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

[Pattylt]

The real problem I am seeing here is that @buffalo and @gama232 (edwest, is that you!) are going against church teaching in allowing other Catholics to accept evolution where the church allows either view. It’s fine to present your literalist views, however you should respect other Catholics to have their views without claiming they are wrong, atheistic or against catholic teachings…they are every bit as much a catholic view as yours are. This is one of those both/and…not either/or.

I’ve been a bit amazed at the disrespect for the Catholic evolutionary views expressed. You don’t have to agree with them but they are perfectly legitimate viewpoints!

 

[webmasterpdx]

being able to do evil and live with it is not based on rationality. It’s based on the fact that we can ignore guilt. I do believe that there is enough evidence to support that consciousness doesn’t reside only in the brain. I think that the brain plays a role, but there is something else (which I call the soul). I believe the break between conscience/guilt and consciousness is the “fall” which allows us to experience evil and good without consequence if we choose to ignore the guilt. God has this power (as it says in genesis…now they are like us knowing good and evil). I believe when we die we lose that ability and our guilt is in front of our faces and through communing with Jesus (who has that ability since he is god) we can remove our guilt and be purified. St Faustina’s vision of hell states as the first suffering is being unable to turn away from our guilt. I believe that Jesus was different. That he in human form could not turn away from guilt, so he could not sin. When he died and was resurrected, he had the opposite. I believe it is passed on…that’s what I mean by genetic…like babies have souls, they also inherit our ability…etc, etc…

 

[webmasterpdx]

I’ve been observing your arguments with mild amusement. I agree that the evolution of life to the complexity it has achieved was not possible without help from God in some way…we have difficulty creating a simple protein in the lab with all our science and we are supposed to say it all happened by chance. I don’t buy that. I do believe that the system in place helps this spark of life to evolve…it’s like you throwing a bunch of sand in the air and hope that it lands in a perfect cube…that’s just impossible. However, if you place a mold there, the sand can land in the mold and you have a perfect cube of sand. I believe that life is like that. Now the earth is billions of years old…the science of that is absolute and evolution does happen (again I believe God created the system that makes it work). Life has 2 ways of propagating a species. One is to make it almost immortal (and there are some critters like that). The other is to let them mate plentifully and die young…that’s us…that’s why we don’t regenerate limbs.

 

[Freddy]

The real problem I am seeing here is that @buffalo and @gama232 (edwest, is that you!)

It did cross my mind as well. But the style of writing seems different (although the sentiments expressed are identical).

 

[stoplooklisten]

Science says that DNA formed through evolution.

Impossible. I don’t have enough faith and trust in scientists or blind, random processes to believe that. Scientists have egos. They have some vanity. They can seek honor and praise. Scientists can engage in wishful thinking. Scientists are human. They can be irrational.

I do believe in Jesus Christ. He lived a pure and holy life. He spoke pure words. He did miracles. Almighty God knows all things, can do all things. Nothing can be hidden from God. God is love. God can be merciful. God can implement strict justice. God created wisdom and knowledge and understanding and us. Prophets and martyrs have testified in great numbers concerning Jesus Christ and stayed faithful despite great opposition.

Your calculation will need to show the effects of both random mutation and natural selection

Some things are not only improbable, they are impossible. I wasn’t born yesterday. I have seen scientists calculate probabilities as one in a big number. I have not yet seen a mathematical formulation for impossible. There may be one but I haven’t seen one. Some have tried to argue that 2 + 2 <> 4. Something, that is unlikely to happen once is even more unlikely to happen repeatedly. Many things that beat the odds to be done once then fail to beat the odds and become undone.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Science says that DNA formed through evolution.

Impossible.

Impossible for God to arrange it thus? That’s a strange position to take.

 

[rossum]

Impossible. I don’t have enough faith and trust in scientists or blind, random processes to believe that.

If you are going to criticise something, then you need to learn what it is before you criticise it, otherwise you are wasting your time. Evolution includes natural selection and natural selection is not a random process. By ignoring the non-randomness of natural selection you are rendering your criticism worthless.

Some things are not only improbable, they are impossible. I wasn’t born yesterday. I have seen scientists calculate probabilities as one in a big number.

So you have no calculations to back up your personal opinion. That renders it scientifically invalid, especially when you appear to be ignoring the effect of natural selection.

Some have tried to argue that 2 + 2 <> 4.

Oh dear. Not only do you need to learn more about evolution, you also need to learn more about mathematics: 2 + 2 = 11 (base 3) and 2 + 2 = 10 (base 4). Statements in mathematics depend heavily on the premises used. Change the premises and the statements change.

You might want to follow the advice in the Bible: “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I knew that the simple metaphors for good and evil and for the process of creation and Man’s position in the grand scheme of things were stories that weren’t meant to be taken literally. I didn’t. But when I realised that most of those who were teaching me did take these Sunday school stories at face value then I knew it was time to leave.

I have lost my trust in human origins science. No matter how much it corrects itself it still insists on an atheist interpretation of the data. No, I don’t expect scientists or science books to tell me God did this or that but when I was in Catholic school that is exactly what I was taught.

There’s common truth to be found in these two comments. Firstly, they both seem to me to reflect that point in a child’s life when trust in adults gives way to its personal understanding of the rationality of the world. Simple stories, biblical and scientific, suited to the comprehension of a young child, have to be reworked to fit in with the greater comprehension of the young adult. Some, perhaps most, manage that fine, while others reject ‘the bible’ in favour of ‘science’, or ‘science’ in favour of the bible. Some divide their minds into “non-overlapping magisteria” and some flounder about in discussions like this.

Freddy’s teachers, it seems, all took the ‘bible’ path, and Gama232 seems only to have come across teaching that takes the ‘science’ path. Some of us were fortunate in being taught by people and books which took a more reconciliatory path. Nobody told me that bible stories were literally true (at least not until I came across creationists much later in life!) and I don’t think I have ever read a scientific paper on human origins (or almost anything else) that 'insists on an atheist interpretation of the data. Perhaps I have been unusually fortunate.

 

[o_mlly]

Neither egg nor sperm are intelligent, and they can form digital information when combined.

No, the egg and sperm do contain digital-organized-information and so are intelligent in the context given.

Intelligence is not required to produce the information in DNA.

You apparently continue to use a different definition of “intelligent” than the one given. ?

Light photons are very definitely observable and are not chemicals.

Particle wave scientists would argue the opposite. In any event, no one claims that photons are intelligent.

My point was that DNA is not “digital”, it is chemical. DNA is composed of atoms of chemical elements; it is not a memory array in a computer or a DVD disc.

False dichotomy. DNA is both digital and chemical.

DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes (The digital code of DNA | Nature).

 

[rossum]

No, the egg and sperm do contain digital-organized-information and so are intelligent in the context given.

You are not using the standard scientific definition of intelligence. A sperm cell is not intelligent by any reasonable measure.

Particle wave scientists would argue the opposite.

You are not a particle wave scientists. Photons are not chemicals.

 

[o_mlly]

All human DNA in the world has arisen by natural forces. When a boy meets a girl and they do what comes ‘naturally’ (after getting married of course) then more human DNA is produced by purely natural forces. Seven billion copies of human DNA, all produced by purely natural forces.

? Please provide at least some evidence for the universal claim in your first sentence.

The example you provide, boy meets girl, does not support the claim. The seven billion effects are all intelligent effects all with intelligent causes.

 

[Dovekin]

rossum:

Science says that DNA formed through evolution.

Impossible. I don’t have enough faith and trust in scientists or blind, random processes to believe that.

Humani Generis says:

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.

There two statements I am trying to highlight:

1. the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter = bodies are mediately created by God
2. souls are immediately created by God.

The first is a description of evolution, which usually includes “DNA was formed from non living materials. The second is described in Genesis 2, possibly with a description of God creating our bodies.

HG goes on to say

1. “ it is in no way apparent how [these opinions] can be reconciled…”

This is as terse as I can make this. My apologies for any superfluous verbiage.

 

[Allyson]

I don’t have enough faith and trust in scientists or blind, random processes to believe that.

Just a bit of friendly advice. Avoid saying that you do not have enough faith in science. It implies that deep down you think faith is a bad thing.

A better way to phrase it would be:

“Based on my understanding of science, I am not convinced by the current evidence that evolutionary process would contribute to the selection of genes. However, I am open to learning more if I happen to be wrong in my current conclusions. I understand that I should demonstrate humility in these discussions, even when I think scientists are not humble.”

That sort of phrasing will help you to be on a firmer epistemic foundation.

 

[Allyson]

The real problem I am seeing here is that @buffalo and @gama232 (edwest, is that you!) are going against church teaching in allowing other Catholics to accept evolution where the church allows either view. It’s fine to present your literalist views, however you should respect other Catholics to have their views without claiming they are wrong, atheistic or against catholic teachings…they are every bit as much a catholic view as yours are. This is one of those both/and…not either/or.

I’ve been a bit amazed at the disrespect for the Catholic evolutionary views expressed. You don’t have to agree with them but they are perfectly legitimate viewpoints!

This sums it up very well. A literalist interpretation of the Genesis is not prohibited by the Catholic Church, but when you take church tradition as a whole, you see that there is a sliding scale of permissible options for interpretation. Nothing in the Catholic faith today is exactly as it was ~1900 years ago when the earliest copies of the gospels were made. Catholicism has the phrase “development of doctrine” for a reason. It definitely seems that some people do forget that.

I had begun to suspect that @buffalo and @gama232 were strawmanning me as taking an atheist position, and my patience with them was definitely running thin last night. In spite of very clear statements on my part that it is possible for God to have set up a process of purely natural forces (i.e. design in the Catholic sense - not ID science sense) and just let those forces play out, they just kept focusing on the the points of disagreement rather than points of agreement. It is also interesting to see how they consistently avoid the points that expose the weakness in their own opinions, and instead twist small parts of the comment to fit their worldview.

 

[gama232]

The human being is an integrated physical and spiritual reality.

 

[gama232]

I accept only what I was taught in Catholic school and what the Church teaches.

 

[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?

Okay, just to explain to you @buffalo and @gama232 where I was going with these questions.

First, the picture I originally attached is essentially like the one that was in the NAB bibles we used at my Catholic parish for CCD and youth group. No one there was being taught that it was fact, but it was a nice educational tool for seeing how the writers of Genesis described the world.

Second, I really do hope that you agree with me that the Bible is not a scientific text - that the genre of the Bible is of a narrative, not technical nature. I also hope that you agree with me that we do not take the description of the earth in relation to the heavenly bodies as literally true. Rather, that such descriptions are contingent on the location of the observer. In other words, we do not take every word literally. We seek the deeper meaning.

When it comes to Adam and Eve, we are not required to believe that Eve was literally formed from Adam’s rib. That aspect of the human story is an expression of the unity of the human race or of man and woman in a marriage. That sort of deeper meaning is what we should be focused on. So to with the concept of special creation, all that is required, as Pius states in HG, is that with Adam and Eve as first parents, and all who follow them, God specially created their souls and our souls. That is all that is required.

Catholic doctrine never just fell out fully formed. It has been in a constant process of doctrinal development and more complex formulations. Ideas like the Trinity, that Christ is one person with two natures, or the Dogmas surrounding Mary took time for formulate. The doctrines surrounding creation are pretty narrow in what is required, but there is much left unsettled, which gives flexibility when new discoveries about nature are made. As Catholics, we are not tied down to a fideistic legalism.

 

[Pattylt]

I accept only what I was taught in Catholic school and what the Church teaches.

And no one is saying you can’t. But other views are acceptable, too. It’s fine to say…my view…or my opinion…but instead, I keep getting the feeling that others aren’t allowed theirs. They aren’t wrong…they are different…and that’s as much catholic as yours. (Are you edwest?)

Just as evolution has some problems, ID theory has some even greater ones. It would be a better discussion if you recognized it, discussed it and quit with insisting that evolution makes someone an atheist. It most certainly doesn’t.

 

[gama232]

“deeper meaning”? Humani Generis is against symbolism. Human beings are literally physical and spiritual. Jesus Chris is both human and the Son of God. Deeper meaning is just another way of elevating opinions based on unsound science to be better than what God revealed through the Bible.

 

[Allyson]

I accept only what I was taught in Catholic school and what the Church teaches.

I went to a school seen as very Catholic for my theology degree. I have the bona fides