H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
In matters of shoplifting, arson and armed robbery, I’m certain you’re as pure as the driven snow. In matters of Creationism, -12, although I’m fairly certain that most of your mischief is entirely non-malevolent!
- Status
B
bobperk
Guest
I have not read these articles in quite some time, but they do address how one can come about to believe in an original first set of parents (not necessarily biological, i.e. my view of instantaneous body / soul creation) among a group of 10,000 according to current scientific thinking:
Loading…
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
Loading…
tofspot.blogspot.com
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s quite the spin.
So, in an encyclical in which he says that it’s possible for a Catholic to investigate a particular take on evolution – given it doesn’t fall in a certain direction that denies the teachings of the Church – you characterize his statement as endorsing the view that evolutionist philosophies are erroneous?
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, really it isn’t. Science is talking about bodies (which allows for empirical evidence) and theology is talking about souls (which does not). The two are not in conflict. Well… it’s possible to claim they’re in conflict, if you interpret one or the other discipline poorly, but as Catholics, we believe in “faith and reason”, not “faith or reason”…
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Well, that’s good, but I’m afraid Adam and Eve are going to have to go, as unique ancestors.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not so. As “unique physical ancestors”? No. As “unique ensouled ancestors”? Yes – that’s something that theology can discuss and science cannot.
So, Adam and Eve are unique – as the Church says, they are our first true human ancestors. If what makes a person a “true human” is their soul… then we’re all good.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Well, that’s even better.
R
Richca
Guest
Bobperk, the links you provide and the discussions that follow are based on outdated and erroneous scientific claims as well as the evolutionary assumption of human beings at least as to their half-being, namely, the body. Why God would create human beings in halves is beyond me.Hugh_Farey:
I have not read these articles in quite some time, but they do address how one can come about to believe in an original first set of parents (not necessarily biological, i.e. my view of instantaneous body / soul creation) among a group of 10,000 according to current scientific thinking:
Edward Feser: Modern biology and original sin, Part I
The TOF Spot: Adam and Eve and Ted and Alice
The present scientific research indicates that a bottleneck of two humans from as recent as 500,000 years ago cannot be ruled out to explain the genetic diversity found in human beings today.
See:
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/on_human_origin/
Loading…
evolutionnews.org
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/i...ouple-in-our-past-new-evidence-and-arguments/
Population genetic models even the findings I just mentioned are based on the assumed evolutionary paradigm which makes the surprised present findings even more remarkable. But what about a model that assumes a first couple of the human race created with genetic diversity? Such a model obviously runs counter to Darwiniam evolutionists but obviously not for christian or catholic believers. Such a model is being pursued and researched as we speak by ID and creationist proponents as you will find in the links I gave. Taking into account the present findings I mentioned above and adding to this created genetic diversity (which is lacking in the evolutionary models) bestowed upon the first couple of the human race, the proposed models, in the words of one of the articles in the links I gave:
…evaluate the assumptions underlying the standard evolutionary model of human origins and find “it is full of gaps and weaknesses.” The authors maintain that “a unique origin model where humanity arose from one single couple with created diversity seems to explain data at least as well, if not better.”
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
What we can and ought to learn from all this and in particular population genetic models that have been going on for a number of years now is that whereas 20-30 years ago science made the claim that a human population bottleneck could not have occurred with less than 4000-10000 individuals and possibly many thousands more, although that was debunked within a few years to 1000 or less individuals which apparently the writers of the articles in the links you provided were unaware of, the present research says that a bottleneck of two humans cannot be ruled out from an estimated 500,000 years ago. What I mean to say is that there are many areas of scientific research that are constantly changing, some theories based on innumerable and unprovable assumptions, so that what is claimed today is disproven tomorrow and thus the presumed science can be very unreliable.
Holy Scripture, the word of God, is wisdom, truth, science above all human sciences. In the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “This doctrine [Sacred Theology] is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely.” And “Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science, must be condemned as false.” In the interpretation of Holy Scripture, Pope Leo XIII in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, stated that one should “carefully observe the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”
‘Except where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires’ in relation to the discoveries of the natural sciences, St Augustine explains from the same work which Pope Leo XIII is citing from, only those discoveries that are 100% certain and without the possibility of any doubt such as those that can be experimentally verified. In other words, the eternal and unchanging Word of God is the final authority and all human sciences are as its handmaids.
What we can and ought to learn from all this and in particular population genetic models that have been going on for a number of years now is that whereas 20-30 years ago science made the claim that a human population bottleneck could not have occurred with less than 4000-10000 individuals and possibly many thousands more, although that was debunked within a few years to 1000 or less individuals which apparently the writers of the articles in the links you provided were unaware of, the present research says that a bottleneck of two humans cannot be ruled out from an estimated 500,000 years ago. What I mean to say is that there are many areas of scientific research that are constantly changing, some theories based on innumerable and unprovable assumptions, so that what is claimed today is disproven tomorrow and thus the presumed science can be very unreliable.
Holy Scripture, the word of God, is wisdom, truth, science above all human sciences. In the words of St Thomas Aquinas, “This doctrine [Sacred Theology] is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely.” And “Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science, must be condemned as false.” In the interpretation of Holy Scripture, Pope Leo XIII in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, stated that one should “carefully observe the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”
‘Except where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires’ in relation to the discoveries of the natural sciences, St Augustine explains from the same work which Pope Leo XIII is citing from, only those discoveries that are 100% certain and without the possibility of any doubt such as those that can be experimentally verified. In other words, the eternal and unchanging Word of God is the final authority and all human sciences are as its handmaids.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Richca’s comments are valid. It is not impossible that an entire species can develop from a single pair of individuals (hamsters, for example, seem to have done almost exactly that, and within living memory), and as far as our current knowledge goes, it is not impossible that humans could be such a species.
However I strongly suspect that future discoveries will show that this is not the case. Those who cling to such ideas should at least prepare themselves for the possibility and ponder on how concepts such as ‘original sin’ would be understood in that contingency.
However I strongly suspect that future discoveries will show that this is not the case. Those who cling to such ideas should at least prepare themselves for the possibility and ponder on how concepts such as ‘original sin’ would be understood in that contingency.
R
Richca
Guest
Interestingly, St Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis involves the simultaneous and instantaneous creation of the angels, the entire corporeal heavens with all their host of sun, moon, and stars, and the earth and seas. In this act, God also created all the first members of all species of plants, animals, and man/woman too but only in potentiality, not as actually and visibly existing. Subsequent to this beginning of the world, God created and formed the first members of the various species of plants, animals, and man/woman in act (actually visibly existing) at whatever time he had predetermined from all eternity. Quite remarkable as this fits with what we find in the fossil record.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Very well said.
B
buffalo
Guest
Prime Matter
idvolution.blogspot.com
IDvolution.org
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
G
Glark
Guest
Contrary to your claim, the word “nephese” doesn’t indicate humanity exclusively, as it is also used to refer to the life of the lower animals (eg, Genesis 1:21 and Leviticus 17:11). It is often translated as “soul”, which is misleading, as word doesn’t refer to spirit, but simply life (as opposed to nonlife).
I think you are right about the “breath of life” - it seems to indicate not just life, but life made in the image of God. But you seemed to have overlooked the significance of the word, “life”. My point is, without this “life” the “dust” would have remained inanimate matter and Adam would not have become “a living being”.
According to the (Church-approved) exegesis of theistic evolution, “the dust of the ground” can be interpreted as a pre-existing living creature, in which case, the “dust” was already alive. But in my opinion, this interpretation renders the verse nonsensical, because it says God breathed “the breath of LIFE” into Adam, who was the offspring of a LIVING creature and was therefore ALREADY ALIVE. Hence Adam, the LIVING offspring of some creature, “became a living being.” What? Talk about stating the bleedin’ obvious. That’s two absurd tautologies in one sentence.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
The theory of evolution was invented by folks who couldn’t bring themselves to believe that God can perform a miracle like instantly “poofing” an entire animal into existence. As St. Paul wrote, “Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned” - 1Corinthians 2:14. They needed an explanation for life that is more acceptable to the natural mind. In a masterpiece of irony, what they came up with was a belief system which itself requires massive leaps of faith! The mud-to-man fairy tale was an inevitable product of the culture of atheism created by the Enlightenment.
I suspect more than a few theistic evolutionists also have trouble believing God can instantly “poof” creatures into existence. Perhaps this is a result of weak faith, but that is not for me say.
G
Glark
Guest
Oh dear. Even Richca has fallen victim to Hugh’s infallible lie-detector. One by one, Hugh is exposing every White Knight of Creation on this forum as a charlatan and fraudster.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I agree. The first few chapters of Genesis, for example, don’t attempt to describe HOW God created; they merely describe WHAT HAPPENED.
G
Glark
Guest
The Bible according to Hugh_Farey would be a about two pages long.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
As faith and reason are one in the truth, body-mind-spirit are one in the reality of the person.
Clearly it is not the matter itself that makes us who we are, but its becoming one being, an individual expression of the human spirit. The matter we incorporate is shaped by the information contained in that which formed our initial being as one cell.
Only human beings can give rise to other human beings.
A science that attempts to explain the person and our origins in terms of matter, ignoring our true reality, is going to go off the tracks, making assumptions it cannot prove, considering them as self-evident axioms. It cannot be proven that the first placental organism emerged from an egg, outside its mother’s womb, nor that the first human being, came fully formed or was brought into existence as one egg splitting into two, male and female, within a hominid uterus.
It doesn’t matter actually since the reality of what has happened in time, is the bringing into existence of new forms of being having physical and psychological dimensions, which define who and what they are, through the enabling the relationships living beings have with what is other to them.
Last edited:
- Status