Adam and Eve and Genetics Difficulty

[rossum]

When scientific proposals are later proven to be incorrect, were they pseudo-science when first proposed?

No. Newton’s theory of gravity was certainly science, yet it was later shown to be incorrect and replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. In its turn, Einstein’s theory will be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. Scientists are still working on that one.

Real science is always provisional since any real science can potentially be falsified and replaced by a better theory.

Pseudo-science has different properties, one of which is that it cannot be falsified. The fact that something can be shown to be incorrect is an indication that it is not pseudo-science.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

From post 178

In response to the above comment, one needs to recall chapter 14, Gospel of John. This chapter affirms the mission of the Holy Spirit. According to simple Catholic Church history, the Catholic Church has already re-evaluated the Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. This was properly done in major Catholic Ecumenical Church Councils. For the dates of these councils, please refer to the CCC Index of Citations beginning on page 689. Those who have never explored the verses in the first three chapters in Genesis, will discover some amazing Catholic information beginning on page 689.

Link to the Bible
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

Here is one of the many crucial verses in chapter 14, Gospel of John, which does relate to the Catholic Church and various difficulties found in our physical/material world – especially those difficulties which ignore the theological world.
John 14: 26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name—He will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.r
For general information –

The * refers to Jesus Christ, Who established the visible Catholic Church on planet Earth. One of the many goals of the Catholic Church is to protect and clarify Divine Revelation, including that which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Please refer back to post 178, if there are questions. Generally, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Jesus Christ is still the CE0.**

 

[grannymh]

Obviously. Were you thinking I was expressing an opinion that I claimed had the force of magisterial authority? No; this is merely a proposal whose time, one hopes, has come.

What is proposed in post 161 is the most complete definitive precise and concise explanation of the proposals I have seen since I learned on CAF that Adam and Eve did not exist. That “merely a proposal” dates back to the 1940’s and probably earlier. As it stands, the quoted passage from post 161 is a lot more than “merely a proposal whose time, one hopes, has come.”

For those interested in the nitty-gritty. I chose the 1940’s because in 1950, Pope Pius XII gave us the encyclical Humani Generis. Actually, some of the features of the 1940’s date back many years.

Since I penned the comment, let me reiterate what I meant – as I just did in a recent post that you may not have seen: “this particular one” refers not to a Catholic teaching so much as to an understanding of Catholic doctrine that forces a scientific interpretation on the theological content of Genesis 1.

I have no doubt that the majority of readers may be surprised when I say that within the Catholic Church, there is no allowable difference between a Catholic teaching of a Catholic doctrine and the Catholic *understanding *of the same doctrine.

Granted that the media and internet are full of the “teachings/understandings” of a small amount of vocal members of the clergy and prominent laity often described as wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are promoting dissent of certain annoying Catholic doctrines, especially the ones which prop up Original Sin.

We need to remember that the media and internet do not have the status of a major ecumenical church council.

Eventually I will address the "scientific interpretation on the theological content of Genesis 1.’ Here is one of my favorite tools.
svswans.com/black.html

 

[Richca]

The Word of God says that there are posts holding up the heavens.

 

[grannymh]

The first step to untangle science and theology is to accept the Catholic teaching that God as Creator did make an original human person whose single nature is the unique unification of both the science genetic world and the theology rational world. Information source. The dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27, which demonstrates the difference between physical material creatures and the nature of the very first two sole real founders of the human species lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

The second step is to understand the difference between science which presents information found in the material world and theology which presents information found in the spiritual world. Strange as it may seem. There can be a scientific interpretation of a theological doctrine.

Back in post 183, I commented that eventually I will address the "scientific interpretation on the theological content of Genesis, chapter 1. "Genesis 1: 1 is a theological doctrine. Its scientific interpretation is the following list of what constitutes the physical/material universe and its living inhabitants. Obviously, this list actually needs the scientific information in order to fully understand what God created.

When we arrive at Genesis 1: 26-27, there appears to be a pause, but it is not a pause in time.

26
l Then God said: Let Us make* human beings in Our image, after Our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

27
God created mankind in His image; in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

There is a dramatic pause as we examine the shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

CCC paragraph 343
Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.

So far, we can find the scientific interpretation that mankind is a physical/material creature with a decomposing anatomy. Yet, along with this, we immediately find the theological interpretation which is that the human person is also a spiritual creature because of his God-created spiritual soul. Because the human person has a single nature, body and soul, there is the reality that both science and theology can address the human person.

Where the “scientific interpretation on the theological content of Genesis, chapter 1” stops is at the beginning of human history–at the very origin of the human species. Divine Revelation continues from Genesis 1: 27 with the information that Adam and Eve have God’s blessing including the necessary nourishment for a material anatomy.

28
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.m

29
* n God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

30
and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food. And so it happened.

31
God looked at everything He had made, and found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed—the sixth day.o

Contemporary science, in its proper realm of the material, looks at the propagation of species such as bears, birds, and bunnies and determines that they originated in large multiple genetic populations. When we go back to Genesis 1:1-25, there are no specific details about these material creatures beyond the theological fact that God is the Creator. On the other hand, as soon as the first human person appears, there are plenty of details in the first three chapters of Genesis. This alerts the reader that theology is being introduced because God has directly created humankind in His image, that is, humankind has an immortal soul. There is no scientific interpretation simply because science, per definition, is confined to the material/physical world.

Usually, the restrictions of physical science are accepted when it comes to the human person’s, anatomy. What has changed and thus what has to be recognized is that the interpretation of science is that all species originated, over long periods of time, in large indiscriminate breeding populations. Genesis 2: 18 is a strong affirmation that the human species did not begin in the same manner as the buffalo.

18
The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k

 

[grannymh]

Hi everyone,

So, I’ve been a bit obsessed with this question the last few days, namely, how to reconcile Catholic doctrine on monogenism with the genetic evidence.

Simple approach. Simple answer.

Before one can reconcile two fully-complete genuine human founders with the “genetic evidence” one first has to find the real "genetic evidence in real time and in real space.
Real is the operative word.

Please take time to study the real “genetic evidence” regarding the species in this link svswans.com/black.html

Where is the real “genetic evidence” located intact? Not in Europe.

The Catholic Church insists that you and I descended from real humans. Is there genetic evidence that you and I are not real humans? I can assure you that the genetic evidence that you and I are not real humans is not in Australia.

What appears to me is that this “genetic evidence” which is needed is half way to being a straw man. Check any methods and materials sections in any research paper on genetics and you will not find real observable evidence in space and time, gathered from every geographic location 24/7 going thousands of years backwards. Even the marvelous recent fossil finds cannot account for species actions going thousands of years backwards around the globe and back again.

With respect to scientists, I do understand that many of the necessary assumptions can be valid. Still, the presented evidence does not warrant an universal denial of Adam and Eve’s possibility. Possibility is the operative word.

With sincere appreciation for the dedicated scientists whose field is genetics–I am gratefully aware of how your work benefits humanity especially in the medical arena where the understanding of working genetic models contributes to the fight against pathogens. As we said as kids – your crown in heaven will have extra stars.

One can look for probable evidence; however, one cannot scientifically rule out every kind of possibility that could happen in the past.

A few years back, on another thread, an eager poster suggested that there were thousands of warehouses stacked full with thousands of research papers denying the possible reality of Papa Adam and Mama Eve. That person totally underestimated the number of warehouses which would be needed and then there would still be the possibility of two strong, intelligent humans as true founders of the human species.

No need to lose sleep over genetic difficulties. Is there really sufficient evidence?