Tag Archives: Polygenism

On the Special Creation of Eve

January 4, 2020EvolutionAdam and Eve, Creation Account, Evolution vs Creationism, Galileo, John Paul II, Leo XIII, Metaphysics, Mongenism, Polygenismtwowingstogod@gmail.com

As the highest of all the sciences, all other sciences depend upon theology for first principles in one form or another. This is why the Church can never tire in proclaiming the truths of Divine Revelation. We have spoken a number of times previously on using Metaphysics and Natural Philosophy, both of which supply natural science with foundational precepts, as governing paths of inquiry into the origins of man. In this post we seek to provide some further theological guiderails; specifically into the origins of woman.

Among the temptations ever before the Church, especially in the wake of the fallout from the “Galileo affair”, is the seduction of capitulating to the Darwinian Zeitgeist in order to accommodate, not so much a scientific theory, but a worldview. This knuckling under stems from both a lack of faith and a lack of charity. A lack of faith because it does not take God’s word as more reliable than the inductive reasoning of science. A lack of charity because the Church, as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” can protect natural science from wasting its time. “Truth cannot contradict truth” so that if the Church knows something has been revealed, and thus true, she has an obligation to proclaim it. She can thus serve natural science by guiding it to areas of explanation that more closely accord with what we already know. This is not an apology for fideism, but an offer to supply the data from which human reason may find the truth.

Monogenism and the First Woman

That being said, theories abound within evolutionary biology as to the necessity of a single first woman from which all of mankind then proceeds. Not a few of them posit that at some point within the evolutionary process a first man and first woman evolved. There are many variations on it, but the monogenistic ones involve two members of some species of Hominids having undergone some change that led to their being the first humans. Widely accepted by many Christians, these versions suppose that from some group of Hominids the bodies of Adam and Eve were supplied while God infused a rational soul.

There are good philosophical reasons to suppose that this explanation of Adam is false because form ontologically precedes matter. The form of the living creature, that is its soul, organizes the matter of the body, not the other way around. But that is a discussion for another time because Revelation tells us that this explanation for the origin of Eve is necessarily false. Eve was specially created by God from the rib of Adam when “the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam” (Gn 2:22).

The Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 contain both mythical and symbolic language for the prehistoric account of Creation. But this does not mean that everything that is written there is merely symbolic. Some of it, perhaps even most of it, can and should be read in a literal manner. Specifically, we should read the special creation of Eve as taken from the side of Adam as literally true.

Why It Matters

It might not seem like it matters how we read it, until we begin to reflect on its meaning. There is first the point that St. John Paul II made regarding the fact that the origin of Eve makes it a matter of faith that man and woman have equal dignity and were made for each other. The Woman is taken, not from his head or his feet, making her either higher of lower than him, but instead is taken from beside his heart.

Secondly, and more importantly, Eve being brought forth from the side of Adam is a type of the Church being brought forth from the side of Jesus while He slept on the Cross. As the Council of Vienna put it in 1312,

“And that in this assumed nature the Word of God willed the salvation of all not only to be nailed to the Cross and to die on it, but also, having already breated forth His spirit, to permit His side to be pierced by a lance so that from the outflowing of water and blood there might be formed the one, immaculate and holy virginal Mother Church, the Bride of Christ ,as from the side of the first man in his sleep Eve was fashioned as his wife so that to the specific figure of the first and old Adam, who according to the Apostle, ‘is a type of the one who was to come’ (Rom. 5: 14), the truth might correspond in our last Adam, that is to say in Christ.”

To read the creation of Eve as somehow symbolic or metaphorical opens the path to a symbolic reading of Christ’s relation to the Church. But if Eve was literally drawn from the side of Adam, then the Church must literally be drawn from the side of Christ. For the type can never exceed the archetype. The sign can never be more than the thing signified. This, as an aside, is why the Church has always read Jonah as a historical book, because Christ said his time in the belly of the whale was meant to be a sign of His time in the tomb.

Avoiding the Galileo Pitfall

But aren’t we just opening the door to another Galileo problem of so wedding ourselves to a literal interpretation that any scientific challenge to it clears the way for scandal? In this case, no. The analogy of faith, that is, the principle that Scripture interprets itself, paves the way for a literal interpretation.

In defending Church discipline in his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul comments that “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man…For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God” (1 Cor 11:8,12). The first woman came from man just as all succeeding men are born of a woman. This is why the Apostle to the Gentiles can later claim to the Athenians without contradiction that : “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth” (Acts 17:26). All of mankind, Eve included, comes from Adam.

The direct and unique creation of Eve is part of the Deposit of Faith and has been taught as part of the Ordinary Magisterium since at least the 6^th Century when Pope Pelagius I declared “I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand ‘before the judgment-seat of Christ,’ together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man.” It was reaffirmed in the previously quoted Council of Vienna in the 14^th Century and then given a clear affirmation by Pope Leo XIII.

Writing shortly after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the Leo XIII solemnly declared that

“For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.”
Acta Sanctae Sedis, English translation provided here

At the beginning of the 20^th Century, the Pontifical Biblical Commission addressed our question head on when it stated in its Response of June 30, 1909 that:

Question 3: Is it possible, in particular, to call into question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the foundation of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of human race…the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Response: No.

For those looking for a fuller treatment that traces the path of the Magisterium on this issue and why it should be seen as coming from the Ordinary Magisterium, I recommend this paper.

The issue of reconciling the findings of natural science and the truths of Divine Revelation is always an important work. Nevertheless it is a work that must be governed by principles so ably laid out by St. Augustine in the 4^th Century: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.” This is especially true for evolution and the origins of Eve.

Accepting Polygenism

October 16, 2019Creation, Evolution, MagisteriumAdam and Eve, Darwin, Humani Generis, Monogenism, Original Sin, Pius XII, Polygenismtwowingstogod@gmail.com

Benjamin Franklin once quipped that nothing was certain but death and taxes. If Mr. Franklin were alive today, he would add evolution to the list of certainties. The theory has become fact and has won uncritical acceptance from nearly everyone, Catholic or not. Having become adamantine, this theory has broken Adam’s family into pieces with dire consequences both for the Faith and for the world because of one particular aspect, polygenism. Polygenism, put simply, is the belief that, rather than tracing our human origins back to a single couple, we came from multiple couples. Rather than look at each of the different theories in particular, we will examine the idea based through philosophical and theological lenses.

First it is worth mentioning that the Magisterium has cautioned the Faithful about accepting polygenism in any of its forms. In his 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII spoke of the liberty the Faithful have in discerning the origins of the human body. But,

“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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own”
Humani Generis, 36-37

It takes a bit of theological gymnastics not to read this as a blanket rejection of polygenism, but nevertheless some theological contortionists have posited that the door is still open. What is clear however is that any polygenetic theory would have to maintain two truths about Adam. First, that there are no men on earth that did not take their origin from him. Secondly, we cannot see Adam as somehow an icon or symbol for a bunch of first parents. Hard to imagine that any theory of polygenism could maintain this since it seems to assert its opposite, but even if the Pope did leave it open, there is no theory as of yet that meets this criteria.

Pius XII mentions the theological interest in the question as it relates to Original Sin. It leaves open the possibility and historical reality of an unfallen race at various time points throughout history. Even if all mankind eventually fell, there would have been a time when unfallen and fallen men lived together. That means there may have been unfallen men who were conceived of unfallen parents. This would then call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by which Our Lady is said to have received a “singular grace”. It also leaves open the possibility that men died without falling and thus would not be in need of redemption. If all men did not sin in Adam then all men are not redeemed in Christ.

This is not the only way that polygenism tugs at the thread of the seamless garment of the Faith in ways we do not initially grasp. It also puts in jeopardy the dogmatic truth of the special creation of Eve. It is a matter of dogma taught through the Ordinary Magisterium, and first affirmed Pope Pelagius I in 561 and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in the aforementioned Encyclical that Eve was literally created from the rib of Adam. This belief is protective of the equal dignity of men and women because they come from the same origin.

It turns out that polygenism not only leads to inequality between the sexes but between races as well. The evolutionary model rests upon a progressive view of beings. Things are always adapting and getting better. From a philosophical perspective, evolution is the tool by which the rungs of the Ladder of Being are being added. Beings on the same rung are equal in dignity, those above or below have more or less dignity. Human beings are equal in dignity because they occupy the same rung of the Ladder of Being. Under the model of polygenism this ceases to be the case. With different evolutionary origins, different races occupy different rungs on the ladder. In short, it gives both biological and philosophical justification for some human persons being more equal than others.

This is why the Francis Galtons, Margaret Sangers and Hitlers of the world have always loved the Theory of Evolution. It justified their eugenic madness. Under polygenism, some races would necessarily be inferior to other races. This would justify their extermination and there would be no disputing them. This is why Pope Pius XII thought it necessary to safeguard not just Revelation, but man’s unique place within visible creation against the threat of uncritical acceptance of Evolution. Ideas have consequences and all of us, especially Catholics, need to be more critical in their acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.

Before closing, it is worth mentioning that many well-meaning Catholics accept polygenism because it seems better than accepting incest among Adam and Eve’s children. Rather than revisiting that question here, I will simply point you to a previous post that deals with that objection.

Grandpa Adam and Grandma Eve

July 1, 2017Anthropology, Bible, Moralilty, Natural LawCatholic, Evolution, Polygenismtwowingstogod@gmail.com

In his 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII cautioned about a number of ideological trends that undermined the Faith of the Church. Among these was a certain idea connected with the Theory of Evolution called polygenism. For the evolutionary idea to be accepted it would require not just two first human parents, but the transition from animal to man would require a multitude of men and women. In other words, it is a rejection of the belief that Adam and Eve were two real people from which the entire human race descended. The Pope strongly condemned acceptance of this idea saying, “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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis, 37).

On the surface, it appears to make little difference as to whether there was an actual Adam and Eve or whether mankind traces its roots to a multitude of first humans. Diving beneath the surface, we see that acceptance of polygenism threatens to undermine the foundations of the Christian faith. If polygenism is true, then the Christian faith is necessarily false.

Evolutionary theory applied to man does not only mean that man was made by blind forces but is ultimately an attempt for men to remake themselves. The creature becomes his own creator. No Adam and Eve means no Original Sin. No Original Sin, no need for Christ. If we were never “in Adam” then there would be no need to be “in Christ.” With a multitude of races at our beginning, there would be fallen and unfallen men living together and only those who are direct descendants of Adam need redemption. Evolution eventually weeds this out through natural selection, removing any distinction and Christ becomes entirely unnecessary. Even if this is a case of unintended consequences on the part of Darwin and his ideological descendants, we can be sure there is at least one highly intelligent person who revels in this idea.

In the mind of many Christians, this sets up a Catch-22. If we accept a literal Adam and Eve, then where did their grandchildren come from? To accept a belief in only first two parents means to accept that their children were incestuous in populating the earth. With no outsiders to marry, Cain, Abel, Seth and their unnamed sisters would have married each other. Rejecting a literal Adam and Eve seems to be better than accepting this morally repugnant option. Or is it?

Why Incest is Wrong

When asked why incest is wrong, most of us would say because the genes of those closely related by blood are so similar that it can result in offspring with serious genetic defects. Looked at properly however, this is a consequence of the wrong and not necessarily the reason why it is wrong. Whether we posit that because Eve was taken from the rib of Adam they were nearly genetically identical (making their act of intercourse genetically the same as fraternal twins) or that Eve was fashioned with a different genetic code than Adam, the important point to remember is that their genetic code would have had no mutations in it. After the Fall, their offspring may have had mutations in their DNA, but, if we accept the modern scientific explanation of these mutations as appearing at random, we should not expect identical mutations to occur in Adam and Eve’s offspring. Without the necessary doubling of mutations in the parents, we would not see the same effects that we see with inbreeding today. Once the gene pool has a sufficient number of these mutations present in it and the likelihood of some deleterious effect occurring on the rise, God issues a positive command that a man may not marry someone of close relation like his sister, aunt, or niece (Lev 18-20).

In short, the consequence of serious birth defects is a sign that incest is wrong, but is not what makes it wrong. In City of God (Book XV, Ch. 16) Augustine visits this question as to why Cain, for example, committed no wrong when he married his sister. We can borrow from his explanation to help us see past this intellectual obstacle.

The Augustinian Solution

First, he looks at the purpose of marriage and procreation and says something that most of us would not think of as a purpose today. Augustine see this as one of the goods of marriage—marriage multiplies relationships. In the past, especially in ruling families, marriage was viewed as a means to bring the families together, making them one. It brings strangers together and makes them a family. A woman’s brother becomes the man’s brother-in-law, her father, his father-in-law. Without the marriage of the man and woman, these men would not have entered into a familial relationship.

When closely related persons married, this good is lost. When siblings marry, their mother is both mother and mother-in-law. This was obviously unavoidable in the case of Cain and his sister, but, according to Augustine, is a reason to avoid close marriage.

Obviously, this would not be a precept of the natural law, but Augustine and St. Thomas both say that marriage between a parent and a child was always contrary to the natural law because of the relationship of parent and child could never be placed on the equal footing required for marriage. A child always owes their parents piety while spouses have no such obligation. This is why Noah curse Ham when he “saw his nakedness” (Gn 9:20-25), which is a Hebraic euphemism for sleeping with his mother.

While not a precept of the natural law, marriage between siblings and close blood relatives is still wrong because of our fallen human nature. For men and women to live closely together (like siblings do today or close blood relations such as cousins did in the past) with the potential for the relationship to become sexualized is a great temptation to lust and use. This is why it would be just as wrong for Greg and Marsha Brady to get married as it would be for two blood siblings. To make such a union illicit can serve to remove this temptation and makes it taboo. The fact that we initially recoil at the thought of Cain and his sister means that this taboo has had its intended consequence.

Removing incest as an obstacle to belief in two first parents goes a long way in helping us to see why polygenism must be false and why we should reject any form of it. Grandpa Adam and Grandma Eve, first parents and first grandparents.

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II