EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[edwest2]

Christopher Hitchens in the National Catholic Register (October 5, 2008; page 4):

"Hitchens said religion has as its main advantage that it came before science. ‘If we knew what we now know, would we have ever become religious?’ he asked.

Further…

“If I saw a miracle, I would be inclined to doubt the evidence of my own eyes,” he said.

Clearly, the evidence doesn’t matter in some cases.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rad314]

The assumption of Philvaz to which I object is that Adam and Eve’s kids mated with nonhumans. Surely I’m not the only person who has a problem with the second generation’s taking mates without souls!

Because it’s distasteful? Just tell yourself that it was a consequence of the Fall. Personally, I like the implication that having a soul is a dominant trait.

We don’t know what might have happened had Adam and Eve not sinned. (Hmm . . . we do have the example of the ‘second Eve’, though.)

At least the explanation offered by PhilVaz is wonderfully parsimonious compared with your alternatives: that the soul is also a product of evolution (how long did souls live before they evolved to immortality? and how long did that evolution take? what branch of science tells us all this?) or that Adam and Eve ‘somehow’ transmitted souls to their friends and neighbors.

 

[Orogeny]

If as atheists say, the Bible is not a science book then why would science have anything to say about it?

Really? Are you claiming that the Bible is a science book? I say it is not. Am I an atheist?

If you are Catholic, the only purpose for “science” to become involved is to show Catholics that it is not literally true.

That is so insulting Ed. Do you really think that I and other Catholic scientists study science so that we can show that the Bible is not literally true?

In case you don’t know, the Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth.

Gee, why has the Church not infallibly ruled for a literal reading of Genesis, Ed? Is there a conspiracy in the Vatican to show that the Bible is not literally true? Clearly, all it takes is a proclaimation from the pope to make it clear.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The assumption of Philvaz to which I object is that Adam and Eve’s kids mated with nonhumans. Surely I’m not the only person who has a problem with the second generation’s taking mates without souls!

–Mike

I don’t know if that is what happened or not, but you are claiming that souls evolved and I find that objectionable. The Church is very clear on this point - souls don’t evolve.

But speaking strictly from a scientific standpoint about a supernatural entity (the soul), how does a soul evolve? Are there “soul genes”? Is my soul a mixture of my mom and dad’s souls? What possible mechanism for evolution is there?

Peace

Tim

 

[rad314]

. . . or that Adam and Eve ‘somehow’ transmitted souls to their friends and neighbors.

My mistake. I think your version, Mike, was that Adam and Eve, by some unknown means, transmitted sanctifying grace to their friends and neighbors – all, apparently, without the need for souls. Where would that grace reside? And if that grace were lost through sin, presumably one would be left with only a mortal body. Conveniently dispenses with hell, doesn’t it?

 

[mpartyka]

You made the claim earlier, as if factual, that human beings *did *evolve from an earlier ancestor species…I wouldn’t say that the evolution of mankind is as irrefutably certain as you’ve made it appear.

I was trying to avoid getting into a presentation of the data supporting evolution because it’s pretty indepth and I don’t know how well I can present it. If you like, I can start another thread and try to do that presentation. In this thread, however, I’d like to start from the assumption that evolution is indeed how human life came to be, and then see if we can determine a scenario that both fits the data and the Scripture, even if that means going a little beyond the borders established by non-infallible documents like Humanae Generis.

That proposal does not take into consideration the “ontological leap” that the Holy See rightly warned about. There is nothing in evolutionary evidence that can explain the radical and massive jump from animal mental functions to human consciousness…The fact that you have a problem with the origin of the human soul (and how humans could mate with animals) is a good indicator that you also do not find the human evolutionary story as much of a dogmatic fact as some evolutionists make it appear.

Not so. Consider the following real-life scenario:

I took a cruise to Alaska several years ago and have hundreds of pictures from my trip. When I had the pictures developed, I arranged them in chronological order. Looking them over, there was one sequence of pictures in the middle that didn’t make sense. From the sequence of events presented in the picture, it looked like at this one stop I had disembarked twice whereas I only remember disembarking once. To this day I don’t know how to explain that sequence of pictures. Maybe I really did get off the ship twice, or maybe the developers screwed up the sequence of photos when they gave them back to me. Whatever the explanation is, the one thing the strange sequence cannot do is deny that I did indeed take a cruise to Alaska!

Now, let’s say that this strange sequence of pictures is the “radical and massive jump in consciousness” to which you referred, and my trip to Alaska is evolution in general. This is what I think the status of evolutionary science is today: we don’t have enough information to see exactly how humankind went from point A to point B, but we do have enough information to see that the trip from point A to point B was made. Thus, the lack of information about specific steps during the trip does not amount to disproving the trip ever occurred.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

“Hitchens said religion has as its main advantage that it came before science. ‘If we knew what we now know, would we have ever become religious?’ he asked.”

Has Hitchens never heard of Scientology?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I think your version, Mike, was that Adam and Eve, by some unknown means, transmitted sanctifying grace to their friends and neighbors – all, apparently, without the need for souls. Where would that grace reside? And if that grace were lost through sin, presumably one would be left with only a mortal body. Conveniently dispenses with hell, doesn’t it?

Hang on a sec. I’m still dealing with the fact that you and at least one other person find the notion of rampant bestiality less offensive than the notion of evolving souls.
…
…
…
…Okay. Let’s move on.

No, what I said is that perhaps, had Adam and Eve not sinned, they could have passed on sanctifying grace to their neighbors’ souls somehow (kinda like some early Fathers theorized God would have provided humanity with a means of reproduction other than sex had they not sinned).

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Hang on a sec. I’m still dealing with the fact that you and at least one other person find the notion of rampant bestiality less offensive than the notion of evolving souls.

Returning briefly to MarcoPolo’s post:

Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him e.g. Genesis 2:21-23 “Eve from Adam”). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life.

Notice that the distinction between a huma and a human is the soul. Biologically, there is no difference. There is no difference in DNA. They produce fertile offspring. As far as science is concerned, they are the same species. On what basis do you call this ‘bestiality’?

 

[edwest2]

Really? Are you claiming that the Bible is a science book? I say it is not. Am I an atheist?That is so insulting Ed. Do you really think that I and other Catholic scientists study science so that we can show that the Bible is not literally true?Gee, why has the Church not infallibly ruled for a literal reading of Genesis, Ed? Is there a conspiracy in the Vatican to show that the Bible is not literally true? Clearly, all it takes is a proclaimation from the pope to make it clear.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

Why are you insulted? My reply was not directly to you. Cardinal Schoenborn wrote that scientism is something that must be overcome (Finding Design in Nature, New York Times). Atheism is being heavily marketed right now. It is being packaged with “science,” the source of reality, via scientism. Don’t you get it Tim?

On a Catholic forum, a few amateurs try to take the Bible and try to combine it with science. Why? If the world regards the Bible as not being a science book, then why should they (secularists) care?

I’ll tell you why. The Vatican is the head of a country with a population of one billion people. The atheists-secularists would very much like to have some influence over a country that large.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

Why are you insulted? My reply was not directly to you.

Perhaps not, but your style of writing blanket statements lump myself and ALL other Catholic scientists together and accuse us of being atheists out to prove the Bible false. In fact, I find it hard to believe that you even wrote this reply and asked why I would be insulted.

Don’t you get it Tim?

I get your agenda, Ed. It isn’t hard to figure out. Scientist=Atheist. You have been consistent for a long time now.

On a Catholic forum, a few amateurs try to take the Bible and try to combine it with science. Why? If the world regards the Bible as not being a science book, then why should they (secularists) care?

I am an amateur regarding the Bible but not on science. How about you, Ed? Are you a professional scientist? Not unless you have been less than honest in the past. Are you a professional theologian? Again, not based on past claims. Who are the “amateurs” you refer to, Ed?

I’ll tell you why. The Vatican is the head of a country with a population of one billion people.

Uh, no it is not.

Peace

Tim

 

[mpartyka]

Returning briefly to MarcoPolo’s post: Notice that the distinction between a huma and a human is the soul. Biologically, there is no difference. There is no difference in DNA. They produce fertile offspring. As far as science is concerned, they are the same species. On what basis do you call this ‘bestiality’?

Because it’s the mating of a human and a non-human – and we’re not talking just sex here, mind you…unless you are suggesting that the custom of marriage skipped a generation.

I’m also assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that having a soul vs. lacking a soul makes for a qualitative behavioral difference between humans and “huma”. If it doesn’t, then why, except for the reason of protecting the integrity of a decidedly nonscientific doctrine, should we bother arguing that the “huma” are soulless?

Personally, to look at two biologically equal beings and say, “That person has a soul, but that other person doesn’t,” sounds eerily like rhetoric from anti-Semite extremists who would say things like, “Jews don’t have souls.” (Now, don’t fly off the handle over this comparison. I’m not attacking your character or calling you an anti-Semite. This is just an analogy.) That’s what I find offensive – that for the sake of protecting a doctrine that has no basis in science whatsoever, we would be willing to put only Adam and Eve in the category of “human” and label everyone else on the planet, who are in no discernable way different from Adam and Eve, inferior creatures whose deaths mean nothing.

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

Because it’s the mating of a human and a non-human – and we’re not talking just sex here, mind you…unless you are suggesting that the custom of marriage skipped a generation.

That makes no sense. Is sex outside of marriage the same as bestiality?

If it doesn’t, then why, except for the reason of protecting the integrity of a decidedly nonscientific doctrine, should we bother arguing that the “huma” are soulless?

Because at some point there were animals that had human bodies but were not human because they lacked human souls. One cannot be human without both a human body and a human soul.

Personally, to look at two biologically equal beings and say, “That person has a soul, but that other person doesn’t,” sounds eerily like rhetoric from anti-Semite extremists who would say things like, “Jews don’t have souls.” (Now, don’t fly off the handle over this comparison. I’m not attacking your character or calling you an anti-Semite. This is just an analogy.) That’s what I find offensive – that for the sake of protecting a doctrine that has no basis in science whatsoever, we would be willing to put only Adam and Eve in the category of “human” and label everyone else on the planet, who are in no discernable way different from Adam and Eve, inferior creatures whose deaths mean nothing.

What doctrine are you denying here? The doctrine that a soul is instantly created?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps not, but your style of writing blanket statements lump myself and ALL other Catholic scientists together and accuse us of being atheists out to prove the Bible false. In fact, I find it hard to believe that you even wrote this reply and asked why I would be insulted.I get your agenda, Ed. It isn’t hard to figure out. Scientist=Atheist. You have been consistent for a long time now.I am an amateur regarding the Bible but not on science. How about you, Ed? Are you a professional scientist? Not unless you have been less than honest in the past. Are you a professional theologian? Again, not based on past claims. Who are the “amateurs” you refer to, Ed?Uh, no it is not.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

For the record, not all scientists are atheists, but the Catholic Church is concerned about those who are. As a Catholic, I share that concern. When the journal Nature writes that most leading scientists reject God, those are the scientists I’m referring to. I’m sorry if I gave any other impression.

So even though there are religious people who are scientists, most leading scientists reject God and some of the most vocal are using science to back up their claims and using science to attempt to deny truths held in the deposit of faith.

For those people who are only concerned about this world, power, prestige and control over others is paramount. When I said the Vatican is the head of a country of one billion, I meant, what other world leader gets global television coverage at Christmas, and, as Head of State, is listened to by one billion people? Those who see this life as all there is covet that kind of power and influence. Currently, there are atheist-scientists who are trying to get people to join their community and they are using science to do something science cannot demonstrate - denying God. Whose existence they are busy trying to disprove, especially by pointing out that the Bible is not in line with what they call science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

That makes no sense. Is sex outside of marriage the same as bestiality?

What I’m saying is that if sex with an animal is bestiality, I can hardly see how marrying an animal isn’t a travesty of a greater order.

Because at some point there were animals that had human bodies but were not human because they lacked human souls. One cannot be human without both a human body and a human soul.

You’re saying that as if it had to be true, but what if “huma” had “huma souls” rather than “human souls”? And what would make “huma souls” of any less value than “human souls” given that the biology is the same for both “huma” and “human”? (Again, we’re getting close to making another set of arbitrary “racial” distinctions.)

What doctrine are you denying here? The doctrine that a soul is instantly created?

“Instantly created” how? Might there not be various interpretations of what it means for the soul to be “instantly created”? (And I was referring to monogenism, actually.) Does “instantly created” mean that a soul is “fully formed” at the point of creation, or does it “grow” with the body after its (and the body’s) initial creation? There’s some wiggle room here, I think.

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

What I’m saying is that if sex with an animal is bestiality, I can hardly see how marrying an animal isn’t a travesty of a greater order.

We ARE animals. The only difference is that we have immortal souls.

You’re saying that as if it had to be true, but what if “huma” had “huma souls” rather than “human souls”? And what would make “huma souls” of any less value than “human souls” given that the biology is the same for both “huma” and “human”? (Again, we’re getting close to making another set of arbitrary “racial” distinctions.)

The difference is the soul. I don’t see how you compare that to “arbitrary racial differences”. Humans of all races have immortal souls.

“Instantly created” how?

God wills it and it is done.

Might there not be various interpretations of what it means for the soul to be “instantly created”? (And I was referring to monogenism, actually.) Does “instantly created” mean that a soul is “fully formed” at the point of creation, or does it “grow” with the body after its (and the body’s) initial creation? There’s some wiggle room here, I think.

Unless you know of a Church teaching that points to something other than instant, fully formed creation, then I would say that there is no reason to think otherwise.

How could a soul evolve? You haven’t answered that yet.

Peace

Tim

 

[mpartyka]

We ARE animals. The only difference is that we have immortal souls.

Which does what for us, exactly? What are the noticable differences, if any, that distinguish the huma without a soul from the human with a soul? We’re already positing that there are no biological differences, so what, if any, characteristics would distinguish a huma from a human?

God wills it and it is done.

Okay, but does God will a soul to “be” fully-formed, or does a human embryo have an embryonic soul that grows as the organism grows? In either case one can say that God “instantly created” the soul.

Unless you know of a Church teaching that points to something other than instant, fully formed creation, then I would say that there is no reason to think otherwise.

The Church is not the only source of truth there is, you know.

How could a soul evolve? You haven’t answered that yet.

That’s because I don’t know how a soul could evolve. Used to be, people couldn’t conceive of how a species could evolve, either, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

–Mike

 

[Orogeny]

Which does what for us, exactly? What are the noticable differences, if any, that distinguish the huma without a soul from the human with a soul? We’re already positing that there are no biological differences, so what, if any, characteristics would distinguish a huma from a human?

I don’t know, I have never met one. You tell me. The idea of the two reproducing seems to really bother you, so you must think that there would be some significant difference.

Okay, but does God will a soul to “be” fully-formed, or does a human embryo have an embryonic soul that grows as the organism grows? In either case one can say that God “instantly created” the soul.

I don’t know that answer, but there is a difference between a soul that grows with a human as that person develops and a soul evolving.

The Church is not the only source of truth there is, you know.

It is as far as souls are concerned. Science clearly has no say in the matter.

That’s because I don’t know how a soul could evolve. Used to be, people couldn’t conceive of how a species could evolve, either, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Well, unless you consider the soul to be something that is created by the sexual union of a male and female, contains some essence of both (genes or otherwise), and specifically was not immediately created by God, there is no way for a soul to evolve.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

That’s what I find offensive – that for the sake of protecting a doctrine that has no basis in science whatsoever, we would be willing to put only Adam and Eve in the category of “human” and label everyone else on the planet, who are in no discernable way different from Adam and Eve, inferior creatures whose deaths mean nothing.

–Mike

Who is the “everyone else on the planet” who are 'in no way different" from Adam and Eve, but who we consider “inferior”? Apes? I believe evolutionary theory would have us believe that we are merely a different variety of ape, and therefore humans mating with them would not be immoral (bestiality).

I’m not following your argument – it seems to be spinning around radically opposed points. Again, it seems here that you’re offended by the teaching of the Holy See that there is an unbreachable gap between human and animal on the order of being, and no amount of evolution can create an immortal soul in an animal.

Or to put it more simply, if science cannot see “any discernable difference” between apes and human beings (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it cannot), then this alone is evidence of the blindness that takes place when one looks only at superficial qualities of reality (as science does) and attempts to reach a full understanding of nature or especially of human life.

At the same time, I may be missing your point entirely and if so I would appreciate a clarification.

 

[reggieM]

Which does what for us, exactly? What are the noticable differences, if any, that distinguish the huma without a soul from the human with a soul? We’re already positing that there are no biological differences, so what, if any, characteristics would distinguish a huma from a human?

Ok, that explains my previous questions. You and Tim are positing that huma and humans are biologically the same. Personally, I cannot see where science has proven that given that we do not know precisely when God created human beings (and immortal souls). I cannot see where science has shown that there is no physical difference between creatures with human souls and those with animal souls either. The Church teaches that there is an “ontological leap” between man and animal life.