A discussion meandered past TOF's optics the other day and put him in mind of a post of his from way back in 2011. This proved at the time to be a favorite among TOFian followers and racked up large numbers of eyeballs. So, TOF bethought himself to tweak the writing a bit and repost it.John Farrel has written a column at his Forbes site entitled "Can Theology Evolve," quoting from an epistle of Jerry Coyne:
"I’ve always maintained that this piece of the Old Testament, which is easily falsified by modern genetics (modern humans descended from a group of no fewer than 10,000 individuals), shows more than anything else the incompatibility between science and faith. For if you reject the Adam and Eve tale as literal truth, you reject two central tenets of Christianity: the Fall of Man and human specialness."
Adam and Eve discover
they are naked.
Human race follows.
Now, by "literal truth" Coyne undoubtedly intended "literal fact," since a thing may be true without being fact, and a fact has no truth value in itself. I do not know Dr. Coyne's bona fides for drawing doctrinal conclusions or for interpreting scriptures, although he seems to lean toward the fundamentalist persuasion of naive Biblical literakism. Nor am I sure how Dr. Coyne's assertion necessarily entails a falsification of human specialness (whatever he means by that). I never heard of such a doctrine in my Storied Youth(^1) though it is pretty obvious from a scientific-empirical point of view. You are not reading this on an Internet produced by kangaroos or in a language devised by petunias, so there just might be something a weensie-bit special about humans.
It is not even clear what his claim means regarding the Fall. Neither
the Eastern Orthodox nor the Roman Catholic churches ever insisted on a
naive-literal reading of their scriptures, and yet both asserted as
dogma the Fall of Man.(^2)
Now modern genetics does not falsify the Adam and Eve tale for the excellent reason that it does not address the same matter as the Adam and Eve tale. One is about the origin of species; the other is about the origin of sin. One may as well say that a painting of a meal falsifies haute cuisine.
Still, there are some interesting points about the myth of Adam and Eve
and the Fall. Not least is the common Late Modern usage of "myth" to
mean "something false" rather than "an organizing story by which a
culture explains itself to itself." Consider, for example, the "myth of
progress" that was so important during the Modern Ages. Or the equally
famous "myth of Galileo" which was a sort of Genesis myth for the
Modern Ages. With the fading of the Modern Ages, these myths have lost
their power and have been exploded by post-modernism or by historians of
science. Before we consider the Fall, let us consider the Summer.
No. Wait. I mean the Summary.
(^1) storied youth. Literally. My brother and I wrote stories when we were kids.
(^2) Makes you wonder what their actual reasoning was, if it was not some backwoods 19th century American reading an archaic English translation of some Greek texts.
On the Ambiguity of OneDr. Coyne's primary error seems to be a quantifier shift. He and his fundamentalist bedfellows appear to hold that the statement:
But this logical fallacy hinges on an equivocation of "one," failing to distinguish "one [out of many]" from "[only] one." Traditional doctrine requires only A, not B: That all humans share a common ancestor, not that they have no other ancestors. For example, all Americans inheriting the name Hammontree are descended from a single couple in colonial Tidewater Virginia [Jonathon (ca 1693-1758)nand Mary (1697-1726)]. But of course, this does not preclude additional lines of descent. Jonathan and Mary were not all alone in Virginia. Iis easy to see how a group of people may have a common ancestor without having only one ancestor.
|Adam and his friends|
Dr. Coyne believes the mathematical requirement of a population numbering 10,000 somehow refutes the possibility that there were two. But clearly, where there are 10,000 there are two, many times over. Genesis tells us that the children of Adam and Eve found mates among "the children of men," which would indicate that there were a number of others creatures out there with whom they could mate. Perhaps no fewer than 9,998 others. So even a literal reading of Genesis supports multiple ancestors, over and above a single common ancestor.
Of course, this is not the usual poetic trope or artistic image of one
man and one woman alone in a Garden in Eden, but then popular and
artistic conceptions of evolution or quantum mechanics are not always
precise and accurate, either. Not everyone has the time, inclination,
or talent to delve into such matters very deeply, and the end of art is
different from the end of philosophy - or genetics. Yet there may be a
sense in which Adam (and Eve) were indeed alone.
|Mitochondrial Eve, which is the night|
prior to the Feast of Mitochondrial
The Red-Clay Men
Dr. Coyne makes much of Mitochondrial Eve not being contemporary with Y-chromosome Adam; but these are common ancestors only in the strict male descent or the strict female descent. Doctrine holds only that all men are descended from Adam, not that they descend through an unbroken line of fathers. The same applies to descent from Eve through mothers, although oddly enough, that is not doctrine, for reasons adduced below. (^4) Since mito-Eve and chromo-Adam are not necessarily the Adam and Eve of the story, what difference does it make if they were not contemporary?
Now obviously, if all men are descended from Adam, then all men are descended from Adam's father, ne c'est pas? At one time, the possibility that Adam's father was a lump of clay was the cutting edge of science. After all, the word adam simply means "red clay." (And still does in Arabic.) When a man dies, his body corrupts, and becomes.... red clay. It was not then unreasonable to early observers of nature that regardless how subsequent generations have been propagated, the first red-clay man came directly from red clay.
IOW, the mythos of Adam and Eve employed the best-known science of its
time. Were it being originated today, it would undoubtedly
employ the imagery of modern science -- just so people in AD 6000 could
laugh at its naivete.
(^4) I have always wanted to use 'adduced' in a sentence. I may now rest satisfied.
|Adam and God in a touching scene.|
So why Adam and not his progenitor, Bruce?
Evolution points to the answer. Darwin tells us that at some point an
ape that was not quite a man gave birth to a man that was no longer
quite an ape. Commenters of a decade ago missed that 'not quite' part and assumed TOF meant that an ape gave birth to a human, which is absurd. In a supposedly continuous series, it is more like an inflection point or a 'tipping point.'
The new species was H. sapiens - or at least he likes to call himself
that.(^5) He had the capacity for rational thought; that is, to reflect
on sensory perceptions and abstract universal concepts. He could not
only perceive this bison and that bison, but could conceive of "bison"
-- an abstraction with no material existence of its own. Poetically, we
might say that a God "breathed" a rational soul into a being that had
previously been little more than "red clay."
How long after the red-clay men were formed by evolution was a rational soul
breathed in? The texts do not say. It may have been tens or hundreds
of thousands of years, at least according to one Eastern Orthodox
theologian(^6). If there is a God and he did such
things, he was not punching a time-clock.
Hence, Adam as first man, and not simply first man-like hominid.
(^5) He is actually H. loquens. Jury is still out on the sapiens bit.
Whaddaya Mean "First" Man?
Zeno of Elea, concerned about
catching his escaped tortoise.
But however long and gradual may have been the screwing-in of the light bulb,
the light is either on or off.
Modern genetics finds that genetic change may be specific, sudden, and massive due to various biochemical "machines" within the gene. The ability to abstract universal concepts from particular sensory percepts is an either-or thing, no matter how much better developed it might grow over time. You either can do it even a little bit or you can't do it at all. So, Adam may be considered the first man no matter how many physically man-like apes there were on his family tree.
And that includes those among his 9,999 companions. It is not clear how Dr. Coyne envisions the same sapient 'mutation' arising simultaneously in 10,000 ape-men. It is not impossible, TOF supposes; but it does seem unlikely. So let us default to the sapiens/loquens 'mutation' appearing first in one man and then gradually spreading through a population. Following tradition, let's call him Adam. This in no way contradicts the existence of 9,999 other ape-men with whom Adam is interfertile. They may have been necessary to comprise a sufficient breeding population insofar as the body is concerned, but they need not have been sapient.
The Trent Affair
|Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice, embarrassed|
to be seen in this motion picture, but
not by a knowledge of good and evil;
Hence: mere brute animals.
Consequently, what Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice were up to with Lilith among the 10,000 makes no difference, doctrine-wise. For that matter, what Eve was up to doesn't matter much, either! The anathemas of the Council of Trent mention only Adam.(^8) They require belief in original sin and related doctrines; they do not require belief in a factual Genesis myth beyond the simple existence of a common ancestor. (Which is why the church consistently taught that mankind was all one species and all material beings with intellect and will, including hypothetical blemyae and sciopods, were "men.")
The anagogical point of the Genesis story was to teach a doctrine, not to relate a history. The truths are not in the facts. Dr. Coyne has discovered that naive-literalists have a coherency problem; but that has been known for centuries. Indeed, St. Augustine pointed it out in the long ago:
For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. -- On Christian doctrine, I.37
In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: “"Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic." ”And he explains the statement in Genesis, "“And they shall be two in one flesh," ”as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church. If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth?” --On the literal meanings of Genesis, I.1.Note that he regards the figurative [anagogical] sense as the default, and other readings are layered upon this. He discusses how one knows when a figurative meaning is intended, and describes the various figures that are used in both literary and vulgar speech. Thomas Aquinas explains the four reading protocols used by the Church in ST I.1.10 but they go back to the Patristic Age.(^10)
(^8) At least when the Church prosecuted you for heresy, she took considerable pains beforehand to spell out just what the heresy was. This is in contrast to modern versions of
(^9) BTW, Augie was quite aware of the issue of light existing before the sun; and points out the ambiguity of "evening and morning" on a spherical Earth. Late-Moderns always think they are the first to think of these things.
(^10) "Metaphorical" counts as one of the various literal readings. "You are the salt of the earth" depends on the actual, literal meaning of "salt." To say "you are the asparagus of the earth" would not mean the same thing. Fundamentalists often say that by using metaphor a passage can mean anything; but this is simply not so. "You are the salt of the earth" cannot mean "Two pounds pastrami; bring home to Emma." But we digress.
Aristotle illustrated the difference between the sensitive animal form and the rational human form by saying that an animal sees flesh, but a human also sees what flesh is. And so we might imagine Adam sitting around the campfire after an exciting hunt and remembering the bison they had chased and the moment of truth and he suddenly utters the hunting cry that signifies "bison here!" A cry that is in principle no different from those made by other animals, and possibly his fire-mates look about in alarm for the bison the cry signifies.
But Adam has done something different. He has used the sign as a symbol, one that refers to the bison-that-is-not-here-but-remembered. He has become sapient and has invented grammar.(^11)
Or perhaps he was just born that way and like any small child reaching
seven has just achieved the age of reason. But in all likelihood, his
ability to speak in abstractions -- to speak of 'bison' rather than any
particular bison -- is coterminous with his sapience.
Then one day he meets a woman-with-words. Perhaps a woman from another band or tribe who has coincidentally received the same mutation, or perhaps someone who has simply cottoned on to what he has been doing. Sometimes an environmental cue is required to activate a gene. Here at last is someone he can talk to. (Perhaps he regrets this later, when she will not shut up. But that is a tale for another time.) The rest, as they say, is history. Later, some of his descendants will fly to the Moon, still chattering away.
(^11) For an amusing take on this, see the Underground Grammarian:
Pleased to Meet You. Hope You Know My Name.
Like any animal, the red-clay ape-men were innocent. They lived,
hunted, ate, mated, and died, pretty much in that order. What was good
was what perfected their ape-manliness; but they did not know it was good.
In a sense, they did not know anything. Like perfect Zen masters, they
simply did. (See the zebras in the Underground Grammarian's essay,
linked in the previous footnote.)
But Adam is different. Having a rational human form in addition to his
sensitive animal form, he is capable of knowing the good. But for Adam to know the good means that Adam is
now capable of turning away from the good. Thus, when Adam wills some
act that is contrary to what his intellect tells him is good, he is
acting in disobedience to "God's commands written in his heart." (Romans 2;12-16) A
turning away from the good is called "sin" and, since no one had ever
been capable of doing so before, it was the original sin. This is
communicated by allegory in the tale of the fruit of the tree.
|At the age of reason, children distinguish|
right from wrong and get to bore priests
with all sorts of imagined sins.
We can observe this today with children, who mature to a point is when they begin to recognize good and evil. We call it the age of reason. Once upon a time, this recognition must have happened for the first time, and not necessarily in childhood. Today's children have parents and an entire society to serve as examples and hasten the onset; but Adam had no one to teach him, so the realization could have come late. All of a sudden, he knew he had disobeyed the voice in his head, he was naked like an animal, he knew that someday he would die.
So death came into the world - not as fact, but as truth. Animals die in fact, but they do not know that they will. They live, as it were, one day at a time; until one day they don't. Death became true when Adam realized it. What a bummer that must have been. He probably invented whiskey next.
And so he was expelled from the edenic existence of the innocent ape-men
animals into a world of worries. Perhaps it was literal. How did the
other ape-men react to the odd ones in their midst? Evolution proceeds
through reproductive isolation. If Adam and the others like him had
stayed in ape-man eden, his genes may have been lost in the larger gene
pool and never achieved "take-off" concentration. So some sort of
secession seems reasonable. We read that Adam and Eve were expelled; we do not read that no one else was.
Maybe Adam and those he found like him started calling themselves "the
Enlightened" or "the Brights" or even just "the Sapients" and this
really annoyed the other 9000 or so, who then drove them out as
obnoxious little gits.
|The temptation of Satan|
Most sin, the old joke runs, is not very original. But supposedly the
"sin of Adam" has been inherited by all his descendants. This hardly
seems fair. If we didn't do the deed, why should we bear the mark?
But this misses the mark. Thomas Aquinas made note that original sin is not a particular transgression, like a crime committed for which one deserves particular punishment, but is the origin or source of such positive sins. It is a predelection inherent to human nature.
Doctrine is concerned with the origin of sin, not the origin of
species. Hence, "origin-al" sin. The only time Thomas Aquinas touches
(in passing) on the origin of species, he ascribes its possibility to the powers inherent in nature itself as created in the beginning:
Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.
But how is this original sin transmitted to descendants. Again, do not
suppose that no one has ever thought of the late-modern trendy
objections before. Aquinas writes:
Yet if we look into the matter carefully we shall see that it is impossible for the sins of the nearer ancestors, or even any other but the first sin of our first parent to be transmitted by way of origin. The reason is that a man begets his like in species but not in individual. Consequently those things that pertain directly to the individual, such as personal actions and matters affecting them, are not transmitted by parents to their children: for a grammarian does not transmit to his son the knowledge of grammar that he has acquired by his own studies. On the other hand, those things that concern the nature of the species, are transmitted by parents to their children, unless there be a defect of nature: thus a man with eyes begets a son having eyes, unless nature fails. And if nature be strong, even certain accidents of the individual pertaining to natural disposition, are transmitted to the children, e.g. fleetness of body, acuteness of intellect, and so forth; but nowise those that are purely personalIn ST II-1, Q.81, art. 1 he writes:
For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, maintained that the rational soul is transmitted with the semen, so that thus an infected soul would seem to produce other infected souls. Others, rejecting this as erroneous, endeavored to show how the guilt of the parent's soul can be transmitted to the children, even though the soul be not transmitted, from the fact that defects of the body are transmitted from parent to child--thus a leper may beget a leper, or a gouty man may be the father of a gouty son, on account of some seminal corruption, although this corruption is not [itself] leprosy or gout. Now since the body is proportionate to the soul, and since the soul's defects redound into the body, and vice versa,(^14) in like manner, say they, a culpable defect of the soul is passed on to the child, through the transmission of the semen, albeit the semen itself is not the subject of the guilt.
So Tommy has noted genetics, and has rejected Lamarckism, even if he doesn't know about genetics and says "semen" rather than "genes." This is what we might call Aquinas' "genetic" explanation. He identified original sin with concupiscence, hence with selfishness (or "wanting" as the Buddha put it).
So he is here hypothesizing a sort of
"selfish gene." Perhaps we can find an evolutionary biologist willing
to write a book about the selfish gene; though he would likely get the
ontology all mucked up.
However, Aquinas finds that this selfish gene is not quite sufficient, and adds a bit regarding "motion by generation," and says we must consider the human species as a whole ("as one man") and the sin (or defect) as applying to human nature per se, rather than to the acts of each particular man. "Original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the "sin of nature."
IOW, the mythos of Adam and Eve still makes sense when read in the traditional anagogical manner, not in spite of evolutionary learnings but because of
them. Of course, we must be wary of concordism. Being compatible with
consensus science is a tricky thing. Just ask the clerics who defended
long-established geocentrism. If it ain't falsifiable, it ain't
science; so we must allow the possibility that what we think we know
about evolution is all wrong. That is why it is not a good idea to get
too chummy with science, since you never know when she'll pack up her
bags and leave you holding the bills.
(^13) To this day most crimes are committed by men, and women are more likely to be devout, etc.
(^14) the soul's defects redound into the body, and vice versa. Gosh, Tommy said that if you tamper with someone's brain, it will affect his thinking! Who'd'a thunk it. Certainly not Late-Moderns, who think they alone have discovered that the body affects the soul /mind.