Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[John_Martin]

Galileo and Giordano Bruno immediately come to mind.

Galileo:
Galileo could not give a full scientific argument or verification - he did not go far enough to give a TRUE evaluation that would then never contradict Revelation. Truth Never Contradicts Truth - It Cannot.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers Tract

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentrism. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentrism as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology.

 

[Welshrabbit]

So my wife wasn’t using hyperbole when she called me a Neanderthal?

 

[Rau]

Is that a leading question?

Not in my mind. Do you know the answer to the question?

 

[Dan_Defender]

I am therefore obliged to conclude that science has failed to go far enough in its pursuit of the description of material temporal reality.

I agree with this. Also, the scientific claim that humans have been around for 2 million years does not ring true either, as even with reasonable near extinction events, the human population would be many times larger than it is now. To me, the whole fossil dating methods are not as reliable as people think.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

Is that a leading question?

Not in my mind. Do you know the answer to the question?

I’m pretty sure it means ensouled people. It’s in the context of polygenism, which in the 1940’s meant that different races of people had different “genesis’”, so if there’s only one Adam, there can’t be more than 1 genealogical line.

Another reason that I would say that I think “true men” is referring to ensouled people is because the “human body” is mentioned as being something that is okay to be studied from an evolutionary point of view, but not the soul.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

 

[Dan123]

Galileo:
Galileo could not give a full scientific argument or verification - he did not go far enough to give a TRUE evaluation that would then never contradict Revelation. Truth Never Contradicts Truth - It Cannot .

The existing geocentric views were also flawed and unprovable (especially considering they were false). It’s interesting that the existing views weren’t held to the same standard of proof, presumably because they agreed with church understanding of scripture at the time. If they had been they’d likely have been found lacking much sooner, and the church could have led the charge into revealing more truths about creation instead of begrudgingly accepting it. Possibly why the church makes such efforts to be on top of emerging science today.

 

[Rau]

I’m pretty sure it means ensouled people.

Ok, so this is not something science will ever be able to address.

 

[rossum]

Also, the scientific claim that humans have been around for 2 million years does not ring true either, as even with reasonable near extinction events, the human population would be many times larger than it is now.

What do you mean by “human”? Our species, Homo sapiens has existed for about 200,000 years, not 2 million. Our genus, Homo, has been around for that long, but that includes other species: Homo habilis, Homo antecessor and others. There have certainly been major extinction events in those lines since they are all now extinct.

 

[twf]

Possibly much longer than 200k… wasn’t there a fairly recently study that suggested Homo sapiens dates back at least 300k years? But either way you’re of course right that we don’t date back 2 million years.

 

[Dan123]

the human population would be many times larger than it is now.

How has that been determined?

 

[Gorgias]

There is no science to suggest that there were just one male and female from which all of humanity today was decended.

And there’s the rub. You can see that this isn’t what Humani generis is saying, right? In other words, you just moved the goalposts.

I would assert that science =/= theology, and any attempt to characterize them as being at odds with one another is a mistaken approach. After all, that would be like saying that “baking apple pies” and “driving a Corvette” are inherently contradictory fields of endeavor. They aren’t – rather, they’re simply two different arenas, with two different toolsets and approaches and objectives.

Science talks about physical things – so, “male and female homo sapiens” are well within its competence. Theology speaks about something different in HG: “true humans”. In the theological context, a human isn’t merely a body – it’s a body+soul composite. So, Pius is talking about something that’s literally beyond the competence of science: ensouled human beings.

The implication, then, is that Pius isn’t talking about the things that science talks about – population bottlenecks observable through DNA, etc, etc. He’s talking about souls. In this way, I’d assert, there’s no need to “reconcile what the Church requires us to believe… with what we now know from the study of human genomes.” After all, science talks about genomes, whereas theology talks about souls. There’s no conflict there.

 

[Gorgias]

Adam was the real Y-Adam for the whole human population until the Flood. That killed all the male descendants of Cain, so Adam was no longer the most recent Y-Adam. At that point Noah became the new most recent Y-Adam.

Lots of caveats to be had there:

• if you believe that the flood was an actual global event
• if you believe that the accounts of the first chapters of Genesis are historical, as such
• if you believe that the accounts of the first chapters of Genesis are silent regarding other people because they simply didn’t exist

Basically, it comes down to “if you believe in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis”. Which the Catholic Church does not.

If I hold this ^ position, can I then legitimately hold the position that there could be homo sapiens sapiens alive today that do not have a soul?

No.

Humani Generis speaks of “true men”. What does that mean?

Every human person except fans of the Baltimore Ravens.

At a certain point, the origin of “true men” seems to get pushed so far back, it strains credulity to suggest that Original Sin is a real thing.

How so?

 

[rossum]

Lots of caveats to be had there:

I was using the Flood story as a simple example of how the status of MRCA can change, because of the “Most Recent” part.

 

[Gorgias]

I was using the Flood story as a simple example of how the status of MRCA can change, because of the “Most Recent” part.

Cool. I think it’s important to point out that dynamic, due to the confusion around what “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” really mean…

 

[Allyson]

I am going to try and catch up on replying to everyone in brief tonight, and hopefully in the next few day or by this weekend compose a comprehensive reply drawing together themes from everyone.

I really appreciate the active discussion here. I have always enjoyed a vigorous theological debate

 

[Allyson]

@Wesrock - I started reviewing the Kemp article on my tablet, and I am already enjoying the read. I printed it out today, because I like paper better.

@IWantGod - I completely agree with you on the philosophic position taken as a Catholic, that does not render invalid, the conclusions reached by use of methodological naturalism. I hope to expand on this more later in the week. Insofar as there is a claim that a supernatural or spiritual element acts on or manifests in the natural, we should be able to test for its effects. If the soul is the source of reason, and, as has already been listed elsewhere in this thread, there are earmarks of being rational, then those things can be found in the analysis of the archeological record - sparse as that evidence may be the father we go back in time. At no point have I suggested that DNA is the “essence” of a person; I am considering only what the DNA tells us about our biological history, which is very complex and fascinating.

@John_Martin Here, I also hope to expand more, but for now: historically, the Church has shifted on things it taught about natural history in the past. I know there is the discussion of Galileo that has already taken place, but I had the same thought as @MasterHaster. Essentially, the Church made a claim about the reliability of Scripture regarding the natural world - that the Earth was at the center of everything. Then, when the perponderance of evidence was in favor of heliocentrism, they changed their teaching on this point. This perponderance of evidence was established long before we ever left the atmosphere to take a look. At this point in time, the perponderance of the evidence is in favor of a biological polygenism rather than monogenism (mixing the theological terms in with the biological concept.)

@Rau - This question has already been answered in just the way I would have answered it: that Pius XII was referring to the point of ensoulment. I have been reading Humani Generis in the most conservative way and in light of Church tradition.

 

[Allyson]

@Freddy - You could come up with a most recent common ancestor for every chromosome. It just takes a lot of work and time. mtDNA was done first because it is sex specific and mutates at a regular rate. It does not tell us anything about a literal Eve. Even if it was a literal Eve, that still leaves you with the problem of multiple Adams, because there were several haplo groups existing contemporaneously for the Y-Chromosome that have survived to the present.

Which takes me back to @Wesrock - Would Adam and Eve be required to be the most recent common ancestor on either side - no, but how far back in time will we push when they existed? Assuming a single pairing, there is the problem of population bottle neck - when the bottle neck is too narrow, a species will not survive.

@Dan_Defender - As has already been point out, 2 million years is when our genus began, which is to say that our Ancestors transition from being tree dwelling apes to being savanah dwelling apes with growing brain sizes. Homo habilis was very likely one of the first to control and utilize fire for cooking, and this changed our anatomy by unlocking the energy needed to support a large brian. gathering around a fire was also probably the bringing because we had to learn to live in a community that shared food and tight spaces. See Catching Fire. By homo erectus, we have evidence that our ancestors cared for the sick.

@Gorgias - I have not moved the goalposts. I an reading Humani Generis narrowly, because that is the best reading in light of Church tradition Approaching the issues I have raised here in the way that you suggest has only ever lead to cognitive dissonance for me. Furthermore, a problem arises when people want it both ways - that science points to God, but that science cannot say anything about God. I do not think it is beyond the purview of science to examine at what point we become what we would recognize as human, and, if the claim of religion is that what makes use human is that we have rational souls, then we should be able to see the earmarks of reason in the archeological record even though we cannot test for spiritual elements, etc. I also agree that the modern Church does not read Generis literally, but that was not always the case. The parts that are considered mythical have become so because of the advancement of natural science and human knowledge. That said, Pius is insisting on generation from just one pair of people, so I am treating that as literal until the magesterium state otherwise. Re: credulity - It was a far more credulous assertion that one man and one woman were the origin of original sin before generating all of man kind when people believed that these events took place within living memory in order to be recorded (i.e. within 6-10KYA) rather than 200KYA or earlier. That is no longer living memory, which makes original sin just a mythical a a flat earth with a firmament over it.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Those other genetic contributors with no descent from Adam would not have been true men as they would not have had rational souls. Only children with Adam as an ancestor would have had rational souls and be true men and women.

If I hold this ^ position, can I then legitimately hold the position that there could be homo sapiens sapiens alive today that do not have a soul?

No

Is that a… no you may not? - or a…no, that doesn’t follow?

 

[Gorgias]

I have not moved the goalposts. I an reading Humani Generis narrowly

Perhaps, then, I’m suggesting that you read it less narrowly.

Approaching the issues I have raised here in the way that you suggest has only ever lead to cognitive dissonance for me

Hmm… how is “science is science, and theology is theology” cognitively dissonant?

a problem arises when people want it both ways - that science points to God, but that science cannot say anything about God.

That depends on what you mean by “science points to God”, doesn’t it?

I do not think it is beyond the purview of science to examine at what point we become what we would recognize as human, and, if the claim of religion is that what makes use human is that we have rational souls, then we should be able to see the earmarks of reason in the archeological record even though we cannot test for spiritual elements, etc.

This is the most valid objection to the notion I’m addressing here, I’ve got to admit. However, it requires us to define what “rationality” is, in terms of its measurable effects. Is it ‘communication’? Irrational animals communicate with each other in various ways. Is it ‘use of tools’? Irrational primates use tools. What about ‘care for members of the community’ or ‘care for the dead’? Nope… we find that in the animal kingdom, as well. So… before we say that science can demonstrate ‘rationality’, we’re going to have to pin down a rather well-defined notion of what the purported measurable effects of ‘rationality’ are, no?

Let’s cut to the chase: the claim of religion is ‘immortal souls’. Can science measure this?

Pius is insisting on generation from just one pair of people, so I am treating that as literal until the magesterium state otherwise

You’re missing a critical point, and I hope it’s not an intentional mischaracterization: it’s generation of true humans, not just generation of hominins. Science can only speak to the latter, and not the former. When we attempt to conflate the two, we find “cognitive dissonance”. When we do not… we do not find this difficulty.

It was a far more credulous assertion that one man and one woman were the origin of original sin before generating all of man kind when people believed that these events took place within living memory in order to be recorded

Please substantiate this claim. On its face, you seem to be claiming that truth can only be found “within 6-10KYA” and not “200KYA or earlier”. That’s simply illogical.

 

[Freddy]

This is the most valid objection to the notion I’m addressing here, I’ve got to admit. However, it requires us to define what “rationality” is, in terms of its measurable effects. Is it ‘communication’? Irrational animals communicate with each other in various ways. Is it ‘use of tools’? Irrational primates use tools. What about ‘care for members of the community’ or ‘care for the dead’? Nope… we find that in the animal kingdom, as well. So… before we say that science can demonstrate ‘rationality’, we’re going to have to pin down a rather well-defined notion of what the purported measurable effects of ‘rationality’ are, no?

You seem to be defining what rationality can be but excluding anything which might posses it - perhaps leading to the only conclusion you want.

So paraphrasing: ‘Tools could be a measure of a rational mind and primates use tools. But they are not human so that cannot be the measure of a rational minds’.

Or: ‘Primates are not human so the fact that they use tools cannot be the measure of a rational minds’.

Your problem (should you wish to accept it) is that man is an animal and has evolved from (let’s use the term) non rational animals. Or shall we say less rational animals. So if the form of the rational animal being man can be defined as the soul, then it must have evolved with it OR been granted by God at a specific time to a specific man.

In which case we don’t need to define what is meant by ‘a rational animal’. It is thus defined: ‘that which God has granted a soul’.

Unless you want to suggest that God waited until we became rational before giving us a soull?