Evolution and the Human Soul....

[clem456]

This is what I asked for.

Step one.
Please explain the general base for the science of human evolution.

Step two.
Please supply the words of Popes which directly contradict the Catholic doctrines regarding the origin of humankind and Original Sin which were clearly affirmed in 1950.

These two steps will demonstrate general Catholic opposition to the science of human evolution.

SNIP

.

I’d prefer to let Saint John Paul and the Magisterium speak, and listen.

One thing for certain, your statement that I bolded is not supported by the Catholic Church. No problem, believe what you want, I respect your choice to reject whatever you want.
Please, it would be better if you didn’t claim it’s the Catholic Church’s position to be opposed to the science of human evolution.
It’s not fair to the people reading this, who are wondering what the Church believes in these issues.

 

[Robert_Sock]

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

I’ve posted a thread like this a long time ago, and I think the answer is very tough for Christians believing in evolution. I personally do not accept evolution, and your question points as to the reason why.

 

[Techno2000]

How can you blame Adam and Eve for their actions, since they were raised by soulless Parents .

 

[newcalling]

I believe that, if evolution is true, the soul is what made humans Homo * sapiens sapiens * instead of simply Homo * sapiens * Thus, Adam and Eve would be the first of our current species. It wouldn’t preclude God.

Of course, it doesn’t address Homo * sapiens neandertalensis* nor Homo * sapiens denisovan* , but that might range too much into the banned topic of evolution.

 

[clem456]

I’ve posted a thread like this a long time ago, and I think the answer is very tough for Christians believing in evolution. I personally do not accept evolution, and your question points as to the reason why.

Evolution is not (or should not be) a belief, it’s a reasoned observation of the world. It can inform belief, as any reason can. If the science becomes a matter of faith it crosses the line.
It’s not required for a Catholic person to accept scientific observations in any way. No problem. But it’s also not acceptable for a Catholic to tell others that the science of human evolution is contrary to our faith, especially when the explicit statements of the Church contradict that position. (not referring to you).

 

[grannymh]

I’d prefer to let Saint John Paul and the Magisterium speak, and listen.

One thing for certain, your statement that I bolded is not supported by the Catholic Church. No problem, believe what you want, I respect your choice to reject whatever you want.
Please, it would be better if you didn’t claim it’s the Catholic Church’s position to be opposed to the science of human evolution.
It’s not fair to the people reading this, who are wondering what the Church believes in these issues.

The Magisterium did speak.

Humani Generis, pargarph 37 clearly refers to Scripture and the Magisterium authority found in the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

1. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

The Catholic Church is opposed to the science of human evolution because it maintains that Adam and Eve, as an originating population of two, did not exist. (Francisco J. Ayala, 1995) The Catholic doctrine of the existence of Adam and Eve directly opposes the scientific presuposition of non-existence.

In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996, St. John Paul II says in the middle of section 2.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church’s knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact.

This is why it is important to learn about the current science of human evolution because its answer to questions regarding the existence of Adam and Eve is simply that they did not exist as the sole founders of humankind. The true existence of Adam and Eve is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think there had to be the original two humans whom God created to have dominion over the earth. I don’t think humanity arose here and there all willy-nilly. Yes, there *may *have be ape-man like creatures, but they didn’t evolve into humans. I really don’t believe that evolution applies to humans, or many other animals for that matter. I don’t think that species turn into other species. They just change characteristics within their species.

 

[Abu]

clem456 #40
I’d prefer to let Saint John Paul and the Magisterium speak, and listen.

The opinion of St John Paul II that “the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” refers to what the Pope had been told and does not have the status of being even equivalent to, much less superior to, his doctrinal affirmation of Pius XII’s teaching. Fr David Becker in his letter to John Paul II pointed out: “Fr Jaki, we must note, played a major role in composing the Message which Your Holiness signed and sent to the Pontifical Academy.” [Dec 25, 1996. *WatchMaker, Nov-Dec 1996].

**The above opinion by John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes
**

Please, it would be better if you didn’t claim it’s the Catholic Church’s position to be opposed to the science of human evolution.
It’s not fair to the people reading this, who are wondering what the Church believes in these issues.

Evolutionists fall into three camps, but Catholic theistic evolutionists seem to think that evolutionist dogma is Church approved – they feel that after the initial creation of matter by God, then by strictly natural evolutionary mechanisms of chance and natural selection, over billions of years all plants and creatures arose including mankind, with natural changes from one species into another.

Msgr John F McCarthy:
“Evolutionists appeal vaguely to “science” as the reason for their belief, but modern natural science, by demonstrating that spontaneous generation does not occur in nature as well as by numerous other observations, has undone all of the wished-for results that Charles Darwin visualized in his Origin of Species and in his Descent of Man.
[Note 37: See, for example, Walt Brown, *In the Beginning (Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016, U.S.A.), 6th edition (1995) - and my review of the same in Living Tradition No. 63 (March 1996).]
rtforum.org/lt/lt64.html

The great Catholic Apologist, Hilaire Belloc puts the failure succinctly, to show Fixism (Fixed Types) humorously against evolutionism:
“If Natural Selection be true, then what we call a pig is but a fleeting vision; and all the past he has been becoming a pig, and all the future he will spend evolving out of pigdom, and pig is but a moment’s phase in the eternal flux, while all around us should be quarter-pigs, half-pigs, near-pigs, all-but-pigs, slightly-super-pigs, just beginning - and so on. But there aren’t. There are just pigs. In other words, the evidence is all in favour of Fixed Types and all against a ceaseless process of change.” [Br Thomas Mary Sennott: *The Six Days Of Creation, (1984), p 240. (A Brother in the St Benedict Priory, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)].

Darwin said that his theory would have to be verified in the fossil record, or it would fail… According to Darwinian theory, which states that new species arose as a result of many successive small changes over a long period of time, there should be in the fossil record an enormous number of specimens with partially formed organs, such as part of a wing, or of an arm, or of an eye, or of a heart, etc., but they have never appeared.

Catholics Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker have shown the impossibility of a propitious string of DNA arising by chance, and against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals,. We know that DNA programs a species to remain what it is. Answering The New Atheism, Chap 2 Pride and Prejudice, Emmaus Road, 2008].

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The great Catholic Apologist, Hilaire Belloc puts the failure succinctly, to show Fixism (Fixed Types) humorously against evolutionism:
“If Natural Selection be true, then what we call a pig is but a fleeting vision; and all the past he has been becoming a pig, and all the future he will spend evolving out of pigdom, and pig is but a moment’s phase in the eternal flux, while all around us should be quarter-pigs, half-pigs, near-pigs, all-but-pigs, slightly-super-pigs, just beginning - and so on. But there aren’t. There are just pigs. In other words, the evidence is all in favour of Fixed Types and all against a ceaseless process of change.” [Br Thomas Mary Sennott: *The Six Days Of Creation

, (1984), p 240. (A Brother in the St Benedict Priory, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)].

I agree totally with this.

 

[Techno2000]

The Six Days Of Creation

, (1984), p 240. (A Brother in the St Benedict Priory, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)].

Darwin said that his theory would have to be verified in the fossil record, or it would fail… According to Darwinian theory, which states that new species arose as a result of many successive small changes over a long period of time, there should be in the fossil record an enormous number of specimens with partially formed organs, such as part of a wing, or of an arm, or of an eye, or of a heart, etc., but they have never appeared.
.

 

[grannymh]

Please note that the current evolution model for human origin is a random breeding humanizing population in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church opposes this concept because the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of two sole founders of humankind. The Catholic Church’s doctrine on Original Sin is also affected by the science of human evolution because only one first person committed Original Sin. Original Sin was not a population project.

The Catholic doctrine for non-human plants, ants and elephants is based on Genesis 1:1

 

[Hans_W]

The Catholic doctrine for non-human plants, ants and elephants is based on Genesis 1:1

I would love to know what the Catholic doctrine for human plants says, or human ants for that matter.

This discussion is really getting ridiculous.

 

[Dorothy]

How can you blame Adam and Eve for their actions, since they were raised by soulless Parents .

Adam and Eve “walked with God”, (they had the fullness of sanctifying grace.)

Our good God gave us the remedy, Jesus Christ!

 

[Techno2000]

Adam and Eve “walked with God”, (they had the fullness of sanctifying grace.)

Our good God gave us the remedy, Jesus Christ!

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Dorothy]

I was being sarcastic.

Glad to hear that!

Well then my response is for those who may have thought your question was a real question.

 

[clem456]

How can you blame Adam and Eve for their actions, since they were raised by soulless Parents .

A lot of truth to that humor.
This morning we were discussing the genealogies contained in the OT, and how they affirm the line of faith culminating in the Son of David. Christ, the Son of God, affirms his full humanity with his line, which is fully human.

 

[Hans_W]

Abu:
Evolutionists fall into three camps, but Catholic theistic evolutionists seem to think that evolutionist dogma is Church approved – they feel that after the initial creation of matter by God, then by strictly natural evolutionary mechanisms of chance and natural selection, over billions of years all plants and creatures arose including mankind, with natural changes from one species into another.

Sorry, I have cut out this one sentence from your post. I hope I haven’t taken it out of context, but I don’t think I have.

I disagree with your statement. That would be a deistic viewpoint. As theists we believe that God has created and is continuously creating the world around us, through what we perceive as the laws of nature.

Read how theologians see the topic of creation/science/evolution. Look at what any Christian scientist has to say on that matter.

 

[grannymh]

Evolutionists fall into three camps, but Catholic theistic evolutionists seem to think that evolutionist dogma is Church approved – they feel that after the initial creation of matter by God, then by strictly natural evolutionary mechanisms of chance and natural selection, over billions of years all plants and creatures arose including mankind, with natural changes from one species into another.

The more I study what science is proposing for the appearance of the human species, the more I wonder how Catholics, who understand Catholicism, can say that they are theistic evolutionists when it comes to their own human nature. If Catholics are going to drastically change the current evolution model – it seems to me that it is more honest to simply say that the Catholic position regarding their own human nature is correct.

 

[clem456]

The opinion of St John Paul II that “the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis” refers to what the Pope had been told and does not have the status of being even equivalent to, much less superior to, his doctrinal affirmation of Pius XII’s teaching. Fr David Becker in his letter to John Paul II pointed out: “Fr Jaki, we must note, played a major role in composing the Message which Your Holiness signed and sent to the Pontifical Academy.” [Dec 25, 1996. *WatchMaker,

Nov-Dec 1996].

**The above opinion by John Paul II is not even on a par with his opinion that adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defence of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred rather than the death penalty. Neither here nor on evolutionism has he tried to recant the doctrinal teaching of previous Popes
**Evolutionists fall into three camps, but Catholic theistic evolutionists seem to think that evolutionist dogma is Church approved – they feel that after the initial creation of matter by God, then by strictly natural evolutionary mechanisms of chance and natural selection, over billions of years all plants and creatures arose including mankind, with natural changes from one species into another.

Msgr John F McCarthy:
“Evolutionists appeal vaguely to “science” as the reason for their belief, but modern natural science, by demonstrating that spontaneous generation does not occur in nature as well as by numerous other observations, has undone all of the wished-for results that Charles Darwin visualized in his Origin of Species and in his Descent of Man.
[Note 37: See, for example, Walt Brown, *In the Beginning (Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016, U.S.A.), 6th edition (1995) - and my review of the same in Living Tradition No. 63 (March 1996).]
rtforum.org/lt/lt64.html

The great Catholic Apologist, Hilaire Belloc puts the failure succinctly, to show Fixism (Fixed Types) humorously against evolutionism:
“If Natural Selection be true, then what we call a pig is but a fleeting vision; and all the past he has been becoming a pig, and all the future he will spend evolving out of pigdom, and pig is but a moment’s phase in the eternal flux, while all around us should be quarter-pigs, half-pigs, near-pigs, all-but-pigs, slightly-super-pigs, just beginning - and so on. But there aren’t. There are just pigs. In other words, the evidence is all in favour of Fixed Types and all against a ceaseless process of change.” [Br Thomas Mary Sennott: *The Six Days Of Creation, (1984), p 240. (A Brother in the St Benedict Priory, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)].

Darwin said that his theory would have to be verified in the fossil record, or it would fail… According to Darwinian theory, which states that new species arose as a result of many successive small changes over a long period of time, there should be in the fossil record an enormous number of specimens with partially formed organs, such as part of a wing, or of an arm, or of an eye, or of a heart, etc., but they have never appeared.

Catholics Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker have shown the impossibility of a propitious string of DNA arising by chance, and against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals,. We know that DNA programs a species to remain what it is. Answering The New Atheism, Chap 2 Pride and Prejudice, Emmaus Road, 2008].

It’s distressing when a Pope’s words can’t be accepted at face value. And considering Saint John Paul 2 had one of the finest minds God ever gave a human being, the idea that commentators need to tell him what he meant to say is disturbing.
Fr Becker is a creationist.
Scott Hahn is brilliant and inspired, but he’s not a scientist, and doesn’t pretend to be.
Your paragraph about Darwin is a gross oversimplification.
Belloc likewise is not a scientist, he lived in a generation prior to John Paul 2, so while I love Belloc, I’ll accept John Paul’s words at face value.

Is this really that difficult? Reminds me of the attempt to redefine marriage, where simple words are twisted and overthought…

 

[Neildown]

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.

I’ve kind of thought along the same lines. The soul cannot be something that is inherited biologically, but obviously we are still capable of recognizing it in some form through our biological capabilities - even if that is merely the capability of abstract thought.