Recently on EWTN's Web of Faith I heard one of the priests say that the book of Genesis should not be understood as a scientific explanation of creation. He said that the meaning we gain out of the biblical creation story should be separate from the efforts of science to explain the origins of life.

He also said that we should believe through faith that our parenthood comes from Adam and Eve because St. Paul says that Jesus is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve. But that when it comes to the scientific origins of life, we can listen to science as long as we acknowledge that God sets all things into motion. The other priest on the show also stated that the Church teaches that the unproven theory of evolution is not at odds with Genesis as long as we remember that God guides the world through evolution.

I recently taught this to my class of 8th graders. I am a rookie religion teacher but I am secure in my faith and am well aware of what the Church teaches.

The principal of my school called me into her office and told me that if I didn't stop teaching that Adam and Eve might not have existed, that I'd be fired because I wasn't in line with Church teaching. I insisted that everything I said was orthodox but she disagreed. I took it up with our pastor and he agreed with me but believed that discussing evolution in religion class was not appropriate for junior high students. I insisted that everything i taught was orthodox Church teaching and that I did not say anything scandalous at any point.

I wasnt teaching about sexual morality. All I said was that John Paul II teaches us that we must, as Catholics, believe in the parenthood of Adam and Eve, but that Genesis may also be understood as Sacred Myth and not a science book. That we are allowed to look to science to understand the origins of our universe while always acknowledging that God sets all things into motion.

Am I teaching anything wrong? Can I lose my job over this?

Is this fair?

Simon

-- Simon (rookie@religionteacher.com), February 06, 2005

Answers

Saints Adam & Eve must have existed. They are official Saints of the Church, and their feast day is December 24.

-- (saints@are.real), February 06, 2005.

You have parted with Church doctrine by denying Adam and Eve, our first parents. The proofs of evolution, if any, don't reveal a thing about humankind's first parents. It would be pure speculation to say it was mythical. God revealed the Creation. Now, it isn't text- book science by any means; it wasn't meant to be. But it is truth, even when understood less than literally.

God in fact speaks both literally and figuratively, over and over in scripture. Genesis is no different. There are a man and woman, and Eve was called mother of all the living. This isn't open to doubt. She lived; and any ''myth'' that may have developed around her is irrelevant. She and Adam didn't create themselves. Nor did apes create a human being. At very most it could be surmised from studies that God made the first true humans from some previous life He'd created for the purpose. That would not contradict the Bible; all matter, including living beings, comes from dust. That is no myth; it can be shown in a laboratory.

The Church teaches we are descendents of ONE couple, which God made at the beginning of the world. That is a revealed truth which could only come from our Creator. The fact He didn't explain it experimentally or scientifically doesn't make it mythical. He said it in the best way to reveal forever, to anyone with the use of reason whether a PhD, or a child without education-- to make this known, revealed to all of us. The scientist knows it for the truth, but rationalized metaphorically for the better part.

Unless the scientist is interested only in debunking the Creator. Then he assigns to evolution a power it simply never had. (How a man with an immortal soul is started from apes.) God made man. God may have made evolution as well; but He hasn't revealed it in the Bible. He revealed Adam and Eve. We who now live know this is indisputable; we had to come from some beginning. God hasn't deceived us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

Simon: A few suggestions which you may find easily workable and it will help drive the point home to the kids.

What is Science? Easy! It IS reverse engineering to understand HOW God Created something.

What really is Evolution? Easy! Tell your kids to think about the different features of their parents and HOW these features nose, eyes, hair, color from each of the parents cans be found in them, Evolution is simply bringing together different features into a new person or thing. (i.e.) Always Evolving. And we continue to evolve with each new generation of people.

Science is good it does help must to learn to improve the conditions of our fellow man with medicines,.... However some people in science after a while start to believe that since they are figuring out How God created something that one day they will become god. But we know that this can NOT ever happen since there is ONLY ONE God (God the Father) Creator of ALL we can and cannot see.

Big Bang? Sure maybe that is how God decided to start all of this but even with science trying to figure out how they will Never-Ever be able to get the final answer without accepting God. What is the final answer? What were the 2 or more elements which came together to create the big bang? and even more so Where did THEY come from?

From the aspect of people being created, look at how many chemicals the human body consist of and all from a base of what 6 base chems, Next explain to the kids how when people are growing their DNA runs constant matches to the 2nd set to make sure it is developing properly and will try to correct itself if it is not. Much like Spell and grammer check on a computer program. And then ask them HOW by any incredible chaotic, random actions caused by the big bang could ALL of these have occured?

Sacred Myth? Let's use the word allegory instead. It's simply means they are stories passed down over the years but that does NOT make them False, Example did the Whole World REALLY flood for Noah? Or Maybe it was the whole world "that Noah knew" during his day. Evidence points to both Possibilities. We can not deny Adam and Eve but with allegory it simply show that it was not 15,000 years ago, because clearly science will show differently and rightfully. But the story has been passed down we don't know what type of time periods were missed.

I hope you may find some of these suggestion useful. Remember give science credit for ONLY trying to figure out HOW God Created something and NOT to Deny God.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 06, 2005.

Simon,

if you don't get an answer to your question, by the time this thread has petered out, i promise that i will do my best to help you research this.

GB.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 06, 2005.

Simon, you are perfectly correct. The Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a science textbook. The principal is the one out of line with Catholic teaching. She and the pastor appear to have been overly influenced by the distorted fundamentalist protestant beliefs about the Bible which are trumpeted so loudly in our society as the typical or even only permissible Christian beliefs. Of course junior high students are old enough to understand evolution as part of God’s plan of creation. If your principal and parish priest threaten you over this you should take it up with your bishop if necessary.

“Saints are real”, there are quite a few declared Saints of the Church, e.g. St Christopher, St Philomena, about whose historical existence the Church has doubts. Most scientists today tend to think that the human race did indeed descend from one couple, or at least one woman. But I don't see a problem with the names Adam and Eve being taken as metaphor. As I understand it the names simply mean "Man" and "Woman".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 06, 2005.

"She and the pastor appear to have been overly influenced by the distorted fundamentalist protestant beliefs about the Bible which are trumpeted so loudly in our society as the typical or even only permissible Christian beliefs."

From reading Simons post I don't think it is the fundamentalist who are the problems but the Parents often 1 or 2 that are the problem. That is why I offered the phrasing suggestions I did. It works with the whole mix of people.

Because the principle and the priest do not want to hear from the Bishops office because the Bishop had to hear it from some upset parents whether they are right or wrong. Simon is not in cool spot right now and it's advantages to take a different approach at times. And I suspect this will be one of those times.

Since we know S**t rolls downhill they will make sure that they are NOT the ones on the bottom, that is why they have Simon. And if you think that the principle or priest will stand up for the truth against some parents think again.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 06, 2005.

eugene,

How have I denied the parenthood of Adam and Eve? In fact, if you read my post again and more carefully, I affirmed the parenthood of Adam and Eve. I also, at no point, denied their existence.

My only concern was me saying that Genesis is not a scientifically accurate historical account of the origins of human existence. I taught that the Church allows us to use science to determine the scientific origins of existence. But I always affirmed the parenthood of Adam and Eve. John Paul II has called Genesis Sacred Myth before and said that evolution does not conflict with our Catholic faith.

I think you need to read more carefully Eugene. And if I have departed from Church teaching, then so has John Paul II.

-- Simon (rookie@religionteacher.com), February 06, 2005.

Yes I guess you’re right Michael. Simon is in a very difficult position. Some parents today have that attitude that they are "paying customers" and so the school should teach their kids only what the parents want them to be taught. But I think this is one issue where Catholic schools need to say to those 1 or 2 fundamentalist-influenced parents, "This is a Catholic school and we teach the Catholic Church’s teachings." This IS an important issue because if we give in to their demand that religion oppose science on this issue, it will soon spread to all sorts of other issues. Then we will be teaching a very limited and shallow version of religion (and of science).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 06, 2005.

This is a topic which demands patience. Frankly, it hasn't been definitively resolved yet, so anger and cries of heresy (material or otherwise) should be stemmed.

Pius XII's Humani Generis said the following:

"37. 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."

What we see here is a combination of an unchanging doctrine, and a variable circumstance: (1) We must believe that there was an individual, the first human being and father of all, who "actually committed" a sin, original sin; and (2) As of 1950 there is no known way to reconcile anything like polygenism with this dogma.

Is there any way to reconcile polygenism with the substance of the dogma of original sin today? Such Has Not Been Ruled On By The Magisterium. Of course it would be truly reckless to presume that there is. But the question is still being studied.

Now, monogenism has it's own problems from a Biblical standpoint. Adam and Eve were the First Parents, and they had children Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abel, God gives Cain his sentence, to which he replies:

"My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight." (Gen 4:13-14)

Who is this "anyone"? Another of Adam and Eve's children? Did they give birth to an entire city with a code of law that permitted the stoning of murderers? But I thought Cain was the first murderer; if noone had ever killed anyone before, it seems odd that he should so fear for his own life (as if it were already common place to punish murderers with death). Presumably, given monogenism, Cain's wife from the land of Nod, east of Eden, was also his sister. What was she doing over there? Was she in exile too? It couldn't be for murder; Cain was the first murderer.

Take note of John Paul II's letter, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (1996) in which he writes,

"It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences "

BRB, Im not done.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 06, 2005.

It like what anon says. About Simon's reply to me, let me stand corrected. He's right, I failed to read his words carefully.

I just want to ask: Was Simon ''teaching that Adam and Eve might not have existed,'' -- ??? as warned by his principal? I was too anxious to go right to the subject of Adam and Eve, but THAT much seemed clear. ''Adam and Eve might not have existed.'' --is exactly what the principal found unorthodox and contrary to revealed truth.

Simon says: ''I said that everything I taught was orthodox Church teaching. I did not say anything scandalous--'' Is that so? As to now learning now John Paul II told us Genesis may also be understood as Sacred Myth, maybe someone could point out exactly what he said.

It doesn't take a science degree to understand what parts of Genesis are NOT to be seen literally. However, the entire Creation narrative just isn't mythical. One solemn truth stands apart and is unassailable: God is the Creator. No one else made the world, and only God can have given us an immortal soul and made us after His own image. This is a revealed truth.

Science isn't ready to admit that. Christians must cope with it even in our own schools. The story at the beginning of Genesis may be largely a mythical writing. But myth has no outcome in reality. Man isn't a myth. The sin of Adam and Eve is real, the devil is real, and God is real. Genesis is true in its essential message. My feeling is, Simon agrees with that. I HOPE he does.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 06, 2005.

Also, one should note: "Adam", as a name, may not have been our first father's name; as if we would meet him in the garden, go, "Hey Adam! What's up?" or anything like that. "Adam" is probably a designation meaning "Man" or "First Man".

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 07, 2005.

"Also, one should note: "Adam", as a name, may not have been our first father's name; as if we would meet him in the garden, go, "Hey Adam! What's up?" or anything like that. "Adam" is probably a designation meaning "Man" or "First Man". "

So I guess we could possible get away with saying "Hey Dude wheres that chick with the Really Big Apples" Ahh heck! might as well just stick with Adam and Eve since somebody might take that statement the wrong way.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 07, 2005.

Or we could refer to them as "Our First Parents," as our Magisterium frequently does.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 07, 2005.

Am I teaching anything wrong? Can I lose my job over this?

Steve,

May I suggest you are lost and being led astrray by modernists - liberal theologians can publish books and theories; however, only the Magisterim can teach authoritatively. Your 'myth' stuff is bogus... Suggest you stick with the Catechism when teaching Catechists. Leading people astray is quite wrong -it is a sin...

I assume you have read or reference dissenting works such as the "New Jerome Biblical Commentary" by Raymond Edward & "Catholicism" by Fr. Richard McBrien? These books are dangerous and should really be banned. If you dot believe me -research them yourself.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

The above post is for Simon.

Simon, you are perfectly correct. The Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a science textbook. The principal is the one out of line with Catholic teaching.

Steve,

You are incorrect -ONLY that which is taught by the Magisterium is approved teaching. The Catechism is quite sufficient for these students -all else is speculation -these are not theologians!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

correction: should be "New Jerome Biblical Commentary" by Raymond Edward Brown

P.S. Simon if you are teaching Religion -leave science and how it relates to Religion to someone more competent -I suggest you ask the people that employ you for guidance in this area. If you are obstinate I predict you will be fired.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

This is a topic which demands patience. Frankly, it hasn't been definitively resolved yet, so anger and cries of heresy (material or otherwise) should be stemmed.

anon,

This is specifically why that which is speculation should not be taught! This subject matter is suspended for all but theolgians - NOT Catechists... Catechists are not involved in biblical exegesis - speculative areas that lead to conclusions apparently contradicting Church teaching are authentically publicly only the domain of theologians...

Leo XIII - Providentissimus Deus (The Study of Holy Scripture)

Summary

23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

Yes, Adam and Eve were real people. How their bodies were formed - either instantly or evolved from monkeys are another matter. We believe that God created their spiritual soul - as he does our own.

This is important for the simple reason that there is only ONE single human species, sharing one single human nature. If you think that humans developed separately and came to consciousness and spiritually at different times and places then essentially the result would be different human species and natures....

In other words...there would be no rational basis for ascribing human rights and duty to all humans on the planet and the racists would be right.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 08, 2005.

Simon,

P.S. here is correct Catholic teaching on the subject:

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

Daniel, I will take the charitable view that you have misunderstood me rather than deliberately misrepresented me. What I was saying was, that if these people who insist that Genesis 1–3 must be taken literally to be a Catholic in good standing, are allowed to get away with having anyone who questions their unauthorized pronouncements gagged or sacked, then they will soon apply this to the whole Bible, and come up with nonsense like “the world is only a few thousand years old” etc. and do great harm to the Church in its mission to the world. The Catechism teaches us that Genesis 1-3 is written in figurative language. I repeat, the Bible is not, and was NEVER meant to be, a science textbook.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

It’s true that the mechanics of biological evolution should be taught in science class rather than religion class. But when discussing the Creation story of Genesis in religion class, Simon’s students will surely ask him what relation this has to evolution. If he says, as you seem to suggest, “I can’t comment on that, I’m only a religion teacher, go ask your science teacher or a theologian”, the students would rightly see that as a cop-out. Even worse, they would get the impression that he (and his religion) are afraid of the question and have something to hide, or that to be a good Catholic you have to be anti-science and put your head in the sand and ignore the facts revealed by scientific discoveries.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

Steve, they do ask these questions and I agree if they are not presented with a reasonable answer which forces them to ask the science teacher the hard questions the science teacher will remove God from the equation.

But when a kid has a basic understanding of how DNA compares and tries to correct itself (for example) they have to ask the science teacher how can something this complex happen by chance, which puts it back on science to PROVE not just have theories that these things happened in a highly complex, but random and chaotic chain of events without they hand of God involved.

Kids are being pumped so much B.S. in schools on t.v. and elsewhere that seeks to remove God from their lives that if we don't provide them with the hard thoughts/questions the mysteries of God are no longer mysteries but science facts without all of the facts.

If things were that easy we could just add a bunch of silica and polymers into a blender and we would have new computers in no time at all.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 09, 2005.

If he says, as you seem to suggest, “I can’t comment on that

Steve,

Although I know what not to teach e.g. 'myth' I have not the expertise to specifically answer exactly how to teach this subject. My suggestion were to seek guidance rather than continue with disregard...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 09, 2005.