Evolution And The Original Sin

[Oliver]

How is the evolution theory and the Original Sin compatible?

Im really struggling to find a good explaination on how the two can work and be argued for successfully.

[Ziggamafu]

God evolves us to the point of being human-animals (bodies) and breathes the breath of life (creates a spirit) for a male and a female; the first true human man and woman, Adam and Eve. These are the two true humans that dwell in perfection until original sin, which is then passed on to every subsequent human, as all potential humanity was within the body of Adam. Thus do we escape the stain of original sin - though not its temporal consequences - when we die to the old Adam and are reborn within the Body of the New Adam, who was free of original sin, by baptism.

At least that is the possibility off the top of my head.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[Callidius]

like Ziggamafu said everything was created by an intelligent designer (In Our Case God) but also evolves or adapts to his/her surroundings. For example at our cell replication they make mistakes much like we spiritually make mistakes, If our bodies did not make mistakes at conception and in growth then we would all look EXACTLY the same. Ziggamafu said it all, I'm just amending hope I did not confuse you .

[Hassan]

So the truth of the Catholic Faith is predicated on the totality of the human population being tracable back to an initial two beings?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1873177' date='May 22 2009, 07:08 AM']So the truth of the Catholic Faith is predicated on the totality of the human population being tracable back to an initial two beings?[/quote]
Not sure I'd say that, but they have determined there is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve"]mitochondrial Eve[/url], have they not?

[Oliver]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1872815' date='May 21 2009, 11:28 PM']God evolves us to the point of being human-animals (bodies) and breathes the breath of life (creates a spirit) for a male and a female; the first true human man and woman, Adam and Eve. These are the two true humans that dwell in perfection until original sin, which is then passed on to every subsequent human, as all potential humanity was within the body of Adam. Thus do we escape the stain of original sin - though not its temporal consequences - when we die to the old Adam and are reborn within the Body of the New Adam, who was free of original sin, by baptism.

At least that is the possibility off the top of my head.[/quote]

Interesting, so the first 2 humans that evolved were given spirits by God? So they didnt have a spirit to begin with? I find that kinda confusing. Wouldnt that mean that before humans evolved into humans that no animal had a spirit?

[kafka]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1873177' date='May 22 2009, 02:08 AM']So the truth of the Catholic Faith is predicated on the totality of the human population being tracable back to an initial two beings?[/quote]


was someone implying this sort of thing above or have you misread something else?

how could an entire deposit of religious truths be predicated on two single finite humans and/or on one mere truth about them?

rhetorical question. Its bad logic, and its simply not true. Or I may have misread you

Edited May 22, 2009 by kafka

[Paddington]

All those monkey-men were like, "hey something's different about Adam and Eve. Can't put my finger on it. "

[scardella]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1873177' date='May 22 2009, 02:08 AM']So the truth of the Catholic Faith is predicated on the totality of the human population being traceable back to an initial two beings?[/quote]

That's my understanding of it. (Traceable here meaning that, objectively, the whole human race actually descended from a specific set of parents. It does not mean our current capacity to actually prove that.) Or at the very least, the entirety of the first generation of our ancestors capable of making moral decisions (eg "Adam and Eve") all sinned in some (presumably united) capacity before further reproducing.

BTW, are we talking macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Adaptation or speciation?

Edited May 22, 2009 by scardella

[Theologian in Training]

The staff at Catholic Answers put together a great book entitled: "The Essential Catholic Survival Guide" which is a collection of everything they put on their website. The following is what was said about Adam and Eve. It is taken from the book, from the encyclical Humani Generis and the CCC.

I, have to admit, I like that this question was posed, because, to me, evolution does remove a lot of what can be said about Original Sin. For example, I was reading "Discover" magazine, and there was an article where it was said that there is evidence that animals could have at one time spoke, or at least had a more advanced form of communication than they do now. She attributes it to evidence of evolution, that our original ancestry with the animals show that we are the result of the pinnacle of evolution and are able to communicate in the way that we can. However, it got me thinking about something, couldn't it likely be evidence that, indeed, animals used to have a more advanced form of communication and what we see now is the result of the Fall?

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp[/url]

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Edited May 22, 2009 by Theologian in Training

[scardella]

Ok, given the above, yes, it depends on descending from one set of parents.

[kafka]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1873258' date='May 22 2009, 12:32 PM']All those monkey-men were like, "hey something's different about Adam and Eve. Can't put my finger on it. "[/quote]
bravo!

just remember they dont like it when you call them 'monkey-men.' They prefer to be called apes, and the more educated of the lot prefer anthropoids.



[quote name='scardella' post='1873288' date='May 22 2009, 01:36 PM']That's my understanding of it. (Traceable here meaning that, objectively, the whole human race actually descended from a specific set of parents. It does not mean our current capacity to actually prove that.) Or at the very least, the entirety of the first generation of our ancestors capable of making moral decisions (eg "Adam and Eve") all sinned in some (presumably united) capacity before further reproducing.

BTW, are we talking macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Adaptation or speciation?[/quote]
I guess I misread Hassan's statement. Yes the teaching is the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve. The speculative polygenism you mentioned is an error, and cannot be accepted by Catholics. Also, speculative polygenism you mentioned has no foundation in Revelation nor does it even make sense in light of the effects of original sin and the teachings of Jesus and Mary.

Edited May 22, 2009 by kafka

[Winchester]

There's a danger in discussing this that we view accidents as having anything to do with ensoulment.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Winchester

[kafka]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1873306' date='May 22 2009, 02:27 PM']There's a danger in discussing this that we view accidents as having anything to do with ensoulment.[/quote]
what do you mean by that?

[scardella]

[quote name='kafka' post='1873302' date='May 22 2009, 02:20 PM']The speculative polygenism you mentioned is an error, and cannot be accepted by Catholics. Also, speculative polygenism you mentioned has no foundation in Revelation nor does it even make sense in light of the effects of original sin and the teachings of Jesus and Mary.[/quote]

It would make some sense if the whole pool of possible ancestors sinned. It appears to me that the technical difficulty w/ polygenism is that the whole pool would have to sin in the first generation that they are able to make moral decisions. It'd be wonky if some of them reproduced before sinning and others reproduced after sinning. In the former case, Original Sin would be really Original Sins (plural), but the effects of the Fall would still be present to all humanity. I guess the real difficulty would be the proto-evangelium.

Of course, given Theologian in Training's reply above, the mental exercise of polygenism is somewhat irrelevant. (Read my post following his.)

Edited May 22, 2009 by scardella