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.
General Audience, April 1985, Pope John Paul II:

“To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be the equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, it would be admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

No, I’m not. You want to hear what you want to hear. That’s all.
 
gama232 said:
Catholic Answers affirms a literal Adam and Eve. My opinion doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
So, given that my scenario includes a literal Adam and Eve, and you have not presented any contrary arguments then we have to agree that my scenario is in conformity with Humani Generis. I thank you for your support in this.
 
I have provided zero support with this. You and others will use any word combination as long as it fits, not science, but your worldview, which is not scientific but anti-Divine revelation. You can look for loopholes and claim they exist, but in reality they don’t.
 
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not confused. For comment after comment you have suggested that digital organised information or some such must have been the result of an intelligent cause. That, I have continuously sought evidence for and not only found none, but been given none. Several of us have given instances of digital organised information that is not the result of an intelligent cause, only to have the definitions of the crucial entities changed. Now you suggest that the cause might not be intelligent, but only intelligible, which I have no problem with. Indeed, as you mentioned yourself, intelligibility is a core precept of all science. Was your use of the word a misprint, a confusion, or what?

Also, you said that randomness is not intelligible. Why not?
 
More word play. The only thing at work here is politics as well as twisting the words of good theology. Stop playing. Yes, I mean you Hugh_Farey.
 
That’s OK, gama. No hard feelings.

But also no word play. At least not from me. I say what I think and why I think it. I do not juggle “intelligence”, “intelligent effects”, “digital information” and “organisation” as if they sometimes, and sometimes not, mean the same thing, and I do not spout random aphorisms like you and endgame.

I bet you can’t even quote the “words of good theology” you think I have twisted, can you?
 
40.png
Question about when humans started to have souls Philosophy
You have manipulated the words of the Church. You want others to believe your version, not the Church’s version.
Click to expand...
Pulling this over to this thread so as to not spam @Buckeye1010 too much 😉

@gama232 - I am not here to change your mind about anything. I set up this thread because I had a genuine question.

Re: the credibility of Coyne. Do you agree with Bishop Barron:
Another of his favorite topics was the incompatibility of science and religion. He gleefully exposed the lunacy of a creationist “museum” somewhere in the south that purported to defend on scientific grounds the belief that dinosaurs and human beings co-existed in the relatively recent past of our five-thousand year old planet. To support his point of view, he enlisted the help of one of the only Catholics that he interviewed, namely, Fr. George Coyne, the former director of the Vatican observatory. Coyne patiently explained that the Bible offers, not a modern scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, but rather a theological cosmology and that Catholic belief is therefore perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution. After this brief sensible clarification, Maher cut away and we never heard from Coyne again. I’m convinced that a half hour with him would have cleared up much of the comedian’s confusion. A telling point: when Maher introduced Fr. Coyne as a “Vatican astronomer,” he quipped that that description seemed an oxymoron. But why should it? For Catholics, there is no conflict between the truth of science properly laid out and the truth of religion properly interpreted, since both come from the same divine source.
Click to expand...
 
Bishop Barron? Not at all. He appears to be speaking only for himself and does not cite relevant Church documents. Quoting him adds no credibility to this discussion.
 
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
Finally, we get to the point! You have a choice now, you can reject one of the first principles, or you can reject facts. That was the point of your perennial request, wasn’t it?

We have a set of facts that strongly suggest one of your first principles is incorrect. Organized information can come from an non intelligent source. What are the implications of this?

That is the nature of this discussion…
 
gama232 said:
Bishop Barron? Not at all. He appears to be speaking only for himself and does not cite relevant Church documents. Quoting him adds no credibility to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Is he ever credible?

Who, other than Benedict and Schoenborn, whom I already know you consider credible, is a credible source?
 
As far as recent credible sources, they are it. I have heard Bishop Barron on two other occasions and found his comments to lean heavily toward a personal understanding as opposed to the understanding of the Church. Man’s understanding of science is deficient, as well as his understanding of theology if he views science as explaining what is the work of God.

Are you familiar with the Congregation for Saints Causes? They investigate miracles and consult whoever they need to consult to get to the truth. This discussion is a mixture of politics and ideology. Creationists and Fundamentalists are the enemy. This ignores the fact that the Church, and Catholic Answers, supports a literal Adam and Eve. Proposing a ‘science says that humans are this or that’ ignores foundational Catholic beliefs that come from Divine revelation. That is the other source of actual knowledge the Church, but not science, uses to determine what is, and is not, factual about human origins from science. That is, scientific knowledge is not entirely reliable.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Also, you said that randomness is not intelligible. Why not?
Click to expand...
Nope. Pleeeeeease quote me using the forum’s quotation facility. I think that 's my third request.

You’re conflating two different issues. But perhaps we can make progress on both issues by applying the same logic you used in support of your “mutations are random” and denied my “beings having discrete organized information require causes having the same” (paraphrased for brevity).

Your position is that “random mutations” is a scientifically valid claim …
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.
Click to expand...
… and, paraphrasing me in the negative, that “beings having discrete organized information require causes having the same” is not scientific …
Hugh_Farey said:
You don’t seem to have any evidence that “it is not possible for organised information to emerge from non-intelligent sources” except by looking for examples of some. Or rather, since your belief is clearly a matter of faith rather than evidence, demanding that I find something you believe to be non-existent. If I can’t, then you feel your argument is strengthened.
Click to expand...
What’s good for the goose …

So, let’s test your claim using the Hugh_Farey standard:
You don’t seem to have any evidence that “all mutations are random” except by looking for examples of some. Or rather, since your belief is clearly a matter of faith rather than evidence, demanding that I find something you believe to be non-existent. If I can’t, then you feel your argument is strengthened.
Click to expand...
Is the proposition that “mutations are random” an article of faith or an hypothesis of science?
 
To conclude

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating

mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a

whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific

genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution

depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific

electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are

communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite

gene(s).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258697147_Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmedf
 
buffalo said:
To conclude

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating

mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a

whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific

genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution

depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific

electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are

communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite

gene(s).
Click to expand...
The author’s wikipedia page is quite interesting.

Even so, I am willing to entertain the idea. However, it is still a fully natural process. If it turns out to be the case that cells direct at least some mutations, then there will be a natural explanation because it is being done by a purely natural agent. You still do not get an Intelligent Designer confirmed by science. At the end of the day, what you find confidence in theologically remains theology and personal interpretation.

You do seem to pull a lot of sources from the fringe. There is nothing wrong with that if you are interested in fringe ideas, but it is not a solid foundation for arguing your position. They are the kind of ideas that are fun to flirt with, but the moment they short-circuit critical reasoning, just say goodnight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top