reaponse to pope francis "declaring" evolution true and no magic wond

[Aloysium]

That is a wonderful perspective. Please elaborate!
You have the floor sir…
I for one (and may others I am sure) were not around for that.

I don’t want to get into anything personal other than to say that your comment caused me to dig out a couple of physics texts, published fifty years ago.

Work on them would have started a few years earlier, a bit after sputnik and around the time of Yuri Gagarin’s orbit around the earth. In them, there is interestingly no actual discussion of origins although reference is made to diverse theories in the astrophysical literature. At that time, most information about the universe came from large telescopes peering into space through the atmosphere. The red shift had been described as long before, as the time that has now elapsed since the books were published. While I was originally going through them, the first report of what might be the background microwave radiation was being published. Quasars were being reported and pulsars were about to be discovered.

The technology has grown by leaps and bounds, widening our horizon’s of how our universe is constituted. Of course all this cannot be but a work in progress.

So now we have Stephen Hawking saying that contrary to current thinking, quantum theory, does allow for energy and information to escape from a black hole, acknowledging that there is no theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. This elusive goal has frustrated physicists for a century. There are also other ways of conceptualizing the data. For example, Christof Wetterich has put forth the proposition that rather than space expanding, mass is increasing. As unlikely as this seems, it is an alternate explanation for the red-shift. Not only does much remain a mystery, but that mystery grows with every step humanity takes in the path of knowledge.

I could go on; sorry if I rambled. Take away message: Don’t ask old people to elaborate as they tend to keep going about old loves.

 

[grannymh]

Genetics refers to the material composition of living organisms such as ants, plants, and people. The human genome does not deny the human anatomy. So far, so good, according to the Popes (plural intended).

What the Popes continue to teach, since the time of St. Paul, theologian, is that humankind descended from two original living organisms possessing a human genome. So far, so good, because that is Divine Revelation.

In this century, the Catholic truths of human origin directly contradict the current scientific interpretation that human origins (plural intended) is a genetic result of the genetic composition of a breeding common ancestor population.

Apparently, there is a major exception to the sound-bite “truth cannot contradict truth”.


The Catholic position of a beginning population of two real true genuinely human parents blest by God does in fact contradict the scientific description of the large genetic population which contributes to another large population which finally gets its act together.

 

[Frankenfurter]

In this century, the Catholic truths of human origin directly contradict the current scientific interpretation that human origins (plural intended) is a genetic result of the genetic composition of a breeding common ancestor population.

Apparently, there is a major exception to the sound-bite “truth cannot contradict truth”.


The Catholic position of a beginning population of two real true genuinely human parents blest by God does in fact contradict the scientific description of the large genetic population which contributes to another large population which finally gets its act together.

The pope(s) is not arguing this point. Instead, he is arguing with those who would say that evolution means that there is no need for a creator. But Darwin himself noted that evolution describes how life changes, how it specializes (origin of species), but that it takes the existence of life as a given.

The fact that modern genetics confirms that there was no biological Adam and Eve is important only to those who take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

When we look back at opinions from those in biblical times, we have to interpret what they say from* their *point of view. We know that it was accepted that all lineage came through the father. They believed that men simply deposited babies into the womb, hence the need to always trace back the paternal lineage. They did not have microscopes, organic chemistry, etc. so there is no way they could understand biology the way we do. With that simple (but erroneous) understand of lineage, they arrived at the idea of a physical Adam. So naturally they would interpret Genesis this way. It actually makes perfect sense if genetics actually worked that way (which they thought it did, and we have to take that into account).

I always note that in Genesis itself, we have Adam and Eve’s offspring going out and meeting other people - other tribes. So it is directly in the biblical record that Adam and Eve were NOT the first two people, and nowhere does it say that they were. Saying that these other folks were also their offspring is a cop out. There is nothing to support that.

I note that it is Catholic understanding that the fall of man is much more than just human genetics. The fall affected all of nature itself. Hence even a person not descended from the Adam is affected by the fall of all man.

So, no contradiction.

 

[grannymh]

A bit of clarification about the Catholic Church.

The protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth is to duly declare Divine Revelation in the form of Catholic doctrines under the wisdom and guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. (Information source. Chapter 14, Gospel of John).

Thus, it may be a surprise, yet, it is a truth, the Catholic Church with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit did proclaim the Divine Revelation that all humankind descended from two first sole fully-human parents and that the Original Sin necessitates one original person who freely chose to disobey his Creator.

Unfortunately, there will always be a few people who believe that they are more qualified than the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpreting Holy Scripture.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Thus, it may be a surprise, yet, it is a truth, the Catholic Church with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit did proclaim the Divine Revelation that all humankind descended from two first sole fully-human parents and that the Original Sin necessitates one original person who freely chose to disobey his Creator.

Sure, but this revelation is based on the need to support the doctrine of original sin - sin being passed down through natural genesis.

In other words, the need for a single Adam is inferred from the revelation of original sin, and the need to have a mechanism for this to be passed down - presumably by natural reproduction.

Modern genetics tells us that genetic information can be acquired through life and passed down genetically, (epigenetic changes).

‘According to the new insights of behavioral epigenetics, traumatic experiences in our past, or in our recent ancestors’ past, leave molecular scars adhering to our DNA. Jews whose great-grandparents were chased from their Russian shtetls; Chinese whose grandparents lived through the ravages of the Cultural Revolution; young immigrants from Africa whose parents survived massacres; adults of every ethnicity who grew up with alcoholic or abusive parents — all carry with them more than just memories.’: discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

Thus, a single Adam and Eve committed original sin and passed this down to all even though not all were direct descendants.

I often find that when two important things seem to contradict, we forget to consider the possibility that in fact they are both correct.

 

[clem456]

A bit of clarification about the Catholic Church.

The protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth is to duly declare Divine Revelation in the form of Catholic doctrines under the wisdom and guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. (Information source. Chapter 14, Gospel of John).

Thus, it may be a surprise, yet, it is a truth, the Catholic Church with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit did proclaim the Divine Revelation that all humankind descended from two first sole fully-human parents and that the Original Sin necessitates one original person who freely chose to disobey his Creator.

Unfortunately, there will always be a few people who believe that they are more qualified than the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpreting Holy Scripture.

And it is your responsibility, when throwing accusations against those you disagree with, to quote the posts that you believe contradict Church teaching.
Please quote the posts that do not accept divine revelation. I’m not talking about scientific viewpoints that don’t agree with yours, but specifically posters who do not accept revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Sure, but this revelation is based on the need to support the doctrine of original sin - sin being passed down through natural genesis.

In other words, the need for a single Adam is inferred from the revelation of original sin, and the need to have a mechanism for this to be passed down - presumably by natural reproduction.

Correct. Original Sin cannot be tampered with because of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Modern genetics tells us that genetic information can be acquired through life and passed down genetically, (epigenetic changes).

Correct. There is no problem with a single human couple passing their human genetics to their human children.

‘According to the new insights of behavioral epigenetics, traumatic experiences in our past, or in our recent ancestors’ past, leave molecular scars adhering to our DNA. Jews whose great-grandparents were chased from their Russian shtetls; Chinese whose grandparents lived through the ravages of the Cultural Revolution; young immigrants from Africa whose parents survived massacres; adults of every ethnicity who grew up with alcoholic or abusive parents — all carry with them more than just memories.’: discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

A quick trip to the Human Genome Project link should help the response to the above idea of leaving *“molecular scars adhering to our DNA.” *
genome.gov/11006943

Currently, there are an estimated 30,000 genes in the human genome. There are approximately three billion chemical base pairs made up of adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C).

There is no single average human being. For example. What color hair and color eyes would belong to the single average human? Obviously, with these large numbers, there is lots of room for mutations and “scars” resulting from all kinds of things.

In addition, there is the principle that in this century, science concludes that children born of two real humans are themselves real humans because they inherited their human genome from their real human parents.

The real question is – Can mutations, scars, etc., change a human being into a non-human animal in this century? Consider the current population? How many children born of real human parents have the genetics of a true non-human animal? Unfortunately, there are many children born with defective areas in their genetics; yet, because they inherited by birth their human nature from two true humans, these children are considered true humans. Children do not become non-human animals because of defects.

Thus, a single Adam and Eve committed original sin and passed this down to all even though not all were direct descendants.

The basic questions here are:
Are Adam and Eve true humans with an human genome like the current genome of human beings?
Did Adam and Eve have children which were non-human animals?
Did other animals have human children?

Again, it should be obvious that human genes can mutate into different hair colors and eye colors, etc. There can be beneficial mutations and detrimental mutations. But, can mutations themselves produce a non-human animal born of two human parents? If human mutations could produce a non-human animal, where are today’s non-human animals being born from two real humans? It personally makes me sick to know that in parts of our world, persons born of human parents are being tortured to death (burned alive) because …

It should be obvious that the Catholic doctrines on the origin of human nature contradict a particular assumption that two real humans were incapable of producing real human children who, through repetitive real human procreation, eventually caused the current real human population.

There is really no way of getting around the contradiction between real human beings and real non-human animals Their birth parents is the determining factor. A being is either a real human person or is not.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
A bit of clarification about the Catholic Church.

The protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth is to duly declare Divine Revelation in the form of Catholic doctrines under the wisdom and guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. (Information source. Chapter 14, Gospel of John).

*Thus, it may be a surprise, yet, it is a truth, the Catholic Church with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit did proclaim the Divine Revelation that all humankind descended from two first sole fully-human parents and that the Original Sin necessitates one original person who freely chose to disobey his Creator. *

Unfortunately, there will always be a few people who believe that they are more qualified than the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpreting Holy Scripture.

And it is your responsibility, when throwing accusations against those you disagree with, to quote the posts that you believe contradict Church teaching.
Please quote the posts that do not accept divine revelation. I’m not talking about scientific viewpoints that don’t agree with yours, but specifically posters who do not accept revelation.

Please kindly notice that post 23 is not a reply to a specific post. It stands alone as a general clarification about the Catholic Church.

In addition, please kindly notice that the last line says: “Unfortunately, there will always be a few people who believe that they are more qualified than the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpreting Holy Scripture.” I put the words few people in bold because that is a general designation and should not be directly confused with specifically posters who do not accept revelation. Nor should a few people be directly confused with posts that contradict Church teaching. I totally understand that in a fast moving thread, the differences between a few people and actual posters on this thread can be underestimated.

To answer the request, I will remind readers that I usually respond to a questionable post. However, sometimes, I freely choose not to respond. Obviously, in post 23, I chose not to specifically identify the “few people” one way or another. That is one side of the Free Speech coin.

 

[cfauster]

Re. the “magic” reference in Pope Francis’ remarks, I think the reflections by Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., Associate Professor of Biology and an Instructor of Theology at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, is helpful.

 

[clem456]

Re. the “magic” reference in Pope Francis’ remarks, I think the reflections by Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., Associate Professor of Biology and an Instructor of Theology at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, is helpful.

This is a well articulated article by a priest/scientist. Well worth the read.

 

[Aloysium]

This is a well articulated article by a priest/scientist. Well worth the read.

A priest who has accepted the teachings revealed through the Church.

There are no true facts in science which contradict revealed truth.
Science tries to tease out the underlying physical structure of the universe. The point of contention has to do with whether or not we were created solely out of pre-existing physical forces.

As the article states referring to God and creation:

. . . both these images are of actors who can only work with physical matter and with physical forces that are given to them as pre-existent realities. As Pope Francis makes clear, however, God is neither a magician nor a demiurge. God is a creator who creates from nothing because he gives his creatures their very existence and their nature. . .

We are not animals. A human soul has, by its capacity to reason, the ability to discern truth, beauty and goodness. We are able to love and to sin - it is our choice.
This did not emerge as part of some animal nature.
There is nothing new in all this discussion. Those people who wrote Genesis knew that we breastfeed our young, copulate, eat, digest, that our insides are identical to those of beasts. How is this news?

 

[Frankenfurter]

The real question is – Can mutations, scars, etc., change a human being into a non-human animal in this century?

Original sin can be passed down in many ways from humans to humans. No need to create non-humans.

Thus no contradiction.

Sorry, but I do not understand the tangent of non-human animals.

Here is the statement by the Pope that I believe you are referring to regarding Adam an Eve (from Humani Generis), from the Vatican site:

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]

Note that it is indicated that the reveled truth, where the church has teaching authority, is in regards to original sin, not in regards to monogenism. He is making it clear where the reveled truth is, and where his conjecture is. ‘It is in no way apparent…’

I contend then that if modern genetics indicate the the human population did not come from one Adam and one Eve, then as Catholics, we are free to accept this science and it does not contradict divine revelation. It just means that original sin can be passed down in many ways. I offer that genetics can be stained by experience as also proven by science. Thus the sins of Adam and Eve can be passed down through genesis to all people. And there may be many other ways too, that are ‘no way apparent’, but science will uncover over time.

 

[clem456]

…
We are not animals. A human soul has, by its capacity to reason, the ability to discern truth, beauty and goodness. We are able to love and to sin - it is our choice.
This did not emerge as part of some animal nature.

Yes, this is the key point. The soul does not evolve from animal nature, it is given by God.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Note that it is indicated that the reveled truth, where the church has teaching authority, is in regards to original sin, not in regards to monogenism. He is making it clear where the reveled truth is, and where his conjecture is. ‘It is in no way apparent…’

I contend then that if modern genetics indicate the the human population did not come from one Adam and one Eve, then as Catholics, we are free to accept this science and it does not contradict divine revelation. It just means that original sin can be passed down in many ways. I offer that genetics can be stained by experience as also proven by science. Thus the sins of Adam and Eve can be passed down through genesis to all people. And there may be many other ways too, that are ‘no way apparent’, but science will uncover over time.

Your faith in “science” is very strong. As a suggestion, you may wish to dissect the various elements that comprise “science” in your view. It is not as simple as you may think.
I am quite convinced that monogenism is correct on an intellectual and intuitive level, in addition through my faith in the Church. So, if “science” says otherwise, I consider it like the phlogiston theory, popular in its own time but having little validity.

You believe that through scientific enquiry we can discern such things. I do not share this belief, given what I know of how science works and what I know of the nature of man.
Since modern genetics states, based on its processes of statistical analysis, that polygenism is the case, how then was the original sin committed by a group.
The only way I can conceive of it would be a far-fetched idea that only one person was created, but that one person was comprised of many bodies, as our bodies are comprised of many cells. This is contrary to what has been revealed. It would run counter to the idea that this is all about love. How then do you explain original sin? How does science prove or disprove this?
The human non-human issue emerges where one considers that only one among those original imagined hominid precursors to man had a soul, sinned and copulated with the animals that looked like him.

 

[clem456]

…
You believe that through scientific enquiry we can discern such things. I do not share this belief, given what I know of how science works and what I know of the nature of man.
Since modern genetics states, based on its processes of statistical analysis, that polygenism is the case, how then was the original sin committed by a group.
…

Polygenism is denounced by the Church when it goes beyond science to speculate on the evolution of the soul. Pius, in his discussion of polygenism uses the words “true man”. True man has a soul created immediately by God. This is something science will never be able to explain. Science does give us very good information on material origins however (without espousing my own favorite explanation).

Human beings are a unity of
Body
Soul
Must have both.