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

[Rin]

Well, apparently it depends on which camp the scientist you ask is in. Does he believe the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, in which case he would likely say that Neanderthals are a separate species, but if he is a ‘Sahara Pump’ believer, then he will consider Neanderthal a sub-species of human instead.

Apparently there is no consensus among scientists on the question.

From what I understand, the ‘Out of Africa’ model is the most widely accepted hypothesis. But you’re right, it would be premature to speak of consensus.

 

[rossum]

Does anyone here know how the theory of cumulative evolution is viewed by Hindus and Buddhists? Not to try to derail, I am just intensely curious how their ideas about reincarnation would play into it.

Evolution deals with the physical body, and only the physical body. In Buddhism there are five components to a human being, and only one of them is the physical body. The other four are non-physical: feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. The Buddha was far more interested in the other four than in the physical body.

As for rebirth, the physical body develops from the parents in the usual way. The ‘formations’ component is what carries over from the previous life. The other three: feelings, perceptions and consciousness, develop as the child grows in the womb. For example, perceptions do not appear until the sense organs have developed and are connected to the brain.

HTH

rossum

 

[clem456]

May I gently and respectfully ask if you are referring to a particular post when you comment "If you believe your scientific viewpoint is Divine Revelation, all kinds of really bad problems arise. Post 726 simply refers to Divine Revelation.:extrahappy:

Or you may be making a general comment. In that case, when you have a specific question which would require knowing my scientific viewpoint, I will be delighted to respond.

We are having a discussion about the Pope’s statement’s regarding evolution and creation.
You have shown contempt for scientific viewpoints that disagree with your viewpoint.
I am pointing out that science is not divine revelation (it is not).
I would hope you are happy that other Catholics also accept divine revelation, even though they accept different scientific explanations of the world around us.
Or are others less Catholic because they disagree with you?

 

[Monkey1976]

The council didn’t have to know about modern theories of creation. The point is that the the council affirmed that God created all things at once by his own power,whereas theistic evolutionists say that God created species through gradual processes and that God gave nature the ability to create species on its own,according to his intentions. These views cannot both be true

Of course they can. At the moment of creation - the Big Bang - every single particle in the universe was created. Look at your hand. Every atom there came from the heart of a star that exploded billions of years ago. The neutrons, protons, electrons, and quarks which make up those atoms are even older - most of them go right back to the moment of creation itself. Those that don’t were created in reactions using materials and energy that are that old. When God said “Let there be light”, He knew exactly what the entirety of the universe would look like throughout its existence from creation until the end of time. The universe doesn’t create ex nihilo - only God can do that. But what He appears to have done is infuse a set of rules into the universe which we are just barely beginning to understand, and which spark wonder and amazement at every turn.

The popes never denied that the creation stories were historically accurate. That would be like saying that God did not create all things and that Adam and Eve did not exist and there was never an original sin and that creation never fell from perfect grace,and that all the other persons and events recorded in Genesis were not real. The popes acknowledged that the writers of scripture used the language of their times and cultures,but that does not mean they denied that Catholics take the stories as historically accurate,and it is not an admission that the stories are not historically accurate. Catholics have always taken the stories as history,because that is how the stories appear and how they are taught and preached. To judge against a historical understanding of the stories would be a presumptuous judgement not only on the intention of the writer,but also on historical reality.

Are we to deny the historical truth of statements in Genesis which say simply that God created things,just because Genesis has a few sentences that can be taken figuratively,or because of the style of writing?

And why make a separation between real and historically accurate? If the events and things and persons of Genesis were real,then the stories are historically accurate for that reason. Historical accuracy is not limited to particular details and exact chronology. Simple statements about the past that are true are also historically accurate.

There really is no contradiction between modern science and revelation. Revelation tells us the who and why - science tells the how. God created man out of the dust of the earth, but Scripture is silent as to exactly what God did or how long that process took in our terms. One translation of the name “Adam” is “man of the red earth”. The oldest extant human population is the San of the Kalahari desert, and the particular region they live in is notable for the red color of the dirt.

 

[grannymh]

There really is no contradiction between modern science and revelation. Revelation tells us the who and why - science tells the how.

Currently, Catholic teachings directly contradict the modern science “how” which proclaims that the possibility of two sole founders (Adam & Eve) of humankind is a complete universal impossibility.

Information source. Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” published in Science, a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Monkey1976]

Currently, Catholic teachings directly contradict the modern science “how” which proclaims that the possibility of two sole founders (Adam & Eve) of humankind is a complete universal impossibility.

Information source. Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” published in Science, a peer-reviewed journal.

You may want to look at something that’s less than 20 years old. Current research puts “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” as living at very nearly the same time: nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

Every living human can trace the DNA in their mitochondria back to just one woman. And every living man can trace his Y-chromosome back to just one man. The more these two are investigated, the closer the date ranges for their lives become - at this point, the ranges have a significant amount of overlap.

 

[Kelt]

You may want to look at something that’s less than 20 years old. Current research puts “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” as living at very nearly the same time: nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

Every living human can trace the DNA in their mitochondria back to just one woman. And every living man can trace his Y-chromosome back to just one man. The more these two are investigated, the closer the date ranges for their lives become - at this point, the ranges have a significant amount of overlap.

But just because mitochrodrial Eve is the last woman to whom all women alive can trace their DNA, it doesn’t mean there weren’t other women alive with Eve! Likewise with Y-chromosome Adam.

 

[Faith1960]

But just because mitochrodrial Eve is the last woman to whom all women alive can trace their DNA, it doesn’t mean there weren’t other women alive with Eve! Likewise with Y-chromosome Adam.

The link Monkey posted says Adam wasn’t the only man at that time.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, apparently it depends on which camp the scientist you ask is in. Does he believe the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, in which case he would likely say that Neanderthals are a separate species, but if he is a ‘Sahara Pump’ believer, then he will consider Neanderthal a sub-species of human instead.

Apparently there is no consensus among scientists on the question.

But does that matter with regards to us reproducing with the Neanderthals? I mean, if they were a separate species could humans have interbred with the Neanderthals?

 

[Kelt]

The link Monkey posted says Adam wasn’t the only man at that time.

Yes quite, so we’re no closer to there being the possibility of an Adam and Eve like in the Genesis story!

 

[grannymh]

Yes quite, so we’re no closer to there being the possibility of an Adam and Eve like in the Genesis story!

Ah, my favorite word – possibility.

Is anyone familiar with the story of the Black Swan?

 

[RGCheek]

But does that matter with regards to us reproducing with the Neanderthals? I mean, if they were a separate species could humans have interbred with the Neanderthals?

Neanderthal DNA is in there for most of us.

Interbreeding seems to me the most likely explanation though other things could be the cause.

 

[RGCheek]

From what I understand, the ‘Out of Africa’ model is the most widely accepted hypothesis. But you’re right, it would be premature to speak of consensus.

The ‘Sahara Pump’ theory is a kind of blend of the regional theories and the ‘Out of Africa’ theories and takes into account the climate changes that would have driven people out of Africa on a cyclic basis.

 

[Faith1960]

Neanderthal DNA is in there for most of us.

Interbreeding seems to me the most likely explanation though other things could be the cause.

But if Neanderthals were a different species could they still have interbred with humans?

 

[RGCheek]

But if Neanderthals were a different species could they still have interbred with humans?

It isn’t necessarily the case any more.

In the rush to ‘discover’ a new species, many new species are simply invented on the basis of different locations with a roadway between them or bars in their tail feathers instead of spots.

Lots of things considered separate species can still interbreed with a slightly different species.

 

[Faith1960]

It isn’t necessarily the case any more.

In the rush to ‘discover’ a new species, many new species are simply invented on the basis of different locations with a roadway between them or bars in their tail feathers instead of spots.

Lots of things considered separate species can still interbreed with a slightly different species.

I dont understand your answer. Are you saying that humans could’ve interbred with a different species?

 

[RGCheek]

I dont understand your answer. Are you saying that humans could’ve interbred with a different species?

Why not? There are examples of separate species interbreeding.

There is DNA in Homo Sapien DNA.

The general rule is that breed capable but visibly different animal types were subspecies to each other, but not any more, I guess.

 

[Kelt]

Ah, my favorite word – possibility.

Is anyone familiar with the story of the Black Swan?

I think you’re grasping at straws to bring in the black swan effect to prove that humans popped out of nowhere from one couple of individuals.
A few hundred years ago it was pretty easy to believe in magic and to accept simple stories as to our origin. In this day and age we know too much to be able to do that rationally. Instead of continually trying to bend the evidence to fit an ancient, rather comforting, simple story, it’s time to look at it differently. It’s not necessary to reject a religion, but it is necessary to adapt. Look at Galileo…

 

[grannymh]

I think you’re grasping at straws to bring in the black swan effect to prove that humans popped out of nowhere from one couple of individuals.
A few hundred years ago it was pretty easy to believe in magic and to accept simple stories as to our origin. In this day and age we know too much to be able to do that rationally. Instead of continually trying to bend the evidence to fit an ancient, rather comforting, simple story, it’s time to look at it differently. It’s not necessary to reject a religion, but it is necessary to adapt. Look at Galileo…

Excuse me. Perhaps there is need to go back to Google for the science info. Black swans did not pop out of nowhere. They had existed in Australia for some time. Species identification also existed for centuries, that is, since the time of Genesis 2: 19-20.

Note that the first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice. What can be observed in nature is the standard for scientific research. We should not consider nature’s evidence as part of magic as early peoples did.

Here is a proper basic link. svswans.com/black.html

Please accept my apology.
Now, I am sure that the above Black Swan link was read because of this comment from post 765.
“Instead of continually trying to bend the evidence to fit an ancient, rather comforting, simple story, it’s time to look at it differently.”
Scientific comfort is the key to understanding the first sentence in the link. And some, not all, scientific comfort is present in the current somewhat magical approach to human origin.

Here is the telling first sentence from the Black Swan link above. It was definitely time for scientists to look at nature differently.
“Before European explorers had reached Australia, it was believed that all swans were white.”

Obviously, before the black swans were discovered, scientists were very comfortable with their story, that is, the classification of species. Today, we find similar scientific comfort with the somewhat dogmatic claims that the “evidence” from millions of years going backwards is perfect when it comes to declaring only two individual humans as a magic tale. That is amazing since it is impossible to accurately know what was going on every day in every part of planet earth. Perhaps there is a bit of magic in some of the scientific assumptions. My older than dirt brain does consider the computer as somewhat magical.

Here is an additional bit of scientific comfort found at the end of post 765.
“Look at Galileo…”

I looked. Is Galileo listed among the daring paleoanthropologists. Was he a magician in his time, unlocking the secrets of human fossils. Most likely some, not all, people considered him a magician since he could change earth’s position in the sky.

The challenge of those fascinating Black Swans is that scientists needed to look at their methods and materials differently. Perhaps it is time to look differently at the evidence going backwards millions of years. Is there really absolute evidence that the possibility of an individual event is universally denied? The possibility of two individual humans living somewhere on planet earth is all that is needed.

There is a lot more to the Black Swan story than good wine.
blackswanwine.com/

 

[RGCheek]

I think you’re grasping at straws to bring in the black swan effect to prove that humans popped out of nowhere from one couple of individuals.
A few hundred years ago it was pretty easy to believe in magic and to accept simple stories as to our origin. In this day and age we know too much to be able to do that rationally. …

Yeah, too bad we haven’t matured to the point of no longer dismissing the views of others as merely magic when it is nothing of the sort.