Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[LeafByNiggle]

May I gently add a qualification. It is the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic doctrine on human origin. This is because the base or foundation for the Science of Human Evolution is genetics which requires large populations. Large populations contradict a population of two first founders of the human species.

Since you have no trouble integrating the miraculous into the development of humans, let me suggest a possible explanation of how the human body could have evolved from non-humans, yet all humans are descended from one couple. As the pre-human body was evolving, at some point, one couple was picked by God to be the first humans in the sense that they would have an eternal soul. So there is the first miracle - the infusion of two souls into two individuals. From this point on, we can hypothesize that offspring of Adam and Eve might breed with other, not quite humans, and that God would ensure that the offspring of any such union would have an eternal soul, and be fully human. Then, either because having a soul confers a survival advantage, or because God ensured it would happen this way, these non-ensouled pre-humans eventually either breed with real humans or died out. That would explain why today all humans are in fact descendents of Adam and Eve. And all it took was allowing God a little freedom to do things in a way you might not expect.

Now I am not claiming this is how things actually happened. This is just one imaginary course of development. There are probably infinitely many others. The fact that we don’t know which of these paths was taken is no reason to discount all potential explanations, leaving only the rabbit-out-of-a-hat description offered by anti-evolutionists.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, I’m trying to be polite here, but this is the second time you’ve side-stepped the issue.

I have not side-stepped the issue. I suspect that your understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is at fault.

Where did that energy come from. As a physical entity, it could not have created itself.

It came from nowhere and it went nowhere. It did it quickly enough that the universe did not notice it. For a more detailed explanation see Uncertainty Principle.

Yes, but that specific number is literally called an imaginary number, which means that it doesn’t -actually- exist, even within the confines of theoretical mathematics. It is used in high-level mathematics to complete equations which would otherwise be unsolvable.

Your understanding of mathematics is faulty. Imaginary numbers are just as real as any other mathematical object. They are defined based on axioms and follow the rules derived from those axioms. Fundamentally, a Mathematician sees the number “3” as S(S(S(0))). Do not be mislead by the name applied to “i”. A number like pi is called “irrational”. That does not mean that a rational person cannot accept the existence of pi.

Rossum, bluntly, this makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn’t even remotely apply to what I said. I said that an external creative force is necessary in an effort to distinguish the term create from what you said it was similar to, which it is not.

The multiverse is external to our STEM universe that started at the Big Bang. Given that, does the multiverse meet all your conditions to be an external creative/causative force?

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle does not say what you claim it says. Summed up, it states that:

The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

(emphasis added)

That is correct. For a very short time you can have a small amount of energy without the universe noticing. As long as the product of the energy and time are less than h-bar / 2 then the universe doesn’t notice. The product is hidden by the uncertainty, which is always greater than h-bar / 2, so the short-lived virtual particle cannot be distinguished from zero energy lasting for zero time.

It has nothing to do with energy popping in an out of existence at random.

It does. As I have emphasised, quantum mechanics is very strange. Uncertainty sets a fuzzy limit, and all sorts of strange things can go on inside that fuzz.

-IF- the multiverse was eternal then sure it doesn’t need any external cause.

-IF- God was eternal …

My cells do decay, my batteries do run out, and the multiverse hasn’t existed eternally, for the reason I have given previously (namely, that that would violate the first and most basic principle of physics). Therefore, it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for it to have had an external cause that is not part of the physical reality said multiverse would inhabit.

The multiverse does not inhabit the STEM universe which started at the Big Bang. That is enough for it to be a cause of the Big Bang and hence the STEM universe. If you want your God to have created the multiverse, then that is theology, not science.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
May I gently add a qualification. It is the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic doctrine on human origin. This is because the base or foundation for the Science of Human Evolution is genetics which requires large populations. Large populations contradict a population of two first founders of the human species.

I have to wonder why posters go on contradicting the words of Popes.

Could it be that some persons are not familiar with Church-Speak? When it is applied to the current Science of Human Evolution?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Rossum, I have to say that we’ve gotten pretty far off topic here. I’d be happy to continue this in a separate thread if you’d like, but am unfortunately unable to do so today. I will admit that my understanding of i was deeply flawed, and lead to invalid conclusions on my part, I’ll read up on it to correct this problem.

To answer your questions in brief, It does not matter how many levels of multiverse there are above our own, they can never fulfill the requirements of being an abolute cause because they each have their own cause, meaning that they are not the initial cause. No matter how many multiverses there are, you cannot escape this fact. Therefore, the multiverse theory can never be used to explain the absolute origin of creation.

Hesienburg still assumes the existence of “space” for the energy to inhabit, which is itself a quality of physical existence. When discussing the absolute origin of creation you have to consider a completely non-physical reality. This means that there is no “space” for this energy to inhabit and do it’s thing. In fact, that’s no space for it to pop 'into" at all. In a preexisting physical reality, I agree that this is possible, but not in a true void (which has no physical characteristics such as “space”)

 

[clem456]

Could it be that some persons are not familiar with Church-Speak? When it is applied to the current Science of Human Evolution?

Words of the Popes should be taken at face value.

Originally Posted by grannymh
May I gently add a qualification. It is the Science of Human Evolution which directly opposes the Catholic doctrine on human origin. This is because the base or foundation for the Science of Human Evolution is genetics which requires large populations. Large populations contradict a population of two first founders of the human species.

In case any non-Catholics are reading this, the science of human evolution and Catholic doctrine of human origin are not at odds per se. The above is a posters opinion. This opinion directly contradicts what the Church plainly says.

 

[Rin]

Since you have no trouble integrating the miraculous into the development of humans, let me suggest a possible explanation of how the human body could have evolved from non-humans, yet all humans are descended from one couple. As the pre-human body was evolving, at some point, one couple was picked by God to be the first humans in the sense that they would have an eternal soul. So there is the first miracle - the infusion of two souls into two individuals. From this point on, we can hypothesize that offspring of Adam and Eve might breed with other, not quite humans, and that God would ensure that the offspring of any such union would have an eternal soul, and be fully human. Then, either because having a soul confers a survival advantage, or because God ensured it would happen this way, these non-ensouled pre-humans eventually either breed with real humans or died out. That would explain why today all humans are in fact descendents of Adam and Eve. And all it took was allowing God a little freedom to do things in a way you might not expect.

Now I am not claiming this is how things actually happened. This is just one imaginary course of development. There are probably infinitely many others. The fact that we don’t know which of these paths was taken is no reason to discount all potential explanations, leaving only the rabbit-out-of-a-hat description offered by anti-evolutionists.

Such an explanation would also fit a lot better with Genesis’ acount of the Cain and Abel event, wherein Cain receives a mark so that “whosoever found him should not kill him”, for killing his brother.

This story only makes sense if:

1. 
   *]There were sentient, but not-yet-possessing-rational-souls hominids present, with whom the children of Adam and Eve could procreate, and who would have be the ones to find him, or
   *]an insane amount of incest, magically prevented from causing genetic disorders en masse, combined with unbelievably high growth rate, happened.
   
   Given that Scripture also tells us that “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4), it seems clear to me that the writer of Genesis was aware of non-human, but genetically compatible, beings, being present during the genesis of mankind.
   
   To delve into purely personal and pseudo-scientific musings, the verse about giants coincides well with the hypothesis of intermingling between neanderthals and humans. Though of course, that happened long after the first humans.

 

[edwest2]

But you already front-loaded your argument. You believe the supernatural is necessary for the origination of species and life. I don’t believe this is the case (the human rational soul, as immaterial entity, is a different matter). The natural causes, the secondary causes that God created as the First Cause, are doing just fine for this. Even for the origin of life they do, as I am convinced, see my overview article.

It almost seems that you think natural causes are somehow in creative competition with God, as ‘godless causes’. On the contrary, God is the One who created the natural causes through which He continues to create.

Respectfully, science texts do not support the last statement. Any belief system can tack on the comment that God/gods/beings did it but that is not relevant to the self-imposed natural explanations only limit.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Such an explanation would also fit a lot better with Genesis’ acount of the Cain and Abel event, wherein Cain receives a mark so that “whosoever found him should not kill him”, for killing his brother.

This story only makes sense if:

1. 
   *]There were sentient, but not-yet-possessing-rational-souls hominids present, with whom the children of Adam and Eve could procreate, and who would have be the ones to find him, or
   *]an insane amount of incest, magically prevented from causing genetic disorders en masse, combined with unbelievably high growth rate, happened.
   
   Given that Scripture also tells us that “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4), it seems clear to me that the writer of Genesis was aware of non-human, but genetically compatible, beings, being present during the genesis of mankind.
   
   To delve into purely personal and pseudo-scientific musings, the verse about giants coincides well with the hypothesis of intermingling between neanderthals and humans. Though of course, that happened long after the first humans.

1. 
   Humani Generis is quite clear about human beings:
   
   “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]”
   
   Best,
   Ed

 

[edwest2]

I am sure that the Pope had some excellent advice from the scientists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

The fact of evolution has been observed. We have seen bacteria evolve immunity and we have seen new species of insects, reptiles and others evolve. IIRC the first instance of observed speciation was seen by de Vries in 1905. Pope emeritus Benedict is correct that the theory of evolution will never be proven since no scientific theory is ever proven. All theories are open to replacement by a better theory, just as Newton’s theory of was replaced by Einstein’s.

I would be interested to see a paper showing direct experimental evidence of God as a causal agent. Specifically it would be interesting to see how the experimenters prevented Loki/Trickster messing with the experiment to make it appear that Durga was the deity involved.

rossum

And that is the crux of the issue.

Best,
Ed

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Humani Generis is quite clear about human beings:

“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]”

You present this as if it contradicts the conjecture that descendents of Adam might have bred with individuals who were not descendents of Adam. The offspring of such a union would still "take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all", and Adam would still be a single individual, not “a certain number of first parents”. So what’s the problem?

 

[grannymh]

Words of the Popes should be taken at face value.

In case any non-Catholics are reading this, the science of human evolution and Catholic doctrine of human origin are not at odds per se. The above is a posters opinion. This opinion directly contradicts what the Church plainly says.

For those who are interested in the current Science of Human Evolution, it is necessary to learn how the current Cladistics System is diagramed. Each point on the diagram represents a breeding population. Some of these populations are designated as a common ancestor. Unfortunately, when one studies the Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) divergence diagram, the subsequent lines do not show a population of two human founders as the final extant hominins. No founding population of two is what contradicts the teachings of Catholicism.

 

[grannymh]

You present this as if it contradicts the conjecture that descendents of Adam might have bred with individuals who were not descendents of Adam. The offspring of such a union would still "take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all", and Adam would still be a single individual, not “a certain number of first parents”. So what’s the problem?

One needs to be careful about proposing on-going bestiality as a substitute for marriage in the first few human generations.

 

[RGCheek]

-IF- God was eternal …

If God = ‘the eternal Creator’ then if God is not eternal then God is not the eternal Creator by definition and we would be discussing tow different things.

IF what you call God is not eternal and exists outside the flow of time then that thing is not God as in God as the Eternal Creator.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One needs to be careful about proposing on-going bestiality as a substitute for marriage in the first few human generations.

This would not be bestiality. The individuals that the children of Adam and Eve might have breed with would not have appeared as “beasts” or “lower animals” in the modern sense, but would have looked very much like the descendents of Adam and Eve. And marriage would not have taken the modern form either. One needs to be careful about applying modern understanding of proper behavior to these unique moments in our creation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Respectfully, science texts do not support the last statement.

That’s not the point here. It should be obvious that that last statement was a philosophical/theological one, and had nothing to do with science which cannot make any pronouncements about such things either way.

 

[edwest2]

This would not be bestiality. The individuals that the children of Adam and Eve might have breed with would not have appeared as “beasts” or “lower animals” in the modern sense, but would have looked very much like the descendents of Adam and Eve. And marriage would not have taken the modern form either. One needs to be careful about applying modern understanding of proper behavior to these unique moments in our creation.

A totally unscientific idea has been proposed here for some time that Adam and Eve were not our first parents but the result of God dropping souls into two almost humans. There is no Biblical support for this idea either. Non-humans would be animals.

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Best,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

One needs to be careful about applying modern understanding of proper behavior to these unique moments in our creation.

Indeed.

 

[clem456]

A totally unscientific idea has been proposed here for some time that Adam and Eve were not our first parents but the result of God dropping souls into two almost humans. There is no Biblical support for this idea either. Non-humans would be animals.

Best,
Ed

Ed, what is the difference between an almost human and a human?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
One needs to be careful about applying modern understanding of proper behavior to these unique moments in our creation.

Indeed.

Sorry, Al, but I can’t resist commenting that marriage between siblings and cousins in the first few generations following two real founders of humankind is a good example of the comment:
“One needs to be careful about applying modern understanding of proper behavior to these unique moments in our creation.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A totally unscientific idea has been proposed here for some time that Adam and Eve were not our first parents but the result of God dropping souls into two almost humans. There is no Biblical support for this idea either. Non-humans would be animals.

First of all, the idea has** not** been proposed that Adam and Eve were not parents to all humans. Secondly, you denigrate the idea of God dropping souls to two almost humans, while having no problem with the idea of God dropping souls into a lump of clay and a rib. Why is it more noble to do the later than the former? Third, not everything that might have happened has Biblical support for it actually happening. The right question to ask is what is the Biblical evidence - or more properly - the Church dogma evidence, that it couldn’t have happened as I said?

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

…And nothing in the proposed mechanism is in conflict with this teaching, as the Pope’s recent statement, and all recent teaching of the Church affirms.