Argument against Intelligent Design Creationism

[Ignatius]

What are some good arguments against Intelligent Design creationism?

My cousin has recently joined this fundamentalist group and she is reading their magazines with pseudo science e.g. the earth is 6000years old etc
.

What, exactly, is her definition of Intelligent Design? Not everyone has the same definition

 

[Gorgias]

Properly considered evolution. That is an interesting thought since I maintain that Catholic doctrines deny the larger than two population principle for human origin.

Fair enough. Just to make sure that we’re discussing the same thing, could you please define ‘human’ for me? In such a way that we distinguish both between human and pre-human ancestors and between ensoulment and physical humanity?

The language of CCC, 399 is interesting.

Are you referring to, “Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives”…?

Interesting – how so? The fact that it mentions an explicit ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’? I’m not following you here…

That is correct because God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy.

Unfortunately, not only is this claim false, it also does not follow from my assertion about cladistics vis-a-vis ensoulment.

First off, it is false – or at least trivial – on at least one count: if by ‘soul’, you mean (as the Catechism states) “the spiritual principle in man” (CCC, 363), then your claim seems to be false. God directly created angels, who are spiritual beings (i.e., who possess a “spiritual principle”); God does not strictly require a material body in order to create spiritual form. However, if you simply mean that the ‘soul’ is what makes us human (as does a body), then your statement is trivial: it reduces to “the creation of man requires a man.” In neither case, then, does your statement imply that cladistics trumps theology.

However, you are correct in implying that humans are indeed a unity of body and soul. Yet, we do not claim – with respect to ensoulment – a particular timing about the creation of the soul (vis-a-vis the creation of the body). As Catholics, we assert that God creates each soul immediately (that is, without mediation). Nevertheless, there is not a doctrinal assertion of a particular timing for this ensoulment, other than the vaguely worded “at the moment of conception.” Does this imply that the physical matter of a newly-conceived human exists first, and then the soul? Or that the soul exists as the conception takes place? Or that the two occur simultaneously? Both “body-then-soul” and “soul-then-body” lead to difficult consequences (these considerations come to the forefront when we consider the moral theology surrounding the Church’s stance with respect to abortion – as an example, twinning presents a particular problem of ensoulment!). “Body-and-soul” might get you out of the woods… but it contradicts your statement about the physical requirement, it seems. So, on both counts, your assertion is problematic.

Second, your assertion does not follow from a discussion of ‘species’ and ‘ensoulment’: yes, in humans, there is a particular anatomy – in this case, a species. Yet, ensoulment does not require a particular species, does it? That is to say, “Adam and Eve” could have been homo sapiens or homo erectus; they could have been Neandertal or Cro-Magnon! There is not a particular species to which we must point and say “this one but not those ones” – strictly speaking, God’s prerogative of creating humanity in the Imago Dei is His prerogative, not ours, and does not depend on 21st century taxonomies. Scientists can look at tools that various populations created and used, or artwork that they developed, or burial customs that they practiced, and from these physical bits of evidence make claims about rational capacity. Yet, these physical signs do not handcuff God into a choice of which population He first ensouled. Therefore, whatever cladistics might have to say about genetic commonalities between our ancestors, it cannot make a claim about ensoulment. And therefore, it does not follow that biological claims of polygenesis directly contradict Christian theological claims of the monogenesis of ensoulment.

 

[grannymh]

I also see Adam as the first man as the point in creation of us where we became ‘self aware’, and for a little while, we lived in that idyllic state, but then Satan tempted the first man and he sinned. Again, is the fruit tree truly literal, or an allegory shown by God to the chronicler of creation that they would understand?

Regarding the organic fruit tree. either- or along with both- and

Here is a valid description from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *paragraph 396.

**396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

 

[grannymh]

Fair enough. Just to make sure that we’re discussing the same thing, could you please define ‘human’ for me? In such a way that we distinguish both between human and pre-human ancestors and between ensoulment and physical humanity?

Your signature from St. Thomas Aquinas is sincerely appreciated. It is in having to do my homework regarding scientific research, that I have been aided in understanding Catholic doctrines. I owe a debt of gratitude to an atheist friend for respectfully having my head on a platter because I did not do my homework.

There are two ways of approaching the way we distinguish between human and pre-human ancestors. The first would be based on paragraph 355 and paragraphs 362-366 in the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. These references affirm the simple definition of a human being as one whose nature is the unique unification of a rational soul and decomposing body. Pre-human ancestors would not have the complete human nature. Their fossils attest to their mortal bodies.

Second. From reading scientific literature, I find that some, not all, of the language indicates that pre-human ancestors are human because they are in the process of developing a “modern” human person. What I have seen is more a nuance than a flat-out statement.

I go with the concept that the human person unites both the material and spiritual worlds into a single union known as human nature. I do not believe that the two original first fully-complete humans had human ancestors. If they did, Adam would not be original enough to commit the Original Sin.

Lining up ensoulment and physical humanity is more difficult because I went from
your comment …
“It seems to me that you’re saying that cladistics (which speaks to physical characteristics of species) is capable of addressing issues in Catholic teaching of the origin of humanity (which speaks to ensoulment).”

… which refers to the plural humanity, to the singular “a physical anatomy.” Did that bother you? Not only that, but I also used “God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul.” I am not in the habit of using the word ensoulment.

The power of the spiritual principle in man (CCC, 363) is not described until CCC, 365. It seems to me that CCC, 365 indirectly refers to “timing.”

--this all means that I have to learn and test the meanings for the word ensoulment which are used in post 21. If you wish, you could offer that information, perhaps in relationship to the manner in which matter (including the individual genome) becomes a living human body.

My difficulty with the word ensoulment is that I have only seen its use when someone is trying to adapt the population theory to the doctrine of monogenism.

Therefore, I am now in a muddle. Yet, I do believe that my statement that “God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy” is definitely proper. Souls do not exist by themselves. They are not floating around hoping that God will soon use them on earth. I know you do not think this; however, I have seen that possible question raised.

To complicate my procrastination, there are a number of previous commitments smiling at me.

Thank you sincerely for the opportunity for a reasonable discussion. In famous words: I shall return.

 

[jjsmity]

I must say if i am not allowed to do thread against evolution and billions of years and claims like on this op, they should not be allowed to do same against creation/ID. let us debate. I will report to moderator to see what they say, I would love to start a creation vs evolution thread to debate all on one thread.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

What, exactly, is her definition of Intelligent Design? Not everyone has the same definition

She believes that Earth, all life on it and the Universe/s were created as it is described in the bible literally (6days). God spoke it into being in a second. And that anyone who considers evolution is brainwashed.

I am okay with that because nothing is impossible for God however I take issue with her trying to teach some of the kids in our family that this is the ONLY acceptable explanation. She gives them magazines with pseudo scientific explanations of young earth theories etc. She believes that the earth is 6000 years old (yes not a typo) 6000years, not 60million or 60thousand as others have queried on here.

I have explained that I believe that ‘humans were created via evolution guided by the hand of God and God gave each human a soul upon conception’.

 

[Gorgias]

She believes that Earth, all life on it and the Universe/s were created as it is described in the bible literally (6days).

She believes that the earth is 6000 years old (yes not a typo) 6000years

It’s not as crazy as it sounds. If you believe in an absolute literal, fundamentalist approach to Scriptural interpretation, then you add up the ages of all the patriarchs and the years listed in the Bible, and you come up with 6000 years. If you believe that the Bible is either literally true in all its elements or else not at all true… then you must discount any theory – scientific or theological – that suggests that absolute Scriptural literalism is untenable.

 

[grannymh]

Fair enough. Just to make sure that we’re discussing the same thing, could you please define ‘human’ for me? In such a way that we distinguish both between human and pre-human ancestors and between ensoulment and physical humanity?

As I replied in post 23, “My difficulty with the word ensoulment is that I have only seen its use when someone is trying to adapt the population theory to the doctrine of monogenism.”

I quickly found out that “ensoulment” is used six ways to Sunday. Still, souls do not exist by themselves, floating around in anticipation of God’s actions. That is a rather simple demonstration of the truth in granny’s claim that God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy. Since you provided the example of angels and commented that God does not strictly require a material body in order to create, I do need to add a clarification to my original statement.

Original statement is that God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy. The clarification is that I am only referring to the human species existing on planet earth.

In the human species, it is the spiritual soul (spiritual principle) which is the “form” of the body (matter) so there is a living human person. (CCC 365) Here, we need to recognize the philosophical principle of soul as the animating principle. (CCC 364) The difference between an animal being animated and a person being animated is the difference between the human species and all other species. We are peerless. The human person can be considered a spiritual being because we can share in the life of God (State of Sanctifying Grace).

However, if you simply mean that the ‘soul’ is what makes us human (as does a body), then your statement is trivial: it reduces to “the creation of man requires a man.” In neither case, then, does your statement imply that cladistics trumps theology.

I think that my statement is reduced to “the creation of a man requires the nature of a man.” We can only be human when we have human nature which is totally unique on planet earth.

However, you are correct in implying that humans are indeed a unity of body and soul. Yet, we do not claim – with respect to ensoulment – a particular timing about the creation of the soul (vis-a-vis the creation of the body). As Catholics, we assert that God creates each soul immediately (that is, without mediation). Nevertheless, there is not a doctrinal assertion of a particular timing for this ensoulment, other than the vaguely worded “at the moment of conception.” Does this imply that the physical matter of a newly-conceived human exists first, and then the soul? Or that the soul exists as the conception takes place? Or that the two occur simultaneously? Both “body-then-soul” and “soul-then-body” lead to difficult consequences (these considerations come to the forefront when we consider the moral theology surrounding the Church’s stance with respect to abortion – as an example, twinning presents a particular problem of ensoulment!). “Body-and-soul” might get you out of the woods… but it contradicts your statement about the physical requirement, it seems. So, on both counts, your assertion is problematic.

If the parents produced the soul or if the soul is a material epiphenomenon of the human genome and if I were a scientist, I could probably answer most of the above questions. Fortunately for humankind, I am not a scientist and the soul of a human is in the realm of God.

Second, your assertion does not follow from a discussion of ‘species’ and ‘ensoulment’: yes, in humans, there is a particular anatomy – in this case, a species. Yet, ensoulment does not require a particular species, does it? That is to say, “Adam and Eve” could have been homo sapiens or homo erectus; they could have been Neandertal or Cro-Magnon! There is not a particular species to which we must point and say “this one but not those ones” – strictly speaking, God’s prerogative of creating humanity in the Imago Dei is His prerogative, not ours, and does not depend on 21st century taxonomies. Scientists can look at tools that various populations created and used, or artwork that they developed, or burial customs that they practiced, and from these physical bits of evidence make claims about rational capacity. Yet, these physical signs do not handcuff God into a choice of which population He first ensouled. Therefore, whatever cladistics might have to say about genetic commonalities between our ancestors, it cannot make a claim about ensoulment. And therefore, it does not follow that biological claims of polygenesis directly contradict Christian theological claims of the monogenesis of ensoulment.

I do need to point out that the basic principle of cladistics diagrams is that populations, such as the extant human hominins, evolved or descended from previous extinct hominin populations back to a common ancestor population. Catholic theology, consisting of two sole founders of humankind, directly opposes any founding population more than two people. Today, the underlying assumption in research going thousands of years backwards is that there is no possible point on the cladistics diagram which would have two beginning, or originating, fully-complete human individuals.

Technically, monogenism refers to the biological bodily origin of humanity. Ensoulment does not have a biological bodily origin. That is why ensoulment would not appear on a scientific diagram of the origin of biologically modern human anatomies.

The Catholic Church opposes what does appear on the diagram in regard to the estimates of the final extant hominin population which produced modern humans.

 

[Gorgias]

I quickly found out that “ensoulment” is used six ways to Sunday.

As I use the term here, ‘ensoulment’ takes on its meaning as found in moral theology: to have (received) a soul. So, all humans alive today are ensouled. Adam and Eve were ensouled. In an evolutionary context, none of Adam’s or Eve’s ancestors were ensouled. (Since we agree on the Catholic definition of humanity – that is, possession of a soul – we can therefore say that Adam and Eve were humans, and none of their ancestors were.)

Still, souls do not exist by themselves, floating around in anticipation of God’s actions. … God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy.

Strictly speaking, though, there’s a problem with that assertion (although I’m not certain at the moment that it’s relevant to the present discussion); if by ‘requires’, you mean that the physical anatomy must already be present in order for the soul to be present, there’s a particular problem, which can be illustrated by the phenomenon of twinning that takes place following conception. I’ll leave this issue aside for the moment, since it might take us off-track; however, inasmuch as you use this assertion as your demonstration that cladistics can tell us anything about ensoulment, it’s important that I continue to reject this part of your argument. (Maybe we’ll come back to this later…?)

I think that my statement is reduced to “the creation of a man requires the nature of a man.”

Yep; and that’s a pretty trivial assertion… don’t you think? Not valueless, mind you – but nothing that helps move an argument along.

If the parents produced the soul or if the soul is a material epiphenomenon of the human genome

Can you see that these two statements are equivalent? The first statement, for a Catholic, is patently false – we can look to the Catechism and see an explicit statement that God creates the soul immediately, without the ‘aid’ of the parents. The second statement, however, says precisely the same thing, although it’s fancied up with scientific jargon. Positing the soul as a “material epiphenomenon of the human genome” means simply that the soul is a by-product of a material object or process; in other words, it means that the soul proceeds from the body. If the parents are a cause of the physical body of their child, then they are the cause of its “material epiphenomena” as well. In other words, a Catholic cannot hold to this statement you’re positing, since it implicitly asserts that God is not the immediate creator of the soul.

I do need to point out that the basic principle of cladistics diagrams is that populations, such as the extant human hominins, evolved or descended from previous extinct hominin populations back to a common ancestor population. Catholic theology, consisting of two sole founders of humankind, directly opposes any founding population more than two people. Today, the underlying assumption in research going thousands of years backwards is that there is no possible point on the cladistics diagram which would have two beginning, or originating, fully-complete human individuals.

Here’s where I believe your argument falls apart. We agree that ‘humanity’ derives from the presence of a soul (‘ensoulment’, as I would term it). We see that the ‘material epiphenomenon’ argument presumes that the soul is an effect of the physical body (and therefore, cannot stand alongside Catholic doctrine – this, by the way, and not the ‘polygenesis vs monogenesis’ debate is the point where science and Catholic doctrine diverge). Therefore, cladistics diagrams cannot tell us where “fully-complete human individuals” exist.

(Incidentally, this is the reason why I asked for a definition that distinguishes between ‘pre-human ancestor’ and ‘human person’. If science – cladistics or otherwise – could provide a relevant definition, then we could work on your assertion. Since it cannot (that is, since “in the process of developing a ‘modern human person’” can mean anything – and therefore, means precisely nothing), then it seems that science cannot provide a working definition of the ‘human person’. At the very least, it cannot provide a working definition that can interact with the Catholic theological definition of ‘humanity’.)

To sum up: cladistics can speak of populations; it can speak of DNA-level commonalities; it can speak of common ancestors. However, you have not demonstrated that it can say anything useful in the context of a theological discussion of the human person. Unless it can be shown that it can step up to that table… you cannot make the assertion that cladistics (and its definition of ‘polygenesis’) disproves Catholic theology (and its assertion of ‘monogenesis’).

Technically, monogenism refers to the biological bodily origin of humanity.

From a scientific perspective, perhaps. In a theological context – since that context is dealing with humanity (i.e., ensouled persons) – that definition is insufficient. The definition of ‘monogenism’ in theology has to do with the first two ensouled humans.

Ensoulment does not have a biological bodily origin. That is why ensoulment would not appear on a scientific diagram of the origin of biologically modern human anatomies.

And that, granny, is why your assertion fails: science cannot speak to (and therefore, cannot conflict with) theology’s assertions of monogenism!

The Catholic Church opposes what does appear on the diagram in regard to the estimates of the final extant hominin population which produced modern humans.

Unless you can demonstrate that the “final extant hominin population” is human, you can’t make this statement in good faith.

 

[grannymh]

As I use the term here, ‘ensoulment’ takes on its meaning as found in moral theology: to have (received) a soul. So, all humans alive today are ensouled. Adam and Eve were ensouled. In an evolutionary context, none of Adam’s or Eve’s ancestors were ensouled. (Since we agree on the Catholic definition of humanity – that is, possession of a soul – we can therefore say that Adam and Eve were humans, and none of their ancestors were.)

Strictly speaking, though, there’s a problem with that assertion (although I’m not certain at the moment that it’s relevant to the present discussion); if by ‘requires’, you mean that the physical anatomy must already be present in order for the soul to be present, there’s a particular problem, which can be illustrated by the phenomenon of twinning that takes place following conception. I’ll leave this issue aside for the moment, since it might take us off-track; however, inasmuch as you use this assertion as your demonstration that cladistics can tell us anything about ensoulment, it’s important that I continue to reject this part of your argument. (Maybe we’ll come back to this later…?)

Yep; and that’s a pretty trivial assertion… don’t you think? Not valueless, mind you – but nothing that helps move an argument along.

Can you see that these two statements are equivalent? The first statement, for a Catholic, is patently false – we can look to the Catechism and see an explicit statement that God creates the soul immediately, without the ‘aid’ of the parents. The second statement, however, says precisely the same thing, although it’s fancied up with scientific jargon. Positing the soul as a “material epiphenomenon of the human genome” means simply that the soul is a by-product of a material object or process; in other words, it means that the soul proceeds from the body. If the parents are a cause of the physical body of their child, then they are the cause of its “material epiphenomena” as well. In other words, a Catholic cannot hold to this statement you’re positing, since it implicitly asserts that God is not the immediate creator of the soul.

Here’s where I believe your argument falls apart. We agree that ‘humanity’ derives from the presence of a soul (‘ensoulment’, as I would term it). We see that the ‘material epiphenomenon’ argument presumes that the soul is an effect of the physical body (and therefore, cannot stand alongside Catholic doctrine – this, by the way, and not the ‘polygenesis vs monogenesis’ debate is the point where science and Catholic doctrine diverge). Therefore, cladistics diagrams cannot tell us where “fully-complete human individuals” exist.

(Incidentally, this is the reason why I asked for a definition that distinguishes between ‘pre-human ancestor’ and ‘human person’. If science – cladistics or otherwise – could provide a relevant definition, then we could work on your assertion. Since it cannot (that is, since “in the process of developing a ‘modern human person’” can mean anything – and therefore, means precisely nothing), then it seems that science cannot provide a working definition of the ‘human person’. At the very least, it cannot provide a working definition that can interact with the Catholic theological definition of ‘humanity’.)

To sum up: cladistics can speak of populations; it can speak of DNA-level commonalities; it can speak of common ancestors. However, you have not demonstrated that it can say anything useful in the context of a theological discussion of the human person. Unless it can be shown that it can step up to that table… you cannot make the assertion that cladistics (and its definition of ‘polygenesis’) disproves Catholic theology (and its assertion of ‘monogenesis’).

From a scientific perspective, perhaps. In a theological context – since that context is dealing with humanity (i.e., ensouled persons) – that definition is insufficient. The definition of ‘monogenism’ in theology has to do with the first two ensouled humans.

And that, granny, is why your assertion fails: science cannot speak to (and therefore, cannot conflict with) theology’s assertions of monogenism!

Unless you can demonstrate that the “final extant hominin population” is human, you can’t make this statement in good faith.

We are talking past each other.

While I have learned a lot about ensoulment and stand corrected on some points –
the main thing I have been trying to get across is that the Catholic Church opposes the population assumption underlying every point on a cladistics diagram, including the final extant population of human hominins known as Homo sapiens sapiens. The flip side of that is that scientists claim that there was never a founding population of two humans at any point in the history of the world. While that claim may sound probable, the presented evidence does not warrant the universal exclusion of all possibilities.

I am not making the assertion that cladistics (and its definition of ‘polygenesis’) disproves Catholic theology (and its assertion of ‘monogenesis’).

I am saying that the natural science cladistics system is basic to the Science of Human Evolution. The thing I wish people would understand is that the cladistics system in current use does not allow the appearance of a single couple as founders of humankind on any kind of diagram. In the cladistics system, the founding or origination of the human species is the result of a population. The doctrines of the Catholic Church oppose this population rule which concludes that Adam and Eve never existed. It is that simple.

Note. For body/soul comments, please refer to posts 23 & 27.

 

[Gorgias]

We are talking past each other.

Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem like it.

the main thing I have been trying to get across is that the Catholic Church opposes the population assumption underlying every point on a cladistics diagram

Not possible. The ‘population assumption’ in a cladistics diagram is that every individual (or population of individuals) has ancestors (whether we categorize these as ‘individuals’ or ‘populations’). The Catholic Church has no theological problem with that assumption.

, including the final extant population of human hominins known as Homo sapiens sapiens.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here… but what in the world would the Church have against an assertion that there is an extant population of humans?

The flip side of that is that scientists claim that there was never a founding population of two humans at any point in the history of the world.

I’d buy that claim, if we were able to pin down what scientists mean by ‘humans’. So far, the only description you’ve been able to give of scientists’ definition of ‘human’ is “in the process of developing into a ‘modern human person’”. The Church wouldn’t have a problem with that definition, either (although her definition of ‘human’ – given that it’s a theological one – would differ significantly).

The thing I wish people would understand is that the cladistics system in current use does not allow the appearance of a single couple as founders of humankind on any kind of diagram. In the cladistics system, the founding or origination of the human species is the result of a population.

And, if the definition of ‘human’, from a scientific perspective, precluded the definition of ‘human’ from a theological perspective, then we’d have something to debate. Inasmuch as these two definitions don’t clash with one another – or even touch upon one another! – there’s no conflict here!

The doctrines of the Catholic Church oppose this population rule which concludes that Adam and Eve never existed. It is that simple.

The ‘population rule’ cannot conclude that Adam and Eve never existed, inasmuch as the definition of Adam and Eve hinges upon their possession of a soul. Since their models cannot capture the notion of a soul, they are completely unable to make conclusions about ‘Adam and Eve’ or ‘single pairs of ensouled humans’. This is the part that you seem to be missing.

Let’s suppose that our theological definition of ‘human’ was “knows the answer to the question what’s the sum of 2 and 3?”. Cladistics does not have the tools to map that definition of human on its diagrams. Therefore, whether or not it deals in populations or individuals, it cannot hope to answer, confirm, or refute the proposition that “there were two first people who knew the sum of 2 and 3.” Therefore… since cladistics cannot discuss that question, it cannot come in conflict with the Church. It can talk about populations of beings; it can talk about DNA evidence… but it cannot talk about humans vis-a-vis ensoulment.

Yes, I understand what cladistics says about populations. Yes, I understand that it is only able to say “this population gave rise to that population.” Yet, unless it is able to speak to the theological definition of ‘human,’ there’s no way that it conflict with theology. Does that make sense?

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem like it.

Not possible. The ‘population assumption’ in a cladistics diagram is that every individual (or population of individuals) has ancestors (whether we categorize these as ‘individuals’ or ‘populations’). The Catholic Church has no theological problem with that assumption.

Having ancestors is part of the evolution model, correct.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here… but what in the world would the Church have against an assertion that there is an extant population of humans?

The Church is not against an extant population because that is us.
The theological problem is the original source of the extant human population. The Catholic Church holds that we descended from two, sole, real, true, fully-complete human parents. The evolution model holds that humans like chimpanzees developed from a major mixed population in the thousands. This, in the evolution model, is known as the Homo/Pan split (speciation event).

This link is a very simple diagram. Please scroll down to the misconceptions about humans.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Please look at the statement that our recent common ancestor was neither chimpanzee nor human. Catholicism holds that our original ancestor is totally human and that the two original human founders were not a common ancestor to chimpanzees.

I’d buy that claim, if we were able to pin down what scientists mean by ‘humans’. So far, the only description you’ve been able to give of scientists’ definition of ‘human’ is “in the process of developing into a ‘modern human person’”. The Church wouldn’t have a problem with that definition, either (although her definition of ‘human’ – given that it’s a theological one – would differ significantly).

The Catholic Church opposes the process of developing into a “modern human person” because the soul or spiritual principal is non-material and therefore it does not need to develop like material beings. Because the soul is not part of the material/physical realm is why the Catholic Church holds that the soul is created by God. Because Divine Revelation trumps, the scientific definition of humans is secondary.

And, if the definition of ‘human’, from a scientific perspective, precluded the definition of ‘human’ from a theological perspective, then we’d have something to debate. Inasmuch as these two definitions don’t clash with one another – or even touch upon one another! – there’s no conflict here!

This sounds like a violation of the logical principle of non-contradiction. In the Catholic Church, there is no debate on human nature itself.

The ‘population rule’ cannot conclude that Adam and Eve never existed, inasmuch as the definition of Adam and Eve hinges upon their possession of a soul. Since their models cannot capture the notion of a soul, they are completely unable to make conclusions about ‘Adam and Eve’ or ‘single pairs of ensouled humans’. This is the part that you seem to be missing.

The “population rule” counts bodies, period. What is really missing is the why reason
that the scientific (inductive) method per se cannot exclude the possibility of two original founders of the human species.

Let’s suppose that our theological definition of ‘human’ was “knows the answer to the question what’s the sum of 2 and 3?”. Cladistics does not have the tools to map that definition of human on its diagrams. Therefore, whether or not it deals in populations or individuals, it cannot hope to answer, confirm, or refute the proposition that “there were two first people who knew the sum of 2 and 3.” Therefore… since cladistics cannot discuss that question, it cannot come in conflict with the Church. It can talk about populations of beings; it can talk about DNA evidence… but it cannot talk about humans vis-a-vis ensoulment.

I am familiar with the scientific method per se. I have no clue what is meant by humans vis-à-vis ensoulment. Please explain. Thank you.

Yes, I understand what cladistics says about populations. Yes, I understand that it is only able to say “this population gave rise to that population.” Yet, unless it is able to speak to the theological definition of ‘human,’ there’s no way that it conflict with theology. Does that make sense?

Cladistics is drawn on a piece of paper on which paleoanthropologists plot the genetic based evolution model of descent with modification. Cladistics consists of lines demonstrating the path to various species. Please refer back to the top of the link, first illustration.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

Please look at the point described as the original speciation event.

The speciation event for the human species is shown at the bottom of the link as the bottom intersection of a short vertical line which appears to split into the long horizontal line. The intersection of the vertical line and the horizontal line is known as the recent common ancestor population (speciation event). See point 1 under misconceptions about humans.

Because these samples of the cladistics system have been used for many years, there is no longer the need to write that each speciation event and its subsequent separate lineages are populations.

The concept of speciation population as being different from the Catholic doctrine of monogenism was recognized in the 1940’s by Pope Pius XII. However, instead of using the term “polygenesis,” current research papers refer to “average effective population size estimates.”

This suggestion really sounds silly – print out the link and hold it in your hand. What you are holding is what the Catholic Church opposes in regard to the human species.

 

[Gorgias]

This link is a very simple diagram. Please scroll down to the misconceptions about humans.

Yep – nothing new there, and no problems.

Please look at the statement that our recent common ancestor was neither chimpanzee nor human. Catholicism holds that our original ancestor is totally human and that the two original human founders were not a common ancestor to chimpanzees.

No, this is not what Catholicism holds doctrinally; you’ve subtly modified the teaching of the Church to exclude the possibility of an evolutionary origin of mankind. The Church does not teach that the original ancestor is totally human, but simply that Adam and Eve are our first human ancestors:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. (CCC, 362)

Note what this does say: humanity is willed into existence by God. Note what it doesn’t say: the human person was the first hominin. Evolution is seen as a possibility by the Church precisely because the theological definition of ‘human’ is “has a soul”, and therefore, there can exist a hominin that is a living being but not a human. By adding the notion of the scientific term “original ancestor” what the Church teaches, you misconstrue Catholic teaching, and make it say something it is not attempting to assert.

The Catholic Church opposes the process of developing into a “modern human person” because the soul or spiritual principal is non-material and therefore it does not need to develop like material beings.

I would completely agree with you if the scientific description of the process of development were defined as “development of a soul.” However, that is not the scientific description. Therefore, science can talk about development all day long, and still not come into conflict with theology. Development of the physical form? Great. Development of the soul? Show me a scientist who makes this claim.

Because Divine Revelation trumps, the scientific definition of humans is secondary.

Not secondary, but different. Both are important truths – but the scientific description deals only with physical characteristics.

This sounds like a violation of the logical principle of non-contradiction. In the Catholic Church, there is no debate on human nature itself.

Not at all: if the Church defines ‘human’ in one way and science in another, then the two do not come into conflict, nor do they contradict one another. They simply use the same word in two different ways.

As a (more light-hearted) example: young people use the word ‘sick’ in a way that’s different than I would. For me, ‘sick’ either means ‘physically ill’ or ‘gross and disgusting’. For a young person, ‘sick’ means ‘really impressive and awesome.’ If, then, when we look at a situation, we use the same word – but in different ways – it does not mean that we are in conflict or are contradicting one another. Rather, it means that our jargons have picked up a single word and defined it differently. Science will use ‘human’ to speak of physical characteristics; Catholic theology will use it to speak of the presence of a soul. There is no necessary conflict here, as you so firmly assert.

The “population rule” counts bodies, period.

We agree on this point.

What is really missing is the why reason that the scientific (inductive) method per se cannot exclude the possibility of two original founders of the human species.

The scientific method can posit the notion of populations of hominins all day long; what it can’t do is point to two (or any number) and say “they’re the first humans.” Theology simply can say “there were two first humans (i.e., hominins with souls)” and leave it at that. There are ways to harmonize these two models.

The point is that theological monogenism does not, of a necessity, conflict with scientific polygenism, per se, as you’ve asserted. This is all I’m arguing: that your assertion that the two must be in conflict with each other is mistaken.

I am familiar with the scientific method per se. I have no clue what is meant by humans vis-à-vis ensoulment. Please explain. Thank you.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here: “humans vis-a-vis ensoulment” means precisely what it says – humans, considered with respect to their possession of a soul. The statement I’m making is one I’ve made over and again: science cannot discuss whether this physical being or that one has a soul. I’m not certain what’s confusing about that.

Please look at the point described as the original speciation event.

The “original speciation event” is not equivalent to “the creation of a human by God by the infusion of a human soul.” Your assertion relies on these two to be identical; they are not.

The concept of speciation population as being different from the Catholic doctrine of monogenism was recognized in the 1940’s by Pope Pius XII.

So, why are you conflating them?

This suggestion really sounds silly – print out the link and hold it in your hand. What you are holding is what the Catholic Church opposes in regard to the human species.

No, it isn’t, unless the Church is saying that speciation equals human-soul-infusion-event. She does not.

 

[grannymh]

Yep – nothing new there, and no problems.

No, this is not what Catholicism holds doctrinally; you’ve subtly modified the teaching of the Church to exclude the possibility of an evolutionary origin of mankind. The Church does not teach that the original ancestor is totally human, but simply that Adam and Eve are our first human ancestors:

Note what this does say: humanity is willed into existence by God. Note what it doesn’t say: the human person was the first hominin. Evolution is seen as a possibility by the Church precisely because the theological definition of ‘human’ is “has a soul”, and therefore, there can exist a hominin that is a living being but not a human. By adding the notion of the scientific term “original ancestor” what the Church teaches, you misconstrue Catholic teaching, and make it say something it is not attempting to assert.

I would completely agree with you if the scientific description of the process of development were defined as “development of a soul.” However, that is not the scientific description. Therefore, science can talk about development all day long, and still not come into conflict with theology. Development of the physical form? Great. Development of the soul? Show me a scientist who makes this claim.

Not secondary, but different. Both are important truths – but the scientific description deals only with physical characteristics.

Not at all: if the Church defines ‘human’ in one way and science in another, then the two do not come into conflict, nor do they contradict one another. They simply use the same word in two different ways.

As a (more light-hearted) example: young people use the word ‘sick’ in a way that’s different than I would. For me, ‘sick’ either means ‘physically ill’ or ‘gross and disgusting’. For a young person, ‘sick’ means ‘really impressive and awesome.’ If, then, when we look at a situation, we use the same word – but in different ways – it does not mean that we are in conflict or are contradicting one another. Rather, it means that our jargons have picked up a single word and defined it differently. Science will use ‘human’ to speak of physical characteristics; Catholic theology will use it to speak of the presence of a soul. There is no necessary conflict here, as you so firmly assert.

We agree on this point.

The scientific method can posit the notion of populations of hominins all day long; what it can’t do is point to two (or any number) and say “they’re the first humans.” Theology simply can say “there were two first humans (i.e., hominins with souls)” and leave it at that. There are ways to harmonize these two models.

The point is that theological monogenism does not, of a necessity, conflict with scientific polygenism, per se, as you’ve asserted. This is all I’m arguing: that your assertion that the two must be in conflict with each other is mistaken.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here: “humans vis-a-vis ensoulment” means precisely what it says – humans, considered with respect to their possession of a soul. The statement I’m making is one I’ve made over and again: science cannot discuss whether this physical being or that one has a soul. I’m not certain what’s confusing about that.

The “original speciation event” is not equivalent to “the creation of a human by God by the infusion of a human soul.” Your assertion relies on these two to be identical; they are not.

So, why are you conflating them?

No, it isn’t, unless the Church is saying that speciation equals human-soul-infusion-event. She does not.

You may have the last word.

 

[Gorgias]

You may have the last word.

LOL!

Seriously, though: are you saying that science can speak about humans in terms of their possession of a soul? And, if that’s what Catholic theology means by ‘human’, can any branch of science come in conflict with Catholic theology on that point?

 

[grannymh]

LOL!

Seriously, though: are you saying that science can speak about humans in terms of their possession of a soul?

No.

And, if that’s what Catholic theology means by ‘human’, can any branch of science come in conflict with Catholic theology on that point?

Yes.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Before we can say the world is only 6000 years old we must first establish the position and velocity of the observer of Genesis, as time is relative to said.

Also, given that an earth day was not yet in existence at the beginning of Genesis, what day would have been used?

Theses are legitimate questions regarding the topic of creation. Peace.