Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[Ghosty1981]

Elements are generally not thought to have animating principles but a lithic soul is, I suppose, possible. You speculate that elements possess in their lithic souls the potentials necessary such that in combinations with other elemental beings, life proceeds from some primordial soup. Is that correct?

I’m not familiar with the concept of a lithic soul, and I don’t believe that the primordial forms I’m attributing to “Laws of Physics” are souls per se, so I can’t commit to this proposition. It might be a useful analogy, however.

If so, we have but three substantial forms, a lithic soul, an irrational soul and a human soul directly created by God in your speculation.

I’m not committed to any specific number of substantial forms. My only point previously is that our assignment of specific “substantial forms” to things can indeed be arbitrary, as our perception of what divides like from like can be limited. For example, we might say that a lion and a tiger are different species or the same species depending on our perception and definition. I believe that they have real substantial forms, I’m just not confident in our ability to perfectly discern the boundaries between similar substantial forms. I’m a Realist, but I’m skeptical of our perceptive abilities and man-made definitions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pattylt]

Science doesn’t need to. It is out of their area of investigation. This is the theological explanation of why evolution is true and how. Leave science to uncover the physical bits and the church to fill in the rest.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Science doesn’t need to. It is out of their area of investigation. This is the theological explanation of why evolution is true and how. Leave science to uncover the physical bits and the church to fill in the rest.

In other words, I don’t need my plumber or architect to be a good theologian, not that it would be bad if they are on their spare time. When building my house, however, it would be best if they focus on the task at hand rather than the Mysteries of God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

Science is incomplete then.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes, it is. Each area of scientific investigation can only work in the physical world. That’s what science IS. Demanding that science include religious theology is like demanding that your plumber is also a counselor. There is a line that a scientist shouldn’t cross…and yes, some do…but then they are no longer doing science.

 

[edwest211]

I made no demands. My statement was that science is limited, that’s all.

 

[Pattylt]

Sorry. You made it sound like this was a new revelation to you. For anyone of faith, science never is and never will be the complete answer. For a scientist, religious or not, all he/she is doing is going as far as they can in a physical world. The supernatural is not their area of study and often, some people (not you) demand that it should be. I’m just pointing out that it can’t. To deny evolution because it doesn’t include God is as absurd as demanding mechanical engineering is false because it also doesn’t include God.

 

[edwest211]

Only the Catholic Church has the full, complete answer.

 

[Pattylt]

…which can accept evolution as the scientific explanation of the physical process.

 

[buffalo]

which can accept evolution as the scientific explanation of the physical process.

Yes, micro-evolution. not macro.

 

[Aloysium]

unensouled humans

This is a contradiction given that the spirit and the body are one. And, we are contemplating that human beings were involved in the most intimate of relations with apes. We may treat one another as less than human, so such behaviour may be within the repertoire of a fallen humanity. On the other hand, I cannot see that being the method employed by a God who has made quite clear how adultery is a transgression against love.

The other alternative seems also unpalatable to modern sensitivities, it being the possibility of sexual intercourse among closely related human beings at the beginnings of human existence. But, in those times, before the ravages of time and random mutations degenerated our genome,there would be few, if any deleterious genes, and hence no danger of defective offspring as a result of coupling between two first degree relatives. There’d be no need for a natural law against it. The original families, including all humanity in those few numbers, would have a different structure, and relationships would be more along the lines of our all being brothers and sisters in Christ, with a resultant lack of a psychological or social taboos.

Human beings beget human beings. Whatever unnatural and unholy experiments we may carry out, simply because we can, it takes two of the same kind of organism to produce one of the same kind. We did not arise from some form of animal.

 

[Aloysium]

To deny evolution because it doesn’t include God is as absurd as demanding mechanical engineering is false because it also doesn’t include God.

At issue is whether evolutionary theories are science. Creation is a far better explanation that includes not only the physical science but also the psychological and the metaphysical.

 

[Gorgias]

The soul is not a scientific concept. I don’t see how science could accept it.

Scientists don’t talk about souls; I am.

When building my house, however, it would be best if they focus on the task at hand rather than the Mysteries of God.

Or maybe, it would be best if they said a prayer and then got about their job.

This is a contradiction given that the spirit and the body are one.

Not one, per se. However, humans are a soul/body composite, which is what I think you’re trying to get at. Nevertheless, it doesn’t create a contradiction.

And, we are contemplating that human beings were involved in the most intimate of relations with apes.

Not apes. Physical beings who were physically identical to us, but without immortal souls.

On the other hand, I cannot see that being the method employed by a God who has made quite clear how adultery is a transgression against love.

Apples / oranges, no?

The other alternative seems also unpalatable to modern sensitivities, it being the possibility of sexual intercourse among closely related human beings at the beginnings of human existence. But, in those times, before the ravages of time and random mutations degenerated our genome,there would be few, if any deleterious genes, and hence no danger of defective offspring as a result of coupling between two first degree relatives. There’d be no need for a natural law against it.

Is the only reason that incest is immoral that it produces “defective offspring”? That seems to be a rather incomplete analysis.

We did not arise from some form of animal.

That’s a conclusion that you’ve reached… exactly how?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Or maybe, it would be best if they said a prayer and then got about their job.

Even better, indeed.

Is the only reason that incest is immoral that it produces “defective offspring”? That seems to be a rather incomplete analysis.

I do find it curious that those who are appalled at the thought of a man mating with a healthy, if irrational, unrelated woman seem content with him mating with his sister.

Seth had a rough choice either way, I suppose.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, micro-evolution. not macro.

Where does the Church make this distinction?

 

[Aloysium]

Scientists don’t talk about souls; I am.

Aloysium:

This is a contradiction given that the spirit and the body are one.

Not one, per se. However, humans are a soul/body composite, which is what I think you’re trying to get at. Nevertheless, it doesn’t create a contradiction.

Scientists should not talk about evolution either. They don’t when they do their work. It is a world view that ties together genetics, chemistry and physics and holds to the primacy of matter. In this case, tacking a soul onto it, thinking about the soul and the body to be a composite rather than one, whereas, as stated in the CCC:

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person . But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

And, we are contemplating that human beings were involved in the most intimate of relations with apes.

Not apes. Physical beings who were physically identical to us, but without immortal souls.

On the other hand, I cannot see that being the method employed by a God who has made quite clear how adultery is a transgression against love.

Apples / oranges, no?

Is the only reason that incest is immoral that it produces “defective offspring”? That seems to be a rather incomplete analysis.

We did not arise from some form of animal.

That’s a conclusion that you’ve reached… exactly how?

The act of sex is an act of love, otherwise it is adultery. I don’t think Genesis 2:22-24 was added for dramatic effect, but rather to descibe the unity that the sexual act is meant to bring, in the image of the Holy Trinity.

And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I don’t think people take things out of context to make their point but rather tend not to read on once they find something to disagree with. Or maybe it’s something else. What I went on to write in a summary of my position:

The original families, including all humanity in those few numbers, would have a different structure, and relationships would be more along the lines of our all being brothers and sisters in Christ, with a resultant lack of a psychological or social taboos.

I could speak further to this but am not interested in creating another thread.

The idea that we were created directly by God and are not an evolved animal is a conclusion based on introspection as to who and what I am in all three dimensions, the physical, psychological and spiritual/ontological/metaphysical, in relation to the hierarchy of being that is the world from the subatomic to human beings, informed by science and the teachings of the church. As we can imagine the beginnings of the universe in the knowledge of what exists now, we can also do so knowing ourselves. I have no expectation that others will see it my way or that I am able to share what I see, but do so in the hope that together we will gain greater understanding.

 

[buffalo]

Where does the Church make this distinction?

JPII stated there are several theories of evolution.

Bottom line - one we have evidence for the other we do not.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think people take things out of context to make their point but rather tend not to read on once they find something to disagree with. Or maybe it’s something else.

Be careful with your interpretations, especially when you cite Scripture to support your position – “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” would equally well describe a pair consisting of an ensouled human and an unensouled hominin. They have the same “bones” and “flesh”.

The act of sex is an act of love, otherwise it is adultery.

Unless you’re in the OT, in which case it can be an act of forcing oneself on a woman and thereby obtaining her as your wife. Would that first act of nonconsensual sex be considered “an act of love”? It leads to marriage, so, by your standard…

I could speak further to this but am not interested in creating another thread.

ok…

The idea that we were created directly by God and are not an evolved animal

I would suggest that there’s no contradiction in asserting that our physical being is “evolved”, but since our souls are created directly by God, therefore we become human by virtue of God’s act.

 

[edwest211]

And that is the real problem. Only the Catholic Church can combine science and theology.