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

[Allyson]

The title of the thread indicates we are discussing the evolution of man, body and rational soul.

No, we are not discussing the evolution of the soul - AT ALL. This has been clear from the beginning. HG 37, in accordance with Church teaching, states that the soul is directly created by God. The evolution is of the body only. That is the distinction made in HG.

 

[rossum]

The title of the thread indicates we are discussing the evolution of man, body and rational soul.
The origin of a hominid body form does not explain the origin of man.

The soul did not evolve. There is no discussion on that point; everyone agrees that it did not evolve.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes that was my original point, when I quoted that part of the paragraph. You said I misunderstood, but now make the same point I made then?

It appeared in reading your replies to me that you elevated evolution theory and discounted ID as non-scientific.

This of course is the problem. The “scientific view” does not consider anything outside of the observable data, while the ID has expanded the data set to include the supernatural creation.

ID science does not rely on supernatural assumptions but on the same principle Darwin used – vera causa.

In a vera causa approach, one must first demonstrate the existence of some potentially causal process, then demonstrate that the process is in principle competent to explain the phenomenon of interest, and finally that the process is in fact responsible.

https://www.darwingame.org/structure.pdf

 

[o_mlly]

No, we are not discussing the evolution of the soul - AT ALL.

The soul did not evolve. There is no discussion on that point; everyone agrees that it did ot evolve.

? Use the search feature on the thread for the word “soul”. It begins with your claim in error that the existence of a rational soul is not testable.

The other fact drawn from Genesis is that human souls are specially created by God, which is not a testable proposition.

The existence of a rational soul is testable as shown in an earlier post.

 

[Dovekin]

It appeared in reading your replies to me that you elevated evolution theory and discounted ID as non-scientific.

As in the quote from me, I did not discount ID or evolution, just pointed out a difference between them. ID posits the existence of an intelligent designer, which is outside the realm of the observable that science considers, hence my assertion that said designer is additional data and “supernatural.” I could have said unobserved if you prefer that. (Your refusal to explain your position makes it hard to converse.)

Speaking of which, if you have seen posts in this thread that describe the soul as a product of evolution, you should quote them. We do not seem to see the same things when we read, so pointing to “search” is not helpful. There Have been a few, very few, who argued that the soul is a product of evolution.

The existence of a rational soul is testable as shown in an earlier post.

In some circumstances, you can demonstrate the existence. Proving absence is more difficult, even impossible, so the positive result has to treated cautiously. Rational souls may exist at times when we do not know if they exist.

 

[o_mlly]

As in the quote from me, I did not discount ID or evolution, just pointed out a difference between them. ID posits the existence of an intelligent designer,

ID science does not claim the existence of an intelligent designer, only the observable evidence of design in the cell.

 

[o_mlly]

In some circumstances, you can demonstrate the existence. Proving absence is more difficult, even impossible, so the positive result has to treated cautiously. Rational souls may exist at times when we do not know if they exist.

? I do not see the point you are trying to make in the above as it relates science. If a thing cannot be observed then science may not speak to it.

 

[Dovekin]

Your claim is “ The existence of a rational soul is testable as shown in an earlier post.”

This is not true. In some cases, one can observe evidence of a rational soul, and conclude it exists. But one cannot conclude a rational soul does not exist if one sees no evidence.

Can you test if an infant has a rational soul?

 

[Allyson]

It begins with your claim in error that the existence of a rational soul is not testable.

Allyson:

The other fact drawn from Genesis is that human souls are specially created by God, which is not a testable proposition.

The existence of a rational soul is testable as shown in an earlier post.

No it is not testable, because it is not material. If it is testable, then the proposition of the soul’s existence becomes falsifiable. I am pretty sure that is not what you want to concede. If you showed that in a previous post, feel free to quote yourself…

The testability/falsifiability of the soul has nothing to do with proposing that it evolved. The position of the Church is that the soul does not evolve. That was one of the theories of Teilhard DeChardin, which HG was written in opposition to.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not true. In some cases, one can observe evidence of a rational soul, and conclude it exists.

? Then it is true. You admit that scientific evidence of a rational soul exists and then in contradiction claim it is not possible to scientifically test for a rational soul.

 

[o_mlly]

No it is not testable, because it is not material.

The artifacts of a rational mind are material and observable.

 

[Allyson]

The artifacts of a rational mind are material and observable.

You are still running the risk of making the soul falsifiable this way. I did talk about that earlier in the thread. If you make the soul falsifiable, you make the teachings of the Church about all supernatural and non-material things falsifiable. Is that really the direction you want to go?

 

[o_mlly]

You are still running the risk of making the soul falsifiable this way.

No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What begins with a falsehood rarely elicits the truth. As this thread began with a falsehood intended to bait the 1,600 responses so far there is no reason to continue debating an untruth. If you would restate the OP of your thread correctly then perhaps worthwhile exchanges would proceed and conclude in far less posts.

 

[Allyson]

No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Stop with the Gish Gallops. This does not apply here. You stated:

The artifacts of a rational mind are material and observable.

Based on you statement we can conclude that artifacts are the evidence of the presence of a soul. If we study the artifacts and human minds and find some other sufficient cause for human rationality, the the soul as a proposition has been falsified.

What begins with a falsehood rarely elicits the truth. As this thread began with a falsehood intended to bait the 1,600 responses so far there is no reason to continue debating an untruth. If you would restate the OP of your thread correctly then perhaps worthwhile exchanges would proceed and conclude in far less posts.

I did not propose any falsehood in my post. I posed a hard question, and what has made this a longer post than needed (as I got what I needed in the first 300 posts) are people insisting that evolution is not real.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

“Science” knows it’s false ? … that’s sort of anthropomorphic
ventriloquism ?

It’s the individuals who hold the debates that I’m concerned about ; cf.
specifically the OP, for example.
I could cite an example in “Science” magazine, regarding the HLA-DRB
genes in the human immune system which I can show is a flawed study even
by the scientific evidence we have today. I wrote genetic variation
testing algorithms for U.S. fish and Wildlife service years ago, and I’m
quite familiar with certain flaws in mathematical models which “prove”
man had to have a certain population size interbreeding with “animals”
for thousands of years. The math does indeed prove that given a set of
assumptions, an outcome is likely; the problem is that the assumptions
are un-realistic.

The “theory” of evolution is not a “monolithic” entity – for its not a
single theory.
The theories of evolution that exist today are not “just” Darwinism.
If you have a specific one you’d like to discuss, I’m happy to dive into
the details.

Mitochondrial Eve is the “theory” that I was referring to in my actual
post regarding Mosquitoes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm … Concerns about inbreeding, and in fact incest law is
un-necessary given traditional Catholic beliefs.

Consider evidence we have today:
The California Condor and Rabbits selected at random from a population
have both recessive and domininant genes; and it’s the recessive Genes
which carry genetic diseases. So, there’s only a finite number of
diseases a pair of rabbits can have – and it’s possible that a rabbit
will carry no genetic diseases; eg: “a” pure genome. Consider: The
California Condor was brought back from an extremely small bottleneck
with the intelligent Guidance of U.S. Fish and Wildlive breeding
services. Those services were chosen to minimize risk of genetic
disease and ought to have improved the genome for a number of generations.

However, it’s quite possible to have a pair of rabbits or of condors who
“happen” not to have any genetic diseases in their recessive alleles.
So, genetic disease is a “possibility” and not a certainty of nature.
The entire idea of “incest” and “genetic disease” are
traditionally/religiously understood to be effects of the “fall” of Adam.

If God made Eve directly from Adam (before original sin) – why is it
necessary to assume that God put diseased genes in her? (She hadn’t
earned death yet.) I see no reason to assume Adam and Eve didn’t have
perfect genetics, which went with perfect harmony with God. At very
least, the recessive genes carrying diseases simply would not have been
allwed to express themselves because of God’s gift to them. The
question I have is; how long “after” the fall, did diseases, viruses,
and mutations from radiation (and pollution) take hold on Adam’s body?

Let me try an analogy:
Even though the California Condor has been successfully re-introduced to
nature; the fact is that the present success (even if was perfect) in
the breeding program will not prevent genetic diseases from showing up
in the future. Mutations are not inherited, rather they “happen” for
various reasons external to the body and we measure them after the fact.

The incest laws don’t exist in Genesis at the time of Adam and Eve, the
incest laws show up later in history.
I assume they are law to remedy a problem that didn’t exist “at the
beginning.”

 

[Freddy]

Allyson:

No it is not testable, because it is not material.

The artifacts of a rational mind are material and observable.

Perhaps the artifacts of Neanderthals? Which means, by your definition, that they had rational souls. Which leads to a problem @Allyson touched on. If you define a soul as specifically as that and claim that it can be discovered using the scientific method, then you are leaving yourself open to having it proved that at least a couple of claims regarding the soul are false.

Either Neanderthals had souls, a statement with which most would disagree (‘Neanderthals did not have rational souls’: Did Neanderthals Have Souls? | Catholic Answers) or…

…your definition is wrong. Perhaps leading to an argument that they don’t exist.

I’d go with option 2 myself.

 

[Allyson]

Either Neanderthals had souls, a statement with which most would disagree (‘Neanderthals did not have rational souls’: Did Neanderthals Have Souls? | Catholic Answers) or…

O Em G - That is too precious! I am chortling with glee. I am not even sure how Nash would presume to determine that. Was this answer published pre 2010? post 2010? I have so many questions!

 

[o_mlly]

If you define a soul as specifically as that and claim that it can be discovered using the scientific method, then you are leaving yourself open to having it proved that at least a couple of claims regarding the soul are false.

Which couple of my claims about the rational soul do you think are open to being proved false?

Either Neanderthals had souls, a statement with which most would disagree

All animate beings have souls, an animating principle. The question of Neanderthals poseessing rational souls will never be proven false and currently is contested.

https://www.catholicstand.com/did-neanderthals-have-a-soul/

 

[o_mlly]

Based on you statement we can conclude that artifacts are the evidence of the presence of a soul. If we study the artifacts and human minds and find some other sufficient cause for human rationality, the the soul as a proposition has been falsified.

That would be a rational soul. The “if” you suggest has not been demonstrated.

I did not propose any falsehood in my post.

… the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents.

False.