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.
buffalo said:
Which of those in post 1150 have shifted?
Click to expand...
Number 73. “The whole human race stems from one single human pair.” I doubt if any Pope, commission or other Catholic ‘authority’ will ever say that again.
gama232 said:
“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution
Click to expand...
Quite so. That’s what I said.
o_mlly said:
So did Pius XII make clear the acceptable from the unacceptable theories:
Click to expand...
No. I doubt if he knew enough about them. John Paul II did though, as I have mentioned above.
o_mlly said:
So how or when does the historiographic scientist leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy?
Click to expand...
I think it depends very much on the particular circumstances of any particular situation.
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that in principle that’s true. However, it seems that many people differ on what sufficient and proportionate reason might be in any particular case.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Number 73. “The whole human race stems from one single human pair.” I doubt if any Pope, commission or other Catholic ‘authority’ will ever say that again.
Click to expand...
Doubt as you want…

A pope’s opinion on that is just that…

Like it or not - nothing within this Thread has debunked in any manner Humani Generis

_
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Dovekin:
Yep.

I even accept Pius’ qualification of “true human” in his statement of it in HG.
Click to expand...
and this?
  1. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788
Click to expand...
Yes, as I have already said. I would say this in the context of 1 Cor 15, as I said. The soul is immortal, after all.
 
Dovekin said:
Yes!
Not even the arguments for ID!
Click to expand...
Agreed… ID - is an understandable extrapolated non-religious argument based upon actual science

Design? Seems solid as a Rock?

Intelligence? Seems so. yet that doesn’t impact upon what we know via UnBlind Faith

)
 
I have to agree. Humani Generis, and later, Communion and Stewardship make the Church’s position very clear. The goal appears to be to find some loophole. There is none. In Communion and Stewardship, God’s role is paramount. “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.”

It states that “…those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Without God having any 'truly causal role…" means it’s not compatible with the Catholic faith. By looking at the question of God’s role first, the correct answer is that any version of the theory that explicitly denies divine providence is not acceptable/compatible.

And that is where looking at the science only leads to error. That’s not my opinion.
 
On the contrary, the authority is in Communion and Stewardship. If God has no truly causal role then they, not me, say that it’s not compatible with the faith. Science is limited, the Catholic Church does not have that limitation and adds significant information like: “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.”

Is Pope John Paul II throwing out the science?
 
Allyson said:
The Catholic household I grew up in rejected New Agey woo. Did your?
Click to expand...
Your?

Our accepted the Teachings of The Catholic Church … 🙂

Humani Generis Remains Standing

Anything Else?
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
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.”

Is Pope John Paul II throwing out the science?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

I always maintain a very suspicious eye upon any false theology
which attempts to undermine Sacred Scriptures - just as IMO Satan would surely do.
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
Your post is an attempt at diversion. Human genetic data is the topic. One of the biggest recent blunders in Biology is calling Junk DNA junk. An assumption was made that basically said this junk was just leftovers from man’s allegedly long development period. Not true. It doesn’t code for proteins but it has function, so the junk label has been dropped.
Click to expand...
Another failed evo prediction. A confirmed prediction of ID.
 
gama232 said:
Humani Generis does not allow for any other humans at all. First, no evidence that Neanderthals mated with modern humans followed by evidence that they did. I submit that since they had this capacity they qualify as being modern humans. As in different racial types in existence today, there are variations in skull shapes and in body types. A recent finding is Neanderthals walked upright like we do. Denisovians are moving on to the list as well.
Click to expand...
Neandertals and Denisovans are human.
 
“no souls”? Where did that come from? Humani Generis allows for no other humans. It does not refer to soulless men. It looks like inventing ways to make it read the way some want it to read is going on.
 
Freddy said:
The second link is explicitly concerned with intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Please post the actual link so I can understand the one’s you are speaking of. I would love to go over these with you in more detail.
 
EndTimes said:
Your?

Our accepted the Teachings of The Catholic Church … 🙂
Click to expand...
Typo fixed. I think we agree that Catholicism is not New Age. LOL. So, yes the teachings of the Catholic Church, from that perspective, avoid woo. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top