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.
The Catholic Church combines scientific information with Divine revelation. This exposes science as only a maybe explanation. As Pope Benedict wrote, evolution can’t be proven. And the word proven is not about math but about demonstrating whether or not it actually happened.
 
Dovekin said:
Science is provisional, yes, and it is possible that ID is right as science. My problem is theological, it assumes that God, or some other unpredictable nonnatural force, intervened in nature. It may be true, but it violates science in a way that makes it useless. It is possible, not factual, while I prefer to limit science to “facts.”

Macro-evolution is also possible, but not factual. It is a consequence of theorizing based on facts. As I said much earlier, ID is based on theorizing on facts+ nonscientific facts. It might be right, but it is less useful for theologians and philosophers than something based on science alone.
Click to expand...
Why do you think ID assumes that God intervened after creation?
 
Odd reply. I follow the Church’s thinking and trust the Church alone. I have read a great deal and confirmed a great deal. It reminds me of something I heard in the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?”

Think for ourselves? Based on what? The words of radicals and dissidents? Ten out of 10 times, what they were for the Church was against.
 
gama232 said:
Odd reply. I follow the Church’s thinking and trust the Church alone. I have read a great deal and confirmed a great deal. It reminds me of something I heard in the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?”

Think for ourselves? Based on what? The words of radicals and dissidents? Ten out of 10 times, what they were for the Church was against.
Click to expand...
When you say that your opinion does not matter, you are abdicating your reason.
 
Dovekin said:
Science is provisional, yes, and it is possible that ID is right as science. My problem is theological, it assumes that God, or some other unpredictable nonnatural force, intervened in nature. It may be true, but it violates science in a way that makes it useless. It is possible, not factual, while I prefer to limit science to “facts.”

Macro-evolution is also possible, but not factual. It is a consequence of theorizing based on facts. As I said much earlier, ID is based on theorizing on facts+ nonscientific facts. It might be right, but it is less useful for theologians and philosophers than something based on science alone.
Click to expand...
Exactly … Adam and Eve have never been disproven via science - a
and to claim such would be misrepresent all known science/genetic evidences.

It would take pages to get into more detailing re: the genetics…
 
gama232 said:
Adam and Eve: Real People
Click to expand...
Yes this is the starting point for most of us. One or two people have denied it in this discussion. And one or two people have accused others of denying it. But both of those positions are minority positions around here.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Again. not quite. But I do agree that the latter is unscientific. That’s why I said that scientists would prefer the former.
Click to expand...
Sorry, quite so.

Failing to reject the null hypothesis does not advance human knowledge. It is important to note that a failure to reject does not mean that the null hypothesis is true—only that the test did not prove it to be false. Even more importantly, the hypothesis in question – mutations are random – is a direct contradiction to the truth that underlies all science – effects have intelligible causes.
 
Allyson said:
Nope. As I said, I already discussed mtDNA in the other conversation - see direct link below. Since the evidence of them being our ancestors comes from the full genome,
Click to expand...
Evidences must be realized as evidences… nothing less and nothing more…

Adam and Eve have never been disproven via science -

And to claim such would be to misrepresent all known science/genetic evidences.

It would take pages to get into more detailing re: the genetics… and the respective papers…
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
No one has written anything convincing against a literal Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Can we amend this to “No one has written anything convincing to Gama against a literal Adam and Eve”? Others of us are quite convinced, thank you.
gama232 said:
My opinion doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Oh. Well, thank goodness for that.
o_mlly said:
the truth that underlies all science – effects have intelligible causes.
Click to expand...
Ah! A variation on the theme. “Intelligible” instead of “intelligent”. Way upstream I wondered if it might be possible that the first implied the second, but I can’t find any real reason why it might be so.
 
Dovekin said:
Yes, I understand why you are asking this. I am pointing out that the “first principles of sufficient and proportionate reasons“ as you present them are merely possible and not factual.
Click to expand...
If you reject the first principles then one may claim metaphysical truth for any imagined deduction. Debate is no longer possible. Believe whatever you want.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Ah! A variation on the theme. “Intelligible” instead of “intelligent”. Way upstream I wondered if it might be possible that the first implied the second, but I can’t find any real reason why it might be so.
Click to expand...
I find it hard now to believe that your confusion is other than feigned. The words do have the same root but do not mean the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top