I believe it would be the same as saying the earth is flat and the earth is round, both beliefs are permitted.
There were Adam and Eve and they were thef irst humans. This can’t be denied otherwise important dogmas regarding original sin are affected. So our intelligence must submit to Church authority in this matter (this is Faith).
Nevertheless, the human intellect can understand an original human couple is the best explanation for our ancestors in terms of philosophy, logic and probability.
This statement tells me you lack an understanding of science. Science is a search for understanding the truth, but mistakes and misunderstandings have been part of science throughout history. Scientific failures are in fact part of learning!
Proven? Can you produce this proof?
I was responding to the TC about 5 myths too many people believe.
I don’t see how what you state is related to the 5 myths could you explain why?
Genetic evidence points to common descent from common ancestors.
The Earth had existed for billions of years before Adam and Eve. Many kinds of life had come and gone, in cycles that lasted millions of years each. .
It is possible God used something that could be called ‘evolution’ to create the many cycles of life forms that existed before Adam and Eve. I don’t know how it was done and am not inclined to argue the point.
What I do not believe is that new life forms resulted from random change over time, unguided by God.
I do not believe that the first humans were the result of any evolutionary process. The first humans were a single man, created personally by God: and a single woman, created personally by God.
These two, Adam and Eve, had no ancestors. There were no ‘pre-Adamites’; no ‘pre-human stages of evolution’.
But not both true. Nor could they both be true at the same time.
No such conundrum exists.
The Church does not permit Catholics to abandon reason, scientific evidence, and sound Scripture scholarship. We must acknowledge certain aspects of Genesis are allegorical. We must also acknowledge that certain aspects are as written, such as the existence of a First Man and First Woman who sinned.
I think a lot of hay can be made of the word “literal” when it is not as straightforward as we would think. The literal sense of Scripture is always the primary sense.
A literal reading of Scripture can still interpret the text as symbolic and not a history-textbook, eyewitness-testimony, 11pm-news-report of what happened.
Even using the most restrictive meaning of “literal”, the Bible still permits a reading which doesn’t contradict the creation taking billions of years. The days of creation are not defined, and it is not stated that they are consecutive.
I think, though I could be wrong, that there were pre-humans, that Adam and Eve descended from them, and that at their birth God gave them each a human soul. Fr. Spitzer says something like this when he says that about 70 million years ago there was an explosion of culture in primitive man, and he thinks that’s when human souls began.
It’s all speculation of course.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.