Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted

[Ron_Conte]

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

It is not a tenable position in Catholic theology to claim that an individual Adam never existed, or that our first human ancestors were a group, and not an individual man and an individual woman. The only faithful and reasonable theological position on this subject is that Adam and Eve existed as two individual human persons, who then fell from grace by sin, and from whom we are all descended and from whom we have all inherited original sin.

 

[hecd2]

In post 137, you write: “Turning now to this question of non-contradiction, it is a first premise that is based, as most are, on reality as it appears to us at our scale… It means, for example, that entities cannot have properties that are mutually exclusive, that they cannot occupy two contradictory states at once (such as dead and alive)…”

Just a point of clarification: The classical statement of the metaphysical principle of non-contradiction is this: A being cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. That is all it says.

With all due respect to you as a professor of philosophy (and one whose speciality is such that he thinks the actual practice of philosophy came to a grinding halt with Hume and Kant), I think that the classical statement of the metaphysical principle of non-contradiction says more than this - it makes claims about the properties of things as well as their existence. In other words, a fuller statement of the principle is “An entity cannot have a property and its negation in the same respect at the same time” or in modern logical parlance ¬((A→B)→(A→¬B)) or if A implies B, then A cannot imply not B. See for example Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Gamma, Part 4:
“Therefore, if it is true to say of anything that it is a man, it must be a two-footed animal (for this was what ‘man’ meant); and if this is necessary, it is impossible that the same thing should not at that time be a two-footed animal; for this is what ‘being necessary’ means—that it is impossible for the thing not to be. It is, then, impossible that it should be at the same time true to say the same thing is a man and is not a man.”

Some of the examples you give above pertain to the physical universe and may entail properties that are not actually contradictory, but rather express paradoxical conditions dependent upon our present interpretation of physical laws.

But the fact is that the examples that I gave are contradictory precisely in the sense defined above. For if a photon is a wave it cannot be a particle, in the same sense that a man cannot be a trireme or a four footed animal, and vice versa - or in the language of propositional logic:
(P → ¬W)
(W → ¬P)
(Ph → W) → (Ph → ¬P)
(Ph → P) → (Ph → ¬W)
((Ph → W) ^ (Ph → P))
(Ph → W) → (Ph → ¬W)
(Ph → P) → (Ph → ¬P)
The last two theorems are contradictory.

In point of inconvenient fact, some of the saints have been reliably reported to be in two places at the same time. (No, I don’t expect you to believe it.)

Whether I believe it or not, it entails a logical contradiction since humans, saints or otherwise, are not bilocatable any more than they are four footed animals.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Whether I believe it or not, it entails a logical contradiction since humans, saints or otherwise, are not bilocatable any more than they are four footed animals.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Perhaps sometime I will share with you an actual experience that I witnessed.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2 re post 182:

Alec,

With all due respect, I don’t think anyone is having any real trouble with the meaning of the principle of non-contradiction. I gave its metaphysical statement. You gave an expression of it in terms of modern logic, based on Aristotle. Classical logic simply says that the same predicate cannot be affirmed and denied of the same subject.

As for the problem of bilocation, we have the inconvenient fact that of numerous reported instances of precisely such phenomena in the case of various saints, e.g., Sts. Joseph Cupertino, Francis of Paola, Anthony of Padua, and Francis Xavier – to list only a few entailing multiple witnesses at both places simultaneously. I realize you view these things as impossible. But if God exists, do you not think it might be possible for Him to allow the same soul to appear in two bodies at the same time? Yes, that assumes there is a soul that can animate matter. I would not be so certain just what the limits of physical laws might be if God really exists. But then, to you, God is equally impossible.

More substantively, you have not addressed my comments in posts 153 and 157 regarding the inherent nature of making judgments about subatomic phenomena.

To quote myself (in part only): "The problem you have is that to make these observations and judgments about what is going on at the subatomic level – even to make the judgments that real contradictions are occurring – you have to presuppose and make use of the very principle you wish to infer is not true, namely, non-contradiction. You cannot say anything about what is occurring at the micro level without simultaneously implicitly denying the opposite condition, and hence, implicitly affirming the very principle you seek to deny. That is the same problem one has at the macro level, namely, that any attempt to deny the principle of non-contradiction simultaneously affirms it – or simply renders judgment, speech, and all thought meaningless and unintelligible." Take a look at the prior paragraph in that post, and please explain how you do not use the principle of non-contradiction each and every time you render judgment that a particle is manifested, or a wave is manifested, or that a contradiction has occurred.

And please note, these judgments you are making are about particles and waves existing AT THE SUBATOMIC LEVEL, that is to say, you are using non-contradiction NOT at the MACRO level, but at the MICRO level when you make such judgments about subatomic phenomena. (An alternate expression of the first metaphysical principle is that a being is what it is, so that in affirming that something is a particle, you are assuming that it is what you say it is, and not its opposite.)

Unless each affirmation implicitly denies its opposite, the affirmation lacks intelligibility, since you have equally affirmed the opposite. Either non-contradiction works every time, or else, each and every thought, judgment, perception, and reason is simultaneously subject to contradiction – and essentially meaningless. You cannot pick and choose when you want to apply it or not – at whim, and still call what you are doing science in any sense. I know this leads to very inconvenient results, but it is quite unavoidable.

Although I realize that your experimental inferences lead to contradictory properties, and that you may be employing the same experimental equipment. Still, you may be able to inform us as to whether the observations are made from the exact same perspective. Or, is it the case that the energy appears to have wave properties when considered from one perspective, and particle properties when considered from diverse perspective? As I said earlier, this is a problem for the physicists. But please do not tell me that contradictions can really occur at any level of reality, while using the very same principle of non-contradiction in order to affirm or deny experimental observations at the subatomic level, and then – from those observations – affirm that contradictions have occurred.

 

[hecd2]

In post 153, you first quote me and then make comment yourself:

Quote: [from me]
“What you and others are saying is that contradictions do not appear to occur at the macroscopic level, when theoretical physics visits the submicroscopic level, they do occur. But, in so saying, you also do affirm that (1) a certain physical phenomena really does occur at the micro level (that is, it is not the case that it does not), for example, light energy really does take the form of waves, (2) a certain physical phenomena which excludes the first really does exist at the micro level (that is, it is not the case that it does not), for example light energy really does take the form of particles, not waves, and (3), contradictions really do exist at the micro level (that is, you deny that they do not exist), In all three instances, you are implicitly applying the principle of non-contradiction, and doing so at the submicroscopic level where you say that contradictions can and do exist.”

You then comment: “That is precisely what I am saying. I have been very clear to point out that things do not happen in a capricious way - nevertheless, we can reliably show with quite simple experiments that certain contradictions do occur; and that they do so repeatedly and consistently.”

You miss my point about the fact that in making these judgments about what is going on at the micro level, “you are implicitly applying the principle of non-contradiction.” This is critical. The problem you have is that to make these observations and judgments about what is going on at the subatomic level – even to make the judgments that real contradictions are occurring – you have to presuppose and make use of the very principle you wish to infer is not true, namely, non-contradiction. You cannot say anything about what is occurring at the micro level without simultaneously implicitly denying the opposite condition, and hence, implicitly affirming the very principle you seek to deny. That is the same problem one has at the macro level, namely, that any attempt to deny the principle of non-contradiction simultaneously affirms it – or simply renders judgment, speech, and all thought meaningless and unintelligible. In a nutshell, you cannot use non-contradiction to prove that contradictions occur.

I don’t miss your point at all. I simply don’t demand that formal proofs can apply to anything in the natural world - in fact, I assert that they cannot. In the same way that no formal proofs are available for any statement about the macro world, then the same principle applies in the quantum world (remember, pragmatic verificationism). All we can do is to make statements which reflect what we observe and which more ir less correspond to reality. Now in some cases, such as this, we can make those statements with a high degree of confidence, because we can test the nature of photons over and over again - those tests have been done millions or billions of times and they always come up with the same answer. Photons, in the same experiment, at the same time have the nature of particles *and *the nature of waves, which two properties are mutually exclusive and not merely inclusive accidentals. So I can say that photons can be seen to have contradictory properties - contradiction need go no further than this and other limited cases in which it is observed. It is correct to say that reality does contain some contradictions, but they do not affect our perception in such a way that it renders us incapable of meaningful testable statements (otherwise existence would be impossible). Since I have already freely abandonded the notion of a reality which has properties amenable to formal proof, your criticism that my statement that contradiction exists in the quantum world undermines the possibility of meaningful statements about it carries no sting.

The problem that you are alluding to, explosion, ie that the acceptance of any contradiction means that all statements and all their contradictons must be true, or, as Aristotle would have it, that all things are one (ex contradictione quodlibet), has been formally addressed by inconsistency tolerant or paraconsistent systems of logic as well as multivalued logical systems. Whether such approaches are ultimately successful doesn’t really matter in my pragmatic view - I observe a world that is generally intelligible and that is not capricious. I also observe that some things at the quantum level are contradictory. The nature of the contradiction is that it is not explosive and that it does not undermine the conclusion that it is indeed contradictory.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

At this point, my right brain is looking at the overwhelming evidence while my left brain is asking questions. I’ve read enough to realize that there is a variety of biological similarities between humans and chimps so we are on the same page. This is what I see on that page. The similarities indicate that not only did both evolve from similar sources but also within similar environments. Initial reading about the “Out of Africa” hypothesis offered theories about what caused the divergence of a common ancestor, at least one of which was a different environment maybe a founder effect on part of the common ancestor’s descendents.

Questions: Is your above mentioned common ancestor less than 7 million years ago the one that is believed to have existed in Africa?

The common ancestor of humans and chimps did live in Africa, but it is not the recent ancestor of modern humans that moved out of Africa to colonise the world some 60 thousand years ago.

Is there accessible research which gives details about the African common ancestor along with its separated descendents? In addition to Evolution Pages, do you accept information from general websites like Tree of Life, Berkeley Understanding Evolution, and Wikipedia?

Well, evolutionpages is my website written by me, so, of course I agree with what I write. But yes, tolweb and Berkeley are good sites maintained by professionals. You have to be careful with Wikipedia because it is not necesssarily written by people who know what they are talking about, although it is generally ok. There is a huge quantity of resource on human evolution (see for example, Cela-Conde and Ayala, Human Evolution; or a beautifully illustrated book - Johanson and Edgar From Lucy to Language; or Tatersall and Schwartz’s Extinct Humans). Not much is known about the common ancestor itself other than what we can infer from chimps and from extant and fossil humans.

Do you have a preferred hypothesis regarding your comment “The first life on earth arose about 3 billion years ago.” Upon checking Wikipedia, I found the hot start, the cold start, the lighting start, the meteor start, the ocean start, etc. – I am definitely not asking for your preference about the start or beginning origin of life. I am asking about the next stage when chemicals came together like pieces of a jig saw puzzle to form this and that organism.

No I don’t have a preferred hypothesis. It’s a science in its infancy and I don’t know enough about it to prefer one hypothesis over another.

Also, the concept of major domains seems easier to follow than the tree of life diagram.

The domains are part of the tree of life.

The general reason for my questions is that I can’t get my left brain to wrap around the idea of a recent common ancestor for hominids and chimps. To me, the page we are both on only shows common genomic and so forth similarities which in themselves can date way, way back.

No, I’m afraid they can’t. Many specific genomic markers are common only to humans and chimps. The timing of the divergence can be measured by the rate of mutational changes in neutral sequences. There is no doubt that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor relatively recently (less than 7 million years ago)

This weekend I am off to my favorite zoo to celebrate a family birthday party.

Enjoy the chimps.

Alec
ww.evolutionpages.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholics believe that all humans descended from a literal Adam and Eve. I cannot speak for all the science of evolutionary theory.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

Some may, even many - but it seems highly improbable (to say no more) that most do.​

ISTM there are two questions here, that are being treated as one:

• whether they are to be considered as real so that they can function as part of an explanation of original sin

and

• whether they are to be considered as real in their own right, regardless of that function

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif This weekend I am off to my favorite zoo to celebrate a family birthday party.

Enjoy the chimps.

Alec
ww.evolutionpages.com

My chimp cousins really looked cute in their party hats!

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2 re post 185:

Alec,

You write: “So I can say that photons can be seen to have contradictory properties - contradiction need go no further than this and other limited cases in which it is observed. It is correct to say that reality does contain some contradictions, but they do not affect our perception in such a way that it renders us incapable of meaningful testable statements (otherwise existence would be impossible). Since I have already freely abandonded the notion of a reality which has properties amenable to formal proof, your criticism that my statement that contradiction exists in the quantum world undermines the possibility of meaningful statements about it carries no sting.”

On first reading, I thought perhaps you had something there. According to you, contradictions occur regularly solely in certain limited subatomic cases, and the rest of reality is safe. I recalled what you said in your post #137: “I seriously deny the universal validity of the non-contradiction principle…” So far, so good — from the standpoint of your own consistency. But then, you also said, in that post: “And indeed at the normal scales (size, time and gravitational field) normally experienced by human beings these contradictions rarely occur.” Did I see you say “RARELY?” Further, you added that “…the world is ordinarily non-contradictory at our scale…” “ORDINARILY?” This is beginning to sound like the politician who promises to raise taxes solely on the rich. Is it just possible that the macro world is also at risk to your skepticism about non-contradiction?

Actually, you have been quite forthcoming. You have said that you hold “that no formal proofs are available for any statement about the macro world…” That would appear to entail that you simply reject a priori any alleged defense of, or proof for, the validity of – much less the transcendental validity of – the principle of non-contradiction. You reaffirm that your philosophy is one of “pragmatic verificationism.” You affirm that your epistemology is sensist and that your “metaphysics” is materialistic. In all that, there is simply no room for any formal acknowledgement or defence of a universal intellective first principle, such as non-contradiction – not even the initial suggestions I offer in my post #129.

You conclude, “Since I have already freely abandonded the notion of a reality which has properties amenable to formal proof, your criticism that my statement that contradiction exists in the quantum world undermines the possibility of meaningful statements about it carries no sting.” Of course, it carries “no sting,” once you have abandoned any need for applying the principle of non-contradiction in a logically consistent and genuinely universal fashion.

Still, if you consider the experimental basis for your conclusion about wave-particle duality, it can be argued that it need not violate the non-contradiction principle anyway. One way photons behave when they pass through the slits is as particles. But when they manifest themselves on the screen as interference bands, they reveal themselves as waves. Whether this description is verbally perfect or not, my point is that what we are doing is seeing two different ways the photons behave, and from that inferring that they must possess contradictory properties, since it appears that waves have properties contradictory to particles. Please note two things here: (1) we are looking at two different behaviors, and (2) we are making two distinct inferences from those two distinct behaviors. (I grant that this is in the same experiment using the same equipment in the same arrangement.) Since the principle of non-contradiction states that being cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect, the distinctions between (1) behaviors and (2) inferences allow the possibility that we are not viewing the same “being” from the same “respect.” That is why some, like yourself, infer that this is a wave-particle contradiction, but others refer to a wave-particle “paradox,” still seeking some rational resolution. A paradox is a seeming contradiction, which eventually may turn out not to be actually contradictory. The fact that physicists have wrestled with this problem for 90 years, and some still try to resolve it without admitting direct contradiction, implies that many are unwilling to take the step you do in defining it as an outright contradiction.

continued…

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2 … continued:

When one encounters what looks like a contradiction, several options appear: (1) One can deny that the “contradictory” object can exist. (2) One can decide that its nature is not what he initially thought it to be. (3) One can deny that the principle of non-contradiction is is valid in this case. When you have talked about the existence of God, you appear to infer that the problem of evil excludes the possibility that God exists. That is the first option. You might also have concluded that God is unexpectedly evil. That would be option number two. Or, you could, from these seemingly contradictory properties of God (supposedly all good, but doing evil), infer that in His case, the principle of non-contradiction does not apply and a contradiction is acceptable. Question: Why do you apply a different logic to photons than you do to God? Why don’t you follow the same logic here? Since you hold that photons cannot simultaneously exhibit as both waves and particles, therefore photons do not exist – just as you argue that God does not exist because of His allegedly contradictory properties?

Your philosophical views appear to supervene your science of physics. True, physics presents a real paradox here, one on which physicists are still speculating. But your sensist epistemology and “materialist” metaphysics rejects the natural metaphysics of human intelligence that universally affirms the principle of non-contradiction without fear of exception, regardless of the type or size of being involved. Reflecting that intellective understanding of being, classical Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics establishes transcendental validity of non-contradiction as essential to every judgment, both at the macro level and the micro level. The initial insight into the concept of being or existence is not merely a sensory act, but an intellective one. That is why even you cannot avoid employing the non-contradiction principle in making judgments whereby you describe the nature of the subatomic phenomena entailed in the two-slit experiment that establishes wave-particle duality.

Given your evident skepticism of the most basic principles of thought and reality, it seems a bit curious that you are so apodictically certain that the Human Genome Project findings absolutely exclude any possibility of a single pair of first parents for all mankind, Adam and Eve, during the last six million years.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2:

Alec,

To return to our main theme: Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted.

While I have offered you both theological and philosophical reasons why belief in Adam and Eve is warranted, you have forcefully and repeatedly maintained that natural scientific evidence absolutely excludes the possibility, within the last six million years, of a single pair of mating human beings as the source of mankind today. While I do not know your exact source for this claim, it may be that it is taken from the type of analysis offered by Francisco J. Ayala and others, and based on the generation of major histocompatibility complex genes which are involved in our immune response:

“The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) plays a cardinal role in the defense of vertebrates against parasites and other pathogens. In some genes there are extensive and ancient polymorphisms that have passed from ancestral to descendant species and are shared among contemporary species. The polymorphism at the DRB1 locus, represented by 58 known alleles in humans, has existed for at least 30 million years and is shared by humans, apes, and other primates. The coalescence theory of populations genetics leads to the conclusion that the DRB1 polymorphism requires that the population ancestral to modern humans has maintained a mean effective size of 100,000 individuals over the 30-million-year persistence of this polymorphism. We explore the possibility of occasional population bottlenecks and conclude that the ancestral population could not have at any time consisted of fewer than several thousand individuals.” Francisco J. Ayala, Ananias Escalante, Colm O’hUigin and Jan Klein, “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 91p6787-6794, July 1994. Abstract.)

Whatever the case may be, I am not a biologist, nor do I pretend to know the field of molecular biology. But I have professional contacts who do. They tell me that what you say is simply not true, and offer the following citations to prove that a narrow bottleneck – even of just two human beings – is entirely possible in the primate population as recently as the Middle Pleistocene period or later. I think you will find the following citation both peer-reviewed and current:
*
“… most of MHC diversity is de novo generated and not as the result of their trans-species inheritance as initially thought (Figueroa et al. 1988; Lawlor et al. 1988). This result finally puts the MHC in line with the bulk of population and evolutionary genetics data which firmly conclude that a narrow bottleneck has occurred at the origin of our species (Cann et al. 1987; Hammer 1995), a fact inconsistent with massive flow of alleles from one species to the next as required by the transspecies postulate (Ayala et al. 1994).”* Takashi Shiina, et al. (2006) Rapid Evolution of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Genes in Primates Generates New Disease Alleles in Humans via Hitchhiking Diversity. Genetics, 173, 1555-1570. See genetics.org/cgi/content/full/173/3/1555, last paragraph.

This result not only contradicts Ayala’s, but also demonstrates the radical tentativeness of scientific results.

Continued…

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To hecd2:
Continued…

Further, another more recent citation estimates an effective population size of 3100.

“Abstract: Effective population size (N(e)) determines the amount of genetic variation, genetic drift, and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in populations. Here, we present the first genome-wide estimates of human effective population size from LD data. Chromosome-specific effective population size was estimated for all autosomes and the X chromosome from estimated LD between SNP pairs <100 kb apart. We account for variation in recombination rate by using coalescent-based estimates of fine-scale recombination rate from one sample and correlating these with LD in an independent sample. Phase I of the HapMap project produced between 18 and 22 million SNP pairs in samples from four populations: Yoruba from Ibadan (YRI), Nigeria; Japanese from Tokyo (JPT); Han Chinese from Beijing (HCB); and residents from Utah with ancestry from northern and western Europe (CEU). For CEU, JPT, and HCB, the estimate of effective population size, adjusted for SNP ascertainment bias, was approximately 3100, whereas the estimate for the YRI was approximately 7500, consistent with the out-of-Africa theory of ancestral human population expansion and concurrent bottlenecks. We show that the decay in LD over distance between SNPs is consistent with recent population growth. The estimates of N(e) are lower than previously published estimates based on heterozygosity, possibly because they represent one or more bottlenecks in human population size that occurred approximately 10,000 to 200,000 years ago.” Tenesa,A., Navarro,P., Hayes,B.J., Duffy,D.L., Clarke,G.M., Goddard,M.E., and Visscher,P.M. (2007). Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium. Genome Res. 17:520-526.

My contacts tell me that the value of 3100 corresponds to Ayala’s estimate of 100,000. That is, the new best estimate of the (mean) effective population size is only one-thirtieth what Ayala thought. “Effective” population size is sensitive to fluctuations in the actual population size over time, and is most sensitive to the lower values. With the value of about 3100, it is possible that the population went through a bottleneck of just two individuals about ten thousand generations ago (about 300,000 years for humans), and expanded quickly (within ten generations) to a value of 10,000. This number (bottleneck of two) is tenable without having to invoke miracles or divine activity.

Whatever the exact case, it appears that there is no professional unanimity supporting the inferences you draw from the Human Genome Project, and that, for that reason, sound theology and philosophy offer more reliable guidance on the great questions pertaining to cosmic and human origins and human nature. Moreover, the time scale for Adam and Eve these more recent studies suggest approximates what I hypothesize in my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003). There, I conceded that theological monogenism might be unlikely, but pointed out that God’s providence can overcome improbabilities. Now it appears that the case for Adam and Eve may be more robust from the perspective of natural science than it appeared at the time of my writing.

Thus, theological and philosophical reasoning supports, and even natural scientific evidence appears to be consistent with, “belief in a literal Adam & Eve.”

 

[grannymh]

Some may, even many - but it seems highly improbable (to say no more) that most do.​

ISTM there are two questions here, that are being treated as one:

• whether they are to be considered as real so that they can function as part of an explanation of original sin

and

• whether they are to be considered as real in their own right, regardless of that function

For my purposes regarding the possibility of a separate lineage for Homo sapiens, I consider Adam and Eve as real in their own right. My starting point is when life first exists.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of understanding.

 

[anthony022071]

To hecd2:

My contacts tell me that the value of 3100 corresponds to Ayala’s estimate of 100,000. That is, the new best estimate of the (mean) effective population size is only one-thirtieth what Ayala thought. “Effective” population size is sensitive to fluctuations in the actual population size over time, and is most sensitive to the lower values. With the value of about 3100, it is possible that the population went through a bottleneck of just two individuals about ten thousand generations ago (about 300,000 years for humans), and expanded quickly (within ten generations) to a value of 10,000.

If there was a population (whether human or animal) from which Adam and Eve were descended,then obviously Adam and Eve would not have been the first and only parents of the whole human race as the Church teaches. That is polygenism.

In early March,when the Conference on Evolution was taking place,I heard a priest on Relevant Radio say that if Adam and Eve evolved from non-human ancestors,they would have been able to eat their own parents.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Anthony:

Theologian Fr. John A. Hardon, who wrote a favorable review of my book, Origin of the Human Species, addresses the possibility of Adam having primate forebears. He points out that theologians have come to agree that evolution of the first man’s body from lower species is compatible with the faith, providing that (1) the human soul was immediately created by God, and (2) God exercised special providence over the formation of the human body, “so that the first man was not literally generated by a brute beast.” (See John A. Hardon, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1975, p. 93.

 

[buffalo]

To Anthony:

Theologian Fr. John A. Hardon, who wrote a favorable review of my book, Origin of the Human Species, addresses the possibility of Adam having primate forebears. He points out that theologians have come to agree that evolution of the first man’s body from lower species is compatible with the faith, providing that (1) the human soul was immediately created by God, and (2) God exercised special providence over the formation of the human body, “so that the first man was not literally generated by a brute beast.” (See John A. Hardon, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1975, p. 93.

How does he account for Eve coming from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, etc.?

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Buffalo:

I am not sure what Fr. Hardon would say. Still, once God oversees the creation of Adam, by whatever means, it is clear He also can use his infinite power to make certain that Eve received whatever preternatural gifts He conferred on Adam.

 

[grannymh]

To Anthony:

Theologian Fr. John A. Hardon, who wrote a favorable review of my book, Origin of the Human Species, addresses the possibility of Adam having primate forebears. He points out that theologians have come to agree that evolution of the first man’s body from lower species is compatible with the faith, providing that (1) the human soul was immediately created by God, and (2) God exercised special providence over the formation of the human body, “so that the first man was not literally generated by a brute beast.” (See John A. Hardon, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1975, p. 93.

Number (2) sounds like the “granny route” of a parallel lineage for Homo sapiens.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Grannymh:

The truth is that, since God does exist, He can use any route to Adam and Eve that He wishes.

My efforts are not to prove evolution true or false. If God wanted to use the appearance of an evolutionary scenario, but then create Adam and Eve directly as in the most literalistic Genesis fashion, He could do it.

If God wants to create Adam, somehow using the matter of subhuman primates while He directly creates the first man, Adam, by infusing a soul and radically transforming the matter at the same moment, He could do it.

If God makes Adam, either directly in literalistic fashion or by using subhuman matter in some way, and then fashion Eve out of Adam’s flesh, He could do it. In Origin of the Human Species, I suggest alternative ways Eve could have been fashioned from Adam, including the literal taking of a rib from his side and monozygotic twinning. Once Adam is formed, nothing prevents God from working a direct miracle to form Eve any more than it prevents God from performing many thousands of miracles in later history.

The only reason my book explores the possible interface between evolution theory and Genesis is to see if such an interface is theologically, philosophically, and scientifically possible. I infer that it is. But that does not exclude or prevent anyone from pursuing other paths to human origins that may be consistent with divine revelation. Some paths may be more attuned to the claims of natural science than others, but with God all things that are not self-contradictory are possible.

 

[hecd2]

Although I realize that your experimental inferences lead to contradictory properties, and that you may be employing the same experimental equipment. Still, you may be able to inform us as to whether the observations are made from the exact same perspective. Or, is it the case that the energy appears to have wave properties when considered from one perspective, and particle properties when considered from diverse perspective?

Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same time, exactly the same perspective. Scientists are not so dumb that they cannot distinguish between a case of contradiction; and a case where a thing has one property at one time and another property at another time (which is not necessarily contradictory), or where a thing is partly one thing and partly another thing (which is also not contradictory). In the photon counting Young’s experiment (and other interference experiments), electromagnetic radiation simultaneously is totally particles and totally waves, which properties are contradictory.

By the way, it seems rather strange to me that you should be so willing to accept all sorts of bizarre and extremely poorly evidenced beliefs like human bilocation, dancing suns, instant healing of completely intractable ills, the dead being brought to life, people floating up to a place that is not really a place, instant regeneration of amputated limbs - oh no, I’m getting carried away, you don’t believe in the last one for some reason - anyway, all of these one-off and anecdotal stories, and yet you claim that a contradiction in nature that can be demonstrated in any competent physics lab in the world spells disaster for the entire project of intelligibly describing the world. It seems to me that you are straining at a gnat and swallowing an entire herd of camels.

Alec
evolutionpages.com