A little confused about evolution, Adam/Eve, and the RCC

[grannymh]

I read the link looking for missing information about the evolution theory. That is what investigative journalists do. Apparently, we modern Catholics no longer consider an interesting evolution point mentioned in Humani Generis because that encyclical refers to the 1940’s.

Apparently, some, not all, “Catholics” have not taken the time to explore the depth of the evolution theory – that hidden place which intersects with Catholicism.

 

[edwest2]

Humani Generis was published in 1950. I don’t know of any “hidden place” after years of people here kindly taking the time to explain evolutionary theory in detail to me.

Best,
Ed

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I read the link looking for missing information about the evolution theory. That is what investigative journalists do. Apparently, we modern Catholics no longer consider an interesting evolution point mentioned in Humani Generis because that encyclical refers to the 1940’s.

Apparently, some, not all, “Catholics” have not taken the time to explore the depth of the evolution theory – that hidden place which intersects with Catholicism.

Why not be explicit about what you imply?
What “missing information?”
What “hidden place which intersects with Catholicism”?

 

[grannymh]

Humani Generis was published in 1950. I don’t know of any “hidden place” after years of people here kindly taking the time to explain evolutionary theory in detail to me.

Best,
Ed

Regarding this observation.

"Apparently, some, not all, “Catholics” have not taken the time to explore the depth of the evolution theory – that hidden place which intersects with Catholicism. "

When one actually explores the depth of the evolution theory, one can find the principle that a new species evolves as a large population from a previous large population. When I last checked Catholicism, it still maintained that Adam and Eve, not a large population, founded the new species humankind. The large indiscriminate random breeding populations are hidden by omitting a reference.

Perhaps it is now important to explain Humani Generis.

 

[grannymh]

Why not be explicit about what you imply?

 

[Wesrock]

When one actually explores the depth of the evolution theory, one can find the principle that a new species evolves as a large population from a previous large population.

This is no secret, hidden, or deep thing.

When I last checked Catholicism, it still maintained that Adam and Eve, not a large population, founded the new species humankind. The large indiscriminate random breeding populations are hidden by omitting a reference.

Which brings us to the distinction made by Kenneth Kemp in Science, Theology, and Monogenesis.

Perhaps there are questions that can be raised about the distinction he raises, but I feel like we keep circling back the discussion to some “hidden knowledge” of the theory about human evolution and how this seemingly contradicts HG, distinctions previously brought into the discussion be darned and brushed aside without comment.

 

[Brassring]

If you look in Genesis, you see that God created the Earth and humans in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve. The Bible never even implies that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. These are two separate and distinct events, and we don’t know how much time elapsed between them. It could have been years, centuries, or eons. We know there had to be other people on Earth, unless the sons of Adam committed incest. Even if you ascribe to the possibility that Adam’s sons married their sisters, that still doesn’t account for Cain, who was driven out. Cain was married and had descendants.

We also know that evolution occurs. We can observe it not just in fossils, but over time in living beings. Almost all of the canine breeds that currently exist occurred because of human induced selective breeding. Same with livestock. Human beings are taller and heavier now than we were 300 years ago. Imagine the changes over tens of millennia.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation. These two things are NOT in conflict. Young earth creationism is the acme of stupidity, and the “primordial ooze” theory of the origin of species is also bunk. But, evolution over time, and creation by God, are true.

 

[grannymh]

If you look in Genesis, you see that God created the Earth and humans in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve. The Bible never even implies that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. These are two separate and distinct events, and we don’t know how much time elapsed between them. It could have been years, centuries, or eons. We know there had to be other people on Earth, unless the sons of Adam committed incest. Even if you ascribe to the possibility that Adam’s sons married their sisters, that still doesn’t account for Cain, who was driven out. Cain was married and had descendants.

We also know that evolution occurs. We can observe it not just in fossils, but over time in living beings. Almost all of the canine breeds that currently exist occurred because of human induced selective breeding. Same with livestock. Human beings are taller and heavier now than we were 300 years ago. Imagine the changes over tens of millennia.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation. These two things are NOT in conflict. Young earth creationism is the acme of stupidity, and the “primordial ooze” theory of the origin of species is also bunk. But, evolution over time, and creation by God, are true.

Genesis 2: 18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

 

[Brassring]

Genesis 2: 18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

Yes, and then God made Eve. That quote does not refute anything I said.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, and then God made Eve. That quote does not refute anything I said.

I did not think I was refuting. I was simply offering additional information.

My apology for my mistake. I really do need a break from CAF.

 

[grannymh]

And I suppose what is at issue in Catholic discussion of the dogma is whether a distinction, such as what Kemp proposes, between a “theological human” and a physiological, genetic “human” without a rational soul reconciles the seeming contradiction.

You and Dr. Kemp are over my head. I consider Adam and Eve as blood and guts humans.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

You and Dr. Kemp are over my head. I consider Adam and Eve as blood and guts humans.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful 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. Humani Genesis

I underlined the part where I think the Pius XII and therefore the Church step beyond theology and into biology. The Catechism leaves room for symbolism.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

 

[grannymh]

They had either human DNA, or at least DNA that was compatible with human DNA. This assumes that the addition of a soul does not significantly change DNA.

Their DNA was compatible enough to allow interbreeding with fertile offspring. We have evidence that this was possible with both Neanderthals and Denisovans. Outside Africa most of us have about 2-4% Neanderthal DNA. Denisovan DNA is found in human populations of Melanesia and Australia. They probably acquired it in Siberia while migrating eastwards on their way to Australia.

rossum

The link in post 81 distracted me.
Please accept my apology.

• *I am not sure how I can discuss DNA in normal evolution when there are readers who are not aware of the importance of large populations in evolution theory. For example. Population in Francisco Ayala’s bombshell.

I have posted on other threads that the word polygenism requires a large population.
*Humani *Generis, paragraph 37, w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I have used this link “Trees, not ladders” and still the idea that the branches are all large populations is not taking hold.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

Your DNA description is far better than what I have seen. However, DNA belongs in the material world.

If I am understanding Catholic teaching correctly – there is no “addition” of a spiritual soul. At conception, the [human] matter is animated by the God given spiritual soul. This precise moment is so profound “that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:” (CCC 365)

Then there are questions-- Is human DNA enough to produce true human nature? Is God still needed? There is also the position that Neanderthals are true humans.

My own solution is that interbreeding is not needed given the length of female fertility.

 

[grannymh]

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful 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. Humani Genesis

I underlined the part where I think the Pius XII and therefore the Church step beyond theology and into biology. The Catechism leaves room for symbolism.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

Naturally, Adam’s human nature includes biology. Current humans (Adam’s natural descendants) have a decomposing anatomy and it is biology science which seeks physical medical solutions. God bless our scientists.

CCC 375 gives an important message which can be seen as basic info for Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

So I understand that many Catholics and members of other denominations accept evolution as a plausible theory to the development of species and all.

What is being demonstrated in the current posting is that many Catholics have different views about a plausible evolution theory. According to the posting, understanding both the science and Catholic position is not always in first place.

I sincerely apologize for my participation in those discussions.

.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

They had either human DNA, or at least DNA that was compatible with human DNA. This assumes that the addition of a soul does not significantly change DNA.

rossum

Don’t all living things have souls. The human soul is just a specific kind of soul for humans. Is it also not the “form” of the DNA?

 

[rossum]

Don’t all living things have souls.

Not in Buddhism they do not. No living being has a soul in Buddhism.

The human soul is just a specific kind of soul for humans.

Then replace “soul” with “human soul” in my posts, since I was only talking about human souls.

Is it also not the “form” of the DNA?

Agreed, I was merely stating my assumption. With no effect on DNA a human soul is outwith science.

rossum

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Not in Buddhism they do not. No living being has a soul in Buddhism.

Then replace “soul” with “human soul” in my posts, since I was only talking about human souls.

Agreed, I was merely stating my assumption. With no effect on DNA a human soul is outwith science.

rossum

I just ask because it sounded as if we were thinking soulless Neanderthals were walking around and God chose one to make human by adding a soul. If a soul is the organizing principle, even proto-humans would have one. Perhaps it also evolves.

In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36571

This all got me thinking about de Chardin.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=650983

 

[Wesrock]

You and Dr. Kemp are over my head. I consider Adam and Eve as blood and guts humans.

Yes, they are blood and guts and soul humans.

 

[Wesrock]

If I am understanding Catholic teaching correctly – there is no “addition” of a spiritual soul. At conception, the [human] matter is animated by the God given spiritual soul. This precise moment is so profound “that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:” (CCC 365)

Then there are questions-- Is human DNA enough to produce true human nature? Is God still needed?

God is needed to provide the gift of a rational, immortal soul. Such a thing does not emerge naturally. Human DNA is not enough to produce a true human nature. That is, the rational powers of a human being are not just emergent qualities, but are a “leap” above any of the material components. [This is not to exclude the material brain from intelligence, computation, etc… but that there is something additional to a rational mind that even the best brain could not produce on its own.]

Animals are animated. In Saint Thomas’ thinking, they are a composition of matter and form, too. The form of all living things being called a soul, though lacking rational powers.

The form (as in hylemorphic dualism, referring to their essence, not shape or DNA) of these “proto-humans” and the form of true humans would be different. Proto-humans would be a type of animal only, whereas true humans are rational animals…

I would not imagine God changing the form of a proto-human mid-life (though with God, nothing is impossible). I’d imagine that Adam, if born from a proto-human, would have had from the moment of his conception the form of a “true human,” the form of a rational animal.

The proto-humans would have been still a very behaviorally complex and social animal, more than any other non-human animal today, but it would have lacked certain rational powers. In Saint Thomas Aquinas’ thinking, it would not have been able to grasp “universals” in its mind or engage in certain types of abstract thinking. They would have been reproductively compatible with the children of Adam and Eve, being similar in matter (physiology, DNA) even if different in form.