W
Wesrock
Guest
As stated, this is a speculative proposal accounting for what the Church actually does teach.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
W
Wesrock
Guest
So, in the interest of discussion, I think the only possible point of question on dogma with Kenneth Kemp’s model (which I’ve been discussing) is in the line quoted above. Is the model compatible with this? If interpreted as allowing for genetic descendancy ONLY from Adam, no, the model doesn’t fit that, but it should be noted that this interpretation isn’t the only one possible. In the proposed model, Adam remains the father of the human nature, the common father for all “true men” by natural generation. And it should be allowed that other, seemingly more explicit statements (“no salvation outside the Church”) are interpreted in a nuanced way in which distinctions are made.
Again, this is only a proposal.
E
edwest2
Guest
Respectfully, while respecting anyone who wishes to discuss this proposal, what is its purpose? Not to overdo it, but variations of this theme or idea have been posted here on a regular basis for some time.
Ed
W
Wesrock
Guest
The best natural data we have suggest that humans evolved from a population of thousands, not two. People object due to apparent conflicts with Church dogma, which specifically state:
All true men take their origin from Adam by natural generation
- Adam was a real, historical figure who committed a real original sin
- That this sin is passed on through generation
- That all men are conceived with original sin (barring specific privileges (Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus)
M
mVitus
Guest
@grannymh, Wesrock did a decent job at explaining your question and he is correct that the tree I showed was concerned with individuals, not species.
And because evolution can pose quite a few questions to the faithful, it makes sense this topic would be discussed many times as a new person with a question comes forth.
As for proto-humans, if you personally don’t believe they existed, that’s fine by me. But it would seem that while Teaching doesn’t require their presence, it also doesn’t require their absence.
And while I know you personally believe in a scientifically* literal interpretation of Genesis, I do want to ask what you would consider a model of evolution in line with Catholic teaching as whenever someone mentions Humani Generis, you still seem to hold evolution at odds with Teaching. So I just want to know which models that would include evolution you personally see as in line with the Church so that we do have a point of honest and productive discussion.
*Given that for the most part I think we all hold a theologically literal interpretation of Genesis with Adam and Eve being real people who sinned that we’re all descended from, I wanted to qualify which part of the Genesis account I’m referring to as literal. In this case, a seven day creation.
There are many questions surrounding evolution and it’s a proposal that helps people understand how evolution isn’t in contradiction with the Church’s teaching. (And vice versa it can show others how Church teaching doesn’t necessitate a contradiction to evolution.) Models like the ones Wesrock and I have discussed seek to provide an answer that allows people to understand it in a way that shows religion and science complementing each other.
And because evolution can pose quite a few questions to the faithful, it makes sense this topic would be discussed many times as a new person with a question comes forth.
As for proto-humans, if you personally don’t believe they existed, that’s fine by me. But it would seem that while Teaching doesn’t require their presence, it also doesn’t require their absence.
And while I know you personally believe in a scientifically* literal interpretation of Genesis, I do want to ask what you would consider a model of evolution in line with Catholic teaching as whenever someone mentions Humani Generis, you still seem to hold evolution at odds with Teaching. So I just want to know which models that would include evolution you personally see as in line with the Church so that we do have a point of honest and productive discussion.
*Given that for the most part I think we all hold a theologically literal interpretation of Genesis with Adam and Eve being real people who sinned that we’re all descended from, I wanted to qualify which part of the Genesis account I’m referring to as literal. In this case, a seven day creation.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please understand that I did not refer to articles on the theory of evolution.
What I posted is this.
“In addition, I was editing some articles which included some science.”
As for the people who helped me when I landed on CAF –
The actual important issue is – Do I have knowledge which was scientifically solid?
You certainly may comment on my current scientific knowledge. If you had known me on November 16, 2008, you would be laughing until your sides hurt.
E
edwest2
Guest
True men is the issue. So far, there is little convincing evidence there were any proto-humans. Take Neanderthals. I recall the early facial reconstructions and they were more ape-like, and, as time passed, their facial features changed to the point where the face resembled humans alive today. At first, there was no interbreeding between these sort of humans and true humans. Then, archaeologists began to discover various “modern human” behaviors like burying their dead. Most recently, it was discovered that there are modern humans with Neanderthal DNA. The argument now is that Neanderthals were truly, fully human, but were different as current races have different cranial shapes and other physical features. The Pygmy is alive today.
The other highly speculative and unscientific connection exists. Evolutionary psychology proposes that certain behaviors and artifacts determine how close various alleged ‘proto-humans’ were to modern humans. The 100% error is assuming a soul. Science cannot make that connection. The general public cannot make that connection. It is not even speculation. According to science, based on its own rules, the soul does not exist. I am aware of a few attempts that were made to discover a “soul” in a human. They have produced zero results.
Looking at it another way: One day, somehow, a pair of proto-humans had crossed some kind of mental development threshold, were picked by God and had souls dropped into them. According to the Church, based on the Bible, Adam had no parents. He had infused knowledge and was meant to be immortal, among other things.
Hope this helps,
Ed
W
Wesrock
Guest
By proto-humans, I don’t mean a separate (in a biological way) human species, but simply the same exact type of humans Adam and Eve were, but without immortal souls. Biologically the same species. I don’t care whether science finds the soul or not, that’s not really an issue we’re making.
The model proposes that Adam had proto-human parents, but was conceived with a soul from the moment of conception. Perhaps God then separated Adam out. Or perhaps not. Adam was still formed from inorganic matter of the earth… just over millions of years instead of minutes. Not taking Genesis as a scientific account of creation, I see no requirement to deny that Adam had parents (non-true human), but that God breathed on him and gifted him with an immortal soul from conception. And the model still allows for Adam to have been created with the preternatural gifts, including immortality, and even that Eve was formed from his literal rib, if one wishes.
The model proposes that Adam had proto-human parents, but was conceived with a soul from the moment of conception. Perhaps God then separated Adam out. Or perhaps not. Adam was still formed from inorganic matter of the earth… just over millions of years instead of minutes. Not taking Genesis as a scientific account of creation, I see no requirement to deny that Adam had parents (non-true human), but that God breathed on him and gifted him with an immortal soul from conception. And the model still allows for Adam to have been created with the preternatural gifts, including immortality, and even that Eve was formed from his literal rib, if one wishes.
G
grannymh
Guest
What is in contradiction with Catholic teachings is the evolution teaching that we humans come from indiscriminate random breeding populations of hominins who were originally part of the Homo/Pan split that finally evolved into modern human decomposing anatomies.
Catholic teachings regarding the existence of human persons start with Genesis 1: 27
Catholic teachings regarding the existence of human persons start with Genesis 1: 27
M
mVitus
Guest
The Church does not teach that. You are free to believe it, but it is not essential to believe. If it was essential teaching, I’m quite certain Pope Pius XII would have made mention of it when referring to evolutionary models Catholics could believe applied to man’s history, but there was not mention of that. He mentioned we needing to believe Adam and Eve are the parents of all true men and that they sinned, but there’s no mention that Catholics have to reject the possibility of Adam and Eve having biological parents. (Yes a literal interpretation of Genesis would support those ideas, but we’re not obligated to that kind of literal interpretation.)
In regards to other points in your post.
Neaderthals: As we learn more, we get a better picture of what went down. That’s how science works. It’s not surprising our understanding changes with more information.
The soul: I agree science cannot make judgments on the soul. It can have theories as to what might be evidence towards a soul, but science can’t prove the existence of a non-material soul. And if science assumes with 100% certainty that an early human had a soul, I would not take their word as Gospel, though evaluating the reasons behind such a statement could prove interesting.
I’m reminded of a quote by St. John Paul II, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
G
grannymh
Guest
I sincerely think that if you study the dramatic jump from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:27, you would discover that the issue is a spiritual rational soul. And this spiritual rational soul leads straight to the Catholic teachings regarding the State of Sanctifying Grace and the Beatific Vision.
W
Wesrock
Guest
tbf, you might even be able to propose as part of the model that Adam was still created separately and without parents as a unique individual, in material similar to unensouled men walking about, but gifted by God with a soul, a rational mind, and special gifts. And then, after the fall, his children or children’ children’s childen interbred with the unensouled humans, eventually supplanting them.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The soul is important, and it’s (in the proposal) the difference between Adam and other proto-humans. ed said that science cannot make the connection with a soul, or show anything about the soul. I only meant that whether or not science can find the soul is irrelevant to the proposal. But the soul surely exists.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please. When you have time, check out the word polygenism with its scientific meaning in Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950. Also, there are some interesting clarifications. One refers to God. In Church speak, this means the same God in the first three amazing chapters of Genesis. The simple sentence, Genesis 1: 18.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
E
edwest2
Guest
Thanks to some people here kindly providing some counterpoints to evolution happening at all, I began to do some research.
Pope Benedict
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
"Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents — mostly conservative Protestants — of “intelligent design,” who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
"The book, which was released by the Sankt Ulrich publishing house, includes reflections of the pope and others who attended a meeting of theological scholars at the papal summer estate in Castel Gandolfo in early September.
"The pope’s remarks were consistent with one of his most important themes, that faith and reason are interdependent.
“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason … and thus brought us new insights,” the pope wrote. "But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.
“Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it,” he said."
So, at best, it is impossible to verify or disprove the the theory. This brings the theory back to square one.
Another issue connected to this is the time for the process to occur. It is proposed that the first living organisms appeared billions of years ago. Is that true? And what about living fossils that somehow survived millions of years, including at least one catastrophic event? These living things include the Coelacanth and Wollemi pine.
Then we look at what the Church has to say.
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
Source: Catholic Answers
Hope this helps,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no way to prove this. It’s not Biblical. Humans just like Adam and Eve? That cannot be shown to be true. God created, not picked a random human and gave him a soul. Why does the Bible tell us Adam needed a helpmate if there were plenty already around?
Ed
G
goout
Guest
Popularity has nothing to do with it.From what I have read on CAF, Humani Generis is not a popular piece of information.
Because basic evolution depends on populations evolving from previous populations, I do not understand how monogenism existed.
Humanii Generiis is not unpopular, it’s misunderstood and taken in isolated context apart from what comes before and after it. It’s cherry picked in fundamentalist manner.
The Church wisely allows science room to breathe and inform us about the world we live in. We should do that also.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Physically “just like.” They did not have the gift of a rational mind. Perhaps Adam just wasn’t a shallow man and wanted a helpmate with more than a pretty face.
It’s not “unBiblical.”
Anyway, as stated many times, Adam may very well have been separated from others, put in a literal garden, been created out of literal clay, perhaps. The main point is that, after the Fall, the descendants of Adam interbred with the “proto-humans.” Why? To account for the data of genetic diversity we have in our population. Two individuals 6,000 years ago does not explain it.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Anyway, the point isn’t to prove it. The point is only to point out how being an orthodox Catholic does not require rejecting modern theory of the evolution of man.
- Status