V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Yep. Did you read what John Paul II said in his Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996?
- Status
October 22, 1996?
B
buffalo
Guest
OK then.
This is what Pope Leo said.
Pope Leo himself, however, clearly judged that the origin of woman was indeed to be considered part of the Church’s doctrine concerning marriage—particularly, no doubt, in view of the ancient typological reading of Eve’s formation from her spouse’s side which we saw enshrined in the teaching of the Council of Vienne in relation to the Church as “Spouse of Christ.” Writing shortly after Huxley and Darwin, in the 1870s, had more explicitly applied evolutionary theory to human origins, Leo wrote as follows to the world’s Catholic bishops:
[371](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/371.htm’)
God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.
This is what Pope Leo said.
Pope Leo himself, however, clearly judged that the origin of woman was indeed to be considered part of the Church’s doctrine concerning marriage—particularly, no doubt, in view of the ancient typological reading of Eve’s formation from her spouse’s side which we saw enshrined in the teaching of the Council of Vienne in relation to the Church as “Spouse of Christ.” Writing shortly after Huxley and Darwin, in the 1870s, had more explicitly applied evolutionary theory to human origins, Leo wrote as follows to the world’s Catholic bishops:
Code:
What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, ***God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.*** In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity.[27](http://www.kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.html#sdfootnote27sym)
From the Catechism:
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
There are other threads that show the correct translation of what he said.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let’s get on the right ground here. And you making a sede vacantist argument? Are you claiming the current Pope is an invalid Pope, or his teachings are somehow tainted?
And this makes John Paul II wrong?
Where does it say we as Catholics are commanded to reject evolution?
The Church has clearly addressed the issue, and finds no conflict between science and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Just what part of:
"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576). "
Is translated incorrectly?
If you have a better translation, feel free to post it.
H
hecd2
Guest
No-one is *obliged *to accede to any conclusion, scientific or otherwise. Science’s ‘authority’ derives from its philosophical axioms (for example the starting point that the universe behaves according to laws that are, in principle, accessible to discovery by observation and reason) and from its success in explaining, describing and predicting the natural world. You can choose to accept that the axioms and methods of science reveal truths about how the natural world works; or you can reject science’s ability to do so. What you cannot do, whilst maintaining an intellectually viable stance, is to accept the conclusions of science that match your preconceptions, religious dogmas, or arbitrary preferences and to reject those that do not. Intellectual honesty demands that you either reject science’s efficacy in revealing natural truth; or you accept it, regardless of whether its conclusions are contrary to the dogma of your faith or your personal whims.
What I fail to understand is your comment about ‘the lack of observed evidence’. The reason that the fact of evolution is accepted by virtually every professional biologist, is that there is a truly vast and growing body of interlocking evidence from a wide range of sources that supports it and for which there is simply no alternative natural explanation.
Sure, but, it’s a dead end. There is no formal organisation or person or court which decides what scientific hypotheses are accepted and which are rejected. Science doesn’t work like that - my reference to historians of science was because I personally am not sure *exactly when *the neo-Darwinian theory was fully accepted by the scientific community and came to be the foundation of modern biology and the historians will. But historians have no authority to decide *what *hypotheses are accepted.
The ultimate authority is nature itself, and the foundational truths of science are agreed not by fiat, declaration or rulegivers but by consensus of the community based on the evidence.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Dear Socali,
I explained in the last post where the source of the authority of science lies. Your rejection or acceptance of evolution, unless it is based on a thorough knowledge of the science, is neither good nor bad science - it is not science at all. It is whim or prejudice.
So do you reject evolution
- Because you are knowledgeable and you think the evidence refutes it - if so just what is that contrary evidence?
- Because of actually knowing little about the theory and the evidence, you believe, erroneously, that the evidence is lacking or patchy?
- Because you reject all historical sciences - cosmology, geology, evolution, palaeomagnetics, palaeoclimatology, astro-physics, palaeontology etc?
- Because you reject the ability of the scientific method to reveal truth about anything?
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
clmowry said:
Dear Chuck,
I realise that there is a typo in your post, so am reading 59,000 years.
First of all, why do you think that anyone claims that any Most recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of humans is 6 million years ago? It seems that you are confusing the MRCA with the time of the divergence of the human lineage from the lineage leading to humans’ closest extant relative, chimpanzees, which was about 6 million years ago.
The MRCA is defined as the most recent individual that lived that lies in the direct defined lineage of all the individuals in question. In order to define an MRCA, you need to be specific about the lineage and the population. So the MRCA of all humans alive today through the strict maternal line can be traced by analysis of mitochondrial DNA that descends strictly through the maternal lineage. This MRCA has been called Mitochondrial Eve. It is important to note that there were other females alive at the time of the matrilineal MRCA, many of whom are also ancestors of significant proportions of the extant human population, and some of whom were also common ancestors of all living humans, but not through the strict maternal line.
Ingman et al, Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans, Nature 408, 708 - 713
The paper you posted considers the MRCA in the strict paternal lineage as measured by coalescence of polymorphic data on the Y-chromosome - so called Y-chromosome Adam.
There is no reason why the we should expect the Y-chromosome MRCA to be contemporaneous with the mitochondrial MRCA, and indeed the consensus is that patrilineal MRCA dates to about 75,000 years BP whereas matrilinealMRCA dates to about 175,000 years BP. Our genetic MRCA (ie the most recent common ancestor of all living humans regardless of male or female lineage) must be somewhat more recent than 75,000 years.
X-chromosome coalescence dates to about 540,000 years BP, which is expected, as the effective lineage population of X-chromosomes is three times greater than Y-chromosomes or mitochondria.
Kaessmann, H., Heissig, F., von Haeseler, A. & Paabo, S. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome. Nature Genet. 22, 78-81 (1999)
It is essential to realise that MRCA does not mean Sole Ancestor - in the generation of an MRCA there are other ancestors of at least a portion of the extant human population… You cannot equate an MRCA with Adam or Eve.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Dear Chuck,
That’s because you misunderstand the concept of MRCA - see my prevous post.
The genetic MRCA of all living humans seems to have lived less thn 75,000 years BP, but other human ancestors would have lived at the same time.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Dear Chuck,
Scientific results* cannot ‘*support the conclusion of supernatural intervention’. A basic axiom of science is that all observable phenomena have natural explanations. This does not mean that supernatural events do not occur - merely that science is incompetent to study them, and science must, for its own integrity, assume that they do not occur. A scientist, when doing science, whether she is an atheist or the most devout Catholic, is a methodological atheist - ie she rejects supernatural intervention as an explanation.
There is a very important reason for this. If scientists, doing science, accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, then their method is fatally undermined. Any phenomenon can be explained by supernatural explanations and science has no means to determine when natural explanations should supplant or giv way to supernatural explanations. So unless scientists assume that all phenomena, without exception, have natural explanations, its explicatory power is undermined - it’s easy to say ‘it’s a miracle’, and such a statement has no power to explain the universe.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
C
clmowry
Guest
Is this an assumption, or are you saying that there is data that “proves” that there are different evolutionary ancestors for various people. i.e. They can’t possibly converge at a single point? Or that we cannot find a “MRCA” for the entire population without testing the entire population?
In a post above somewhere you indicae that there must be at least 29 ancestors (or something to that effect) but the arguement seems to be dependent upon a multitiude of staticical assumptions. No? i.e. Is this a probability or certainty?
Is there a further point/assumption her that even if a comon ancestor of the Earth’s current population was statistically possible, then that still wouldn’t point to a sole ancestor for mankind because some humans not currently alive would not have the same ancestor?
Assuming for a second that a Sole “Human” Ancestor for the Human race was a fact, and that you were actually trying to prove there was a Sole Ancestor, rather than eliminate the posiblity, then how would go about proving such a thing? Is it even possible, given that we cannot possibly test the genentic makeup of every person that has ever lived?
Chuck
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Here is a compromise with polygenism. HECD2 has provided great scientific evidence (genetics and DNA studies) that we trace ourselves back physically not to two individuals, but a population “bottleneck” of at least 10,000 individuals or more.
OK. Two of those individuals were given souls by God at some point, were “tempted” somehow, and fell into sin somehow (Genesis 1-3). Let’s name them “Adam” and “Eve” for obvious reasons. Now eventually, would it not follow that all the much later descendents of these two would eventually have souls.
If per chance the immediate descendents of either “Adam” or “Eve” or their relatives with souls were to marry an “almost” human (someone with a human body but without a soul), wouldn’t their child be born with a soul? So eventually everyone would have a soul. It is Catholic theology that the soul is created at conception, God creates the soul, and this of course can’t be detected by science.
That’s all that’s required in the “polygenism” vs. “monogenism” question, it doesn’t require that we physically trace ourselves back to two physical individuals, but two physical individuals with souls (even in a population of 10,000 individuals, 9998 without souls). All the “soul-less” ones would eventually die off.
I know this is crude, but it seems to solve the question/problem of the original poster, that of polygenism vs. monogenism. All that is required is that all present humans have both bodies and souls, and that Adam/Eve had both bodies and souls, and we trace ourselves back to them. All their later descendents would eventually have bodies and souls (but it might take some time), and would inherit the original sin of Adam/Eve and the effects of the Fall. And so would we. Problem solved. Hooray!
I’m still waiting for my Haught book to arrive.
Phil P
OK. Two of those individuals were given souls by God at some point, were “tempted” somehow, and fell into sin somehow (Genesis 1-3). Let’s name them “Adam” and “Eve” for obvious reasons. Now eventually, would it not follow that all the much later descendents of these two would eventually have souls.
If per chance the immediate descendents of either “Adam” or “Eve” or their relatives with souls were to marry an “almost” human (someone with a human body but without a soul), wouldn’t their child be born with a soul? So eventually everyone would have a soul. It is Catholic theology that the soul is created at conception, God creates the soul, and this of course can’t be detected by science.
That’s all that’s required in the “polygenism” vs. “monogenism” question, it doesn’t require that we physically trace ourselves back to two physical individuals, but two physical individuals with souls (even in a population of 10,000 individuals, 9998 without souls). All the “soul-less” ones would eventually die off.
I know this is crude, but it seems to solve the question/problem of the original poster, that of polygenism vs. monogenism. All that is required is that all present humans have both bodies and souls, and that Adam/Eve had both bodies and souls, and we trace ourselves back to them. All their later descendents would eventually have bodies and souls (but it might take some time), and would inherit the original sin of Adam/Eve and the effects of the Fall. And so would we. Problem solved. Hooray!
I’m still waiting for my Haught book to arrive.
Phil P
N
Newman60
Guest
Welcome back. You and Buffalo are discovering, just as I did, that hecd2 and Vern and others can make statements like: “Theory of evolution” and scientific “fact” of evolution in the same sentence while conveniently glossing over the correct wording which would be ASSUMED “fact” of evolution. Honest science will always say assumed when something cannot be replicated and when it is therefore the best guess of many scientists.
They also conveniently disregard the proviso in the Pope’s most recent statement that it can’t disagree with the established teaching of the Church. He certainly didn’t contradict his predecessors nor did he rewrite the Catechism. The pope is Catholic.
It isn’t our faith that has a problem. It is that those supreme arbiters of what is good science and what is ignorant can’t seem to admit that they too are acting on faith - a faith in several unprovable assumptions.
Newman60
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Newman60 << It is that those supreme arbiters of what is good science and what is ignorant can’t seem to admit that they too are acting on faith - a faith in several unprovable assumptions. >>
For the 4.5 billioneth time, name those unprovable assumptions. And name the faith that evolution is supposedly based on.
Let’s get this straight, you’re the guy who thinks the earth is like 10000 years old, that Steve Austin got it right, and that all the geologists and biologists in this country are Nazis. Okay that might be an exaggeration.
DUDE, READ SOMETHING on evolution.
The whole polygenism-monogenism problem is solved once we believe and accept Adam/Eve had souls, we have souls therefore we inherit the original sin and Fall of Adam/Eve, and we trace ourselves back to a population of individuals who all eventually had souls and therefore are all effected by the Fall of Adam/Eve. This might work. Haught my man Haught.
Phil P
For the 4.5 billioneth time, name those unprovable assumptions. And name the faith that evolution is supposedly based on.
Let’s get this straight, you’re the guy who thinks the earth is like 10000 years old, that Steve Austin got it right, and that all the geologists and biologists in this country are Nazis. Okay that might be an exaggeration.
DUDE, READ SOMETHING on evolution.
The whole polygenism-monogenism problem is solved once we believe and accept Adam/Eve had souls, we have souls therefore we inherit the original sin and Fall of Adam/Eve, and we trace ourselves back to a population of individuals who all eventually had souls and therefore are all effected by the Fall of Adam/Eve. This might work. Haught my man Haught.Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Pius XII – “…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…”
The key phrase is true men. True men are those with bodies and souls. All those who came after Adam/Eve would be true men, their children, and children’s children, etc. Adam/Eve would be the first “true men,” “our first parents” with body and soul. The other “humans” that may have existed at that time, or even slightly after Adam/Eve would not have souls, they would not be “true men,” and they would eventually die off.
Eventually everyone would have a soul inherited from Adam/Eve, and be effected by the original sin of Adam/Eve. PROBLEM AND OBJECTION SOLVED. I think.
I hope my previous post made it, the PHP script went bad for a second…
Phil P
The key phrase is true men. True men are those with bodies and souls. All those who came after Adam/Eve would be true men, their children, and children’s children, etc. Adam/Eve would be the first “true men,” “our first parents” with body and soul. The other “humans” that may have existed at that time, or even slightly after Adam/Eve would not have souls, they would not be “true men,” and they would eventually die off.
Eventually everyone would have a soul inherited from Adam/Eve, and be effected by the original sin of Adam/Eve. PROBLEM AND OBJECTION SOLVED. I think.
I hope my previous post made it, the PHP script went bad for a second…
Phil P
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Evolution – that is the descent of present-day species from earlier species – is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how that happened. In science, nothing is considered absolutely certain, and the theory is subject to revision as new information is discovered.
Which it doesn’t. There is no conflict between science and the teachings of the Church.
The question is, are those who would impose a sola scriptura, the-bible-is-literally-true interpretation on the Church Catholic?
The Holy Father has said,
“In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).” (Emphasis mine.)
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Newman60 << There are on the other hand many people with whom you can discuss something like paleobotanist Jennifer McElwain’s study of fossilized leaves and how they relate to the age of mountains as that is described in the December issue of “Geology”. >>
BTW, read the official statement on evolution from the Botanical Society of America, and tell me what you think. I’ve linked that before as well. But I encourage you to keep trying to defeat evolution, the age of the earth, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity.
Phil P
BTW, read the official statement on evolution from the Botanical Society of America, and tell me what you think. I’ve linked that before as well. But I encourage you to keep trying to defeat evolution, the age of the earth, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity.
Phil P
N
Newman60
Guest
Phil, We are very close to agreeing here.Pius XII – “…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…”
The key phrase is true men. True men are those with bodies and souls. All those who came after Adam/Eve would be true men, their children, and children’s children, etc. Adam/Eve would be the first “true men,” “our first parents” with body and soul. The other “humans” that may have existed at that time, or even slightly after Adam/Eve would not have souls, they would not be “true men,” and they would eventually die off.
Eventually everyone would have a soul inherited from Adam/Eve, and be effected by the original sin of Adam/Eve. PROBLEM AND OBJECTION SOLVED. I think.
I hope my previous post made it, the PHP script went bad for a second…
Phil P
But for the 3.6 billionth time I still don’t understand why assumption or replication are so problematic.
Moreover I think Vern got lost somewhere from the Sola Scriptura thread. That is truly out of left field. I’ve been trying to help get rid of that ridiculous (and unbiblical) concept for several years now.
Newman60
N
Newman60
Guest
Phil,Newman60 But I encourage you to keep trying to defeat evolution, the age of the earth, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity.
Phil P
I believe that would be theory of evolution, estimate of earth’s age and law of gravity (since that can be replicated).
Newman60
C
clmowry
Guest
Wasn’t too bad until it got to the garbage in the last 3 paragraphs.
And this is where the conflict generally comes in…if science would stick to science instead of trying to disprove religion and blame religion for all the problems in the world (and vice versa) then we wouldn’t end up with such a conflict.
Chuck
PhilVaz:
And this is where the conflict generally comes in…if science would stick to science instead of trying to disprove religion and blame religion for all the problems in the world (and vice versa) then we wouldn’t end up with such a conflict.
Chuck
Newman60 << There are on the other hand many people with whom you can discuss something like paleobotanist Jennifer McElwain’s study of fossilized leaves and how they relate to the age of mountains as that is described in the December issue of “Geology”. >>
BTW, read the official statement on evolution from the Botanical Society of America, and tell me what you think. I’ve linked that before as well. But I encourage you to keep trying to defeat evolution, the age of the earth, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity.
Phil P
- Status