Evolution and the Human Soul....

[patrick1945]

If one believes in evolution, and I do, has the subject arisen…at what point did humans gain a soul?
Of course, there’s nothing in scripture touching on this, but, it seems to me that theologians might have some (unprovable) ideas.

So, at what point, (homo sapiens, or homo habilis or homo erectus, etc.) might God have "infused " that species with an immortal soul? And, might He have done it only with a single pair or the entire species that existed at that time?

Not an earth shaking question, I know, but, sometimes I wonder hoe God does or did certain things.
thanks very much and blessings…

Pat

 

[Dorothy]

I am not knowledgeable in science, but do believe that he infused souls into a single pair, if that indeed is the way He created.

I believe this because of the Encyclical “Humani Generis” .

 

[newcalling]

Great question. The best that I have reasoned so far is that prior to Eden, perhaps even only prior to the forbidden fruit, that humans had souls like animals. At Eden, before or after the forbidden fruit, is when our ancestors gained/became immortal souls.

 

[GEddie]

Everybody receives their spiritual soul directly when their biological life begins (ostensibly at conception).

The soul, unlike the body, is not transmitted biologically.

The same would have occurred with the putative A&E.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[edwest2]

If one believes in evolution, and I do, has the subject arisen…at what point did humans gain a soul?
Of course, there’s nothing in scripture touching on this, but, it seems to me that theologians might have some (unprovable) ideas.

So, at what point, (homo sapiens, or homo habilis or homo erectus, etc.) might God have "infused " that species with an immortal soul? And, might He have done it only with a single pair or the entire species that existed at that time?

Not an earth shaking question, I know, but, sometimes I wonder hoe God does or did certain things.
thanks very much and blessings…

Pat

The soul is not recognized as real by science. There is no evidence that two almost humans got souls in the past, but the idea is repeated here often.

God can do things only God can do.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ed

 

[grannymh]

… has the subject arisen…at what point did humans gain a soul?
Of course, there’s nothing in scripture touching on this, but, it seems to me that theologians might have some (unprovable) ideas.

Scripture addresses the question directly via the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. From a Catholic theological position the better answer could be Genesis 1: 1, which presumes that God exists as an indiviual almighty Creator.

The error in the question regards the use of humans (plural). For any archaic fossil (Homo category) to be considered a human, it already would have a spritual principle. No need to gain a soul. This is also the area where Catholicism maintains that the originating population of humanity is a population of two, not a series of populations in the hundreds to thousands.

By the way, the evolution model can be applied to non-human living organisms.

 

[Abu]

patrick1945 #1
Of course, there’s nothing in scripture touching on this, but, it seems to me that theologians might have some (unprovable) ideas.

So, at what point, (homo sapiens, or homo habilis or homo erectus, etc.) might God have "infused " that species with an immortal soul? And, might He have done it only with a single pair or the entire species that existed at that time?

Of course there is the testimony of Scripture.

The *Catechism *twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.

Thus is a pseudo-science revealed for what it is – unscriptural and unscientific.

 

[patrick1945]

Scripture addresses the question directly via the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. From a Catholic theological position the better answer could be Genesis 1: 1, which presumes that God exists as an indiviual almighty Creator.

The error in the question regards the use of humans (plural). For any archaic fossil (Homo category) to be considered a human, it already would have a spritual principle. No need to gain a soul. This is also the area where Catholicism maintains that the originating population of humanity is a population of two, not a series of populations in the hundreds to thousands.

By the way, the evolution model can be applied to non-human living organisms.

Ok, I’ll try to express my question(s) more clearly. And, I hope that I’m not violating the CA prohibition against discussions regarding evolution.

So, assume that Adam and Eve were part of one of Homo species , i.e. Homo sapiens, or Homo Erectus, etc. It’s reasonable to assume that there were others of the very same species existing at the very same time. If so, are we saying that God “infused” this single pair (adam and Eve) with a soul, either at their conception or at some point later in their lives?

I fully understand that this cannot be proven or even tested by science. Yet, does the Church have an “opinion” as to which species was “infused”? Did it have to be a homo sapiens, or could it have been an earlier species in the hominid line?

 

[Gorgias]

If so, are we saying that God “infused” this single pair (adam and Eve) with a soul, either at their conception or at some point later in their lives?

If one holds to the notion of ‘theistic evolution’, then yes, what one might say is that the first humans (i.e., the first hominids with human souls) were ‘infused’ with a soul. As GEddie points out, it would be incomprehensible to suggest that this happened “at some point later in their lives”, so it would make more sense to say that Adam and Eve were ensouled at their creation.

Yet, does the Church have an “opinion” as to which species was “infused”?

No, it does not. That would be a question of science, not of theology.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, I’ll try to express my question(s) more clearly. And, I hope that I’m not violating the CA prohibition against discussions regarding evolution.

So, assume that Adam and Eve were part of one of Homo species , i.e. Homo sapiens, or Homo Erectus, etc. It’s reasonable to assume that there were others of the very same species existing at the very same time. If so, are we saying that God “infused” this single pair (adam and Eve) with a soul, either at their conception or at some point later in their lives?

I fully understand that this cannot be proven or even tested by science. Yet, does the Church have an “opinion” as to which species was “infused”? Did it have to be a homo sapiens, or could it have been an earlier species in the hominid line?

The biological material decomposing anatomies such as those of any of the extinct Homo species is outside the domain of the Catholic Church. Naturally, there are Catholics who, using the gift of free speech, can opine six ways to Sunday. It is the specific scientific population approach to the human species which the Catholic Church opposes.

In terms of human origin doctrines, regardless of how matter and spirit were unified in the one single nature of the first human Adam, the originating human population is a population of two.

Information source: CCC 355-357; CCC 362-366; CCC 1730-1732; Paragraphs 35, 36, 37 of Humani Generis, Pius XII.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Link to Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[grannymh]

I fully understand that this cannot be proven or even tested by science. Yet, does the Church have an “opinion” as to which species was “infused”? Did it have to be a homo sapiens, or could it have been an earlier species in the hominid line?

Homo sapiens or earlier involves “assumptions” going thousands of years backwards.

However, when it comes to Catholicism, the Church opposes a far greater obstacle to the Catholic doctrines surrounding Adam and Eve. This obstacle is the current science conclusion that all Homo species originated as random breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church is firm about the original originating human species population as being solely a population of two fully-complete human persons lovingly known as Adam and Eve. Fully-complete means that Adam and Eve’s human nature is an immediate unique unification of spiritual soul and material body. Genesis 1: 26-27.

These links offer current information.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

The new expanded third edition of the book Origin of the Human Species by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the Myth of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. In addition, Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

Those who like YouTube can find an interesting angle here.
youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

 

[Gorgias]

This obstacle is the current science conclusion that all Homo species originated as random breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church is firm about the original originating human species population as being solely a population of two fully-complete human persons lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

Granny,

You and I have had this discussion before, in other threads, but for the sake of this thread, let me just point out that your two sentences have distinct subjects: for science, it’s “homo species” and for theology, “human”. Two distinct subjects; two distinct assertions.

 

[clem456]

The Catholic Church does not do science (but some scientists are Catholic and the Church has sponsored scientific inquiry…there’s a difference).

The Church has never, ever, not one time, ever, made an endorsement or pronouncement as to the scientific realities you are asking about. We listen to scientists employing the gift of reason for explanations of the physical development of humanity. The Church’s mind is open to scientific inquiry.
The Church addresses the larger and fuller reality of what a human being is. Not how our “stuff” came to be physically, but who we are in our full being.

And the conclusion of the Church is that a human being is a union of a

1. body
   and a
2. rational soul

A soul cannot “emerge” from the processes of nature, a body can.
A soul cannot evolve from numerous bits and pieces of previously existing “sub-souls”, aka polygenism. Any science that postulates polygenism is incompatible with Christianity. Please note that the scientific proposition of hominid breeding populations is not the same thing as polygenism. There is a subtle but vital difference in what composes “true humans”.

God creates and infuses a soul. Genesis tells us God gave souls to make our two first two fully human parents. The process God created to bring about our physical nature is also shrouded in mystery, although science has clues. The Church only objects when science transgresses it’s sphere of competence and makes pronouncements on the nature and origin of the soul. It’s not in the scientific sphere of competence to prove the origin of the soul.

 

[Faith1960]

The Catholic Church does not do science (but some scientists are Catholic and the Church has sponsored scientific inquiry…there’s a difference).

The Church has never, ever, not one time, ever, made an endorsement or pronouncement as to the scientific realities you are asking about. We listen to scientists employing the gift of reason for explanations of the physical development of humanity. The Church’s mind is open to scientific inquiry.
The Church addresses the larger and fuller reality of what a human being is. Not how our “stuff” came to be physically, but who we are in our full being.

And the conclusion of the Church is that a human being is a union of a

1. body
   and a
2. rational soul

A soul cannot “emerge” from the processes of nature, a body can.
A soul cannot evolve from numerous bits and pieces of previously existing “sub-souls”, aka polygenism. Any science that postulates polygenism is incompatible with Christianity. Please note that the scientific proposition of hominid breeding populations is not the same thing as polygenism. There is a subtle but vital difference in what composes “true humans”.Re

God creates and infuses a soul. Genesis tells us God gave souls to make our two first two fully human parents. The process God created to bring about our physical nature is also shrouded in mystery, although science has clues. The Church only objects when science transgresses it’s sphere of competence and makes pronouncements on the nature and origin of the soul. It’s not in the scientific sphere of competence to prove the origin of the soul.

Are you saying it’s possible that God may have taken two homo erectus, homosapiens or whatever, who were in a grouping and gave them souls at their conception, making them the first humans, our first parents?

 

[Faith1960]

The Catholic Church does not do science (but some scientists are Catholic and the Church has sponsored scientific inquiry…there’s a difference).

The Church has never, ever, not one time, ever, made an endorsement or pronouncement as to the scientific realities you are asking about. We listen to scientists employing the gift of reason for explanations of the physical development of humanity. The Church’s mind is open to scientific inquiry.
The Church addresses the larger and fuller reality of what a human being is. Not how our “stuff” came to be physically, but who we are in our full being.

And the conclusion of the Church is that a human being is a union of a

1. body
   and a
2. rational soul

A soul cannot “emerge” from the processes of nature, a body can.
A soul cannot evolve from numerous bits and pieces of previously existing “sub-souls”, aka polygenism. Any science that postulates polygenism is incompatible with Christianity. Please note that the scientific proposition of hominid breeding populations is not the same thing as polygenism. There is a subtle but vital difference in what composes “true humans”.Re

God creates and infuses a soul. Genesis tells us God gave souls to make our two first two fully human parents. The process God created to bring about our physical nature is also shrouded in mystery, although science has clues. The Church only objects when science transgresses it’s sphere of competence and makes pronouncements on the nature and origin of the soul. It’s not in the scientific sphere of competence to prove the origin of the soul.

Are you saying it’s possible that God may have taken two homo erectus, homosapiens or whatever, who were in a grouping and gave them souls at their conception, making them the first humans, our first parents?

 

[Faith1960]

If one holds to the notion of ‘theistic evolution’, then yes, what one might say is that the first humans (i.e., the first hominids with human souls) were ‘infused’ with a soul. As GEddie points out, it would be incomprehensible to suggest that this happened “at some point later in their lives”, so it would make more sense to say that Adam and Eve were ensouled at

Does this theory of a group, two of whom were given souls at conception, go against the CCC Abu quoted in post#7?

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church does not do science (but some scientists are Catholic and the Church has sponsored scientific inquiry…there’s a difference).

The Church has never, ever, not one time, ever, made an endorsement or pronouncement as to the scientific realities you are asking about. We listen to scientists employing the gift of reason for explanations of the physical development of humanity. The Church’s mind is open to scientific inquiry.
The Church addresses the larger and fuller reality of what a human being is. Not how our “stuff” came to be physically, but who we are in our full being.

And the conclusion of the Church is that a human being is a union of a

1. body
   and a
2. rational soul

A soul cannot “emerge” from the processes of nature, a body can.
A soul cannot evolve from numerous bits and pieces of previously existing “sub-souls”, aka polygenism. Any science that postulates polygenism is incompatible with Christianity. Please note that the scientific proposition of hominid breeding populations is not the same thing as polygenism. There is a subtle but vital difference in what composes “true humans”.

God creates and infuses a soul. Genesis tells us God gave souls to make our two first two fully human parents. The process God created to bring about our physical nature is also shrouded in mystery, although science has clues. The Church only objects when science transgresses it’s sphere of competence and makes pronouncements on the nature and origin of the soul. It’s not in the scientific sphere of competence to prove the origin of the soul.

In response to posts 14 & 15, I gently suggest that readers carefully study post 13. It does not present scientific speculations. It is a clear direct statement of Catholic teachings. In my humble opinion, it is time to stop twisting the science of human evolution to fit personal preferences regarding some foundational doctrines. It is time for Catholics to face up to some basic scientific speculations.

Readers should take note of this important sentence in post 13 and then take off the rose-colored glasses. Note the words “when science transgressess.”
“The Church only objects when science transgresses it’s sphere of competence and makes pronouncements on the nature and origin of the soul. It’s not in the scientific sphere of competence to prove the origin of the soul”

The evolution model attributes human characteristics to multiple breeding in large humanizing populations. The human “soul” emerges from breeding physical anatomies, that is, the human (material realm of science) soul can be described as an epiphenomenon. St. John Paul II used strong language regarding this falsehood at the end of paragraph 5. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

The current science position intersects with the Catholic doctrine that God’s creation of the spiritual soul took place in an unique populartion of two first human beings. Genesis 1: 26-27. Thus, the current scientific concept of large humanizing populations transgresses science’s sphere of competence when it comes to true human nature.

From post 13.
"And the conclusion of the Church is that a human being is a union of a

1. body
   and a
2. rational soul."

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

A quick clarification about the Catholic position on an originating human population of two.

There is no doctrine on the exact geographical location of Genesis 1: 26-27. The earthly location of the original population of two could be in the midst of archaic fossils or in a separate unique garden that no longer exists. What is important to know about current science is that the interpetation of archaic fossils does not include the complete human nature which is matter and spirit, decomposing anatomy and rational soul. The evolution model itself does not include the possibility of two founders of the human species.

 

[clem456]

Are you saying it’s possible that God may have taken two homo erectus, homosapiens or whatever, who were in a grouping and gave them souls at their conception, making them the first humans, our first parents?

Probably the most important point I can make here is this:

1. It doesn’t matter what I think is possible.

Does it *seem to me *that your proposition is possible? Why wouldn’t it be? Who can know for sure? Who will ever know which two were chosen by God?

We accept that that God gave us two parents and we call them Adam and Eve.
Science attempts to explain the physical dynamics of this, and the Church allows science this sphere of competence.
Having a good solid theological framework does not limit scientific inquiry, it welcomes it. That seems to threaten some people, and I don’t quite understand why.

Anyone making a blanket statement that
“the science of evolution is incompatible with Catholic teaching”
or
“our first two human parents could not have come from a population of this or that”
is making up their own brew of science/religion and pretending to know the unknowable.

Our Magisterium does not say that. What it says is that our full humanity is

1. body
   and
2. rational soul

Our soul cannot develop or evolve in a population (polygenism), it is given by God. But the process God used to create our bodies is a subject for study. One thing is for sure…the bible is not a science textbook, and the Church does not pretend it is.

 

[grannymh]

Anyone making a blanket statement that
“the science of evolution is incompatible with Catholic teaching”
or
“our first two human parents could not have come from a population of this or that”
is making up their own brew of science/religion and pretending to know the unknowable.

This happens in 2015 because many people do not understand the simple fact that today’s evolution theory pertains to two separate categories. 1. the science of human evolution and 2. the science of non-human living organisms. Both areas use the genetic system of Cladistics/cladograms which posits large populations as sources of extant species. This includes common ancestors.

The Catholic Church does not accept today’s science of human evolution.