E
- Status
G
goout
Guest
It matters in that humanity is singularly the “very good” of God’s creation. Man is unique in all of creation as a unity of body and soul. God breathed life into man, just as Christ breathes life into the Church.
At some point that is not explained by Genesis, God ensoul’s man. The science may have been gradual, but God’s breath is not.
G
grannymh
Guest
Genesis 1: 27
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female He created them.
**CCC 363 **
In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
G
goout
Guest
ok.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
I’m wandering in rather late here.
Digging a little into evolution and especially evolution of Homo Sapiens, I have found a rather spectacular disconnect between what is affirmed as being established truth and what is actually proven - not assumed, but proven. But this a vast topic.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Science of Human Evolution uses accepted assumptions, some could be currently valid and others cannot be properly validated. At a community workshop, years back, Dr. John Hawks mentioned that the length of a generation has changed. That is not a major assumption.
However, it is interesting to me that top paleoanthropologists are aware of changes. Those who go back many years of paleoanthropology will remember the arguments deciding the original species designations. With each new find, occasionally, the arguments will be renewed. The brow ridge would be a determining factor in the old days. Today, it is genetics.
What we need to keep in mind is that it is the rational spiritual soul which determines the human species.
Still, paleoanthropology is based on the Evolution Model (species evolve as a population from a population). It is the evolution population issue which contradicts Catholic teaching. While scientists may say that a population of two is not probable, at the same time, scientists cannot rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve. (post 131)
T
truetofaith
Guest
Science is basing human development on Evolution . I believe God created Adam from the dust as Genesis stipulates & formed Eve from his rib…then Evolution took over from that point.
E
edwest2
Guest
I doubt that. We are not some toy God wound up and let go to go hither and yon. And textbooks contain statements that fall well outside the realm of science. Adaptation? Yes. But otherwise…
usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_n.htm
Ed
G
goout
Guest
I am open to scientific explanations of man’s material substance, as is the Church.
I am not open to scientific rejections of the existence of God.
I am not open to scientific rejections of the existence of God.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Think about that. A golem had part of itself taken out and made into another golem, a near exact duplicate. They had kids and through them a huge variety of humans came about.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Like what scientific rejections?
E
edwest2
Guest
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"
Ed
Statements like these don’t belong in textbooks.
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"
Ed
Statements like these don’t belong in textbooks.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Exactly.
*
There can be no such rejections.*
Such would be *outside *of the scope of the empirical sciences.
Outside their area and competence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Not sure what is exactly meant by human development. Some immune systems can develop a defense against certain diseases. How this can happen is part of the medical arena. Years back, there were a couple studies which showed that some, not all, lungs adapted to living in extremely high altitudes. Another story showed how feet adapted to running.
When God created Adam, Adam was created with a fully-complete human nature per se, Genesis 1:27. Therefore, additional human evolution per se would not be required.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Why not? I know you aren’t comforted but I am. For me it makes life’s experiences much sweeter.
G
grannymh
Guest
Soul-like qualities emerge from the material brain.
“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.”
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
October 22, 1996.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
In my neighborhood, the word “incompatible” is a definite no-no.
The Human Person is worthy of profound respect.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Looked up epiphenomenon to see what it means. It looks like the pope doesn’t know what scientific theories are. If he does my bad, but I know of only one theory of evolution. I am not finding any philosophy behind that theory from a simple Google search.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
- That is quite an unreasonable assertion.
- Then I guess it is your bad. (hence no need to continue to discuss what you admit you do not have knowledge of).
- Status