Evolution and the Catholic church

[edwest2]

If you read carefully, the five points you quoted are a direct attempt to defend the descent of all human beings (who have the human soul) from the original pair of humans. So it is intentionally written in accord with that statement, and incorporates the decisions that the Pontifical Biblical Commission made regarding these issues in this document.

Moreover, there is support for the state “but their souls were different” in Scripture, reason, and Humani Generis. Their souls couldn’t be the same as their predecessors if they were capable of a higher level of cognition; their souls couldn’t be the same if they, and they alone, were made in the image of God; and their souls couldn’t be the same if their souls were created directly and uniquely by God, as Humani Generis says they were.

Humani Generis is very clear, as is the Pontifical Biblical Commission. There were no pre-humans or almost-humans or any hominids. There is no proof of predecessors.

For example, it has now been shown that many of us carry Neanderthal DNA. We could interbreed, and Neanderthals were a lot smarter than once thought. They were not predecessors. You could consider them a separate racial group like Caucasians and Orientals who can interbreed. There are also two birds alive today that look almost identical but they cannot interbreed, so they are classified as different species. If there were human-like beings in the past, they weren’t human, and there is no proof that they were on their way to becoming modern humans.

Science cannot, in any way, shape or form, connect cognition with something they cannot study. This strange misconception is being spread with no science to support it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[dmar198]

Humani Generis is very clear, as is the Pontifical Biblical Commission. There were no pre-humans or almost-humans or any hominids. There is no proof of predecessors.

Paragraph 36 of Humani Generis permits Catholics to believe that the human body evolved from previously existing living beings, so long as the human soul is held to be a special creation, therefore we may believe in pre-human predecessors.

 

[edwest2]

Paragraph 36 of Humani Generis permits Catholics to believe that the human body evolved from previously existing living beings, so long as the human soul is held to be a special creation, therefore we may believe in pre-human predecessors.

The correct term is “living matter” not living beings.

“… in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[TCEL]

1. We need to believe that every real human is a descendant of Adam and Eve. This does not mean that there were no others who were biologically identical to them, or as identical as different members of a species can be. They may have been identical to their peers as far as biology goes, but their souls were different. When members of primitive humanity mated, only those born of Adam and Eve and their descendants were the true humans as far as the soul is concerned. Science is aware that primitive species intermated with closely-related species. The fact that Adam and Eve and their descendants were just as primitive as their neighbors makes this a pretty common-sense reality. However that may be, all modern humans derive our DNA from the original Adam and Eve. If there were anything in this that scientists could disprove, it would be here: but science shows us that we do all share a common ancestor, in the sense that one person’s genes have made it into all our bodies. Thus it is not impossible for the two original ensouled humans and their descendants to have gradually dispersed their genes throughout early proto-humanity so that not very much time passed before all the members of their species owed their existence to Adam and Eve.

Thanks for the fantastic post! I’ve always wondered about this. So, please help me make sure I understand what you are saying.

1. On the news the other day, I saw a story talking about how some of our traits (like hair and nose, I think) may be traced back to Neanderthal DNA, if it’s present. So, that admixture of DNA may have been already present in Adam’s DNA, but not a result of “admixture” after the fall? Or could it in fact be both?
2. If it’s also due to DNA “admixture” after the fall, doesn’t this mean that the children born as a result wouldn’t have human souls? (Human-soul mating with animal-soul?) Or do I have it totally wrong? Help!

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thanks for the fantastic post! I’ve always wondered about this. So, please help me make sure I understand what you are saying.

1. On the news the other day, I saw a story talking about how some of our traits (like hair and nose, I think) may be traced back to Neanderthal DNA, if it’s present. So, that admixture of DNA may have been already present in Adam’s DNA, but not a result of “admixture” after the fall? Or could it in fact be both?
2. If it’s also due to DNA “admixture” after the fall, doesn’t this mean that the children born as a result wouldn’t have human souls? (Human-soul mating with animal-soul?) Or do I have it totally wrong? Help!

you have this nearly right; except that even though DNA is one of the most reliable methods today there is still usually a high likelihood that some of the results are inaccurate, for the dna to survive in a structure one has to be the same species ( not just humans ) for the coding to last for survival without built-in mutant or hybrid erasing happening/event, sin is the only cause of discord in creation, only God creates souls and only each of the “same” “type” of soul can beget one another. does this make sense?

God bless

 

[TCEL]

you have this nearly right; except that even though DNA is one of the most reliable methods today there is still usually a high likelihood that some of the results are inaccurate, for the dna to survive in a structure one has to be the same species ( not just humans ) for the coding to last for survival without built-in mutant or hybrid erasing happening/event, sin is the only cause of discord in creation, only God creates souls and only each of the “same” “type” of soul can beget one another. does this make sense?

God bless

Thanks. So, DNA patterns would have to have been in place before the Fall? (I’m having a severe case of pregnancy brain.)

 

[Beryllos]

Let’s see if I got this straight. We are permitted to believe that some parts of the book of Genesis are poetic, while other parts must be understood literally. We are permitted to believe that the first man evolved from other “living matter,” perhaps even from a population of soul-less hominids. However, we must believe that he was different because he alone had a soul. We must believe that the first woman did not emerge similarly from the existing population, but was formed in extraordinary manner from the very flesh of the first man. Then there were exactly two who had souls. At first they were sinless. Then they sinned, and thus began all the troubles of human history.

I think I understand the OP’s difficulty with this. I also find this difficult.

 

[Beryllos]

A related question: Is Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis an infallible pronouncement?

 

[edwest2]

Hominids are not mentioned in any Catholic document I am aware of.

1. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

2. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

3. Man consists of two essential parts--a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)

4. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)

5. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)

6. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)

7. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)

8. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)

9. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

10. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

11. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

12. The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)

13. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)

 14. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

 15. Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

 16. Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

 17. Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
 
 18. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

  19. Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

  20. Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

  21. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

  22. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)

 23. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

De fide. means an obligatory article of faith. The above is Catholic Dogma. With thanks to poster, buffalo.

Peace,
Ed

 

[turtlegirl1980]

Not to add fuel to the fire but there is a debate today between Bill Nye (The Science Guy) and Ken Ham the founder of the Creation Museum. I looked up this topic today so I could brush up on the Catholic stand on Evolution V. Creationism. I find the topic fascinating and discuss it often with my non-religious hubby (sometimes very loudly) I don’t believe the two to be mutually exclusive and I hope this discussion can continue.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Pope John Paul II

A link to npr which as a link to the debate tonight:

npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271383099/creationism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight

 

[spina1953]

it seems tome that those who first told these stories in Genesis and also when it began to be written down that science was not something that they knew anything about IOW’s science was not known in the ancient world. They needed someway to try and understand how man came about and what purpose man life is. IOW’s what is the purpose of man’s existence. Since God revealed Himself in some manor or way, man came to know that there is a higher Being then himself. The story tellers and those who decided to write down man’s beginnings tried to answer that question for man’s existence and purpose and relationship with God. At no time did they think in terms of science. However, science can give better understanding of God’s wonders of creation, but will never be able to answer the Why God created in the first place.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thanks. So, DNA patterns would have to have been in place before the Fall? (I’m having a severe case of pregnancy brain.)

yes, unless there was one of those rare or unknown outside factors.

God bless

 

[Aloysium]

[DukeAJuke] . . . I know with absolute certainty that it is not possible for there have ever been only two human beings on this planet. The processes that govern life just make this an impossibility. The smallest bottleneck for humanity actually occurred about 100K years ago. At that time humans were reduced to around 15k in population. . . .

Given that I think you are wrong, I am interested in what assumptions are being made to give people a sense that they have absolute certainty in the case. At least one assumption would be false and I would like to know which. Can you give me any help as to what has to be true in order that there could not be two original parents. For example, could there have been a bottleneck say 750,000 years ago? Why not? Thanks.