Genesis v Evolution

[Orogeny]

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.

So you are saying that it is consistent with his views?

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.

Right. God creates and evolution is the tool He uses.

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.

He also clearly does not reject the science. It seems odd to me that he did not insert a statement clearly rejecting the concept of polygenism. While he does reaffirm the role of God in creation (which, by the way, is what I have argued all along), he doesn’t indicate that polygenism is false in light of Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

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

Hi Tim

You’re always right! (Hi Mrs. Tim! Well, at least 99% of the time. )

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE
COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
TO HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
MASTER OF SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND
EVANGELICAL WITNESS
TO JUSTICE AND PEACE

III. THE MANY ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON
** A. THE UNITY OF THE PERSON**

1. Man was created by God in unity of body and soul[238]. “The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima unus — as a person. These definitions not only point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection, will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties. The person, including the body, is completely entrusted to himself, and it is in the unity of body and soul that the person is the subject of his own moral acts”[239].
2. Through his corporeality man unites in himself elements of the material world; these “reach their summit through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator”[240]. This dimension makes it possible for man to be part of the material world, but not as in a prison or in exile. It is not proper to despise bodily life; rather “man … is obliged to regard his body as good and honourable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day”[241]. Because of this bodily dimension, however, following the wound of sin, man experiences the rebellion of his body and the perverse inclinations of his heart; he must always keep careful watch over these lest he become enslaved to them and become a victim of a purely earthly vision of life.

Through his spirituality man moves beyond the realm of mere things and plunges into the innermost structure of reality. When he enters into his own heart, that is, when he reflects on his destiny, he discovers that he is superior to the material world because of his unique dignity as one who converses with God, under whose gaze he makes decisions about his life. In his inner life he recognizes that the person has “a spiritual and immortal soul” and he knows that the person is not merely “a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man”[242].

1. Therefore, man has two different characteristics: he is a material being, linked to this world by his body, and he is a spiritual being, open to transcendence and to the discovery of “more penetrating truths”, thanks to his intellect, by which “he shares in the light of the divine mind”[243]. The Church affirms: “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”[244]. Neither the spiritualism that despises the reality of the body nor the materialism that considers the spirit a mere manifestation of the material do justice to the complex nature, to the totality or to the unity of the human being.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If monogenism is dogma, what is there to explore?

Peace

Tim

What exactly are you saying?

I’ve read documents which do explicitly forbid the teaching of monogenism. But now it appears that this is being explored further-- or pehaps he’s including it so that he can cover the full range of opinions regarding the scientific views.

 

[Orogeny]

What exactly are you saying?

I’ve read documents which do explicitly forbid the teaching of monogenism. But now it appears that this is being explored further-- or pehaps he’s including it so that he can cover the full range of opinions regarding the scientific views.

My point is that if polygenism is truly forbidden dogmatically, how can it be open for exploration? Dogma is non-debatable and non-changable, is it not?

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

While he Cardinal Ratzinger] does reaffirm the role of God in creation (which, by the way, is what I have argued all along), he doesn’t indicate that polygenism is false in light of Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

Pope Benedict XVI admits in this document that he definately acknowledges the Theory of Evolution! It took me hours of research to find this. Praise the Lord!!!

EASTER VIGIL
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Vatican Basilica
Holy Saturday, 15 April 2006

“You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here” (Mk 16:6). With these words, God’s messenger, robed in light, spoke to the women who were looking for the body of Jesus in the tomb. But the Evangelist says the same thing to us on this holy night: Jesus is not a character from the past. He lives, and he walks before us as one who is alive, he calls us to follow him, the living one, and in this way to discover for ourselves too the path of life.

“He has risen, he is not here.” When Jesus spoke for the first time to the disciples about the Cross and the Resurrection, as they were coming down from the Mount of the Transfiguration, they questioned what “rising from the dead” meant (Mk 9:10). At Easter we rejoice because Christ did not remain in the tomb, his body did not see corruption; he belongs to the world of the living, not to the world of the dead; we rejoice because he is the Alpha and also the Omega, as we proclaim in the rite of the Paschal Candle; he lives not only yesterday, but today and for eternity (cf. Heb 13:8).

But somehow the Resurrection is situated so far beyond our horizon, so far outside all our experience that, returning to ourselves, we find ourselves continuing the argument of the disciples: Of what exactly does this “rising” consist? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and the whole of history? A German theologian once said ironically that the miracle of a corpse returning to life - if it really happened, which he did not actually believe - would be ultimately irrelevant precisely because it would not concern us. In fact, if it were simply that somebody was once brought back to life, and no more than that, in what way should this concern us? **But the point is that Christ’s Resurrection is something more, something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution, it is the greatest “mutation”, absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and concerns the whole of history.**The discussion, that began with the disciples, would therefore include the following questions: What happened there? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and for me personally? Above all: what happened? Jesus is no longer in the tomb. He is in a totally new life. But how could this happen? What forces were in operation? The crucial point is that this man Jesus was not alone, he was not an “I” closed in upon itself. He was one single reality with the living God, so closely united with him as to form one person with him. He found himself, so to speak, in an embrace with him who is life itself, an embrace not just on the emotional level, but one which included and permeated his being. His own life was not just his own, it was an existential communion with God, a “being taken up” into God, and hence it could not in reality be taken away from him. Out of love, he could allow himself to be killed, but precisely by doing so he broke the definitiveness of death, because in him the definitiveness of life was present. He was one single reality with indestructible life, in such a way that it burst forth anew through death. Let us express the same thing once again from another angle. His death was an act of love.
[snip]
It is clear that this event is not just some miracle from the past, the occurrence of which could be ultimately a matter of indifference to us. It is a qualitative leap in the history of “evolution” and of life in general towards a new future life, towards a new world which, starting from Christ, already continuously permeates this world of ours, transforms it and draws it to itself.. . . .

(Please continue reading this important document.)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b..._ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html
Pope Benedict is smart, really intelligent! He agrees with scientists regarding the theory of evolution while keeping the truth about the miracle of our risen Jesus.

 

[Ahimsa]

Monogenism isn’t dogma.

 

[Orogeny]

Monogenism isn’t dogma.

There are some on these forums that would disagree with you. I’m not one of those.

Peace

Tim

 

[TMC]

If monogenism is dogma, what is there to explore?

Peace

Tim

So you are saying that it is consistent with his views?Right. God creates and evolution is the tool He uses.He also clearly does not reject the science. It seems odd to me that he did not insert a statement clearly rejecting the concept of polygenism. While he does reaffirm the role of God in creation (which, by the way, is what I have argued all along), he doesn’t indicate that polygenism is false in light of Church teaching.

Peace

Tim

I don’t think that monogenism is dogma. I think the only really dogmatic teachings on the creation are that God did it, that Man is created in God’s image, and that God creates individual souls individually. And I’m not 100% certain the last one is dogma, although I believe it.

The Church is still learning in this area. The Church is still learning in many areas. The Church may yet come to embrace polygenism, but whether it does or not does not really concern me.

 

[drpmjhess]

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. By the way, are you Catholic?You seem to be showing some contempt for the Scriptures.

Yes, of course I’m Catholic. I have no contempt for the scriptures. I only dispute an interpretation of the Bible so simplistic it does not acknowledge that it was written by human beings whose inspiration was coloured by their limited scientific knowledge. In 1200-800 BCE there was no scientific awareness that humans shared their genetic history with all life on the planet, and that we all spring from the same root. So of course, the humans who wrote and edited the scriptures wrote and edited them as if humans are genetically different in kind from all the rest of creation.

No one on this thread has yet answered the question of how we determine the dividing line between a human-DNA bearing entity that has an immortal soul and one that does not – doggedly denying the genetic basis of this distinction does not change the fact. If all and only humans have immortal souls, and if the only way to determine whether some clumps of tissue are human is to analyze their DNA, then their having or not having an immortal soul is dependent on their genetic basis.

Today I read that a girl in India is undergoing an operation to remove two legs and two arms. She was born with a parasitic twin, and the twin’s appendages are being removed. Now, no doubt most would argue that this twin has an “immortal soul” and that God simply had different plans for it. And yet it was denied yesterday that teratomas – some of which are parasitic twins – have immortal souls. It’s one or the other – either all parasitic twins have immortal souls, or some do not. Which is it?

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

I only dispute an interpretation of the Bible so simplistic it does not acknowledge that it was written by human beings whose inspiration was coloured by their limited scientific knowledge.

The concept of a soul is not a scientific concept.

In 1200-800 BCE there was no scientific awareness that humans shared their genetic history with all life on the planet, and that we all spring from the same root. So of course, the humans who wrote and edited the scriptures wrote and edited them as if humans are genetically different in kind from all the rest of creation.

Again, the soul has nothing to do with genetics. Since the soul is what separates us from other animals, the scriptures are correct even if the writers didn’t know about genetics.

No one on this thread has yet answered the question of how we determine the dividing line between a human-DNA bearing entity that has an immortal soul and one that does not – doggedly denying the genetic basis of this distinction does not change the fact.

I don’t know the answer to that, but that doesn’t mean a thing. Why don’t you tell us where the dividing line is.

If all and only humans have immortal souls, and if the only way to determine whether some clumps of tissue are human is to analyze their DNA, then their having or not having an immortal soul is dependent on their genetic basis.

Ok, I’ll agree that only those with human DNA have an immortal soul. Now, please tell us where you come up with the concept that other non-human animals can have an immortal soul. Is it scripture or is it science?

Today I read that a girl in India is undergoing an operation to remove two legs and two arms. She was born with a parasitic twin, and the twin’s appendages are being removed. Now, no doubt most would argue that this twin has an “immortal soul” and that God simply had different plans for it. And yet it was denied yesterday that teratomas – some of which are parasitic twins – have immortal souls. It’s one or the other – either all parasitic twins have immortal souls, or some do not. Which is it?

I don’t know the answer to that either. Do you? Does it matter if I don’t have the answer? Does the answer change the teaching of the Church regarding the soul?

Peace

Tim

 

[TMC]

No one on this thread has yet answered the question of how we determine the dividing line between a human-DNA bearing entity that has an immortal soul and one that does not – doggedly denying the genetic basis of this distinction does not change the fact. If all and only humans have immortal souls, and if the only way to determine whether some clumps of tissue are human is to analyze their DNA, then their having or not having an immortal soul is dependent on their genetic basis.

I don’t think we know. Maybe we will one day. In the meantime we will do our best to muddle through these difficult issues and make mistakes that will look stupid, immoral, or both a hundred years from now.

 

[edwest2]

The key issues for Catholics are spiritual first and what science has to say as secondary.

The soul cannot be discovered by science (but there have been attempts).

Cardinal Ratzinger was certainly listening to the findings of science but both he and Pope John Paull II were considering different theories of evolution. As Pope, Benedict has stated that “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” And reading “Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” it is clear that materialistic evolution is not an adequate answer to human origins for Catholics. From part 69 of this document:

“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because ‘the causality 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…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence’” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2)."

This, of course, is a matter science cannot consider directly, but indirectly, an examination of current evolutionary theory shows that it functions without a divine or supernatural cause or guide being present. At present, evolutionary theory is popularly regarded as functioning “outside the bounds of divine providence.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

As Pope, Benedict has stated that “evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

As opposed to which complete, scientifically proven theory? As you will find out, Ed, that is a statement that applies to ALL scientific theories, not just evolution.

And reading “Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” it is clear that materialistic evolution is not an adequate answer to human origins for Catholics.

That is correct.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg address

…This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

…This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

…While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’ll agree that only those with human DNA have an immortal soul.

So it is, after all, genetics that distinguishes soul-bearing from non-soul-bearing biological organisms. And, in the long history of human evolution, it is not possible to determine in any given generation which beings in a population genetically qualify as more human and which as less human. It is not possible to determine definitively which are soul-bearers and which are not.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg address

…This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

…This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

…While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

And this is the current issue confronting all Christians. Right now, evolution is the theory that reduces man to a mechanism which acts and reacts according to its genetic programming, which is designed only to ensure that the organism reproduces successfully. It is being applied to psychology as well, but, according to its own rules and self-imposed limitations, it attempts to consign the rational and material as being the only aspects of reality that need concern each individual. Ethics and morality are considered flexible and situational, and social mores are different among different cultures but there are important shared traits as well.

If we are all one human family, it is much more than our biology. But a Church, as the head of the Body of Christ, which is the communion of all believers, living and dead, cannot assign to human beings an identity that is not God derived.

Many Universities in the United States began as religious institutions or were started by religious groups. This aspect of humanity is central to the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And this is the current issue confronting all Christians. Right now, evolution is the theory that reduces man to a mechanism which acts and reacts according to its genetic programming, which is designed only to ensure that the organism reproduces successfully. It is being applied to psychology as well, but, according to its own rules and self-imposed limitations, it attempts to consign the rational and material as being the only aspects of reality that need concern each individual. Ethics and morality are considered flexible and situational, and social mores are different among different cultures but there are important shared traits as well.

If we are all one human family, it is much more than our biology. But a Church, as the head of the Body of Christ, which is the communion of all believers, living and dead, cannot assign to human beings an identity that is not God derived.

Many Universities in the United States began as religious institutions or were started by religious groups. This aspect of humanity is central to the Church.

God bless,
Ed

Gee wiz Ed, you’ve now devolved to repasting old posts in here. I remember this one.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

My point is that if polygenism is truly forbidden dogmatically, how can it be open for exploration? Dogma is non-debatable and non-changable, is it not?

Peace

Tim

I think it depends on what we mean by polygenism.

Myself, I believe the Church has forbidden any teaching that Adam was but one of many humans who was chosen so to speak and implanted with a soul-- I think.

It is interesting to note that Charles Darwin and his supporters argued for a monogenism of the species — seeing the common origin of all humans as essential for evolutionary theory. This single-origin hypothesis, however, is no longer acknowledged as crucial to evolution by the scientific community.

Me personally, I can’t see any simple way to reconcile the two views of theistic evolution and the Genesis account of creation.

I started this thread to try to investigate it further.

While I’ve heard that the two views are compatible, I haven’t heard any clear answers as to exactly why this is so simple to reconcile, especially when is causes so much division amongst those of the same faith.

Do you believe that theistic evolution is more or less true?

If so, how do you work monogenism into the evolutionary frame-work and avoid the dangers of polygenism?

 

[wildleafblower]

So it is, after all, genetics that distinguishes soul-bearing from non-soul-bearing biological organisms. And, in the long history of human evolution, it is not possible to determine in any given generation which beings in a population genetically qualify as more human and which as less human. It is not possible to determine definitively which are soul-bearers and which are not.

Petrus

Petrus, as a Roman Catholic Theologian, you should be aware that only pseudo-scientists will agree with your statement. There aren’t any Theologians on the Vatican Advisory Committe or scientists on the Vatican Scientific Advisory Committee or Alec MacAndrew (hecd2) that will support your comment, “So it is, after all, genetics that distinguishes immortal] soul-bearing from non-immortal]soul-bearing biological organisms. And, in the long history of human evolution, it is not possible to determine in any given generation which beings in a population genetically qualify as more human and which as less human. It is not possible to determine definitively which are immortal] soul-bearers and which are not.” Perhaps, you’ll find a pseudo-scientist that will agree with you at the Institute for Creation Research! Of course I’m not an advocate for Intelligent Design.
icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

Refer back to my message 961. Here is an excerpt:
III. THE MANY ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON
A. THE UNITY OF THE PERSON

1. Man was created by God in unity of body and soul[238]. “The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima unus — as a person. These definitions not only point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection, will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties. The person, including the body, is completely entrusted to himself, and it is in the unity of body and soul that the person is the subject of his own moral acts”[239].

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

EASTER VIGIL
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Vatican Basilica
Holy Saturday, 15 April 2006

But the point is that Christ’s Resurrection is something more, something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution, it is the greatest “mutation”, absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and concerns the whole of history…

…It is clear that this event is not just some miracle from the past, the occurrence of which could be ultimately a matter of indifference to us. It is a qualitative leap in the history of “evolution” and of life in general towards a new future life, towards a new world which, starting from Christ, already continuously permeates this world of ours, transforms it and draws it to itself…

(Please continue reading this important document.)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html
###

Pope Benedict is smart, really intelligent! He agrees with scientists regarding the theory of evolution while keeping the truth about the miracle of our risen Jesus.

Thank you for sharing this. I was searching for this too and now will bookmark it.

Just out of curiousity, does Pope Benedict’s usage of the language of evolution mean that he actually believes that the metaphors he’s speaking accurately represent the Resurrection?

If so, perhaps it could simply be summed up with the Scriptures as follows:
2 Corinthians 5:17:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!