Polygenism/Monogenism

[fnr]

What one does find is centuries of evidence for human nature which is composed of a decomposing anatomy and a non-material rational soul. This evidence is found in Catholic teachings since the beginning of human history.

Yes, but “rational soul” was never intended to represent a homunculus separable from our bodies. The Catechism says that body and soul are “one union.” In ancient times, Platonism asserted that “our true selves” were spiritual, and cast aspersions on the physical world, while Christian Gnostics said that the whole point of Christ’s coming was to free “our true selves” from the “evil of creation.” No where in (orthodox) Christian or Jewish history does it say that creation, in all its material was evil. In fact, in Genesis 1:31, God said that everything he made was “very good,” not just Adam and Eve.

St. Paul doesn’t talk about our salvation as our liberation from our “decomposing anatomy,” but instead a taking-up of our resurrected bodies in glorious form. Here’s 2 Corinthians 5:4:
“For while we are in this tent we groan and are weighed down, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”

Romans 8:11:
*“If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you.”
*

It’s Old Testament as well. Here’s Wisdom 3:
*“1The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.
2They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction
3and their going forth from us, utter destruction.
But they are in peace.”
*

The only people in Christian history that insisted that the disembodied soul was superior to the soul in its living and/or resurrected bodies were the gnostics.

That is in the category of urban myths. Please refer to post 56 above.

Au contraire. If A=B and B=C, A=C must also be true. That’s elementary logic. When the Church has sought to move from metaphysical statements about how creation to physical statements about the world, it has made itself amenable to scientific investigation. Galileo’s persecution came about because the Church felt that geocentrism was an essential part of Christian ontology. It wasn’t. It was an idol that took the minds of believers off the truth of the Christian faith.

Current excavations of fossil finds have been able to retrieve some portions of DNA. However, DNA, animal or human, does not present evidence of our spiritual soul.

I totally agree with you. No amount of scientific inquiry will ever detect the soul, because it is, as you said, an entirely spiritual thing. We all have souls, which are the “forms” of our bodies. They don’t have functions separate from the body. As I heard one theologian recently quip, when we die, God saves our software (the soul) on his hardware (in Heaven) until he gives us our own upgraded hardware (our resurrected bodies).

Pardon me, I think that is some sort of logical fallacy or maybe it is a non sequitur. Help somebody.

When it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis we are dealing with Divine Revelation which has been stated in Catholic doctrines. To put the Prodigal Son and the first human Adam in the same category, you would have to name the Catholic doctrine flowing from this parable.

What I’m saying is that there is an essential truth in the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is an essential truth in Genesis 1-3. Both are true, and both do not need to actually describe historical events to be true. That Genesis 1-3 includes figurative language, as I quoted above, is a teaching in the CCC.

This would be more understandable if you named the consensus view. Otherwise, listing a number of science disciplines has been used as one of the means of intimidating Catholics who honor human nature and its origin as taught by Catholicism.

I apologize if I seemed to be intimidating. That was not my intent. I consider myself a Catholic who honors human nature and its origins and taught by Catholicism.

What I mean by “the consensus view” is spelled out in the International Theological Commission’s Stewardship and Creation (2004). I’ll refer you to #63 therein, since it’s long.

 

[grannymh]

God can put a soul into everyone at the time of conception. I can’t speak about original sin, all I can say is what we know thus far, from science. Like I said earlier, I’m not interested in grasping at straws to force this into making sense.

vox-nova.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/

Actually, Original Sin made Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, necessary. This is because the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Unfortunately, the majority of Catholics posting on CAF have never been taught Catholic doctrines involving Original Sin. Or they were taught some doctrines in an non-understandable manner. Or, and this really saddens me, Catholics create their own version of Adam and the Fall.

 

[Faith1960]

From Vatican II (GS 36):

Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. (6) Indeed whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, even though he is unaware of the fact, is nevertheless being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity. Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.(7)

If science proves something that the Church disagrees with, then there is a conflict. vox-nova.com/2011/01/06/a-question-about-polygenism-and-original-sin/

 

[grannymh]

Au contraire. If A=B and B=C, A=C must also be true.

So please tell me which words are A, which words are B, and which words are C in the simple sentence–. Truth cannot contradict Truth

Thank you for this kindness.

 

[buffalo]

If science proves something that the Church disagrees with, then there is a conflict. vox-nova.com/2011/01/06/a-question-about-polygenism-and-original-sin/

Science will never be able to prove Adam and Eve or not. By definition there existence is not empirically provable. So they speculate. We have history to help us out here.

**Chapel of Adam: **

Under the Calvary, on the first floor near the stone of Unction, is a small Greek Orthodox altar in the “Chapel of Adam”. According to tradition, the the burial site of the first man was at the site of the crucifixion.
* The plan of the church is seen on the right, with the location of the chapel marked by a red* marker - in a small niche below the Greek Orthodox Calvary.

                  http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos44/Sepulcher_Adam.JPG              
      The chapel of    Adam, the first man, is seen below. Inside the altar, on its eastern side, is    the Golgotha rock behind a window. A crack in the rock is, according to    tradition, the result of an earthquake caused during the crucifixion. This is    according to the Bible (Matthew 27, 51): "Jesus, when he had cried again...    and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent". This crack is also seen on the    floor above the chapel.

http://www.holysepulchre.custodia.org/img/news/247.jpg

 

[grannymh]

From granny’s post 68:
Pardon me, I think that is some sort of logical fallacy or maybe it is a non sequitur. Help somebody.

When it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis we are dealing with Divine Revelation which has been stated in Catholic doctrines. To put the Prodigal Son and the first human Adam in the same category, you would have to name the Catholic doctrine flowing from this parable.

What I’m saying is that there is an essential truth in the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is an essential truth in Genesis 1-3. Both are true, and both do not need to actually describe historical events to be true. That Genesis 1-3 includes figurative language, as I quoted above, is a teaching in the CCC.

So that readers can understand
what you are referring to, please name the essential truths (Catholic dcotrines) of the Prodical Son and the first human Adam.

Thank you.

 

[Faith1960]

Science will never be able to prove Adam and Eve or not. By definition there existence is not empirically provable. So they speculate. We have history to help us out here.

**Chapel of Adam: **

I’ve never heard of this before. What history helps us with this? How do they know it’s the burial place of Adam?

 

[buffalo]

I’ve never heard of this before. What history helps us with this? How do they know it’s the burial place of Adam?

Tradition. Jesus was Crucified on the place of the Skull. It was Adams skull.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2944/6274crucifixionandreade.jpg

http://orthodoxincense.com/images/CrucifixionDionysiou17thc.jpg

 

[fnr]

Please be specific. What unnecessary elements of faith (Catholic) are in the first three chapters of Genesis or which flow from the basic truths in those chapters?

These are the elements of faith that I consider unnecessary based on a literalistic account of Genesis 1-3, the epistles of Paul, and the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke. I consider these as testable hypotheses that have been shown not to explain the available observations made my geologists, biologists, and astronomers.

• 1. That the whole human population is descended from two people (Adam and Eve) who lived within the last 10,000 years.
• 1. That the Earth (and universe) is younger than 10,000 years old.
• 1. That Eden is a place which literally existed at some place on Earth in the form of a garden within the last 10,000 years.
• 1. That the Earth existed as a mass without being lit by starlight, including the sun.
• 1. That a snake literally spoke to Eve to convince her to sin.
• 1. That nothing died prior to the first sin of humanity.

I’ll also say that maintaining that the soul after death is capable of the same type of cognition, perception, and movement as our living (and resurrected) bodies is an unnecessary belief (see the quote from Wisdom above).

Pardon me. The Catholic Church does not deny science. It considers science as a gift from God.

I didn’t say the Catholic Church denies science. The 2004 report, Stewardship and Creation, clearly does not. People who hold onto “unnecessary” beliefs (e.g., my 1-6 above) and call them essential teachings of the Church are part of the Church, but don’t represent the Magesterium.

Examples, please.

Catholics are not obliged to find reasons to deny the Big Bang theory, nor studies that locate particular cognitive activity within specified regions of the brain, nor genomic studies on human migration out of Africa.

Our faith requires none of these. Belief in a “rational soul” need not discount neurological studies. On the Last Day, we get our bodies back! Until then, our souls rest in heaven (assuming we die without the stain of mortal sin), until God creates the New Heaven and New Earth.

I realize I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but where did that idea originate?

“Creation science” is one example.

Science discovers truth when it is conducted properly. Please refer to post 56 above.

OK, is the scientific method, properly conducted, a way to find truth?

Catholicism offers this explanation. God immediately and individually creates our spiritual soul at conception.

Right, but how that fits into what embryology tells us about what’s going on is way over my head, and only God knows.

Not exactly. Our rational intellectual capacity, different from sentience, is due to our spiritual soul – which as you just pointed out is outside the scope of scientific investigation.

Our rational intellect is an emergent property of our brain. There is nothing in scripture or Catechism that suggests that the soul is like a ghost, possessing rationality, memory, or emotion. Here’s Wisdom 3 again:
1The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.
2They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction
3and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.
4For if to others, indeed, they seem punished, yet is their hope full of immortality;
5Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them
and found them worthy of himself.
6As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself.
7In the time of their judgment* **they shall **shine and dart about as sparks through stubble;
8They shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever.
9Those who trust in him **shall *understand truth, and the faithful shall abide with him in love: Because grace and mercy are with his holy ones, and his care is with the elect.

Note that it speaks to when the souls of the righteous shall “shine and dart” and “understand truth.” This is a foreshadowing of Revelation 21:1-3
*‘1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race.c He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them [as their God]."’
*

So, while in Heaven, God keeps souls with him in peace, but that Heaven will pass away, and we will all dwell in resurrected bodies. A conscious disembodied soul isn’t a requirement for this to be true. We are promised resurrected bodies. I can’t say what a soul feels in Heaven, other than “wow” and experiencing the Beatific Vision with “intuitive vision.” On the Last Day, we’ll look on God with our own eyes!

 

[buffalo]

Adam and Eve were treated as historical for all of history except for science of the last 50 years or so.

I will go with the long history and constant teaching of the Church.

 

[fnr]

Catholicism accepts the reality of God which is why it can accept the reality of Adam and Eve.

There are too many assumptions in that statement to unpack here.

I have an interesting research paper which examined the consequences of using electrodes as a mapping device during awake brain surgery. But so far, I an unaware of implanting electrodes. Do you have a citation available? Or is this from a media report?

Here’s the media report.
Here’s the study.

I can see why the example of a parapalegic person being able to move cybernetic limbs (a new term for me) would be a sign of the wonders of our material brain or a sign of material consciousnes. However, that does not deny the presence of our spiritual soul. Recall that you said that the spirirtual soul is outside the scope of scientific investigation.

And that’s absolutely true. What I’m saying is that the spiritual soul isn’t involved in the mental processes involved in the woman’s moving the robotic arm. Or as Aquinas put it, the “vegetative soul” relies on “corporeal organs” to do things like breathing and eating. Now, we are seeing that the “rational soul” is relying on particular parts of the brain to move a robotic arm.

 

[Faith1960]

catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=2415395.0%3Bwap2

(Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969) A biological polygenism which the scientific evidence supports can be combined with a theological monogenism where one couple is ensouled by God. This article appeared in the Vatican’s own newspaper and is found on the conservative EWTN site’s document library. [2]The Church has not yet clarified the question of monogenism versus polygenism, though an International Theological Commission document on creation and evolution endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (he was president of the Commission that produced the statement, see bottom of [3] or [4]) from 2004 states:“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.” This passage admits of both monogenetic and polygenetic interpretations, since it is unclear whether the “humanoid population” is to be regarded as the first humans, or the immediate ancestors of the first humans. And further:“The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’” Lastly, the document mentions Adam:“Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.” Most recently, in a January 16, 2006 article in L’Osservatore Romano, Fiorenzo Facchini states:"The spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where and in the ways God willed it."The Vatican has avoided making any recent explicit pronouncement on the question of the theological necessity of monogenism (see Neuner/Dupuis, Roberto Masi, the ITC statement above, and especially “Monogenism and Science” from Jimmy Akin’s blog).

 

[buffalo]

catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=2415395.0%3Bwap2

(Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969) A biological polygenism which the scientific evidence supports can be combined with a theological monogenism where one couple is ensouled by God. This article appeared in the Vatican’s own newspaper and is found on the conservative EWTN site’s document library. [2]The Church has not yet clarified the question of monogenism versus polygenism, though an International Theological Commission document on creation and evolution endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (he was president of the Commission that produced the statement, see bottom of [3] or [4]) from 2004 states:“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.” This passage admits of both monogenetic and polygenetic interpretations, since it is unclear whether the “humanoid population” is to be regarded as the first humans, or the immediate ancestors of the first humans. And further:“The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’” Lastly, the document mentions Adam:“Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.” Most recently, in a January 16, 2006 article in L’Osservatore Romano, Fiorenzo Facchini states:"The spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where and in the ways God willed it."The Vatican has avoided making any recent explicit pronouncement on the question of the theological necessity of monogenism (see Neuner/Dupuis, Roberto Masi, the ITC statement above, and especially “Monogenism and Science” from Jimmy Akin’s blog).

There are several issues with this old statement. It is now known that brain size is not an indicator of intelligence and that the ancients had large brains too.

Again - original sin has to harmonize with polygenism. It begs the question are there living among us humans without original sin?

The out of Africa idea is being challenged today.

Science is provisional and is always being revised. The truth of Revelation is not.

Can we agree the creation of Adam and Eve was supernatural?

 

[grannymh]

.

What I mean by “the consensus view” is spelled out in the International Theological Commission’s Stewardship and Creation (2004). I’ll refer you to #63 therein, since it’s long.

#63 – Can you put all of this into a statement which begins – The consensus view of evolutionary biology, geology, astronomy, and physics (from your original statement) is…

I did spot physical anthropology in #63 and wonder why it was not included in the “consensus view” in which you named a number of sciences. The beginning of #63 implied physics. Now I wonder were geology and astronomy which you referred to is implied in #63. However, there was a general reference to studies in physical and biological sceinces so I guess it is o.k. for a reader to throw in whatever.

No matter. There are some natural difficulties in using this particular #63 reference, considering its make-up and its aim to please. When it said “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, …” it was on target 10 years ago.

 

[Faith1960]

There are several issues with this old statement. It is now known that brain size is not an indicator of intelligence and that the ancients had large brains too.

Again - original sin has to harmonize with polygenism. It begs the question are there living among us humans without original sin?

The out of Africa idea is being challenged today.

By whom? Sources, please?

 

[Faith1960]

I’ve emailed my Bible study teacher as well as one of my priests to see what they have to say about this subject.

 

[buffalo]

Sources, please?

Genetic study challenges theory that modern humans came from just one place in Africa

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2207097/Genetic-study-challenges-theory-modern-humans-came-just-place-Africa.html#ixzz2GfP5xuLI

Skull Fossil Challenges Out-of-Africa Theory

“Before this find, the main reason was that at least these humans had big brains,” said David Lordkipanidze, a paleoanthropologist at the Georgian State Museum in Tbilisi who led the excavation team. “Now this shows that [their brains] were quite small.”
The brain of the new specimen from Dmanisi is about half the size of a modern human’s brain. The two skulls found in 1999 at the site are also about 1.8 million years old and had room for substantially larger brains.

Ancient Teeth in Israel May Point to Oldest Ancestors

you do the rest…

 

[buffalo]

I’ve emailed my Bible study teacher as well as one of my priests to see what they have to say about this subject.

I would love him to be part of this dialogue…

This resource page has the latest science…

 

[grannymh]

There are too many assumptions in that statement to unpack here.

My apology, but I need to leave this thread for a bit in order not to laugh on line.

I need to return to my usual nitty-gritty methods for investigating both science
from a scientific position, and for investigating Catholic doctrines from the position of Divine Revelation.

All the best to you, Faith, and the other posters.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Faith1960]

Genetic study challenges theory that modern humans came from just one place in Africa

From your own link: ‘It is possible that modern humans emerged from a non-homogeneous group,’ said Mattias Jakobsson from Sweden’s Uppsala University, one of the authors.