Ep. #104 – Science, Evolution, & Monogenesis w/ Dr. Kemp
Summary
Are science and religion at war? Have they been at war since Darwin developed his evolutionary theory? Can one still hold to an original couple (Adam and Eve) in light of recent genetic evidence? Dr. Kenneth Kemp joins us to tackle these questions and more.
Guest Bio
Dr. Kenneth Kemp earned his PhD in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in 1984. He taught philosophy for many decades and recently retired from teaching at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. He specializes in the relationship between science and religion. He has authored many articles including the influential 2011 publication Science, Theology, and Monogenesis in American Catholic Philosophical quarterly. Also, he’s the author of the forthcoming book The War that Never Was: Evolution & Christian Theology which we will be discussing in today’s podcast.
Show Outline
In the first part of the episode, we discuss Dr. Kemp’s new book The War that Never Was: Evolution & Christian Theology. He gives some of the key points and historical incidents under discussion. Also, he sums up his critique of the “warfare thesis” made popular by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.
In the second half of th episode, we discuss Dr. Kemp’s 2011 article Science, Theology, and Monogenesis. He explains his proposal and defends it against objections regarding “inappropriate bestiality” and “unfitting dualism.” Also, he comments on the proposals of Antoine Suarez who has written two articles on the Adam and Eve issue. Lastly, he provides some key points of his review of Dr. Swamidass’ book The Genealogical Adam and Eve.
Listeners of this episode would benefit from my discussion with Dr. Joshua Swamidass as well as the post-show notes available here.
Resources Mentioned
The War that Never Was: Evolution & Christian Theology by Dr. Kenneth Kemp (Amazon)
The War that Never Was: Evolution & Christian Theology by Dr. Kenneth Kemp (publisher’s website)
Science, Theology, and Monogenesis (2011 article) by Dr. Kenneth Kemp
God, Evolution, and the Body of Adam (2020 article) by Dr. Kenneth Kemp (Forthcoming in Scientia et Fides)
Can we give up the origin of humanity from a primal couple without giving up the teaching of original sin and atonement? (2015 article) by Antoine Suarez
“Transmission at generation”: Could original sin have happened at the time when Homo sapiens already had a large population size? (2016 article) by Antoine Suarez
The Genealogical Adam and Eve by Joshua Swamidass
Related Episodes
Ep. #79 – Thinking about Adam & Eve w/ Dr. Swamidass
Ep. #90 – Kingdom by Creation w/ Chris Plance
Ep. #31 – The Church Built Western Civ with Dr. Woods
I enjoyed this podcast and thought many good points were raised. It seems to me that the difficulty of the transmission of original sin without monogenisis is easily avoided if one takes the view of some of the Eastern Orthodox. They see original sin not as a positive thing that is passed on to offspring, but as a privation of sanctifying grace due to the fall. Our first parents could not pass to us what they lost due to their sin. And neither could any other homo sapiens that lacked both grace and a rational soul that may or may not have existed and interbred with Adam and Eve’s offspring. Hence we are all , save Mary, born lacking the grace we need, and therefore need regeneration in baptism. In the immaculate conception Mary is uniquely given that grace, aka saved from original sin. This thinking seems in line with St. Augustine and Aquinas thought on all evil being merely a lack of good, not a thing in itself.
However I still feel the new earth protestant will object because the effect of the fall on all creation is, inthis scenario, predating the fall. If God chose two out of the race of homo sapiens at some time in the distant past to breath a soul into, there had already been millions of years of not only death, but natural disasters, disease, and the other so called natural evils. Even if God had protected our first parents from all of this in a physical Eden somewhere on earth, those things still existed. And we can’t believe God created things this way in the beginning, since explicitly says everything He made was good. Of course God is not bound by time and new the fall would happen. Also I think I have heard some teach that Lucifer’s fall that happened in Eternity outside of time was responsible for these things. I think the theory I mentioned earlier may not be so far fetched in explaining some of these issues. After all time is just another dimension of our universe and Einstein’s theories predict many other dimensions that science has not been able to observe as if yet. Eden may have been an alternate reality in a plane of existence that we cannot know in the four dimensions we are limited to currently.
Thanks, Jim, for the comments! What you mention is the Eastern Orthodox view is also the Catholic view (i.e. original sin is a deprivation of grace). You also raise a good question of animal suffering which has been addressed on a couple of episodes:
– http://www.classicalTheism.com/Keltz
– http://www.classicaltheism.com/Steck
I’m continuing to think about your alternative dimension/universe view of Eden. I’m wondering if it’s compatible with Catholic teaching as the primary facie understanding of Genesis 3 is that the real events referred to were this-world earthly events (even if figurative language is used). I appreciate all of your engagement.
I am not versed in science or theology for that matter. I could be mischaracterizing the Catholic view on original sin, but I wouldn’t be the first Catholic to do that! It seems that there are some significant issues that make polygenism and an allegorical reading of the creation story as it relates to the fall. The first is that if we are deprived of sanctifying grace by virtue of Adam and Eve’s disobedience then those not directly in their lineage would suffer the consequences of someone not in their lineage. I have seen others say that Adam and Eve represent humankind as a whole but then all of our ancestors would have been like Adam and Eve. It doesn’t make much sense.
I have heard a similar idea which – forgive my lack of A-T knowledge- seems also quite problematic, but perhaps is more comforting than what Kemp describes. In this scenario Adam and Eve’s contemporaries are essentially rational but do not have an upward yearning for God or the same spiritual inclination (or, as I’ve heard it described, they don’t have eternal souls, but are bodily the same as humans). After the fall and the expulsion from the garden these humans would be those who Adam and Eve’s offspring mated with and there children would be infused with souls in the manner we are.
This is probably similar to Swamidass’s view. Not sure. I think the problem is we don’t like the idea of the first generation of humans mating with creatures who seem like wild animals. I get that, although that is more an objection to the grossness than a reason it couldn’t or is incompatible with Catholic teaching. On the other hand, what if Adam and Eve had withstood temptation? Would God have ensouled others from outside the garden for them to bring forth new life in the early paradise? It doesn’t seem to fit either way.
Who knows the answer. It seems as if evolution does create challenges for a crucial theological principle. Original sin can’t be jettisoned without serious implications for Christian theology. Maybe it’s above our heads. We can rationally come to understand God’s existence and witness His work in the world but perhaps we are missing a piece of both the scientific and theological components that more easily square original sin with what we know about human physical origins.
Thanks for the comment, Joseph. It’s unclear to me where you are coming from, but for what it’s worth I think Kemp’s work shows that science poses no problem for a real Adam and Eve.
After rereading what I write, I feel a bit like the quiz show host in Billy Madison. We’re all dumber now for what I have written!
In short, what I should have asked is whether Adam and Eve’s contemporaries could have been rational but lacking knowledge of God and a yearning for God. I have heard this idea posed by an evolution-inclined orthodox Jew. These people would be rational, but lack a knowledge or desire for God. I don’t think that works because it seems being rational is what leads a person to God. It sounds like Kemp’s proposal envisions significantly non-rational physical humans. Anyway, sorry for tge long comment.