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

[Al_Moritz]

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.”

I don’t follow. I thought the proposal discussed would precisely avoid incest.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.”

That is true. That same principle shows that incest in the first few generations after Adam is not theologically inconsistent. Theologically it could have happened as you say. Just as evolution could have happened as I say. There is no way to decide between these two developments based on Church dogma alone. And that is as it should be, since Church dogma is not about scientific details that have no bearing on moral truths. That is where science comes in.

Many in this thread have attempted to argue their points (both pro and con evolution) based on scientific evidence. And while that is an interesting line of thought and worth discussing in a thread of its own, it really isn’t the subject of** this** thread, which should be solely about the theological considerations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t follow. I thought the proposal discussed would precisely avoid incest.

grannymh’s point was that the same principle I used to allow “bestiality” could also be used justify incest. The Creationism proposal would precisely avoid bestiality.

 

[Al_Moritz]

grannymh’s point was that the same principle I used to allow “bestiality” could also be used justify incest. The Creationism proposal would precisely avoid bestiality.

But it would allow incest, which is disgusting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But it would allow incest, which is disgusting.

It is a matter of debate which is more disgusting - incest or bestiality. But the point is, at this early time in the human story, neither of these things is necessarily disgusting. Although, from a genetics point of view, incest seems more detrimental.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is a matter of debate which is more disgusting - incest or bestiality. But the point is, at this early time in the human story, neither of these things is necessarily disgusting. Although, from a genetics point of view, incest seems more detrimental.

And the other proposal also fits the scientific evidence of polygenism, while the creationist one does not.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, I have to say that we’ve gotten pretty far off topic here.

Agreed.

I’d be happy to continue this in a separate thread if you’d like

Probably not worth it. I suspect we have both got as deep into this as we wish to, and I suspect that we would end up agreeing to disagree.

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.

If you look at the top right of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist. The Buddhist theory of the origin of the universe, and its causes, differs greatly from the Abrahamic theory used by Christianity. In Buddhism, the universe, defined as “all that exists”, is eternal and has no beginning.

rossum

 

[rossum]

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

The alternative is on-going incest. Remember also, that in this case, because of genetic compatibility, the bestiality is open to life. Viable offspring can be produced, which will have souls if that is God’s wish. The bestiality would be within a biological species – compatible DNA. It would not be across species, and hence not open to life.

I see that openness to life as a real difference in Catholic terms.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

The alternative is on-going incest.

Considering female fertility, how many generations would be needed where it would be absolutely necessary for a parent and child to be married? That is the original incest.

Regarding normal genetics in vertebrates, how do overlapping generations in a single species affect average mutations?

Actually, I am more interested about the original incest of parent/child and how many generations were necessary for this “on-going” incest. Please, anyone, what is the answer?

 

[rossum]

Regarding normal genetics in vertebrates, how do overlapping generations in a single species affect average mutations?

Incest does not affect the number of new mutations in offspring. It does increase the chances of inheriting two copies of a defective gene from an earlier generation. If a parent has a recessive defective gene, then there is a 25% chance that a child of two siblings will have two copies of the recessive and so it will be expressed.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Considering female fertility, how many generations would be needed where it would be absolutely necessary for a parent and child to be married? That is the original incest.

Regarding normal genetics in vertebrates, how do overlapping generations in a single species affect average mutations?

Actually, I am more interested about the original incest of parent/child and how many generations were necessary for this “on-going” incest. Please, anyone, what is the answer?

You want your limited incest? OK, you can have your limited incest. We can propose that after letting the human body evolve from lower animals, God picked two of them - Adam and Eve - gave them a soul, and then miraculously killed off all others in that population. Or miraculously removed them to where they could not interbreed with Man. In either case, you can have monogenesis and evolution. I said there were probably an infinite number of possible ways that evolution could be compatible with God’s Creation.

 

[grannymh]

You want your limited incest? OK, you can have your limited incest. We can propose that after letting the human body evolve from lower animals, God picked two of them - Adam and Eve - gave them a soul, and then miraculously killed off all others in that population. Or miraculously removed them to where they could not interbreed with Man. In either case, you can have monogenesis and evolution. I said there were probably an infinite number of possible ways that evolution could be compatible with God’s Creation.

What I want is a fair examination of this comment in post 635.
“The alternative is on-going incest.”

Logically, it is essential that one examines the beginning of the on-going incest alternative. The evolution model can be connected to this examination because science has linked certain diseases to the genetics involved in descendants.

Therefore, I am looking for the answer to a simple question about the original incest occurring between parent and child. Adam did not have siblings to marry; thus the first incest relationship would be with his daughter.

Now, please, what is the answer to this question from post 636?

Considering female fertility, how many generations would be needed where it would be absolutely necessary for a parent and child to be married?

​

 

[grannymh]

You want your limited incest? OK, you can have your limited incest. We can propose that after letting the human body evolve from lower animals, God picked two of them - Adam and Eve - gave them a soul, and then miraculously killed off all others in that population. Or miraculously removed them to where they could not interbreed with Man. In either case, you can have monogenesis and evolution. I said there were probably an infinite number of possible ways that evolution could be compatible with God’s Creation.

A side issue, which you may want to consider, is found in CCC 362-365.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What I want is a fair examination of this comment in post 635.
“The alternative is on-going incest.”

Logically, it is essential that one examines the beginning of the on-going incest alternative. The evolution model can be connected to this examination because science has linked certain diseases to the genetics involved in descendants.

Therefore, I am looking for the answer to a simple question about the original incest occurring between parent and child. Adam did not have siblings to marry; thus the first incest relationship would be with his daughter.

Now, please, what is the answer to this question from post 636?

Considering female fertility, how many generations would be needed where it would be absolutely necessary for a parent and child to be married?

​

You can ask a never-ending series of questions about how could this be and how could that be. One is not obligated to answer them if their only goal is to show that evolution is possible and permitted by Church teaching.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A side issue, which you may want to consider, is found in CCC 362-365.

Yes, I read them. They do not seem to be at odds with evolution. It is odd, however, that the Pope overlooked these paragraphs when making his statements about evolution. I guess he must not be that familiar with the catechism.

 

[grannymh]

You can ask a never-ending series of questions about how could this be and how could that be. One is not obligated to answer them if their only goal is to show that evolution is possible and permitted by Church teaching.

As the last sentence in post 636 says.
“Please, anyone, what is the answer?”

There is no obligation for you to answer a question regarding this statement.
“The alternative is on-going incest.”

Actually, the problem of modern incest is often brought up when one is talking about the contemporary Science of Human Evolution. The Science of Human Evolution solution is that humans evolved as a breeding population which eliminates the major Catholic doctrine on human origin.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Science of Human Evolution solution is that humans evolved as a breeding population which eliminates the major Catholic doctrine on human origin.

You keep saying this, but have yet to show that it is true.

 

[clem456]

As the last sentence in post 636 says.
“Please, anyone, what is the answer?”

There is no obligation for you to answer a question regarding this statement.
“The alternative is on-going incest.”

Actually, the problem of modern incest is often brought up when one is talking about the contemporary Science of Human Evolution. The Science of Human Evolution solution is that humans evolved as a breeding population which eliminates the major Catholic doctrine on human origin.

This statement is false. Repeated intentionally, it becomes a lie.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I read them. They do not seem to be at odds with evolution. It is odd, however, that the Pope overlooked these paragraphs when making his statements about evolution. I guess he must not be that familiar with the catechism.

The key words in CCC 365 are “… the body made of matter becomes a living, human body …” In contrast, the current Science of Human Evolution posits that it is a population of “matter” which becomes humanity in the plural.

The Science of Human Evolution does not accept the idea that one body, with the spouse of the one body, were capable of founding a species which is peerless. This basic principle is separate from the normal principles found in the general evolution model.

The evolution principle of adaption is a basic in the medical arena. The evolution principle of adaption continues in recent research papers on humans living in extremely high altitudes. Natural science itself is a gift from God. However, the Popes (plural intended) do not accept those theories which directly intersect and deny basic Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature.

 

[grannymh]

You keep saying this, but have yet to show that it is true.

I are not talking about truth per se.

I am talking about what the Science of Human Evolution says about human origin. Before one can talk about the intersection of the evolution model with Catholic doctrine, it is essential to actually understand what the Science of Human Evolution is proposing.