Genesis v Evolution

[Orogeny]

From the point of view of biology, humans are animals like all others that have evolved on this planet.

I have no argument with that.

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.

Skills, abilities and capacities have nothing to do with eternal life. Would you say that a person born with severe mental retardation, who cannot communicate and possibly isn’t aware of their surroundings isn’t an appropriate subject of eternal life?

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.

There is absolutely NO basis in genetics for determining that. That is a theological concept, not a biological concept. I’m surprised that you made that statement.

Theologically, do you really think that we “arbitrarily” choose which entities have immortal souls and which don’t?

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

Koko the gorilla and the teratoma don’t have immortal souls as they aren’t human beings. Do you reject Church teaching regarding the soul based on biology? The only reason to believe that humans are the only creatures with immortal soul is the teachings of the Church.

Maybe I’m missing something, but are you suggesting that Koko possibly did have an immortal soul?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

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:

Once again I ask you, is Pope Benedict ignorant of Church teaching or a heretic?
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION:COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:Human Persons Created in the Image of God:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

(Emphasis mine)

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:

No we don’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your reply. Can you explain what Pope Benedict meant by “10,000 generations”? Or what he meant by saying “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why couldn’t Adam and Eve be the first homo sapiens and all of the current human race be descended from them and them alone?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

And after all these posts you still pretend that you don’t know what the scientific meaning of theory is. How very sinful Ed. You intentionally mistate the truth. Give it up…We are all so sorry your faith is so frail. But you can’t make the Church over in your own image.

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your reply. Can you explain what Pope Benedict meant by “10,000 generations”?

Perhaps he meant that just like Jesus did when He said 7 times 70. Actually, though, I believe he meant that we cannot bring past generations into a laboratory to study each individual. I see nothing there that would cast a doubt on evolution.

Or what he meant by saying “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”?

That evolution is exactly like every single other scientific theory.

Now, I have given you the courtesy of answering your question. Will you do the same for me?

Is Pope Benedict ignorant of Church teaching or is he a heretic?

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think I’ll hold my breath until he answers.

 

[adrift]

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:

Once again I ask you, is Pope Benedict ignorant of Church teaching or a heretic?(Emphasis mine)No we don’t.

Peace

Tim

Pope Benedict has not taught nor teaches polygenism.

 

[fcfahs]

At the risk of temporarily ignoring what science is revealing, and turning to the text of Genesis 1 & 2 for some clues or hints about how man, specifically Adam and his soul, came into being, let us first look at Genesis 1. Here we read a complete account of God’s 7-day (easily interpreted as 7-period) creation, with nothing (not even man) left uncreated. Genesis 1 doesn’t give us specifics on how God pulled this off (i.e. piece-meal or in an evolutionary way), only that there was a definite ordering of how things came (or would come) into being.

Then, when we turn to Genesis 2 (which IMHO is not merely a more detailed recount of Genesis 1, but rather a continuation of Genesis 1), we read in verse 1 a clear affirmation that all of God’s creation was, at this point, complete! And, as per verses 2 & 3, God rested from His well-done job and sanctified His day of rest… But wait a moment, the next 2 verses (verses 4 & 5) clearly indicate that, although God’s creation was 100% complete, there was nothing sprouting, growing, or walking around on earth (as we might have been led to believe after reading Genesis 1). Specifically, verses 4 & 5 tell us that God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb before it actually grew and there was not a man to till the ground (that is there was no man around, period). Yet, God’s creation was 100% complete.

Thus we are force to conclude that God’s creation of everything earthly must actually have been the creation of an “embryo of life” from which all plant and animal life would spawn, including man. And then in verse 7 we read “And God formed man out of the dust of the ground…” (Not “THEN, God created man…”). A better way to read this might be, “And, as a result of God’s creation, man formed out of the dust of the ground…” Moreover, verse 7 finishes with the statement, “and man became a living soul.” It does NOT say that man was a living soul when he was “programmed” into the “embryo of life” that God had created during His 6 “days” of creation. To me, Genesis 2:7 is merely saying “And this is how man and his soul came into being, as a result of God’s creation.”

Comments welcome and requested.

Frank

 

[fcfahs]

Oops! Allow me to rephrase the last sentence of my previous post. I meant to say “To me, Genesis 2:7 is merely reviewing how man came into being, as a result of God’s creation.”

And, in the first paragraph of that post, I should have said, “God’s 6-day (easily interpreted as 6-period) creation)”, not 7-day / 7-period creation.

Sorry bout that.

Frank

 

[drpmjhess]

Do you reject Church teaching regarding the soul based on biology? The only reason to believe that humans are the only creatures with immortal soul is the teachings of the Church.Tim

Tim, I’m not clear from your grammar what you mean in the first sentence – are you saying that the Church bases its teaching regarding the soul on biology?

My point to SpiritMeadow is that the criteria for soul possession are not cut and dried. If you want to include anancephalic infants (who will never develop personhood before they die) but exclude gorillas and chimpanzees, then you are basing it on genetics, the possession of human DNA. And if you are basing soul possession on DNA, you have to admit that not everything with human DNA is a human being.

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, I’m not clear from your grammar what you mean in the first sentence – are you saying that the Church bases its teaching regarding the soul on biology?

No, I am asking if you are using biology to disagree with the Church’s teaching on the soul.

My point to SpiritMeadow is that the criteria for soul possession are not cut and dried. If you want to include anancephalic infants (who will never develop personhood before they die) but exclude gorillas and chimpanzees, then you are basing it on genetics, the possession of human DNA. And if you are basing soul possession on DNA, you have to admit that not everything with human DNA is a human being.

Ensoulment occurs at conception. If the deveoloping human ends up being spontaneously aborted or anacepahlic or any other condition that doesn’t allow it to be born “normal”, then that is the plan God had for them. They still had an immortal soul. Koko the gorilla did not have an immortal soul, nor did/does any other non-human animals.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

No, I am asking if you are using biology to disagree with the Church’s teaching on the soul.Ensoulment occurs at conception. If the deveoloping human ends up being spontaneously aborted or anacepahlic or any other condition that doesn’t allow it to be born “normal”, then that is the plan God had for them. They still had an immortal soul. Koko the gorilla did not have an immortal soul, nor did/does any other non-human animals.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

Ensoulment occurs at conception. If the deveoloping human ends up being spontaneously aborted or anacepahlic or any other condition that doesn’t allow it to be born “normal”, then that is the plan God had for them. They still had an immortal soul. Koko the gorilla did not have an immortal soul, nor did/does any other non-human animals.PeaceTim

Tim, theology is not static, but a dynamic and progressive enterprise, in dialogue with humanity’s increasing understanding (through science) of how the world actually works. By saying that ensoulment being at conception, I assume you are basing this on genetics. When a human sperm and human egg join to form a blastocyst informed by human DNA, that blastocyst will normally progress through various zygotic and fetal stages to become a human person. This is true even if the fertilization is in vitro, and would still be true if scientists learn how to bring a fetus to term in an artificial womb. The baby would still be genetically human and possessed of an “immortal soul.”

Over the course of several million years – since their divergence from other apes – humans evolved the genetic package for speech. Geneticists have recently shown that the gene coding for speech in humans can be transplanted into mice, changing their squeaking pattern. Suppose either that chimpanzees – which whom we share 98.5% of our DNA – could either evolve this genetic package or have it transplanted into them. If such a chimp could recite the Pater Noster, obey the Ten Commandments, and explicate the Nicene Creed, would it not be perverse of us to withhold from it the ascription of an “immortal soul”?

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps he meant that just like Jesus did when He said 7 times 70. Actually, though, I believe he meant that we cannot bring past generations into a laboratory to study each individual. I see nothing there that would cast a doubt on evolution.That evolution is exactly like every single other scientific theory.

Now, I have given you the courtesy of answering your question. Will you do the same for me?

Is Pope Benedict ignorant of Church teaching or is he a heretic?

Peace

Tim

My apologies Tim. Pope Benedict is not a heretic or ignorant of Church teaching. If you look at the quote where he states evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory, he refers to John Paul II’s statement and says: “He had his reasons for saying that.” But Pope Benedict does not reveal what those reasons are. Also, the popular press is saying that Pope Benedict is giving mixed signals about evolution.

Speaking very generally, I think science can no longer inform the debate on human origins since it has been compromised by political groups seeking to influence public opinion. As far as the Church, in my view it has said nothing definitive regarding accepting evolution, especially in regard to Creation. Pope Benedict also says that evolution focuses too narrowly on the question of human origins, with a comprehensive answer only being possible by including other areas of reason outside of its scope.

Peace,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Speaking very generally, I think science can no longer inform the debate on human origins since it has been compromised by political groups seeking to influence public opinion.
Peace,Ed

Tell that to 100,000 working biologists and allied scientists! They will laugh you to scorn, and the ignorant among them will hold in contempt the theology and the church you represent.

Thank goodness there are thinking Catholics among us who can represent theology faithfully as a thoughtful enterprise in dialogue with science.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

I suggest you read Humani Generis. The Teaching Authority of the Church is not something to trifle with. Speaking purely from a Catholic viewpoint, every claim made by science is subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church and their decision.

I am only interested in what the Church has to say about this issue. Science does not equal evolution. There are many different sciences.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

By saying that ensoulment being at conception, I assume you are basing this on genetics.

No, I am basing this on Church teaching.

When a human sperm and human egg join to form a blastocyst informed by human DNA, that blastocyst will normally progress through various zygotic and fetal stages to become a human person. This is true even if the fertilization is in vitro, and would still be true if scientists learn how to bring a fetus to term in an artificial womb. The baby would still be genetically human and possessed of an “immortal soul.”

Yes.

Over the course of several million years – since their divergence from other apes – humans evolved the genetic package for speech. Geneticists have recently shown that the gene coding for speech in humans can be transplanted into mice, changing their squeaking pattern. Suppose either that chimpanzees – which whom we share 98.5% of our DNA – could either evolve this genetic package or have it transplanted into them. If such a chimp could recite the Pater Noster, obey the Ten Commandments, and explicate the Nicene Creed, would it not be perverse of us to withhold from it the ascription of an “immortal soul”?

A couple of things. First, unless you equate speech with a soul, your argument is irrelevant. Second, we don’t have the power to ascribe a soul to anything, only God has that power so it would be perverse for us TO ascribe an immortal soul to a non-human animal even if it could speak and play a Beethoven sonata on the piano.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

I suggest you read Humani Generis. The Teaching Authority of the Church is not something to trifle with. God bless,Ed

Agreed – neither the teaching authority of the church, nor the AAAS nor the Royal Society are to be trifled with. Just as scientists submit their findings to the court of scientific judgment, theologians must submit their opinions to the court of theological judgment. The Vatican plays an important role, but not the only role in this – the Magisterium is not a hoop that theologians must jump through like trained seals.

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

My apologies Tim. Pope Benedict is not a heretic or ignorant of Church teaching. If you look at the quote where he states evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory, he refers to John Paul II’s statement and says: “He had his reasons for saying that.” But Pope Benedict does not reveal what those reasons are. Also, the popular press is saying that Pope Benedict is giving mixed signals about evolution.

That’s nice, Ed, but that isn’t the quote I was referring to. This is:
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION:

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

He clearly states something that can only be taken as polygenism. Based on that statement, is the Pope ignorant of Church teaching or is he a heretic?

Peace

Tim