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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Allyson said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, and no.

It is constant teaching and Tradition that Adam and Eve were created by God at the beginning during the creative period.

Not so. The teaching has been that Eve was created by a special act of God from Adam.
 
Allyson said:
Ask any atheist who gets involved in discussion with Christians who say things like “science is just a religion.”
Click to expand...
The claim is valid for historiographical sciences. Faith is belief in things unseen. Theories on the evolution of man are based in part on faith (and a good bit of bias by atheists).
 
Dovekin said:
Sbowflakes are based on a digital code of H, O and < where < represents a 60 degree angle. And I am not sure we need that last one.
Click to expand...
Snowflakes are natural patterns like waves in the sand. Design contains code and/or symbols and patterns.
 
gama232 said:
False double-speak. My position is science is half-blind. It does not contain the whole truth about man.
Click to expand...
Exactly and by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and can change daily. Science is like looking through a narrow viewing tube. There is so much more outside its field of view.
 
Exactly right. Eve does not fit into the evolution only narrative. Science cannot step on Church teaching here.
 
Allyson said:
As soon as they hear someone say that, they know that person has not thought through the the logical implication of those words.
Click to expand...
Scientism is a religion. Pure science simply gathers observable, repeatabe and predictable data. The human reasoning of this data is subject to error. When one adopts it dogmatically it becomes an issue. That is why people have lost faith in science.
 
Last edited:
Your response just demonstrated the point. You are a skeptic in the worst sense of the word.
 
On the contrary, what buffalo wrote is true. Science, in this case, has overthrown the Word of God. Eve. Where did she come from? Evolution? God made her from Adam’s side. Souls. They are created by God. The universe? Created not from something pre-existing but nothing. Focusing on science only means a Catholic could find himself just nodding his head about ‘natural forces,’ and forgetting about the rest.
 
buffalo said:
It is constant teaching and Tradition that Adam and Eve were created by God at the beginning during the creative period.

Not so. The teaching has been that Eve was created by a special act of God from Adam.
Click to expand...
  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.
Click to expand...
 
gama232 said:
On the contrary, what buffalo wrote is true. Science, in this case, has overthrown the Word of God. Eve. Where did she come from? Evolution? God made her from Adam’s side. Souls. They are created by God. The universe? Created not from something pre-existing but nothing. Focusing on science only means a Catholic could find himself just nodding his head about ‘natural forces,’ and forgetting about the rest.
Click to expand...
As I just quoted to @buffalo, Humani Generis does not comport with what you assert.
Allyson said:
  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 .
Click to expand...
 
  1. “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]”
 
@gama232 I am aware of paragraph 37, it is the basis of my OP. We had quite the productive discussion of how to make it all work in the begining…
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
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.’
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think that’s the dynamic here. There are those who hold to the science of evolution, and then there are those who use it as a framework for a particular belief system. In doing so, they really are creating a pseudo-religious system for themselves.

When Christians point this out, it’s not to say that “science > religion”, but rather, to point out that when adherents of scientism criticize religious believers, they’re really just “pots calling kettles black.” This isn’t a criticism of evolution, per se, but of scientism as a belief system.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
rossum:
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.’
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think that’s the dynamic here. There are those who hold to the science of evolution, and then there are those who use it as a framework for a particular belief system. In doing so, they really are creating a pseudo-religious system for themselves.

When Christians point this out, it’s not to say that “science > religion”, but rather, to point out that when adherents of scientism criticize religious believers, they’re really just “pots calling kettles black.” This isn’t a criticism of evolution, per se, but of scientism as a belief system.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that there are people who are using scientism as a basis to reject whole areas of scientific study.
 
Last edited:
It only works when it is understood as written. Catholics can’t ignore our first parents and Original Sin and the actual, literal effects of the Fall. Pope Pius XII begins Humani Generis with a talk about error, how to diagnosis it and how it applies to his encyclical. Attempts are still being made to make obscure what was clearly stated. To make Church teaching into reality into something only symbolic. Church teaching comes first. Opinions derived from science are opinions only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top