Ratzinger on human origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KevinK

Guest
Do you agree with this statement from Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, published in 2004, and chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger?:
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage (Para. 63).”
 
I have not done the research but I have no problem with the premise.
 
KevinK said:
Do you agree with this statement from Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, published in 2004, and chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger?:
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage (Para. 63).”
Click to expand...
Can you post a link please?
The Pope is not a physical scientist, he is commenting on generally accepted science. It’s good to look at mainstream generally accepted science, and value those fields of study for what they tell us about God’s creation.

Benedict is not a fundamentalist. He is a brilliant man with an open mind and faithful to the Church.
Sounds like a Catholic and whole person.
 
Last edited:
right. It’s not really a matter of agreement or not. He is simply making observations.
 
Yeah, i have no issue with this.

This is discussing the development of the human form. The question of when we became rational beings with souls is a separate discussion entirely.
 
Not that it matters all that much, but Ratzinger didn’t chair the subcommission of the ITC that produced this study–he just gave the ok for it to be published. While there is nothing per se wrong with what was quoted in the OP, it should be understood in the greater context which rules out any strictly materialistic views of the origin of man. In the subsequent paragraph, it states:
  1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.
Click to expand...
 
My 2 cents

There are two statements which he calls convincing that caught my attention.

A) humans came from a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

B) humans came from this humanoid population, that lived in (modern) Africa, about 150,000 years ago.

Regarding A, It may be possible, if certain conditions are respected, such as the existence of Adam and Eve as the first humans, the original sin etc… God could had picked two of these humanoids and transformed them into humans. I have been studying proto-hebrew and one thing I learned is that “clay” doesn’t necessarily relates to red “soil/dirt”; it could also mean “mold”, which I think is more likely because proto-hebrew words are about function, not objects.

In regard to B, I think it is highly improbable because it goes against Sacred Scripture chronology and geological and archeological evidence. Also, dating methods such as carbon dating and their assumptions are debatable and normally produce divergent results.
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
In regard to B, I think it is highly improbable because it goes against Sacred Scripture chronology and geological and archeological evidence.
Click to expand...
What does the geological and archaeological evidence support?
 
Aulef said:
humans came from this humanoid population, that lived in (modern) Africa, about 150,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
It is a fact that all 7 billion people alive today can be traced back to one woman in Africa around 150,000 years ago. This is proven through mitochondrial DNA.
 
It supports that we have no idea how the world was before the Flood because everything was scrambled during this event, and supports that the era after the Flood began in the region called Fertile Crescent, where the most ancient river valley civilizations were.

It is not a coincidence the other great ancient river valley civilizations that appeared a few centuries after are adjacent to the Crescent: Nile and Indus.
 
Mithocondrial DNA allows us to trace our maternal ancestry, however it assumes, for instance, a mutation rate that is theoretical. Because of this assumption, secular science believes it came from and african woman (afaik)
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
B) humans came from this humanoid population, that lived in (modern) Africa, about 150,000 years ago.

In regard to B, I think it is highly improbable because it goes against Sacred Scripture chronology and geological and archeological evidence. Also, dating methods such as carbon dating and their assumptions are debatable and normally produce divergent results.
Click to expand...
couple of points:
Scripture was not intended to be a scientific explanation for the world.

You can point out the shortcomings of various scientific endeavors. Mainstream science takes the whole body of investigation and sythesizes it, compares it, and comes up with solid theories etc…
 
Last edited:
Aulef said:
Mithocondrial DNA allows us to trace our maternal ancestry, however it assumes, for instance, a mutation rate that is theoretical. Because of this assumption, secular science believes it came from and african woman (afaik)
Click to expand...
'What is “secular science”?
I have a geology degree, and am a faithful Catholic. So my acceptance of science is not “secular”.
Science is just science.
 
Indeed, Scripture is not meant to be scientific. But it sure tells us the truth.

Regarding your statement about science, before defending it, one must first look at the philosophy behind it. Science can be dead at birth for faulty philosophy. So I agree with what you said in theory, but only when the science is honest.
 
Secular science is science that separates itself from God. Flawed by the modernist heresy.
 
Aulef said:
Secular science is science that separates itself from God. Flawed by the modernist heresy.
Click to expand...
/are you talking about using science as negative proof against God?
Not sure.
In any case, I know atheist scientist and Catholic Scientists and all in between.
I don’t think I know anyone who believes science disproves God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top