Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Allyson]

Why start with more assumptions? I am constantly researching things. You don’t know anything about me. Is that how you deal with other people? Just start making assumptions?

Isn’t that exactly what you have been doing with me?

 

[gama232]

Give me an example. My replies on a public forum are not just meant for any one person but for all reading. Had I sent you a PM then it would be a different story.

 

[Allyson]

Give me an example. My replies on a public forum are not just meant for any one person but for all reading. Had I sent you PM then it would be a different story.

You appear to have assumed that I had not read all of HG even though is was the basis for this thread.

Did you read all of Humani Generis?

And from a few days ago, you appeared to be implying that I was not Catholic. It was not just you. There seemed to be a general assumption among those opposed to evolution.

Your position is quite clear. You agree that “human genetic data showing that there never were…”

Pope Pius XII was dealing with the same kind of thinking when he wrote Humani Generis. The Church has changed nothing. But a few will spend whatever time is necessary trying to convince Catholics otherwise.

 

[gama232]

Implying that you were not Catholic? Where did I imply that? That is a common response of those who want to hold evolution science above what the Church actually wrote. And is sometimes used to paint the other party as the bad guy.

I’m saying that preferring a particular interpretation is wrong the same way as the Church writes that certain interpretations are “not compatible with the faith.” Divine revelation cannot be ignored. That’s what the Church tells everyone. Pope John Paul II mentioned “certain fixed points.”

“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.”

What I’m seeing here is the purely materialistic, science only approach.

 

[Dovekin]

What I’m seeing here is the purely materialistic, science only approach.

If that is what you are seeing, then you are not paying attention. We have been discussing how to reconcile the metaphysical discontinuity with the physical continuity, as St John Paul II phrased the problem. The ontological leap of the rational soul has been prominent in the discussion.

Your position, on the other hand, has blurred the distinction between the creation of the physical body and the creation of the soul. You portray the creation of our physical bodies as if that were the same thing as the creation of our soul, ignoring the advice of St John Paul on how to resolve the problem posed by Pius XII.

 

[Allyson]

Implying that you were not Catholic? Where did I imply that?

As I explained, you were just one of a few people at that point in time that appeared to think I was not Catholic/theist. Maybe it was bad timing.

I agree with @Dovekin. You miss the point of this discussion. At no point was the implication that all there is is what is material. The question of ensoulment was at the heart of HG. The Church does not force its members to ignore what can be learned about the natural world through observation. It is Faith and Reason. When the Church defines doctrine and dogmas, it is focused on spiritual realities - not natural history.

 

[Freddy]

Then why did it survive after supposedly millions of years? There are reports of climate change as well.

The fact that you have now slipped a ‘supposedly’ into the comment is duly noted. If you think the world is younger ‘than advertised’ then why the reticence to admit to the 6,000 years?

And how do you explain asking us to believe the views of people whose opinions are directly in opposition to yours? Sanford for example either lied to the court in the Kansas debacle about how old he thought the earth was or lied in the paper he had published.

Which do you think it was?

And a bonus question: Why do you then think we should trust what he says as he must have lied on one of those occasions?

 

[o_mlly]

What is clear from the facts (the DNA sequences that have been analyzed) is that there was never a point at which there were just two people from whom everyone is descended exclusively. …

And your replacement narrative for Adam and Eve as explanatory for the reality that the story completely supports is … ?

If your story rejects any of the underlying truths listed in my post then that story must be rejected by Catholics. Theology, faith seeking understanding, begins with revealed truths and assigns reason the task to conform. Those who would leap to the tentative findings of science as controlling and powerful enough to overturn the truths of revelation must be held as suspect in their faith. While we know more today about DNA than yesterday, the scientific consensus is what we do know is far less than could be known in time.

So, the Adam and Eve story is the best explanation of the reality of the human condition. Until science can support an alternate story that supports the reality of the human condition, it is premature to jettison something for nothing.

 

[Allyson]

And your replacement narrative for Adam and Eve as explanatory for the reality that the story completely supports is … ?

I am not sure that I need a replacement narrative in the way that you seem to want me to need it. Why would I use a different creation myth? I am taking Genesis as the starting point for the theological history. As @Dovekin noted:

Why would we use anything other than the Adam and Eve story?

This is a discussion of Catholic Theology not Hindu or Navajo, etc.

So, the Adam and Eve story is the best explanation of the reality of the human condition. Until science can support an alternate story that supports the reality of the human condition, it is premature to jettison something for nothing.

All human cultures have creation myths that explain the human condition. I took a class on myth in college, so I was exposed to creation myths from around the world. What they all have in common is explaining something about how the state of our world is fallen/imperfect/why we die/etc. These are all after the fact explanations that humans came up with as they created the stories that would bind them together as individual cultures.

As Catholics, we interpret Genesis to explain why salvation through Christ is needed. It is not a story about our biological origins, to which science speaks. It is a story about our promised immortality and how it was lost. Interpreted by the Catholic Church, the theological significance is that God creates the souls of true men directorly.

I am not sure why you think science and theology are exclusive. They explore different realms. Science proper is never going to study the soul successfully - though some borderline psuedo-sciences have tried. The only thing that science is adding here is that our genes tell us about our biological origins. Insofar as that does not limit generation 0 to 2 people, we should understand Genesis in a non-literal sense with respect to our bodily origins. There could still be just two people who were the first with the imago dei, etc. etc. so that the human condition with respect to theological truths is explained by Genesis.

 

[o_mlly]

The only thing that science is adding here is that our genes tell us about our biological origins. Insofar as that does not limit generation 0 to 2 people … There could still be just two people who were the first with the imago dei, etc. etc.

As you began this thread, “… human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents”.

So, which is it – “never two” or “could be two”?

 

[Allyson]

So, which is it – “never two” or “could be two” ?

Biologically, never just two. One proposed answer to the theological question was that there were just two given immortal souls directly created by God, from whom everyone alive today would be directly descended. That is biologically possible, but only because no inbreeding would be required.

See the first reply from Wesrock.

 

[Dovekin]

However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.
John Paul II.

These remarks are supposed to provide the basis for the answer to your question. Do they?

Should we take The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation as meaning that we cannot correlate the spiritual with the material timeline? That does not seem quite right to me. Does the spiritual discontinuity with these two human beings overthrow the physical continuity of evolution? That does not seem like a reconciliation to me, so I doubt it was what St John Paul intended.

What is your answer to your question? Is it physical discontinuity? Is it “never two” or “could be two” ?

 

[o_mlly]

Biologically, never just two. One proposed answer to the theological question was that there were just two given immortal souls directly created by God, from whom everyone alive today would be directly descended.

Do you see the explicit contradiction in your post? Unless you are describing two different species the two claims make no sense.

What is your answer to your question? Is it physical discontinuity? Is it “never two” or “could be two” ?

I think the problem derives from the use of imprecise terms. Evolution science, listing humans as just another in their list of hominin species, provoked the phrase “true men” as used in HG. The phrase “true men” implies that there are also “false men”. But there are only “man” and “non-man”.

Although biology cannot (yet) discern a significant material difference between "man’ and “non-man”, anthropologists may have a better method to do so, e.g., evidence in the artifacts of symbolic art, tools fabricated for the only purpose of making tools (our earliest capitalists ).

If the humble biologists would filter their claims through the work of their brother scientists, the anthropologists, then the present confusion between theology and science would substantially disappear. The human being would only be those creatures who had the (biological) physical capability for rational thought and (anthropological) left us evidence in their effects that they possessed a rational capability.

 

[gama232]

That is a false interpretation of what I wrote.

 

[gama232]

You willfully ignore what you and others insist is true about evolution. The soul? What would the discussion be here about? No soul? God doesn’t create souls?

No - it’s about evolution only. Why souls get mentioned I have no idea.

This is all about changing Church teaching about God’s creation, or, in your words, natural history.

 

[gama232]

Then keep your science out of Catholic theology. “As Catholics, we interpret Genesis…” Totally wrong. Catholics in the pews are not the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[rossum]

Do you see the explicit contradiction in your post? Unless you are describing two different species the two claims make no sense.

There is no contradiction. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16, 32, 64 … In all those millions of ancestral couples as long as just one couple had souls then all their modern descendants also have souls, including yourself.

 

[gama232]

I have a suggestion. This is for anyone here who believes the “genetic data shows there were never just two first parents.” Send that interpretation to Pope Francis. See what he says. I choose to believe the Church and only the Church which has produced a number of documents defining what is permitted and not permitted for Catholics to believe about human origins, meaning biological evolution. I really doubt he will come to be in agreement. He is under the same obligation, the same mission mentioned in Humani Generis and those submitting any information to him had better know this: “… provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

The Church has the final say, not science.

 

[EndTimes]

Evolution science, listing humans as just another in their list of hominin species, provoked the phrase “true men” as used in HG.

Exactly. Human Kind is its own Kingdom.

Apes?

Whose skeletal structure - along with that of for instance Lions - bears some similarities,
never continually evolve in any even remotely close to the MIND-CULTURE CIVILIZATION as has Man…

Man? Has constructed many forms of Communication including Verbal, and, Written Language

Evolved with over 7,000 distinct languages - w/English supporting a vocab of over 1 Million Words

Feline Language? What? A handful of sounds?

GENESIS - God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him
male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them,

1. ‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it,
   rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven,
   and every living thing that moves upon the earth.’

Man is the obvious King of All Living Creatures.

AND?

GENESIS 1.Man gave names to all cattle, to the birds of heaven, and to every wild animal

NOTE: Man… and neither Zippy nor Neandertal - has been the Giver of Names - to all forms of Life.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no contradiction. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16, 32, 64 … In all those millions of ancestral couples as long as just one couple had souls then all their modern descendants also have souls, including yourself.

Really? All of my ancestors had rational souls. Do you have ancestors that did not?

The difference in creatures with and without rational souls is not in degree but in kind.