Genesis v Evolution

[drpmjhess]

I have no particular basis for this, but it has always seemed to me that God infuses all life with his Spirit. When a creature attains sufficient sentience to think about God it kind of turns on…lol…not scientific to be sure, probably not theological either, but it seems reasonable. Not all that is reasonable is of course true. But it may well be unanswerable.

SpiritMeadow, you are quite right. All living beings have spirit or soul – the life force within them. (I can’t yet see myself to the Process view that even non-living entities like rocks have primitive consciousness!) The greater the neural endowment a species receives from its genetic code, the more responsive it can be to God’s love, and the greater the appropriateness of it’s being granted some form of eternal life

But it is important to recognize that genetics is a necessary but not always a sufficient criterion for ensoulment: not all that bears human DNA is a person; not all that bears human DNA has “soulishness” in the sense that we would regard it as being an appropriate subject of post-eschatological existence.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[TMC]

I have posted this many many times:

God could have supernaturally created Adam and Eve and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening on the earth at the time.

The crux of the issue is that Eve came from Adam and they both had preternatural gifts. These do not reconcile with the evolution of man.

I agree that God could have supernaturally created Adam and Eve and stuck them into an ongoing creation. This is not my belief, but it is compatable with Church teaching and can accomodate evolution. This is Jerry-Jet’s point in 892, I think.

Theistic evolution + special creation seems to make alot of sense to me.

It also fits in with the Catholic notion of not either/or but both/and and also the notion that true science never violates faith.

But I don’t understand your last two sentences. What do you mean by “preternatural gifts” and why do those gifts not reconcile with evolution? Do you mean evolution in general? Evolution as to all human beings? Or just that Adam and Eve cannot be the product of evolution?

I suppose that if all creatures including hominids evolved and then at some point God specially created Adam and Eve outside of evolution, and neither they nor their descedants intermingled with the other hominids, you could argue that no humans were produced by evolution. Is that your meaning?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, you are quite right. All living beings have spirit or soul – the life force within them. (I can’t yet see myself to the Process view that even non-living entities like rocks have primitive consciousness!) The greater the neural endowment a species receives from its genetic code, the more responsive it can be to God’s love, and the greater the appropriateness of it’s being granted some form of eternal life

But it is important to recognize that genetics is a necessary but not always a sufficient criterion for ensoulment: not all that bears human DNA is a person; not all that bears human DNA has “soulishness” in the sense that we would regard it as being an appropriate subject of post-eschatological existence.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

Ummm…ya lost me. What bears human DNA that is not a person? other than a foetus legally in this country? Least I don’t think it attains personhood until the 3rd trimester. ? I’m trying to remember…for homocide, I believe you can be charged with both the death of the mother and the foetus, but gosh I can’t remember any longer when it kicks in. Whatever, can you explain a bit more?

 

[edwest2]

Wow, I haven’t heard that one. Can you elaborate?

Peace

Tim

See post 900 on this thread.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I agree that God could have supernaturally created Adam and Eve and stuck them into an ongoing creation. This is not my belief, but it is compatable with Church teaching and can accomodate evolution. This is Jerry-Jet’s point in 892, I think.

But I don’t understand your last two sentences. What do you mean by “preternatural gifts” and why do those gifts not reconcile with evolution? Do you mean evolution in general? Evolution as to all human beings? Or just that Adam and Eve cannot be the product of evolution?

I suppose that if all creatures including hominids evolved and then at some point God specially created Adam and Eve outside of evolution, and neither they nor their descedants intermingled with the other hominids, you could argue that no humans were produced by evolution. Is that your meaning?

These Catholic Dogma and include the the preternatural gifts:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

 

[buffalo]

click on the link

 

[edwest2]

These Catholic Dogma and include the the preternatural gifts:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

1. 
   Thank you very much.
   
   God bless,
   Ed

 

[TMC]

These Catholic Dogma and include the the preternatural gifts:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

1. 
   OK. Got all that. I don’t understand why any of that is incompatable with evolution. I mean, we’re over 900 posts into a discussion on whether evolution is compatable with the Church’s teaching. The whole point is that most Catholics, including Catholic theologians, including the Pope and the Pope before him, and maybe a few before that (I don’t know) don’t find evolution incompatible with dogma. Which of those 15 statements do you think can’t coexist with evolution?

 

[edwest2]

2 and 10, and their link to Christ’s life, death and ressurection.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

OK. Got all that. I don’t understand why any of that is incompatable with evolution. I mean, we’re over 900 posts into a discussion on whether evolution is compatable with the Church’s teaching. The whole point is that most Catholics, including Catholic theologians, including the Pope and the Pope before him, and maybe a few before that (I don’t know) don’t find evolution incompatible with dogma. Which of those 15 statements do you think can’t coexist with evolution?

We should make a distinction - whether evolution is true or not - we need to focus on the origins of man specifically.

How bout we start with bodily immortality?

 

[drpmjhess]

Ummm…ya lost me. What bears human DNA that is not a person? … Whatever, can you explain a bit more?

SpiritMeadow, the problem is with a theology that might be called “all-humans-and-only-humans-possess-immortal-souls.” It would have a problem dealing with liminal cases, of which I offer three examples:

(1) We know that at least 30% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, most before a woman even knows that she has been pregnant (the rate may be higher than this). Quite often the reason has nothing to do with the uterine environment; it has to do with chromosomal or other genetic abnormalities so severe that the conceptus could never develop into a human person. A theology of “all-humans-and-only-humans-possess-immortal-souls” would have a difficult time dealing with this. The only way this kind of conception could develop into a mature adult would be to be other than it is, which is to say that it could only develop human personhood if it were not.

(2) Teratomas, or monstrous tumors, often contain human genetic material that for one reason or another can never develop into a human person. I have a friend who in her 30s had a tumor excised from her arm that contained some perfectly formed human teeth set in bone; other teratomas might contain a fully-formed finger, or a swatch of skin with hair follicles in it. There is no question that these tumors are the result of human DNA activity, switching on gene development in only one area. There is no “person” hiding behind a finger or teeth or swatch of skin, waiting to develop. A biologist colleague with whom I share an office had a grad school colleague with a dermoid cyst, an unfertilized egg that began dividing on its own in her ovary; when removed it was the size of a football and had inside it bone, hair, and other genetically human material. It was haploid, therefore not a human life that had begun at conception. I cannot understand how such tumors might be said to have “souls.”

(3) Researchers have grown a human ear on the back of a mouse by stimulating the gene for ear development. Is this a “potential person” with a “soul”?

So, an “all-humans-and-only-humans-possess-immortal-souls” theology would have to account for these liminal cases, and for that fact that there are non-human primates with far more developed skills at communication than some humans will ever have. You might enjoy a book by a Christian biologist, John Medina, “The Outer Limits of Life” (1991).

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[TMC]

2 and 10, and their link to Christ’s life, death and ressurection.

Let’s look at these, then. 2 is monogenism, which we have discussed at length. I don’t think its incompatible with evolution. Ed, I know you disagree, but I don’t see how rehashing that is helpful.

10 is the sanctifying grace that existed before the Fall. I don’t understand how that relates to evolution at all. So the first ensouled persons, the original pair from point 2, who we refer to as Adam and Eve, were in a state of grace before original sin. The catechism calls this original justice. What does that say about the method God used to create them? Nothing.

We should make a distinction - whether evolution is true or not - we need to focus on the origins of man specifically.

How bout we start with bodily immortality?

Buffalo, I’m not sure if you mean that bodily immortality is incompatible with evolution? The Church teaches that when in the state of original justice the first pair were protected from suffering and death. But then they committed original sin and suffered and eventually died. The Church teaches that, in a way, we maintain the gift of bodily immortality because in resurrection we will be rejoined with our glorfied bodies.

What part of that do you think refutes evolution?

 

[Orogeny]

So, an “all-humans-and-only-humans-possess-immortal-souls” theology would have to account for these liminal cases, and for that fact that there are non-human primates with far more developed skills at communication than some humans will ever have. You might enjoy a book by a Christian biologist, John Medina, “The Outer Limits of Life” (1991).

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

I’m not sure I follow you here. Lots of animals communicate. Are you suggesting that non-human animals may possess an immortal soul? If so, I say that you are clearly outside of Catholic teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m not sure I follow you here. Lots of animals communicate. Are you suggesting that non-human animals may possess an immortal soul?

From the point of view of biology, humans are animals like all others that have evolved on this planet. Animals skills and abilities and capacities relevant to rendering them appropriate subjects of “eternal life” (whatever that may mean) lie on a continuum, with no clear line of demarcation. Theologically we might arbitrarily say “this entity has an immortal soul and that one doesn’t,” but there is no clear foundation in genetics for doing so. Mere possession or non-possession of human DNA is not a sufficient criterion for declaring that Being A has an immortal soul and Being B does not. If that were the case, Koko the gorilla could not have an “immortal soul,” and a teratoma growing on my friend’s arm might have an immortal soul.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

(3) Researchers have grown a human ear on the back of a mouse by stimulating the gene for ear development. Is this a “potential person” with a “soul”?
Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

I retract point # 3 from my previous post: a biology colleague pointed out that this story about a genetically human ear grown on the back of a mouse was fabricated by anti-genetic-engineering forces who took out an ad in the New York Times: abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1644154.htm

I stand by my other points.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

click on the link

Thanks, but on that post you didnt give any…never mind. It was something I actually agreed with you on I think…and you seem not to be friendly to that.

Petrus…thanks for the further statement. I think I understand what you mean . It makes sense, I hadn’t thought of the grey area very well.

 

[drpmjhess]

Thanks, but on that post you didnt give any…never mind. It was something I actually agreed with you on I think…and you seem not to be friendly to that.

Petrus…thanks for the further statement. I think I understand what you mean . It makes sense, I hadn’t thought of the grey area very well.

You’re welcome, SpiritMeadow! Theology has to deal with lots of grey areas, where black-and-white thinking doesn’t work very well. I find this particularly true with respect to my seminary students: the ones who can think in a compassionate and nuanced way about the messiness of life seem to make better confessors.

Petrus

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Did homo sapiens ever mate with Neanderthals and produce hybrid offspring?

I don’t think they did.

I think homo sapiens had souls and Neanderthals didn’t have souls and that they never mated and produced offspring.

I believe Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens–were the first with souls–and that all of the current human race–all with souls–are descended from them.

I could be wrong but don’t some Catholics who believe in theistic evolution believe that at some point in the evolution of hominids that God infused a hominid with a soul and that first hominid was Adam?

and that maybe God did the same with another hominid and that was Eve?

And that the whole Genesis account is only allegorical and that a literal Adam and Eve never really existed that would correspond historically to the account of Genesis?

I don’t believe in that type of theistic evolution.

I believe God created the universe–that life evolved–and that hominids evolved.

I don’t believe that God just chose to infuse a soul into a hominid that was a little smarter than all the rest or that Adam and Eve weren’t actual people.

Some people may call non Genesis account creation of that sort theistic evolution–I’ll just say this–that sort of theistic evolution would not be Catholic theistic evolution!

If Adam and Eve are the common parents of us all–how could they have been generated from other hominids–if they were wouldn’t their parental hominids be parents of us?

Now of course I guess you could say that Adam and Eve were born of earlier hominids than homo sapiens–were sponatenous mutations–and were the first homo sapiens and constituted a new species–that way they could come from souless progenitors–be a totally different species–and that God could have at some point given them souls

Or that they were more advanced mentally to the point where they would question and that at that point God would have given them a soul.

That seems far fetched to me. Human Life begins at conception. Such human life contains a soul–regardless of the mental ability.

What’s more likely–Adam and Eve coming from earlier hominids and being a totally different species so that when the Catholic Church says they are the parents of us all that that would be true

OR

Adam and Eve being specially and miraculously created as the first homo sapiens–without earlier hominid progenitors—and that God created them from their first instance of creation with souls?

To me the second view makes more sense.

Why do Catholics with a fondness for evolution hate that view?

and why do Catholics with a fondness for creationism hate the fact that God did alot of creating by evoutionary means?

Special creation + evoluion before that special creation makes perfect sense!

The perfect “Insertion Point” for Adam and Eve on the evolutionary timeline is at the beginning of the first homo sapiens.

That is when God truely made man in his own image.

 

[edwest2]

I think it is important for Catholics to not ignore the Teaching Authority of the Church which has established certain truths as divinely revealed. For example, Adam and Eve were our first parents. We are not allowed to believe in polygenism as defined in part 37 of Humani Generis:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Also, those who promote evolutionary theory point to Pope John Paull II’s statement that evolution is more than a hypothesis but ignore that this statement was qualified. In other words, it was conditional:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Conditional on what? Humani Generis (see point 3, second paragraph).

Further, those who promote evolutionary theory, also point to a statement of Pope Benedict where he admits there is evidence for evolution, but, and this is important, and left out by thoose who promote evolutionary theory, he also said:

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

 

[edwest2]

Please ignore that last link.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Pope Benedict also said that “We cannot drag 10,000 generations into the laboratory.” And, in reference to John Paul II’s statement, “But it is also true the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Which is left out by those promoting evolutionary theory.

As Catholics, we are reminded of how careful we should be about making conclusions about evolution. See part 36 of Humani Generis. Also, divine revelation, as established by the Teaching Authority of the Church, tells us that Adam and Eve were our first literal parents, not part of some Homo Sapiens group. They were responsinle for Original Sin and the reason Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected.

I hope this is clear.

God Bless,
Ed