Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

One of the profound benefits of the evolutionary perspective is the awareness that God’s creation is not a one-and-done event. It wasn’t seven days and out but rather is ongoing and we are still in the throws of an eternally ongoing creation process. It is happening right now! I find that wonderfully exciting and uplifting!

Thank you for a discussion inviting post. I will not be able to immediately respond to all of it. However, I need to agree immediately with the first part from the perspective of resent research. Here is the first media link Google gave me. sci-news.com/biology/science-2013-top-new-species-01652.html

Actual research papers contain the details, reasons, why a new animal species has been determined. The methods of research are extensive. The conversation between scientists is far from over.

When it comes to humans, in my opinion, the most interesting discovery, or I should say analyzation, is the “evolving adaptations” in the lungs, etc. which have over time enabled humans to live in extremely high altitudes. While I do not understand all the technical language in research papers, at times, there are articles with interesting background chatter. Following the amazing fossil find of a nearly complete face and the current fossil finds with intact DNA, there are plenty of worldwide paleoanthropology experts challenging species characteristics.

In my opinion, the best use of the evolution model is in the medial field, especially in research on the immune system’s reactions to pathogens. Natural science is indeed a gift from God.

Genesis 2: 15-16 says to me that the Garden of Eden was not some perfect paradise. If it were, why was Adam directed to cultivate and care for it? Adam’s body, even though he did not have to die, still needed nourishment. And those creeping things in Genesis 1: 24 sound like garden bugs and centipedes. It seems that common sense would tell us that in the material world, including our material body, there are changes both good and bad. God certainly designed a human body in which there is the capability for genes to mutate and adapt. That is an on-going natural process.

 

[Aloysium]

One of the profound benefits of the evolutionary perspective is the awareness that God’s creation is not a one-and-done event. It wasn’t seven days and out but rather is ongoing and we are still in the throws of an eternally ongoing creation process. It is happening right now! I find that wonderfully exciting and uplifting! . . . .

I’m not sure how a perspective that focusses on random change, the species being central, as opposed to the individual, and survival as the basis of existence is exciting and uplifting.
There is however, scientific evidence to support these views, in that the average IQ of the human species is declining by one point/decade - that’s 14 points since Darwin’s time. That understanding would include the idea that the human intellect is randomly adjusting, like water does in a closed system, coming more in line with that of other animals.
Again, not much to cheer about here folks.

 

[grannymh]

Weekend
Thought

I wonder how many Catholics, who think Adam is only a symbolic story, will be participating at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Saturday or Sunday.

 

[simpleas]

Weekend
Thought

I wonder how many Catholics, who think Adam is only a symbolic story, will be participating at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Saturday or Sunday.

Maybe a high number?

I wonder how many Catholics understand what the story of Adam and Eve was about, since it means something in the Jewish tradition, and another in the Catholic tradition. ( no original sin according to Jewish faith, original sin according to Catholic faith)

 

[fhansen]

Weekend
Thought

I wonder how many Catholics, who think Adam is only a symbolic story, will be participating at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Saturday or Sunday.

You don’t think cafeteria Catholics would be hungry?

 

[Richca]

Maybe a high number?

I wonder how many Catholics understand what the story of Adam and Eve was about, since it means something in the Jewish tradition, and another in the Catholic tradition. ( no original sin according to Jewish faith, original sin according to Catholic faith)

Well, St Paul was a jew and he taught the doctrine of original sin which we now hold in the Catholic Church. The other apostles were jewish too as well as Jesus himself and we believe of course, that the twelve apostles and Jesus hold to the dogma of original sin as taught by the Church Christ founded. I think the difference between St Paul and what the Jewish faith may hold today is that St Paul believed in Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment and perfection of the Old Testament. For the revelation of Jesus Christ throws light on the Old Testament.

 

[simpleas]

Well, St Paul was a jew and he taught the doctrine of original sin which we now hold in the Catholic Church. The other apostles were jewish too as well as Jesus himself and we believe of course, that the twelve apostles and Jesus hold to the dogma of original sin as taught by the Church Christ founded. I think the difference between St Paul and what the Jewish faith may hold today is that St Paul believed in Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment and perfection of the Old Testament. For the revelation of Jesus Christ throws light on the Old Testament.

This is true, but I was refering the the Jewish faith as a whole, rather than a small number who followed Jesus’ teaching at the beginning. One thought about the time Jesus is asked about the blind man, was it the man or his parents who sinned, and Jesus said it was neither, and that it was so, as to show the works of God in him.

I wonder why Jesus did not say something then about the first parents, I think the sin passed onto generations in the old testament is evident, but Jesus doesn’t seem to hold onto that teaching. Maybe Paul being such a devout Jew at the time would hold onto some Jewish teachings, along with Jesus’ teaching…

 

[Richca]

This is true, but I was refering the the Jewish faith as a whole, rather than a small number who followed Jesus’ teaching at the beginning. One thought about the time Jesus is asked about the blind man, was it the man or his parents who sinned, and Jesus said it was neither, and that it was so, as to show the works of God in him.

I wonder why Jesus did not say something then about the first parents, I think the sin passed onto generations in the old testament is evident, but Jesus doesn’t seem to hold onto that teaching. Maybe Paul being such a devout Jew at the time would hold onto some Jewish teachings, along with Jesus’ teaching…

The end result of the sin of Adam and Eve, or at least one of them, is that we all die which is a sign of spiritual death. I think Jesus was aware of the fact that all human beings born into this world die and Jesus came to free us from sin and death. St Paul says that Jesus is the new Adam. The resurrection of Jesus is our hope that one day we will rise too with our bodies.

 

[simpleas]

The end result of the sin of Adam and Eve, or at least one of them, is that we all die which is a sign of spiritual death. I think Jesus was aware of the fact that all human beings born into this world die and Jesus came to free us from sin and death. St Paul says that Jesus is the new Adam. The resurrection of Jesus is our hope that one day we will rise too with our bodies.

Yes, but Jesus did not say that the first ever human/s sinned causing all to be sinners, he said neither the man or the parents of the man had sinned to cause a blindness, it was the work of God.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but Jesus did not say that the first ever human/s sinned causing all to be sinners, he said neither the man or the parents of the man had sinned to cause a blindness, it was the work of God.

Of course, Jesus did not say that the first ever human/s sinned causing all to be sinners, because that is a misunderstanding of the truth.

 

[simpleas]

Of course, Jesus did not say that the first ever human/s sinned causing all to be sinners, because that is a misunderstanding of the truth.

We inheirted sin from the first parents???..they caused the fall to happen, we struggle with sin in the human nature, none of us are free of it. Yet Jesus never said anyone or two people were responsible for the fall, just that we are all sinners.

 

[grannymh]

We inheirted sin from the first parents???..

Via propagation, we inherited the Contracted State of Original Sin. Information Source. Paragraphs 404-405 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

.they caused the fall to happen,

we struggle with sin in the human nature, none of us are free of it. Yet Jesus never said anyone or two people were responsible for the fall, just that we are all sinners.

I do think life would be easier, once we learn the information in *CCC *404-405. Add to this the extremely important essential necessary words of Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. Information source. John 14: 25-26 which refers to the future major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

 

[simpleas]

Via propagation, we inherited the Contracted State of Original Sin. Information Source. Paragraphs 404-405 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

I do think life would be easier, once we learn the information in *CCC *404-405. Add to this the extremely important essential necessary words of Jesus Christ during the Last Supper. Information source. John 14: 25-26 which refers to the future major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

I don’t get what you are trying to say The ccc makes it clear that we contract sin from the first two parents. Jesus said neither the blind man had sinned nor his parents, wouldn’t his parents included Adam as we are all one body in Adam, just as we that are baptised are one body in Christ?

 

[grannymh]

I don’t get what you are trying to say The ccc makes it clear that we contract sin from the first two parents. Jesus said neither the blind man had sinned nor his parents, wouldn’t his parents included Adam as we are all one body in Adam, just as we that are baptised are one body in Christ?

Would you kindly consider pasting here the CCC sentences you are referring to?

You can use either link.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

I think it a mistake, in light of the above, to consider Adam and Eve as the final stage of humanity with the rest of us, speaking as a species, forever locked into that mold.

I am back briefly.

The Catholic Church does not consider Adam and Eve as the final stage of anything because this implies the evolution model applied to the human species. Please refer to the cladistics system and its cladograms. If the word “mold” applies to human nature per se, then we have the Catholic position that humanity as a speicies is not in flux per the evolution model. On the other hand, individual human genes can mutate into hundreds of alleles.

So, regardless of mono- or poly- origins of our species, we still are all created in our essence as being in God’s image because that is how He was and, more to the point is still creating us and it really doesn’t matter too much if it was all at once or slowly over the progression of millennia.

According to the Catholic Church, there is a significant difference between the large polygenism originating population of non-human living organisms and the monogenism originating human population of two.

 

[simpleas]

Would you kindly consider pasting here the CCC sentences you are referring to?

You can use either link.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I thought the sentences would be obvious to you, I think you know them back to front better than I do!

From CCC 404 :

The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

 

[Beircheart]

The Catholic Church does not consider Adam and Eve as the final stage of anything because this implies the evolution model applied to the human species.

Perhaps I am over thinking this, but isn’t rejection of the evolutionary model implying a non-changing state for any species? After all, if evolution is the theory of change over long periods of time, rejecting that theory would necessarily mean no change is taking place making creation a “done deal” and all things are in their final state, fundamentally.

Please refer to the cladistics system and its cladograms. If the word “mold” applies to human nature per se, then we have the Catholic position that humanity as a species is not in flux per the evolution model. On the other hand, individual human genes can mutate into hundreds of alleles.

I am somewhat familiar, by no means adept, with cladistics. I am unsure how they pertain the context of your post. Apologies! Would you please elaborate?

Regarding human nature, that is a bit tricky to nail down. If you mean the general psyche of the species, I am inclined to believe that is far more malleable than our physical forms for it is far more easily influenced by sociological, physical and spiritual influences. If, you are talking about our spiritual natures, stripping away our common physical and psychological attributes, I am not too sure where that leaves us because the three, psychological, physical, and spiritual, are so intertwined I don’t really know how you can effectively address one without considering the other two as they are interdependent and combining, form the whole of human nature.

In other words, if any aspect of our existence is subject to evolutionary processes then ultimately our entire human nature is also subject to them by default due to the interdependency I pointed out above.

According to the Catholic Church, there is a significant difference between the large polygenism originating population of non-human living organisms and the monogenism originating human population of two.

Not exactly. The Church’s issue is not so much with the origination of the species as it is with preserving the teaching of original sin a) being a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and b) which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. The real sticking point, as stated in Humani Generis, is, …“it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) 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.”

However, in the intervening 65 years the two, scientific theory and theology, have moved closer in that the former has offered plausible possibilities that are not in direct refutation of the latter and even suspects to have physical evidence of common ancestral lineages. So,what was once “in no way apparent” now has at least a glimmer of possibility. I don’t think (Alas, woe! The arrogance of me!) the Church really cares about the origin of the species as long as the scientific explanation is consistent with revealed truth.

 

[Beircheart]

I’m not sure how a perspective that focusses on random change, the species being central, as opposed to the individual, and survival as the basis of existence is exciting and uplifting.

I believe you have misunderstood me. What you are describing is a Godless evolution. I reject that completely. In fact, my position is the exact opposite! What I am suggesting, and find uplifting, is that the Creation event we read about in Genesis is still ongoing. What many perceive as randomness merely is the infinite mind of God at work, sustaining and continuing to create everything, everywhere. How can any work of God not be exciting and uplifting? Especially if that work is Creation!

There is however, scientific evidence to support these views, in that the average IQ of the human species is declining by one point/decade - that’s 14 points since Darwin’s time. That understanding would include the idea that the human intellect is randomly adjusting, like water does in a closed system, coming more in line with that of other animals.
Again, not much to cheer about here folks.

I performed an admittedly cursory Google search and did not find the research you are referring to. The reason for my lack of enthusiasm is that I am very familiar with the Flynn Effect, and other research that refutes your statement. I have never encountered peer reviewed research claiming to show a general decline in IQ. When I have more time I will try to give due diligence to researching your claim.

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps I am over thinking this, but isn’t rejection of the evolutionary model implying a non-changing state for any species? After all, if evolution is the theory of change over long periods of time, rejecting that theory would necessarily mean no change is taking place making creation a “done deal” and all things are in their final state, fundamentally.

Before I reply to this post, I need to make a couple of things clearer.

1. The Catholic Church studies the ways the evolution model is applied.
2. Catholics need to update themselves regarding the somewhat separate discipline known as the science of human evolution.

I have not been successful with getting these points understood.

I am somewhat familiar, by no means adept, with cladistics. I am unsure how they pertain the context of your post. Apologies! Would you please elaborate?

This link contains simple cladograms as a basic description of cladistics which is based on genetic relationships.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Each intersection point is a population. The common ancestor is a population. Each point on a lineage is a population. A speciation event, such as the Homo (human)/Pan (chimpanzee) Split, is a population.Populations can range from the hundreds to the thousands. According to the science of human evolution, humans developed from a large random breeding, humanizing, indiscriminate population in the thousands. The Catholic Church maintains that the human species directly descended from a population of two.

I have not been successful explaining that the “polygenism” in the Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, requires by definition that humans evolved from populations larger than two.

Nonetheless, I have not given up or given in.

Fortunately, my new computer has allowed me to post the above. Unfortunately, my new computer deletes portions of posts I am replying to. I need to take a break. I am looking forward to the tech who will be working on numerous computer problems.

Maybe we could discuss subjects in short sections. I would like your reaction to the above which so far has not wandered into the sky beyond.

 

[grannymh]

This is what follows from my post 812

Regarding human nature, that is a bit tricky to nail down.

How about this definition?
Human nature is an unique union of both the spiritual world and the material world. Information source. CCC 355; CCC 362-365; Genesis 1: 27.

If you mean the general psyche of the species, I am inclined to believe that is far more malleable than our physical forms for it is far more easily influenced by sociological, physical and spiritual influences. If, you are talking about our spiritual natures, stripping away our common physical and psychological attributes, I am not too sure where that leaves us because the three, psychological, physical, and spiritual, are so intertwined I don’t really know how you can effectively address one without considering the other two as they are interdependent and combining, form the whole of human nature.

This makes me think of the dangers of Cartesian Dualism especially in the extreme expression.

In other words, if any aspect of our existence is subject to evolutionary processes then ultimately our entire human nature is also subject to them by default due to the interdependency I pointed out above.

Here is where the words “aspect of our existence” need clarification. In my opinion, aspect cannot be substituted for either the material world or spiritual world in the definition of human nature presented above. While there is interdependency between the material world (decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual world (rational soul), the two worlds are separate by definition. What separates the Catholic approach to human nature from strict or extreme dualism, is that it is the union of both spiritual nature and material nature that becomes one single human nature.

The spiritual soul, directly created by God, is considered to be the “form of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body;…” (CCC 365)

According to the science of human evolution, the human person per se is the result of evolutionary populations. However, according to Catholicism, only our physical anatomy can possibly be subject to any kind of evolutionary processes. Because our physical anatomy is in the realm of scientific inquiry, there is not a doctrine declaring the exact creative process of producing an upright walking fossil.
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
2. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

One of the problems I notice is that many, not all, Catholics do not realize that the 1950 word polygenism is today’s word population. It should be obvious that polygenism of any kind needs and depends on a population. Unfortunately, the word “apparent” is so distracting that the real gist of science --populations evolving as populations does not get proper attention.

Continued in next post.