Polygenism

[FaithT]

Are Catholics now allowed to believe in polygenism? I know what Pope Pius XII said many years ago but now that we‘ve discovered the human genome and other scientific discoveries, can we? Philosopher and professor Edward Feser believes and writes that there were a number of “humans” in the beginning and that God infused a soul into one whom he named Adam who interbred with these other “humans” and gave their offspring souls making them human. Or something.

 

[FaithT]

this is a loooong video.

 

[Michie]

Are Catholics now allowed to believe in polygenism? I know what Pope Pius XII said many years ago but now that we‘ve discovered the human genome and other scientific discoveries, can we? Philosopher and professor Edward Feser believes and writes that there were a number of “humans” in the beginning and that God infused a soul into one whom he named Adam who interbred with these other “humans” and gave their offspring souls making them human. Or something.

You might find this helpful: Polygenism is Problematic - A Catholic Caution on another Aspect of Evolutionary Theory - Community in Mission

This second link brings up Akin.

Against Polygenism – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

www.kolbecenter.org

 

[Michie]

Human Origins: Which is it? Science or Theology?

Polygenism is the view that different races of human...

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

Question:​

In light of all the evidence proving evolution, to be a faithful Catholic does one have to believe that there was an original couple called Adam and Eve?

Answer:​

It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism. It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that there was one set of parents, and it was they who committed an offense against God, and that offense has had lasting effects for mankind. This is the doctrine of original sin, the sin that occurred at the origin of the human race. C. S. Lewis argued that the existence of original sin is perhaps one of the most obvious facts of human life, even to non-believers.
Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go against the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original sin. In fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for original sin if that calamitous falling can’t be traced to a single man, Adam.
In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated,

When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. (Humani Generis 37)

Concerning your presupposition about “all the evidence proving evolution,” understand that the theory of evolution is not only not proven, but many scholars are abandoning it as at odds with scientific findings. To learn about problems with the theory of evolution, you might read Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed?

It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism. It is a teaching of the...

www.catholic.com

 

[FaithT]

You might find this helpful: Polygenism is Problematic - A Catholic Caution on another Aspect of Evolutionary Theory - Community in Mission

This second link brings up Akin.

Against Polygenism – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

www.kolbecenter.org

I always thought that Jimmy Akin is well respected in Catholicism and that he knows his stuff.

 

[FaithT]

Question:​

In light of all the evidence proving evolution, to be a faithful Catholic does one have to believe that there was an original couple called Adam and Eve?

Answer:​

It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism. It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that there was one set of parents, and it was they who committed an offense against God, and that offense has had lasting effects for mankind. This is the doctrine of original sin, the sin that occurred at the origin of the human race. C. S. Lewis argued that the existence of original sin is perhaps one of the most obvious facts of human life, even to non-believers.
Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go against the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original sin. In fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for original sin if that calamitous falling can’t be traced to a single man, Adam.
In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated,

Concerning your presupposition about “all the evidence proving evolution,” understand that the theory of evolution is not only not proven, but many scholars are abandoning it as at odds with scientific findings. To learn about problems with the theory of evolution, you might read Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed?

It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism. It is a teaching of the...

www.catholic.com

But Ed Feser’s theory isn’t polygenism, is it? I don’t think it’s Feser’s theory. That’s just where I learned it.

 

[Michie]

But Ed Feser’s theory isn’t polygenism, is it? I don’t think it’s Feser’s theory. That’s just where I learned it.

I couldn’t tell you. This science versus theology thing is not something I relate to. I know what faith means so it’s never been an issue with me concerning science so far. I just posted the various info for you to view as a starting point.

 

[FaithT]

I couldn’t tell you. This science versus theology thing is not something I relate to. I know what faith means so it’s never been an issue with me concerning science so far. I just posted the various info for you to view as a starting point.

Ok thanks!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Are Catholics now allowed to believe in polygenism? I know what Pope Pius XII said many years ago but now that we‘ve discovered the human genome and other scientific discoveries, can we? Philosopher and professor Edward Feser believes and writes that there were a number of “humans” in the beginning and that God infused a soul into one whom he named Adam who interbred with these other “humans” and gave their offspring souls making them human. Or something.

We as ensouled and fallen humans are derived from one family, not from a bunch of families. One approach that I think is allowable is that we can look at a clan of maybe a few hundred or a few thousand proto-humans as the founders of humanity. With this, one can still have an Eve and an Adam who first sinned, but then the whole clan joining in the sin. In Adam all sinned, all consented to the sin, all joined the sin in person. I think THAT may be allowable. I am tentative on that.

What we do not accept is that the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals and the Denosovians all became ensouled and fallen independent of each other and then later intermarried a bit. We can identify Neanderthal DNA in the human genome of some humans but not other humans. Same apparently with Denosovian DNA. Maybe. Maybe it's speculation based on confused data. But even if so, we do NOT agree that there were different races of ensouled fallen humans, derived independently and later mixed, or that ensouled fallen humans later merged with proto-human unensouled unfallen groups. Any mixing of Denosovian and Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon would have had to have happened first and the genetic diversity would have had to have been included in a small original Adamic clan. Not talking about hundreds of thousands of clan members, but a constricted smaller population of a few hundred or a few thousand from which we all radiated out from. Enough to have some real genetic diversity.

Polygenism just is not Catholic. Part of that is a denial of racism. We do come as ensouled fallen humans from just one stock. We are all one family. Racism is untenable and unallowable for Catholics. We also point to one fall, not multiple falls of multiple groups sliding from innocence into sin. I think the idea of a clan may work with this and may work biologically as well. I have reservations but it may be fruitful to investigate whether this is true to pope Pius XII and makes scientific sense. I still hold that to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves, is a non-starter theologically. And it is also too ready a basis for racism. I think an original clan does make some sense, perhaps with Adam as head of the clan, where a fall of Adam and Eve lead to the federal fall of all of them through Adam and the participatory fall of all of them in short succession by eating the forbidden just as Eve and Adam did. Note that the fruit can still be a real fruit or a metaphoric fruit. Note also that this event could have been a long long time ago and unlikely 4004 BC or whatever. The central remaining question for me is how to account for the apparent modern presence of Neanderthal DNA in the population of humans. If a clan can do that, and if it would pass Pius XII's test then I like it.

 

[FaithT]

We as ensouled and fallen humans are derived from one family, not from a bunch of families. One approach that I think is allowable is that we can look at a clan of maybe a few hundred or a few thousand proto-humans as the founders of humanity. With this, one can still have an Eve and an Adam who first sinned, but then the whole clan joining in the sin. In Adam all sinned, all consented to the sin, all joined the sin in person. I think THAT may be allowable. I am tentative on that.

What we do not accept is that the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals and the Denosovians all became ensouled and fallen independent of each other and then later intermarried a bit. We can identify Neanderthal DNA in the human genome of some humans but not other humans. Same apparently with Denosovian DNA. Maybe. Maybe it's speculation based on confused data. But even if so, we do NOT agree that there were different races of ensouled fallen humans, derived independently and later mixed, or that ensouled fallen humans later merged with proto-human unensouled unfallen groups. Any mixing of Denosovian and Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon would have had to have happened first and the genetic diversity would have had to have been included in a small original Adamic clan. Not talking about hundreds of thousands of clan members, but a constricted smaller population of a few hundred or a few thousand from which we all radiated out from. Enough to have some real genetic diversity.

Polygenism just is not Catholic. Part of that is a denial of racism. We do come as ensouled fallen humans from just one stock. We are all one family. Racism is untenable and unallowable for Catholics. We also point to one fall, not multiple falls of multiple groups sliding from innocence into sin. I think the idea of a clan may work with this and may work biologically as well. I have reservations but it may be fruitful to investigate whether this is true to pope Pius XII and makes scientific sense. I still hold that to believe that there were multiple first parents, many sets of Adams and Eves, is a non-starter theologically. And it is also too ready a basis for racism. I think an original clan does make some sense, perhaps with Adam as head of the clan, where a fall of Adam and Eve lead to the federal fall of all of them through Adam and the participatory fall of all of them in short succession by eating the forbidden just as Eve and Adam did. Note that the fruit can still be a real fruit or a metaphoric fruit. Note also that this event could have been a long long time ago and unlikely 4004 BC or whatever. The central remaining question for me is how to account for the apparent modern presence of Neanderthal DNA in the population of humans. If a clan can do that, and if it would pass Pius XII's test then I like it.

So then Ed Feser’s theory might be ok to believe?

 

[FaithT]

So then Ed Feser’s theory might be ok to believe?

I emailed with Feser a few times and asked if his belief was okay with the Catholic Church and he said that it is.

 

[FaithT]

This is Fesers blog about the topic. He obviously explains this much better than I could.

Monkey in your soul?

Before we get to part II of my series on modern biology and original sin, I want briefly to reply to some of the responses made to part I . ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[RileyG]

Thank you for posting this! This is a really interesting topic

 

[FaithT]

Thank you for posting this! This is a really interesting topic

I posted something about it once before but wanted to revisit the topic.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

You're supposed to believe that we had the technology to get to the moon in the 60s but we can't replicate that a quarter of the way into the 21st century.

Believe the Bible, the Fathers, and the Church. Let the world do its thing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So then Ed Feser’s theory might be ok to believe?

Ed Feser is a generally OK theologian. A smart dude. Not a flaming Modernist either. And he takes the biology seriously. His theory might be OK to believe.

Here are two articles by him related to the subject:

Modern biology and original sin, Part I

Our friend John Farrell has caused a bit of a stir in the blogosphere with his recent Forbes piece on modern biology and the doctrine of ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

and

Modern biology and original sin, Part II

In part I of this series (and in a response to critics of part I ) I addressed the question of whether monogenism of the sort entailed by...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

These articles might not be the very last word on the subject. The questions are 1.) Is this good biology and 2.) is this good theology. I am going to guess that it is in both disciplines but I am a cautious biologist trained in genetics and biochemistry and a bit of population ecology so I seldom just jump on a bandwagon.

I am generally going to stick with Pius XII, particularly Humanae Generis. I am not going to be a polygenist. But I stretch monogenism to be a clan rather than one couple. Or by some definitions I'm a polygenist but only a 'limited and modified' polygenist because I hold to an original clan at the fall and not a bunch of clans or tribes or races or subspecies. I hold to original sin and am not giving that up, full stop, end of story. It's just too real a thing (see C. S. Lewis on that) to ever abandon.

My hunch is that a clan of up to 10,000 people, that included some Neanderthal ancestors, led by a figure we can call Adam. God gave them souls. And they chose to sin

This does not have to be the genetic 'Adam' or the genetic 'Eve', which could have come later but not before. For all I know ensoulment applied to all of the genus Homo. Thus maybe the genus evolved and all Neanderthals and Denisovans and all Cro-Magnons and even Homo Erectus were ensouled, but some died out later. There are lots of possible ways it could have happened. I don't know.

Catholics are free to be creationists. Or, within limits to be evolutionists. The Jimmy Akin video explains how we can even approach polygenism a bit more broadly today. I myself am not gung ho to go there because I want a single fall and a single ensoulment, albeit with a clan instead of two individuals.

Science, good science, is important. So is good theology. In the end they do not conflict. Feser, being a competent and faithful philosopher is looking at how the two sciences mesh. I think work like his can be fruitful. I would like to see more work on population genetics to know what our human roots really are. Particularly our Nenaderthal and Denisovan roots.

 

[FaithT]

Ed Feser is a generally OK theologian. A smart dude. Not a flaming Modernist either. And he takes the biology seriously. His theory might be OK to believe.

Here are two articles by him related to the subject:

Modern biology and original sin, Part I

Our friend John Farrell has caused a bit of a stir in the blogosphere with his recent Forbes piece on modern biology and the doctrine of ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

and

Modern biology and original sin, Part II

In part I of this series (and in a response to critics of part I ) I addressed the question of whether monogenism of the sort entailed by...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

These articles might not be the very last word on the subject. The questions are 1.) Is this good biology and 2.) is this good theology. I am going to guess that it is in both disciplines but I am a cautious biologist trained in genetics and biochemistry and a bit of population ecology so I seldom just jump on a bandwagon.

I am generally going to stick with Pius XII, particularly Humanae Generis. I am not going to be a polygenist. But I stretch monogenism to be a clan rather than one couple. Or by some definitions I'm a polygenist but only a 'limited and modified' polygenist because I hold to an original clan at the fall and not a bunch of clans or tribes or races or subspecies. I hold to original sin and am not giving that up, full stop, end of story. It's just too real a thing (see C. S. Lewis on that) to ever abandon.

My hunch is that a clan of up to 10,000 people, that included some Neanderthal ancestors, led by a figure we can call Adam. God gave them souls. And they chose to sin

This does not have to be the genetic 'Adam' or the genetic 'Eve', which could have come later but not before. For all I know ensoulment applied to all of the genus Homo. Thus maybe the genus evolved and all Neanderthals and Denisovans and all Cro-Magnons and even Homo Erectus were ensouled, but some died out later. There are lots of possible ways it could have happened. I don't know.

Catholics are free to be creationists. Or, within limits to be evolutionists. The Jimmy Akin video explains how we can even approach polygenism a bit more broadly today. I myself am not gung ho to go there because I want a single fall and a single ensoulment, albeit with a clan instead of two individuals.

Science, good science, is important. So is good theology. In the end they do not conflict. Feser, being a competent and faithful philosopher is looking at how the two sciences mesh. I think work like his can be fruitful. I would like to see more work on population genetics to know what our human roots really are. Particularly our Nenaderthal and Denisovan roots.

Do you mean there could’ve been a “clan” aka small group of soul-less people who interbred with Adam and Eves offspring? If so isn’t that what Feser wrote about? And how is it different from polygenism?

 

[FaithT]

Ed Feser is a generally OK theologian. A smart dude. Not a flaming Modernist either. And he takes the biology seriously. His theory might be OK to believe.

Here are two articles by him related to the subject:

Modern biology and original sin, Part I

Our friend John Farrell has caused a bit of a stir in the blogosphere with his recent Forbes piece on modern biology and the doctrine of ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

and

Modern biology and original sin, Part II

In part I of this series (and in a response to critics of part I ) I addressed the question of whether monogenism of the sort entailed by...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

These articles might not be the very last word on the subject. The questions are 1.) Is this good biology and 2.) is this good theology. I am going to guess that it is in both disciplines but I am a cautious biologist trained in genetics and biochemistry and a bit of population ecology so I seldom just jump on a bandwagon.

I am generally going to stick with Pius XII, particularly Humanae Generis. I am not going to be a polygenist. But I stretch monogenism to be a clan rather than one couple. Or by some definitions I'm a polygenist but only a 'limited and modified' polygenist because I hold to an original clan at the fall and not a bunch of clans or tribes or races or subspecies. I hold to original sin and am not giving that up, full stop, end of story. It's just too real a thing (see C. S. Lewis on that) to ever abandon.

My hunch is that a clan of up to 10,000 people, that included some Neanderthal ancestors, led by a figure we can call Adam. God gave them souls. And they chose to sin

This does not have to be the genetic 'Adam' or the genetic 'Eve', which could have come later but not before. For all I know ensoulment applied to all of the genus Homo. Thus maybe the genus evolved and all Neanderthals and Denisovans and all Cro-Magnons and even Homo Erectus were ensouled, but some died out later. There are lots of possible ways it could have happened. I don't know.

Catholics are free to be creationists. Or, within limits to be evolutionists. The Jimmy Akin video explains how we can even approach polygenism a bit more broadly today. I myself am not gung ho to go there because I want a single fall and a single ensoulment, albeit with a clan instead of two individuals.

Science, good science, is important. So is good theology. In the end they do not conflict. Feser, being a competent and faithful philosopher is looking at how the two sciences mesh. I think work like his can be fruitful. I would like to see more work on population genetics to know what our human roots really are. Particularly our Nenaderthal and Denisovan roots.

 

[FaithT]

I’m just glad you know who Ed Feser is. Most people don’t.