Did people really live hundreds of years?

[Zipply]

TMC wrote:

I am not sure what your point it is. Are you saying that evolution could not have resulted in humans? If you explain your point I am happy to try to address it.

Well, I dared anyone who thought they could do it, to concoct a narrative. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

The reason why a person, in discussion, would request that is if they feel their interlocutors are glossing over difficulties and skipping steps. I feel that, as a Church, this is exactly what we are doing with Adam, Eve, and human evolution.

Evolution no doubt did result in humans. The record of human lineage is pretty darn clear.

What evolution (a natural process) could not have resulted in is two, exactly two, and only two first parents of the human race. I have explained why many, many times in this thread.

I would indeed like someone who believes the bodies of Adam and Eve were both the products of a natural evolutionary process AND the two unique parents of all of humanity to explain in detail how this worked. Hence, my request for a narrative.

My personal opinion is, of course, that it cannot work. I think Humani Generis has locked us into an untenable position, and I feel that Pope SS. JPII and Pope Benedict glossed over this difficulty in a dismissive and dishonest way. Like I said before, they’re still my Popes, as Francis is now, and 1,000 difficulties don’t make one doubt…but I think this is obviously what has happened.

 

[Zipply]

FrDavid96 wrote:

Somehow, between this post and today, you seem to have shifted into arguing in favor of fundamentalism.

Well, it’s pretty simple. We started out talking about ages. I gave an answer. Then we swerved into talking about human origins. I gave another answer. They are not identical.

On really long lives - pretty simple, they’re symbolic of holiness in a culture that had not conceived of eternal reward.

On human origins - Not as simple. The truths we are bound to believe are, in fact, in contradiction to the settled science. As a Church, we’re desperately trying to wish that away by ignoring the implications of Humani Generis.

I offer no solution to this conundrum. It simply is. I worry about it, but like Pope Pius XII, I do not see how it can be reconciled. I do, however, think the idea that the faith can never contradict science is now under severe suspicion.

That’s what I posted about.

 

[clem456]

FrDavid96 wrote:

On human origins - Not as simple. The truths we are bound to believe are, in fact, in contradiction to the settled science. As a Church, we’re desperately trying to wish that away by ignoring the implications of Humani Generis.

Science is on a journey as is faith.

Evolution of organisms, is however, one of those things that is pretty much commonly accepted science. It is not incompatible with Church teaching, unless the scientist wielding the science uses it to reject the absolute role of the creator.
If you’ve read otherwise from the Church, please post specifics.

 

[TMC]

TMC wrote:

Well, I dared anyone who thought they could do it, to concoct a narrative. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

The reason why a person, in discussion, would request that is if they feel their interlocutors are glossing over difficulties and skipping steps. I feel that, as a Church, this is exactly what we are doing with Adam, Eve, and human evolution.

Evolution no doubt did result in humans. The record of human lineage is pretty darn clear.

What evolution (a natural process) could not have resulted in is two, exactly two, and only two first parents of the human race. I have explained why many, many times in this thread.

I would indeed like someone who believes the bodies of Adam and Eve were both the products of a natural evolutionary process AND the two unique parents of all of humanity to explain in detail how this worked. Hence, my request for a narrative.

My personal opinion is, of course, that it cannot work. I think Humani Generis has locked us into an untenable position, and I feel that Pope SS. JPII and Pope Benedict glossed over this difficulty in a dismissive and dishonest way. Like I said before, they’re still my Popes, as Francis is now, and 1,000 difficulties don’t make one doubt…but I think this is obviously what has happened.

Well, I disagree with your conclusion that HG has locked the Church into an untenable position. I certainly don’t agree that any Church teaching requires that Catholics believe that evolution resulted in two, and exactly two, original opposite sex humans.

As for your request for a narrative, I could not give you a narrative explaining where my great-grandparents came from that included descriptions of their parents, etc, etc. I certainly don’t know exactly what happened at human origins. Was there a distinct first pair? Maybe, although it seems somewhat unlikely. But, from a theological point of view, it doesn’t seem to be of any moment to me whatsoever. I am interested in the topic intellectually, and (as a lay person to that field) happy to be guided by the latest scientific developments.

What I do know is that there is no conflict between the science of human origins and Catholic faith. There are some few fundamentalist Catholics that reject science more or less completely. There are a few others that are hung up on monogenism and think that therefore Catholic faith requires special creation of two first persons (some of them are on this thread). But the great majority of Catholics don’t have either of those issues. I would include the majority of Catholic theologians and clergy in that group, based on reading many of the former and knowing many of the latter (and some of the former).

I am curious as to why you seem intent on locking the Church into a scientifically untenable position on this topic. The Church has been willing to look to science for science and to keep to faith for faith - a lesson that perhaps she learned late, but has learned fairly well (in my view). Why do you insist otherwise?

 

[clem456]

TMC wrote:

Evolution no doubt did result in humans. The record of human lineage is pretty darn clear.

What evolution (a natural process) could not have resulted in is two, exactly two, and only two first parents of the human race. I have explained why many, many times in this thread.
I would indeed like someone who believes the bodies of Adam and Eve were both the products of a natural evolutionary process AND the two unique parents of all of humanity to explain in detail how this worked. Hence, my request for a narrative.

My personal opinion is, of course, that it cannot work. I think Humani Generis has locked us into an untenable position, and I feel that Pope SS. JPII and Pope Benedict glossed over this difficulty in a dismissive and dishonest way. Like I said before, they’re still my Popes, as Francis is now, and 1,000 difficulties don’t make one doubt…but I think this is obviously what has happened.

Well there you have it. Your opinion is far more powerful evidently than God’s ability to create as he wills it. I was not aware that the God’s creation is limited by our ability/willingness to understand.

How about this explanation:
Evolution is demonstrably a fact through scientific research and God-given reason. It’s part of God’s creation. At a time God chose he breathed life into Adam and Eve?
Can God do that, or is he unable?

 

[Zipply]

TMC wrote:

Well, I disagree with your conclusion that HG has locked the Church into an untenable position. I certainly don’t agree that any Church teaching requires that Catholics believe that evolution resulted in two, and exactly two, original opposite sex humans.

As for your request for a narrative, I could not give you a narrative explaining where my great-grandparents came from that included descriptions of their parents, etc, etc. I certainly don’t know exactly what happened at human origins. Was there a distinct first pair? Maybe, although it seems somewhat unlikely. But, from a theological point of view, it doesn’t seem to be of any moment to me whatsoever. I am interested in the topic intellectually, and (as a lay person to that field) happy to be guided by the latest scientific developments.

What I do know is that there is no conflict between the science of human origins and Catholic faith. There are some few fundamentalist Catholics that reject science more or less completely. There are a few others that are hung up on monogenism and think that therefore Catholic faith requires special creation of two first persons (some of them are on this thread). But the great majority of Catholics don’t have either of those issues. I would include the majority of Catholic theologians and clergy in that group, based on reading many of the former and knowing many of the latter (and some of the former).

I am curious as to why you seem intent on locking the Church into a scientifically untenable position on this topic. The Church has been willing to look to science for science and to keep to faith for faith - a lesson that perhaps she learned late, but has learned fairly well (in my view). Why do you insist otherwise?

Humani Generis #37:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents

have you just never got around to reading this?

 

[Zipply]

Clem wrote:

Well there you have it. Your opinion is far more powerful evidently than God’s ability to create as he wills it. I was not aware that the God’s creation is limited by our ability/willingness to understand.

How about this explanation:
Evolution is demonstrably a fact through scientific research and God-given reason. It’s part of God’s creation. At a time God chose he breathed life into Adam and Eve?
Can God do that, or is he unable?

Clem, that’s what you call a ‘miracle’. If the creation of Adam and Eve was a miracle, cool. All that means is that Catholics have been playing at being evolutionists for over 100 years, when in fact, we’re simply creationists like every bunch of fundamentalist protestants. I’m not trying to limit God (please, get that through your head), I’m pointing out that we have forked tongues - agreeing with all the discoveries of human evolution on the one hand, and saying how great they are and how the faith and science are so cozy together, while at the same time being bound to basically believe in miraculous creation of human bodies by Church teaching.

 

[clem456]

TMC wrote:

Humani Generis #37:

have you just never got around to reading this?

A better question is, are you going to allow yourself the opportunity to understand it, with the mind of the Church?
When a poster believes he knows better than two Popes, the conversation is pretty much over.

 

[TMC]

TMC wrote:

Humani Generis #37:

have you just never got around to reading this?

It is my experience that replying to someone by suggesting they are ignorant rarely advances the conversation.

Obviously I have read Humani Generis, or I would not have been able to opine on how it limits (or does not limit) Catholic thought. HG 37 does speak against polygenism. But Pius XII took the unusual step of explaining the reason for that, because he believed that:

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

So Pius XII didn’t see a way to reconcile polygenism with faith. But a couple things have happened in the last 65 years. First, we now are much more certain in the scientific basis of polygenism. That alone is enough to at least rethink things. Also, the Church has continued to think through the issues. More recent Church publications (like Communion and Stewardship) make that clear. Statements by the last several Popes, and the writings of Catholic theologians make that clear. For example, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book on Genesis gives some interesting thoughts on original sin that make clear (at least to me) that accepting polygenism does not mean rejecting orginal sin (which was Pius XII’s concern).

 

[buffalo]

How could I know what happened to non-humans? Perhaps due to limited capacities they died out? I dunno. You are asking questions that may never be answered by science.

Bingo. Historical (not observable, repeatable or predictable) can not be scientifically proven. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with the evo past. Same with long ages.

History can tell us though.

 

[buffalo]

Science is on a journey as is faith.

Evolution of organisms, is however, one of those things that is pretty much commonly accepted science. It is not incompatible with Church teaching, unless the scientist wielding the science uses it to reject the absolute role of the creator.
If you’ve read otherwise from the Church, please post specifics.

Adaptation is commonly accepted. Beyond that it is speculation. The top evo’s are all lamenting the modern synthesis has bit the dust and are looking into self organization.

There are so many problems with evo in the last few decades. Convergent evolution is just one. Another is DNA actively fights against mutations.

 

[Zipply]

TMC wrote:

So Pius XII didn’t see a way to reconcile polygenism with faith. But a couple things have happened in the last 65 years. First, we now are much more certain in the scientific basis of polygenism. That alone is enough to at least rethink things. Also, the Church has continued to think through the issues. More recent Church publications (like Communion and Stewardship) make that clear. Statements by the last several Popes, and the writings of Catholic theologians make that clear. For example, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book on Genesis gives some interesting thoughts on original sin that make clear (at least to me) that accepting polygenism does not mean rejecting orginal sin (which was Pius XII’s concern).

Great. So, to move the conversation along, parse this sentence for me:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

In context (since we both have read the document) what does this mean, exactly? That this prohibition was absolute? Or that this prohibition was contingent on something? Human evolution was pretty well documented in 1950…what was lacking then that is present now that renders this null? ‘More’ knowledge? The knowledge was substantial then…

 

[buffalo]

TMC wrote:

Great. So, to move the conversation along, parse this sentence for me:

In context (since we both have read the document) what does this mean, exactly? That this prohibition was absolute? Or that this prohibition was contingent on something? Human evolution was pretty well documented in 1950…what was lacking then that is present now that renders this null? ‘More’ knowledge? The knowledge was substantial then…

The case for polygenism is weaker now.

 

[TMC]

TMC wrote:

Great. So, to move the conversation along, parse this sentence for me:

In context (since we both have read the document) what does this mean, exactly? That this prohibition was absolute? Or that this prohibition was contingent on something? Human evolution was pretty well documented in 1950…what was lacking then that is present now that renders this null? ‘More’ knowledge? The knowledge was substantial then…

Your question highlights the issue. You can’t determine Catholic teaching by “parsing” a single sentence in a single document. As you recognize, we have to view it in context. There are at least three levels of context that are relevant. First, we should at least read that sentence in the context of the entire paragraph. Second, we should consider the context of the entire document. Third, we should consider the context of what has occurred in the 65 years since Pius XII wrote that sentence.

At the first level, in that same paragraph Pius XII explains why he has a problem with polygenism. He expressly states that the problem with polygenism is that he can not see a way to reconcile polygenism with the doctrine of original sin. He does not say that polygenism must be rejected as inconsistent with Scripture or for any other reason. Simply that he can not reconcile polygenism with original sin.

Moving back a level to look at the entire document confirms this. At the time HG was written, there was some discussion in the Church over whether Catholic theologians and scientist should or even could consider evolution. The Pope wrote HG to explain that there is no bar to Catholics researching and exploring modern scientific developments, including evolution. But he cautions that Catholic theologians and scientists should avoid using science to reject important Catholic doctrines, such as original sin, and should instead look to ways to harmonize science and faith.

Finally, there is the context that has developed since HG was published in 1950. You suggest that not much has happened since then, or at least you assert that we had “substantial” knowledge about evolution by 1950. But, of course, science has advanced significantly since then. And so has the acceptance of scientific discoveries. And so has theological thought on those scientific developments. In fact, John Paul II recognized exactly that in 1996, when he said:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

John Paul II explained that he perceived a different limit on the theory of evolution. Rather then draw the line at polygenism, he explained that the limit should be drawn at a mechanistic or materialistic view of the soul:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

The full speech is here:newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

So direct creation of the soul appears to have been the boundary line for John Paul II. But the basic underlying principle is the same. Truth cannot contradict truth. Scientists and theologians should respect each other’s fields. So essential Catholic doctrines cannot be denied by science.

The Church continues to explore these issues, and the development continues consistent with those principles. So by 2004 the Church was describing human origins like this:

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Given that context, we can see that the principle is that scientific developments, including evolution, cannot contradict essential Catholic doctrines, such as original sin or the inherent dignity of man, because truth cannot contradict truth. Part of the task of Catholic theologians, then, is to harmonize these truths. Piux XII did not see a way to do that with polygenism and original sin. But others since then have seen ways to harmonize polygenism with Catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict’s views on original sin, in my opinion, present one way of doing just that. But regardless, Catholics do not have to reject scientific advancements to maintain their faith. The Church teaches that Catholics should do exactly the opposite - they should embrace both faith and science, knowing that they cannot be incompatible.

 

[clem456]

Your question highlights the issue. You can’t determine Catholic teaching by “parsing” a single sentence in a single document. As you recognize, we have to view it in context. There are at least three levels of context that are relevant. First, we should at least read that sentence in the context of the entire paragraph. Second, we should consider the context of the entire document. Third, we should consider the context of what has occurred in the 65 years since Pius XII wrote that sentence.

Nice post. Wish I could have expressed myself that well.

 

[Zipply]

So, basically TMC, your answer is that Catholics are not bound to believe in monogenism, even though a Papal encyclical specifically says we are, because oblique statements and intimations by later Popes appear to indicate that we aren’t.

See, that’s what your argument looks like stripped of all of the tendentious fluff.

 

[buffalo]

So, basically TMC, your answer is that Catholics are not bound to believe in monogenism, even though a Papal encyclical specifically says we are, because oblique statements and intimations by later Popes appear to indicate that we aren’t.

See, that’s what your argument looks like stripped of all of the tendentious fluff.

A long list of papal declarations before state we are.

 

[TMC]

So, basically TMC, your answer is that Catholics are not bound to believe in monogenism, even though a Papal encyclical specifically says we are, because oblique statements and intimations by later Popes appear to indicate that we aren’t.

See, that’s what your argument looks like stripped of all of the tendentious fluff.

And your argument is that your interpretation of a single sentence of a single document written long ago controls despite everything said and written by Popes, theologians, Church commissions or anything else; because you prefer to believe that Catholic teaching denies science. Not only do you refuse to actually discuss the issue (beyond pronouncing your view), you accuse the Popes that have disagreed with your one-sentence-based conclusion of being dishonest. Why is it so important for you to believe that the Church rejects science, when very few Catholics agree with you, and so many Catholic authorities have said otherwise?

 

[clem456]

So, basically TMC, your answer is that Catholics are not bound to believe in monogenism, even though a Papal encyclical specifically says we are, because oblique statements and intimations by later Popes appear to indicate that we aren’t.

See, that’s what your argument looks like stripped of all of the tendentious fluff.

The proper thing to do in responding to a well researched post would be to provide specific rebuttal.
So, please show us a reference that indicates the Church espouses ANY particular theory as definitive in this area. We’ve been over the documents quite a bit.

YOU’RE UP.

 

[Zipply]

TMC wrote:

And your argument is that your interpretation of a single sentence of a single document written long ago controls despite everything said and written by Popes, theologians, Church commissions or anything else; because you prefer to believe that Catholic teaching denies science.

No. My argument is that Humani Generis is a real Papal encyclical which enjoys authority in the Church and forbids Catholics espousing polygenesis. I am far from alone in this:

Wikipedia:

Polygenism[edit]
While the factual basis for creationism should be researched further, the encyclical issues a clear no to another scientific opinion popular at the time, polygenism, the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).

Introductory Dictionary of Theological and Religious studies:

It is paradoxical, however, that the same encyclical which suggests it is acceptable to understand the creation story of Genesis 2 as an etiological myth rather than a historical report also suggests that it is not acceptable to question the historicity of the account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.

Fr Julian Large, Provost, Brompton Oratory:

Genesis also suggests that one man and one woman are the first parents of the whole human race, and names them as Adam and Eve. The Church upholds the principle of ‘monogenesis’ that states that the whole of humanity can trace its genealogy to a common origin. Although monogenesis has never been solemnly defined as a dogma, it would seem to be the only theory of human origin consistent with the doctrine of Original Sin (see Humani Generis n. 37).

Forbes magazine:

The Catholic Church indeed of all the Christian churches faces a particular quandary. The Council of Trent is quite explicit on the topic. Catholics are required to believe not only that Adam is the single father of the human race, but that Original Sin is passed on by physical generation from him to the entire human race. Its not something symbolic or allegorical (although it is regarded as ultimately mysterious). The First Vatican Council reiterated the doctrine, as did Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis

Msgr Charles Pope, official blogger, Archidiocese of Washington DC

Polygenism is the proposed vision of almost all evolutionary theorists. It obviously flows from the theory. As life emerged from one-celled organisms, ultimately more complex forms of life arose to include fish, then reptiles, mammals, higher forms of mammals and early humanoid forms, and then the first homo sapiens. But, presumably this process did not occur only in one case. Rather, it is usually supposed that a larger, indeterminate number of this new species of Man arose. So what we had was an emergent group, rather than simply two individuals: Adam and Eve.

But this presents a problem for a Catholic who might wish to uncritically accept evolution, for, simply put, we cannot accept polygenism.

Seriously man, it’s not just me. I am appalled by this reality, and wish it were not so…but I remain convinced that it is.