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

[RGCheek]

There is no Biblical or scientific support for the idea that God dropped souls into two almost humans.

Peace,
Ed

Sure there is. The question of how and when ensoulment takes place has not only to do with evolution but also of the development of the unborn baby. People ask when the child becomes an ensouled individual human being; at conception, or its ‘quickening’ and movement, or at birth.

In Genesis we have the allegorical story of Adam told by ancient pastoral peoples who told it with emphasis on the moral dimensions in the development of mankind.
In evolution we have the naturalistic factoids that tell us how God made man and it tells us that hominids (creatures of the genus Homo) have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. So a Christian can well ask where in that line of development did the hominids become ensouled and how would we know?

Early hominids learned the making and use of tools by observation and imitation. When mankind learned speech the young hominids learned verbally from their parents and older tribal members as well. But does this indicate the presence of a soul? At some point hominids began to bury their dead, but does this prove ensoulment?

The church does not say at what point humanity became ensouled except to point to the story of Adam. No particular scientific theory is bound on us to believe.

So, in my opinion, ensoulment took place when man was given a gift of moral reflection and is indicated by not how mankind learned but when mankind began to question if some knowledge was evil or good, and if some tools or actions were evil or good. Mankind became its true ensouled self when it became a moral creature.

I think this happened to some small group of hominids just before Toba exploded creating an eight to ten year long winter, and they lived through it because their morality enabled them to survive where other hominids failed. And the one that God first breathed His moral awakening into was Adam, and Adam passed that moral awakening on to others in his tribe, and that small community managed to survive the decades long volcanic winter that nearly wiped mankind from the face of the Earth.

 

[clem456]

There is no Biblical or scientific support for the idea that God dropped souls into two almost humans

Peace,
Ed

The statement simply contradicts itself.

If God dropped a human soul into a being, we have a human being. Human material, infused with a human soul, constitutes a human being. It (he/she) cannot be “almost human”.

 

[grannymh]

784 long - winded posts & nothing is settled!

Just read what is written in Genesis and don’t worry about it. Adam & Eve sinned & Jesus is the new Adam, Who redeemed mankind from eternal damnation!

May I explain. I am giving readers the means which they can then use to examine some of the claims of natural science. There is a difference between giving someone a fish and teaching someone how to fish.

Granted that not everyone is interested in how natural science research works.

Granted that not everyone is intimidated by the claims that Adam and his spouse Eve are figments of the imagination. Nonetheless, since I landed on CAF, there have been a few posters who were obviously being intimidated. They are important readers. Therefore, I am doing my best to give these readers something they can use when they are being intimidated. These hurting readers may never stand up to the frequent point that mountains of science research declares a complete, absolute, universal denial of Adam and Eve by going millions of years backwards. But, maybe more important, theses readers have a good idea How the scientific method is analyzed, learning where the problems are.

I am almost a mind reader.
Since I have not yet earned my degree in reading minds, I try to present enough material so that individual readers can respond in their own individual ways.

Those readers who do not need long-winded posts certainly do not have to read them.
Those who are looking for some kind of anchor to their faith may have to wade through deep water.

 

[Monkey1976]

There is no Biblical or scientific support for the idea that God dropped souls into two almost humans.

Peace,
Ed

Two humans? No. One human? Yes:
Genesis2:7:

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

 

[Hans_W]

May I gently comment on the idea of “molding evidence to fit a particular belief?”

Post 782 clearly states that the operative words are “scientific method.” The first principle of the scientific method is to observe without prejudice. From the position of Pope Francis addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, his audience would surely be insulted if he described their work as “molding evidence.” One does not need to be a Ph.D. scientist to notice the difference between molding and observing.

Going back to the Black Swan link in post 766.
svswans.com/black.html

What was the evidence that was used in the early 1600’s?
Was this evidence observed without prejudice which is the first principle of the scientific method?
Opposing answers may be used in reply to the two questions.

I really can’t see what black swans have got to do with creation or evolution.

For a long time white swans have been the standard textbook example of inductive reasoning: We have observed a million swans - all are white. Therefore the next swan we observe will be white, and therefore all swans are white. That belief was shattered when they came across black swans in Australia.

The old Greeks, 2500 years ago, already recognised the problem of induction. We make particulate observations, then generalise to all cases. Scientists do that all the time - and science has been proven to be very successful with that assumption. But we also know that science doesn’t give us absolute knowledge.

Scientists tell us that copper conducts electricity. The correct statement should be: the hundred million samples of copper we have tested so far all conduct electricity. Therefore, probably, all samples of copper conduct electricity. But there could be a distant galaxy somewhere where this doesn’t hold. And maybe in the year 2098 copper will stop conducting electricity.

Don’t confuse the problem of induction with the “scientific method”. There is no such thing as “a method” in science anyway.

 

[Faith1960]

Two humans? No. One human? Yes:

Where did Eve come from, then?

BTW, I’m from the Lou, too.

 

[clem456]

Where did Eve come from, then?

BTW, I’m from the Lou, too.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb8.htm
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb9.htm

The excerpt below is also instructive material for those who like to read scripture as if it were a science textbook.

1. Following the Yahwist text, in which the creation of woman was described separately (Gn 2:21-22), we must have before our eyes, at the same time, that “image of God” of the first narrative of creation. In language and in style, the second narrative keeps all the characteristics of the Yahwist text. The way of narrating agrees with the way of thinking and expressing oneself of the period to which the text belongs.

Following the contemporary philosophy of religion and that of language, it can be said that the language in question is a mythical one. In this case, the term “myth” does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content. Without any difficulty we discover that content, under the layer of the ancient narrative. It is really marvelous as regards the qualities and the condensation of the truths contained in it.

 

[rossum]

I really can’t see what black swans have got to do with creation or evolution.

For a long time white swans have been the standard textbook example of inductive reasoning: We have observed a million swans - all are white. Therefore the next swan we observe will be white, and therefore all swans are white. That belief was shattered when they came across black swans in Australia.

The old Greeks, 2500 years ago, already recognised the problem of induction. We make particulate observations, then generalise to all cases. Scientists do that all the time - and science has been proven to be very successful with that assumption. But we also know that science doesn’t give us absolute knowledge.

Scientists tell us that copper conducts electricity. The correct statement should be: the hundred million samples of copper we have tested so far all conduct electricity. Therefore, probably, all samples of copper conduct electricity. But there could be a distant galaxy somewhere where this doesn’t hold. And maybe in the year 2098 copper will stop conducting electricity.

Don’t confuse the problem of induction with the “scientific method”. There is no such thing as “a method” in science anyway.

An old joke: a philosopher, a physicist and a mathematician were in a train travelling north from London to Edinburgh. Just after they crossed the Scottish border they saw a black sheep on its own in a field.

“Ah,” said the philosopher, “all sheep in Scotland are black.”

“But no,” replied the physicist, “at least one sheep in Scotland is black.”

“You are both wrong,” said the mathematician. “At least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side.”



rossum

 

[Faith1960]

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb8.htm
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2itb9.htm

The excerpt below is also instructive material for those who like to read scripture as if it were a science textbook.

Wow, can you dumb it down for me? If you mean, literally from Adams side, I disagree.

 

[Faith1960]

I think I may have received a pm from somebody and accidentally deleted it. Please resend, if it was from this forum.

 

[clem456]

Wow, can you dumb it down for me? If you mean, literally from Adams side, I disagree.

Wow I am on the spot now.
Let me just observe that TOB is as profound an exposition of Genesis as you will ever find. And there is no pretense that anything he says is science..

Why is he a saint? It seems to me he displays heroic faith here. (In addition to being absolutely brilliant). His incredible faith allows him to explore the theological truth of Genesis, using the context of ancient languages and ways of expression, while not trying to prove “facts”. He admits the power of myth as greater than mere facts in exposing the truth. He lets science be science (it’s a non-issue throughout TOB), and in doing that, he leaves an incredible exposition of faith for us.

 

[Faith1960]

M

Wow I am on the spot now.
Let me just observe that TOB is as profound an exposition of Genesis as you will ever find. And there is no pretense that anything he says is science..

Why is he a saint? It seems to me he displays heroic faith here. (In addition to being absolutely brilliant). His incredible faith allows him to explore the theological truth of Genesis, using the context of ancient languages and ways of expression, while not trying to prove “facts”. He admits the power of myth as greater than mere facts in exposing the truth. He lets science be science (it’s a non-issue throughout TOB), and in doing that, he leaves an incredible exposition of faith for us.

It seems to say that Adam is male and female? Scientifically, that can’t be right.

 

[grannymh]

I really can’t see what black swans have got to do with creation or evolution.

Black Swans have nothing to do with creation.

The lesson of Black Swans has to do with contemporary Science of Human Evolution research papers.

Primary example. “The coalescence theory draws inferences about past events on the basis of observations about current polymorphisms. These inferences can be tested by computer experiments, in which the time direction is reversed and the process is examined as it proceeds from the past to present conditions.” and later “Neither the mtDNA results nor the ZFYresults lead to the conclusion that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples have occurred in human ancestral history.” (Francisco J. Ayala, The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins)

Please compare this with
“Scientists tell us that copper conducts electricity. The correct statement should be: the hundred million samples of copper we have tested so far all conduct electricity. Therefore, probably, all samples of copper conduct electricity. But there could be a distant galaxy somewhere where this doesn’t hold. And maybe in the year 2098 copper will stop conducting electricity.”

Even if the word “probably” is not specifically mentioned in a Science of Human Evolution research paper, the conclusion is generally probable because not every corner of the earth can be physically explored as it existed at the dawn of human history. Not only should Black Swans have been considered a possibility, but also various unexamined ancient human genomes can be a possibility. A probable conclusion is proper. An universal denial not warranted by the selected evidence is not proper.

 

[RGCheek]

An old joke: a philosopher, a physicist and a mathematician were in a train travelling north from London to Edinburgh. Just after they crossed the Scottish border they saw a black sheep on its own in a field.

“Ah,” said the philosopher, “all sheep in Scotland are black.”

“But no,” replied the physicist, “at least one sheep in Scotland is black.”

“You are both wrong,” said the mathematician. “At least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side.”



rossum

Reminds me of one of my favorites.

A kid flipped a quarter and had heads come up 1000 times in a row. What are the odds the next flip will be heads again?

Gambler: 99% it will be tails; tails are due.

Mathematician: it is 50-50, the odds don’t change because of historical results.

Engineer; 100% it is going to be heads again because you have a flawed or rigged quarter here.

 

[rossum]

It seems to say that Adam is male and female? Scientifically, that can’t be right.

All human males have X and Y chromosomes. Females have two X chromosomes.

Assuming God was a reasonably good genetic engineer he could remove the Y chromosome and insert a duplicate copy of the cell’s existing X chromosome in its place. Viola!(*) a female cell.

Effectively, Adam and Eve would have been opposite sex identical twins, if that makes sense.

(*) - Yes, I know.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Adam and Eve were our parents.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“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

 

[Faith1960]

All human males have X and Y chromosomes. Females have two X chromosomes.

Assuming God was a reasonably good genetic engineer he could remove the Y chromosome and insert a duplicate copy of the cell’s existing X chromosome in its place. Viola!(*) a female cell.

Effectively, Adam and Eve would have been opposite sex identical twins, if that makes sense.

(*) - Yes, I know.

rossum

I really doubt that thats the answer.

 

[Hans_W]

[/INDENT]Even if the word “probably” is not specifically mentioned in a Science of Human Evolution research paper, the conclusion is generally probable because not every corner of the earth can be physically explored as it existed at the dawn of human history. Not only should Black Swans have been considered a possibility, but also various unexamined ancient human genomes can be a possibility. A probable conclusion is proper. An universal denial not warranted by the selected evidence is not proper.

Scientists don’t worry with adding “probably” to all their findings. Philosophers worry about things like that.

But scientists do know that our knowledge is corrigible and it gets refined all the time. That swans need to be white was never a “scientific” claim. As I said, it was the prime example for induction in textbooks on Logic. Why should science have considered the possibility of black swans?? Why not blue swans? We discover things all the time which are completely unexpected.

The latest findings on human genes indicate that we went through a bottleneck of possibly as low as 1,200 people, between 20 and 40 thousand years ago. We know that pretty well by now and don’t hold your breath that this figure is going to dwindle down to 2.

When it comes to giving us a soul, as a Christian I don’t look for a scientific explanation in our 4-dimensional causal time-space world. That’s the problem with many people today. Everything is being analysed scientifically (without knowing what that really means) and be explainable in scientific terms, including the supernatural. Taking every word in the Bible literally is a fairly recent habit. St Augustine certainly didn’t have that problem 1600 years ago.

 

[edwest2]

Scientists don’t worry with adding “probably” to all their findings. Philosophers worry about things like that.

But scientists do know that our knowledge is corrigible and it gets refined all the time. That swans need to be white was never a “scientific” claim. As I said, it was the prime example for induction in textbooks on Logic. Why should science have considered the possibility of black swans?? Why not blue swans? We discover things all the time which are completely unexpected.

The latest findings on human genes indicate that we went through a bottleneck of possibly as low as 1,200 people, between 20 and 40 thousand years ago. We know that pretty well by now and don’t hold your breath that this figure is going to dwindle down to 2.

When it comes to giving us a soul, as a Christian I don’t look for a scientific explanation in our 4-dimensional causal time-space world. That’s the problem with many people today. Everything is being analysed scientifically (without knowing what that really means) and be explainable in scientific terms, including the supernatural. Taking every word in the Bible literally is a fairly recent habit. St Augustine certainly didn’t have that problem 1600 years ago.

On the contrary, taking the Bible literally was quite common - until the fairly recent campaign regarding this topic. It’s all symbolic… allegory…

Not so.

Ed

 

[Kephart]

54 Pages!!!

Anyone change their mind yet?