Is this acceptable to believe

[Ghosty]

Before I point out the realities of research on 20,000 to 25,000 genes including the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA, may I ask Augustine’s recommended choice between natural science and Divine Revelation in scripture and tradition of Church Councils? I am, of course, referring to the point of intersection between natural science and Divine Revelation–what would Augustine advise?

As for the comment “I completely agree that every hypothesis requires total participation by God, and mine does.” Yes, that is a valuable statement; however, I was referring to something slightly different when I distinguished the intentions of the Creator as found in Genesis 2: 20 and in Genesis 1: 26-18. (posts 18 & 16)

It’s not a choice between science and revelation, it’s a choice between a viable interpretation of revelation that conforms to scientific knowledge, and a viable interpretation that contradicts scientific knowledge. In such cases Augustine advises the former so as not to make a mockery of the Faith. Nothing that science has ever found contradicts revelation, but it does contradict certain interpretations of it.

As far as God’s intentions go, I see nothing in Genesis that contradicts our hypothesis. As you know God has made many allowances in history to further his ultimate intentions. Furthermore it is not necessary to conclude that it was God’s intention that true humans mate with human-animals. On the contrary it is quite possible that this was a result of the Fall; remember that the Flood occured because of vaguely described forbidden couplings.

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

It’s not a choice between science and revelation, it’s a choice between a viable interpretation of revelation that conforms to scientific knowledge, and a viable interpretation that contradicts scientific knowledge. In such cases Augustine advises the former so as not to make a mockery of the Faith. Nothing that science has ever found contradicts revelation, but it does contradict certain interpretations of it.

As far as God’s intentions go, I see nothing in Genesis that contradicts our hypothesis. As you know God has made many allowances in history to further his ultimate intentions. Furthermore it is not necessary to conclude that it was God’s intention that true humans mate with human-animals. On the contrary it is quite possible that this was a result of the Fall; remember that the Flood occured because of vaguely described forbidden couplings.

Peace and God bless!

When science intersects with Divine Revelation, then there is a necessary choice between the two.

Could it be that in Augustine’s era, that he was unaware of the 21st century intersection between science and Divine revelation regarding the actual two human founders of humankind? My guess is that Augustine considered that Adam and Eve were originals and not part of a reduced population of pre-human history material/physical animals related to other species of animals of similar material/physical natures.

As for a viable interpretation of Divine Revelation, my suggestion is to refer to Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John and then to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

 

[Ghosty]

When science intersects with Divine Revelation, then there is a necessary choice between the two.

Could it be that in Augustine’s era, that he was unaware of the 21st century intersection between science and Divine revelation regarding the actual two human founders of humankind? My guess is that Augustine considered that Adam and Eve were originals and not part of a reduced population of pre-human history material/physical animals related to other species of animals of similar material/physical natures.

As for a viable interpretation of Divine Revelation, my suggestion is to refer to Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John and then to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

When science contradicts revelation then there is a choice. When science merely sheds light on revelation the choice is between interpretations of revelation. As for what Augustine believed, he kept with the knowledge of his time; he had no knowledge of genetics, so no reason to nuance his interpretation of Genesis.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic80]

That, after God gave Adam and Eve Rational spirits, their children mated with nearby spiritless “Humans”, with the children of such unions possessing spirits, until spirits took over the population (As they eventually would, for the same reason anyone who lived more than 2500 years ago is the ancestor of either everybody or nobody alive today).

The strength in this view is it seems to account for the Genetic evidence against monogenism, without admitting

If we can apply this to Adam, can we also let some of our Pseudo-men explain the fact that there is no bottleneck corresponding to the flood either?

Or… could there have been other humans that God created in the Garden, but when Adam and Eve sinned, sin entered the Garden, thus affecting everyone? If our smallest sins affect the whole world, then we can guess that, had their been other humans in the Garden, Adam and Eve’s sin would have affected/influenced them as well. Our sins always have consequence and affect more than just ourselves.

As for Noah and the flood, some historians say there were several “Noah’s” of sort around the world who were divinely told about the flood. Noah in the Bible is THE Noah of the chosen Jewish people and of the covenant.

None of this is Church teaching, by the way, but it doesn’t contradict, as far as I know, Church teaching, whereas mating with “spiritless beings” would. Bestiality is strictly forbidden, and mating with a homo sapiens that is “without soul” would constitute as bestiality.

Sex isn’t simply to reproduce, which is why IVF and other methods are also strictly forbidden. Sex is a reflection of the Trinity… a relationship that brings forth life. The Father is all-giving to the Son, and the Son is all-giving to the Father and this exchange is the Holy Spirit. Sex between a man and a woman is all-giving to each other, and from this exchange, life can be created. There is NO exchange with a soulless creature. No love, no self-giving, no “openness” to live on their part in terms of free will.

I recommend reading Pope John Paul’s teachings on Theology of the Body.

 

[grannymh]

When science contradicts revelation then there is a choice. When science merely sheds light on revelation the choice is between interpretations of revelation. As for what Augustine believed, he kept with the knowledge of his time; he had no knowledge of genetics, so no reason to nuance his interpretation of Genesis.

Peace and God bless!

What is the purpose of this light?

Unfortunately, that shedding light on Divine revelation sounds to me like the special terminology used by some, not all, people. Unfortunately, I know some people who wish to change Catholic doctrines through the mighty power
(light, for example ) of certain scientific modern interpretations. Anyone remember the interpretations of the Reverend Matthew Fox in his early years?

 

[Ghosty]

What is the purpose of this light?

I’m not actually sure what you mean by this question.

I’d like to answer, I just need some elucidation.

Unfortunately, that shedding light on Divine revelation sounds to me like the special terminology used by some, not all, people. Unfortunately, I know some people who wish to change Catholic doctrines through the mighty power
(light, for example ) of certain scientific modern interpretations. Anyone remember the interpretations of the Reverend Matthew Fox in his early years?

I think this might be a generational gap between us, and forgive me if I’m assuming too much from your screen name. I didn’t grow up during the “cultural upheaval” of the 60s and 70s, but rather I was raised by people who did. I’ve seen the absurdities that were embraced by those generations and I totally reject them.

I don’t believe that science can “open up” Divine Revelation, and I don’t believe a “new Faith” can arise from it. The Faith is truer than our material experiences. Period. All that material experience, science included, can do is help to guide our understanding of Faith within the limits that are clearly established. We can’t rewrite what has already been made clear, and material experience can definitely be misleading about reality.

All I’m saying is that when there are two viable, Faithful, understandings of Divine Revelation, I will take the understanding that doesn’t contradict current scientific understandings; this doesn’t mean that the other understandings are definitely wrong, just that I will tend towards the understanding that fits both, so long as such an understanding is viable. I will never take an understanding that is suggested by material experience but which contradicts clearly defined Faith. I don’t believe that material experience can ever override reality, and the Faith is the ultimate reality.

So the reason I currently embrace the “Genesis hypothesis” that I do is because it is allowed by Faith and suggested by science. If the Faith boundary becomes more restricted (which is unlikely), or the scientific evidence proves faulty (far more likely) then I will happily change my view. For me the Faith is the solid rock, and science is the wavering tide; I’m just aiming for the point where they meet, but if the tide recedes I’m sticking with the rock.

Peace and God bless!

 

[grannymh]

So the reason I currently embrace the “Genesis hypothesis” that I do is because it is allowed by Faith and suggested by science. If the Faith boundary becomes more restricted (which is unlikely), or the scientific evidence proves faulty (far more likely) then I will happily change my view. For me the Faith is the solid rock, and science is the wavering tide; I’m just aiming for the point where they meet, but if the tide recedes I’m sticking with the rock.

Peace and God bless!

As an editor/researcher off line, I have looked at a variety of genesis hypotheses which try to mold interpretations of the Catholic doctrine monogenism to fit the proper material/physical domain of natural science. A popular example of proposed genesis hypotheses is the BioLogus website in addition to articles and blogs by Catholics.

The difficulty is that many Catholics are neither familiar with 21st century natural science research, including biology disciplines and paleoanthropology, nor with the many doctrines connected with Original Sin, for example,
Romans 5: 12-21 and the basic superior power of God as expressed in the Nicene Creed. This means that in general, many genesis hypotheses are flawed – only many Catholics have difficulty spotting the common sense possible flaws for example the substitution of certain assumptions and estimates for hard data. By the way, some assumptions can be a valid substitution depending on the narrow scope of the research paper’s actual hypothesis.

However, since some Catholics appear to be unaware that the evidence, methods and materials, used in a research project have to warrant the conclusion, there is then additional scientific aspects which may be ignored in order to bolster some kind of genesis hypothesis. Scientific time and terminology can be sidestepped.

One of the main aspects, often ignored, is that the interpretation of a particular conclusion regarding either human origin or human nature cannot be extrapolated to an universal exclusion. Interpreters of an individual science paper might say such and such is probable, but that cannot rule out the possibility of the biblical Catholic doctrines (plural intended) regarding monogenism and human nature itself which is now being reduced to a cultural emergence.

Personally, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to find viable interpretations [changes] of the Catholic Deposit of Faith that will conform to 21st century science.

Personally, I believe that the major problem is that most Catholics are not aware of the meaning of [Aquinas] truth as described by Michael Tkacz catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

Because I respect the current ban in this forum, I will not go beyond general information about natural science per se which I have presented.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

Science is about as cool as a cloud that has turned into toxic rain that spoiled the water for all the people in the village, i wouldnt even acknowledge what science says.

 

[Monkey1976]

You can say what you want, and I understand your argument, but the fact remains that the Church teaching is open on this point. Since the teaching is open enough to include our hypothesis at this point, we prefer to hold it as it best reconciles our scientific understanding and our Faith.

Peace and God bless!

I agree with your hypothesis, and would go a little further: The hypothesis that Adam and Eve were the first “ensouled” members of what we now call humanity would also nicely reconcile the apparent discrepancy between Gen 1:26-28 (humanity created initially as male and female on the sixth day) and Gen 2:7 (Adam created before Eve, but after the seventh day). Scripture simply says that God “created man” - there’s no explanation as to how.

We can, through proper application of science, come to understand how God provides light for us through the action of nuclear fusion within the Sun. Science doesn’t replace faith, it is our attempt to understand the methods and tools of God.

Therefore, is it unreasonable to think that it could be possible for God to have created the species Homo Sapiens through the method of natural evolution from earlier forms (H. Erectus, H. Habilis, etc.) which He also created? Then, out of the extant population of H. Sapiens, He chose one individual to be Adam, and from him was created Eve?

Interesting side note: We know that “Adam” can be understood as “Man of the red earth”. We also know that red ochre was somehow significant to H. Erectus, H. Neandertalensis, and early H. Sapiens - several apparent burials from all 3 species have included it. Am I wrong for seeing a connection here?

 

[brierpatch1974]

Maybe it’s more simple than all that. The bible tells us that God created adam and eve. The first man and woman. It doesn’t say they were the only two he created just that they were the first created.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe it’s more simple than all that. The bible tells us that God created adam and eve. The first man and woman. It doesn’t say they were the only two he created just that they were the first created.

Only one human could have committed the Original Sin and he, with his spouse, would have to be the two sole founders of humankind.