EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[rad314]

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?

(It might not sound so bad if you think ‘humans with mortal souls’ instead of ‘huma’. But, anyway . . .)

This ties in nicely with something that occurred to me a few hours ago. The same reasoning applies to your problems with rape/bestiality.

Returning briefly, once more, to MarcoPolo’s post:

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 . . .

I think we’ve assumed that in order to propose an acceptable explanation, it’s necessary to avoid the element of incest, but why is that? Remember that we’re talking about humanity after the Fall. It wasn’t God’s plan that Adam and Eve would sin. Was it God’s plan that the human race would propagate via incest? Of course not. There’s nothing to be gained by trying to ignore it. Look at Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel; dig into it a little and you’ll find some real embarrassments there, too.

 

[mpartyka]

If death, pain, suffering and concupiscence were inherent in man, then you’re saying God calls these things “very good.”

But what if God added sanctifying grace to man before proclaiming creation “very good”?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I think we’ve assumed that in order to propose an acceptable explanation, it’s necessary to avoid the element of incest, but why is that? Remember that we’re talking about humanity after the Fall. It wasn’t God’s plan that Adam and Eve would sin. Was it God’s plan that the human race would propagate via incest? Of course not. There’s nothing to be gained by trying to ignore it. Look at Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel; dig into it a little and you’ll find some real embarrassments there, too.

I’m not following. Had there been no Fall, would incest have been a problem?

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Had there been no Fall, would incest have been a problem?

We have no idea what might have happened had there been no Fall. Weren’t you the one who speculated that God might have provided some asexual means of reproduction? But there’s no reason to assume that Adam’s and Eve’s children necessarily would have reproduced at all. For all we know, the world today might have been populated by Adam’s and Eve’s first-generation (‘Generation One’) offspring. Hence, no incest.

 

[moondweller]

But what if God added sanctifying grace to man before proclaiming creation “very good”?

–Mike

You’re adding to the Scriptures. And still, you’re stating that God is the originator of death, pain and suffering which you claim He “corrected” by “sanctifying grace.” Both concepts are outside of Divine revelation and both originate in man’s fertile imagination; which usually results in corrupting God, one way or another.

You’d be wise to stick with Divine revelation rather than add to Scripture man’s corrupt imagination. That’s a sin in itself, btw.

 

[reggieM]

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?

Thanks for keeping an open mind … Yes, I think that’s one interpretation, that God breathed His spirit into creatures, thus making the first humans. I tend to start with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that God created all of the invisible substances (the whatness) from nothing and that the human soul cannot “fit” into an animal body (since the soul “informs” the body). This would radically change the notions of natural selection and mutation (God selected and created in this case), and even after – human intelligence seeks more than “survival” and thus the evolutionary story would have to be radically different from the introduction of an immortal soul in nature …

But we’re stuck back at the original point. How do we move from one set of humans to a large population? As mentioned, incest is a possiblity (with accelerated levels of childbirth). My guess would be non-biological reproduction (as forming Eve from Adam’s rib).

Jesus did state that “God can make children of Abraham from these very stones” (Luke 3:8).

So, a few things are illustrated with that:

1. God can directly create humans
2. God would consider them to be “children of Abraham” even though they did not have a biological lineage.

Thus, God could create humans from Adam & Eve (miraculous cloning) and these would still be considered “children” and thus monogenesis remains the correct teaching.

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?

I agree that is a major problem and I can’t accept that humans mated with animals or that God would permit such a thing.

 

[edwest2]

Those who put science first, and God last, deny God and His works.

Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” John 3:12

So if the emphasis is only going to be on science, and atheists can easily discard a meaningless concept like the soul, then both man and God are degraded. God becomes a symbol and man becomes an animal, nothing more.

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Weren’t you the one who speculated that God might have provided some asexual means of reproduction?

No, that was one of the Fathers, actually – Augustine or one of the Gregory N’s, I think.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

No, that was one of the Fathers, actually – Augustine or one of the Gregory N’s, I think.

Yes, I remembered that it originally came from one of the Fathers, but you called it to our attention. I thought you viewed it favorably, right?

 

[mpartyka]

Yes, I remembered that it originally came from one of the Fathers, but you called it to our attention. I thought you viewed it favorably, right?

No, I actually think it’s ridiculous, but it seemed relevant at the time to bring it up.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

No, I actually think it’s ridiculous, but it seemed relevant at the time to bring it up.

The temptation is to look around and just assume that things could not have developed to end up differently than they in fact did. It’s as though I start out in Kansas City, randomly deciding every ten miles which way to drive until I hit a border. My trip ends in Los Angeles and someone who has lived there his entire life can’t imagine that I could have ended up anywhere else.

 

[Namesake]

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.

Yes I have seen that research. In fact I read something about similar research just last week. Non human primates react very similarly, in economic (political) studies, to human subjects. That makes a very interesting case for economic evolution. That should be taken in the most technical sense of the definition of course.

Now what I am studying is the evolution of other psychological characteristics of primates. Like altruism, and compassion, and conflict resolution, and maybe morality. Seems that we have a genetic component for all of those. The selfish gene might not be as strong an influence as some other characteristics of behavior.

 

[rad314]

Here’s where you mentioned it:

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).

And here’s where you evaluate the early Fathers’ speculation:

No, I actually think it’s ridiculous, but it seemed relevant at the time to bring it up.

Now, that raises this question: if their speculation is ridiculous, why is yours any less so?

I wonder why, when I review this thread, I find several instances in which people have either countered your speculations or asked specific questions touching upon their plausibility, only to be ignored.

 

[mpartyka]

Here’s where you mentioned it…And here’s where you evaluate the early Fathers’ speculation…Now, that raises this question: if their speculation is ridiculous, why is yours any less so?

Granted, ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder, but I must say I think the idea that God’s finding a way to have Adam and Eve communicate sanctifying grace to others via some non-biological means of transmission – baptism, anyone? – much less ridiculous than God’s creating Adam and Eve with sexual organs that He never actually intended them to use for procreation.

I wonder why, when I review this thread, I find several instances in which people have either countered your speculations or asked specific questions touching upon their plausibility, only to be ignored.

Because I’m not out to scientifically “prove” any of my hypotheses. I look at this thread more as a place to toss ideas around and debate them. I strongly doubt that any of us can come up with anything that can be empirically tested.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

From your original post:

Life evolves on earth naturally, eventually resulting the rise of humanity. When the time is finally right, God takes a human couple and bestows sanctifying grace upon them, making them perfect humans (i.e., God-oriented and immortal) and commissioning them to spread this grace to the rest of humanity (by some unknown means). However, this original pair of perfect humans sinned, resulting in their loss of sanctifying grace and the return to their original state of “merely human”, leaving mankind with only a natural capacity to do good rather than the supernatural capacity to do good via the help of God’s sanctifying grace.

What you don’t account for is the immortality of the (human) soul. Or did they somehow pass that around to their friends and neighbors, with appropriately abashed apologies for having misplaced the sanctifying grace?

Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder.

You certainly got that right. Some eyes see through things better than others.

 

[mpartyka]

What you don’t account for is the immortality of the (human) soul.

Well, maybe the human soul isn’t “immortal” (as we tend to think of immortal). Maybe the soul is an energy pattern that decays in the absence of sanctifying grace just as the body decays in the absence of the soul. Maybe all souls, not just human souls, are like this. Or maybe all souls, human or otherwise, are immortal in the usually understood sense.

In the absence of empirical verification, there are many possibilities. Not all of them may be acceptable in the view of the Church, of course, but I don’t think we should therefore close our minds and refrain from tossing such ideas into the ring. There’s always the possibility that someone might take a view that on its surface doesn’t fit within the framework of Church doctrine and come up with a more nuanced view that does somehow fit.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

In the absence of empirical verification, there are many possibilities. Not all of them may be acceptable in the view of the Church, of course, but I don’t think we should therefore close our minds and refrain from tossing such ideas into the ring.

Meaning that you think there’s some reason Catholics should be interested in hearing nonsense such as the following?

Well, maybe the human soul isn’t “immortal” (as we tend to think of immortal). Maybe the soul is an energy pattern that decays in the absence of sanctifying grace just as the body decays in the absence of the soul. Maybe all souls, not just human souls, are like this. Or maybe all souls, human or otherwise, are immortal in the usually understood sense.

There’s always the possibility that someone might take a view that on its surface doesn’t fit within the framework of Church doctrine and come up with a more nuanced view that does somehow fit.

Let us know if you ever do.

Until then I’m sure we’re all grateful for your helpfulness, but my personal opinion is that you would have more credibility if you were a Catholic.

 

[Marocchino]

I suggest that the human soul is as much a product of evolution as the human body is.

You’re opinion is not in line with the Catholic faith.

“the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Source:
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[reggieM]

Well, maybe the human soul isn’t “immortal” (as we tend to think of immortal). Maybe the soul is an energy pattern that decays in the absence of sanctifying grace just as the body decays in the absence of the soul. Maybe all souls, not just human souls, are like this. Or maybe all souls, human or otherwise, are immortal in the usually understood sense.

I think your answer to the challenge would be that the soul is immortal but sanctifying grace can be lost. I read someone else offer this idea. That to be “truly human” means to be in the state of grace. Therefore, the first humans were created by God in the state of grace and sinlessness. This grace was communicated to other creatures (thus begetting sons and daughters), making them “truly human”, and they all emerged from the first parents.

All the Baptised are “born” from a “spiritual monogenism” since all are the children of God through Christ. Baptism emerged from one single source and not multiple.

So, that idea could be made to fit with the doctrine of the Church in some ways. It would be a major problem to say that anyone in mortal sin is “not truly human” but I think it’s theologically correct in some ways.

It would require a redefinition of what “true human” means and also what being born from single set of parents (spiritual birth not natural).

 

[reggieM]

The Theory of Evolution
Judged by Reason and Faith by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini

http://www.pcpbooks.com/images/new_books/theory_of_evolution/theory_of_evolution_angle164x300.jpg

Newly reprinted. I just got a copy. Cardinal Ruffini opposes the belief that the human body evolved from animals.