What distinguishes us as human is the fact that we have a rational soul. If we had no such soul, we would not be human even if our biology were unchanged.…The point is that because the theory of evolution says that the human population on earth was never two, we cannot accept an literal understanding of Genesis.
The question of where the rational soul originated is an excellent one. It really is over my head, though. All I can tell you is that I completely accept that the human soul cannot have been a product of evolution. It was created directly by God.What distinguishes us as human is the fact that we have a rational soul. If we had no such soul, we would not be human even if our biology were unchanged.
I’m curious: how does evolutionary theory validly conclude that there were never as few as two corporeal living beings with rational souls?
I certainly agree that the truth of Genesis runs more deeply than the history it records.
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? Scientific investigation can conclude that the were never as few as two humans only is science is capable of determining the presence and origins of the rational soul. But science has no such capability.The question of where the rational soul originated is an excellent one. It really is over my head, though. All I can tell you is that I completely accept that the human soul cannot have been a product of evolution. It was created directly by God.
P.S. The question about two original humans has already been answered.
I don’t see the problem with this. It simply isn’t possible for the entire human race to have decended from two people. It isn’t possible for those two people to have simply appeared.
Adam and Eve is a story. It’s a true story - in a sense that is greater than science. It reveals fundamental truths about humanity and about sin. Genesis cannot have been intended as a scientific document, although it certainly has been interpreted that way by some.
But at some point what was a pre-human population suddenly contains one or at most a few new creatures, humans. Evolution does not work by suddenly introducing thousands of new creatures (well, in insects and fish maybe, but not in mammals).Evolution makes clear that humans slowly evolved from apes, so that the first human population could not have been two.
But again, how else does evolution work? Pick any species, say some species of field mouse. Does evolution claim that that species of field mouse appeared full-blown in large numbers from its decendent species of field mouse? Surely not.Let’s assume for a moment, however, that Adam and Eve were literally the first humans and the only humans of their time. The human race would not exist today. The genetic diversity of one human couple is insufficient to support a population for long. Imagine what we’re saying if we say that all human beings descended from two people! We’re saying that brothers and sisters had sex with eachother, and that their offspring procreated as well.
Then no species could ever come into existence. The Church does not teach, as far as I know, that the first humans did not mate with the pre-human population from which they would have descended (in the evolutionary model). So in the evolutionary model you have two possibilities:This would be a severe case of inbreeding. Within a few generations, the entire human race would have been mentally retarded and infertile. The fact that we exist today, many hundreds of generations later, refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Are you saying that there was never a moment when one or two human creatures existed? One moment there were none, and the next moment there were 1000 or 10,000? That is nonsensical.Evolution is a population phenomenon. A population of almost-human apes evolved over time to become a population of mixed human and almost-human apes and later to a population entirely of human apes. The minimum size of this population was greater than two.
rossum
But you seem to be insisting that God could not ensoul only one or two humans at the beginning, but had to start with 1000 or 10,000. Why?The question of where the rational soul originated is an excellent one. It really is over my head, though. All I can tell you is that I completely accept that the human soul cannot have been a product of evolution. It was created directly by God.
He could have done this, but I think it’s a mistake to characterise ‘ensoulment’ as some kind of gene which can be passed to offspring if only one parent has it. I honestly don’t know at which specific point in our evolution we were given a soul.But you seem to be insisting that God could not ensoul only one or two humans at the beginning, but had to start with 1000 or 10,000. Why?
Photons are a massless particle. Your correct that they exhibit wave-particle duality, but they never have mass.I totally agree, I am taking a class at school an astronomy, and scientists have to admit that they really don’t know anything about anything, it’s all just guesswork. Take for instance light as both photons (mass) AND waves (no mass). It’s totally crazy. I liken it to the mystery of the trinity LOL
We can believe that Adam and Eve were inserted into the timeline any where God wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening here on earth.Telling Catholic kids that evolution is true and that the Genesis account if man is true is indeed a mixed message, IMV.
My opinion doesn’t matter anyway. These kids will tell you themselves as they leave for college as agnostics who have lost all faith.
All I am doing is poiting out a fire that is burning strongly in not only Catholics schools, but many Christians schools everywhere.
Ignoring this reality in the Catholic schools is only to the peril of the Catholic youth.
We have another Catholic on this thread insisting that we never had two original parents as the Catholic Church teaches.We can believe that Adam and Eve were inserted into the timeline any where God wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening here on earth.
The point is, what I have suggested does not violate the theory of evolution, nor does it violate Church teaching that Adam and Eve were truly the first humans. So I have demonstrated that there is no necessary conflict between science and Church in this matter.He could have done this, but I think it’s a mistake to characterise ‘ensoulment’ as some kind of gene which can be passed to offspring if only one parent has it. I honestly don’t know at which specific point in our evolution we were given a soul.
I agree, Catholics who reject Catholic teaching for private interpretation are the source of much damage to the Church and to those affected. I don’t think this is a controversial opinion among orthodox Catholics.We have another Catholic on this thread insisting that we never had two original parents as the Catholic Church teaches.
Ths poster believes this because he/she feels free to interpret Catholic teaching as he/she pleases…kinda like RC Sola Catechisma.
The kids see this contradiction and they walk away.
I have to say I am quite amazed by your admission here contrasted with your absurdly strong denunciation of anyone who questioned evolution. On the first page, you told another human being that if they didn’t believe in evolution, then they were not worthy of engaging in discussion with. But here, you state that your knowledge of it is scanty.Again, Rossum’s explanation is superior. I admit that my understanding of evolution is limited by my age and my area of study. That’s not to say that anything I’ve said contradicts science, just that I don’t fully understand the reasons for these scientific conclusions. I hope someone else (preferably a scientist) can answer your questions.
I think there are indications that our souls developed over time - along with our brains. If we look at increasingly interesting evidence from archaeologists, we will find that gradually evolving humanoids learned to respect their dead - and hence took an effort to bury them. This would imply that they understood there was something special about individuals. They began to make burial objects, cave paintings about life and death. These events, and many others, indicate the soul, however defined (!) evolved along with those beings who are the earliest in our line, and perhaps even with Neanderthals who were humanoid, but died out after conflict with our kind (we started early!).He could have done this, but I think it’s a mistake to characterise ‘ensoulment’ as some kind of gene which can be passed to offspring if only one parent has it. I honestly don’t know at which specific point in our evolution we were given a soul.
Every human has two copies of almost every gene - one copy from their mother and one copy from their father. The exceptions are some genes on the X and Y chromosomes which males will only have one copy of.
A single couple can have at most four copies of a given gene between them. The copies do not have to be the same, for example dominant brown eyes with a recessive blue eyes. This gives a maximum of four different alleles (such as blue/brown eyes) possible for any given gene. Some human genes are known to have 400 alleles - these are part of the immune system where variety is an advantage.
Given the mutation rates we observe and the number of different alleles present in the current human population it is possible to make estimates of the minimum human population in the past. The smallest estimate for human population I have seen is 1,000 - 10,000 from 70,000 years ago after the Toba eruption: Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans (PDF). This figure is not accepted by everyone, other minimum population estimates are all larger.
Evolution is a population phenomenon. A population of almost-human apes evolved over time to become a population of mixed human and almost-human apes and later to a population entirely of human apes. The minimum size of this population was greater than two.
rossum
You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize the obvious truth of evolution. Arguments made by Ken Miller (a Roman Catholic evolutionary biologist) convinced me that there simply is no alternative to the theory of evolution. Anyone who does not accept something as irrefutable of the theory of evolution is indeed not worth talking to about the book of Genesis.I have to say I am quite amazed by your admission here contrasted with your absurdly strong denunciation of anyone who questioned evolution. On the first page, you told another human being that if they didn’t believe in evolution, then they were not worthy of engaging in discussion with. But here, you state that your knowledge of it is scanty.
I think you have some of your priorities out of order.