who is a quasi-god, a man of utterly great virtues and capable and god-like feats. See Batman, the Hero Cow-Boys, the Super-Policemen, and so on, I do not remember more...
So, do not put all in the same bag. You should study more and then, you will realize that all makes sense...
Google and Wikipedia have lots of info....not bad....

[grannymh]

The early interpretations of evolution evidence have gone far beyond the descriptive explanation of how material anatomies became what they are today. There was a time, way back, when the human anatomy could be viewed as the result of a series of actions, changes, or functions within cell structures. And there was no doubt that a person's spiritual soul was directly created by God. Your whole post 301 attests to the fact that human nature is an unique peerless unification of the spiritual soul and material anatomy.

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

The abstract thought is not within material scientific explanation. How do you explain the idea "JUSTICE" through material atoms and protons and neutrons? Where is there that idea?

What I have put in bold is what has changed in today's evolution model. Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

When one studies the first three chapters of Genesis, the necessity of a spiritual soul is front and center. Yet, some interpreters of the material evidence for legitimate changes, adaptations, and general mutations, are claiming improper universal exclusions which are not warranted by said evidence. As additional "evidence" some interpreters claim that Adam and Eve are not real people, but rather mythological symbols of the human anatomy's long journey to consciousness of the surrounding population and a need for some cultural values.

Because the huge scientific data is based on retrospective calculations which are based on some chosen assumptions, the possibility of two sole founders of humanity does exist.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

The early interpretations of evolution evidence have gone far beyond the descriptive explanation of how material anatomies became what they are today. There was a time, way back, when the human anatomy could be viewed as the result of a series of actions, changes, or functions within cell structures. And there was no doubt that a person's spiritual soul was directly created by God. Your whole post 301 attests to the fact that human nature is an unique peerless unification of the spiritual soul and material anatomy.



What I have put in bold is what has changed in today's evolution model. Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

When one studies the first three chapters of Genesis, the necessity of a spiritual soul is front and center. Yet, some interpreters of the material evidence for legitimate changes, adaptations, and general mutations, are claiming improper universal exclusions which are not warranted by said evidence. As additional "evidence" some interpreters claim that Adam and Eve are not real people, but rather mythological symbols of the human anatomy's long journey to consciousness of the surrounding population and a need for some cultural values.

Because the huge scientific data is based on retrospective calculations which are based on some chosen assumptions, the possibility of two sole founders of humanity does exist.

Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist.

No, no and no.
That's what I am fighting all my life.
There is no single proof that thought comes from matter. But depends on matter.
If my brain does not work properly I cannot think properly. But thought does not come from the brain.

An example:
If the program of TV is bad you do not call the electric engineer to make a better program, you call on new comedians.
If the TV set is malfunctioning, you do not call on the comedians to repair it, you call the electric engineer.

That is the difference between body and soul.
The comedians script comes from the soul, NEVER from atoms.
But you need good working brains on part of the comedians and the audience, otherwise the script won't work.

[grannymh]

From granny's post 303 -- "Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist."

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

No, no and no.
That's what I am fighting all my life.
There is no single proof that thought comes from matter. But depends on matter.
If my brain does not work properly I cannot think properly. But thought does not come from the brain.

Please accept my apology for any confusion. We are addressing the same issue but from different positions from different points in time.

The ban on evolution discussion in certain, individual forums http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=410885
went into effect before you became a member.
I respect the ban and intend to follow it in those forums which have it in place.

Nonetheless, I consider the information I learned before the ban as valuable regarding what is happening today in scientific and theological circles. I have read some of the actual research and most, not all, philosophical/theological so-called "solutions" needed to match Catholic doctrine to the material/physical realm. I have continued studying both the scientific and theological issues involved in the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature. I assure you that I am only a beginner.

The Australian article and the OP of this thread raise serious questions about the Catholic position regarding the complete reality of two first parents of humanity known biblically as Adam and Eve. The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today's evolution speculations about human origin.

An example:
If the program of TV is bad you do not call the electric engineer to make a better program, you call on new comedians.
If the TV set is malfunctioning, you do not call on the comedians to repair it, you call the electric engineer.

That is the difference between body and soul.
The comedians script comes from the soul, NEVER from atoms.
But you need good working brains on part of the comedians and the audience, otherwise the script won't work.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

From granny's post 303 -- "Abstract thought and the tools of rational thinking are being considered as emerging from matter (material substance) of which our body is made. Hence, the spiritual soul does not exist."



Please accept my apology for any confusion. We are addressing the same issue but from different positions from different points in time.

The ban on evolution discussion in certain, individual forums http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=410885
went into effect before you became a member.
I respect the ban and intend to follow it in those forums which have it in place.

Nonetheless, I consider the information I learned before the ban as valuable regarding what is happening today in scientific and theological circles. I have read some of the actual research and most, not all, philosophical/theological so-called "solutions" needed to match Catholic doctrine to the material/physical realm. I have continued studying both the scientific and theological issues involved in the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature. I assure you that I am only a beginner.

The Australian article and the OP of this thread raise serious questions about the Catholic position regarding the complete reality of two first parents of humanity known biblically as Adam and Eve. The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today's evolution speculations about human origin.

Thanks for the apologies but I was not offended in any way. It is a pleasure to debate with you....
I think there was (or there is) something of a ban but ... sincerely, I cannot realize how things stand.
I was told by a Moderator that the ban depends on Moderator and on the Forum under their supervision, for I said that I did not want to discuss evolution because it was forbidden and he said that it was not in his Forum but on another.
Well, my rules are: to attack ideas and actions; never attack people. As i realize, these criteria are for me enough for a polite discussion, but if there are other rules, I will follow.

My fight: to say that: 1) God exists; 2) that the human soul or spirit is spiritual, invisible, very powerful, it is the "Me" and survives death and lives eternally.

Do you know what?

I was not there. But I was told that my parish priest, the other Sunday, asked the audience: "Raise your hands those who believe we are going to survive after death!". In a full packed church, 3 hands raised up. And I tell you, good, devote people, who come to rosary and so on. The priest replied: "What are you coming here to do?".

I knew it. The priest only then realized it. I know that people think that after death they will be thrown into a grave and it is the end of it all..--- Christians, Catholics, and so on.

So, that is my fight and, for a good cause, I can be aggressive....

As for what you said, there is a slight correction when you say:

The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today's evolution speculations about human origin.

We call it "midrash" from the hebrew. Myth is more greek, adapted to Zeus, Aphridite and so on.

Now, listen: God talks to us in different ways. Till Galileo, people thought that the Sun turned around the Earth. God taught us, through Science, that it was not so. So, through a very painful process, Christians had to re-interpret the Bible and it was good, for we we interpreting it wrong. Now, we thought that Adam and Eve were our first Fathers. God, through Science, says no. Through another painful process, we have to re-interpret the Bible for God is talking to us through Science and both MUST BE in conformity for THERE ARE NOT 2 GODS.

What is "midrash"? Midrash were tales, in the Jewish Tradition, that conveyed a message of God. The Prodigal son, though being a midrash or parabole, is as real as if he was real. I do not care whether he existed or not. The message is there. Sorry, I never searched for Jesus Parables but now I did and sorry for putting them here for I find amazing:Alert servants; Barren fig tree; Bread of life; Budding fig tree; Children in market; Christian light; Dinner guests; Divided kingdom; Feast invitations; Friend at midnight; Good Samaritan; Good shepherd; Great physician; Grooms attendants; Growing seed; Hidden treasure; Householder; Humbled guest; King's war plans; Laborers in vineyard; Landowner; Leaven;Lost coin; Lost sheep; Marriage feast; Mustard seed; Net of fish; New cloth; New wine; Pearl of great price; Pharisee and tax collector; Prodigal son; Rich man & Lazarus;Rich fool; Salt without taste; Servant's duty; Sheep and goats; Sign of Jonah;Tares in field (part 1); Tares in field (part 2); Ten Minas; Ten talents; Ten virgins; The Sower (part 1); The Sower (part 2); Two debtors; Two sons; Unclean spirit; Unjust judge;Unjust steward; Unmerciful servant; Unprepared builder; Vine and branches;Watching servants; Wise builder; Wise servant; Wise steward.

That makes 57 Parables that remained in Jesus Teaching. As I was ordering them, I was thinking: "Is it a big surprise that Adam and Eve are a parable?"; Is it so that God to men speaks in Parables?. The Disciples said that Jesus always talked in Parables to the People !!!

In this context, Adam and Eve makes sense. They are not "people who did not exist" but an enormous teaching of Creation of the Universe and of Man, on the Soul, on the beauty of it all, of Sin and decaying of Man, of Hope in the midst of the Dark times.

After all, being a Parable, Adam and Eve are really mu Parents. And my heroes...

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I was told by a Moderator that the ban depends on Moderator and on the Forum under their supervision, for I said that I did not want to discuss evolution because it was forbidden and he said that it was not in his Forum but on another.

In this forum, the science supporting the evolution theory can be discussed as long as it pertains to the topic article. Discussion must be charitable. Cardinal Pell opened the doors to this discussion with his reference to science and his reference to mythology which pointed to not only Adam and Eve but human nature itself as described by Catholic doctrines and the process of human origin as described by the evolution theory. In addition to Cardinal Pell's references, the relationship of science to Catholic basic doctrines is being debated on a national scale in many areas of the world. Thus, even the purpose of the debate questions themselves need to be recognized and discussed.

As for what you said, there is a slight correction when you say: "The mythology issue is one of the ways that some Catholics are trying to adapt Catholic doctrines to match today's evolution speculations about human origin."

We call it "midrash" from the hebrew. Myth is more greek, adapted to Zeus, Aphridite and so on.

What is "midrash"? Midrash were tales, in the Jewish Tradition, that conveyed a message of God.

There has been discussion on other threads about the proper meaning of mythology and about "midrash" as contributing to the make-up of the first three chapters of Genesis. Though I do not remember seeing the word "midrash". However, from your description I am sure "midrash" was being discussed.

What I see happening is that the word "mythology" is now the popular meaning of non-real. Catholics seem to be using the word mythology as a description of a non-real Garden of Eden etc., etc. The following quotes from the article are a good example of the problems associated with "mythology."

**Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.

"It's certainly not a scientific truth. And it's a religious story told for religious purposes."**

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226322379822 Refer back to post 1.

I agree that when we read about a heated debate, it is difficult to know what exactly was meant and if the speaker really meant the way the statement sounded. As I have said before, the article's "words and their expression" are all over the conversation scene. It is time for Catholics to sort out the truth. That is not an easy task.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

In this forum, the science supporting the evolution theory can be discussed as long as it pertains to the topic article. Discussion must be charitable. Cardinal Pell opened the doors to this discussion with his reference to science and his reference to mythology which pointed to not only Adam and Eve but human nature itself as described by Catholic doctrines and the process of human origin as described by the evolution theory. In addition to Cardinal Pell's references, the relationship of science to Catholic basic doctrines is being debated on a national scale in many areas of the world. Thus, even the purpose of the debate questions themselves need to be recognized and discussed.





There has been discussion on other threads about the proper meaning of mythology and about "midrash" as contributing to the make-up of the first three chapters of Genesis. Though I do not remember seeing the word "midrash". However, from your description I am sure "midrash" was being discussed.

What I see happening is that the word "mythology" is now the popular meaning of non-real. Catholics seem to be using the word mythology as a description of a non-real Garden of Eden etc., etc. The following quotes from the article are a good example of the problems associated with "mythology."

**Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.

"It's certainly not a scientific truth. And it's a religious story told for religious purposes."**

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226322379822 Refer back to post 1.

I agree that when we read about a heated debate, it is difficult to know what exactly was meant and if the speaker really meant the way the statement sounded. As I have said before, the article's "words and their expression" are all over the conversation scene. It is time for Catholics to sort out the truth. That is not an easy task.

I avoid on purpose the word "myth" because it is loaded with explosives. You start discussing what do you mean by "myth" and it is a never ending story. The word "midrash" is of jewish ascent and I learnt it in my classes of Theology. So, I never say that Adam and Eve are a myth. I prefer even the word "parable".

As you said, the word "myth" does not mean what it should mean: a story with a morale, like are all greek myths, very, very beautiful but , as you said, something that does not exist.

So I start anew with midrash which moreover, was given to me by my Professor of Old Testament.

My view is simple: as long as you are not an atheist, as long as you say what the Bible says that God created the Universe and created Men, then you could say whatever from the body, that comes from clay, from the rib of Adam, from a monkey, that just parachuted from an ET engine (which should be created by God too)...just joking but my emphasis is: God first. The details? God knows.

Even if God incarnated a Soul into an animal which is my favorite theory, to know where, when how, it is a terribly hard task.

I think that our mission is to preach God. And the message of Adam and Eve, so, it is very, very beautiful, as long as you consider that that is not literal. You put aside the literal and get the essential: 1) How God Created the Universe by His Word; 2) How He found this World beautiful (tough message for todays world); 3) how it is possible all living creatures to live in harmony ( message for the ecological disasters of today); 4) How God rules the world and we must obey to him, even if he tells that you can eat that but not this (tough message for the 10 commandmentes); 5) how man is a sinner; 6) how man sees himself naked through sin: after all, nakedness is not wrong but depends on man's evil eyes..... and so on and on and on.

Adam and Eve are much bore beautiful when they are a midrash then when I think of them real...

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Now, listen: God talks to us in different ways. Till Galileo, people thought that the Sun turned around the Earth. God taught us, through Science, that it was not so. So, through a very painful process, Christians had to re-interpret the Bible and it was good, for we we interpreting it wrong. Now, we thought that Adam and Eve were our first Fathers. God, through Science, says no. Through another painful process, we have to re-interpret the Bible for God is talking to us through Science and both MUST BE in conformity for THERE ARE NOT 2 GODS.

We do learn the glory and power of God from a simple human observation of our universe.

But when it comes to issues of faith, morals, and our spiritual souls, God teaches us through the Catholic Church and not through science.

Whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is a matter which humans, through scientific research, can determine to some extent. When humans did not know how to research the sky and they did not have telescopes, their opinions were the best that could be offered at that time. Still, it must be remembered that the heavenly bodies of planets and stars are part of the material/physical universe and they are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Note that the humans who did offer their opinions were speaking freely from their own knowledge of the material/physical universe.

High ranking clergy have the right to free speech and consequently they can give their opinions about the natural environment. But this is not the same as a major Ecumenical Church Council operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These Councils deal with matters belonging to God's spiritual realm. Divine Revelation is about God Who is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit. Divine Revelation is about humans who are created with a spiritual soul, in the image of our Creator. This "image" is why we have to capability to respond to God calling us to share in His life for eternity.

Over the centuries, humans have tried to make up their own "divine revelation" about this or that in the material/physical world. The Catholic Church does not call a major Church Council about this or that in the material/physical universe. On the other hand, major Church Councils have discerned Divine Revelation when issues from the purely material/physical realm conflicted with Divine Revelation. The issues of Adam's reality and the reality of his Original Sin were settled centuries ago with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for the promise of the Holy Spirit.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

So I start anew with midrash which moreover, was given to me by my Professor of Old Testament.

My view is simple: as long as you are not an atheist, as long as you say what the Bible says that God created the Universe and created Men, then you could say whatever from the body, that comes from clay, from the rib of Adam, from a monkey, that just parachuted from an ET engine (which should be created by God too)...just joking but my emphasis is: God first. The details? God knows.

Even if God incarnated a Soul into an animal which is my favorite theory, to know where, when how, it is a terribly hard task.

I would have liked to have your Professor of the Old Testament teach me. I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a Bible. It is recently that I learned about midrash (though not that name) and how various strains were combined to teach God's Divine Revelation. Thus, when Adam was discussed on CAF, I first went to Catholic teachings. Using the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, I learned how the Catholic Church made Catholic doctrines more explicit in order to better understand the depth of Divine Revelation.

I also had to learn some basic principles about natural science. When science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood, then the truth of God is evident.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bonnette

Given the topic of this thread, it was hardly unexpected that someone would post the widely popularized claim that Adam and Eve were "impossible" in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to "adjust" Church teaching to fit the latest findings of science -- thus scandalizing Catholics into thinking that fundamental revealed truths are not well founded.

The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul's teaching is the fact that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption came (Rom 5:12-21). The Catechism cites St. Paul, and speaks of Adam and Eve as of a single mating pair who "committed a personal sin" (CCC, 399-404).

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates, which vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007) depending on the methods used, with an actual "bottleneck" ( a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. We must also realize that these calculations depend on many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are now known to vary widely, and that all depend on retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have almost no information.

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala's claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

Since the Class II region where HLA-DRB1 resides recombines only rarely, the region behaves as a unit during reproduction. It is inherited as a block, referred to as a haplotype. It is now known that there are only five basic haplotypes (Andersson 1998), and their particular identity is specified by which HLA-DRB1 allele they carry. Depending on the accuracy of the dating and tree drawing, there may have been between three and five haplotypes at the time of the Homo/Pan split. We share four of them with chimps. Since a single mating pair could pass on a maximum of four haplotypes, the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve. [I am indebted to molecular biologist Dr. Ann Gauger for the above line of reasoning pertinent to the genetic arguments.]

The point of all this is to show that the science which is so dogmatically employed to undermine Catholic doctrine regarding Adam and Eve is itself not definitive. Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.

What is most important for purposes of this thread is the realization that, since the same God is Author of both human reason and authentic revelation, legitimate science will never contradict Catholic doctrine -- and Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.

In my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, second edition, 2003), I offer extensive analysis of the interface between evolutionary theory, philosophy, and theology -- including a most detailed explanation of how the existence of a literal Adam and Eve remains rationally credible, even to well educated Christians at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Impossible the Adam and Eve exactly as the Bible says in the literal terms. Only they existed as a teaching of God about Christian Doctrine.
Anyhow, their literal existance is useless in terms of Christian Doctrine.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I would have liked to have your Professor of the Old Testament teach me. I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a Bible. It is recently that I learned about midrash (though not that name) and how various strains were combined to teach God's Divine Revelation. Thus, when Adam was discussed on CAF, I first went to Catholic teachings. Using the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, I learned how the Catholic Church made Catholic doctrines more explicit in order to better understand the depth of Divine Revelation.

I also had to learn some basic principles about natural science. When science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood, then the truth of God is evident.

My Teacher of Old Testament was a German, methodical and exact. Swam everyday for one hour in the sea of Hong-Kong. Very good teacher.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

We do learn the glory and power of God from a simple human observation of our universe.

But when it comes to issues of faith, morals, and our spiritual souls, God teaches us through the Catholic Church and not through science.

Whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is a matter which humans, through scientific research, can determine to some extent. When humans did not know how to research the sky and they did not have telescopes, their opinions were the best that could be offered at that time. Still, it must be remembered that the heavenly bodies of planets and stars are part of the material/physical universe and they are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Note that the humans who did offer their opinions were speaking freely from their own knowledge of the material/physical universe.

High ranking clergy have the right to free speech and consequently they can give their opinions about the natural environment. But this is not the same as a major Ecumenical Church Council operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These Councils deal with matters belonging to God's spiritual realm. Divine Revelation is about God Who is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit. Divine Revelation is about humans who are created with a spiritual soul, in the image of our Creator. This "image" is why we have to capability to respond to God calling us to share in His life for eternity.

Over the centuries, humans have tried to make up their own "divine revelation" about this or that in the material/physical world. The Catholic Church does not call a major Church Council about this or that in the material/physical universe. On the other hand, major Church Councils have discerned Divine Revelation when issues from the purely material/physical realm conflicted with Divine Revelation. The issues of Adam's reality and the reality of his Original Sin were settled centuries ago with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for the promise of the Holy Spirit.

There are small nuances that make much difference.
In the 16 century, people took the Bible literally. There was no science. If the Bible said that the sun stopped for Joshua to go on with the battle, then it is a sign that the sun goes around the Earth and that was a Teaching of the Church, a dogma (there was no infallibility yet). So say that it was Science then is a bad conclusion for there was no Science, all was in the Bible.

Now it is the same thing. Evolution is a question of Science not a question of the Bible. God tells us clearly through Science that Man's Body came through evolution and we should learn God's truth through Science.

Now the Bible says that God created Man, that is the Soul, directly.

If the tales of the Bible were true we should distinguish: which is true? The Yahwist or the Elohist account as they are so different?

[itullian]

Hugh Ross and his staff believe in Adam and Eve. as created from clay. not evolved.

they're smart credentialed men.