Catholic teaching is that Adam is the first, real, fully complete human person. There are not multiple “firsts”. There are not real human “firsts” before the first real human Adam. There certainly would not be parents or grandparents in today’s terms.What about Adam’s parents and grandparents and other ancestors going back hundreds of thousands of years?
4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: 5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.
6But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Granny, I’m wondering how you square your belief in a literal “Adam” with what we know from science about the long history of human evolution over the last seven million years. Do you reject what we learn from science, or merely ignore it?Catholic teaching is that Adam is the first, real, fully complete human person. There are not multiple “firsts”. There are not real human “firsts” before the first real human Adam. There certainly would not be parents or grandparents in today’s terms.
This arguments wrongly takes soul to be equivalent to intellect. However, as I explained in a previous post, this is a radical misconception, one common to modern thinking that equates soul with mind, and then conceives of mind in the most confused manner to stand for consciousness. This “consciousness” is then ambiguously and equivocally referred to both humans and animal cognitive abilities alike without proper distinctions in perceptual and conceptual thinking. The modern “scientific” confusion about “mind” is nothing short of disasterous.Not at all, as you would have seen had you read my post. I asked what we base capability of possessing soul on if not on intellect. If it’s not on intellect – which of course would rule out or severely limit the ensoulment of anancephalic infants, developmentally disabled persons, PVS sufferes, etc. – then it must be on some other basis. Having human DNA would seem to be a prime candidate as a prerequisite for ensoulment.
Divine Revelation trumps…according to Catholic theology.Granny, I’m wondering how you square your belief in a literal “Adam” with what we know from science about the long history of human evolution over the last seven million years. Do you reject what we learn from science, or merely ignore it?
Plants and animals are genetically not that different, both being Eukaryotes, and both being descended from organisms that had been around for billions of years. I’ll look for reference for you regarding the evolutionary relationship between them.At some point in history the power to animate life(animal soul) had an organ that it was able to operate through ( one celled animal). This power constituted a major shift, a profoundly different mode of living. How did this animal recieve it’s genetic make-up from plant parents that were the organ of vegatative soul? How did the organs that operate power to photosynthesise sunlight, draw nutrients from soil, spread seed on the wind and water and such, produce an organ that moves around to do those same things?.
Absolutely!The assumption that “ensoulment” is limited in the “cases of anancephalic infants, developmentally disabled persons, PVS sufferes, etc.” presumes a materialist conception of the soul, and thereby begs the question regarding the nature of the human soul.
But not in the case of the flat earth, right?Divine Revelation trumps…according to Catholic theology.
Genetics does not and cannot tell us anything substantial about the nature of soul, and thus it is irrelevant to the fundamental philosophical issues, which are based on dianoetic analysis.Granny, I’m wondering how you square your belief in a literal “Adam” with what we know from science about the long history of human evolution over the last seven million years. Do you reject what we learn from science, or merely ignore it?
So, this appears to mean that you are assuming a philosophical materialism, which you think can explain human consciousness.Absolutely!
Yes, clearly, genetics cannot tell us anything about the soul. I was wondering what the basis was for Granny’s assertion that Adam was the first human person, or for the claim I often hear that “all humans and only humans have an immortal soul.”Genetics does not and cannot tell us anything substantial about the nature of soul, and thus it is irrelevant to the fundamental philosophical issues, which are based on dianoetic analysis…
Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.Genetics does not and cannot tell us anything substantial about the nature of soul, and thus it is irrelevant to the fundamental philosophical issues, which are based on dianoetic analysis.
Unless one is a radical materialist, but even in under the assumptioin of philosophical naturalism, science, by its very nature of being limited to perinoetic knowledge, can have nothing to say about the essence or nature of the human soul.
Not at all.So, this appears to mean that you are assuming a philosophical materialism, which you think can explain human consciousness.
Benadam, I have a biologist friend at the University of Washington looking into this question for you. He just instant messaged me the following:Did the vegatative mode of life lay down it’s life in sacrifice and perhaps rise to a higher state? JUst thinking. JPII said; For life to rise to an elevated state, a higher state of life must lift it up. Otherwise we must admit that the organs that operate vegatative powers were able to create the power to animate matter.
The basis for Adam being the first, true, fully complete human person who was established in friendship with His Creator is – Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church. And if ever the current ban is lifted, there will be a rebuttal to some super silly science speculations.Yes, clearly, genetics cannot tell us anything about the soul. I was wondering what the basis was for Granny’s assertion that Adam was the first human person, or for the claim I often hear that “all humans and only humans have an immortal soul.”
My biologist friend just sent me the following, indicating that animals antedated true plants:Benadam, I have a biologist friend at the University of Washington looking into this question for you.
Actually, this one is shorter and has less gelogy stuff:My biologist friend just sent me the following, indicating that animals antedated true plants:
Granny, I eagerly wait to see what supports your scientific rebuttal.And if ever the current ban is lifted, there will be a rebuttal to some super silly science speculations.
I’m proud of my membership in the animal kingdom – it’s the kingdom as a member of which God became incarnate!Please note: I flat out refuse membership in the brute animal kingdom.
The statements need to be analyzed first. The idea the Adam was the first human is tantamount to saying there was in fact a first human, which makes sense on the level of common descent and speciation. What must be unique in the appearance of man defined as a “rational animal” is that “human” so understood cannot come about partially; there cannot be a “missing link” between brute animal and rational animal that is partially human. Being “human”, by its very nature, is an all or none phenomenon in evolutionary history.Yes, clearly, genetics cannot tell us anything about the soul. I was wondering what the basis was for Granny’s assertion that Adam was the first human person, or for the claim I often hear that “all humans and only humans have an immortal soul.”