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

[Allyson]

@buffalo and @gama232 - Do you agree that the Bible is not held to be a scientific text by the Catholic Church? That the genre is narrative not technical?

Do you further agree that the description of the earth in Genesis as a flat disk on a pedestal covered buy the firmament is not literally true? And that heliocentric as a model for the solar system is correct - not geocentrism as described in the Bible? Attached is a version of the kind of picture in the Bibles we had in youth group.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[buffalo]

@buffalo and @gama232 - Do you agree that the Bible is not held to be a scientific text by the Catholic Church? That the genre is narrative not technical?

oh c’mon. FInd out the source of that drawing and who was using it.

 

[Allyson]

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment.

I am a lawyer. I know that is exactly what they were doing. Phillip Johnson is also a lawyer. He is the one who came up with the plan.

 

[buffalo]

I am a lawyer. I know that is exactly what they were doing. Phillip Johnson is also a lawyer. He is the one who came up with the plan.

Ignore all the good sources I have provided, All I can do is open your mind a crack.

 

[Allyson]

An image like that is in the NAB Catholic edition. It is included there for historical reference - not as something intended to be taken literally.

I have a point to asking my questions. Do you have an answer. Spoiler alert: I expect that we will have agreement. I hope I am right.

 

[Allyson]

Ignore all the good sources I have provided, All I can do is open your mind a crack.

They may be good sources in your mind, but you consistently demonstrate a lack of active listening. You do not seem to realize that I have good reasons for my position that are not the reasons you think I have.

 

[Allyson]

Just for shiggles. Why do you think that ID was not an attempt to get around a constitutional bar?

Do not give me articles. I want your reasons.

 

[webmasterpdx]

This is an area that interests me too. I think the question is far from answered from a scientific perspective. I see original sin as being that somehow man became able to “know” evil and live with himself…i.e. ignore his conscience or the guilt. Only humans can do this… It’s not clear how we developed this ability…certainly not by eating a fruit. Nor is it clear when that was in the evolutionary table. We do know there were other humans around. In Genesis it says the sons of god mated with the daughters of men and gave birth to the Niphilim. It’s unclear who all these players were. It’s possible that the sons of God were Neandarthals, who may have had no souls…we just don’t know… However, this ability to “know good and evil” was genetic and thus passed on to us… This would imply there was one couple. It’s possible there was one couple with this ability but many other humans around…cain was sent off and had to deal with other people…where did they come from (they weren’t descended from Adam and Eve)…??? So the bible says there were other people around, but Adam and Eve were special…and we today have some of Cain and his descendents in us…the last descendent from Seth was Noah…so we are all descended from Cain. So if Cain was breeding with people without souls…we have some of that, but Cain had the ability to know good and evil and so that is passed to us too. So its possible there was an adam and eve, but their descendent bred with other people around at the time, who were not like adam and eve…then those genes were mixed with Noah’s genes (descended from Seth)…so it’s complicated

 

[buffalo]

Just for shiggles. Why do you think that ID was not an attempt to get around a constitutional bar?

Do not give me articles. I want your reasons.

Intelligent design is now new.

I could care less about motivations. I care whether it is true or not and so should you.

I already gave you the solution. Only empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable) in the science classroom. Mandatory philosophy classes.’

BTW, what constitutional bar? Public schools were OK to teach religion until who got it banned? Why is their motivation, not suspect?

 

[gama232]

Thank you buffalo.

 

[Freddy]

Here is for you @Allyson
The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses , for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

And thanks to Mr. Abel for this quote: (PDF) Trevors, J.T.; Abel, D.L., 2004, Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life, Cell Biology International, 28, 729-739. | David L Abel - Academia.edu

‘Water has been present in abundance on Earth for approximately 4 billion years.’

The proposals he makes in his book are dependent on the planet being billions of years old. In the light of the links you have been giving for people you say we should trust in regard to their scientific proposals, would you like to (ahem) fine tune your estimate of the age of the earth? Now that we have information, supplied by you, of common ancestors of a different species going back many millions of years and the age of the planet being in the billions?

Do you trust the people that you say we should trust? Or do you simply ignore anything they say that doesn’t tie in with your more fundamentalist view of matters?

 

[Allyson]

BTW, what constitutional bar? Public schools were OK to teach religion until who got it banned? Why is their motivation, not suspect?

No actually, it was never okay. It violates the Establishment Clause. It only gets challenged when people stand up and say, not in my child’s classroom. This is what happened in Dover. These were not non-religious plaintiffs. They just wanted the teaching of religion left up to the parents - as it should be.

The ID of which I speak is new (as of 1987), and I do care that ID is not true. Motivations matter very much. It was a sham way to get around the constitutional bar.

Start reading the opinion with this header.

1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the meaning of Defendants’ actions, it is necessary to trace the history of the IDM.

It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jurisprudential legal landscape concerning opposition to teaching evolution, and its historical origins. As noted, such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism that began as part of evangelical Protestantism’s response to, among other things, Charles Darwin’s exposition of the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of species. [ McLean, 529 F.Supp. at 1258]; see also, e.g., [ Edwards, 482 U.S. at 590-92, 107 S.Ct. 2573]. Subsequently, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Epperson, in an “upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor of the twenties,” [393 U.S. at 98, 89 S.Ct. 266] (citations omitted), state legislatures were pushed by religiously motivated groups to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution. [ McLean, 529 F.Supp. at 1259]; see [ Scopes, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927)]. Between the 1920’s and early 1960’s, anti-evolutionary sentiment based upon a religious social movement resulted in formal legal sanctions to remove evolution from the classroom. [ McLean, 529 F.Supp. at 1259](discussing a subtle but pervasive influence that resulted from anti-evolutionary sentiment concerning teaching biology in public schools).

If you have never read the opinion, maybe you should. You clearly have been fed a long line of falsehoods with respect to what was intended by the Discovery Insititute.

 

[Allyson]

I already gave you the solution. Only empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable) in the science classroom. Mandatory philosophy classes.’

Evolution is empirical science:

1. The theory, like all theories in science, is based on observed facts.
2. The theory, like all theories in science, is used to make predictions.
3. The predictions based on the theory can be tested in a variety of ways, one of which is by looking for fossils where expected transitions are predicted to be found like what happened with tiktaalik.

 

[Allyson]

Another great quote from Kitzmiller. It pretty much sums up the approach I see you taking.

The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a “contrived dualism” that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that “one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution,” and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas’ balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.

 

[gama232]

As the Catechism states, we had two first parents.

 

[buffalo]

It violates the Establishment Clause.

The EC only says government cannot force a specific religion federally. At the time of the founding 3/4 of the colonies already had state sponsored religions. The feds left it to each state.

None of this matters if it is true. I want my children to learn the truth, without exception. Does it make sense for us to send our kids to school to learn only the truths that are permitted? Nonsense.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is empirical science:

1. The theory, like all theories in science, is based on observed facts.
2. The theory, like all theories in science, is used to make predictions.
3. The predictions based on the theory can be tested in a variety of ways, one of which is by looking for fossils where expected transitions are predicted to be found like what happened with tiktaalik.

OH my. What will humans look like in 10,000 years? It is not observalble, repeatable and predictable. Evolution is historical science.

 

[Freddy]

I already gave you the solution. Only empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable) in the science classroom.

Well, there goes cosmology. But hey, hang on. I know we can’t see stars forming for example. But we can observe how dust clouds condense. And we can see that repeated at various stages throughout the observable universe. And from that information we can predict what we should see in new galaxies. So yeah, it’s observable, repeatable and predictable. I think someone said we couldn’t drag a thousand suns in the process of forming into the laboratory to test the theory but it’s obvious that we don’t need to.

So anyone want to deny that cosmology is an empirical science? No?

So for heaven’s sake, please cease and desist with this nonsensical claim that observation isn’t applicable to the evolutionary process. And please do likewise with the risible suggestion that we don’t see facets of the process repeated across the whole biosphere. And enough already with the hoax that it cannot make predictions.

We know your m.o. At least I do. Bombard the thread with links to what you think supports your position. Ignore anything within those links that opposes it. Never address points that directly oppose your position. Readjust your claims when the people you claim have got it right directly contradict your position (remember Behe?). Refuse to answer simple questions that will exhibit your fundamenal beliefs (age of the planet anytime you are ready).

And look, I could care less what you believe. It has no impact on me. But you want this stuff taught in schools for heaven’s sake. Not that you have a snowballs chance in hell of getting that. But as long as you peddle this stuff there will be those who feel obliged to nip it in the bud and show it for what it is.

 

[gama232]

Evolution can’t explain fossilized trees that pass through a number of layers, or strata, of rock. And the historical part is questionable in general.

 

[Allyson]

I am not disputing the contents of the CCC. You seem to be under strong misapprehensions about my position.