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

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

This is not a contrast. It is two ways of describing the same thing. If they appear different it is because they are addressing different aspects of the same humanity.

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.

The Science of Human Evolution says nothing that prohibits this understanding.

This basic principle is separate from the normal principles found in the general evolution model.

I am not aware of any basic difference between the “general evolution model” and the “Science of Human Evolution”, except maybe that the later uses capital letters?

However, the Popes (plural intended) do not accept those theories which directly intersect and deny basic Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature.

…which don’t actually include the evolution of the human body.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Hear, hear!

 

[buffalo]

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

I see no problem with Adam and Eve’s direct descendants as their genetics were really good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I see no problem with Adam and Eve’s direct descendants as their genetics were really good.

Maybe. But this is a guess on your part. The perfection that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the fall was a perfection of their relationship with God. It was not necessarily expressed in their DNA as a lack of potentially unfavorable mutations.

 

[grannymh]

This is not a contrast. It is two ways of describing the same thing. If they appear different it is because they are addressing different aspects of the same humanity.

The Science of Human Evolution says nothing that prohibits this understanding.

I am not aware of any basic difference between the “general evolution model” and the “Science of Human Evolution”, except maybe that the later uses capital letters?

…which don’t actually include the evolution of the human body.

This is one of the few times that I am speechless.

No comments.
Curious readers can go back to post 646. If a specific clarification from the position of the Science of Human Evolution is needed, I will attempt to find my voice.

 

[pepipop]

Maybe. But this is a guess on your part. The perfection that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the fall was a perfection of their relationship with God. It was not necessarily expressed in their DNA as a lack of potentially unfavorable mutations.

Well it could be seen to be so, as after the fall sickness and death affected the human race and hereditary diseases are now associated with genetic mutations within families.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, their offspring would not have had such ailments hence it could be assumed that their DNA would have remained pure.

 

[clem456]

This is one of the few times that I am speechless.

No comments.
Curious readers can go back to post 646. If a specific clarification from the position of the Science of Human Evolution is needed, I will attempt to find my voice.

Since you are speechless maybe readers can take the time to simply read what the Church has said. That would be a wise thing.
It is good, finally, that you reference what the Church actually says. It was referenced several times earlier, that man is a unity of body and soul.
Notice that you won’t find a scientific explanation from the Church on exactly how our first two parents came to be in their physical makeup.

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 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."229 **Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. **

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: **“soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. **
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well it could be seen to be so, as after the fall sickness and death affected the human race and hereditary diseases are now associated with genetic mutations within families.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, their offspring would not have had such ailments hence it could be assumed that their DNA would have remained pure.

God, being omniscient, would know that Man would sin. Therefore He could allow the imperfections to develop ahead of time, knowing that they would not result in any actual punishment until after the fall. One must be very careful in using in their argument suppositions about what would have happened if such and such a thing did not happen. Since it did happen (the fall) we can say nothing concrete about what would have happened if it had turned out otherwise. All we can say is that Man was meant for something better, but because of his disobedience, he now suffers. Just because Man was meant for something better, that does not mean the “something better” must have been already in the works (in the form of perfect DNA).

 

[grannymh]

Since you are speechless maybe readers can take the time to simply read what the Church has said. That would be a wise thing.
It is good, finally, that you reference what the Church actually says. It was referenced several times earlier, that man is a unity of body and soul.

As I said, I would attempt a specific clarification from the position of the Science of Human Evolution.

The Science of Human Evolution directly denies the spirituality of the soul as expressed in CCC 362-366.

From link newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

St. John Paul II said:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Brielfy, incompatible is a very strong word.

 

[clem456]

St. John Paul II said:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Brielfy, incompatible is a very strong word.

So is “which”.
Different conclusions about the spirit, and therefore the origin of humanity, are reached by different scientists. Or more properly, some scientists wisely reach no conclusion on the origin of the spirit, recognizing it is not within their competence. Even those using the same scientific evidence may reach different conclusions or no conclusion regarding “spirit”. JP2 makes a distinction by using the word “which” to distinguish between philosophies that reach improper conclusions, and those that don’t. The grounds he is using to reject a scientific line of reasoning is if they consider “the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter” rather than created by God from nothing material.

Some scientists take the leap too far, some don’t. Some Catholics take the opposite leap unfortunately.

 

[rossum]

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

A population of two people (or of eight after the flood) would constitute a genetic bottleneck. The effects of a recent genetic bottleneck can be detected today. For example, cheetahs had a serious bottleneck about 10,000 years ago, with a breeding population as small as a single family. Modern cheetahs are so closely related genetically that any cheetah can accept a skin graft from any other cheetah, there is no rejection because they are so similar.

Studies on genetic bottlenecks in our past show that the lowest human population was between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago – possibly associated with the Toba eruption. Any smaller bottleneck would have been more than five million years ago, before our line separated from the line leading to the chimpanzees.

Of course, none of this says anything about whether or not any of those 1,000+ pairs had souls. A soul does not appear in DNA.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I see no problem with Adam and Eve’s direct descendants as their genetics were really good.

So, where is your listing of Adam, of Eve’s DNA sequence? Perhaps scientists could use it to cure many genetic diseases. You do have supporting evidence of DNA sequences, don’t you? Of course, these would be the post-fall sequences, since there were no children pre-fall.

rossum

 

[Monkey1976]

As I said, I would attempt a specific clarification from the position of the Science of Human Evolution.

The Science of Human Evolution directly denies the spirituality of the soul as expressed in CCC 362-366.

Evolutionary biology doesn’t deny the soul at all, it’s simply silent on a topic which is outside its purview. Physics never mentions the soul - is it opposed to the Church? Chemistry is silent on God - is it an atheistic plot? Mathematics says not a word about spirituality - is it against Scripture?

From link newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

St. John Paul II said:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Brielfy, incompatible is a very strong word.

Those theories of evolution which make any claim on the soul are not doing science, they’re doing philosophy. That’s not evolution, that’s evolutionISM - a totally different beast.

 

[clem456]

Evolutionary biology doesn’t deny the soul at all, it’s simply silent on a topic which is outside its purview. Physics never mentions the soul - is it opposed to the Church? Chemistry is silent on God - is it an atheistic plot? Mathematics says not a word about spirituality - is it against Scripture?

Those theories of evolution which make any claim on the soul are not doing science, they’re doing philosophy. That’s not evolution, that’s evolutionISM - a totally different beast.

Thanks for the clarity and simplicity.
I’m lovin’ your screen name on this thread.

 

[grannymh]

People have to move beyond the era of the Piltdown Man in order to understand current research which followed Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell. A lack of awareness is probably why some people do not understand what St. John Paul II was saying in post 656.

Truly, some common sense should be applied to a discipline like the Science of Human Evolution which is conducted in the material/physical world.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A population of two people (or of eight after the flood) would constitute a genetic bottleneck. The effects of a recent genetic bottleneck can be detected today. For example, cheetahs had a serious bottleneck about 10,000 years ago, with a breeding population as small as a single family. Modern cheetahs are so closely related genetically that any cheetah can accept a skin graft from any other cheetah, there is no rejection because they are so similar.

Studies on genetic bottlenecks in our past show that the lowest human population was between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago – possibly associated with the Toba eruption. Any smaller bottleneck would have been more than five million years ago, before our line separated from the line leading to the chimpanzees.

This does give more weight to the “bestiality” solution to reconciling evolution with Church teaching, because such a solution totally avoids the genetic bottleneck. However I have to wonder how solid these conclusions about genetic diversity as a function of time. Sure, we have probabilistic estimates of the rate of genetic drift, but they are only estimates, and the are based on probability. And they are based on the assumption of the rate being essentially constant. They are not certainties. It is possible that there was only one breeding pair, and that for some reason we do not yet know, that line experienced a higher genetic drift than the assumed rate in the 70,000 years ago conclusion.

 

[rossum]

This does give more weight to the “bestiality” solution to reconciling evolution with Church teaching, because such a solution totally avoids the genetic bottleneck. However I have to wonder how solid these conclusions about genetic diversity as a function of time. Sure, we have probabilistic estimates of the rate of genetic drift, but they are only estimates, and the are based on probability. And they are based on the assumption of the rate being essentially constant. They are not certainties. It is possible that there was only one breeding pair, and that for some reason we do not yet know, that line experienced a higher genetic drift than the assumed rate in the 70,000 years ago conclusion.

And it is possible that Loki created the world last Thursday with the appearance of age. Science works with the best estimates currently available. When better estimates come along, then the calculations are reworked with the new estimates. That is why so much of science is provisional – we might find a better estimate in future or a better theory in future.

Very little of science is certain, it is only accurate to within the stated degree of error. Popularisations often omit the error bars. For example, we only know the gravitational constant to eight decimal places of accuracy.

rossum

 

[Rin]

And it is possible that Loki created the world last Thursday with the appearance of age.

It’s also possible that God will create the Universe tomorrow, and that our memories of having this debate are mere constructs to fool us into thinking the Universe existed today.

It’s even more possible (I’d say plausible) that the Universe is a mere simulation, to play with different sets of physical laws or something. That would, interestingly, be more or less compatible with Catholic doctrine, though with a few kind of far fetched interpretations.

Science works with the best estimates currently available.

Indeed.

 

[tomarin]

It’s also possible that God will create the Universe tomorrow, and that our memories of having this debate are mere constructs to fool us into thinking the Universe existed today.

It’s even more possible (I’d say plausible) that the Universe is a mere simulation, to play with different sets of physical laws or something. That would, interestingly, be more or less compatible with Catholic doctrine, though with a few kind of far fetched interpretations.

Indeed.

I’m sticking with Loki.

 

[Rin]

I’m sticking with Loki.

It definitely has a ring to it.