Christian Author Ray Comfort Bashes The Vatican

[Timothysis]

Ray Comfort is Kirk Cameron’s buddy who pushes their Way of the Master idea of man’s relationship with God. While I admire their determination to spread the “truth” with others I’ve often thought that their ideas and “proofs” of God’s existence were very silly and actually an embarrassment to real God-loving people. In particular, I think his ridiculous notion that the banana, being the perfect fruit in the world since it is packed in its own packaging and naturally conforms to the human hand, speaks of a certain lack of understanding that classical Christian theology has espoused for nearly 2000 years.

Mr. Comfort now “challenges” the Vatican for its acknowledgment of Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Some favorite quotes are;

“But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus,” added Comfort. "That belief reveals a shallow understanding of the claims of atheistic evolution. God gave us six senses, and the sixth one is common sense."

*“The Vatican, in essence, is saying, ‘Don’t believe Jesus or Genesis. Believe Darwin instead,’” Comfort said. “God made man in his own image, and God is not a primate. In the name of diversity, the Vatican is encouraging atheism, and that’s a terrible betrayal of Christianity.” *

Interestingly enough, his latest book is titled ""You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think."

Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?!?!?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89049

 

[ibkc]

“But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus,” added Comfort. "%between%

I wasn’t aware that Jesus commented on the theory of natural selection.

 

[Dale_M]

Ray Comfort is anti-Catholic, he has made several statement concerning that.

 

[rien]

Well the statement from the Vatican as is surely gives fodder for those on the left and right. Anti-Catholic or not.

I find this troubling - the vagueness of what Rome said.

You can interpret Genesis however you want and still fall w/in the Vatican’s comments.

For instance, one liberal priest said this proved that Darwinian evolution is Scriptural and that making Adam from mud is simply symbolic of evolution. As science teaches teaches life arose essentially from a primordial soup - mud.

On the conservative side Fr. Pacwa tried to answer a question on this from a troubled listrner a while back. Basically he said as long as you believe God stepped in at some point and created man’s soul that you could believe in evolution. But the problematic nature of this new church teaching was clear in the weak reply by Fr. Pacwa.

Does that mean, I woul have followed up, that life was evolving. Lower life, higher life and then humans and at that point God specially ensouled the evolved human? And did not the life form man evolved from have a soul already? Did God suddenly upgrade the soul with Adam?

This is troublesome to say the least - for Rome to pronounce such a vague endorsement of Darwin just adds to the growing theological confusion in the Catholic church. It is really getting to the point where it starts to mirror the Anglican church. You can essentially beleive what you want on key issues.

 

[JPUSC]

I’ve had the discomfort of meeting this Comfort guy. He is one appalling character who is not doing the work of God.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Well the statement from the Vatican as is surely gives fodder for those on the left and right. Anti-Catholic or not.

I find this troubling - the vagueness of what Rome said.

You can interpret Genesis however you want and still fall w/in the Vatican’s comments.

For instance, one liberal priest said this proved that Darwinian evolution is Scriptural and that making Adam from mud is simply symbolic of evolution. As science teaches teaches life arose essentially from a primordial soup - mud.

On the conservative side Fr. Pacwa tried to answer a question on this from a troubled listrner a while back. Basically he said as long as you believe God stepped in at some point and created man’s soul that you could believe in evolution. But the problematic nature of this new church teaching was clear in the weak reply by Fr. Pacwa.

Does that mean, I woul have followed up, that life was evolving. Lower life, higher life and then humans and at that point God specially ensouled the evolved human? And did not the life form man evolved from have a soul already? Did God suddenly upgrade the soul with Adam?

This is troublesome to say the least - for Rome to pronounce such a vague endorsement of Darwin just adds to the growing theological confusion in the Catholic church. It is really getting to the point where it starts to mirror the Anglican church. You can essentially beleive what you want on key issues.

I would say God gave man the soul by means of evolution. I don’t think the church requires you to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe you can with scientists believe that we came from a larger evolving population.

I don’t think it requires supernatural miracle for soul to be created. Human beings are made every day and no miracle occurs when they get souls. Animals also have souls and no miracle occurs when they get them. “Soul” is just a way of describing the form the body takes IMO, much like “life” is just a way of describing the form of living bodies versus inanimate bodies.

Within many of our life times, scientists will create living bodies from inanimate bodies (abiogenesis). The living body they create will have a soul and since they did it in the lab and it could be reproduced by other scientists, you can’t say it took a special miracle.

 

[KathleenElsie]

**

Ray Comfort (born December 5, 1949) is a [New Zealand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)-born [Christian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) minister and [evangelist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism). *Comfort, who has no formal training in theology,*started [Living Waters Publications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Waters_Publications) and *[The Way of the Master](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_the_Master)* in [Bellflower, California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellflower,_California) and has written a number of books

---

​

Personal life and conversion

Born Jewish, Comfort was raised with next to no religious experience, having stated, “I went through life without any Christian instruction at all. I think I went to church about three times in about twenty years. I hated it. I found it an insult to my intellect.”
For many years, he served as an itinerant minister and associate pastor in his former hometown of Christchurch, teaching around New Zealand and Australia. In the 1970s, he began open-air preaching, which he has since done several thousand times. Around 1981–1982, he started using the principles of what he calls “Biblical Evangelism” (see below) after reading Charles Spurgeon and the New Testament books of Romans and Galatians.
According to Comfort, he has designed dozens of gospel tracts since the 1970s, leading to the tract ministry of Living Waters currently selling millions of tracts each year. In 1989 , he accepted an offer from Hosanna Chapel (of the Calvary Chapel fellowship) in Bellflower, California, to begin full-time ministry in the United States.
Currently, Comfort lives with his wife Sue in Southern California, and they have three adult children. He has also written many books and is a regular platform speaker at Southern Baptist state conferences.
**

 

[irenaeus1]

I would say God gave man the soul by means of evolution. I don’t think the church requires you to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe you can with scientists believe that we came from a larger evolving population.

I don’t know about that. The Church has clearly taught that polygenism is wrong, or at least too dangerous to allow being considered. How are we guilty of Original Sin if we evolved from a larger population? Did all of the ‘adams’ sin? Otherwise, some of us may be born with original sin, and others of us borm immaculate. Even science speaks of midochrondrial Eve or geneological Adam based on genetics that we all descended from the same parents.

 

[vs_trumpet]

I don’t know about that. The Church has clearly taught that polygenism is wrong, or at least too dangerous to allow being considered.

The church said that a long time ago and hasn’t reaffirmed that.

See

markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

How are we guilty of Original Sin if we evolved from a larger population? Did all of the ‘adams’ sin? Otherwise, some of us may be born with original sin, and others of us borm immaculate.

See

wayofthelordjesus.org/cmp.cfm?page=cmp14f

by Germain Grisez

Even science speaks of midochrondrial Eve or geneological Adam based on genetics that we all descended from the same parents.

No that’s an misunderstanding non-scientists have.

Misconception: Mitochrondrial Eve was the only woman alive at that time

Allan Wilson’s naming Mitochondrial Eve[3] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women are not as common as the MRCA, their Nuclear genes are present in today’s population.[4]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with ‘the’ MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Misconception:The_Mitochondrial_Eve_and_Most_Recent_Common_Ancestor.28MRCA.29_are_the_same

A similiar misconception is at work in your idea about “Adam”

 

[Steeltemplar]

The Church does indeed teach that Adam and Eve were the sole progenitors of the human race. A simple search through the Catechism shows that they are treated as real individuals:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Adam+and+Eve&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

More information is available in the CA page on the subject:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

---

vs trumpet’s objection to Adam and Eve from science is fatally flawed in that it ignores the power of God to do as He wills. It is notable that what he posts is still conjecture, though it might be based on biology. There is no direct proof that Adam and Eve were not the progenitors of mankind.

Consider this: Does science “support” the other miracles which God has worked? And it should be noted that science cannot refute these miracles either.

The very idea of that which is miraculous is that it defies the normal order. And the idea of divine revelation is that not all truths may be known through our own reason, therefore God makes them known to us.

 

[vs_trumpet]

The Church does indeed teach that Adam and Eve were the sole progenitors of the human race. A simple search through the Catechism shows that they are treated as real individuals

Read the Mark Shea post. He quotes a theologian who includes mention of the Catechism:

There is ANOTHER possible escape clause, which is more controversial. When a pope issues a decree with a low level of certitude (i.e. “this theory cannot be safely taught”, or my favorite, “this theory is offensive to pious ears”), does it have an expiration date? I don’t mean a literal date, of course. What I mean is that “cannot be safely taught” or “offensive to pious ears” contain an element of prudential judgment, and that judgment is made in light of the contemporary setting. (As opposed to a purely doctrinal statement, which does not age, except in its linguistic expression.)

**In this case, I would ask: What significance should we attach to the fact that, in the past 58 years, no pope has repeated the condemnation of polygenism? Moreover, although I am not certain on this, I suspect that no Catholic teacher or writer has been condemned (and maybe not even denied an imprimatur) for the past few decades for suggesting polygenism. The paragraph in Humani Generis that you quoted (DS 3897) is footnoted once in the Catechism (section 390, note 295), and yet it seems to be used to support the teaching that original sin is an actual sin committed by “our first parents” – but it doesn’t say there were TWO parents.

(In fact, you might want to check over the whole description of creation and the fall in CCC 355-409; looking over it quickly, it appears to me to carefully avoid claiming there were two. When it does mention “Adam and Eve”, eg. 375 and 399, a qualifier is included: “the symbolism of biblical language”, “Scripture portrays”. This is more clear in 399, I could see arguments either way about 375, but it certainly could be read that “Adam and Eve” are an appositive to “our first parents” and are not thus the substance of the “teaching” and “authentic interpretation” referred to in that paragraph.)**

In addition, German bishops “A Catholic Adult Catechism” which the Vatican reviewed said polygenism was compatible with Catholic teaching.

vs trumpet’s objection to Adam and Eve from science is fatally flawed in that it ignores the power of God to do as He wills. It is notable that what he posts is still conjecture, though it might be based on biology. There is no direct proof that Adam and Eve were not the progenitors of mankind.

By that standard, there’s no “direct proof” that the world wasn’t created in 7 days. It’s possible that the biological evidence was put here by God to test our faith and it’s possible that the geological evidence and a whole bunch of other evidence was put here by God to test our faith. Many things are possible, but it’s scientifically certain that a literal Adam and Eve could not have been exclusively the genetic progenitors of the human race.

Consider this: Does science “support” the other miracles which God has worked?

I’m not a Christian and I don’t believe in miracles. I believe God cares for the world by means of creatures, be those creatures angels, aliens, humans, animals, or something else. I believe God does it this way b/c he wants creatures to be exalted and to govern in his name and spirit. So he told the mythic Adam to govern the animals and he told the mythic angels to govern the mythic Adam. I think it’s not just myth though. I believe we have a responsibility to this planet and there may well be aliens whom some may call angels and some call non-carbon based life forms or just very different life forms that may have responsibility for us. God gave the mythic Adam responsibility over this planet; we don’t have responsibility over any other planets or solar systems or galaxies, etc.

And the idea of divine revelation is that not all truths may be known through our own reason, therefore God makes them known to us.

There are always truths we don’t and can’t know whether we have revelation or not. We can’t know both the position and spin of particle for example. I don’t think you need revelation to love God.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Read the Mark Shea post. He quotes a theologian who includes mention of the Catechism:

In addition, German bishops “A Catholic Adult Catechism” which the Vatican reviewed said polygenism was compatible with Catholic teaching.

First, Mark Shea is not the authority on Church teachings. On the other hand, the Pope who condemned polygenism was indeed the authority.

Second, Shea is not reading the Catechism very well if he really thinks there is any doubt of Adam and Eve being real people. The Catechism explicitly states things such as:

“417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.”

I am sorry, but fictional people cannot transmit anything, nor can they have descendants.

Third, there is no need for any Pope to repeat what the previous Pope has ruled. And since none have gone against what he said, it still stands.

Finally, without any sort of citation, I rather doubt what you are claiming about the German catechism.

I’m not a Christian and I don’t believe in miracles.

In the end, this is why your positions are not credible for a discussion within the Catholic faith. You deny things which are essential to the faith itself. How could you, then, have a meaningful opinion of the truths of Catholicism? Obviously, you could not because you are not starting with the fundamentals of the faith.

There are always truths we don’t and can’t know whether we have revelation or not. We can’t know both the position and spin of particle for example. I don’t think you need revelation to love God.

Again, you deny important aspects of the Catholic faith, so these statements from you have little meaning to my beliefs. You lack the foundation from which to offer insight into this.

Any conversation about internal Catholic beliefs has to assume the basic tenets of the faith. Otherwise, it is absurdity.

 

[vs_trumpet]

First, Mark Shea is not the authority on Church teachings. On the other hand, the Pope who condemned polygenism was indeed the authority.

The quote is not from Mark Shea. Mark Shea was quoting a theologian there who is an expert on these kinds of things.

markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

I am sorry, but fictional people cannot transmit anything, nor can they have descendants.

Who says they are fictional? We are discussing whether it is 2 people or more than 2 people.

Finally, without any sort of citation, I rather doubt what you are claiming about the German catechism.

jimmyakin.org/2006/01/a_reader_writes.html

This leaves open the possibility that a way of reconciling polygenism with the sources of dogma might eventually be found. Since his time many Catholic theologians have conjectured that there are ways in which polygenism can be reconciled with original sin (e.g., saying that Adam and Eve represent the early human community which as a whole turned away from God at the beginning of our history and thus committed original sin, passing it on to us).

A number of years ago the German conference of bishops published A Catholic Adult Catechism that was published in English back in 1987 by Ignatius Press. This catechism contained a section on evolution that said it was possible to reconcile polygenism with the Church’s teaching if certain points regarding original sin were maintained. I am also given to understand that this Catechism was also reviewed by the Vatican (after the debacle of the Dutch Catchism), which did not mandate a change in this section.

It is further to be observed that, in John Paul II’s statements on evolution (such as the famous speech to the pontifical academy of the sciences) he is quick to reaffirm all of the things Pius XII said about the limits on how evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith except on the subject of polygenism, where John Paul II said nothing at all.

JP2 was not saying that it’s okay for Catholics to go ahead and advocate polygenism, but he was conspicuously silent in reaffirming his predecessor’s stand on this issue and may have been holding the door open for one of his own successors to revisit this issue and take a different position.

It is possible that, one day, a pope may issue a new statement on evolution and say that a way has been found to reconcile polygenism with the sources of faith.

But that hasn’t happened.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to speak of Adam and Eve in monogenistic terms, and there has been no Vatican declaration on any level (so far as I know) that polygenism is compatible, but there is a greater degree of reserve shown by the pope on this subject in recent years, and the Vatican has let pass local magisterial statements–like that of the German conference of bishops’ catechism–that displayed openness to polygenism.

How could you, then, have a meaningful opinion of the truths of Catholicism?

Are you saying that Christians cannot have anything meaningful to say in Judaic studies and that Jews cannot have anything meaninful to say in Islamic studies and that atheists cannot have anything meaningful to say in Comparative Religion studies? Besides, the opinions I am presenting are that of the theologian in Mark Shea’s posting and of the Catholic theologian Germain Grisez:

wayofthelordjesus.org/cmp.cfm?page=cmp14f

 

[vs_trumpet]

Here’s the relevant part from Germain Grisez who is a respected Catholic theologian. BTW “mythic” doesn’t mean fictional.

wayofthelordjesus.org/cmp.cfm?page=cmp14f
Germain Grisez:

Third, while the biological evidence indicates that humankind emerged from a very large, widely scattered, interbreeding population, theology must assume that the spiritual capacity for free choice was given initially by a special divine intervention, which completed hominization, to a group of individuals small and cohesive enough to function socially as a single body. In this way, solidarity in sin by the whole of humankind was possible at the beginning. As additional groups were hominized, they emerged into an already-given existential situation, and so shared prior to any personal act in the moral condition of humankind. In this sense, they shared “by propagation not by imitation” (DS 1513/790), even if not all humans were lineal descendants of a single couple.

1. No matter how a group is organized, someone’s action is decisive. (In a group which operates by simple majority voting, for example, the vote which makes the majority is decisive.) Primate hordes are structured socially, with a single dominant leader; supposing the transformation of a primate group into a human extended family, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have a similar social structure. Thus, there is no obstacle to thinking the original human community had a single leader whose action was decisive for its action as such. We can call this individual “Man.”** . . .
2. It is evident that a large group of people can be carried away by a common wave of emotion and unreasonable thinking and so go wrong together. Moreover, factional conflict, in which questions of social control are settled by power with unfairness on all sides, is very common. Even in such factional contention there is common responsibility for accepting the use of unfair means; at the same time, the individual with primacy in the society has the primary responsibility for any general resort to violent means of settling issues.

So take it up with Germain Grisez!

 

[KathleenElsie]

For some reason you forgot the #1 & #2.

1. According to the account of original sin in Genesis, a minimal human community, a man and a woman, was involved. Although the woman’s sin was first, it was not decisive. The man’s was, so that the common responsibility was primarily, although not exclusively, his.
2. For the sake of argument, the theory of polygenism, according to which the minimal human community must have been a sizable group, is granted here. It is also assumed that this was one interbreeding population with a potentiality for communication and social cohesion. Note, finally, that any social group can act as a group

Here’s the relevant part from Germain Grisez who is a respected Catholic theologian. BTW “mythic” doesn’t mean fictional.

wayofthelordjesus.org/cmp.cfm?page=cmp14f

So take it up with Germain Grisez!

 

[Steeltemplar]

Are you saying that Christians cannot have anything meaningful to say in Judaic studies and that Jews cannot have anything meaninful to say in Islamic studies and that atheists cannot have anything meaningful to say in Comparative Religion studies? Besides, the opinions I am presenting are that of the theologian in Mark Shea’s posting and of the Catholic theologian Germain Grisez:

You also expressed a lot of your own opinions when rejecting ideas like Divine Revelation and miracles.

I think if you reread what I actually said, you will find the point is that in order to discuss something within the faith of Catholicism, you would need to assume the basic tenets of the faith. That just makes basic sense. How could anything in the Catholic faith work if you remove the things which you reject? It doesn’t. The Catholic faith requires Divine Revelation, it requires miracles as well, just as it requires Christ.

Your premise is, in part, “The Catholic Church cannot believe in Adam and Eve as real people because I (vs trumpet) do not believe in miracles.”

Well, the fact is that the Catholic Church does believe in them. Indeed, the Church teaches that they occur every single day in the form of the Eucharist.

So the end fact is this: If you want to discuss something within the faith, then you need to assume the faith’s basic ideas. If not, then what you are saying has no meaning for Catholics.

---

Anyway, there are many theologians who are wrong about many things. Even some who might be right about a good deal else.

I think this debate has turned towards being rather futile. In the end, I am going to put my trust in the Pope. And, for a Catholic, that is a good place to put one’s trust.

 

[Steeltemplar]

For some reason you forgot the #1 & #2.

Yes, interesting

 

[vs_trumpet]

I don’t think you got that a “minimal human community” with a man and a woman involved doesn’t exclude polygenism; in fact Grisez grants that the “minimal human community” included more than a single woman and a single man. He doesn’t assume polygenism is true for the sake of argument and then seek to disprove it. He assumes polygenism is true and then shows how Catholic doctrine is consistent with it. In the course of that he also notes how science indicates that polygenism is true. That’s not something he granted for the sake of argument.

And if you look at the comments to the blog post in Mark Shea’s blog, you’ll note that a Catholic there pointed to Grisez as saying this and no one disputed his interpretation.

I think Catholics should be able to recognize science shows polygenism is true. I think Catholics should set their faith aside when doing science. In science this is known as “methodological naturalism” and you can’t be a scientist in good standing today without following it. And there’s no conflict between polygenism and Catholic doctrine and this is what Grisez is saying.

The theologian Mark Shea quoted should be read by all. That theologian is not Grisez. Read the blog post.

markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

BTW, Templar, I have not yet heard your acknowledgment yet on the German catechism. I provided you with the citation. I don’t agree with you about non-Catholics but the theologian Mark Shea quoted is Catholic. Also, the pope you trust or the Vatican you trust as the citation I provided showed, reviewed and permitted the German catechism which said polygenism was consistent with Catholic doctrine.

If polygenism weren’t consistent with Catholic doctrine, then no scientist would believe in all Catholic doctrine since no scientist believes in monogenism today.

 

[vs_trumpet]

And in any event, as that blog post from Jimmy Akin says: “Since his time many Catholic theologians have conjectured that there are ways in which polygenism can be reconciled with original sin (e.g., saying that Adam and Eve represent the early human community which as a whole turned away from God at the beginning of our history and thus committed original sin, passing it on to us).”

So it’s not just Grisez, but “many Catholic theologians”

 

[Steeltemplar]

BTW, Templar, I have not yet heard your acknowledgment yet on the German catechism. I provided you with the citation. I don’t agree with you about non-Catholics but the theologian Mark Shea quoted is Catholic. Also, the pope you trust or the Vatican you trust as the citation I provided showed, reviewed and permitted the German catechism which said polygenism was consistent with Catholic doctrine.

If polygenism weren’t consistent with Catholic doctrine, then no scientist would believe in all Catholic doctrine since no scientist believes in monogenism today.

What you quoted was second-hand information Akin is nice and all, but without the actual text, I don’t know what is going on. So I have nothing to acknowledge. Further, we don’t know what is going on politically there. Catholicism in Germany has some real problems right now. Something could have slipped through.

The fact is that the Catechism still uses monogenic terms, just as Akin points out in your own quote. And no Pope has spoken against what Pius XII said.

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” - Humani Generis

This document is not disputable, no matter how many theologians you throw around.

I think that there are indeed some scientists who do not believe polygenism, by the way. And it does not make them any less credible as scientists.

In fact, I would say that to look at polygenism and say “This is the absolute truth” does not seem terribly scientific. But then those who reject God, still calling themselves “open-minded”, tend to close themselves to that which might hint at theism.