I recall a few years ago that certain Christian apologists responded excitedly to the breakthrough in DNA and genetic studies about the so-called “Mitochondrial Eve.” Many acclaimed it as proof for the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. However, it merely asserted that a line had been traced to the most recent female ancestor of all living human beings. It was estimated to extend back some 155,000 years. The estimate for Y-chromosomal Adam was vaguely estimated to go back some 200,000 to 300,000 years. It must be said, however, that the “Mitochondrial Eve” is not the first woman or the biblical Eve. Indeed, given the dating, there were other females around at the time she lived. If there were other mitochondrial lines, they are now extinct. All women living today can trace their line to her. A selection of other ancient women may also have descendants alive today but not in a direct female line. We are told by reputable scientists that nuclear DNA studies indicate that the effective ancient human population size was always measured in the tens of thousands.
We need to be careful in trying to absolutely connect the evidence of genetics or evolution with the creation story of Genesis. The Bible is not a science book. We know for certain that the world is far older than the biblical 6,000 years. The cosmology of the Jews is also figurative and cannot be employed to reject a round earth or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Catholicism is not fundamentalist, and we believe in the complementarity of truth. Ours is not a faith at war with science. Could God use evolution and the development of species to bring about the first true man and woman? Yes. Were there once different types of men and women? While even the Bible speaks of giants, again we can turn to the clear discovery of bones and artifacts. Yes, there were other branches in the human family. While we are Homo sapiens (going back some 300,000 years), the Neanderthals roamed the world from 400,000 to 40,000 years ago. Many of us may even carry remnants of their DNA. They made tools and lived in community. Their abilities demonstrate that they were not mere apes or animals. Thus, they must have had souls and were truly human, albeit different from us. This would push any true Adam and Eve much further back into human history.
There is a mystery to our origins that cannot be unveiled. This is because there is a divine operation beyond our scrutiny. God infuses an immortal soul. While the body might develop from proto-human creatures, there is no evolution of the human soul. This was the chief heresy that Darwin espoused, a point of contention for believers as well as atheists (who deny the immaterial soul). The first ensouled would be Adam and Eve. It is dubious to think that they were blue eyed, white skinned and blond haired. However they looked, the gift of a soul made them self-aware and gave them a reflective understanding unknown to other creatures. There came a moment when our first parents were alerted to their high calling, inspired by their place in creation and moved by the presence of God they immediately experienced. It was a turning point. They could have answered their high calling and there would have been no fall. Creation itself would have known a harmony that comes with being grafted to the heavenly kingdom. But the fall of Adam and Eve has a terrible cost— no preternatural gifts— and suffering, sin and death would be our lot. Instead of standing tall in their vocation as men and women, they fell to all fours on the level of the beast. It is so much easier to play the part of an animal then to live up to the dignity and responsibility of a man or woman.
Just as we might have known the blessings of Adam, the Church teaches that all humanity would suffer the cost of original sin. It is inherited or passed on through human descendants. This truth is clarified by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis. The error of Polygenism or multiple first parents is condemned. Although different from the biblical appreciation, modern science would prefer Monogenism or a common decent for humanity, often linked to “out of Africa” speculation.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
Blogger Priest 