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

Abstract

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 Homo sapiens and, accordingly, for many Christians to want to argue that Homo sapiens originated with a single couple. There is no necessary theological reason to do this. Rational ensoulment could have taken place prior to the achievement of the final physical form of the human race, or even after this had been achieved. Ensoulment would not, in principle, preclude ongoing interbreeding with non-“human” animal relatives until the present material solidarity of the human race had been achieved. In any event, the sketchiness of the material evidence precludes answering these sorts of questions with any precision.17 In the long process of evolution, it seems to me that not only the emergence of moral and spiritual life would have involved an ontological leap. The first emergence of psychological life, including consciousness, would also have involved a new kind of existence, or being, or an ontological leap.18 Among animals the degree of psychological life seems to vary significantly from simpler animals, who perhaps only experience a few qualia (subjective experiences such as how one experiences the color red or pain19), to more complex animals such as dolphins, elephants, dogs and primates, who seem to experience many qualia or a whole range of psychological experiences. The amount and kinds of qualia that an individual animal experiences seems to be very much correlated to the kind, stage of development and present functioning abilities of its brain, as well as the rest of its body including its nervous system and sense organs. For example, it seems that complex mammals, including ourselves, first begin to experience qualia sometime during fetal development.20 As the individual develops into adulthood, its (his or her) developing brain allows it to experience more and more qualia. If, however, it experiences damage to certain parts of its brain, for example, due to a stroke, or an injury to a sense organ, for example, its eyes resulting in blindness, the individual will no longer be able to experience certain qualia that it once did. Or, if the individual has a brain injury that renders it completely unconscious, it then no longer experiences any qualia, unless the brain heals enough to enable it to do so.21 Since psychological experiences seem to be closely correlated to the kind of brain and body an animal has, the psychological dimension of reality may have first emerged with a genetic mutation capable of producing that kind of brain in a single individual. If that mutation was dominant, this capacity would then also be present in that individual's offspring. Further genetic mutations over time could have produced more and more complex brains, and corresponding bodily organs, capable of more and more complex psychological experiences. As far as we know, we are the only currently living animal species on earth that has not only biological and psychological dimensions, but also moral and spiritual dimensions. That is, we can exercise a kind of freedom that makes us personally responsible for our freely chosen actions and omissions,22 and we can have a personal relationship, involving knowledge and love, with God, who is Spirit (see Jn 4:24) and who transcends the physical universe. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of us human beings, created in the image of God, as being free transcendent subjects with intellective souls and capax Dei (capable of God).23 Because we are embodied persons, each of us is only able to exercise our moral and spiritual capacities in this life when we have brains that enable us to be conscious. Although the human zygote, embryo, fetus, child and adult all share the same human nature, with moral and spiritual capacities being at least latent, we can not consciously exercise these capacities before a certain stage of brain and psychological development. Nor can we exercise these, if we have a brain injury that renders us comatose. Regarding the latter, if the brain heals enough to again enable consciousness and a certain level of psychological experiences, the person may again be able to exercise consciously his or her moral and spiritual capacities.24 Although the present ability to exercise moral and spiritual capacities, consciously in this life, seems to be related to a certain minimum level of present brain and psychological capacities, no ‘moral’ or ‘God’ spot per se has been found in the human brain.25 As a Catholic theologian, I agree with Thomas Aquinas and Catholic teaching that the human being is a composite of a physical body and spiritual soul. Since I have defended this view in another paper, ‘The Human Soul,’ on biblical, experiential, philosophical and theological grounds, I will not repeat all of my reasons here.26 Basically, I agree with Pope John Paul II, Grisez, Ashley and Muller that our moral and spiritual capacities (these include our capacity of reason or intellect27) would have involved an ontological leap during evolution, which involved God creating a spiritual soul for each new human person. Since even a normal human zygote already is a living human being, an organism of the human species with a human nature, it seems that the most likely time that God created one's spiritual soul was when one's body began to exist at fertilization.28 How and when might the first human persons, with spiritual souls, have emerged in the process of evolution? While Ashley's proposals have some merit (his proposals, and the other views treated in this paper, are assessed in the next section), it seems that the emergence of the first human person or persons during evolution may not have required a specific genetic mutation. Consider the Incarnation as an analogy. Although Jesus Christ was fully human, with a human body and soul, he was also fully divine according to traditional Christian faith and Catholic teaching. With Jesus in human history there emerged within life in this world a new dimension or reality. This involved the union of the Word or Son, the second person of the Trinity, who was fully divine, with his human nature, body and soul. Although the Incarnation presumably began with Jesus’ human conception, that is, when his human body began to exist, this would not have involved biological fertilization but a miraculous intervention by God, since his mother Mary was a virgin (see Mt 1:18–25 and Lk 1:26–38). Because the Incarnation involved the full union of the divine and human, it required that there already were in existence human beings with a true human nature. It does not seem, however, that the Incarnation required any new specific genetic mutation. Rather, it occurred at the appropriate time in human history deemed best by God's infinite intelligence and wisdom, which is much greater than ours. Analogously, it seems that since the moral and spiritual dimensions of human persons require sufficient brain and psychological capacities to be consciously exercised in this world, God would have waited until these were present in a hominid population, at least in many individuals during part of their lives, to create the first human person or persons.29 This may not have involved any new specific genetic mutation, but God making it happen at the most suitable time according to His wisdom. It seems logical that the creation of the first human person (or persons) would have occurred, as most likely happens today, with God creating their spiritual soul(s) at their conception or fertilization, that is, when their body began to exist, as was concluded above. Related to Catholic faith concerning original sin having one human source, and transmitted by human generation, it seems that there are several possible variations including just one person who originally sinned, or two or more persons, including the possibility of a man-woman couple, who originally sinned. The one or more persons and their children (or the couple's children), and so forth, could then have interbred with other members of their biological species. These other members of their species would have been very similar to them biologically, psychologically, and culturally. The addition of the moral and spiritual dimensions, however, would have affected the psychological experiences of the individuals who possessed these. It would also have led to certain cultural changes in the population. This would have continued until all members of the human species were persons and affected by original sin, as is the case today. Before original sin the first human person or persons would have been conceived in the state of grace or friendship with God. Compare Jesus, who in his humanity, body and soul, was free from sin, beginning with his human conception. Unlike Jesus, who never committed sin, the first human person or persons did rebel against God or sin (i.e., original sin) before having children, who would not have been conceived without sin, and likewise their children, and so forth, down to us today. If more than one human person was conceived in the state of grace before sin, it is conceivable that one of these persons sinned and the other did not, which could have led to some of the human race being affected by original sin, and others not affected. It thus seems that most likely there was only one initial human person who sinned, or perhaps only a man-woman couple who sinned together. If the latter were the case, both human sexes would have been involved in this original sin, with its devastating consequences for humanity. While this is possible from a metaphysical and theological perspective (not for biblical concordist reasons), it is also possible that there was only one human person before the first human sin. God, who is completely free and sovereign, could have initially created either a human soul for one human person, or he could have initially created souls for more than one human person, before he or she or they sinned and had children. In either case, this proposal seems to be in line with the official Catholic understanding of original sin which is communicated to all human persons ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ (see Section II above). By our personal sins we have all colluded with this original sin. From the perspective of Catholic faith, one exception to this was the mother of Jesus, Mary, who was immaculately conceived without sin, and never personally sinned, by a special privilege or grace of God, related to her role as the mother of our Savior. It seems that such a possibility, as presented in this proposal, is in line with the essentials of Catholic doctrine on original sin, as well as what Pope John Paul II says about both physical continuity and an ontological leap. If the origin of human persons occurred along these lines, this would have involved a kind of ‘monogenism’ from a metaphysical/theological perspective, within a ‘gradual polygenism’ from a biological perspective. Thus, this proposal is also in line with current mainline science concerning human evolution. In this section, I first make a few points concerning Grisez, Ashley, Muller and my proposals. I then respond to Porter and Lamoureux's views, before offering my conclusion that Pope John Paul II's views are in line with a unity of truth, the best scientific data, and a correct metaphysical and theological understanding of human nature. Grisez's views are correct that free choice and the spiritual reality of persons either are present or not. However, his proposal that God hominized a whole group of humans all at once, and perhaps more groups all at once after sin, would involve human ensoulment taking place at various stages of human development, presumably from the prenatal stage to old age. This proposal does not fit with the view that the most likely time God creates the spiritual soul, both today and originally, was when the body of the individual began to exist, that is, at fertilization or a little later in the case of an identical twin. Ensoulment taking place when the individual's body begins to exist makes sense, since the human person is a profound unity of physical body and spiritual soul. In contrast, the proposal of Grisez is dualistic for all the individuals who would have been ensouled some time after their bodies began to exist. In the spirit of Evo-Devo reasoning, the above examples [which are given earlier in his article] show that it is possible to experimentally duplicate a cortical area in embryos with a proper topographical representation by changing the expression of various morphoregulatory factors. … [T]hese studies illustrate how a single mutation could have a sudden and profound effect during evolution on the pattern of cortical parcellation and gives us some insights into how it could have occurred at the genetic and cellular level.30 In any case, Ashley's two scenarios both involve a single mutation, which was the last such mutation that produced one or two human embryos capable of producing a fully human brain. This one or two embryos, from the beginning, would have been suitable or proportionate to receive a spiritual soul or souls created by God. While Ashley's proposal is not dualistic, it seems that a weakness of his proposal is his linking an individual's receiving a spiritual soul so closely with his or her genetic state. If a single mutation could have led to the first human person, then logically a deleterious mutation after this event, resulting in a human zygote that lacked the capacity to develop such a ‘fully human brain,’ to exercise human intelligence, would not have received a spiritual soul from God, and would not be a person.33 This would be different from the case of teratomas and hydatidiform moles, which are not the products of normal human fertilization and are not human beings. Thus, a significant weakness of Ashley's proposal is that it would undermine the important view that all human beings today are equal in dignity and basic human rights, regardless of the capacities of their brains and intellectual abilities. This could be used to support rather than overcome unfair discrimination. Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity. … [Every form of] discrimination in fundamental personal rights … must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.35 Like Grisez and Ashley, Muller, who is also a Catholic, attempts to harmonize Catholic teaching on the origin of human persons and original sin with biological evolution. Since Muller's view seems to be open to both the proposals of Grisez and Ashley, and these have already been critiqued, the comments here are limited to responding to the following by Muller: ‘Rational ensoulment could have taken place prior to the achievement of the final physical form of the human race, or even after this had been achieved. Ensoulment would not, in principle, preclude ongoing interbreeding with non-“human” animal relatives until the present material solidarity of the human race had been achieved.’36 According to evolutionary geneticist Svante Pääbo, humans anatomically similar to us appeared in Africa between 200–100 thousand years ago. When they began to spread across Eurasia and the rest of the world, shortly before 50,000 years ago, their behaviour was radically different from earlier forms of humans. Since non-African modern humans carry 1–4 percent Neanderthal DNA, and people of Melanesia carry about 5 percent of the DNA of Denisovans (relatives of Neanderthals), it is assumed that as modern humans spread throughout the world they interbred with these close relative sub-species of ours before the latter became extinct. Concerning this Pääbo says in part: ‘Some of the pieces of the genome that come from Neandertals and other archaic humans may contribute to physiological differences among people today, for example in how the immune system functions …, but most of these variants are likely to have no functional consequences whatsoever.’37 The specifically human traits of modern humans, therefore, must have been dominant. Related to this it seems that rational ensoulment most likely occurred in modern humans before some of them left Africa and interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. In this way all humans today, whether or not they share any DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans, share the same human nature with rational souls – having moral and spiritual capacities – and are similarly affected by original sin. The other proposal presented by me in this paper is close to the proposal by Ashley, but does not tie the creation of the first human spiritual soul, which resulted in the first embodied human person, to a specific genetic mutation. This avoids the weakness, which logically follows from Ashley's view, that certain deleterious mutations could reverse this process and result in one or more members of our species not having received a spiritual soul. If this were the case, they would not be persons equal in dignity with the rest of us. Ashley's second proposal as we reviewed earlier in this section would also initially have involved incest of a biological brother and sister. Again this is not required by the alternate proposal presented in this article. It seems that one criticism which some may raise against my proposal is that if God began creating human spiritual souls in one or more individuals at a certain point in time, without a related genetic mutation, that this may seem arbitrary on God's part. My response to this is that this is not any more arbitrary than the Incarnation of Jesus Christ beginning at a certain point in time deemed best by God's infinite wisdom. As explained above in Section VIII, there is no reason to think that the Incarnation was associated with a specific genetic mutation either. As we considered in Section III above, Porter concludes that biological gradualism is incompatible with a sudden ensoulment dichotomy, because in his view this would have involved ‘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.’ This reflects René Descartes view that humans have souls and animals do not, but it does not reflect the view of Aristotle or Aquinas that animals have souls, animal souls, whereas humans have rational or spiritual souls, a different kind of soul.38 Spiritual souls enable humans not only to exercise animal capacities (consider the biological and psychological dimensions), but also moral and spiritual capacities. Related to his criticism of a sudden ensoulment dichotomy during evolution, Porter speaks of a strange family where the parents were ‘devoid of any of the theological interpretations of “imago Dei,” ’ whereas ‘their children by contrast … 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 . …’39 As we have also considered above, the proposals of Pope John Paul II, Grisez, Ashley, Muller, and the author of this article, while accepting biological gradualism in evolution, also affirm an ontological leap regarding the creation of the spiritual soul. None of these proposals, except Ashley's second proposal, involves a new species from a biological perspective. While the first human child (or children) with a spiritual soul would have indeed had a moral and spiritual dimension, and his or her (or their) parents would not, in the case of the alternate proposal put forward in this article, they would have been very similar biologically, psychologically and culturally. Regarding Ashley's proposals, the more fully human brain suited to a spiritual soul may indeed have also enabled some significant psychological differences including cognitive abilities, but the child would have grown up in the culture of its community. Since we humans today in general readily accept that we have significant cognitive and psychological differences, it may not have seemed strange at all at the time, if the first human child had some superior traits as compared to other members of his or her community. As an analogy, we can consider how many dog owners feel great affinity with their pet dogs, who share some similar psychological traits to humans. The first fully human child (or children) would have been much more similar psychologically to his or her (or their) parents, than a dog owner and a dog. This analogy shows that an ‘ontological leap’ may not have been as strange as Porter suggests. For the parents and child this could have seemed quite normal, as they got to know each other better over the years, as the child matured.40 Lamoureux's treatment of human origins is very helpful in explaining and distinguishing various points of view and categories. I agree with him that the origin of human beings in the image of God would indeed have involved a mystery, which we cannot fully comprehend. This, however, does not mean that we cannot understand or articulate any truths that correspond to the reality of the nature of the human person, as a profound unity of a physical body and a spiritual soul, and sin, including original sin. I think the view that an ontological leap occurred during evolution (cf. Grisez, Ashley, Muller, the proposal put forward in this paper, and John Paul II) is required by a proper metaphysical understanding of the human spiritual soul, intelligence and freedom. The view that there was such an ontological leap is not necessarily linked to a mistaken scientific and historical concordism. Rather, we can begin with human experience today. It is not possible to explain adequately the moral and spiritual dimensions of human persons without positing that we have spiritual souls, which according to Christian tradition are immaterial and immortal. Among other things, this is in line with a proper interpretation of biblical data, including those pertaining to an intermediate state of the person in some real sense between bodily death and resurrection.41 Human nature, as we experience it, is not only good. Every one of us also has disordered inclinations toward sinning – failing to love God, oneself and others properly. It is not possible to explain all of human evil only by biological and psychological factors, and the sins we ourselves actually commit. As Pope John Paul II correctly observed (see Section II above), the doctrine of original sin is not only an integral part of Christian revelation; it also ‘has great hermeneutical value insofar as it helps one to understand human reality.’ If there was an ontological leap, with the first human person (or persons) having received a spiritual soul created directly by God at conception (as continues to happen today), that is, when his or her body began to exist, as is argued above, then, once that first person would have developed enough to be able to exercise his or her moral and spiritual capacities, he or she would have been capable of sinning and rebelling against God. Therefore, sin in the human race would not have been introduced gradually, but rather with a real moral action, a real sin, committed by an actual individual human person. (Even if there was more than one person before the first sin, no doubt one of them would have sinned before the other in time, even if only briefly.) Concerning this, both Pope John Paul II and Muller (see Sections II and VII above) make some very good points related to original sin. These need not be repeated here. In my proposal (see Section VIII above), I have also attempted to contribute to this discussion. In terms of literary form, Chapters 1–3 of Genesis are certainly not forms of modern scientific or historical writing. While fully aware of the ‘archaic’ nature of these texts, Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body,42 nevertheless, wonderfully unpacks certain ‘perennial truths’ which they contain, concerning who we are in relationship to God and each other. I agree with this, as well as Lamoureux himself explaining that ‘Gen 1–11’ is part of ‘the inerrant and infallible Word of God accommodated to an incidental historiography that was conceived by ancient humans.’43 In the light of the above, it seems that Pope John Paul II's view regarding evolution involving both a physical continuity and an ontological leap is reasonable. His defending the essentials of Catholic teaching on original sin is in line with good biblical scholarship, sound Christian theology, and human experience and nature correctly understood. It can also be harmonized with evolution and human origins properly understood. There indeed is a unity of truth, as he affirms. What we have learned and are still learning about evolution and human origins, from the perspective of the natural sciences, can be seen as complementary to the solid conclusions of philosophy, including metaphysics, Christian faith, and a balanced theology. In this paper we have considered a number of significant 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 persons. Lamoureux also takes a gradualist approach to original sin. Pope John Paul II, Grisez, Ashley, Muller, and the author of this article, all accept a gradualist approach to biological evolution. All of us agree that human nature includes not only a physical body, but also a spiritual soul, which can only be explained by a direct creation by God in the case of every human person. Such a spiritual soul is needed to explain our moral and spiritual capacities. These transcend the biological and psychological capacities of non-human animals and human persons. God's creating a human soul for the first human person or persons would have involved an ‘ontological leap,’ to use the language of Pope John Paul II. Such an ontological leap can also help us to understand original sin better. Grisez, Ashley, Muller, and I have presented a few proposals with regard to how an ontological leap may have occurred during the process of biological evolution. This paper has certainly not reviewed all relevant views and proposals with regard to evolution, the origin of human persons, and original sin. My proposal (Section VIII), as well as my assessment of the views and proposals presented in this paper (Section IX), while intending to make a contribution to the discussion of some very difficult questions, is certainly not meant as a ‘last word.’