Many Adams and Eves?

[diggerdomer]

Look at the other preternatural gifts.

Catholic Dogma:

1. 
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

1. 
   Thanks…so you agree they died? That’s what I read from what you posted.

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholics do not practice private interpretation. Look to the Magisterium for the constant teaching and understanding of Scripture.

Exactly my point. Thanks for repeating it.

 

[NHInsider]

The ongoing attempt to deflect attention from Intelligent Design, and to have a Scope’s Monkey-like show trial over it, has not stopped continuing research. Intelligent Design proponents, including Stephen Meyer, predicted that “Junk DNA” would turn out to be functional, which has come to pass, as opposed to the wishful thinking of Dawkins, et al.

No matter what is said against it, ID shows signs of not only valuable insight regarding the function of the human genome but insight into the deficiencies of evolutionary theory.

Whether or not ID turns out to be a viable scientific theory is not the issue here. The point is that ID is NOT Catholic Doctrine.

Then what is the point? The title of the thread is" Many Adams and Eves?" So which is it?

The point made in Communion and Stewardship is that the Church chooses not to made a definitive statement about the origins of the humanoid species, since she is not in the science business. She chooses to make a statement that HOWEVER God chose to bring the humanoids into being, at the point that they became Human Beings He created them in His image, uniquely reflecting His essence.

Thank you for your patience and your reply.

Genesis 1: 27 is the footnote for the Catholic teaching found in paragraph 355 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. As one reads through the *Catechism, *many Scripture references are found in the footnotes.

In order to fully understand the reality of Adam and Eve and the reality of our own human nature, one has to study many Catechism paragraphs starting with paragraph 355 and ending with paragraph 421. Paragraph 422 begins the good news of Jesus Christ.

The Catechism is a wonderful resource, and the footnotes provide a structure for exploring the teaching of the Church by subject through the ages.

Paragraph 362 is most pertinent to this thread:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

As I have said, repeatedly, both in this thread and in the “Stand firm on Scripture” thread - my issue is not whether or not an individual believes in a God-directed evolution or that God formed Adam as a little clay figure and then breathed on him. You can believe either (or both) and still receive the gift of grace. What is NOT OKAY is for people to assert that the Church teaches something it does not, and imply or state outright that unless one accepts a particular position one is not a faithful Catholic, when the Church has not set that requirement.

 

[diggerdomer]

What do you think HE chose? Evolution has not been scientifically proven.

God bless,
Ed

It doesn’t matter, really, what I think God chose. The point is, God chose. Whether evolution or something else…Catholic teaching is clear and not scientifically proven.

 

[diggerdomer]

There’s no reason God could not have done that, if God is omnipotent. I have a pair of friends in England (a scientist and a theologian) who are working right now on the problem of self-assemblage of pre-organic components.

Exactly my point.

 

[diggerdomer]

Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

God bless,
Ed

Sorry…please clarify…your point is…?

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t believe that. It doesn’t make sense. I can prove gravity all I want by dropping something. In a court of law, evidence is used to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks to some here, I have doubts about evolution.

God bless,
Ed

You could also disprove gravity if you were a scientist. Why doesn’t all matter (i.e. atoms, cells, etc.) collapse in upon themselves due to gravity?

Of course there are doubts about evolution, as with any other scientific theory. So what?

 

[diggerdomer]

Mr. Dawkins has a well known agenda, which is why I am more skeptical of scientific claims made anywhere. However, The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. I’ll stick with the Church and Pope Benedict.

God bless,
Ed

The fact that Dawkins has an agenda is no reason to dismiss his thought, subject to rational and scientific critique.

To suggest otherwise is not only unscientific but irresponsible.

 

[diggerdomer]

We have Neanderthal genetic material. I have no idea where the concept of other humanoids came from. It’s certainly not an idea promoted by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

Are you suggesting that anything people should know regarding science has to come from the Church? I hope not…but that was the impression I got. Thanks for any clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

Respectfully, that is a nonsense statement.

God bless,
Ed

So is that.

 

[diggerdomer]

Dropping a ball yields testable, measurable and predictable results every time.

No it doesn’t.

What is the material composition of the ball?

What other forces are relevant?

For example, if the ball is magnetic and there is a magnetic force operative in a direction other than “down” then the ball will fall “up” (i.e. not “down”).

 

[diggerdomer]

We can observe, test, measure and predict the bouncing ball. That is empirical science.

There are a great many observations that we cannot empirically test…

Like evolution? So it may or may not be true?

 

[diggerdomer]

It certainly is Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

As taught where?

 

[diggerdomer]

Empirical science - observable, testable and predictable.

Is evo observable?
Is it testable?
Is it predictable?

.

yes

 

[diggerdomer]

Has the Pink Unicorn told you of his existence?

But to the point - ID the science says nothing on who the designer is.

Let me repeat again - ID the science says nothing on who the designer is.

This is really important.

Neither does Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This is really important too.

 

[diggerdomer]

Evolution operates from the framework that nothing created life.

Untrue.

 

[diggerdomer]

God has intelligence and creation can be its own… what? It has no intelligence. According to the document Communion and Stewardship, if there was a developmental path then it occurred infallibly. Assigning intelligence to a process and making it “its own designer” does not make sense.

God bless,
Ed

Where does “Communion and Stewardship” state that? Thanks.

 

[Benadam]

Interesting. I can see a basic living organism being free to adapt to various outside influences. But I doubt that this applies to fully complete true human nature which is actually beyond scientific comprehension.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Exactly. Love requires freedom and God loves everything He creates in proper order.

 

[ThomasToo]

So, you have proof that e.g. the well discussed bacterial flagellum, or the human eye evolved. Please tell us the sequence of random genetic mutations that caused it.

Oh, don’t have those details? Then you have nothing.

What you have is Evolution Did It Somehow. Chance of the gaps. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

I cannot look back through history and say what did happen but we can look around and say what may have (and I would argue probably and almost certainly did) happened.

The short answer is that half an eye or 20% of a bacterial flagellum is quite helpful and not useless–as the notion of irreducible complexity would necessarily imply. For an example an eye without a properly formed lens is better than not having any sight at all (and in the land of the blind…) and a bacterial flagellum without the whip bit (with the omission of 40 of the 50 parts that form it) is in fact the type-3 excretory apparatus.

Videos speaking on these topics are widely available but I recommend Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum and Dan-Eric Nilsson on the eye. You can also refer to this chart regarding the eye and these two charts (part 1, part 2) for the evolution of the flagellum which are taken from “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum” if you want the heavy hitting scholarly answer to one of your two examples.

I do not simply have ‘chance of the gaps.’ The claim of irreducible complexity is that a system such as the bacterial flagellum or the eye is useless and completely worthless when missing any one of its component parts; otherwise it would not be irreducibly complex. Neither of the cases you present meet this burden.

I say this without spite or irony, thank you. I learned new things today answering your question and that makes me happy.

 

[Benadam]

God has intelligence and creation can be its own… what? It has no intelligence. According to the document Communion and Stewardship, if there was a developmental path then it occurred infallibly. Assigning intelligence to a process and making it “its own designer” does not make sense.

God bless,
Ed

Good point. In the end, a designated possibility among infinite possibilities isn’t necessary for God’s will to be done. God can give freedom without it thwarting the end He intends.No need for a design or a designer for that. That indeed will be infallibly realized.