114: Did Adam and Eve actually exist? With Fr. Nicanor Austriaco

Please support the show at Patreon.com/mattfradd
Today I sit down with Dominican priest Fr. Nicancor Austriaco to discuss evolution, genesis and Adam and Eve.
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco is a Catholic priest in the Order of Friars Preachers. Born in the Philippines, he earned his Ph.D. degree in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After completing his doctoral studies, he was a fellow of the International Human Frontier Science Program at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research at the University College London.
... Seriously if I kept going you'd be reading longer than it took to listen to this podcast. He's a smart dude, okay?
Show notes (as always) at PintsWithAquinas.com

[@boomct8569]

I was open minded but Fr Nicanor totally lost me when he got to Eve. For him to suggest Adam was enlightened with reason / language but Eve wasn’t, makes no sense of the Fall. To suggest they weren’t matched in humanity or the soul (seems like he was saying she was ‘pre-human’) is totally bunkum. Aside from the obvious question about why God would create Eve after Adam but create her without a human soul like his, there could be no fall, no disobedience of Eve without reason and will. Nup. You simply can’t reconcile scripture, the theology of the Fall / original sin and this explanation of Eve. It also totally throws out Thomistic theology which is supposed to be foundational for the Dominican Order.

[@connermcd]

Simple explanation could just be that God created Eve from Adam's rib miraculously

[@antoniomoyal]

One of the best programs yet! Congratulations Matt

[@olpossum5186]

great podcast. just watched one of Fr. Nicanor's lectures on youtube concerning the same subject. glad i did. i studied anthropology and north amercian archaeology in college, and have been attempting to reconcile some of these very same issues.

[@davidfleb]

This was a good discussion but at times there seemed to be too much mental gymnastics involved. The idea that Eve was unable to communicate with Adam seems to contradict core truths from Genesis in which God created the world in an ideal state that was unstained by sin. It seems implausible that the first female who was untainted by original sin would somehow be inferior to modern fallen humans.

[@d0mbadil]

I agree with David. This episode seemed to be an exercise in taking two irreconcilable viewpoints and making them cohabitant. I was disappointed that the chosen compromise was on the reading/direct meaning of scripture. I gathered that the viewpoint expressed is one in which scripture is judged by modern paradigms. Honest Questions for Matt (I genuinely want to know): How do you rectify that the Genesis account has traditionally been interpreted as historical until the last century? How do you rectify that previously non-existent genetic information does not spontaneously appear in genetic sequences and that evolution does not occur without the addition of new information? How do you rationalize the general trend of genetic degradation with the evolutionist account? How do you rectify the biblical account of created "kinds" with the theory of a common ancestor?

[@davidfleb]

@@d0mbadil I'm not sure if this question was directed to me or Matt, but I personally don't believe the evolution narrative. The science behind the theory is weak and the only reason why alternative theories have not surfaced in the scientific community is because they can't accept any theory that would undermine their vision of a godless universe.

[@d0mbadil]

Haha, I apologize for the lack of clarity, David! The questions were directed towards Matt and his guest. ))

[@davidfleb]

@@chanting_germ. can't believe 3 yrs passed since I've watched this video. Time flies. Anyways Abiogenesis is naturally impossible, which undermines the entire evolutionary theory. If you want to be intellectually consistent you have to start at the beginning. Can life spontaneously create itself out of organic material? The answer is No

[@tomandrews1429]

I find it a bit odd to say that the rational soul arose because of a random mutation in the DNA of protohumans. If we somehow reverted a human's DNA back to that a protohuman, would he or she lose their soul? It seems very strange to say that the soul depends on our DNA sequence.

[@orangetux]

I just listened to a lecture by Fr Nicancor on this subject. My understanding of his argument is the rational soul was imparted by God when by evolution the protohuman developed language. Both evolution and indwelling of rational soul are both God's ultimate design and will. It is not too strange to think of a human losing a key features such as losing the "preternatural" gifts of immortality, infused knowledge and integrity that we had before the fall. I don't think he is saying the mutation itself is how the soul comes in, but rather a way of connecting "formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" and the observed evolutionary biology of the human species. Evolution might explain the formed out of the dust of the ground (natural) and God's singles out this species by a miracle "blew into his nostrils the breath of life" (supernatural)

[@tomandrews1429]

@@orangetux Are you saying that if we somehow lost our ability to communicate, that we would lose our souls? What about other animals that have a rudimentary language like chimps and dolphins, do they have souls?

[@tomandrews1429]

@Chao Feng That's fine, but my issue still persists. Could the mutation that made humans have rational souls be reverted to a point where that soul could be taken away?

[@tomandrews1429]

@@chanting_germ. Well then we have a problem. If a mutation is responsible for evolving the human ancestor into a human, when why wouldn't taking that mutation away turn us back into our soulless, non-human ancestors?

[@DerPinguim]

@@tomandrews1429 Mutations don't work like that, a human cannot be born an "animal" regardless of how mutated he is, for a mutation to be "undone" would be impossible, therefore arguing it would be as unnecessary as arguing time travel.

[@berniepeng]

If their wasn't a true Adam or Eve, in a Paradise Garden, who communed with God, walked and talked with God, and disobeyed God, and Fell from grace, and caused disorder in mankind and nature, then why did Christ come to "save" us? Christ Sacrifice on the cross to redeem us, to "reverse the sin of Adam" was not necessary, because their was no Adam, no garden, no paradise, then no need of Christs Sacrifice.

[@garrettfisher9385]

Idk, really struggled with this one

[@5tonyvvvv]

Nicanor is brilliant, he should debate Richard Dawkins!

[@davidfleb]

I'd also like to add that I got the feeling that the priest treats Catholics who dont believe in evolution as somehow intellectually inferior. When Catholic scientists study Eucharistic miracles they dont assume that the piece of bread turned into flesh via a process that took millions of years of random mutations, they correctly identify it as an extraordinary miracle that required a direct intervention of the Divine. Why then are they so disinclined to believe than God could have similarly created man by direct intervention?

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Because they are just aware that evolution is a fact. I dont think it has anything to do with belief, if they understand how evolution works then it just becomes obvious

[@kevinmark6180]

@@lucidlocomotive2014 Evolution is the opposite of a fact, it is a lie from the pit of hell that directly contradicts the Word of God in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, but also in real observation and real science; no offspring of any creature has ever been observed to advance to a new kind of creature different from the inherent nature of its parents. This is a fantasy popularized by unbelieving fools.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Kevin Mark You just don’t understand evolution what it means or how it works. It doesn’t contradict scripture or tradition

[@kevinmark6180]

@@lucidlocomotive2014 I understand perfectly well after studying it for years in secular universities and on my own. The emperor has no clothes. Microevolution, or minor variation with a created kind, is limited and cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution. We can see this with dog breeds, with finches, and with everything. A true advancement in genetic information never happens. All we see are different gene expressions, deleterious mutations, or at best gene transfer, NOT the novel creation of new genetic information via mutations or natural selection. Instead, we see organisms' genomes breaking down slowly over time... Devolution, which is the opposite of evolution. Lookup Dr. John Sanford and Genetic entropy or check out foundationsrestored.com

[@takmaps]

You might want to watch Fr. Rippergers talks on evolution because he explains why this idea is popular and why it is wrong!

[@joecoolmccall]

Excellent podcast.

[@off-meta-michael]

"Unfortantely, humility doesn't go viral." Great point. Still not sold on ther hypothesis that Eve could have not had language. I guess I'll have to listen to some of his lectures more in depth. Matt, have you considered getting Rupert Sheldrake on the podcast to talk about this?

[@63dmt]

If language originated in a single person, who was he talking to?

[@bobyk87]

The bible is clear when describing the genealogy from Jesus, going back to king David, to father Abraham, going back to Noha, and finally to Adam and Eve. This is so incredible and mesmerizing. I really believe this.

[@ante3973]

16:15 I am not quite sure that Augustine viewed Gen1 as historical, he is explicit about Gen1 being a symbolic unfolding of what he thinks realy happened in reality (according to a platonic view of divine action)

[@AquinasRevival73]

Thanks for the great podcast, Matt - this and many other episodes. Two years ago students of mine challenged my explanation of theistic evolution as being a potential synching up of Genesis and some form of evolutionary theory. They turned me on to Fr. Michael Chaberek, OP, a Polish Dominican whose entire doctoral and post-doc has been on the question of faith/science and evolution/Catholicism. It blew my mind! You should have him on the podcast to cover exactly the same topic. His two books "Catholicism and Evolution" and "Aquinas and Evolution" were absolute game changers. I have watched/read/listened to A LOT of this debate since then, and Fr. Nicanor is typical: really bright and able to confidently articulate the 30,000 foot view of how evolution and Catholicism are supposed to synch up, but struggles profoundly and proposes wilder and wilder stuff the more you press for details. Theistic evolutionists, or evolutionary creationists struggle mightily, especially philosophically, to pull off an evolutionary/polygenesis Adam, and like Fr. Nicanor they haven't got the first clue what to do with Eve, except completely ignore and do violence to even the stretchiest possible interp of the Genesis account. Add to this that evolutionary theory, as science, is sinking fast (see the non-Christian, non-Creationist Altenberg 16 symposium to discuss a new theory to replace neo-Darwinism), and it increasingly appears to me and a growing multitude of my intellectual betters that theistic evolutionists, many really wonderful Catholics among them, are sadly lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship, and at the cost of the perennially potent philosophy and theology of the Catholic faith. I would love to see an episode with Fr. Chaberek! Then we can all compare Dominican vs. Dominican on this vitally important topic!

[@exerciserelax8719]

Thanks for the information about Fr. Chaberek, I look forward to reading his work. As for the Altenberg 16, everything I've seen from the people who were actually there and have the background to understand what was discussed indicates that far from weakening evolutionary theory, they saw it as strengthening the theory by the inclusion of numerous new discoveries. A couple of quotes: Massimo Pigliucci: “the Altenberg 16 ... has been featured on blogs by a variety of nutcases, as well as the quintessential ID “think” tank, the Discovery Institute of Seattle. They have presented the workshop that I am organizing in collaboration with my colleague Gerd Müller, and the proceedings of which will be published next year by MIT Press, as an almost conspiratorial, quasi-secret cabala, brought to the light of day by the brave work of independent journalists and “scholars” bent on getting the truth out about evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the (actual) truth. Nick Matzke: "In real life, the meeting discussed the possibilities for an “Extended Synthesis” in evolutionary biology which incorporates development, evolvability, complexity theory, etc. into the old “Modern Synthesis” of population genetics. But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis."

[@mreilly7463]

Matt I think you should check out the Kolbe Center. Pax

[@KethenGoesHam]

Matt, doesn't Gen 4:14 and 15 kinda outright require that other humans existed during the time of Adam and Eve. Whom else would God be protecting Cain from?

[@DavidMartin-ec8uw]

Dr. Michael Heiser has also suggested that there may be evidence, when reading Genesis 4:14-15, that there may have been other humans, unrelated to Adam and Eve, already living outside of Eden, in the land of Nod and elsewhere. This makes better sense than the YEC claim that Cain feared retribution, for the murder of Abel, from siblings living east of Eden in the land of Nod - siblings that were having intercourse amongst each other (which is called incest!) to reproduce, yikes! Later in Genesis, Cain's great, great grandson, Lamesch, kills a young man for wounding/injuring him. Was this young man from Lamesch's seed or from Adam's if the YEC account is true?

[@orbeuniversity]

35:22 Was there an original Adam and Eve or were the groups of humans from which we humans evolved? 36:02 In true Thomistic fashion could you please provide us with the strongest argument that is put forth by scientists that say humanity developed and evolved from communities and show why we can still hold to an original Adam. 40:19 How about Eve? Where did she come from? 41:34 What is the nature of grammar? What is the basic argument that says that language shares characteristics that indicate it must come from a single language or person?

[@johnathanblauw2608]

Interesting thoughts. I really like the points about the need for honest authentic dialogue between doubtful, questioning (Catholic) Christians and atheists alike, and the points about each person having a pulpit. I'm quite put off by the Eve theory mentioned here, but I do think that needs to be explored and addressed more.... perhaps a second person was generated as human with the capacity for language, thus as 'person,' who happened to be female, in the same generation as her male counterpart, thus Adam and Eve more or less simultaneously, or at least more or less within the same time. I'd be comfortable with that... My question (full disclosure, I tend to be much more of a creationist) to follow the conversation about evolution would be why it is that our supposed evolutionary ancestors that we find in chimps or such don't continue to evolve into human or even just human-like creatures that approach ourselves (I realize 4, 5 or even 10 thousand years or whatever is just a single heartbeat of creation, not to mention eternity, but how long does this evolution take and wouldn't it continue whatever the case throughout those 1000s of years?)? Are we aimed at a different 'evolved' humanity or is this the final form?

[@matthiasjefferymahoney6143]

Really loved this video! I have to submit a criticism as a studying linguist: the "Proto-World" theory of language (that all human languages developed from one language) does not hold water much for most linguists that I have met. Most linguists that I have met hold that language likely developed multiple times, because there is no reason, by etymological comparison, to believe that all languages have a common ancestor (also, I was saddened by Fr. Austriaco saying English and French both came from Latin; that's not the case! English is a Germanic language which took on a lot of Latin loans!). No one can discern any possible cognate words between Old English and Old Chinese, and many other languages. It seems much more likely that languages developed independently multiple times. That being said, it also seems likely that the "language instinct" as articulated by Steven Pinker and inspired by Chomsky COULD HAVE evolved from one common ancestor, but this language instinct, the potential to articulate thought with categories of nouns/verbs/etc in a syntactic way must be developed, it doesn't come automatically with the gene as Fr. Austriaco seemed to be suggesting. The case of Ildefonso, a twenty-eight year old languageless man points to this: because he was deaf and in rural Mexico, and he was never able to acquire sign language. However, only when taught sign language by Susan Schaller (read her book! "A Man Without Words") was he able to acquire language. The beginnings of human language requires either miraculous intervention, or a gradual process which combines the development of the human mind (eventually reaching the language instinct, capable of abstract thought and its expression) AND many, many human efforts to develop that potential.

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

A simple explanation of evolution in Catholic orthodoxy would be helpful. Did this vid. lack cohesive progression (Ironic)? Couldn't get head nor tail of it.

[@lucybobby742]

I'm more confused now than when I started listening! I have no idea what Fr. Nick is talking about. What's the answer? Are Adam and Eve real or not?

[@jakelivingstone5747]

Haven't listened to it yet, but regardless of what they say, they were obviously real people.

[@user-xi2dp3fi8k]

@@jakelivingstone5747 🤣😂🤣

[@chrisrichardson5462]

I’ll just say that the guests discussion of the 2008 crisis was really reductive and sounded quite ill informed. It reminded me of when Noam Chomsky steps outside of his specialty and speaks of politics.

[@tomandrews1429]

I also don't really understand if Fr. Nicanor is saying that the first "real" human in that community of protohumans that he is labeling Adam, is the same Adam from the story in Genesis. Is he suggesting that that first human is the source of Original Sin? If not, then why go through all of the trouble to label him Adam? I also disagree that the sudden development of language is what distinguishes protohumans from actual humans. The development of language was gradual, from the kinds of communication we see in monkeys today to how us humans communicate now. It would be entirely arbitrary to point to any spot on that development of language continuum and say that it represents the point at which humans became humans.

[@corbenalley8382]

It doesn't need all this, the Creator exists outside of space and time, therefor the time passed during the creation account, to our perception, is irrelevant, as all of time could have passed from the big bang to our current sentience and all the change in the world and it be but a moment, or '7 days' to the Creator. Only question I have is, going the evolution route, when did we reach a state when we were 'human' and then infused with souls. So much unnecessary 'mental gymnastics' as another commenter said. Also does he get into irriducible complexity? I'm not disputing most aspects of evolution, just that that's a compelling argument that puts limits on some of the proposals inherent in most of evolutionary theory.

[@account2871]

Humans particular language capacity is much younger than 100,000 years old

[@estebandemosandmusicconcep4407]

I dont think the fathers of the church would have read Genesis as History or luteral. They were closer to the Jew tradition and would know better all literary genres of the time

[@shayneswenson]

Grasping at straws intensifies

[@mck1980sp]

13:50 - a success - fr. Austriaco admits that Church Fathers read Genesis historically. Now the next step is to admit that Aquinas also did the same. And the next step, that they were right!

[@johnathanblauw2608]

I'm listening to this interview again and just am so frustrated with it honestly. I don't think he has good arguments. There are some good things he says but I disagree with his premise and he argues as if it's been proven, and not simply a theory - I realize one could use the same argument against a creationist perspective. But what would one make of the fact that Christ Himself cited to Adam and Eve? Is there any possible way this particular evolutionary theory could be reconciled with the Dogma of Christ's Church, that is, the Immaculate Conception? I personally don't believe so, I don't think it's possible. I don't think one can logically square the two, and I get and am comfortable with the idea that the Creation story itself in Genesis 1-2 may not be an explicitly historical literal account, I just don't see how evolutionary theory could logically fit into its framework.

[@jamesmcgrath3841]

Tried to listen but Fr goes around in circles.... saying nothing. Kinda like Bishop Barron.

[@michaellilly2550]

How does Fr Austriaco's theory not open the door to accepting the truth of the story of Lilith as Adam's first wife?

[@lemonvariable72]

no because that is a medieval jewish fanfic

[@ButtsMcCracken]

What in the hell did I just listen to? I think he called Eve subhuman….

[@herrschmidt412]

I am becoming more and more skeptical of evolution and honestly this interview only pushed me further away from it

[@Sean-lv6fx]

Evolution can be reconciled with the biblical account. God could have infused two pre-existing hominids(Adam and Eve) with eternal souls. Likewise he could have created them separately, this is reconciled with evolution if Cain and possibly some of Adam and Eve's other children procreated with these other hominids who did not have eternal souls. The offspring however would have had eternal souls, that way all of humanity can be traced back to Adam and Eve and therefore inherits original sin.

[@ambersetton6934]

jesus

[@kevinmark6180]

It is a primary principle of Christian Scripture interpretation that we understand it, in a basic level, in the same way that the author did. The Church fathers understood this which is why they believed it as a sacred history and they refused to do what theistic evolutionists do, which is completely discard the literal meaning. True science does not support the evolutionary story.

[@johnpro2847]

very painful listening to all this...as the interviewer suggested..is not his just all back pedalling in the light of modern evidence...exactly

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

39:00 Well, you've undermined yourself again, this time both as a theologian and a biologist. Evolution isn't like a lightswitch. There wasn't one human that suddenly was able to speak. Evolution applies both to biology and philology. Theologically, you've nust made an excellent argument for abortion and euthanasia. I'm sure this wasn't your intention. Look up Dr. Michael Hesier's talks on why the Imago Dei is not a quality, but a status.

[@hobbywright8495]

Short answer. Yes. See Jesus’ genealogy. I just can’t listen to a misguided priest for an hour. He can’t be but so smart to miss this boat. Same w Spitzer. Sorry not sorry. Theistic evolution is a heresy no matter what gymnastics are employed. Still love all of you but this issue breaks my heart. We have to believe God. Maybe check out the Kolbe Foundation. Seriously get them on this show.

[@johnpro2847]

the problem with listening to the praying class is they are just echo chambers for old dudes 2000 years ago who were not that smart by today's standards..amen

[@berniepeng]

What is this BS about God created light on the 1st day but the sun wasn't created til 4th day. This has always understood by the Fathers that this was the creation of the angles, God Created the Light (angles), then they rebelled, causing darkness, as God didn't create the darkness, but after the rebellion, God separated the Light from the Darkness! He cast the rebellious angles out of heaven. This is not "SUN light"

[@joo1641]

I still believe God set everything in motion and to be possible. I believe we ALL come from Adam and Eve. Why would God author what isn't true or what we should "interpret" and not take as true, straight forward and literal?? Science in many cases is theory, putting science or anything above God or his truth is in a sense, idolatry and against the 1st Commandment.