Section Introduction
Few stories possess the enduring power and theological significance of the biblical creation narrative found in Genesis 1-2. From the account of creation ex nihilo to the crucial figures of Adam and Eve, the Genesis Creation Narrative stands as a timeless testament to the profound interplay between faith, reason, and the miracle of existence. The ancient text has sparked millennia of debate, contemplation, and interpretation, captivating the minds and hearts of many across countless cultures and civilizations. Since the late 19th century however, developments within science, textual scholarship, and cultural shifts have provoked an exponentially increased level of scrutiny and confusion surrounding how to interpret these two critical opening chapters. Through this series, I attempt to provide a comprehensive examination of Genesis 1-2 and the surrounding questions and controversies, exploring the depths of its symbolism, historical context, and theological implications. By navigating through the complexities of creation, the figures of Adam and Eve, and their various interpretations, we can shed light on the intricate complexity and beauty of this foundational text.
Who were Adam and Eve?
We now transition to Genesis 2. This “second” creation account focuses specifically on the creation of the first human couple—Adam and Eve. There is no undermining how crucial the chapter is in establishing the foundational theological concepts within the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, discussions surrounding the story of Adam and Eve have often diverged from its theological centrality in recent years. Various modern scientific findings regarding human origins have sparked extensive reflection among scholars and theologians alike regarding the identity of this original pair. Today, the historicity of Adam and Eve remains a highly contested topic in the ongoing discourse between evolution and Christian faith. Who were Adam and Eve? Did they even exist? These questions carry significant implications for discussions on human origins, Original Sin, and our broader understanding of human history. This post aims to address the identity of Adam and Eve, offering not only a foundational comprehension of our origins but also shaping interpretations of the Fall and subsequent human history.
For insight into this topic, there’s no better person to look towards than Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P. He brings a rare combination of expertise as both a molecular biologist and a Catholic priest. As a professor of biology and theology at Providence College, he offers invaluable perspectives that merge science with the Catholic faith. Moreover, his many publications of articles on this exact topic provide a wealth of valuable expertise to draw upon for this section, which I have certainly utilized for this section. A significant portion of the following is indebted to his work and insights[1].
Evolution
Our discussion must begin with an exploration of the theory of evolution. First articulated by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, stands as one of the most foundational concepts in modern biology. At its core, the theory of evolution asserts that species change over time through a process of multiple factors such as natural selection and genetic variation.
Imagine a vast population of butterflies, each flaunting its own unique wing patterns. Thanks to a genetic mutation, a butterfly experiences a spontaneous change in its wing pattern. This genetic variation happens to provide the butterfly with improved camouflage and enhanced abilities to find food, increasing its chances of survival and the likelihood of passing on its ‘genetic masterpiece’ to its offspring—the process of natural selection. Over generations, as these advantageous mutations accumulate, the entire population of butterflies undergoes an evolutionary transformation. What once started as a rare genetic mutation, now becomes the norm, woven into the genetic fabric of the entire butterfly population.
This provides a fundamental overview of microevolution, the process of change within a specific population of butterflies. Expanding on the butterfly scenario, as the population undergoes continued microevolution, accumulating various advantageous traits over many generations, these cumulative changes may lead to the emergence of completely distinct species or even entire genera within the butterfly lineage. Macroevolution involves the formation of new species, the branching of lineages, and the development of diverse ecological adaptations. These observations have prompted evolutionary scientists to propose that all past and present species are descendants of a single lifeform. As Darwin famously suggested, “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”[2]
Almost two centuries later, this theory of evolution endures as one of the most universally acknowledged scientific theories of the modern era. As Rev. Austriaco states, “Like the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution is not based on any single observation. Rather it is supported by numerous observations from different areas of biological and paleontological research. Thus, the theory of evolution is justified by a web of evidence that together supports the claim that all life on our planet has evolved from a common ancestor.”[3] An exemplary illustration of such observations is the presence of vestigial organs such as the human appendix. These organs offer tangible evidence for us non-biologists supporting the concept of evolution, suggesting that within our modern bodies, there exist residual remnants of ancestral adaptations that have gradually lost their original functions over time.
From the theological standpoint, the theory of evolution is not only widely supported by the vast majority of the modern scientific consensus but has found wide acceptance among the majority of Catholic scholars and theologians for decades. In a 2007 speech Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the compatibility of evolution and belief in a Creator, debunking the notion that these are mutually exclusive. He stated:
“Evolution and belief in a Creator are presented (by some) as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity … There is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding.”[4]
Furthermore, Pope St. John Paul II, in a noteworthy address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, lent further support to the theory of Evolution. He acknowledged:
“New knowledge has led to the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been (increasingly) accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence [of these results] is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”[5]
These statements from the highest authorities of the Church underscore the harmony between evolutionary theory and faith, emphasizing that the two are not in opposition but can coexist harmoniously.
Theistic Evolution
All this said, we should not overlook the concerns raised by non-evolutionist Christians regarding what they perceive as incompatibility. In his On the Origins of Species, Charles Darwin made this quite controversial remark: “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection than in the course which the wind blows.” According to Darwin and many evolutionary biologists today, the process of evolution is the result of a non-directed, purposeless process guided by the chance of natural selection and the randomness of genetic variation. Undoubtedly, this conflicts with the Christian view of the world and cosmos.
While it might be an oversimplification to assert that billions of entirely random genetic defects have given rise to the beautiful array of life on Earth we see today, there is merit in acknowledging the substantial challenges this notion presents. The intricacies of random evolutionary processes, leading to the development of modern creatures, defy straightforward quantification of probabilities. Though there is undeniable evidence that evolutionary occurrences throughout history, of which necessitate acknowledgment, grappling with the ideas of purposelessness and randomness underlying this complex process is quite challenging3. We must confront the reality of evolution, but this doesn’t mandate a wholesale acceptance of a completely purposeless and random process as the driving force behind the creation of the remarkable biodiversity and ecosystems that define our planet today.
Hence, the concept of theistic evolution. This perspective recognizes evolution as the process driving the diversification and adaptation of living organisms throughout time. However, what sets theistic evolution apart from Darwinian viewpoints is its deviation from ascribing these processes to mere purposelessness and randomness. Simply put, it asserts God as the ultimate origin of the evolutionary process. There is no purposeless and random chance. Instead, there is God. Theistic evolution provides a grounding and reasoning to the extraordinary developments of evolution that Darwinian perspectives simply cannot. It is the viewpoint that we must hold going forward.
The Soul and Body
We have embraced the concept of theistic biological evolution as a plausible reality. But as Christians, we know that we are more than mere biology. We possess a soul. We are soul and body. This is anchored in explicit scriptural claims and infallible Church teaching. But what exactly is a soul? Rev. Austriaco explains that the soul is how we explain life. Why a cat is alive while a book is not is because the cat has a soul. Soul explains why things are alive. And if the soul is the explanation of life, then every living corporeal thing has a soul: A plant is informed by a plant soul; a living kangaroo is informed by a kangaroo soul; and a living human being is informed by a human soul.
However, as evidenced by our experience, something distinguishes the human soul. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that our soul, unlike the soul of a plant or a kangaroo, is immaterial as it possesses the capacity to comprehend complex and abstract idea—precisely those expressed uniquely in human language. While it is not a doctrine of the Church to assert whether non-human souls are immaterial or material, the crucial point here is the human soul’s ability to grasp abstract concepts. We possess a moral intuition, intellect, and will, things that transcend the limits or explanations of material nature.
Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas also explain that a soul is “fitted” to its body in the same way that a key is fitted to its lock. This is a crucial idea. For the human soul to effectively inform a body, the body must possess the capacity to utilize the capabilities bestowed upon the soul—our intellect, will, and comprehension of abstract ideas. As Rev. Austriaco explains, this could have occurred when the human body evolved to a point where it gained the ability of language. Language enables us to articulate abstract concepts by assigning words to represent them and it facilitates communication of complex thoughts, feelings, and concepts with others. It then seems likely that the first theological man, the first human created in imago Dei, was one of, if not the first human to possess the ability of language. The question then becomes: can we pinpoint when the human body developed the ability to communicate via language? Rev. Austriaco argues that this moment occurred approximately 100,000 years ago when a small group of anatomically modern humans developed the neurocognitive capacity for speech.[6]
Anatomically v. Behaviorally Modern Humans
We rewind to 200,000 and 150,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans emerged from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary processes. This is according to this Out-of-Africa Theory, the prevailing scientific model explaining the origins of modern humans on Earth.
According to this Out-of-Africa Model, anatomically modern humans initially evolved in Southern Africa and later spread to other regions of Africa beginning around 100,000 years ago with the ancestors of the modern-day hunter-gatherers called the KhoeSan. Thousands of years later, a small group of humans exited northeastern Africa and continued this expansion throughout the rest of the world. We have strong reason to believe that this is how our origins unfolded. Nonetheless, as Rev. Austriaco alludes to, there is a very important distinction between anatomically modern humans—human ancestors that looked like us—and behaviorally modern humans—human ancestors that not only looked like us but also behaved like us as well. Though anatomically modern humans evolved around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago, behaviorally modern humans did not appear until much later. This critical transformation from anatomically modern to behaviorally modern human beings, called the Great Leap Forward by evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, is supported by an abundant archeological record of painting, engraving, carving, bodily decoration, and music. The earliest archaeological evidence for such modern behavior is artifacts found in Blombos Cave in modern-day South Africa dating to about 100,000 to 50,000 years ago.[7]
So, why is this Great Leap Forward so important for our discussion of the historicity of Adam and Eve? It marks the exact moment we seek. From the biological perspective, the transformation from anatomically modern to behaviorally modern human beings is attributed to the evolution of brain structures that would have facilitated the use of language. From the theological perspective,“it is critically important because, philosophically, this transformation can be understood to be archeological evidence for the appearance of the rational soul in human evolution… this transformation would be a sign of the arrival on the stage of world history of the imago Dei, the creature made in the image and likeness of God with intellect and will.”[8] With paintings, engravings, carvings, bodily decorations, and music, we possess physical archeological evidence indicating that this is when humans could now comprehend abstract thought. The dawn of theological man.
Conclusion
Thus, in his essay “The Historicity of Adam and Eve: A Theological Synthesis”[9], Rev. Austriaco explains a scenario around 100,000 years ago where two anatomically modern humans, each with a subset of pro-language genetic mutations, mate and conceive children. These children would then have inherited the complete package of pro-language genes, bringing together the genetic advantages of each of their parents, and consequently would have acquired the capacity for language. Importantly, these parents would likely have originated from two somewhat distinct yet related gene pools, considering scientific estimates suggesting the presence of approximately 10,000 original humans to adequately explain the genetic diversity we see today. This resonates with our understanding of early hunter-gatherer societies, where marriage partners were often exchanged among dispersed groups over larger areas of land.
From this lineage, Adam and Eve would emerge (either immediately or through subsequent generations), biologically prepared to be informed by the rational human soul. God chose the pair to be the first two individuals to be infused with the human rational soul—the inaugural theological humans made in imago Dei. They would have the grace, preternatural gifts, and original innocence that they needed to attain their destiny of sharing in the life of the Triune God. And since language, as well as obtaining the rational soul, is clearly a beneficial trait for the survival of the species, it would not have taken long for the descendants of this lineage to dominate and outcompete their non-speaking anatomically modern relatives. It was then the descendants of Adam who would migrate out of southern Africa and eventually populate the rest of the continent and the globe.
In the light of modern science, archaeological discoveries, and scholarly criticism, we can confidently conclude Adam and Eve were indeed the real historical figures. With this conclusion in mind, and the considerations leading up to it, we then establish a solid foundation to build from when furthering our understanding of the nature of our first theological parents by examining Genesis 2.
Sources
[1] https://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/
[2] Darwin, Charles. The Origin Of Species. Penguin Publishing Group, 2003.
[3] Austriaco, O.P., Rev. Nicanor. “The Web of Evidence for Evolution.” vol. Part 1, https://www.thomisticevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/182/2020/05/Thomistic-Evolution-20.pdf.
[4] Benedict XVI. “Meeting with the clergy of the Dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso in Auronzo di Cadore” (July 24, 2007), http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html.
[5] John Paul II, “Magisterium is Concerned with the Question of Evolution for It Involves the Conception of Man,” Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996), 4, http://inters.org/John-Paul-II-Academy-Sciences-October-1996.
[6] Austriaco, O.P., Rev. Nicanor. “The Historicity of Adam and Eve / Part IV: A Theological Synthesis.”
https://www.thomisticevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/182/2020/05/Thomistic-Evolution-20.pdf.
[7] “Blombos Cave.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave.
[8] Austriaco, O.P., Rev. Nicanor. “The Historicity of Adam and Eve / Part III: Scientific Data.” https://www.thomisticevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/182/2020/05/Thomistic-Evolution-27.pdf.
[9] Austriaco, O.P., Rev. Nicanor. “The Historicity of Adam and Eve / Part IV: A Theological Synthesis.” https://www.thomisticevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/182/2020/05/Thomistic-Evolution-28.pdf.