What does science say about polygenism? Is it proven? Or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if I were making something into which I was going to breathe life, I’d include nostrils too.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard of a Catholic ttheory of poly genesis. what is it? ETA: If the Catholic idea of "polygenesis is that all humans descended from two people, that is not polygenesis. So what you are saying needs further clarification.

Also, the fact that our MRCA-- male-- is later than our MRCA— female-- makes perfect sense theologically as the male could have been Noah, father of all the men who survived, and the female Eve, common ancestor of all the women who survived.
 
Last edited:
  • Humani Generis
“37. 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.[12]”
 
Bear with me for a few posts.

In general, evolution is populations evolving over time. And so far as I know, nothing has found to indicate contrary to that in humans. That said, we can be brought to Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis in which he said,
  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.[12]
Click to expand...
Now one thing to consider is that at the time Pope Pius XII wrote Humani Generis, the theory of evolution in regards to human evolution was that humans started appearing all over the world at about the same time. So whereas modern science would say there was a population in Africa that went on to spread through the world, back then it was held that a population emerged in Europe, not related to the population that emerged in Asia, which was not related to the population that emerged in Australia, which was not related to the population emerging in the Americas, ect.
 
To pull a quote from an essay on http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/
Some Catholic theologians and lay faithful take this papal statement as definitive magisterial teaching that affirms the historical existence of an original couple from whom all human beings are descended. To put it another way, they think that this encyclical definitively rules out polygenism, which is the theological theory that human beings are descended from several original first couples. The theological theory that human beings are descended from a single original couple is called monogenism.
However, these same theologians and lay faithful often fail to consider the rest of the paragraph in the same encyclical where Pope Pius XII explains his reasoning for his conclusion that polygenism cannot be embraced by the Catholic Christian. The Holy Father taught:
Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [of polygenism] 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.
In other words, at face value, Pope Pius XII ruled out polygenism because he could not imagine how an account of several original first couples could be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. As we will discuss in the essays that follow, this is not surprising because scientists in 1950 believed that the human race was descended from several original first non-human couples who were scattered throughout the planet.
As we will also see, scientists today now think that our species is descended from several first human couples living in the same geographical area. Therefore, in the fourth essay on the historicity of Adam and Eve, I will propose that this contemporary scientific account on human origins can be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on original sin. Thus, I will argue that an account of polygenism that is in accord with everything that we know and believe about original sin remains true to the magisterial statement of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis.
Click to expand...
 
To understand the Thomistic Evolution’s proposed idea, you’d have to read through those four essays to read it as I am not good at summarizing why their position works. However, another idea that is out there is the idea of genetic polygenism with spiritual monogenism which I am able to explain.

The idea essentially goes that a human isn’t just a body, but body and soul. It is our soul that differentiates us from an animal. So if you had something nearly identical genetically to a human, but it did not have a rational soul, it would not be a human because it lacks that key part of a soul. And so if we imagine Adam and Eve in a population of non-ensouled hominids, they would be genetically indistinguishable even though their souls would mark them quite distinctly from the rest. And any children of theirs, due to the great genetic similarities, would be able to have children with the non-ensouled hominids around them. And that genetic polygenism would be what science found. Whereas the immaterial soul would have a monogenism line.

Essentially imagine the following family tree in which green represents a true human both body and soul and red represents a hominid genetically indistinguishable from a human but without a rational soul.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In that image, each one on the bottom row can trace genetic lineage to multiple people, but the soul is only traced back to two.

Edward Fesser has an article where he discusses the idea, Edward Feser: Modern biology and original sin, Part I

And while I have not read all that MagisCenter has to say, they do have some good stuff on science and faith. This article may prove a nice starting ground.


And this article, they talk about who are first parents were.

 
This is that last post I plan on making for now. It just gets some of the things I forgot in the last couple.
  1. I should make clear I’ve found nothing officially sanctioning these views, but I’ve also found nothing officially condemning them aside from people on CAF pointing back to Humani Generis, but the fact there are theologians debating this idea now makes me think there would be more official condemnation if warranted.
  2. In that vein, Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia O.P. of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Vatican City said of Thomistic Evolution, “These essays present a remarkably lucid synthesis of Thomistic philosophy and theology in service of a timely Christian engagement with evolutionary science. Noteworthy are the discussion of the nature of divine causality in creation, of the fittingness [sic] of evolution within the framework of divine providence, and of the theology and science of human origins. Indispensable for anyone who wants to think clearly about these issues.”
 
edwest211 said:
after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin … from him… (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
If “true men” have human souls, directly created by God, then science has little to say about the number of true men in existence. All science can give is estimates of the numbers of Homo sapiens, which presumably puts an upper limit on the number of “true men”.

As others have said, the “true” part belongs to theology, not science. Unless you have a way to scientifically detect if a fossil had a human soul before it died?

rossum
 
Speaking generally, this is the falsehood being presented today in an effort to make evolution compatible with a book (Genesis) which records things God actually did.
  1. Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts given to them by God.

    impassibility (freedom from pain)
    immortality (freedom from death)
    integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
    desires)
    infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
    essential for happiness)
  2. Some take science and attempt to attach it to something science cannot detect: a soul. There is no connection but attempts to take science and combine it with faith - Divinely revealed truth - are made so we can think the following:
“Science tells us there were a number of pre-humans, so let’s combine that with theology and say: God picked two random almost humans and dropped souls into them.” Scientific? No. Compatible with Church teaching? No.
 
mVitus said:
In that image, each one on the bottom row can trace genetic lineage to multiple people, but the soul is only traced back to two.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with this, but there is something more going on. Your graphic largely describes the propagation of a trait by reproduction. I am not sure that is the only means for a rational soul.

Every animal has a soul. Humans are distinguished by having rational souls instead of animal souls. What if the rationality is propagated by conversion, as well as by reproduction? IOW, when a person with a rational soul marries someone with only an animal soul, the soul is transformed by the relationship and both have rational souls. The red/green couples on your chart would become all green, as would their children.

That solves objections about humans mating with animals, but raises more questions about the differences between a rational soul and an animal soul. Pius XII might not like the idea, since he sees original sin propagated by birth only.

Just a thought.
 
You’re thinking of the now archaic theory that the various so called “races” evolved independently in different regions. I understand that the Chinese education system still promotes this theory to justify the inherent superiority of the Chinese “race” over others.
Modern science leans towards all modern humans emerging from a single small group in Africa. In this context polygenism means that there was always a community, never a single pair of parents.
It’s compatible with Catholicism if it’s understood that God set apart one male and one female, from within this larger group of hominids, and gave them the gift of eternal souls.
 
In police forensics, if a burned body is found, they can tell if the person is Oriental, Caucasian and so on. That way, it helps to narrow things down for the detectives. Race is very real.
 
I like your chart. It fits in with the Bible account in that one pair could have been Adam and Eve, and their becoming bad could have been from breeding with the Nephilim and the Nephilim could have been the soulless descendants of the hominids from whom Adam and Eve were chosen.

Then Noah could have been the pure man and his daughters in law the pure women, and bingo! Everything is explained.
 
rossum said:
As long as Adam and Eve were ancestors of the MRCA then all living humans are descended from them.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. Your assuming that the other ancestors of the MRCA just died off leaving only the descendants of Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Your assuming that the other ancestors of the MRCA just died off leaving only the descendants of Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
I am assuming no such thing because I am allowing for intermarriage. Take Adam’s great aunt. Her great-great-great-granddaughter could have married Adam and Eve’s great-grandson, and their children would all be able to trace descent to Adam and Eve through their father.

Yes, some lines will have died out, while other lines would have intermarried with the various lines descended from Adam and Eve, and thus their descendants would also be able to trace back to Adam and Eve. An individual has four pairs of great-grandparents, that is eight people. If any one of those eight was descended from Adam and Eve, then so would that person also be descended.

Eight great-grandparents; sixteen great-great-grandparents; thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents; sixty-four great-great-great-great-grandparents. There are a lot of ways people in later generations could be descended from Adam and Eve.

rossum
 
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
Gorgias:
No. The Catholic meaning of ‘polygenism’ is a theological notion, and it speaks to the question of ensouled human beings. The Wikipedia version (i.e., the scientific one) speaks to the question of hominins, without reference to souls. Apples and oranges
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with your meanings of polygenism.

The Catholic meaning is based on the assertion that everyone alive today came from Adam - which is to imply Eve in the genesis as well. Genetics has proven that assertion to be wrong.

The “scientific”, as you call it, meaning of polygenism is outright quackery, according to Wikipedia definition, because evolution and a Catholic, or general, meaning of polygenism has been accepted as fact by all but fundamental Christians. There is no discussion of it not being true in science, just as there is no longer discussion of a flat earth…the term flat earther is one of quackery.
Click to expand...
Are you and your cousins on your mother’s side all descended from the same two grandparents?

Does that mean there are no other grandparents involved?
 
1Lord1Faith said:
The Catholic meaning is based on the assertion that everyone alive today came from Adam
Click to expand...
No. That’s what the definition of “Y-Chromosome Adam” is.
  • which is to imply Eve in the genesis as well.
Click to expand...
That would be “Mitochondrial Eve.”

Your attempt at the Catholic ‘definition’ falls apart because you asserted “everyone alive today.” That’s not what the Catholic definition is. It’s “every human who ever lived or will ever live”… but there’s more to it than that! The Catholic definition has to do with “true human beings” – that is, it has to do with ensouled humans.
Genetics has proven that assertion to be wrong.
Click to expand...
No. Genetics can’t tell us when hominins (living beings with human bodies) first became humans (i.e., hominins with souls).

The Church, on the other hand, is talking about ensouled humans. That’s where the discussion gets interesting. If you believe that the Genesis story tells us that there were only two first hominins, then yeah, you’re right – genetics has pretty effectively shown that this is not the case.

That, by the way, is why I’m defining ‘polygenism’ as I am. No, I’m not referencing old, discredited, racially-motivated fairy tales. I’m referencing what geneticists are telling us today.

Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, denies the truth of the various theories mentioned in the Wiki article (“pre-Adamism”, “co-Adamism”, etc). The Church has explicitly rejected these theories.
rossum said:
No it has not. Genetics shows that there is a MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) for all humans. All humans are descended from that MRCA.
Click to expand...
Close. Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA are the MRCA’s for all humans alive today. All humans alive today are descended from these two.
rossum said:
As long as Adam and Eve were ancestors of the MRCA then all living humans are descended from them.
Click to expand...
Intuitively, that seems ‘off’. If there’s divergence upstream from the MCRA, wouldn’t that mean that Adam and Eve, by definition, aren’t ancestors of all? 🤔
Annie said:
I have never heard of a Catholic ttheory of poly genesis.
Click to expand...
There isn’t one. The Church teaches monogenesis: we are all descended from a first pair of human (i.e., ensouled) beings.
 
Gorgias said:
If you believe that the Genesis story tells us that there were only two first hominins , then yeah, you’re right – genetics has pretty effectively shown that this is not the case.
Click to expand...
Then why is there any discussion at all among Catholics about polygenism and evolution? It’s because there is no way to square the story in Genesis with what had been proven through genetics - that being, there was no single pair of MRCA’s that begot the rest humanity. Remember, Adam and Eve are a couple, singular, the opposite of the prefix poly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top