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

[Allyson]

@buffalo The theory of evolution is subject to empirical investigation. It is empirical science.

As for the rest of you comment. No. Just no. Especially no to that substanceless montage video.

We have gone around enough to know that I think evolution and God belief are compatible, and you do not. Evolution and Catholicism are compatible. My OP was not about their compatibility but about how to avoid the theological errors Pius was concerned about given what we know now through science. The solution is not a denial of science.

 

[buffalo]

The solution is not a denial of science.

It is understanding the line between empirical science and philosophy.

Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is a theory and does not meet these requirements. It should be excluded from the science classroom.

The OP was HG and science regarding Adam and Eve. This has been resolved as I have shown and science is now OK with it.

 

[Allyson]

Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is a theory and does not meet these requirements. It should be excluded from the science classroom.

You clearly do not understand what a theory is in science with this statement. Watch the Ken Miller video I posted a few comments ago. Everything you just stated is wrong.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Amd the firsy reading was about the subjects of this thread - Adam and Eve. “The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life,
and so man became a living being.”

Yes, both of the first two readings for Sunday Catholic Mass on Sunday, March 1, made reference to Adam. The first explicitly mentioned Adam and Eve. The second was more subtle but not that subtle and talked about one Adam (contrary to assertions of polygenesis). The gospel reading was about Christ fasting for 40 days in the desert and being tempted by the devil. The first Adam was tempted by the devil, ate the forbidden fruti and sinned and stained the human race. The second Adam (Jesus Christ) was tempted by the devil, refused to eat anything, and redeemed the human race.

 

[gama232]

Do you want to read the New York Times article by the Cardinal or ignore it? The Wedge Document is a farce. I’ve known so-called Fundamentalists and a few Protestants. I think some, not saying you, think that there are planning committees, secret handshakes and other maneuvering going on. Really? The ACLU and other, similar groups will pounce as they did at Dover.

Intelligent Design is the only answer I will accept.

 

[gama232]

Ken Miller has zero credibility. He wants it both ways. God intervened. To say otherwise goes against Catholic teaching.

 

[gama232]

And that’s what evolution is - a religion, an ideology. People must accept it. Why? Because atheists accept it. And no, it has nothing to do with gravity. It is not the best explanation for human beings or our first parents. And our first parents had gifts given to them by God:

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS

Definition​

“Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

 

[Freddy]

Allyson:

The solution is not a denial of science.

It is understanding the line between empirical science and philosophy.

Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is a theory and does not meet these requirements.

It’s already been said but I simply have to repeat it. One doesn’t observe or repeat theories.

One takes observations by whatever means is applicable and repeats those observations in different places at different times under differing conditions and in similar places at the same time under similar conditions and examines the results.

One then proposes a theory which will explain the empirical evidence and will predict what is likely to be found in certain circumstances. And also what will not be found under these same circumstances, thus rendering the theory falsifiable.

So the science does make observations. And the science is repeatable. And because of that the theory is falsifiable.

This utterly nonsensical claim that because evolution generally happens over long periods of time then it cannot be repeated simply exhibits a total lack of understanding as to how science works. With some laboratory examples of the process in fruit flies or similar organisms, nobody expects (except creationists) to actually repeat an evolutionary process such as fish to mammals. Just like we can’t repeat the formation of stars and planets and continental drift. But the experiments carried out to form theories that explain star and planet formation and continental drift can be repeated. And can be falsified. As it can with evolution.

Really, this is Science 101 and you do yourself no favours by exhibiting your lack of knowledge of the basics.

 

[Freddy]

And no, it has nothing to do with gravity.

Or the speed of light so I am reliably informed.

 

[Allyson]

Do you want to read the New York Times article by the Cardinal or ignore it? The Wedge Document is a farce. I’ve known so-called Fundamentalists and a few Protestants. I think some, not saying you, think that there are planning committees, secret handshakes and other maneuvering going on. Really? The ACLU and other, similar groups will pounce as they did at Dover.

Intelligent Design is the only answer I will accept.

I have repeatedly said in this thread that I make a distinction between Intelligent Design as it was coined and used by Creationists to get around a constitutional bar and holding a position in which natural processes were put in place by a creator God and then left to carry out said process. Because ID is a squishy term, it is attractive to a person with a God beleif, but ID science has not legitimated itself in the feild. The Cardinal is NOT being a scientist. He is being a theologian, and I do not disagree with the theological truths behind his ideas. Nor would Ken Miller, if I were to hazard a guess. Being Catholic is getting to have it both ways.

 

[Allyson]

And that’s what evolution is - a religion, an ideology.

Evolution is NOT a religion NOR an ideology. The only reason to label it as such, is because you feel your faith is threatened by understanding reality more deeply. It is not a threat to your faith.

 

[gama232]

You make an assertion that is not universal among Catholics. That is a fact. The Church tells us God intervened. That means evolution did not happen by itself and here is Pope Benedict:

Vatican City – "Pope Benedict says evolution cannot be scientifically proven. In his new book, “Creation and Evolution,” published Wednesday in German, Benedict says the immense time span that evolution postulates makes it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to either verify or disprove Darwin’s theory. In his words, “We cannot haul ten-thousand generations into the laboratory.” The pope adds that evolution raises philosophical questions which science cannot answer.’

 

[stoplooklisten]

It is not a threat to your faith.

Science is not a threat to God belief.

Repetition is a form of propaganda.

 

[Allyson]

Repetition is a form of propaganda.

Repetition is also a good way to drive a lesson home when teaching. But, this is not a forum for propoganda or teaching. So your point is out of place.

I am not saying anything that is out of line with Catholic teaching. You and others on this thread are assuming that anyone who does not think like you in everyway is not being Catholic and reading into their words intent that is not there.

 

[Allyson]

The waters on this thread have been quite a bit muddied today, so allow me to once again, clarify for you.

1. It is consistent with Catholic teaching to say that God created the natural forces of the universe to act on their own to bring us to where they are today. Being outside of time, he would have knowledge of the end result.
2. All that is required to believe about God intervening in the creation is that He specially creates the souls of humans beginning with Adam and Eve.
3. When our Church leaders speak of us not merely arising out of natural processes, they are speaking to spiritual realities - NOT biological processes. In so far as they speak of evolution not being scientifically proven, they are not speaking to their expertise, and there is no reason to adopt such prudential opinions. We are free to disagree.

 

[stoplooklisten]

My reading of Humani Generis is that there is no room for genetic contribution from others. Emphasis mine:
“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 .”

That’s my reading also. It’s also the way that I read Roman 5 in the Catholic Mass Readings for March 1 and other portions of the Bible.

 

[BenjaminJ]

People keep that things are impossible with God. So our science shows that one set of parents is impossible. So what? Very easy for God to change sets of gens inside humans. I mean created us in first place for heavens sake. People keep basing stuff on whats possible for man or nature. God is above all that.

 

[rossum]

And that’s what evolution is - a religion, an ideology.

I find it fascinating that followers of a religion claim to criticise evolution by saying: ‘Evolution isn’t science, it is a religion.’ In effect they are saying: ‘Science is superior to religion, so I will denigrate the science of evolution by calling it a religion.’

I find that a very strange argument for proponents of a religion to make.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Pope Benedict says evolution cannot be scientifically proven.

Pope Benedict is no fool. And also no scientist. Science does not involve itself in proof. Proof is a mathematical term of such rigor that it is incontestable, and a legal term of such flaccidity that it is almost always contestable, but it is not a scientific term at all.

Science does not prove propositions. It makes models, based on data, and then squabbles about how accurately the models fit the data. It never pretends that any of its models are necessarily “true” or “real”. The ones which fit the data best survive (Survival of the fittest! How bizarre). They change as they go along when additional data suggests that a change would fit the data better, and are occasionally abandoned altogether if the new data cannot be accommodated.

Evolution, like all models, is undoubtedly flawed. However, it is the best we have. It fits observed science better than Intelligent Design (at least, Intelligent Design as usually described - buffalo’s version seems to me quite an acceptable alternative), in that Intelligent Design seems to propose additional processes not yet observed, while evolution only uses what we’ve got.

I think it is a mistake to call a model blind, motiveless, directionless or pitiless. That’s to give a biological process an anthropomorphic character without justification. When a house gets swept away in a flood, the water is rarely called blind or pitiless; it’s just a hydrological phenomenon, and yet the ‘natural forces’ behind it are the same as those of evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

Now I have to be realistic! You make too many demands.

Too many? Just two – observable and repeatable, the standard scientific criteria.

But just two is too many, if and only if, I am correct. If only intelligent causes can explain intelligent effects then the task I assigned is impossible.

… would you care to say what the nature of this mysterious “intelligent source” is?

The science, so far, can only give us the high probability that that nature includes the property of intelligence. So, baby steps in science mode, bigger steps in philosophical mode and leaps reserved for theological mode. We are now in science mode as in ID science.

Following your logic, a zygote can also make an omelette and drive a car.

True. Merriam-Webster and I agree.

can​

verb
c —used to indicate possibility
d —be inherently able or designed to

If as you claim the zygote is not inherently able, what non-intelligent cause do you observe from zygote to adult human that enables omelette production?

You are equating the organism that the zygote will grow into with the zygote itself, which is a linguistic appropriation with which I disagree.

Organism? We have enough information to more precisely identify that “organism” as the human being. Yes, the two are the same human being.

Firstly, I’m going to exclude all living things, in case it turns out that they all count as intelligent effects from intelligent causes.

Why? The OP is about genetic data and human beings. I limited the scope of inquiry to the same limits noting that the science today observes DNA/RNA in all living things.

We can discuss the cause of inanimate beings later, if you like. For now, the task is to demonstrate an intelligent effect emanating from a non-intelligent cause. I grant you that your snowflake (and all inanimate beings) are non-intelligent. So, do you have a observed repeatable intelligent effect … (I think you must have the task in memory by now).