Genesis v Evolution

[PhilVaz]

BTW, the document admits of both monogenetic and polygenetic interpretations:

“The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.” (paragraph 70)

The document also mentions Adam, both as “the first man” (citing Vatican II), with Eve as “the first parents”, and as a “symbol” :

“The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22).” (paragraph 22)

“Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.” (paragraph 43)

1. “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling. No wonder, then, that all the truths mentioned so far should find in him their source and their most perfect embodiment” (Gaudium et Spes, 22). This famous passage from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World serves well to conclude this summary of the main elements of the theology of the imago Dei. For it is Jesus Christ who reveals to man the fullness of his being, in its original nature, in its final consummation, and in its present reality.

And in terms of science of course, “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…” (paragraph 63)

Phil P

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So how many people here would say:

1)Adam and Eve came after the first homo sapiens?

OR

2)Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens?

OR

3)Adam and Eve came before the first homo sapiens?

 

[PhilVaz]

Congratulations! This thread is now #8 of all time for replies in apologetics threads, and #1 with most replies (940) that hasn’t been closed yet. Prepare to be closed shortly! Can we hit the magic 1000 number?

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

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

Hi Tim,

Once again, I see part of the document that appears to support evolutionary theory but another part that does not. I do not bring this up to be argumentative but to clarify.

You mention part 63 but fail to follow up with part 64:

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are ‘several theories of evolution’ that are ‘materialist, reductionist and spiritualist’ and thus incompatible with Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it ‘involves the question of man,’ however, Pope John Paull II’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the ‘ontological leap’ to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

And 69:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because 'the cuasality of God. Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…”

Pope Benedict has accepted what science has told him at face value, but he clearly endorses a form of looking at human origins that is in continuity with past pronouncements of the Church, and that rejects key aspects of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. He is not a heretic.

God bless,
Ed

 

[fcfahs]

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”?

This is not too far removed from a potential problem I see with organ transplants. I recall (from a Body-Mind seminar that I attended) a case study, where a female heart-transplant patient started experiencing strange dreams and mental pictures, quite unlike and totally inconsistent with her own life-experiences (e.g. motorcycles, wild beer-parties, and even Chicken McNugget dinners). After some aggressive investigation, it was discovered that the donor of her heart had been a rather wild kid and motorcyclist who, after leaving a beer-party where he had been drinking heavily and gorging on Chicken McNuggets, was killed on his way home in a fatal motorcycle accident. Since then, researchers have been investigating “cellular memory in heart-transplant patients.”

Now, suppose a very Christ-like guy had a heart-transplant, where the donor of the heart was a thoroughly corrupt, demented person. Based on the above case-study and some recent Penn-State research on The Moral Brain, it would (to me) seem theoretically possible for this guy to “inherit” corrupt feelings and emotions which could ultimately adulterate his originally saint-like soul, making him “step outside of the ‘white lines’ leading to salvation.” His fault? Hardly! God’s call on this? Anyone’s guess. Topic for another tread? Absolutely.

Frank

 

[Crumpy]

In his book, In the Beginning, Pope Benedict repeats the words that we have heard so often, that Genesis is not a science book.

He says the book tells us who we are, in our relationship to God. He doesn’t dwell on the 7-day aspect of creation, but he looks at creation from the standpoint of the whole Bible, and particularly with respect to the central person of the Bible, Jesus Christ.

This is not new, he says, this expansive perspective has always been there, from the earliest times in the Church, particularly in the citation of the verses that say that Jesus is the new Adam.

Loss of the sense of creation is evident in secular philosophy and reduces humans to utilitarian objects, as portrayed in the very first post in this thread. There is a shift in secular matters from creation to human creativity, i.e. what can we create next?

Benedict highlights the Sabbath, as underscoring our human equality, the covenant with God, and the essential importance of creation, our relationship with God.

In this context, so many posts have demonstrated that denying creation is the essence of denying the relationship with God. As Benedict has stated elsewhere, science is incapable of disproving the primordial relationship of mankind with God.

 

[wildleafblower]

[msg.945] Loss of the sense of creation is evident in secular philosophy and reduces humans to utilitarian objects, as portrayed in the very first post in this thread. There is a shift in secular matters from creation to human creativity, i.e. what can we create next?
edwest2;2620638:

[msg.1] Can you spread the Gospel of an “invisible” God with evolution? No. The Bible states that the invisible things of creation are plainly seen and known by all things that were created. If some say we are deluding ourselves because of the interpretation of some ‘evidence’ then what do they think about our belief in an ‘invisible’ God? Will they hold that up as a “rational” decision? The answer is no.God bless,
Ed

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In every age Christians have sought to give expression to faith’s vision of the beauty and order of God’s creation, the nobility of our vocation as men and women made in His image and likeness, and the promise of a cosmos redeemed and transfigured by the grace of Christ. The artistic treasures which surround us are not simply impressive monuments of a distant past. Rather, for the hundreds of thousands of visitors who contemplate them year after year, they stand as a perennial witness to the Church’s unchanging faith in the Triune God who, in the memorable phrase of St. Augustine, is Himself 'Beauty ever ancient, ever new.’ May your support of the Vatican Museums, bear abundant spiritual fruits in your own lives and advance the Church’s mission of bringing all people to the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ, ‘the image of the invisible God,’ in Whose Eternal Spirit all creation is reconciled, restored and renewed.(Special Message from Pope Benedict XVI to the Patrons gatthered in Rome for the 500th Anniversary of the Vatican Museums on June 1st 2006) *.
mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Patrons/MV_Patrons_01.html
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Patrons/MV_Patrons_01.html

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

Once again, I see part of the document that appears to support evolutionary theory but another part that does not. I do not bring this up to be argumentative but to clarify.

You mention part 63 but fail to follow up with part 64:

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are ‘several theories of evolution’ that are ‘materialist, reductionist and spiritualist’ and thus incompatible with Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it ‘involves the question of man,’ however, Pope John Paull II’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the ‘ontological leap’ to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

And 69:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because 'the cuasality of God. Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…”

Pope Benedict has accepted what science has told him at face value, but he clearly endorses a form of looking at human origins that is in continuity with past pronouncements of the Church, and that rejects key aspects of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. He is not a heretic.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, I assure you that I have not overlooked those paragraphs. I refer frequently to that document because I agree with everything I read in it.

Now, back to the question that you didn’t answer. You claim that polygenism is not an allowed teaching, yet this prince of the Church allowed it to be published. When Cardinal Ratzinger approved the publication of this document, was he ignorant of the supposed dogma of monogenism or was he heretical.

Please focus on this question and this question alone.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

Since then, researchers have been investigating “cellular memory in heart-transplant patients.” Now, suppose a very Christ-like guy had a heart-transplant, where the donor of the heart was a thoroughly corrupt, demented person…
Frank

Frank, you raise an interesting question. I believe that in the transplant case of “cellular memory” (if it hasn’t already been debunked), the woman’s cravings for fries and beer subsided fairly quickly as her body absorbed and adapted to the new organs.

As for the man’s moral responsibility, I think there would always be mitigating factors, but not excusatory ones. Someone might have a genetic predisposition to a quick temper, but this would not ultimately excuse him or her when he or she commits murder. Still, this bears looking into.

Petrus

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Now, back to the question that you didn’t answer. You claim that polygenism is not an allowed teaching, yet this prince of the Church allowed it to be published. When Cardinal Ratzinger approved the publication of this document, was he ignorant of the supposed dogma of monogenism or was he heretical.

Please focus on this question and this question alone.

Peace

Tim

Are you saying that the Church allows for polygenism?

I can’t speak for Ed, but I don’t think our Catholic faith does allow for polygenism-- not yet anyway. If it is true, it needs to be worked out more on a theological level if it is to be fleshed out within Catholic teachings.

Consequently, I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI’s approval of the publication of that document (back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) necessarilly means that he accepts or approves of polygenism either. He certainly does appear to be investigating the topic further though.

Honeslty, I think the creation account is, for the most part, apprehended by whoever reads it (on all sides of the debate) and often interpretted to mean whatever they think it means.

It seems really hard to get definitive answers on this topic. Perhaps we just don’t know yet. And, yes, I am open to theistic evolution.

 

[drpmjhess]

No, I am basing this on Church teaching.Yes.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. PeaceTim

Tim, you say that only God has the power to ascribe a soul. And yet humans are the ones who tell the bible stories in which only humans have “souls” – how convenient! We wrote the bible, so naturally it’s all about us.

I’m asking you to provide an account for why all humans and only humans have “immortal souls” – whatever that term means – that is based at least in part on empirical reality, not based solely on some mythical mumbo jumbo. What is it about humans that qualifies all of them – even those whose genomes are so fundamentally disordered that they cannot even implant – and that excludes all other of God’s creatures from this blessed privilege of enjoying an ?immortal soul"?

Furthermore, what theology allows you to determine a clear-cut dividing line between pre-human hominids and their human offspring? Again, please avoid mythical mumbo jumbo. Alec pointed out early in this thread that without a critical population of individuals (10,000? – Alec, if you’re reading, can you correct me?), hominids could not have sustained a successful mutation allowing increased brains size and cognitional ability. Out of this 10,000 did God plunk souls into half the offspring? 25%? 75% Did God cause some hominids who were 99.9999% identical to their offspring not to have “immortal souls” while at the same time privileging their children with such souls? What’s the theological rationale here? What’s your proof?

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

Are you saying that the Church allows for polygenism?

I’m not saying anything, I am asking Ed a question he doesn’t want to answer. He claims that the Church dogmatically teaches monogenism. I cited for him a passage from a paper authorized by and published with the approval of Cardinal Ratzinger that is clearly a claim of polygenism. I want to know Ed’s thoughts on who is right - Ed or Cardinal Ratzinger.

Consequently, I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI’s approval of the publication of that document (back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) necessarilly means that he accepts or approves of polygenism either. He certainly does appear to be investigating the topic further though.

I don’t know if he does or doesn’t, but a theological paper specifically approved for publication by him clearly does note polygenism as the origins of human kind. It is an official paper and unless you think that he was willing to have the paper published with what he considers erroneous teaching, you must assume that he didn’t disagree with the statement.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Tim, you say that only God has the power to ascribe a soul. And yet humans are the ones who tell the bible stories in which only humans have “souls” – how convenient! We wrote the bible, so naturally it’s all about us.

The Scriptures were authored by the Holy Spirit, albeit by God allowing them to speak in the language and idioms of their time.

I’m asking you to provide an account for why all humans and only humans have “immortal souls” – whatever that term means – that is based at least in part on empirical reality, not based solely on some mythical mumbo jumbo.

Are you saying that the Church teaches that animals have immortal souls like humans do?

I don’t think the Church teaches this to be fair.

What is it about humans that qualifies all of them – even those whose genomes are so fundamentally disordered that they cannot even implant – and that excludes all other of God’s creatures from this blessed privilege of enjoying an “immortal soul”?

If they have flesh as God intended and a soul as granted by God at conception or otherwise, then they most certainly have a immortal soul.

Furthermore, what theology allows you to determine a clear-cut dividing line between pre-human hominids and their human offspring?

That’s what I’ve been wondering too.

Again, please avoid mythical mumbo jumbo. Alec pointed out early in this thread that without a critical population of individuals (10,000? – Alec, if you’re reading, can you correct me?), hominids could not have sustained a successful mutation allowing increased brains size and cognitional ability.

One thing that’s interesting is that the Scriptures do say something along the line of a “thousands generations”…

For example, Deuteronomy 7:9 says the following…

Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Using a general interpetive of 40 years to 70 years for a generation, this indicates anywhere from 40,000 to 70,000 years.

So while I don;t think the Scriptures are a scientific document, I do find passages like this fit easilly into the time-frame for modern man appearing on earth around 50,000 years ago-- even if the complexity of huamnity goes back as far as 500,000 years ago.

Out of this 10,000 did God plunk souls into half the offspring? 25%? 75% Did God cause some hominids who were 99.9999% identical to their offspring not to have “immortal souls” while at the same time privileging their children with such souls? What’s the theological rationale here? What’s your proof?

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

I would like answers to these questions too.

By the way, are you Catholic?

You seem to be showing some contempt for the Scriptures.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, you say that only God has the power to ascribe a soul. And yet humans are the ones who tell the bible stories in which only humans have “souls” – how convenient! We wrote the bible, so naturally it’s all about us.

I’m sorry, but am I understanding that you think that scriptures are man-made? Are they not directed by the Holy Spirit? As I said before, show me scriptures written by any non-human animal and we can discuss your claims of homocentricity.

I’m asking you to provide an account for why all humans and only humans have “immortal souls” – whatever that term means – that is based at least in part on empirical reality, not based solely on some mythical mumbo jumbo.

Mythical mumbo jumbo. What an interesting view of scriptures.

I have absolutely no empirical evidence that we have souls or that souls even exist. That is part of my faith. I don’t need science for that. Of course, I don’t have any emperical evidence that God exists either. Perhaps that is mytical mumbo jumbo as well.

What is it about humans that qualifies all of them – even those whose genomes are so fundamentally disordered that they cannot even implant – and that excludes all other of God’s creatures from this blessed privilege of enjoying an ?immortal soul"?

The Word of God. Is that enough or is that mythical mumbo jumbo?

Furthermore, what theology allows you to determine a clear-cut dividing line between pre-human hominids and their human offspring? Again, please avoid mythical mumbo jumbo. Alec pointed out early in this thread that without a critical population of individuals (10,000? – Alec, if you’re reading, can you correct me?), hominids could not have sustained a successful mutation allowing increased brains size and cognitional ability. Out of this 10,000 did God plunk souls into half the offspring? 25%? 75% Did God cause some hominids who were 99.9999% identical to their offspring not to have “immortal souls” while at the same time privileging their children with such souls? What’s the theological rationale here? What’s your proof?

I don’t know how it all began. I do know that the soul isn’t genetically based. I know that we physically evolved from earlier hominids but that we became human with the installation of our souls by God. I don’t recall from any of my paleontology classes any mechanism of fossilization that would capture a soul. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Regarding proof, can you please show me scientific proof that our souls exist? If so, can you also provide proof that those souls are immortal?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not saying anything…

But you are saying this…

I don’t know if he does or doesn’t, but a theological paper specifically approved for publication by him clearly does note polygenism as the origins of human kind. It is an official paper and unless you think that he was willing to have the paper published with what he considers erroneous teaching, you must assume that he didn’t disagree with the statement.

So it appears to me that you’re saying that Pope Bendict XVI is making an allowance for polygenism. At the very least you seemed to have come to this conclusion.

Sounds that way to me.

 

[Orogeny]

But you are saying this…

So it appears to me that you’re saying that Pope Bendict XVI is making an allowance for polygenism. At the very least you seemed to have come to this conclusion.

Sounds that way to me.

Ok, then, I will ask you about this. Was Cardinal Ratzinger a heretic for allowing that statement to be published or did he just not understand Church teaching?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I don’t know how it all began. I do know that the soul isn’t genetically based.

One thing that I’ve not quite understood is how the stain of original sin can be transfered biologically to all of Adam and Eve’s offsping if original sin only affects the soul of their offspring.

I’m not trying to knock anything. I’m just really trying to grasp how biology and soul are separate yet so easilly affected by each other.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ok, then, I will ask you about this. Was Cardinal Ratzinger a heretic for allowing that statement to be published or did he just not understand Church teaching?

Peace

Tim

Kind of a loaded question. But, to answer your question, no and no. He seems to be exploring the concept further.

 

[Orogeny]

Kind of a loaded question. But, to answer your question, no and no. He seems to be exploring the concept further.

If monogenism is dogma, what is there to explore?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

The statement was published as “this is what science tells us,” followed by “this is what the Teaching Authority of the Church tells us.” He allowed that statement to be published to show how science understands human origins at present and in continuity with previous Church teaching, how he, Cardinal Ratzinger, sees things. Clearly, he views certain neo-Darwinian concepts as not involving God in any real role and that, if there is something to the various theories of evolution, that God was the guiding mechanism in all of it. Note that neither he nor John Paull II are giving a blanket endorsement to anything regarding evolution as it is currently understood by science. Just by saying that the evidence is convincing does not mean he is ignoring it either, but he reaffirms immediately, previous Church teaching and the role of God as the first cause.

So he published it because he wants a balanced record of the issues at hand without endorsing what he refers to as neo-Darwinism and while also rejecting some concepts that are central to it. In other words, God started and was behind every process.

God bless,
Ed