My name is Katie Lewis, and I am the host of a tiny, but growing YouTube channel called Nerd Church, where we read through the Catholic Lectionary and see what critical scholarship has to say about those passages, not to debate, but to engage in an honest conversation, so that Catholics can learn to read the Bible in a more intelligent way, and so that critical scholars, and non-Catholics can gain some insight into how Catholics read the Bible.
I’m here via the secular YEC debunking community, and have realized that it’s time for me to start talking to science affiriming Christians, so that I can ask the questions about science and evolution that interest me as a practicing Catholic.
For example: What species were Adam and Eve?
Did God set things up so that humans would evolve because he wanted to incarnate, and needed a species so aggressively social that we would want to be friends with him?
This post was originally in the Private category where most people would not see it. This is now sorted, and with this comment bumped to where everyone should see it. .
Hi, Katie. Not all of us here are Christian, but most of us do agree with science.
What species were Adam and Eve? | |
| - |
Assuming they actually existed, I would say Homo sapiens. After all, their children are farmers, herdsmen, and city builders. Again assuming you believe anything about the story. And they would seem to have lived only a few thousand years ago. You should check out GAE while you’re here.
Did God set things up so that humans would evolve because he wanted to incarnate, and needed a species so aggressively social that we would want to be friends with him.
The incarnation seems to me to be a plan to save us from the consequences of Adam & Eve’s sin, so no. Not part of the original plan. Now the idea that he wanted friends sounds better, but he wouldn’t need incarnation for that, just people. Again, if you credit any of the story.
As it happens, I am currently on the “book tour” for my most recent book. I’m trying to talk about the book so people are aware of it. This is the link to the publisher page: Joining Creation’s Praise – Baker Publishing Group. There are several discussions of science and religion in it, and one specifically on the species of Adam and Eve.
I can have the press send you a copy of the book. But if you’d just prefer to talk about it the themes your interested in, I’m glad to come on and talk.
Welcome to the group!. Hopefully you find it an interesting place.
I’ll say off the bat I am an atheist, just so you know my perspective. That said, the idea of the Christian god having needs seems theologically suspect to me. It implies some sort of imperfection or incompleteness.
Let me clarify. Clearly, the creation story created in Genesis is just that, a story. It’s not literal history, not least of which because it’s clearly set in, or just before, the Bronze Age.
But, that doesn’t mean that there was not, at some point in history, an individual, or pair of individuals, who were clearly and undeniably “human” (acknowledging that defining ‘human’ is an entire separate discussion, which is also worth having) in a way that made them different from other apes living at the time.
The question that interests me is when did that happen? At what point did we, for lack of a better word reach the “age of reason” as a species, and become morally responsible for our actions, in the way that a sheep is not.
I can only speak for my own understanding of Catholic theology, but within that it’s sometimes stated that God doesn’t have needs, but can and does have wants. As long as we are assuming that God would be acting volitionally, rather than out of necessity, the idea that God might have motivations isn’t inherently problematic.
I was going to say that evolution hardly ever provides clear cut boundaries. The concept of “first humans” is a narrative story, not a scientific one. @Katie recognizes it is a story, and that it would another whole discussion. ~~ I think we are all on the same page, more or less.
It also doesn’t mean there was. In biological terms you’re talking about instant speciation, which is just not a thing, especially in two individuals simultaneously. Evolution doesn’t happen to individuals, it happens to populations. And it’s unlikely that any single mutation marks the dividing line between human and non-human.
A common analogy is to ask who would have been the first speaker of French. But of course there was none. Latin turned to French gradually, in a community of speakers. And so with humanity.
Many primates have some kind of moral sense, another continuum.
It is a continuum, but there are also sudden transitions in concepts of ethics and morality. There are many examples that were recognized to be morally/ethically unacceptable after the fact, when people observe unforeseen consequences and understand the need to change the behavior. This is something I get reminded of every year during mandatory ethics training.
The idea of “first humans” seems more like a phase transition or change of state than any physical difference. This is also something which happens to a population, but there could be individuals who adopt the new state first.
@swamidass’s GAE has already been mentioned to you. It’ s basically the reason the forum exists. According to that, as I understand it, the term “human” does not describe a species, but a spiritual condition.
This might help you appreciate why that question is probably unanswerable: When you were one year old, you were not morally responsible for your actions, correct? But now you are. At what precise point in time did you become morally responsible?
