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

[gama232]

Where did I write “makes someone an atheist”?

 

[Allyson]

Where did I write “makes someone an atheist”?

It is not what you wrote explicitly, it is how you have been implicitly treating my explanations. You think what you learned is the correct and only Catholic teaching.

 

[Pattylt]

You’re correct, you didn’t specifically state that. My apologies.

You do imply that evolution and atheism go hand in hand…would that be correct?

 

[gama232]

That is the clear direction that this thread is going. There never were two first parents? The Catechism of the Catholic Church disagrees. The Church teaches Adam and Eve were given literal preternatural gifts by God. Science is being used here to deny that due to ‘human genetic data.’

 

[Allyson]

That is the clear direction that this thread is going. There never were two first parents? The Catechism of the Catholic Church disagrees. The Church teaches Adam and Eve were given literal preternatural gifts by God. Science is being used here to deny that due to ‘human genetic data.’

I recommend reading the first few responses on this thread where ways to have Adam and Eve as the two first parents even in the context of a broader hominid population were suggested including an article by a Catholic philosopher.

 

[rossum]

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

Go to your local maternity hospital or ask your parents.

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

Human sperm cells and human egg cells are not intelligent. Or do you have the results from when they took an intelligence test?

 

[Pattylt]

I thought this thread was about reconciliation of the view, not denial. I think @Allyson was very clear…she isn’t an atheist, she’s Catholic and is trying to find a resolution between the science and dogma…of which she ACCEPTS BOTH.

You seem to insisting that she throw the science out and I don’t think she’s willing to do so as she’s seen the evidence for the science and accepts it. You aren’t helping her. You are just stating WRONG…throw out the science!

 

[gama232]

Again, where did I write “throw out the science”? The Catholic Church can do what science cannot - combine information from science and information from God. Jesus Christ was quite real and the Bible has God as its author - Catechism reference on request.

 

[Allyson]

Again, where did I write “throw out the science”? The Catholic Church can do what science cannot - combine information from science and information from God. Jesus Christ was quite real and the Bible has God as its author - Catechism reference on request.

This is the equivalent of saying throw out science.

That is the clear direction that this thread is going. There never were two first parents? The Catechism of the Catholic Church disagrees. The Church teaches Adam and Eve were given literal preternatural gifts by God. Science is being used here to deny that due to ‘human genetic data.’

 

[gama232]

Science is being used here to say “there never were just two first parents.” It’s pretty clear.

 

[Pattylt]

Where have you tried to help her reconcile the science? You don’t address her presentation of the science and try to find a path to the dogma. You just state the dogma and insist this is what Catholics must accept. She does accept that A and E are our first parents…you want her to also accept a literal reading of how it happened. Catholics aren’t required to do so. So, taking the scientific evidence, give your opinion on how you would explain A and E scientifically AND theologically.

 

[gama232]

Humani Generis explains it. It starts by pointing out how anxious some are to turn the literal into the symbolic. An error in this case.

 

[Pattylt]

Humani Generis explains it. It starts by pointing out how anxious some are to turn the literal into the symbolic. An error in this case.

Are you claiming that it must be taken literally? By all Catholics? Are you now saying, throw out the science?

This is my last comment directly to you as Discourse is complaining I need to broaden my conversation…and I agree.

 

[o_mlly]

Go to your local maternity hospital or ask your parents.

Human sperm cells and human egg cells are not intelligent. Or do you have the results from when they took an intelligence test?

Evidence that one has no evidence is often betrayed in a merely snippy response. You’re better than that.

 

[gama232]

I’m claiming Humani Generis should be read as written. The same for the Catechism. And Pope John Paul II made it very clear in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that he was talking about theories - plural - of evolution, not just one.

 

[Dovekin]

The human being is an integrated physical and spiritual reality.

I agree. I think that is why Pius said these were difficult to reconcile.

 

[Allyson]

I’m claiming Humani Generis should be read as written. The same for the Catechism. And Pope John Paul II made it very clear in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that he was talking about theories - plural - of evolution, not just one.

You are being fideistic in your approach to Church documents. Please see my comment above about how narrow the requirements are v. how broad interpretation can be.

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.

 

[rossum]

Evidence that one has no evidence is often betrayed in a merely snippy response. You’re better than that.

You evidence for an intelligent sperm cell is indeed lacking. Was that why you gave a snippy response?

 

[Allyson]

This is my last comment directly to you as Discourse is complaining I need to broaden my conversation…and I agree.

Does the platform actually send messages about this? lol. Just curious, because I am used to the old platform, but was not active for a very long time. I only reactivated a month ago.

 

[o_mlly]

You evidence for an intelligent sperm cell is indeed lacking. Was that why you gave a snippy response?

I assumed you knew that to be true.

Loading…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sperm DNA​

The DNA of mammalian sperm is the mostly known compact eukaryotic DNA which is packaged six times more tightly than the tightly packaged mitotic chromosomes of somatic cells.

There’s my evidence that sperm cell contain digital-organized-information.

If you will not accept the proposed definition of “intelligent” then you may by substitution use its referent.

So, where is your evidence of an observable repeatable effect possessing digital-organized-information emanating from a cause which did not possess digital-organized-information.