Question About Genesis and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter YEARNING4TRUTH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is nothing in Church teaching about “proto-humans.”

“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]”

Source: ENCYCLICAL
HUMANI GENERIS
OF THE HOLY FATHER
PIUS XII

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

Ed
Like I said, the scientific explanation is not specific Church teaching; it is compatible with it. And it is monogenism I described, not polygenism.

Monogenism is that humans evolved all from the same origin. Polygenism is that humans are descended from multiple origins, in evolutionary terms: a sort of parallel evolution.
 
Like I said, the scientific explanation is not specific Church teaching; it is compatible with it. And it is monogenism I described, not polygenism.

Monogenism is that humans evolved all from the same origin. Polygenism is that humans are descended from multiple origins, in evolutionary terms: a sort of parallel evolution.
The current scientific explanation is that the same origin is an indiscriminate, random breeding population in the thousands.

The correct Catholic teaching is that humankind descended from an original population of two, Eve and Adam.
 
The way I see it is CCC27
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for …
but going back further into the prologue CCC1
God infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man …
The wording is quite interesting, specific, precise, determined, unambiguous, and quite frankly addresses the core of the Catholic Faith of origins.
 
The current scientific explanation is that the same origin is an indiscriminate, random breeding population in the thousands.

The correct Catholic teaching is that humankind descended from an original population of two, Eve and Adam.
The Catholic teaching is not that we are descended only from an original population of two in a genetic sense. It’s that we are all descended from the same two truly human parents and that there were no other fully human people to whom we can trace our descent. If we strike a difference between those who are physiologically human but without God-created rational souls and true humans on a metaphysical level with God created souls, all of the latter trace their descent to Adam and Eve. However, Church teaching does not exclude the possibility of interbreeding between these two populations early on. I already explained how some Catholic theologians have reconciled the two explanations of evolutionary monogenism and everyone being descended from the first two humans endowed with rational souls, the first two beings we would consider truly human in a metaphysical sense and not just physiologically, from whom we inherited original sin and our rational souls and are all descended from. It’s been referred to as the Flynn-Kemp proposal. In a primitive society (not just primitive, but the very beginning of it altogether) the behavioral and cultural gap would not have been as extreme, though the potential opened up by the endowment of rational souls was great.
 
The Catholic teaching is not that we are descended only from an original population of two in a genetic sense. It’s that we are all descended from the same two truly human parents and that there were no other fully human people to whom we can trace our descent. If we strike a difference between those who are physiologically human but without God-created rational souls and true humans on a metaphysical level with God created souls, all of the latter trace their descent to Adam and Eve. However, Church teaching does not exclude the possibility of interbreeding between these two populations early on. I already explained how some Catholic theologians have reconciled the two explanations of evolutionary monogenism and everyone being descended from the first two humans endowed with rational souls, the first two beings we would consider truly human in a metaphysical sense and not just physiologically, from whom we inherited original sin and our rational souls and are all descended from. It’s been referred to as the Flynn-Kemp proposal. In a primitive society (not just primitive, but the very beginning of it altogether) the behavioral and cultural gap would not have been as extreme, though the potential opened up by the endowment of rational souls was great.
👍
]The bottom line is, the Church does not do the physical science behind all this. The Church allows science to do science. The Church does Inspiration, theology, etc…with the help of science. The Church will object when science oversteps it’s bounds into religion.

People truly do not understand the Church’s objection to polygenism.
They forget that a human being is not just a clump of DNA. A human being is a unity of body and soul.
Science does not know what a soul is, so no matter how frightening all of this is to you, take comfort that only God can make a human being by the gift of a soul.
Science can never account for that.
 
In the end, all animal beings have “souls,” although the human soul does some special things such as hold a conscious mind.

Souls do not fossilize, whatever anatomical proxy such as headsize is used.

So any attempt to fit the Church into modern polygenic theory is going to be somewhat forced.

ICXC NIKA
 
👍
]The bottom line is, the Church does not do the physical science behind all this. The Church allows science to do science. The Church does Inspiration, theology, etc…with the help of science. The Church will object when science oversteps it’s bounds into religion.

People truly do not understand the Church’s objection to polygenism.
They forget that a human being is not just a clump of DNA. A human being is a unity of body and soul.
Science does not know what a soul is, so no matter how frightening all of this is to you, take comfort that only God can make a human being by the gift of a soul.
Science can never account for that.
My guess is that a few CAF members know what polygenism refers to in current science.

About the same amount of CAF members have kept up with current science including the scientific model (cladograms) which is based on large populations of indiscriminate random breeding humanizing over time within descending or branching populations.

Due to popularity of the truth cannot contradict truth speech, there should be a strong number of people who understand where current science and Catholicism intersect.

Current science now proposes that soul-like functions, that is our “spirit” emerge from the material anatomical brain systems.

My guess is that some people have not read the challenges to "Science, Theology, and Monogenesis."

Polygenism – that simply refers to the necessity of a large population to produce any kind of a biological species, for example humankind.
 
Current science now proposes that soul-like functions, that is our “spirit” emerge from the material anatomical brain systems.
On the other hand,

"In the first place, a purely materialistic conception of man cannot account for the human power of reason itself. If we are just “a pack of neurons,” in the words of Sir Francis Crick, if our mental life is nothing but electrical impulses in our nervous system, then one cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of theoretical science. Nor can one explain the human mind’s openness to truth, which is the foundation of all science. As Chesterton observed, the materialist cannot explain “why anything should go right, even observation and deduction. Why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.” Scientific materialism exalts human reason, but cannot account for human reason.

Nor can materialism account for many other aspects of the human mind, such as consciousness, free will, and the very existence of a unitary self. In a purely material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free. Matter cannot have a self. The materialist is thus driven to deny empirical facts–not the facts in front of his eyes, but, as it were, the facts behind his eyes: facts about his own mental life. He calls them illusions, or redefines them to be what they are not. In lowering himself to the level of the animal or the machine, the materialist ultimately denies his own status as a rational being, by reducing all his mental operations to instinct and programming."

The above comes from a mainstream current scientist, Stephen Barr, who was asked
“How do you reconcile faith and science in your life?” Here is his answer:

“The word “reconcile” is wrong here. It suggests that there is a conflict that has to be resolved. I have never felt there to be such a conflict; rather, science and the Catholic faith have always seemed to me profoundly in harmony. Both involve a conviction that the world makes sense and that everything fits together in some coherent way. Physics gives us a wonderfully coherent picture of the physical world, the world of sensible and measurable things. The Catholic faith gives us a wonderfully coherent view of reality as a whole. Science is based on faith in the power of human reason to understand the world. The Catholic faith tells us that the world is the product of eternal Reason, the Logos of God.”

Barr reasons both scientifically and theologically.

He accepts evolution - even of humans - and sees it compatible with his Catholic faith, but he is a physicist. For those interested in how modern physics might relate to philosophy and theology when it comes to the mind and spirit, see these from Barr:

bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/

and

firstthings.com/article/2007/03/faith-and-quantum-theory

One more quote from Barr:

"The materialist imagines that a religious mystery is something too dark to be seen. But, as G. K. Chesterton noted, it is really something too bright to be seen, like the sun. As Scripture tells us, God “dwells in unapproachable light.” The mystery is not impenetrable to intellect or unintelligible in itself ; rather, it is not fully intelligible to us . And reason itself tells us that there must be such mysteries. For the nature of God is infinite, and therefore not proportionate to our finite minds. The mysteries of the faith primarily concern the nature of God, or they concern man in his relationship to God and as the image of God. They concern, that is, what is infinite or touches upon the infinite. Consequently, religious mystery hardly concerns, if it concerns at all, the matters studied by the physicist, chemist, or botanist. The things they study are quite finite in their natures and therefore quite proportionate to the human intellect. That is why there is nothing in Jewish or Christian belief that implies or suggests any limit to what human beings can understand about the structure of the physical world. Although the writings of scientific materialists are filled with hostility toward religious mystery, in fact religious mystery has never acted as a brake upon scientific progress.

This brings us back to the question of supernaturalism and its proper place. Supernaturalism is out of place in physics, astronomy, chemistry, or botany. However, it is necessary in anything that touches upon the nature of man, for man is made in the image of God. I have noted that biblical religion opposed the supernaturalism of the ancient pagan. In doing so, it clearly served the cause of reason. In our time, biblical religion serves the cause of reason just as much by opposing the absolute naturalism of the modern materialist. Where the ancient pagan went wrong is in seeing the supernatural everywhere in the world around him. Where the modern materialist goes wrong is in failing to see that which goes beyond physical nature in himself. By extending naturalism even to his own mind and soul, the materialist ends up sliding into his own morass of irrationalism and superstition…"

This last quoted passage is from
firstthings.com/article/2003/03/retelling-the-story-of-science
 
Like I said, the scientific explanation is not specific Church teaching; it is compatible with it. And it is monogenism I described, not polygenism.

Monogenism is that humans evolved all from the same origin. Polygenism is that humans are descended from multiple origins, in evolutionary terms: a sort of parallel evolution.
There is no teaching that states polygenism is the explanation.

Ed
 
Polygenism – that simply refers to the necessity of a large population to produce any kind of a biological species, for example humankind.
In terms of evolutionary theory, it refers to multiple populations evolving independently into modern humans without contact with each other. It would be like saying Europeans evolved into modern humans from Neanderthals, and Asians evolved from homo erectus, etc… or saying that home erectus split into three different groups hundreds of thousands of years ago, each of which evolved separately into modern humans. This was a theory to explain why different “races” exist. It essentially claims any divergence was prior to modern humans emerging, not after.

Modern humans evolving from one population of thousands is evolutionary monogenism.

Anyway, point being that the Flynn-Kemp proposal works to explain how the current model of evolutionary monogenism and Biblical monogenism are not contradictory. There was nobody with a rational soul (a true human on a metaphysical level) who ever existed at any time who was not descended from Adam and Eve.
 
They get heated and angry and the mods don’t enough time or manpower to moderate them.
Hehe, I kind of see your point. But it doesn’t seem too bad. Hopefully it doesn’t degenerate into something else.
 
On the other hand,

"In the first place, a purely materialistic conception of man cannot account for the human power of reason itself. If we are just “a pack of neurons,” in the words of Sir Francis Crick, if our mental life is nothing but electrical impulses in our nervous system, then one cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of theoretical science. Nor can one explain the human mind’s openness to truth, which is the foundation of all science. As Chesterton observed, the materialist cannot explain “why anything should go right, even observation and deduction. Why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.” Scientific materialism exalts human reason, but cannot account for human reason.

Nor can materialism account for many other aspects of the human mind, such as consciousness, free will, and the very existence of a unitary self. In a purely material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free. Matter cannot have a self. The materialist is thus driven to deny empirical facts–not the facts in front of his eyes, but, as it were, the facts behind his eyes: facts about his own mental life. He calls them illusions, or redefines them to be what they are not. In lowering himself to the level of the animal or the machine, the materialist ultimately denies his own status as a rational being, by reducing all his mental operations to instinct and programming."

The above comes from a mainstream current scientist, Stephen Barr, who was asked
“How do you reconcile faith and science in your life?” Here is his answer:

“The word “reconcile” is wrong here. It suggests that there is a conflict that has to be resolved. I have never felt there to be such a conflict; rather, science and the Catholic faith have always seemed to me profoundly in harmony. Both involve a conviction that the world makes sense and that everything fits together in some coherent way. Physics gives us a wonderfully coherent picture of the physical world, the world of sensible and measurable things. The Catholic faith gives us a wonderfully coherent view of reality as a whole. Science is based on faith in the power of human reason to understand the world. The Catholic faith tells us that the world is the product of eternal Reason, the Logos of God.”

Barr reasons both scientifically and theologically.

He accepts evolution - even of humans - and sees it compatible with his Catholic faith, but he is a physicist. For those interested in how modern physics might relate to philosophy and theology when it comes to the mind and spirit, see these from Barr:

bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/

and

firstthings.com/article/2007/03/faith-and-quantum-theory

One more quote from Barr:

"The materialist imagines that a religious mystery is something too dark to be seen. But, as G. K. Chesterton noted, it is really something too bright to be seen, like the sun. As Scripture tells us, God “dwells in unapproachable light.” The mystery is not impenetrable to intellect or unintelligible in itself ; rather, it is not fully intelligible to us . And reason itself tells us that there must be such mysteries. For the nature of God is infinite, and therefore not proportionate to our finite minds. The mysteries of the faith primarily concern the nature of God, or they concern man in his relationship to God and as the image of God. They concern, that is, what is infinite or touches upon the infinite. Consequently, religious mystery hardly concerns, if it concerns at all, the matters studied by the physicist, chemist, or botanist. The things they study are quite finite in their natures and therefore quite proportionate to the human intellect. That is why there is nothing in Jewish or Christian belief that implies or suggests any limit to what human beings can understand about the structure of the physical world. Although the writings of scientific materialists are filled with hostility toward religious mystery, in fact religious mystery has never acted as a brake upon scientific progress.

This brings us back to the question of supernaturalism and its proper place. Supernaturalism is out of place in physics, astronomy, chemistry, or botany. However, it is necessary in anything that touches upon the nature of man, for man is made in the image of God. I have noted that biblical religion opposed the supernaturalism of the ancient pagan. In doing so, it clearly served the cause of reason. In our time, biblical religion serves the cause of reason just as much by opposing the absolute naturalism of the modern materialist. Where the ancient pagan went wrong is in seeing the supernatural everywhere in the world around him. Where the modern materialist goes wrong is in failing to see that which goes beyond physical nature in himself. By extending naturalism even to his own mind and soul, the materialist ends up sliding into his own morass of irrationalism and superstition…"

This last quoted passage is from
firstthings.com/article/2003/03/retelling-the-story-of-science
Great contribution to this post. I’ll definitely have to look into this Barr guy some more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top