Where did the body of Eve come from in 'catholic' evolution?
#1
Humani Generis
August 12, 1950
‘36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God…..’ Pope Pius XII

CATHOLIC HERALD
Friday, 31 Oct 2014

“Pope Francis’s comments on the Big Bang are not revolutionary. Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution.'

Now could someone tell me where the body of Eve came from in this 'Catholic' evolutionary scenario?
Reply
#2
I don't know how one could really prove or disprove that Eve came from a rib of Adam.  But there are a few things to think about rationally:

If you believe literally that God created each species fully formed, and that he created them male and female, did he create the first female of each sexually reproducing species from the rib of a male of the species?  If God did not extract a rib from the first male gorilla, wolf, blue whale, ostrich, komodo dragon or hammerhead shark to create the first female of each, why did he need to do so for humans?

Considering that human mitochondrial dna can be traced back to a common female ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, if humans were actually created separately, what would reasonably explain this discrepancy in the evidence?

Assuming God did create Eve after the fact from Adam, did he create Adam with fully functioning male genitalia?  The account in Genesis sounds as if God only created Eve after Adam had reviewed all the animals and did not find a suitable helper.  Would Adam have had superfluous genitalia, with no existing complement, if Eve was not an original part of God's plan (from a literalist perspective, there's no reason to think she was)?  If so, why?  If not, did God knit them together for Adam from nothing at the same time he was removing the rib to build Eve?  If the latter, why did God need a rib from Adam to create Eve if he was able to create genitalia for Adam from nothing?  If he didn't create Adam's genitalia from nothing, from what did he create them?

I think just thinking about those is sufficient to come to the conclusion that, while a literal interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve can never be truly disproven, there are so many problems with it that we can it is extremely unlikely that that is how it took place.
Reply
#3
(03-03-2017, 01:42 AM)Melkite Wrote: I don't know how one could really prove or disprove that Eve came from a rib of Adam.  But there are a few things to think about rationally:

Faith does not need proof for then it would not be faith. Catholic faith requires us to believe Adam was the first human being and that all other humans descend from HIM. This began with Eve and from their marriage every other human that was/is or to be. God could easily have made Eve from the dust of the earth but did not. If he did he would have said so. Obviously He wanted all to come from Adam's created body. That is why I asked some theistic evolutionist reading this post where does Pope Pius XII, who condemned polygenism in the same Humani Generis, and Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Pope Francis  get their Eve from, especially when Genesis reveals He made Eve from the rib of Adam. Why would any Catholic want to deny this revelation and conjure up a different story?

If you believe literally that God created each species fully formed, and that he created them male and female, did he create the first female of each sexually reproducing species from the rib of a male of the species?  If God did not extract a rib from the first male gorilla, wolf, blue whale, ostrich, komodo dragon or hammerhead shark to create the first female of each, why did he need to do so for humans?

Genessis 21: And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22: And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.

How can anyone read Genesis and even ask if God created animals, fish and birds fully formed, ready to fill the earth. Who can tell exactly why God did something? I can only conclude He created humans from the one body so that Polygenism was not an option and that Original Sin could be understood as affecting all human beings who came after them, necessitating Jesus and Mary to open up the gates to heaven once again..


Considering that human mitochondrial dna can be traced back to a common female ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, if humans were actually created separately, what would reasonably explain this discrepancy in the evidence?

Where did you get your 'chimpanzees and bonobos from?' Why not go back a little further to bamboos. The evidence only goes back to an original human being. Your monkeys etc., are added on to make it look like humans evolved from animals.
     
Assuming God did create Eve after the fact from Adam, did he create Adam with fully functioning male genitalia?  The account in Genesis sounds as if God only created Eve after Adam had reviewed all the animals and did not find a suitable helper.  Would Adam have had superfluous genitalia, with no existing complement, if Eve was not an original part of God's plan (from a literalist perspective, there's no reason to think she was)?  If so, why?  If not, did God knit them together for Adam from nothing at the same time he was removing the rib to build Eve?  If the latter, why did God need a rib from Adam to create Eve if he was able to create genitalia for Adam from nothing?  If he didn't create Adam's genitalia from nothing, from what did he create them?

Adam was created 'in the image and likeness of God.' Jesus Christ was created in the bodily image of Adam. To speculate on the question of  'a fully functioning male genitalia' is something I would prefer not even to entertain.

I think just thinking about those is sufficient to come to the conclusion that, while a literal interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve can never be truly disproven, there are so many problems with it that we can it is extremely unlikely that that is how it took place.

I have argued it is the other way around.
Reply
#4
(03-03-2017, 02:49 PM)cassini Wrote: That is why I asked some theistic evolutionist reading this post where does Pope Pius XII, who condemned polygenism in the same Humani Generis, and Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Pope Francis  get their Eve from, especially when Genesis reveals He made Eve from the rib of Adam. Why would any Catholic want to deny this revelation and conjure up a different story?

I guess because of the cognitive dissonance that believing the old story creates when confronted with the knowledge that is now available to us.

Quote:I can only conclude He created humans from the one body so that Polygenism was not an option and that Original Sin could be understood as affecting all human beings who came after them, necessitating Jesus and Mary to open up the gates to heaven once again..

That's an interesting idea.  So you believe it is possible that God created humans in the way he did reactively to the anticipation of Original Sin?  That is, our specific design is dependent upon man sinning at some future point after he was created?  Holding such a belief is not contradictory to the Catholic faith?

Quote:Where did you get your 'chimpanzees and bonobos from?' Why not go back a little further to bamboos. The evidence only goes back to an original human being. Your monkeys etc., are added on to make it look like humans evolved from animals.

You clearly are ignorant of the research that has been conducted by geneticists over the past two decades.
     
Quote:Adam was created 'in the image and likeness of God.' Jesus Christ was created in the bodily image of Adam. To speculate on the question of  'a fully functioning male genitalia' is something I would prefer not even to entertain

Interesting.  Does God's creation offend you?  I understand why you may not want to visualize another man's genitalia, but certainly from an academic perspective, it shouldn't cause you any discomfort to ponder the things God created good, regardless of the sex they belong to, should it?

Quote:I have argued it is the other way around.

Indeed, even unsuccessfully.
Reply
#5
(03-03-2017, 01:42 AM)Melkite Wrote: If you believe literally that God created each species fully formed, and that he created them male and female, did he create the first female of each sexually reproducing species from the rib of a male of the species?  If God did not extract a rib from the first male gorilla, wolf, blue whale, ostrich, komodo dragon or hammerhead shark to create the first female of each, why did he need to do so for humans?

God didn't need to create Eve from Adam's rib. He chose to do so and to create the first woman out of the side of man. The blood and water that flowed from the side of Christ from his side wound are said to be the birth of the Church; if Jesus is the new Adam, then the Church is the new Eve. Just because God did something in a particular way doesn't mean that He couldn't have done otherwise.

(03-03-2017, 01:42 AM)Melkite Wrote: Considering that human mitochondrial dna can be traced back to a common female ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, if humans were actually created separately, what would reasonably explain this discrepancy in the evidence?

I don't know enough about the science of this to know whether this is true or not. But similarity does not prove descent, and there are likely a number of estimates and guesses about mutation rate and such of mitochondrial DNA. If God created apes and man with similar DNA, we'd see the same result, and have no way of telling the difference.

(03-03-2017, 01:42 AM)Melkite Wrote: Assuming God did create Eve after the fact from Adam, did he create Adam with fully functioning male genitalia?  The account in Genesis sounds as if God only created Eve after Adam had reviewed all the animals and did not find a suitable helper.  Would Adam have had superfluous genitalia, with no existing complement, if Eve was not an original part of God's plan (from a literalist perspective, there's no reason to think she was)?  If so, why?  If not, did God knit them together for Adam from nothing at the same time he was removing the rib to build Eve?  If the latter, why did God need a rib from Adam to create Eve if he was able to create genitalia for Adam from nothing?  If he didn't create Adam's genitalia from nothing, from what did he create them?

God's plan doesn't change, since God is unchanging. He knew he'd create Eve when he created Adam, and there's no reason to think that they weren't meant to have children through sexual reproduction. Yes, Chapter 2 of Genesis could be read the way you suggest, but the end of Chapter 1 already says "male and female he created them", and blessed them to "increase and multiply". Adam was allowed to name the animals because he was given dominion over them; God knew none of them were suitable for him and that He would then create Eve.

It's just as possible to interpret Genesis 2, 18-20 as God saying "let us make him a help like unto himself", meaning "let us create Eve, but first let Adam see and name all the animals, to show him that man is different from the beasts".

(03-03-2017, 01:42 AM)Melkite Wrote: I think just thinking about those is sufficient to come to the conclusion that, while a literal interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve can never be truly disproven, there are so many problems with it that we can it is extremely unlikely that that is how it took place.

None of the things you brought up causes any problems for someone who believes God specially created Adam and Eve. He created Eve from a rib because He chose to, and created both of them as fully functional adult humans, never intending Adam to find a companion of another species.

Maybe you're right, and evolution is true and Christianity is false. If so, then the alternatives are either that some other religion is true or that none of them are, and when we're dead, we're dead. If the eastern religions with their belief in reincarnation are true, then we'll come back and try again whether we believe it or not. If Christianity's false because of Adam and Eve, then it doesn't make sense that Judaism would then be true, and Mohammed never performed any miracles or did anything to prove that he was who he said he was. And if we're just dead when we die, then what difference does it make whether we believe in Adam and Eve or evolution? And if one believes Christianity to be true, then we'll find out in heaven how creation happened, and whether Genesis is literal or not doesn't really matter to getting there.

Reply
#6
(03-03-2017, 08:40 PM)Paul Wrote: I don't know enough about the science of this to know whether this is true or not. But similarity does not prove descent, and there are likely a number of estimates and guesses about mutation rate and such of mitochondrial DNA. If God created apes and man with similar DNA, we'd see the same result, and have no way of telling the difference.

That's true, similarity does not prove descent.  However, we're not merely talking about similarity.  We're talking about identical genes before a certain point.  But I agree that even that doesn't prove, indisputably, descent.  The problem it creates though, is that these genes can be traced the same way your genes can be traced to your parents.  If their likeness does not at least suggest, if not prove, our descent from them, then the similarity of your genes to your parents also proves nothing, and we know with certainty that this is not the case.

Quote:None of the things you brought up causes any problems for someone who believes God specially created Adam and Eve. He created Eve from a rib because He chose to, and created both of them as fully functional adult humans, never intending Adam to find a companion of another species.

It does if you believe our current level of scientific research is more or less accurate.  Cassini rejects that, so he is at least being consistent.  If you reject the authority of scientific discovery, then you can believe the Bible literally without any violence to your reasoning mind.  If, however, you accept that what modern scientific research has proposed to be relatively accurate, it will cause significant rational problems for someone who also believes that God created Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis.

[/quote]And if we're just dead when we die, then what difference does it make whether we believe in Adam and Eve or evolution? And if one believes Christianity to be true, then we'll find out in heaven how creation happened, and whether Genesis is literal or not doesn't really matter to getting there.
[/quote]

I'm the kind of person that needs to know as much truth as I can.  I used to believe anything anyone told me without questioning it if I thought they were trustworthy.  I've been disappointed enough by that that I'm no longer willing to accept anything is true just because someone tells me it is.  I'm willing to accept that maybe it is, and give it the chance to prove itself.  If it is true, it should be able to show something for it more than a claim of veracity.  I'm no longer willing to believe Christianity just because it's one of the two religions that condemns non-believers to an eternity in hell.  Anyone who would practice a religion because of fear isn't really a believer in the religion, and so probably isn't any safer than the non-believers anyway.  I will go to my judgement having believed what made the best case for being the truth.  If that isn't good enough, nothing I ever would have done or believed as a Christian would have been either.  I certainly don't want to live a life where I profess something that deep down I don't believe.  If there is nothing after death, it would have been a fraudulent life.  My conscience can't tolerate that.
Reply
#7
(03-03-2017, 10:12 PM)Melkite Wrote: That's true, similarity does not prove descent.  However, we're not merely talking about similarity.  We're talking about identical genes before a certain point.  But I agree that even that doesn't prove, indisputably, descent.  The problem it creates though, is that these genes can be traced the same way your genes can be traced to your parents.  If their likeness does not at least suggest, if not prove, our descent from them, then the similarity of your genes to your parents also proves nothing, and we know with certainty that this is not the case.

We know humans give birth to other humans and pass on their DNA. But it's one thing to compare the genes of two individuals to see if they match, and, if so, how much they match, and another to trace that back millions of years. I can't comment too much on it since I'm not a scientist and don't know how they do the comparison, but I suspect there are some big estimates in there. Maybe educated estimates, but still room for error. And since I don't understand the methodology, believing the scientists about this takes just as much faith as believing the Bible.

(03-03-2017, 10:12 PM)Melkite Wrote: It does if you believe our current level of scientific research is more or less accurate.  Cassini rejects that, so he is at least being consistent.  If you reject the authority of scientific discovery, then you can believe the Bible literally without any violence to your reasoning mind.  If, however, you accept that what modern scientific research has proposed to be relatively accurate, it will cause significant rational problems for someone who also believes that God created Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis.

There are plenty of things about the natural world that man hasn't even come close to figuring out, one of those being agreement on a methodology for evolution. Global cooling Global warming Climate change is another, with so much of it turning into political discussions and any dissent being treated as, well, heresy. If Galileo was so brave to challenge what everyone knew to be true, then why is the modern scientist who challenges the consensus excluded? If the science is solid, then it should be able to stand up to challengers without having to resort to name-calling and ridicule. And most academics are leftists, which doesn't mean their results must be rejected, but when the left lies about everything else, one questions how accurate the science is. Science is useful, but not infallible.
Reply
#8

CASSINI SAID: Where did you get your 'chimpanzees and bonobos from?' Why not go back a little further to bamboos. The evidence only goes back to an original human being. Your monkeys etc., are added on to make it look like humans evolved from animals.

Melkite answered:[You clearly are ignorant of the research that has been conducted by geneticists over the past two decades.

PAUL SAID: I don't know enough about the science of this to know whether this is true or not. But similarity does not prove descent, and there are likely a number of estimates and guesses about mutation rate and such of mitochondrial DNA. If God created apes and man with similar DNA, we'd see the same result, and have no way of telling the difference.

Melkite answered: That's true, similarity does not prove descent.  However, we're not merely talking about similarity.  We're talking about identical genes before a certain point.  But I agree that even that doesn't prove, indisputably, descent.  The problem it creates though, is that these genes can be traced the same way your genes can be traced to your parents.  If their likeness does not at least suggest, if not prove, our descent from them, then the similarity of your genes to your parents also proves nothing, and we know with certainty that this is not the case.

Melkite calls me igniorant and then admits to Paul that there is no certainty to his evolutionary preferences. Note the 'YOU ARE IGNORANT' ploy from the intellectually proud. They always get that 'proof' into their arguments.

Because both humans and apes have heads, brains, necks, shoulders, arma, elbows, hands, fingers, stomachs, kidneys, bums, legs et., etc., they MUST be related.

http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=G9Ew2SaB1Pc
Reply
#9
(03-04-2017, 01:51 AM)Paul Wrote: We know humans give birth to other humans and pass on their DNA. But it's one thing to compare the genes of two individuals to see if they match, and, if so, how much they match, and another to trace that back millions of years. I can't comment too much on it since I'm not a scientist and don't know how they do the comparison, but I suspect there are some big estimates in there. Maybe educated estimates, but still room for error. And since I don't understand the methodology, believing the scientists about this takes just as much faith as believing the Bible.

Here are a couple of websites that help illustrate it.  The one just explains how human migration is tracked through DNA.  Scientists basically use the same technique for comparing humans to other animals.

http://www.exploredna.co.uk/evolution-dna.html

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/using...-migration

(03-04-2017, 10:38 AM)cassini Wrote: Melkite calls me igniorant and then admits to Paul that there is no certainty to his evolutionary preferences. Note the 'YOU ARE IGNORANT' ploy from the intellectually proud. They always get that 'proof' into their arguments.

Wow, Cassini, I didn't expect you to take the drama queen route.  I did not say you were ignorant, period.  I said you were ignorant of the research conducted by geneticists over the past few decades.  EVERYONE is ignorant of most specialized research, this is one of the many you happen to be ignorant about.  There are many fields of scientific interest that have posed no interest to me, and I too am ignorant of them.  Pointing this out does not equate to me categorically defining you ignorant on the whole.  Please, stop behaving so effeminately.

In reference to Paul, I was merely acknowledging that, ultimately, no one can prove that macroevolution is true, because no one has lived long enough to observe it.  You are essentially taking an atheistic track, in that you are rejecting anything that you cannot see for yourself. "Have you personally observed this 'evolution' taking place, hmm?!?" "Well, no, I haven't, it takes place on a much longer and slower scale for any human to observe the entire process."  "AHA!  So you admit that it cannot be proven!  Therefore, evolution is a complete and utter lie!"  "Well, yes, technically, I cannot say I am 100.0000000000% certain that our evolutionary theory is absolutely accurate, however, I do acknowledge the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly skews anyone paying attention in the direction of accepting that it very likely happened this way, and no other hypothesis has remotely the same amount of evidence in its corner."

Quote:Because both humans and apes have heads, brains, necks, shoulders, arma, elbows, hands, fingers, stomachs, kidneys, bums, legs et., etc., they MUST be related.

I'm not good with logical fallacies.  When you make a false comparison in an attempt to make the opposing side look stupid to onlookers, but don't accurately represent what the opposing side is saying at all, is that a straw man?  Or is that some other fallacy?
Reply
#10
I note Melkite you make no reference to the website I put up offering very learned opinions of the DNA 'evidence' you say is more for an evolved human than a directly created Adam. Given I am ignorant of this evidence you can write me off, but how about their evidence?

I also would like to know if you are still pondering if the dust from a Big Bang evolved into a human body or have you some half-way house version of Adam's being? For me the Queen of Sciences is simple Theology and simple common-sense. The Idea of God zapping a monkey body with a soul and that presented as the first man made in the image of God, the father of all humanity, is to insult the theology of creation and common sense.

It is a pity others have not answered the original question, 'Where did the body of Eve come from in 'catholic' evolution.' (given all human bodies came from Adam)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)