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.
Dovekin said:
What points here are in disagreement?

I have deleted some that I think we agree on.
  1. No Creature can, as Principal Cause (causa principalis) that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis.)
I have no idea on this, but not really relevant to this discussion
Click to expand...
I think it is. Here is why: An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
 
buffalo said:
And now, as I have shown in the Royal Society meetings…
Click to expand...
So, the ID people hired a room at the Royal Society. The venue has zero impact on the scientific viability of what they said.

Your continued emphasis on the venue shows that, on some level, you are aware of the weakness of the scientific case.
 
Not true. In the document Communion and Stewardship, the Church writes in continuity with previous papal teaching, especially Humani Generis:

64 “Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

–

The key sentence is “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
 
rossum said:
No. DNA is a chemical, not a digital representation. Digital representations are in bits, not chemicals.
Click to expand...
In the same sense computer storage does not actually store digitally but in representations that are electrical, magnetic or chemical (for example, on recordable DVD discs).
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
So, the ID people hired a room at the Royal Society. The venue has zero impact on the scientific viability of what they said.

Your continued emphasis on the venue shows that, on some level, you are aware of the weakness of the scientific case.
Click to expand...
Others outside the ID camp were involved. But, think about this - the Royal Society actually let them have a room? My, how times are changing. Spend some time listening to the lectures and q&a’s. Things are changing…
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I also think he was wrong, and in the seventy years since Humani Generis, I think ‘the Church’, at least as an authority on things, has shifted its position. … Pope John Paul II certainly mentioned “theories” of evolution in his address. I don’t know what he meant by that, but he made a clear distinction between the acceptable and the unacceptable.
Click to expand...
So did Pius XII make clear the acceptable from the unacceptable theories:
“It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth” (HG, p29; Pius XII – emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
Pius XII use strong language, i.e., “unshakable”, in his assertion of the first principles.

So how or when does the historiographic scientist leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy? As argued earlier, the farther from his data he extrapolates, the more his theories must conform to first principles for he is now philosophizing.

Evolution “philosophies” on the origin of man that depart from the principles of sufficient and proportionate reason are to be discarded as good philosophy and regarded as pure opinion, nothing more. We await more evidence.
 
buffalo said:
Yet in can store digital info. We are doing this now.
Click to expand...
DNA can store information. That information can be represented digitally as well as chemically. Does a digital photograph of the Statue of Liberty make the Statue of Liberty “digital information”?
 
buffalo said:
I think it is. Here is why: An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Click to expand...
Why not? How is this in any way applicable to #68? It talks about something other than God creating something from nothing. When God creates, the creature is not greater than God; why would this not be true for other creators?
 
Dovekin said:
Why not? How is this in any way applicable to #68? It talks about something other than God creating something from nothing. When God creates, the creature is not greater than God; why would this not be true for other creators?
Click to expand...
It would be true for other creators.

Think about the evo claim of A simple cell somehow through an unguided chance process becomes a man given enough time.
 
Last edited:
We were discussing “an effect cannot be greater than its cause.” Creatures are not greater than God their creator, so I do not see why the effects of other causes would be greater than their causes. Consequently I do not understand what Buffalo meant.
 
79) The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)

80) God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

I certainly believe in these, but I doubt that you do.

I agree with these,
 
buffalo said:
It would be true for other creators.

Think about the evo claim of A simple cell somehow through an unguided chance process becomes a man given enough time.
Click to expand...
Oh. I see what you mean. Greater is a metaphysical term which you are misapplying to the physical realm.

In evolution, the only analogue to greater is more fit, ie better able to reproduce successfully. And it is not unusual for offspring to be less fit rather than more fit; in fact, it is expected to be a significant part of the process.

In a metaphysical sense, a man is greater than a cell which is greater than a rock. In a physical sense, they are a man is not greater than a cell or a rock. Each just is what it is physically.
buffalo said:
I agree with these,
Click to expand...
Good, we agree on almost everything on your list.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
One problem I have encountered before in similar discussions is the way you are measuring information. I use Shannon information or Kolmogorov information. If you are using a different measure of information then please specify what measure you are using.
Click to expand...
Please describe the problem you encountered in similar discussions.
 
Yep.

I even accept Pius’ qualification of “true human” in his statement of it in HG.
 
rossum said:
DNA can store information. That information can be represented digitally as well as chemically. Does a digital photograph of the Statue of Liberty make the Statue of Liberty “digital information”?
Click to expand...
Does any photograph of the Statue of Liberty make the Statue of Liberty other than what it is: an effect of an intelligent cause?

All photographs (including silver-halide crystals) are merely a lower digital resolution of the same digital image captured by the human eye (at ~ 600 MP) and processed by the human brain.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
Impossible for God to arrange it thus? That’s a strange position to take.
Click to expand...
He could have did it that way. The question is - did He. And the evidence is coming in He didn’t.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t you be using a lower case ‘h’ for the ID’er? You seemmto be using them interchangeably.

And could you comment on the position of the people to whom you linked that man’s lineage goes back millions of years and the planet is billions of years old?

If the very links that you provide refute your position then it’s difficult to see how you can maintain it. And neither of them refer to ‘Darwinism’ so they don’t toss that in to remain credible. That excuse that you return to time and again isn’t valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top