Evolution, the Origin of Human Persons, and Original Sin: Physical Continuity with an Ontological Leap

In a 'Message … on Evolution' to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 Pope John Paul II speaks of both a physical continuity and an ontological discontinuity or leap regarding the origin of human persons.1 Alan Porter considers an ontological leap to be contrary to the 'gradualism' of evolution.2 In this paper we first present Pope John Paul II's views on evolution, the origin of human persons, and original sin more fully. Next we examine Porter's view more fully, as well as that of Denis Lamoureux who takes a gradualist approach to both human origins and human sin. We then summarize the proposals of Germain Grisez, Benedict Ashley and Earl Muller with regard to how an 'ontological leap' might be reconciled with evolution. They also consider how original sin might be reconciled with evolution. These various views and proposals, as well as a proposal that I put forward, are then assessed in terms of what seems to be most consistent with science, human experience, philosophy and Christian theology. Concerning human origins, it seems that a gradualism involving many steps pertaining to our biological and psychological dimensions could have taken place, along with an ontological leap pertaining to our moral and spiritual dimensions. In line with this we can also understand original sin. The church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn. 1:27–29) . … [M]an is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity . … It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body . … Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.3 The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. … "Although set by God in a state of rectitude, man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God and sought to attain his goal apart from him" (GS 13, 1). By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin." As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin. … "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, 'by propagation, not by imitation' and that it is … 'proper to each' " (Paul VI, CPG, n. 16). The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Rom 5:20).4 It is especially in regard to original sin in this second meaning that modern culture raises such strong reservations. It cannot admit the idea of a hereditary sin connected with the decision of a progenitor and not with that of the person concerned. It holds that such a view runs counter to the personalistic vision of man and to the demands which derive from the full respect for his subjectivity. However, the Church's teaching on original sin can be extremely valuable also for modern man who having rejected the data of faith in this matter, can no longer understand the mysterious and distressing aspects of evil which he daily experiences and he ends up by wavering between a hasty and unjustified optimism and a radical pessimism bereft of hope.5 Moreover, man, who was created for freedom, bears within himself the wound of original sin, which constantly draws him towards evil and puts him in need of redemption. Not only is this doctrine an integral part of Christian revelation; it also has great hermeneutical value insofar as it helps one to understand human reality. Man tends towards good, but he is also capable of evil.6 The premise that evolution was gradual but ensoulment was discontinuous predicates the irrational conclusion that for one generation the parents were animals without souls and their children humans, made in the image of God, and with souls. Biological gradualism is incompatible with a sudden ensoulment dichotomy both in the evolutionary history of humans and for a maturing foetus, human or animal. At some point … there must have existed a strange family. The parents are hominid "animals" without souls, incapable of the knowledge of good and evil and of the experience of God after death and thus devoid of any of the theological interpretations of "imago Dei". John and Jenny their children by contrast, have been ensouled by an arbitrary gift of God and possess all the physical, cognitive, behavioural and spiritual attributes of a human. This implies a speciation event involving one generation only which is an evolutionary, anthropological and spiritual absurdity . …7 the Image of God and human sinfulness were gradually and mysteriously manifested through many generations of evolving ancestors. The origin of spiritual characteristics that define and distinguish humanity is not marked by a single punctiliar event in history. Rather, these metaphysical realities arose slowly and in a way that cannot be fully comprehended. Their manifestation during human evolution is similar to that in embryological development. Consequently, there never was an Adam/s or Eve/s. [Concerning the] … question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church … 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.11 … [T]heology must assume that the spiritual capacity for free choice was given initially by a special divine intervention, which completed hominization, to a group of individuals small and cohesive enough to function socially as a single body. In this way, solidarity in sin by the whole of humankind was possible at the beginning. God may then have hominized additional groups which 'emerged into an already-given existential situation, and so shared prior to any personal act in the moral condition of humankind. In this sense, they shared "by propagation not by imitation" … even if not all humans were lineal descendants of a single couple . …' Therefore, 'there is no obstacle to thinking the original human community had a single leader whose action was decisive for its action as such.'13 Grisez's view would be an example of what Lamoureux calls punctiliar polygenism. [E]volutionary theory as a purely physical theory … is necessarily incomplete. In order to complete it as a theory which is … fully consistent with the principle of causality, it is necessary to refer to some superphysical creativity … [which is required] to explain the origin of human intelligence (or, better say, intelligent human beings), because … intelligent, creative thinking cannot be reduced totally to a function of the brain. Consequently, the evolutionary origin of human beings, while it must have been entirely consistent with the natural processes of biological evolution, also was a unique, creative event . … [Another possibility is that] … the origin of that final genetic trait responsible to produce a human brain capable of functioning at the human level depended on the mutation of one dominant gene that occurred in the germ-cells of a primate ancestor, which was not itself human but which then bred with another primate of its own kind to produce a male and female child who were genotypically the first human beings having fully human brains, and who by interbreeding became the ancestors of the entire human race. Either this or the former explanation is consistent with the interpretation of Genesis which is not concerned with the exact way in which the human species came into existence and began as a single interbreeding and intercommunicating species to have a history determined by a primordial act of human choice [i.e., original sin].14 [T]here is a single human race . … [T]he sin that disrupted human solidarity must have truly been sin. This in itself requires a spiritual dimension of human reality that simply transcends all other forms of life: monkeys … do not sin. … Furthermore, disrupted spiritual solidarity … and the universality of that condition require a disruption "in the beginning" – that is (as the Council of TRENT insisted), transmitted by propagation rather than merely by imitation . … But sin is a moral action, and this requires moral individuals.16 Christians have tended to prefer monogenetic evolutionary accounts. In point of fact, all that is strictly required by Christian faith is the universal solidarity in sin that is traced back "to the beginning". … There has been an implicit tendency to identify the human race (which is to say, rationally ensouled simians) with for many Christians to to that with a single There is no necessary theological to do ensoulment could have taken place prior to the of the final physical of the human or even after this had been would in interbreeding with the present solidarity of the human race had been In any event, the of the these of with any In the of evolution, it seems to that not only the of moral and spiritual life would have an ontological The first of psychological would also have a kind of or or an ontological animals the of psychological life seems to from who only experience a experiences such as how one experiences the or to more animals such as and who seem to experience many or a whole of psychological The and of that an individual experiences seems to be very to the of and present functioning of its as well as the of its body its and it seems that first to experience during As the individual into its or brain it to experience more and more it experiences to certain of its for to a or an to a for its in the individual will no longer be able to experience certain that it if the individual has a brain that it it then no longer experiences any the brain enough to it to do psychological experiences seem to be to the kind of brain and body an the psychological dimension of reality may have first with a genetic mutation capable of that kind of brain in a single that mutation was this capacity would then also be present in that genetic over time could have more and more brains, and capable of more and more psychological As as we we are the only living species on earth that has not only biological and psychological but also moral and spiritual dimensions. we can a kind of freedom that makes us responsible for our and and we can have a personal involving knowledge and with God, who is and who transcends the physical Pope Benedict of us human beings, created in the image of God, as free with souls and of we are persons, of us is only able to our moral and spiritual in this life we have that us to be the human child and all the human nature, with moral and spiritual at we can not these a certain of brain and psychological development. Nor can we if we have a brain that us the if the brain enough to and a certain level of psychological the person may be able to his or moral and spiritual the present to moral and spiritual in this seems to be to a certain level of present brain and psychological no or has been in the human As a I with and teaching that the human is a of a physical body and spiritual I have this view in another on philosophical and theological I will not all of I with Pope John Paul Grisez, Ashley and Muller that our moral and spiritual our capacity of or would have an ontological leap during evolution, which God a spiritual soul for human person. even a human is a living human an of the human species with a human nature, it seems that the most time that God created spiritual soul was body began to at and might the first human persons, with spiritual souls, have in the of proposals have some proposals, and the other views in this are assessed in the it seems that the of the first human person or during evolution may not have required a specific genetic the as an Christ was fully with a human body and he was also fully divine according to Christian faith and With in human history there within life in this a dimension or reality. This the of the or the second person of the who was fully with his human nature, body and the began with human that his human body began to this would not have biological but a by God, his was a and the the full of the divine and it required that there were in existence human beings with a true human It does not that the required any specific genetic Rather, it occurred at the time in human history by intelligence and which is greater than it seems that the moral and spiritual dimensions of human require brain and psychological to be in this God would have these were present in a hominid at in many individuals during part of their to the first human person or This may not have any specific genetic but God it at the most time according to It seems that the of the first human person would have as most with God their spiritual at their conception or that their body began to as was to faith original sin having one human and transmitted by human generation, it seems that there are possible one person who or two or more persons, the possibility of a who The one or more and their children the and so could then have with other of their biological These other of their species would have been very similar to them and The of the moral and spiritual would have the psychological experiences of the individuals who It would also have to certain in the This would have all of the human species were and by original sin, as is the original sin the first human person or would have been in the state of grace or with who in his body and was free from sin, beginning with his human who never committed sin, the first human person or did against God or sin original having who would not have been without sin, and their and so to us more than one human person was in the state of grace sin, it is that one of these and the other did which could have to some of the human race by original sin, and not It thus seems that most there was only one human person who or only a couple who the were the both human would have been in this original sin, with its for this is possible from a metaphysical and theological for it is also possible that there was only one human person the first human sin. God, who is free and could have initially created either a human soul for one human or he could have initially created souls for more than one human he or or they and had In either this proposal seems to be in line with the of original sin which is to all human 'by propagation, not by imitation' II By our personal we have all with this original sin. the of one to this was the of who was without sin, and never by a special or grace of God, to as the of our It seems that such a as in this is in line with the of doctrine on original sin, as well as what Pope John Paul II about both physical continuity and an ontological the origin of human occurred along these this would have a kind of from a within a from a biological this proposal is also in line with human evolution. In this I first a points Grisez, Muller and I then to Porter and conclusion that Pope John Paul II's views are in line with a of the and a metaphysical and theological of human Grisez's views are that free choice and the spiritual reality of either are present or However, his proposal that God hominized a whole group of humans all at and more groups all at after sin, would human ensoulment place at various of human from the to This proposal does not with the view that the most time God the spiritual both and was the body of the individual began to that at or a in the of an place the body to makes sense, the human person is a of physical body and spiritual In contrast, the proposal of is for all the individuals who would have been ensouled some time after their began to In the spirit of the [which are given in his that it is possible to a in with a by the of various … how a single mutation could have a sudden and during evolution on the of and us some into how it could have occurred at the genetic and In any two both a single which was the such mutation that one or two human capable of a fully human brain. This one or two from the would have been or to a spiritual soul or souls created by proposal is not it seems that a of his proposal is his an a spiritual soul so with his or genetic a single mutation could have to the first human then a mutation after this event, in a human that the capacity to such a human to human would not have received a spiritual soul from God, and would not be a This would be from the of and which are not the of human and are not human beings. a of proposal is that it would the view that all human beings are in dignity and human of the of their and This could be used to rather than in the image of the one God and with souls, all men have the nature and the by the of all are called to in the divine all therefore an … in personal … must be and as incompatible with and who is also a to teaching on the origin of human and original sin with biological evolution. view seems to be to both the proposals of and and these have been the are to to the by ensoulment could have taken place prior to the of the final physical of the human or even after this had been would in interbreeding with the present solidarity of the human race had been to evolutionary humans similar to us in between they began to and the of the their was from forms of modern humans and of about of the of of it is that as modern humans the they with these of the became Concerning this in of the of the that from and other humans may to for example in how the but most of these are to have no The human of modern humans, must have been to this it seems that ensoulment most occurred in modern humans some of them and with and In this way all humans or not they any from and the human nature with souls – having moral and spiritual – and are by original sin. The other proposal by in this paper is to the proposal by but does not the of the first human spiritual which in the first human to a specific genetic This the which from that certain could this and result in one or more of our species not having received a spiritual this were the they would not be in dignity with the of second proposal as we in this would also initially have of a biological and this is not required by the proposal in this It seems that one which some may against proposal is that if God began human spiritual souls in one or more individuals at a certain point in time, without a genetic that this may seem arbitrary on to this is that this is not any more arbitrary than the of Christ beginning at a certain point in time by As in there is no to that the was with a specific genetic mutation As we in Porter that biological gradualism is incompatible with a sudden ensoulment because in his view this would have irrational conclusion that for one generation the parents were animals without souls and their children humans, made in the image of God, and with This view that humans have souls and animals do but it does not the view of or that animals have souls, souls, humans have or spiritual souls, a kind of souls humans not only to the biological and psychological but also moral and spiritual to his of a sudden ensoulment dichotomy during evolution, Porter speaks of a strange the parents were of any of the theological interpretations of "imago children by … possess all the physical, cognitive, behavioural and spiritual attributes of a human. This implies a speciation event involving one generation only which is an evolutionary, anthropological and spiritual absurdity . As we have also the proposals of Pope John Paul Grisez, and the of this while biological gradualism in evolution, also an ontological leap regarding the of the spiritual of these proposals, second involves a species from a biological the first human child with a spiritual soul would have had a moral and spiritual and his or parents would in the of the proposal put in this they would have been very similar and proposals, the more fully human brain to a spiritual soul may have also some psychological but the child would have up in the culture of its we humans in that we have and psychological it may not have strange at all at the time, if the first human child had some as to other of his or As an we can consider how many great with their who some similar psychological to The first fully human child would have been more similar to his or than a and a This that an 'ontological leap' may not have been as strange as Porter the parents and child this could have as they to other better over the as the child of human origins is very in and various points of view and I with him that the origin of human beings in the image of God would have a which we cannot fully does not that we cannot understand or any that to the reality of the nature of the human as a of a physical body and a spiritual and sin, original sin. I the view that an ontological leap occurred during evolution (cf. Grisez, the proposal put in this and John Paul is required by a metaphysical of the human spiritual intelligence and The view that there was such an ontological leap is not necessarily to a and Rather, we can with human experience It is not possible to explain the moral and spiritual dimensions of human without that we have spiritual souls, which according to Christian are and other this is in line with a interpretation of those pertaining to an state of the person in some between death and nature, as we experience is not only one of us also has – to love God, and It is not possible to explain all of human evil only by biological and psychological and the we ourselves actually As Pope John Paul II II the doctrine of original sin is not only an integral part of Christian revelation; it also great hermeneutical value insofar as it helps one to understand human there was an ontological leap, with the first human person having received a spiritual soul created directly by God at conception (as to that his or body began to as is then, that first person would have enough to be able to his or moral and spiritual he or would have been capable of and against Therefore, sin in the human race would not have been but rather with a moral action, a sin, committed by an individual human person. if there was more than one person the first sin, no one of them would have the other in time, even if only Concerning both Pope John Paul II and Muller II and some very good points to original sin. These need not be In proposal I have also to to this In terms of of Genesis are not forms of modern or fully of the nature of these Pope John Paul II in his of the certain which they who we are in relationship to God and I with as well as Lamoureux himself that is part of and of God to an that was by In the of the it seems that Pope John Paul II's view regarding evolution involving both a physical continuity and an ontological leap is the of teaching on original sin is in line with good Christian and human experience and nature It can also be with evolution and human origins There is a of as he we have and are about evolution and human origins, from the of the natural can be as to the of Christian and a theology. In this paper we have a number of views with regard to evolution, the origin of human persons, and original sin. Porter and Lamoureux take a gradualist approach to both biological evolution and the origin of human Lamoureux also takes a gradualist approach to original sin. Pope John Paul Grisez, and the of this all a gradualist approach to biological evolution. of us that human nature not only a physical but also a spiritual which can only be by a by God in the of human person. a spiritual soul is to explain our moral and spiritual These the biological and psychological of animals and human a human soul for the first human person or would have an 'ontological to the of Pope John Paul an ontological leap can also us to understand original sin Grisez, and I have a proposals with regard to how an ontological leap may have occurred during the of biological evolution. This paper has not all views and proposals with regard to evolution, the origin of human persons, and original sin. proposal as well as of the views and proposals in this paper while to a to the of some very is not as a

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.