Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[Achilles6129]

As far as the opening question of this thread is concerned, it really depends on when God chooses to act. Let’s not forget that he’s the one in charge.

 

[grannymh]

As far as the opening question of this thread is concerned, it really depends on when God chooses to act. Let’s not forget that he’s the one in charge.

God acts at every human conception, giving the child a rational spiritual soul.

 

[tonyrey]

In Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII indicated there was a problem:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

In the document, Communion and Stewardship, a reference is made to Humani Generis and the words “in continuity” are used:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). 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 the 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 Paul’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. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Note:

“As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.”

Science has its place but it is incomplete. The Biology textbook cannot provide this information. Which is crucial for every human being.

Ed

Anyone who thinks science will ultimately give an ultimate explanation of the universe must be ultimately irrational - unless of course the universe is rational!

 

[rossum]

In Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII indicated there was a problem:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]” (emphasis added)

When the Pope said “true men” he was not using a scientific term, but a theological term. The scientific definition of Homo sapiens can be seen through common descent and DNA.

The theological “true man” can be seen through the presence of a human soul.

These two definitions are not the same, and it is an error to confuse them.

rossum

 

[OneSheep]

Hawking said something like “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”, but he’s just using gravity as an example of physical law in that sentence . I don’t know what his idea is. If it’s an hypothesis published in a peer-reviewed journal then point me at it, otherwise I think maybe he makes throwaway quotes to whip up publicity for his books and himself, like rock stars.

I don’t see why you think we can never fill the gap of knowledge about creation ex nihilo. I mean cosmology tells a pretty good story, with not many gaps, from the point of creation until today, which from WMAP is estimated as 13.772 billion years with an uncertainty of only plus or minus 59 million years. And cosmology put most of that theory together in less than a century.

So it seems a bit adventurous of you to claim cosmology can never work out the final piece. And knowing how God did it doesn’t mean God didn’t do it.

Point well stated! We are going to have to make an enormous leap, though, to understand how those particles suddenly appear in a complete vacuum. Yeah, “never” is an unwise word.

I think my post was emphasizing that a person’s faith need not be shaken by the theory of evolution or other truly scientific revelations. OTOH, that some people’s faith is threatened by science is understandable and is to be respected. They may have great distrust for people like Hawking and others who add a layer of atheism, and they accurately observe that some people do leave their faith because they see a contrast in Evolutionary theory.

Robert Wright, who wrote Why Buddhism is True, turned away from his family’s evangelical Christianity when he was exposed to evolutionary theory in high school. He remained a spiritual person, but rejected the faith he was brought up with. It is unfortunate that he had to make such a choice; if Christianity had been emphasized more as relationship than academic construct, he might have remained in the faith and offered his spiritual insights from a less distant position. BTW: his book sounds very interesting.

 

[grannymh]

When the Pope said “true men” he was not using a scientific term, but a theological term. The scientific definition of Homo sapiens can be seen through common descent and DNA.

The theological “true man” can be seen through the presence of a human soul.

These two definitions are not the same, and it is an error to confuse them.

rossum

The Science of Human Evolution is common descent by polygenesis. A DNA population in the hundreds arises (evolves/changes) from previous mixed DNA “Homo” populations in the hundreds over time. This can be called survival of the fittest. The line of descendants from the Homo/Pan split ends in our own human species.

The theological “true man” is common descent from two real fully-complete human persons.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well the Bible obviously contradicts evolution, with a six-day creation and a global flood. Many people see that and are obviously forced to choose one or the other, which is logical.

Interestingly, the Bible contradicts modern science on many other issues as well, such as Joshua’s long day, a talking donkey, Paul being caught up to the third heaven, etc., but that doesn’t seem to cause people as much trouble, which is probably inconsistent.

 

[edwest2]

Well the Bible obviously contradicts evolution, with a six-day creation and a global flood. Many people see that and are obviously forced to choose one or the other, which is logical.

Interestingly, the Bible contradicts modern science on many other issues as well, such as Joshua’s long day, a talking donkey, Paul being caught up to the third heaven, etc., but that doesn’t seem to cause people as much trouble, which is probably inconsistent.

I think the Bible, especially in the case of Jesus Christ, shows us what God can literally do without science. Raising the dead, giving sight to blind and other works. Hid disciples saw all this and more and had a hard time accepting it, at first. Miracles still happen today but get little to no media attention.

Ed

 

[rossum]

The Science of Human Evolution is common descent by polygenesis. A DNA population in the hundreds arises (evolves/changes) from previous mixed DNA “Homo” populations in the hundreds over time. This can be called survival of the fittest. The line of descendants from the Homo/Pan split ends in our own human species.

The theological “true man” is common descent from two real fully-complete human persons.

Indeed. All that is required for the two to be compatible is for two of the larger population of Homo sapiens to receive souls directly from God. Go far enough back and every then living human is either an ancestor of all currently living humans, or of no currently living humans. God obviously had the foresight to give souls to two members of the first group. All their descendants have souls and so are both scientific and theological humans.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well the Bible obviously contradicts evolution, with a six-day creation and a global flood. Many people see that and are obviously forced to choose one or the other, which is logical.

Not “the Bible contradicts…” but instead, “one interpretation of the Bible contradicts…” There are many different interpretations of the Bible; only a proportion of them contradict science.

Interestingly, the Bible contradicts modern science on many other issues as well, such as Joshua’s long day, a talking donkey, Paul being caught up to the third heaven, etc., but that doesn’t seem to cause people as much trouble, which is probably inconsistent.

Not really. The effects of a talking donkey cannot be detected today. The effects of the 6,000 year old earth and a recent global flood could be detected today, if they had happened. Since those expected effects are not detected then scientists and others are very sceptical about those overly literal interpretations of Genesis.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Indeed. All that is required for the two to be compatible is for two of the larger population of Homo sapiens to receive souls directly from God. Go far enough back and every then living human is either an ancestor of all currently living humans, or of no currently living humans. God obviously had the foresight to give souls to two members of the first group. All their descendants have souls and so are both scientific and theological humans.

rossum

It is easy to miss the basic point that the number two, regardless of how it is explained within a larger population, cannot be an originating population according to basic evolution theory.

Regarding the “two of the larger population of Homo sapiens to receive souls directly from God.” – They cannot be credited with founding the new species of humankind according to science because in basic evolution theory, a new species arises from a large population evolving from previous large populations. Obviously, this population of two, who received souls directly from God, are never mentioned or positioned in the Homo line descending from the Homo/Pan Divergence.

When talking “science” about a new distinct species such as humankind, we cannot throw out basic evolution theory. It is basic evolution theory of large (more than two) originating polygenesis populations which clashes with basic Catholic teachings.

Naturally, the Divine Creator does not have to follow the dictates of science. In that case, the two who received souls, remain the original population of two, Adam and Eve described in the first three valuable chapters of Genesis.

 

[IWantGod]

It is easy to miss the basic point that the number two, regardless of how it is explained within a larger population, cannot be an originating population according to basic evolution theory.

Regarding the “two of the larger population of Homo sapiens to receive souls directly from God.” They cannot be credited with founding the new species of humankind. In basic evolution theory, a new species arises from a large population evolving from previous large populations. These two, who received souls directly from God, are never mentioned or positioned in the Homo line descending from the Homo/Pan Divergence.

When talking about a new distinct species, such as humankind, we cannot throw out basic evolution theory. It is basic evolution theory of large (more than two) originating polygenesis populations which clashes with basic Catholic teachings.

---

This is correct. Evolution as regards to biological origins is at odds with the idea of Adam and Eve being the biological mother and father of homo-sapiens. There’s no avoiding it.

Either Evolution is wrong on this part, or the Catholic church is wrong about their interpretation of Adam and Eve.

This is a perplexing issue for me.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed. All that is required for the two to be compatible is for two of the larger population of Homo sapiens to receive souls directly from God. Go far enough back and every then living human is either an ancestor of all currently living humans, or of no currently living humans. God obviously had the foresight to give souls to two members of the first group. All their descendants have souls and so are both scientific and theological humans.

If I’m reading you correctly, then that doesn’t work. The most recent common ancestor (or MRCA) of everyone alive today (singular, not plural, as we are talking of an individual) is not the common ancestor of everyone who has lived. So if this individual was given a soul, then a vast proportion of everyone who has lived were not directly related. And hence had no soul (and that’s bizarrely assuming it could be passed on by someone with a soul breeding with someone without).

There wasn’t an original couple as a single breeding pair would require brothers and sisters to breed to continue the line. The minimum number of couples to ensure a healthy lineage is around 70.

The only way this works is that at a particular time (let’s say at 4:30pm on April the 3rd in some given year), God decided that, yeah, we are now evolved enough to be classed as human, so everyone born from that moment onwards would have a soul.

Any way you look at it, you end up with a nonsensical proposition.

 

[grannymh]

This is correct. Evolution as regards to biological origins is at odds with the idea of Adam and Eve being the biological mother and father of homo-sapiens. There’s no avoiding it.

Either Evolution is wrong on this part, or the Catholic church is wrong about their interpretation of Adam and Eve.

This is a perplexing issue for me.

Please note that I was not referring to the evolution of birds, bananas, buffalo, bacteria and busy beavers.

 

[PluniaZ]

It’s awfully pretentious for humans to claim they know what happened 6,000 years ago, let alone 13 billion years ago, based on observations collected over the past 100 years.

Perhaps evolution/Big Bang “fit the data” we currently have, but our data is limited, as is our ability to understand the data. There is no good epistemological reason to believe that whatever hypothesis happens to fit our current data is actually true. That’s presentism. Especially on such a grand scale as the creation of the universe and the origin of our species.

Besides, all civilizations date to within the past 4,000 years, and all writing is more recent than that. It all fits the Genesis narrative perfectly. I recommend Warren Carroll’s, History of Christendom. amazon.com/Founding-Christendom-History-vol/dp/0931888212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502408838&sr=8-1&keywords=warren+carroll+history+of+christendom

 

[IWantGod]

Please note that I was not referring to the evolution of birds, bananas, buffalo, bacteria and busy beavers.

I know granny…ii know

 

[tonyrey]

If I’m reading you correctly, then that doesn’t work. The most recent common ancestor (or MRCA) of everyone alive today (singular, not plural, as we are talking of an individual) is not the common ancestor of everyone who has lived. So if this individual was given a soul, then a vast proportion of everyone who has lived were not directly related. And hence had no soul (and that’s bizarrely assuming it could be passed on by someone with a soul breeding with someone without).

There wasn’t an original couple as a single breeding pair would require brothers and sisters to breed to continue the line. The minimum number of couples to ensure a healthy lineage is around 70.

The only way this works is that at a particular time (let’s say at 4:30pm on April the 3rd in some given year), God decided that, yeah, we are now evolved enough to be classed as human, so everyone born from that moment onwards would have a soul.

Any way you look at it, you end up with a nonsensical proposition.

There can be no greater nonsense than the hypothesis that rational beings have emerged as the result of fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations. It’s a superb example of getting something for nothing…

 

[edwest2]

There can be no greater nonsense than the hypothesis that rational beings have emerged as the result of fortuitous combinations of mindless molecules and random genetic mutations. It’s a superb example of getting something for nothing…

Quite right. Fortuitous accident after fortuitous accident ad infinitum.

I was watching a TV program that claimed that if another world was the right distance from its sun, had water and “the building blocks of life” [amino acids] then life would arise there. Upon later reflection, I realized: “They can’t prove that.”

Ed

 

[grannymh]

I know granny…ii know

Unfortunately, a health issue prevented me from finishing my post. I was trying to tell you that once you can tell the difference between the material world and the spiritual world, the Big World of Evolution will become less perplexing.

If you wish, we can talk about this later.

 

[IWantGod]

Unfortunately, a health issue prevented me from finishing my post. I was trying to tell you that once you can tell the difference between the material world and the spiritual world, the Big World of Evolution will become less perplexing.

I have no problem seeing that there is in fact a transcendent reality. Adam and Eve as the biological parents of the human race is held infallibly. Which only leaves one option for the Church. We have to believe that the species Homosapian is not the same thing as a person with a soul. We have to believe that God chose 2 people out of the homo-sapien species and granted them eternal souls and human beings today are the descendants. But apparently genetics does not support this view. Unless of course you believe that some humans today don’t have eternal rational souls.