Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

[grannymh]

In the old days, children learned that the Incarnation followed Original Sin.

Today, there may be a bit of tiny trouble understanding the human nature of the prophet Jesus Christ. That kind of “poly-blindness” has the potential for a different kind of problem. It would be a hidden problem, a problem of full Divinity. Normally, we would not consider that information as a Catholic problem of basic evolution theory. Only a few people might wonder where did the human nature, assumed by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, come from. Actually the human nature Genesis 1: 27 originally received by Adam is assumed, without sin.

Shall we put aside the concept that the human nature assumed by Jesus Christ came from a single beginning nature – that of a non-polygenesis Adam. John 3: 16

We must not, cannot, put aside the concept that the human nature assumed by Jesus Christ came from a single beginning nature – that of a non-polygenesis Adam. John 3: 16

Basic Catholic teaching is that Adam could not repair his shattered relationship with Divinity (Original Sin). This is because that original friendship was originally established by the Divine Creator. Therefore, only a Divine Person could repair what Adam freely chose to do. Adam is special. Adam stands alone. He is not an accident of an evolving population.
“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]”
Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

P.S. Adam had only one spouse who was a fully complete human. Genesis 1: 27. She is called Eve. Genesis 3: 20

 

[mVitus]

I am talking about Pope Benedict’s writings on original sin, not on evolution. I don’t have an exact quote handy, but the gist was a suggestion that original sin impacts each individual by virtue of that person being introduced into a broken world - rather than being passed on like a gene.

On polygenism itself, the Church’s comments about humanity arising from a “group” some time in the past suggests an openness to the concept of polygenism. The problem with polygenism has always been original sin - if sin must be passed from parent to child, that would suggest we all have one common parent. If Benedict is correct that original sin is not necessarily transmitted like a gene, then polygenism seems more compatible with original sin.

Do you have any more explicit quotes? Because with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical which says of polygenism, " 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." While I’m open to seeing what a former pope would say towards that, that passage from the encyclical

And, Wesrock, you’ve mentioned before how the idea proposed by Kemp leaves room for literal interpretations in other respects, but I do partially wonder whether or not Eve being taken from Adam’s rib may be quite necessary, given “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” would seem to exclude the possibility of Eve descending from proto-humans and Eve herself could not be a proto-human given her status as a saint among other things.

 

[rossum]

You and I know better as we have debate in detail for many years.

Indeed.

Here are some of the top points:

1. Junk DNA - gone

Please explain the properties of the IDvolution designer which prevent him/her/it/them from designing junk DNA? Every prediction of a theory must be derived from that theory. What part of IDvolution theory prevents the appearance of Junk DNA?

As a supplementary, please explain why information-losing mutations do not result in junk DNA.

1. Epigenetics

Is part of evolutionary theory. I agree that epigenetics is omitted from the creationist strawman version of evolution, so it may, falsely, appear to be a problem.

1. Rapid Adaptation

Why is this a problem? Here is Darwin on the varying speed of evolution:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously

– Origin, Chapter Four

1. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one

And random mutation, recombination and HGT are creative processes, not conservative ones. There is a dynamic tension between the two. You are not criticising evolution here, but taking a single fragment of evolution and claiming that is lacks the effect of the whole. That is obviously a false argument.

1. Complexity and machinery of the cell

And your explanation for the complexity and machinery of your proposed designer is?

1. The Language of DNA

Is a human model imposed on a chemical compound. Do not confuse the model for the thing it is modelling.

1. Convergent evolution - common design

Convergent evolution - common adaptation. The physics of water give us similar shapes for fast-swimming water-living animals. They are all streamlined, from squid to sharks to dolphins.

I shall leave the detail there, but your points are not as powerful as you seem to think they are.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

And, Wesrock, you’ve mentioned before how the idea proposed by Kemp leaves room for literal interpretations in other respects, but I do partially wonder whether or not Eve being taken from Adam’s rib may be quite necessary, given “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” would seem to exclude the possibility of Eve descending from proto-humans and Eve herself could not be a proto-human given her status as a saint among other things.

Regarding Eve. The key information is that Eve is a true human fully complete person. Genesis 2: 23 according to Genesis 1: 27. The origin of humankind does include a proper male and proper female so that proper propagation can occur.

 

[grannymh]

I shall leave the detail there, but your points are not as powerful as you seem to think they are.

rossum

I continue to be amazed by science when I read your complete post 100.

Because all or most of this eventually relates to the human anatomy in some manner, may I point out that this science residing in the material world is not a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory. Obviously, popes and plumbers can freely express their opinions and speculations in the material world. Thank heavens that all kinds of people have used their talents to benefit humanity especially in the medical arena. God bless them.

 

[grannymh]

Morning question…

Why are proto-humans and pre-human humans, etc., etc., being considered when all that is needed is two fully complete male and female humans to start a new species?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

During the course of a visit to Tanzania,
passing from the Serengeti to the Ngorongoro conservation areas,
we stopped off at the Olduvai gorge,
where the Leakeys’ ground-breaking (literally) work in the field of paleoanthropology is being continued.

View attachment 23993

It brought home the reality
of our having been created on and of this earth to which bodily, we return,
how from the original pair, we spread throughout the world.

From the dust under our feet,
we are shaped into macromolecules, cells and organs, working in unison,
and given these capacities and talents, so many fruits in the garden of our existence:
understanding and knowledge,
music. and the visual arts,
mathematics, architecture and engineering,
this abiliity here and now to communicate and give to one another.

God being God, it all could have happened any which way,
ways of which I cannot possibly conceive,
But, what we do know is that from the first Divine day, when all was light,
through each that followed, which we might measure in zeptoseconds and epochs,
God ultimately brought us into existence.

A problem in understanding our creation has to do with trying to conceptualize
the relationship between God,
omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, eternally present, and transcendent
and His creation, which exists temporally.

The way I would put it is that
at the centre of time, is the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This would be ontologically primary as the love that binds God to His creation,
not only the Word that brings it all into existence,
but as Way through and in which we return to God, becoming love ourselves.
It is represented in the two trees, that of good and evil and of eternal life,
that are at the centre of the garden that is our being in. right relation with God.

Of our temporal beginnings, I imagine
Adam, coming into existence as a one-celled unity of matter and spirit.
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, the building blocks of matter, shaping the bodily form of that person,
within that ancient womb of a creature that would see the first Homo on earth.

As we know, God saw that man should not be alone,
so however multimillion years before that event of our creation,
He made life male and female.
It has no particular survival benefit,
but it reflects His triune nature,
man and woman, self and other, one in love.

So, the one egg became two;
they developed and were born,
with all the graces available to humanity,
to love one another and God, with whom they were in intimate contact.

You know the rest.

After the fall, things were different.
There was a flourishing of genetic diversity,
not governed by happenstance but rather by God’s will,
thereby giving rise to the variety of shapes and sizes that we come in.
It can give rise to the illusion of polygenenism.
The fact remains that the populations of the world are all descended from the same mitochondrial DNA.

That’s my take on it.
Regardless, this is all pretty SPECTACULAR!!
It’s my wife’s birthday today; the reality of her existence staggers my imagination.

 

[goout]

Morning question…

Why are proto-humans and pre-human humans, etc., etc., being considered when all that is needed is two fully complete male and female humans to start a new species?

Because science considers them, and scientific endeavor is part of what it means to be human. The OP question pertains to the relationship between faith and reason, right?

We need to address these issues in a fully Catholic way, because the world is talking about them, and we need to have coherent Catholic ways of speaking about them, or future generations especially will see Catholicism as an outdated and inadequate way of seeing the world…
Oh, wait… we’re already there.

Catholic people should not be afraid of science.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

During the course of a visit to Tanzania,
passing from the Serengeti to the Ngorongoro conservation areas,
we stopped off at the Olduvai gorge,
where the Leakeys’ ground-breaking (literally) work in the field of paleoanthropology is being continued.

View attachment 23993

It brought home the reality
of our having been created on and of this earth to which bodily, we return,
how from the original pair, we spread throughout the world.

From the dust under our feet,
we are shaped into macromolecules, cells and organs, working in unison,
and given these capacities and talents, so many fruits in the garden of our existence:
understanding and knowledge,
music. and the visual arts,
mathematics, architecture and engineering,
this abiliity here and now to communicate and give to one another.

God being God, it all could have happened any which way,
ways of which I cannot possibly conceive,
But, what we do know is that from the first Divine day, when all was light,
through each that followed, which we might measure in zeptoseconds and epochs,
God ultimately brought us into existence.

A problem in understanding our creation has to do with trying to conceptualize
the relationship between God,
omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, eternally present, and transcendent
and His creation, which exists temporally.

The way I would put it is that
at the centre of time, is the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This would be ontologically primary as the love that binds God to His creation,
not only the Word that brings it all into existence,
but as Way through and in which we return to God, becoming love ourselves.
It is represented in the two trees, that of good and evil and of eternal life,
that are at the centre of the garden that is our being in. right relation with God.

Of our temporal beginnings, I imagine
Adam, coming into existence as a one-celled unity of matter and spirit.
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, the building blocks of matter, shaping the bodily form of that person,
within that ancient womb of a creature that would see the first Homo on earth.

As we know, God saw that man should not be alone,
so however multimillion years before that event of our creation,
He made life male and female.
It has no particular survival benefit,
but it reflects His triune nature,
man and woman, self and other, one in love.

So, the one egg became two;
they developed and were born,
with all the graces available to humanity,
to love one another and God, with whom they were in intimate contact.

You know the rest.

After the fall, things were different.
There was a flourishing of genetic diversity,
not governed by happenstance but rather by God’s will,
thereby giving rise to the variety of shapes and sizes that we come in.
It can lead to the illusion of polygenenism.
The fact remains that the populations of the world are all descended from the same mitochondrial DNA.

That’s my take on it.
Regardless, this is all pretty SPECTACULAR!!
It’s my wife’s birthday today; the reality of her existence staggers my imagination.

 

[grannymh]

To be in the same place as the “Leakeys’ ground-breaking (literally) work in the field of paleoanthropology …” Post 104 is marvelous to me.

Years back, I tried to imagine Mary Leakey. I also tried to imagine the first paleoanthropologists who attempted to use the brow ridge as a means to determine species. I remember John Hawks leaving a local Midwest community workshop saying that he had to catch a bus to Siberia.

If only Catholics could recognize that the Science of Human Evolution along with the basic evolution theory is in the material world …and …

 

[grannymh]

Because science considers them, and scientific endeavor is part of what it means to be human. The OP question pertains to the relationship between faith and reason, right?

If I am understanding the Science of Human Evolution correctly, the vocabulary would include the Homo/Pan Split, a speciation event, and the following line of descendants known as hominins or the genus Homo; for example, Homo erectus.

Obviously, a relationship between faith and reason would result in a good discussion. However, personally I prefer the basic evolution theory at this point in time.

We need to address these issues in a fully Catholic way, because the world is talking about them, and we need to have coherent Catholic ways of speaking about them, or future generations especially will see Catholicism as an outdated and inadequate way of seeing the world…
Oh, wait… we’re already there.

Catholic people should not be afraid of science.

I do not see current Catholicism as an outdated and inadequate way of seeing the world. I do see some people hacking at the foundation of the Catholic Church.

The statement “Catholic people should not be afraid of science.” has both a no and yes answer which depends on a person’s knowledge of Catholic teachings and basic evolution teachings.

 

[PJM]

Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

I am not a scientist. How would I know?

CONDITIONALLY No

Not as long as it is acknowledged that it is a part of GOD"S paln and work.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[buffalo]

CONDITIONALLY No

Not as long as it is acknowledged that it is a part of GOD"S paln and work.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[grannymh]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Yup.
Genesis 2: 8. Adam is the first agriculture scientist. Genesis 2: 15. God sure knew the difference between a human Adam and a dinosaur. Maybe God was thinking of Eve’s preference.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Yup.
Genesis 2: 8. Adam is the first agriculture scientist. Genesis 2: 15. God sure knew the difference between a human Adam and a dinosaur. Maybe God was thinking of Eve’s preference.

LOL

Seriously,
when people slide by what Pius XII taught in Humani Generis, I am concerned.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

CONDITIONALLY No

Not as long as it is acknowledged that it is a part of GOD"S paln and work.

God’s plan is to have only two humans, Adam and Eve, as the original founders of humanity. The plan of the Science of Human Evolution is to have a large population at the start of humanity. An evolutionary population of hundreds challenges the Catholic Church teaching that the original human population was two people, Adam and Eve.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[rossum]

God’s plan is to have only two humans, Adam and Eve, as the original founders of humanity. The plan of the Science of Human Evolution is to have a large population at the start of humanity. An evolutionary population of hundreds challenges the Catholic Church teaching that the original human population was two people, Adam and Eve.

For a Catholic, the word “human” includes a soul. For an evolutionary biologist, the presence or not of a soul is irrelevant to the biological classification of the species Homo sapiens. The same spelling is used, but the two words mean different things in the different contexts.

It is an error of equivocation to assume that the two words have the same meaning, even though they are spelled the same. They do not. One is in a theological context while the other is in a non-theological context. Think of them as homonyms: a “band” may be made of rubber or of musicians for example.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

For a Catholic, the word “human” includes a soul. For an evolutionary biologist, the presence or not of a soul is irrelevant to the biological classification of the species Homo sapiens. The same spelling is used, but the two words mean different things in the different contexts.

It is an error of equivocation to assume that the two words have the same meaning, even though they are spelled the same. They do not. One is in a theological context while the other is in a non-theological context. Think of them as homonyms: a “band” may be made of rubber or of musicians for example.

rossum

Unfortunately, I have noticed that some people do not grasp the fact that the biological classification is in the material world. It is my understanding that a theological context is not a world in itself. The discipline of theology is used to explain the spiritual world of God.

Pope Pius XII, with his amazing understanding of reality, says this in Humani Generis.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

It is the word polygenism (polygenesis) which some people fail to recognize as requiring a large mixed breeding population. And in my own opinion, paragraph 36 could be a philosophical approach to “form” and “matter”. It could also refer to conception. CCC 362-366 which is tough reading.

It is evolution biology which can be used in disease research. How the body develops (evolved) defense mechanisms is important information. One piece of information I found, referred to a study of a species of monkeys which had a way of defeating some form of AIDS. Personally, I have no clue if that information is correct. Still, I like to imagine the possibilities of medical science. God bless our scientists.

 

[buffalo]

Yup.
Genesis 2: 8. Adam is the first agriculture scientist. Genesis 2: 15. God sure knew the difference between a human Adam and a dinosaur. Maybe God was thinking of Eve’s preference.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[mVitus]

Did Adam look as God planned?

Considering original sin had not yet enetered the world and Genesis says God saw what he made was good, I think it’s safe to say an omniscient Creator created an Adamn as He intended.