Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P..: "Defending Adam After Darwin"

Fall 2017 Philosophy Lecture
St. Charles Borromeo Seminary
13 November 2017
“Defending Adam After Darwin: The Origin of Sapiens as a Natural Kind,” presented by Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, held at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary on 13 November 2017 at 7pm in the St. John Vianney Auditorium.
Abstract: "For many contemporary Christian theologians, evolutionary biology rules out any account of an Adam and Eve that would explain the origin of our species. In response, I propose that there are sound and robust reasons to think that human beings share an intrinsic essence that puts them into a natural kind. I also propose that our natural kind can be defined by our developmental capacity for language, which I suggest is necessarily linked to the capacity for abstract thought. Thus, it is still reasonable to trace the origins of our natural kind to an original individual. In my view, Adam was the first anatomically modern human to have evolved this capacity for hierarchical and non-linear language that allowed him to construct an abstract internal map of the world. He was the first speaking primate, the first rational animal."
Part of the Re-Engaging Science in Seminaries Project, John Carroll University (semscience.net/)

[@johnpro2847]

The teaching brothers i was taught by at a catholic school never mentioned religion outside the RE class..i appreciated this separation of facts over religious opinion

[@Angel268201]

I have my degree in biological sciences with a concentration in marine science. I am also an RN with 20 years experience in neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, and psych. I have done field research and published in Marine Biology. In my opinion, Science is observation of what GOD created and learning how to use it to help humanity in an ethical and moral way (technology). This is my belief.

[@Big_Steve11]

I hope more priests follow in Fr. Nicanor's footsteps and go into the sciences. It's great to see holy men in these fields

[@Thestuffonmainstreet]

One of your very best interviews! Need more like this.

[@harryjames2299]

This is the best discussion. Like to hear more from Fr. Nic on evolution and theology.

[@NativeAsElizabethWarren]

I love this priest

[@lynnehenson6911]

He's so smart . Learning from him. 🙏❤

[@CrunchyCG]

Fr. Nicanor raised my hopes and then dashed them. Roundabout 39:55 to 41:23 into the video, in laying out the second scientific consensus, he says that it would require a minimum population of about 1,000 to 2,000 mating pairs in a small area to explain the genetic diversity we see in the human species today; that it never came down to a single couple. Yet at 1:02:16 he says that the language mutation (his marker for rational soul) occurred in a SINGLE individual (Adam) and we are ALL his progeny. So it is not clear how he is reconciling the scientific consensus of 1,000 mating pairs with a single mating pair consisting of Adam and his mate. Secondly, since he insists (however arbitrarily) that this Adam was the unique individual amongst all his peers in the matter of possessing the language mutation, he seems to imply that all his peers (his mate included) would not have been rational creatures. This would make Eve a non-rational creature and that would seriously conflict with the story of the Fall. In fact in the whole clip he never makes any mention of Eve until 1:02:16 where he suddenly mentions her without explaining her origins.

[@CrunchyCG]

Please read the time stamp on the last line above as 1:04:26

[@tobybedford4712]

It seems the only way for Adam to have a rational human as a mate would be to take a rib out of him in a deep sleep and create a female rational human as his mate. Remember, Adam couldn't find a suitable mate so God created one from him with the same human nature. Thus they could have rational progeny. From there 1000-2000 procreating rational human couples could provide the diversity he spoke about.

[@tobybedford4712]

Maybe the first woman could be called a "special creation".

[@_MysticKnight]

Genesis says that Eve was made from the rib of Adam. Who is to say that this is not literal - at least in terms of a special creation?

[@stephenmcguire7342]

Put more simply he's just another pantheist in Christian clothes pretending to believe in God like all religious racketeers.

[@johnpro2847]

I love how theology can be manipulated to fit new discoveries, like my daily astrology readings..amen

[@39knights]

Fr. Nicanor has scripted a great narrative to make Darwin christian again. I would like to find some talks where he addresses some of the sticking points from a creationist perspective. Like evolution supposes that a simpler life form by random mutation upgraded their DNA in terms of the complexity, number of genomes, and completely new abilities (ie. a net increase in information over time). However after decades of intense research; and scrutiny of dna collected from the last few thousand years all we see is random mutation destroying a 'perfect' or best dna over time to the present (ie. the data suppports a net decrease of information over time). So the ideal he expounds sounds great and appeals to our modern need to offset the atheistic science narrative; but the evidence seems to match the creationist understanding of the biblical narrative. Would like to see him address this and other issues along that line.

[@5tonyvvvv]

Brilliant guy he should debate Richard Dawkins!

[@leonardobarbieri1292]

Dawkins would run.

[@nanagaga2001]

Fascinating! I have always believed that God was involved in evolution but didn't have the biological key. This helps clear my thinking.

[@wrnidea]

what happens if you think bad thoughts? does god collaborate with me too since he is the primary cause?

[@CrunchyCG]

At 43:35 in his talk, Fr. Nicanor proposes that “monogenism (i.e. descent from a unique pair of individuals) is the best explanation that accounts for a common human nature…” In the next few paragraphs I shall propose a scenario that does away with the necessity of monogenism. For this we first need to ‘decouple’ Adam and Eve in our thinking. We are so used to mentioning Adam and Eve in the same breath that we forget that the doctrine of Original Sin is concerned only with Adam. Notice that Humani Generis para 37 (HG37) makes no mention of Eve, but descent from Adam is non-negotiable since that is the pillar on which the doctrine of Original Sin stands. Hence I would like to propose as under: a) Roughly 150,000 years ago, God engineered the language mutation for the first (and only) time, in those sex gametes that went on to form two specific individuals, viz Adam and Eve. The respective parents of Adam and Eve might have had other offspring but sans the language gene. Adam and Eve were the first humans ever to possess the language gene (Augustine and Aquinas’ marker for rationality). They would have belonged to the same tribe and so would have bumped into each other and recognised each other as 'special'. They accordingly would have separated themselves from the rest of the tribe (and taken up exclusive residence in, say, Eden). Their children would naturally possess the language gene. b) After the Fall and the ensuing banishment from Eden, and considering the rupture in their relationship, Adam and Eve would have found new mates from among their (non-lingual) tribesfolk and produced a large number of progeny. Adam in particular would have been more prolific than Eve since the male is fertile year round whereas a female is fertile only about once a month. Adam, we are told lived nine hundred thirty years (Gen 5:5). In such a long time span he possibly had a great number of mates and a humongous number of offspring from them (we can actually imagine females throwing themselves at him in order to get his superior genes for their offspring). The progeny of Adam and the progeny of Eve (from different mates) all received the language gene and in all probability would have formed a community, but when it came to taking mates, they would have done so from the surrounding non-lingual humans. This was to avoid close incest as they would have intuited that incest drastically decreases a tribe’s survival chances. This gives us (as the second scientific consensus requires), the sufficient number of initial mating pairs (between 1,000 and 2,000) as would justify the genetic diversity that we see in the human race today. c) HG37 requires that AFTER Adam (i.e. after Adam's lifetime) there should exist no individuals that do not take generation from him. This is possible if God engineered that all/any lineages that had never intermingled with Adam's lineage should die out. This automatically ensures that all surviving humans are lineally descended from Adam. It nowhere prescribes that Adam AND Eve be first parents of all. Adam has to compulsorily be our common male ancestor but Eve need not necessarily be our common female ancestor. e) In the light of the above, the quote from the International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, 2004, which was chaired by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (presently Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) and presented by Fr. Nicanor at 45:50 of his talk makes better sense: The “world’s best theologians” proposed that there is a “convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” In talking of a “population” (as distinguised from a couple) generating a common genetic lineage, they seem to have done away with a strict insistence on monogenism. My above theory succeeds in giving you a common male ancestor without employing monogenism. f) Finally, the Wikipedia page on the Y-chromosomal Adam estimates him to have existed between 160,000 and 300,000 years ago, compatible with the time of emergence and early dispersal of modern humans. This gives my theory the backing of extant genome mapping.

[@johnpro2847]

God & Jesus like playing sim-universe over many billions of years..they have to fill in their day with something useful to do ..this is my religious theorem..amen

[@aa2339]

'Human being' is also a progressive verb.

[@tessysingh1327]

So father you got to Adam and then you made a mental leap to Adam's progeny. But Adam can't produce progeny without Eve who must already have the same mutation for language that Adam has plus be female. So once again we need the God of the Gaps to reconcile evolution with Humanis generis. Also mutations by definition are not building of new code but a breakdown of existing code. My son has partial trisomy of the 2nd chromosome which is a genetic mutation and it has rendered him severely handicapped. The genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is cited in high school text books to explain a positive evolutionary adaptation to malaria endemic areas but sickle cell anemia is a disease and not an adaptation.

[@reyreyes6126]

God is not a Verb because He is "I am who Am" His essence (supposit) is His own esse (act of being). God is ipsum esse subsistens A being whose essence is His own existence.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

God was responsible for the origin of life, while evolution was responsible for the origin of the species.

[@johnpro2847]

Was Adam a Neanderthal, an homo erectus or an early homo sapien..was Adam a black fella or a white fella as depicted in most paintings over the centuries...amen

[@theblackkaiser5748]

god of the gaps

[@arnowisp6244]

Currently this Priest is also a Scientist who is helping developed a Yeast based Covid Vaccine that won't require Refrigeration for 3rd world countries like the Philippines.

[@johnpro2847]

the praying class should stay out of the lab..if not, do not mention their celestial viewpoints..amen

[@reggiestickleback7794]

Benedict, “one of the smartest popes in a thousand years” PFFFFFFAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OH NO AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@debswift4427]

Have you studied his writings? They are profound

[@salomevsn3724]

Are you kidding Reggie ?

[@Kirin2022]

@@salomevsn3724 Ignorant trolls like Reggie S. offer ridicule and scorn instead of reasoned arguments and meaningful evidence.