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

[Hugh_Farey]

The “scientific view” does not consider anything outside of the observable data

When scientists extrapolate from their observed data they enter the realm of philosophy.

We poor scientists are forever being told what science is by people who aren’t scientists, who first define our parameters to suit themselves, and then tell us that because we don’t fit them we aren’t scientists.

If fact, of course, an absolutely fundamental aspect of science is to “extrapolate from their observed data”. Observation and experiment are the bottom steps of scientific endeavour, not the top.

I was having a conversation yesterday with an atheist along rather similar lines. First he defined God to suit himself, and then told me it was unscientific to believe in his definition. He was, of course, completely wrong about his definition, so the fact that he was completely right about the corollary was utterly irrelevant.

 

[o_mlly]

If fact, of course, an absolutely fundamental aspect of science is to “extrapolate from their observed data”. Observation and experiment are the bottom steps of scientific endeavour, not the top.

Extrapolation is “absolutely fundamental”? I think not.

If by “fundamental” one means the necessary base upon which one forms theories then only interpolation can be considered fundamental. The probability of extrapolated speculations never equates, is always more difficult to defend than those of interpolated predictions.

This is especially true in the historiographical sciences. In the matter of evolution of man, would one claim the same certainty on conclusions based on the gene data of biologists as to the speculations based on the fossil records of paleontologists? No.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I’m not sure I understand that, although I do (now) appreciate that “fundamental” was perhaps not the best word. “Integral” might have been better.

“The probability of extrapolated speculations never equates” to what?

Would one claim the same certainty on conclusions based on the gene data of biologists as to the speculations based on the fossil records of paleontologists? No.

Yes. Often. depending on the quality of the observations, of course. But whole lineages of extinct animals based on fossil records have been overthrown by subsequent genetic discoveries.

 

[o_mlly]

“The probability of extrapolated speculations never equates” to what?

Scientists know with certainty that their findings are never certain. So, using statistical methods, they analyze their observed data and infer probabilities to predicted outcomes. When one predicts an outcome outside the limits of the observed data (extrapolates), the assumption that the reality observed within the data set continues outside the data set reduces the probability that such predictions are valid.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Quite true. But it in no way impinges on the fact that such extrapolation is a common aspect of scientific endeavour, and in many ways the most important.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It happens all the time. “You believe that God lives outside the edge of the Universe. You believe he created the Universe in seven days.” All that sort of stuff.

 

[Dovekin]

When scientists extrapolate from their observed data they enter the realm of philosophy.

The point I was considering was that science and intelligent design use different “data sets.” Statements about bias and assumptions are appropriate if you want to question science or ID or both, but there are also issues that can be discussed without determining what is the correct “data set.” Those issues are what interest me more than another discussion of whether the supernatural should be included in the data. IOW, I prefer entering the realm of philosophy and cleaning up differences later.

The title question asks about reconciling science and Humani Generis. I take science to be what is based on data that excludes the supernatural (by Occam’s razor), and HG to represent a theological system that makes observations about the same reality commented on by science. i do not consider either to be truth incarnate, indisputable, etc. In fact I consider my understanding of each to be open to correction.

Such a discussion differs from ID, with a hybrid “data set.” Perhaps I will conclude with a hybrid answer like ID. But for now, I would rather concentrate on the issue Pius XII, how to reconcile a particular scientific conclusion with a particular theological system, rather than what hybrid system must we create to replace science, theology or both.

 

[Allyson]

Ugh. A strawman God. LOL. Luckily, there are also atheists out there who constantly remind other atheists to not assume the doctrine believed by a believer. Ask first! I have known a lot of atheists over the years, and we never once had discussions about whether a god exists. We were too busy with the things we had in common. This includes the one who was the president of a school club I was in in college “The Religious and Philosophical Society.” Whatever our conversations were on the subject they are not the conversations I remember.

On the science and philosophy subject - I used to bristle internally when prominent scientists (like NGT) expressed frustration with philosophy. But, having started this thread on this forum, I totally get it now. There is an undercurrent of people trying to undermine the solid conclusions of science in an almost nihilistic way by appealing to philosophy or philosophical sounding terms. I have found it extremely frustrating. I do not know who here is actually a philosopher, so I hope the ones trying to undermine the science with wordy appeals are not actual philosophers.

I have always understood the natural sciences in the modern form as an outgrowth of philosophy from the enlightenment that lead to the scientific method. Once that proved a reliable epistemological system for making reliable determinations about reality, it became its own beast (in a positive way). That does not mean that there cannot be a positive exchange of ideas between the two, but the parent should not undermine the child. I liked how John Searle put it when he came and spoke to my class (it was a class on his writings). He saw philosophy as the place where new hypotheses about the mind, in his case, could be formed and science as the way to test those ideas. If the tests don’t work out, the philosopher goes back to work. You don’t pout because your world view did not prove descriptive of reality.

The same should apply to our origin myths. Good theology recognizes that the truths contained are not the literal meaning of the words. Good theologians do not pout because the world was not literally made in in seven days; and they do not pout because humans evolved from common ancestors with everything alive today.

I found nothing wrong with your use of the word fundamental, btw.

 

[o_mlly]

The point I was considering was that science and intelligent design use different “data sets.”

No, the data is the data and the rules for their logical extension are the same.

I prefer entering the realm of philosophy …

If so then one must use first metaphysical principles in analyzing the data.

I take science to be what is based on data that excludes the supernatural …

? Of course, science necessarily excludes the supernatural.

I would rather concentrate on the issue Pius XII, how to reconcile a particular scientific conclusion …

As pointed out in an earlier post, the OP fraudulently claims what no honest evolution scientist claims. Baiting in this forum is discouraged.

I do not know who here is actually a philosopher …

Everyone who posts in this forum is a philosopher.

… by appealing to … philosophical sounding terms. … Once that proved a reliable espistemological system for making reliable determinations about reality …

Ahhhem. I assume you mean “epistemological” and, yes, that is a “philosophical sounding term”.

One should be aware that nothing is proved in science. The scientific method cannot even prove the scientific method.

 

[stoplooklisten]

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information - https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/t...e-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

And this information may be in a state of being actively and purposely processed rather than a mere passive repository.

Could it be that there’s a bias towards explanations that exclude a God to whom we owe some honor?

IMHO, science postures as if it possesses a certainty that it doesn’t have. IMHO, science is still too divorced from philosophy. IMHO, science is still trying to figure it out.

 

[Allyson]

Everyone who posts in this forum is a philosopher.

In the general interest sense. Yes. By trade, I have no idea. I have an interest and some education in philosophy, but I am not a philosopher by trade.

I assume you mean “epistemological”

Typo fixed! Thanks

One should be aware that nothing is proved in science. The scientific method cannot even prove the scientific method.

I figured that it was safe to assume that most people interested in this topic understand this distinction. However, just because you can’t prove the basis of the scientific method in a mathematical sense, it does prove to be useful and reliable in a practical sense. That is sufficient because it is meant to be a tool of a practitioner.

 

[Dovekin]

the data is the data and the rules for their logical extension are the same.

This does not seem to be the case. ID proponents here believe that God influences the data. They often arrange the data to match that predetermined concept, hence a different data set for them.

the OP fraudulently claims what no honest evolution scientist claims.

Pius XII set up an opposition in HG that the original question seeks to express. If you object to the use of the word science, we still have Pius’ problem to address.

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
HG 37

If you know of a way that two persons can generate the diversity we see today without divine intervention, your accusations of fraud still would not be reasonable. Most of us think that Pius summarized an idea that is held by many scientists.

 

[buffalo]

More ID, Jesus some Adam and Eve - a good discussion:

 

[o_mlly]

This does not seem to be the case. ID proponents here believe that God influences the data. They often arrange the data to match that predetermined concept, hence a different data set for them.

One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.

The science shows that the DNA/RNA molecules contain digital organized information necessary for the replication of cells. “Information organized” in an effect is evidence of an intelligent cause. One has only to examine all other effects that contain organized information to reasonably come to the same insight.

Pius XII set up an opposition in HG that the original question seeks to express. If you object to the use of the word science, we still have Pius’ problem to address.

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled

Two points.

First, the word “now” gives what follows a temporary condition.

Second, and more importantly, any claims beyond the observed data are metaphysical claims. The principles of logical argumentation attest that animal causes cannot confer a rational soul: an effect cannot have properties not present in one or more of its causes (sufficient reason). And the effect cannot be greater than the cause (proportionate reason). Pius XII’s teaching prevails and, I believe, cannot be contradicted by science or philosophy properly understood.

 

[rossum]

The science shows that the DNA/RNA molecules contain digital organized information necessary for the replication of cells. “Information organized” in an effect is evidence of an intelligent cause.

There are unintelligent processes which will organise information. In the case of evolution your example is particularly easy to explain. Cells which cannot reproduce do not reproduce and so have no living descendants. Every living organism today, from the simplest bacterium to the largest tree has a long line of ancestors. Every single one of those trillions of ancestors successfully reproduced. Every single one of them. That process ruthlessly weeded out all the unsuccessful non-reproducers. We are all the descendants of many many generations of reproductive success, and only of reproductive success. No failures at all.

One has only to examine all other effects that contain organized information to reasonably come to the same insight.

So, all organised information is due to human intelligence, as repeatedly observed. Or do you have an observed example of a non-human intelligence organising information?

 

[Allyson]

One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.

Who are ID Science proponents that are not creationists? I know of no one who is not in some way associated with a creation science organization like the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research etc. Yes, when I was first introduced to ID in 2003, the claim was that it was not creationism, but in reality the name Intelligent Design was adopted by creationism to get around Edwards v. Aguillard. It is just squishy enough of a term that it can apply to someone who believes God did it through natural process or to creationism. I think that some theologians do not mean creationism when they say intelligent design, but all the people I know of doing the science are propping up creationism in one form or another.

I am genuinely interested to know who the scientists are that are ID but not creationists. I would include long and short earth in the definition of creationist.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

“Information organized” in an effect is evidence of an intelligent cause.

I would really like this to be true. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way, scientific, philosophical or theological to support such a belief. If you could give me some of the “other effects that contain organized information” which I could examine, then perhaps I would achieve the same insight as yourself

 

[buffalo]

but all the people I know of doing the science are propping up creationism in one form or another.

Ever consider that is might be because it is reality?

 

[buffalo]

Not an ID proponent:

Swamidass and the Genealogical Adam and Eve​

 

[Dovekin]

One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.

Why? What is the difference? Your follow on suggests “ “Information organized” in an effect is evidence of an intelligent cause.” which means the same thing as “God influences the data” in this discussion. If this difference does not matter, why distinguish between creationists and scientists? Or does the difference matter?

the word “now” gives what follows a temporary condition

Is it now apparent how the two can be reconciled? I don’t think so, but I am willing to listen.

an effect cannot have properties not present in one or more of its causes (sufficient reason). And the effect cannot be greater than the cause (proportionate reason)

So if we cannot reconcile A and B, there is no point in discussing because it is not in either of us and would be greater than what is? If there is value to these principles, they do not seem to apply here. Certainly evolution scientists dispute the first and do not think the second is applicable.

animal causes cannot confer a rational soul

This is the principal issue in this discussion. Something more than assertion, or referring to disputed principles, would be welcome.