"Early Hominids" and Catholic Teaching?

[fide]

That doesn’t mean that evidence for evolution is false. In other words, to describe a natural process (more by experience than by natural reason) is different than to apply such process.

The Theories of evolution just describe something that seems to be true. There is only epistemology involved.

Eugenics, thanshumanism, etc. use that description. As they use , now is moral and ethics involved.

It’s like saying that knowing about nuclear fission and making an atomic bomb carries the same moral value.

I think I must be missing something you are saying. Can you summarize your point?

 

[AlbMagno]

I am saying that evolution, as a theory, is only knowledge, it is morally neutral.

Trans-humanism isn’t a scientific theory but an ideology/philosophy/movement. It can cite the theory of evolution, but it isn’t the theory of evolution. It isn’t morally neutral because it is applied to human actions.

So, in summary: Theory of evolution =/= trans-humanism.

 

[Dan_Defender]

This is actually untrue. Many human species were contemporary with early Homo Sapiens, like Neanderthals and Densovians (I think I spelled that right).

ok I was referring to the early hominids. I stand corrected.

 

[FiveLinden]

And your explanation for the fact that we share DNA (which is passed on by descent) with every other living thing is…?

That is not an explanation. Genetic material is passed on through descent, except in a few irrelevant (to this discussion) exceptions. We share our genetic material with all other living things. Therefore we are related by descent. This is not ‘being compatible with’. It is ‘being a part of’.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Augustine explains an acceptable interpretation of Creation in Book 6 of his “Literal Meaning of Genesis,": which I think is helpful here.

He explains that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day (which explains why there is two creation accounts of man in Genesis):

St. Augustine

There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.

This interpretation works well with concepts like an old universe, the big bang, and evolution–ie God created all things at once in potency (the big bang) and then formed them over time (old universe, evolution). St. Augustine elsewhere compares this formation of things to how mountains and rivers are shaped over time. Even with man, Genesis doesn’t say how long it took God to form man from the slime of the earth after the seventh day. Hominids could simply be part of this shaping process.

 

[fide]

I am saying that evolution, as a theory, is only knowledge, it is morally neutral.

I worked in science for a number of years (before I left it for a major life-change). The experience revealed to me that human beings cannot take their human totality, including their moral dimension, their sum total of virtue and character in their souls, their sense of their purpose in life, their sense of the meaning of life - these aspects of their being cannot be separated from their thoughts and works in the field of science. Their reasoning cannot be isolated from the rest of their beliefs and/or lack of beliefs. They cannot be impersonal: they cannot shut down their humanity, to become mere recorders and analysers and reporters of data and data interpretation. They cannot be “purely” objective: their subjectivity is fused into the same one mind and heart that is their own.

Scientists, like Judges in our legal system, are not without political and philosophical biases, and their moral (or amoral or immoral) character. I almost laughed when our Supreme Court Chief Justice pronounced with high indignation:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” He concluded, “The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Man is not a soulless machine, or computer. Nor is his heart and soul impartial, pure and sinless. Science is no more perfect or objective (or unanimous in conclusions or judgments) than the men doing the science.

 

[fide]

You are expressing a belief (as I did), not an indisputable observation. And we all do not observe the same things, even when we are looking at the same ecosystem.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Science is no more perfect or objective (or unanimous in conclusions or judgments) than the men doing the science.

Why do you think this is true? Science is the art of derivation from observation. Tools cannot lie to you. Mathematics cannot lie to you. There is no subjectivity in what a ruler reads, or proportions of isotopes, or skull shapes. Those are just straight facts. Science is not subjective, it’s the definition of objectivity.

 

[fide]

There is a growing religion today of scientism. Scientism. The suffix “ism” on words typically indicates a dysfunctional aberration of the word - a projection of the truth into what could be called a pseudo-religion, so blind can those committed to the aberration become. Making almost a “cult” of science.

Science began, historically, with observations and measurements that anyone with patience and normal intelligence could make, drawing conclusions that normal rationality would draw. Today, “science” is applied, and conclusions drawn, about matters that are many orders of magnitude smaller than any common visible object of study, and others that are many orders of magnitude larger and more massive than our everyday reality, and at distances measured in “light years” away. There are electronics and instruments of “observation” that transform our attempts to observe into counts of non-visible elementary particles hitting something, or traces on an oscilloscope or monitor that produce a spectrum of data points, indicating a distribution of probabilities of an encounter with something that we presume interacted with something that was effected by the things we were “observing.” There is a bridge of assumptions and theories and presumptions that have been received as “normative” by the “community” of published experts in the field. And out of the resultant tangled blur of “expert opinions”, “science” speaks.

And the great draw of scientism is that it is replacing that pesky and interfering “old religion” of past days - and the uncompromising old-fashioned God who does not want to listen to our brilliant opinions at all. A God who presumes to dictate to us what is “good” and what is “bad”. And we have Ph.D.'s!

Any instrument has a certain precision - it produces measurements within a range of error, a “plus or minus” something, never an exact “the measured quantity is THIS!” The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ought to evoke a genuine humility in scientists - but the fog is often powered through today with fancy and catchy words and new opinions/theories of what in the world is Reality itself anymore.

I’m sorry for venting! As I look at the world today, I see a poverty of knowledge and understanding worthy of the word “famine”. Jesus came to show us the way. Is anyone listening?

 

[FiveLinden]

You are expressing a belief (as I did), not an indisputable observation. And we all do not observe the same things, even when we are looking at the same ecosystem.

I’m afraid not. The observation that we share genetic material with other living things is indeed indisputable. It is the same science that is accepted in courts throughout the world for things like paternity testing.

 

[fide]

I’m referring to the meaning of that common materiality - what does it imply? What conclusions can be drawn from the table of elements, and the mapping of complex molecules? And the interdependent nature of the ecosystem? You draw conclusions - I draw conclusions - we differ.

 

[FiveLinden]

I’m referring to the meaning of that common materiality - what does it imply? What conclusions can be drawn from the table of elements, and the mapping of complex molecules? And the interdependent nature of the ecosystem? You draw conclusions - I draw conclusions - we differ

OK. So what other possible meaning could shared genetic material have (other than common descent), bearing in mind that genetic material is transferred by descent?

‘I don’t agree’ is not drawing a conclusion.

 

[Rau]

So what other possible meaning could shared genetic material have (other than common descent), bearing in mind that genetic material is transferred by descent?

If one held that God created each species independently then common dna could imply use by God of common building blocks. I’m not proposing that, but it’s a possible conclusion one might draw.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I don’t even know where to start with what you said. It’s a whole lot of things I couldn’t agree less with but can’t find a starting point to address.

 

[FiveLinden]

If one held that God created each species independently then common dna could imply use by God of common building blocks. I’m not proposing that, but it’s a possible conclusion one might draw.

Except that we know that genetic material is passed on by descent. And you would have to account for the way God decided to use the building blocks in entirely different ways to make wings in birds, insects and bats.

The theory you are not proposing is close to the idea that God put fossils in the earth to test our faith in a young earth. It’s a possible belief, but an impossible observation. An equally valid proposition would be that a golden unicorn created the universe five minutes ago and just made us think we were, and the world appear to be, much older.

 

[AlbMagno]

I agree, science isn’t really objective (it aims to be) and scientists don’t work in a vacumm. I’ve read the works of sociologists like Bruno Latour against the current positivism and I agree with them.

However, that doesn’t negate the fact that the theory of evolution doesn’t make moral claims. It only gets to that when we apply the naturalistic fallacy (“in nature animals practice eugenics, so we should too”), but that is outside the theory, and more into philosophy.

So, in this, what you said applies to the epistemology of the theory (evolutionary scientists could be epistemically biased, so we know that the current ToE isn’t absolute and could be improved) but not to its morality, as this particular theory doesn’t make moral claims

 

[Lucy_1]

So I am curious what the Catholic Church’s view is on this subject. How does the discovery of these hominids fit in with the narrative of Adam and Eve, for example?

There are lots and lots of threads you can read about these issues. Basically it boils down to this: the catechism says

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

So there have to be a set of first parents in some form or fashion. Beyond that-- who they were, what they looked like, what their DNA was, how it happened, etc., is just speculation.

 

[twf]

Genesis says God formed man from mud… from the dust of the earth. It does not say God created man ex nihilo. Why is it that some Christians find the idea that man is descended from animals - beautiful, living creatures of God - vile and disgusting, but take no issue with the idea that man is literally made from mud?
God works through natural processes. He didn’t “poof” me into existence. I was naturally formed from the genetic material of both my parents, and at that exact moment God intervened and gave me a soul. If Adam and Eve were formed from genetic material from earlier hominids, God could likewise have supernaturally intervened…breathing on them as Genesis describes.

 

[fide]

I don’t even know where to start with what you said. It’s a whole lot of things I couldn’t agree less with but can’t find a starting point to address.

I can understand! And compassionately so. There is a profound (and increasing) separation among men today, which makes understanding, mutuality, common purpose, even compromise increasing difficult - and headed toward, and presently not far from, impossible.

In this election cycle in the U.S., this fundamental separation is demonstrated in the political sphere by the failure to find compromise between the (mostly “conservative”) Republicans and the (mostly “liberal” - now “progressive” blending into “socialist” and sneaking toward “communist”) Democrats. But what compromise can there be between the belief that “every life is sacred, from conception to natural death” and “abortion is the right of the woman at any time for any cause or for no reason at all”? Can the baby be divided, with half embraced and nurtured, and the other half dismembered in the womb? To hear the horror of the insanity of these times, Democrat Speaker Pelosi (a self-described “Catholic”) declared “abortion is sacred ground!” God help us.

The ultimate insight into the dividing line that cuts across humanity was written by Augustine, describing the “two cities” that men choose between - and must choose between - and ultimately do choose between: the City of God, OR the city of man.

To paraphrase his words , citizens of the one city love God even to the contempt of self; citizens of the other love self even to the contempt of God. That sounds stark, even brutal at first, but he saw and understands it well.

The reason evolution is so repulsive to me, is that it is one step further in the progress of man toward marginalizing God, making Him irrelevant, with the goal of complete erasure of all thought and any need of Him. It is a cornerstone of the goal of building the city of man, a godless utopia exalting man to the contempt of God.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The reason evolution is so repulsive to me, is that it is one step further in the progress of man toward marginalizing God, making Him irrelevant, with the goal of complete erasure of all thought and any need of Him.

I’m ignoring the rest of your post because it’s irrelevant. What you’ve said here is completely false. Evolution is compatible with God. Full stop. Evolution does not “marginalize” God, it does not erase thought or need of God. All it does is explain, with explanation derived by evidence obtained through observation, why life has taken the course it has.