EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reggie is on the right track. Science has become infected with a biased worldview, resulting in some interesting assumptions:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112110058.htm

The article I link to makes a bizarre connection. With all due respect, I have a puppy that engages in some rather intelligent behavior. He found two loose bathroom tiles and laid them next to each other in one of his favorite spots. Elephants have been trained by circuses. It appears that science sometimes sees what it wants to see.

And here, the contradictory messages are given: “science is silent about God,” “science is silent, or cannot examine, the supernatural.” Then, people here demand that religion align itself with “science.” Why? I mean, what is the actual motivation?

Peace,
Ed
 
mpartyka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Suppose we put it this way, then: the previously-styled ‘humas’ and Adam and Eve were all humans. At some point, God endowed Adam’s and Eve’s souls with immortality; the rest had mortal souls.

That fits better, because even non-human animals have souls. Those souls are mortal.
mpartyka said:
And I was referring to monogenism, actually.
Click to expand...
“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “for you to make your case for why you think monogenism must be in error.”
 
rad314 said:
Suppose we put it this way, then: the previously-styled ‘humas’ and Adam and Eve were all humans. At some point, God endowed Adam’s and Eve’s souls with immortality; the rest had mortal souls. That fits better, because even non-human animals have souls. Those souls are mortal.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much identical to my original scenario except for one thing: In my scenario, just as immortality of the body isn’t a natural trait of the body, neither would immortality of the soul be a natural trait of the soul. Rather, both physical and spiritual immortality would be an effect of sanctifying grace rather than a quality inherent to humanity. (Either that, or the immortality of the soul is just as much a natural trait of the soul of all living creatures, not just humanity.)
“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “for you to make your case for why you think monogenism must be in error.”
Click to expand...
Because one human couple doesn’t have enough genetic diversity available to create a whole race of humans through their progeny alone. Remember, we’re going on the basis that Adam and Eve are biologically identical to “huma”, so their DNA will contain the normal accumulation of built-up errors…unless the impact of their possessing sanctifying grace at one time included a total cleanup of their DNA. That might explain the longevity of the antediluvians without forcing us to extend to all of humanity that same longevity.

–Mike
 
mpartyka said:
In my scenario, just as immortality of the body isn’t a natural trait of the body, neither would immortality of the soul be a natural trait of the soul. Rather, both physical and spiritual immortality would be an effect of sanctifying grace rather than a quality inherent to humanity.
Click to expand...
Then in your view, despite the loss of sanctifying grace, their souls remained immortal? If so, I’m not sure that I see a problem there. Now, what about their descendants? Does God give each descendant an immortal soul, subject to Original Sin (the deprivation of sanctifying grace inter alia)? If you agree with that, I think we’re really getting somewhere.
Because one human couple doesn’t have enough genetic diversity available to create a whole race of humans through their progeny alone.
Click to expand...
I have two answers to that.
  1. Unless I’m really missing something here, monogenism doesn’t mean that each and every ancestor of each and every descendant of Adam and Eve is also a descendant of Adam and Eve. Here’s what Humani Generis 37 says:
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.
Click to expand...
If Adam and Eve had the first immortal souls and their descendants married humans with mortal souls, producing humans with immortal souls (‘true men’), I don’t see how that conflicts with monogenism. I.e. a) every true man is a descendant of Adam and Eve and b) Adam and Eve are the first parents with immortal souls.
  1. But suppose that monogenism does, in fact, mean that each and every ancestor of each and every descendant of Adam and Eve is also a descendant of Adam and Eve.
Well, let’s deal with that one if someone can demonstrate conclusively that that’s what monogenism means. And if someone does, we’ll need a more thorough presentation of your case against it.
 
edwest2 said:
And here, the contradictory messages are given: “science is silent about God,” “science is silent, or cannot examine, the supernatural.” Then, people here demand that religion align itself with “science.” Why? I mean, what is the actual motivation?
Click to expand...
I think that science is only interested in finding out how nature works. Why should science ignore the evidence of how nature works?
 
mpartyka said:
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
Click to expand...
One problem here is that the distance from point A to point B is something like the distance from Alaska to New Zealand. Actually, its much farther than that. The difference between human and animal consciousness is not a mere gap in the story. It’s a large enough leap that one can be well-justified in questioning if there is a sequence of development at all.

I know that there are some scientists who would agree with my assessment (or rather, I agree with their analysis). At one time, science was “certain” that the universe was eternal. This caused all kinds of problems for theology. I do not see the certainty of evolutionary theory for a number of reasons.

But I realize that you’re discussing this point with Tim and you both accept some theory (I’m not sure which one) of evolution, so I don’t want to side-track that discussion.
 
edwest2 said:
Reggie is on the right track. Science has become infected with a biased worldview, resulting in some interesting assumptions:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112110058.htm

The article I link to makes a bizarre connection. With all due respect, I have a puppy that engages in some rather intelligent behavior. He found two loose bathroom tiles and laid them next to each other in one of his favorite spots. Elephants have been trained by circuses. It appears that science sometimes sees what it wants to see.

And here, the contradictory messages are given: “science is silent about God,” “science is silent, or cannot examine, the supernatural.” Then, people here demand that religion align itself with “science.” Why? I mean, what is the actual motivation?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I found that article to exhibit amazing stupidity – even for evolutionary scientists. At one time I would have laughed, but there is really a lot of that kind of nonsense being published as “science” (and someone is getting paid for watching the behavior of monkeys to find “clues about human social evolution”). In this case, I think the monkeys are using their time more wisely and intelligently.
 
reggieM said:
I found that article to exhibit amazing stupidity – even for evolutionary scientists. At one time I would have laughed, but there is really a lot of that kind of nonsense being published as “science” (and someone is getting paid for watching the behavior of monkeys to find “clues about human social evolution”). In this case, I think the monkeys are using their time more wisely and intelligently.
Click to expand...
It just so happens that nonhuman primates are quite valuable for studying social interactions and much of that applies directly to human behavior.

It might really crack you up when I say that lots of economic theory can be studied by observing nonhuman primates like chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys, or bonobos. Primate politics is very applicable to human social interaction.
 
edwest2 said:
Can you cite a study or paper that backs this up?
Click to expand...
Sure. My sources are at my office and I can have that for you tomorrow.

One very good source is The Mind of the Market, by Michael Shermer.
 
Actually, we can measure the difference between you and another organism. And it’s not infinite.

Of course the soul is infinitely different for humans, but that’s not something that can evolve. Organisms evolve, but souls are given by God.
 
It might really crack you up when I say that lots of economic theory can be studied by observing nonhuman primates like chimpanzees, capuchin monkeys, or bonobos. Primate politics is very applicable to human social interaction.
Click to expand...
Did you see the research on the problems that develop when you don’t pay primates equal pay for equal work? They act pretty much like humans do under the same circumstances. Surprisingly, even dogs are capable of basic economic reasoning.

**Brosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers. **
primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

**MONDAY, Dec. 8 (HealthDay News) – It’s a dog-envy-dog world, and a jealous dog isn’t likely to take it lying down.

According to new research in this week’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, dogs who sense that another canine is getting better treatment will go on strike, er, make that a paw strike. They refused to “shake hands” if they weren’t getting equal “pay.”**
health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/08/dogs-get-petty-about-treats.html
 
mpartyka said:
That is, what if death, pain, suffering, and concupiscence were naturally inherent to Adam and Eve but were supernaturally corrected by the presence of sanctifying grace?
Click to expand...
(1) The term “sanctifying grace” is a Catholic term, not Biblical. Nor is it found anywhere in the Genesis record.

(2) Gen 1:31 “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.”(a) If death, pain, suffering and concupiscence were inherent in Adam and Eve and needed to be “corrected” by this divine “fairy dust” called “sanctifying grace,” then the Genesis record could not have stated that the creation of man was “good.”

(b) If death, pain, suffering and concupiscence were inherent in man, then you’re saying God calls these things “very good.” And from what is known about God from the Scriptures, you’re corrupting God.1 John 1:5 “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”

James 1:17 “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”
 
reggieM said:
The difference between human and animal consciousness is not a mere gap in the story. It’s a large enough leap that one can be well-justified in questioning if there is a sequence of development at all.
Click to expand...
Hmm…I was focusing mainly on biological evolution, but you might have a point. It’s clear that the human race bodily is the product of biological evolution. Animals and humans both have souls, too (as mentioned above), so even the soul could be thought of as a product of evolution (unless one wants to say that animal souls are created directly and/or instantly, too). The addition of the God-breathed human spirit would be the necessary to making a “huma” into a “human”, then, correct?

But this only goes to highlight my difficulty with the whole “huma”/“human” distinction, I think. If the jump in consciousness between “huma” and “human” is such a quantum leap, how on earth can we fathom the notion that the second generation of “humans” (i.e., Adam and Eve’s kids) mated with “huma” to produce the human race? I mean, wouldn’t that be like raping or – I don’t know which is worse – marrying animals just to propogate the race?
At one time, science was “certain” that the universe was eternal. This caused all kinds of problems for theology.
Click to expand...
It might interest you that some scientists still question whether big bang theory is correct. I don’t know if these scientists are in the same boat as “creation science” zealots…haven’t studied this subject as much as I would like.

–Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top