Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Subscribe to Pints With Aquinas on iTunes or Stitcher.

Today I chat with Fr. Nicanor Austriaco about Adam, Even, and Evolution. Enjoy the interview and then watch the following talk to fill in some gaps.

Please follow and like us:
  1. Br Javier Hansen

    Trying to wrestle with Fr Nicanor’s theory of Adam. Eventually the speaking humans overwhelmed the non-speaking humans but what happened to these non-speaking humans? Were they defeated in battles/sickness etc.? What about the theories of incest with the siblings of Adam and Eve’s children reproducing?

  2. Patrick McFadden

    Great show… Thank you Fr. Nicanor Austriaco!

  3. This was my first listen to this podcast. Matt Fradd did a good job in pointing out doctrinal teaching of the Church as his basis for conversation. Fr. Nicanor’s intellectual development on the subject at hand would benefit from a lesson in metaphysics, the first being, you cannot give what you do not have.

    Fr. N had no evidence for his position and had no solid arguments to make. He bases his position entirely on assertion, conjecture, and the stature of experts like “Cardinal Ratiznger, whom he characterizes as “one of the smartest, most brilliant popes and Catholic minds in a millennia,” yet Fr. N still offered no evidence for why any of these were correct.

    Every one of his arguments were based on logical fallacy, and he sounded like a postmodernist by casting doubt on opponents, claiming the unearned moral high ground, using character assassination, and virtue signaling, but again, no solid arguments or evidence.

    For other Thomists who soundly disprove Fr. Nicanor’s position, look to Hugh Owen and Fr. Chad Ripperger. Fr. Ripperger wrote “The Metaphysics of Evolution” and “The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution. He addresses directly Fr. Nicanor’s theory of evolution and language.

  4. James Carlin

    Loved this episode, except I have a worry with the view that Adam was the first self aware human in the evolutionary chain and that Eve was just another none-cognoscente prehuman variant with whom he mated to have intelligent offspring.

    The Church has maintained that the first three chapters of Genesis contain at least some historical truth. Although their inspired author used a popular literary form of his day to explain certain historical facts of Creation.

    These were named specifically by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, with the approval of Pope Pius X in 1909. The official document states that the literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
    doubted in regard to:

    “the creation of all things 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 the human race; the original happiness of our
    first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the
    command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of
    the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a
    serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state
    of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer.”

    I believe the evolutionary account, and I’m sure it acceptable to speculate about the first rational human and how he came about. But if Adam and Eve did not sin ( completely and together) I think the Doctrine of original sin would be contradicted.

    I’m sure there is no harm in assuming miraculous intervention at the point of the creation of man. just as there is no harm in accepting the miracles of Christ as being critical to the scripture narrative.

    What are your thoughts? Isn’t original sin doubtful in our Catholic understanding if Eve was not a free logical agent and Adam un-fallen?

  5. Matt – how much of this do you agree with?

  6. Stephen Rauwolf

    I find that most modern scientists are too confident in their own understanding of facts from the distant past, shrouded in the mists of eons. Peter (see 2nd Peter chapter 3) warns of a deception in the last days that will deny the fact of the flood and that the world at that time perished. They assume that “all things continue as they were from the beginning”. What if this was a prophecy about the scientific thought that ignores the cataclysm of the worldwide flood was referring to the evolutionary thought process? Can we know anything for certain about how the current world came into being?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *