EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[grannymh]

Well, it’s a matter of nomenclature. Basically, you have to accept an inbreeding population of H sapiens with a mixture of those with mortal and immortal souls.

Alec, you have responded better than I could. Of course, there are umpteen difficulties with this kind of speculation, starting with the philosophical/theological.

Because it would take even a dominant trait many generations to fix to 100% prevalence in a population of several thousand.

Side observation: I can picture all kinds of creatures, birds, animals, insects, humans evolving. My guess is that the rate (time) of achieving 100% prevalence would be different between a snail and a human etc.

Blessings,
granny

All life, in any form, is special

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh,

What do you understand “scientifically proven” to mean?

Dear Arclight,

As in the origin of life, “scientifically proven” would mean that the cause or whatever which produced the first “life” would be proven according to the scientific methods now used. Because some of the posters here do not accept evidence as being the same as proof, my understanding goes to the root of the existence of life which so far has not been proven empirically.

My understanding is that evolutionary scientists accept that the chemical etc. elements of life existed, came together and evolved etc. At this point, the jury is out regarding how the basic elements came to be.

Personally, while I prefer the “scientifically proven”, I also accept subjective thinking, experiential learning, and old fashioned faith in a loving Creator.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

 

[StAnastasia]

There might perhaps be theological reasons against it, as a consequence of it requiring, for many generations a mixed population of ensouled and not ensouled people.

Alec, the very idea of “a mixed population of ensouled and not ensouled people” is theologically ridiculous.

 

[Arclight]

Dear Arclight,

As in the origin of life, “scientifically proven” would mean that the cause or whatever which produced the first “life” would be proven according to the scientific methods now used. Because some of the posters here do not accept evidence as being the same as proof, my understanding goes to the root of the existence of life which so far has not been proven empirically.

My understanding is that evolutionary scientists accept that the chemical etc. elements of life existed, came together and evolved etc. At this point, the jury is out regarding how the basic elements came to be.

Personally, while I prefer the “scientifically proven”, I also accept subjective thinking, experiential learning, and old fashioned faith in a loving Creator.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

I think you are misinterpreting what scientists say when they regard something as proved. This might help The anti-science element posting here either does not understand this or intentionally exploits the different way they understand the term.

A. Is there proof in science?

1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.

1. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well we actually understand something.

1. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at “proof”; we simply arrive at a very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word “proof” from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.

There’s a related concept, falsifiability, that all regarded-as-proven scientific theories are subject to, that counter factual evidence will collapse the theory’s validity. Evolution is subject to being “falsified” but has not been. Anti-science concepts like ID or YEC cannot be – there are no facts that proponents can imagine that would prove their theories wrong.

 

[grannymh]

I think you are misinterpreting what scientists say when they regard something as proved. This might help The anti-science element posting here either does not understand this or intentionally exploits the different way they understand the term.

There’s a related concept, falsifiability, that all regarded-as-proven scientific theories are subject to, that counter factual evidence will collapse the theory’s validity. Evolution is subject to being “falsified” but has not been. Anti-science concepts like ID or YEC cannot be – there are no facts that proponents can imagine that would prove their theories wrong.

Dear Arclight,

For the record, I graduated from an old-time Jesuit University ages ago. Then was doubly challenged by working in their development/public relations department. Thanks for the link.
After years in an intellectual desert, I need to catch up on a lot of stuff. Fortunately, there are posters willing to be patient with my curiosity and with my being cranky.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[StAnastasia]

For the record, I graduated from an old-time Jesuit University ages ago. Then was doubly challenged by working in their development/public relations department…After years in an intellectual desert, I need to catch up on a lot of stuff.

I’ve taught in two great Jesuit universities. Neither was an intellectual desert.

 

[hecd2]

Dear Alec,

Regarding the above reply (which I respectfully disagree)[that we can rule out the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve

My comment about this might seem a little unchivalrous and I beg your pardon in advance. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, but unless you have read the twenty or so papers on this matter that I referenced for you (rather than merely their titles) your opinion is not informed. The fact is that the molecular evidence precludes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.

can we still continue discussion about Eve and Adam–especially since I discovered after I posted my time length idea, that I had not taken into consideration the chimp/human divergence?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Namesake]

To The Barbarian -

How about back to “science”? You know, human origins science? The kind concerned with man’s supposed common ancestor?

There is no “supposed” about the common ancestry of humans. It’s as done a deal as you will find within science. Regardless of your objections we still live in the age of bacteria and from those simple organisms we evolved into the life form that can have this discussion.

 

[grannymh]

As I have said before, the truth of the Genesis story for me is figuratively powerful - it is a true (but not literal) account of the emergence of true human cognition (the human soul if you want), along with its associated moral sense and ability to distinguish right and wrong from a pre-human innocence. The human ability to plan, tragically entails the ability to plan evil, concupiscence, and this tragedy is articulated powerfully in Genesis.

For me, Genesis is a deep portrayal of the emergence of the human condition from a pre-human state, and the development of a human soul. Let us celebrate it for what it is, and not insist that it should be what it is not. We are in danger of losing its worth entirely for want of perspective.

“An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

This is the first time I’ve read what Genesis is for you. Thank you for increasing my understanding in a number of ways. For me, Genesis has my soul singing as I see it leading us beyond our humanity.

This is a question that I don’t want answered right away. Could the same biological event be examined validly from two entirely different perspectives? You said in your post: “It is true that we do not yet know exactly what processes led from inanimate to living matter, although we are rapidly understanding more and more about it.” I am thinking about that point in time when inanimate matter becomes living matter is the biological event that is still a mystery (despite extensive knowledge) to both students of science who are looking for the physical aspects and to students of philosophy/theology who are looking for an immortal soul. (Catholics don’t know everything about the processes of God.)

Could the common denominator of humankind be that none of us will ever know everything about anything? If we approach Genesis with humility, its worth would actually increase.

Blessings,
granny

Each human life is sacred.

 

[hecd2]

This is a question that I don’t want answered right away. Could the same biological event be examined validly from two entirely different perspectives?

Of course, and more than two. For example, the birth of a child is a biological event that can be seen from an obstetric, a personal (for the parents), a sociological, a poetic (see, eg Traherne and Wordsworth) and a historical/biographical point of view (and more, I am sure).

You said in your post: “It is true that we do not yet know exactly what processes led from inanimate to living matter, although we are rapidly understanding more and more about it.” I am thinking about that point in time when inanimate matter becomes living matter is the biological event that is still a mystery (despite extensive knowledge) to both students of science who are looking for the physical aspects and to students of philosophy/theology who are looking for an immortal soul. (Catholics don’t know everything about the processes of God.)

I am not clear how the origin of life on earth 3.5 billion years ago can be seen as the same event as the emergence of humans with minds like us just 100,000 years ago.

Could the common denominator of humankind be that none of us will ever know everything about anything?

I think that it is one common denominator, that we cannot know *everything *about any substantial subject. But that does not mean that we cannot know some things with confidence.

If we approach Genesis with humility, its worth would actually increase.

Yes, and that might be achieved by not insisting on a personal literal interpretation in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Side observation: I can picture all kinds of creatures, birds, animals, insects, humans evolving. My guess is that the rate (time) of achieving 100% prevalence would be different between a snail and a human etc.

Of course. It’s a matter of how much time passes between generations.

Astute observation.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is no “supposed” about the common ancestry of humans. It’s as done a deal as you will find within science. Regardless of your objections we still live in the age of bacteria and from those simple organisms we evolved into the life form that can have this discussion.

Yes, as recounted in The Evolutionary Epic: Science’s Story and Humanity’s Response (Collins, 2009).

 

[buffalo]

My comment about this might seem a little unchivalrous and I beg your pardon in advance. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me, but unless you have read the twenty or so papers on this matter that I referenced for you (rather than merely their titles) your opinion is not informed. The fact is that the molecular evidence precludes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve. Of course.
Since life is unquestionably here, then life had an origin. It is true that we do not yet know exactly what processes led from inanimate to living matter, although we are rapidly understanding more and more about it.

But I think that the Church does not insist on a literal belief in Adam and Eve as sole ancestors of humans - and if I am wrong and She does demand this belief, She is heading for another wreck. The evidence is unequivocal - humans do not descend from two sole parents.

The “missing link” was a 19th century concept before any fossils of pre-human hominims were discovered. The missing link has not been missing for a century. It makes no sense to me to propose the ensoulment of two primitive pre-ape mammals, much less cognitively able than chimpanzees. Furthermore, if Adam and Eve were a common ancestor of all great apes, then humans, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans would all be ensouled and that does not hold water.

As I have said before, the truth of the Genesis story for me is figuratively powerful - it is a true (but not literal) account of the emergence of true human cognition (the human soul if you want), along with its associated moral sense and ability to distinguish right and wrong from a pre-human innocence. The human ability to plan, tragically entails the ability to plan evil, concupiscence, and this tragedy is articulated powerfully in Genesis.

For me, Genesis is a deep portrayal of the emergence of the human condition from a pre-human state, and the development of a human soul. Let us celebrate it for what it is, and not insist that it should be what it is not. We are in danger of losing its worth entirely for want of perspective.

“An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The church does indeed insist on all of us descending from an original pair.

This and some of the other dogmas derived from Genesis are the total issue. Absent the direct teachings from Genesis no one would really care where we come from.

So either the Church is right and science has to keep working, or science is right and the Church and we will keep battling. Or maybe Ott was wrong.

 

[hecd2]

The church does indeed insist on all of us descending from an original pair.

This and some of the other dogmas derived from Genesis are the total issue. Absent the direct teachings from Genesis no one would really care where we come from.

So either the Church is right and science has to keep working, or science is right and the Church and we will keep battling. Or maybe Ott was wrong.

If you insist that the Church insists that humans descend from two sole parents, then the dichotomy is as you represent it. In that case, I’ll go with the evidence and declare that Ott and the Church are wrong.

However, absent the stories from Genesis, I, and many others, would still care deeply about human origins.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[rad314]

The church does indeed insist on all of us descending from an original pair.

Yes, the Church teaches that we are all descended from an original pair, but she doesn’t teach, so far as I can tell, that every one of our ancestors is descended from that pair. (That’s the idea – pure speculation – that I presented in #64 and subsequent related posts.) If I’m wrong, I wish someone would show me my error.

This and some of the other dogmas derived from Genesis are the total issue. Absent the direct teachings from Genesis no one would really care where we come from.

Exactly! Original sin. Evolutionism is Pelagianism’s latest mask.

So either the Church is right and science has to keep working, or science is right and the Church and we will keep battling.

The point of my speculation was to show that we could both be right. People have ridiculed it and said that it presents difficulties, but they haven’t elaborated on what those difficulties are.

Or maybe Ott was wrong.

I don’t take the reference. Please explain.

 

[buffalo]

If you insist that the Church insists that humans descend from two sole parents, then the dichotomy is as you represent it. In that case, I’ll go with the evidence and declare that Ott and the Church are wrong.

However, absent the stories from Genesis, I, and many others, would still care deeply about human origins.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

So you declare. Who is you guarantor?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, the Church teaches that we are all descended from an original pair, but she doesn’t teach, so far as I can tell, that every one of our ancestors is descended from that pair. (That’s the idea – pure speculation – that I presented in #64 and subsequent related posts.) If I’m wrong, I wish someone would show me my error.

Exactly! Original sin. Evolutionism is Pelagianism’s latest mask.

The point of my speculation was to show that we could both be right. People have ridiculed it and said that it presents difficulties, but they haven’t elaborated on what those difficulties are.

I don’t take the reference. Please explain.

This is from Ott’s dogmas:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

 

[rad314]

. . .Ott’s dogmas . . .

I don’t see how my speculation violates any of them.

 

[hecd2]

So you declare. Who is you guarantor?

The evidence, reason and logic.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church tells us that science does not, and cannot, answer certain critical questions about man’s identity. I pray for the people who accept the notion they are only animals. Believing this, they are at risk of not hearing the truth of the Gospel.

Peace,
Ed