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.
There is a clear divide between science and theology. That is good for people who don’t believe in God, any god. But the Catholic Church adds Divine revelation to scientific questions and tells us that if a theory excludes God it is incompatible with the faith. Pope Benedict has written evolution can’t be proven. Not my personal opinion.
 
gama232 said:
Show me where science includes God.
Click to expand...
You have shifted the goalposts. Your previous comments have referred specifically to evolution as described “here”, not in peer-reviewed journals. However, your request is meaningless. Science papers neither include nor exclude God, as they deal with tiny aspects of scientific endeavour in which it is not necessary to mention the part God may or may not have played. For overall studies of evolution which specifically include God, see books by Kenneth R. Miller.
 
Misguiding textbooks written by the confused Ken Miller? He has no credibility. The Church combines Divine revelation with information from science. It has no limitations. Science does. The Church has the whole truth. As opposed to science which is convinced that religion is part of evolution which implies it developed in a non-God way. Or religion is some sort of mechanical thing. God? What God?
 
Last edited:
@edwest211 or @gama232,

Show me one electrical schematic that includes God. They don’t because it’s outside the area of schematics. If you want science to follow YOUR rules, then can Vishnu be the God they include? Should Muslims demand Allah be part of science? Should we go back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (Did that ever really occur? Just curious)

Just because you want science to include God doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or that the Church wants it to…God is for the Church to examine…and I really don’t think they want science getting in their way!
 
Such a sad reply. Scientists watch the Church like a hawk. When Cardinal Schoenborn had an article published in the New York Times titled Finding Design in Nature which criticized the theory of evolution, two scientists wrote to the Vatican to tell them they should not come down on the “wrong” side of science. The Church is very concerned about this kind of science as it relates to human origins. There is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Vatican has an observatory. To say the Church only does theology ignores all that.
 
gama232 said:
There is a clear divide between science and theology. That is good for people who don’t believe in God, any god. But the Catholic Church adds Divine revelation to scientific questions and tells us that if a theory excludes God it is incompatible with the faith. Pope Benedict has written evolution can’t be proven. Not my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
It. Doesn’t. Exclude. God.

Can I make that any clearer? No I cannot. So unless you have a difficulty with English, and you obviously don’t, then that should be clear enough. Notwithstanding that everyone is telling you exactly the same and no-one is saying any different. And you wouldn’t be able to find anyone on the forum who IS saying anything different.

So what we have to decide is what it is you are actually arguing against. It’s not God being excluded. That’s a given. But you keep repeating this mantra to avoid explaining to everyone what your problem actually IS with evolution. And that is: It contradicts your fundamentalist interpretation of biblical passages. But would you ever admit to that?

Well, you never have so I don’t see why you are likely to start now. You hold to the same positions as Buffalo and yet there is this reluctance to admit it. He will avoid admitting his young earth beliefs at all costs. As will you. And that has me beat. Why not come clean?

So instead of explaining to all that evolution doesn’t work because it doesn’t match the biblical version of how life came to be, you constantly play this charade that claims science denies God.

Edit: And evolution can’t be proven. Benedict was right. It’s a theory. Beats me how you can disparage something you don’t understand.
 
Last edited:
“… something you don’t understand.” Pope Benedict has written something clear and I agree with him.
 
@edwest211 or @gama232,

Proof is for mathematics. Yes, evolution will never be proven because it doesn’t deal with proofs. Science is conditional. Evolution can be replaced as a theory but it hasn’t happened yet. If it ever is, then new theories will develop that explains the evidence better but you may not like that, either.

Question…if the Magesterium came out and claimed that Catholics should accept the evidence that Adam and Eve were not the only humans, just the first ensouled humans…thus True Humans…would you accept it? Could you just instantly change your belief like that?
 
gama232 said:
“… something you don’t understand.” Pope Benedict has written something clear and I agree with him.
Click to expand...
If he said that one can’t prove evolution then he was exactly right. But you seem to think that an inability to prove a theory somehow disparages it. When it’s actually one of the definitions.
 
gama232 said:
And Catholics should never promote the idea that belief is optional. People can choose not to believe but it is our duty to tell them about the Gospel.
Click to expand...
I never said anything of the sort. I was just explaining that purpose does not have to be explained in your characterization of what evolution says (a strawman by the way). Everyone finds a purpose in their existence; even your reductionist conception of an atheist. :roll_eyes:
 
gama232 said:
To say the Church only does theology ignores all that.
Click to expand...
Very true, so nobody, at least here, says anything of the sort. Why spend your time tilting at windmills? If you think those of us here have misunderstood the teaching of the church, it would be better to explain carefully exactly where rather than speaking in slogans.

Is Freddy right? I have some sympathy for creationists provided their belief is grounded in a sincere faith and they do not need to distort the views of science and the church to prop it up. However, in general I find their proselytising style more damaging to their cause than likely to win converts, as it largely relies on tilting at windmills rather than engaging with those who have different beliefs. If you sincerely think you have a “duty” to contribute to this discussion, try to come up with a way that supports your position rather than undermines it, both by content and by style.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Since, in spite of trying, nobody has observed any pattern to this occurrence, we cannot conclude that the hypothesis (that genetic mutation is random) is incorrect. It’s similar, but not the same.
Click to expand...
OK. An admission of scientific ignorance is perfectly acceptable.

However, I disagree that the above is at all similar to:
Since we have not observed any pattern for an effect, we conclude the effect is indeterminable, that is, the effect is random.
Click to expand...
The former affirms ignorance on the issue while the latter claims a state of nature with no evidence in support.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Science papers neither include nor exclude God …
Click to expand...
And that is a good thing; science cannot appeal to the supernatural in explaining the natural.

But careful reading of science papers discloses the crutch words that science must use to bolster an incomplete explanation of observed phenomena in order to give the hypothesis the patina of completeness, e.g., “brute fact”, “emergent property”, “random”.

And we theists call out the mortal error of the pseudo-scientists as seen often in this thread, and in the OP itself, that elevates the merely possible to be factual.
 
o_mlly said:
And we theists call out the mortal error of the pseudo-scientists as seen often in this thread, and in the OP itself, that elevates the merely possible to be factual.
Click to expand...
I am a theist, and I am trained in theology 😉 The conclusion of the estimated smallest bottleneck in the human population is extrapolated from facts. There is no mortal error.
 
o_mlly said:
we theists call out the mortal error of the pseudo-scientists as seen often in this thread, and in the OP itself, that elevates the merely possible to be factual.
Click to expand...
This is the error in ID that I have been pointing out for a while now. It is a possible explanation, but not factual. Or really, it may be factual, but we cannot know it to be factual.

It is also the problem with your position. It may be true that organized information can only come from an intelligent source, but we do not know if it is factual.

Most scientists know that evolution is not factual. They do not think Lucy was ever called Lucy by her contemporaries.

Please, continue to call out this error whenever you can. Apply it to every side in this discussion, theist and atheists alike.
 
Dovekin said:
It is also the problem with your position. It may be true that organized information can only come from an intelligent source , but we do not know if it is factual.
Click to expand...
Not a problem for me. The claim organized information can only come from an intelligent source is a philosophical claim, not a science claim, following the first principles of sufficient and proportionate reasons. See my original post. Show me an error in the logic or a contradicting observable repeatable intelligent (as defined) effect that does not emanate from an intelligent cause (as no one has done) and the claim is falsified.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top