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

[Erikaspirit16]

From your posts I would guess that you have read some of Fr. Spitzer’s work?

Sorry, never heard of him. I’ll look him up.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with your other comment–that we somehow get disconnected from religious teachings if we believe certain scientific theories. I could see a situation such as evolution, where scientists disagree about exactly how it takes place; in that case, there is a group who think that polygenesis was the origin of modern man. So a Catholic couldn’t side with them–but they don’t represent “evolution” as such, just one group that thinks a very minor part of the theory should be interpreted a certain way. I can’t think of any other instances…religion and science are asking very different questions: religion asks why, science asks how. There is no reason at all that they should conflict.

 

[rossum]

I can’t think of any other instances…religion and science are asking very different questions: religion asks why, science asks how. There is no reason at all that they should conflict.

If God cannot lie, and God made the world, then God’s world must be as true as God’s word in the Bible.

The problems come when humans (who can lie and are prone to error) try to interpret that word and that world. How many different interpretations of God’s word are there? Thousands? In general science is not quite that diverse, but there are certainly many different opinions in various areas of science.

Given that both the Bible and the universe are from God, they both have to agree, when interpreted correctly. As the case of heliocentrism shows, sometimes it is the word that was interpreted incorrectly, not the world.

$0.02

rossum

 

[bobperk]

Sorry, never heard of him. I’ll look him up.

Here’s the article I had in mind when I read your post: https://www.magiscenter.com/70000-years-ago-the-origin-of-a-soul/

 

[bobperk]

Many actual, historical, yes-they-really-happened Old Testament events prefigured the greater events of the New Testament: the manna in the desert and the Eucharist; the flood and baptism; the near-sacrifice of Isaac and the crucifixion of Jesus; the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers and the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. And Eve from Adam’s side and the creation of Holy Mother Church when our Lord was pierced.

 

[Gorgias]

Many actual, historical, yes-they-really-happened Old Testament events prefigured the greater events of the New Testament: the manna in the desert and the Eucharist;

No argument there.

the flood and baptism;

We might have to have a discussion of whether the ‘flood’ was a ‘global flood’, however.

the near-sacrifice of Isaac and the crucifixion of Jesus; the betrayal of Joseph by his brothers and the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.

These, along with the ‘wandering in the desert’ narratives, are generally seen as ‘historical narratives’… even by those who see other parts of the Bible as figurative. So, if you want to prove your assertion, you can’t really point to events that are already commonly understood as historical, and use them to claim that all events in the OT are historical.

And Eve from Adam’s side and the creation of Holy Mother Church when our Lord was pierced.

The piercing isn’t said to be a fulfillment of the creation of woman; rather, it itself is a prefigurement of the Church’s later practice of baptism and Eucharist.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Here’s the article I had in mind when I read your post: https://www.magiscenter.com/70000-years-ago-the-origin-of-a-soul/

I read the article and found it very interesting, and yes, the first half is pretty much what I wrote in my post. Fr. Spitzer is a philosopher, not an anthropologist–and of course most of the second half of the article deals with philosophy rather than anthropology. But he brings up ideas worth thinking about.

He does have two points I would disagree with, although, as I said, I am just an amateur. His timeline is about 10,000 years earlier than most that are given. Maybe he’s gotten this from that book by Chomsky. And I’m not sure where he got the origin of man in the Namibia-Angola border area. Almost everyone agrees it was in the Rift Valley / Great Lakes area.

If you are interested in this sort of thing, I would strongly suggest having a look at Rupert Sheldrake
https://www.sheldrake.org a biologist connected with Cambridge. He’s not trying to make a religious point, he simply goes into things (like consciousness) that science can’t yet explain. His position is NOT that these things are unexplainable, but that science, for various reasons, hasn’t tackled the problems. He has written a number of books. There are also a lot of Youtube videos of his talks. He has pretty much assumed the role Arthur Koestler (“the Ghost in the Machine”) had 40-50 years ago.

As for me, the more I read about this revolution in pre-historic man 50-60,000 years ago (I’ll stick with my own chronology!), the more fascinated I get. Cave paintings in person have a much greater impact than in a book. For one thing, the artists picked the shape of the rock to complement what they were drawing and give a 3D feel. To be able to conceptualize that is astounding. I certainly couldn’t do it. You need to see that in person. And what’s usually left out of books is the large number of handprints and cryptic symbols, usually various arrangements of dots. They obviously meant something important to the artist but no one today knows what it meant.

I’ll add one more thought: Several experiments have shown that if you ask someone (a variety of cultures) to draw “an ideal scene” they all draw something resembling an African savannah–a plain with a few trees, a lake, and mountains in the background. Home!

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

stephenSTOSS1:

No, I am actually echoing the interpretations of some pretty heavy weight theologogians.

Psst… in other words, like I said, it’s not “against the Bible”, but “against interpretations.” Thanks for proving my point.

Relative to the above, you previously wrote the following: “To be fair, what you really mean here is that they “contradict my interpretation of a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.”

Frankly, you have no basis upon which to judge whether or not my, or anybody else’s, exegetical endeavors produce interpretations that contain Truth upon which can be made judgement about, and criticism of, comments about other issues concerning the Bible. Are you able to judge whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in the heart of another? Were you there when they prayed, passing judgement on the quality of their prayers? Pope Francis says that the laity can be theologians. Why? Because of the Holy Spirit that dwells within them … the Holy Spirit who is the Teacher of all Truth. Jesus did not promise the Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them all opinions. St. Augustine said that he learned more about Scripture through prayer, then he did through study. Why? The Holy Spirit. The Pontifical Bible Commission wrote a booklet titled: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. It instructs exegetes on how to properly interpret Scripture. It also tells us who are called to do this work. The Commission tells us that “All the members of the Church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture. [p. 102]” Further, they state, “The Spirit is, assuredly, also given to individual Christians, so that their hearts can ‘burn within them’ (Luke 24:32), as they pray and prayerfully study the Scripture within their own personal lives. [p.103]”

So according to your comments, any Truths we gained based on what the Holy Spirit teaches us, should be put away in the cupboard because they are nothing more than opinions, and cannot be used to judge whether or not other matters are in harmony with Scripture. You can believe that, but I overwhelmingly reject it. You haven’t proven anything about your premise. Individual interpretations should be critically analyzed as to its Truth … not dismissed out of hand.

Lastly, I believe your premise presents us with a logical fallacy. More specifically, circular reasoning.

THE UNPROVEN PREMISE: The interpretations of individuals who are not part of the Teaching Authority of the Church are simply opinions and the Truth of them cannot be known.

IF THE PREMISE IS TRUE, IT MUST, THEREFORE, FOLLOW THAT: the Truth contained in Scripture cannot be known with certainty by individuals who are not part of the Teaching Authority of the Church

IT, THEREFORE, MUST FOLLOW THAT: The interpretations of individuals not part of the Teaching Authority of the Church are simply opinions that may or may not be true.

THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING ASSERTION MUST ALSO BE TRUE: Individual opinions about the meaning of Scripture are not a valid arguments in theological debates.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Msgr. Charles Pope, who wrote specifically about polygenism

"Gorgias:

You’re talking about the Msgr Pope who wrote…

Note: I deleted some of your reply because of character size limits.

You have to forgive me, but I detect a tone of sarcasm (at best) or mockery (at worst). I sincerely hope I am wrong. You were so busy thinking you had a gotcha moment that you didn’t actually even reply to my comment which was in response to your comment. We were talking about interpreting Scripture passages concerning polygenism and Adam and Eve. My comment was this: “Their theories [about polygenism] may sound great, but they contradict a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.” Tell me something. Do you see any Scripture passages cited and discussed in the various off topic quotes from Msgr. Pope? I’ll save you some time. There aren’t any. As for the four quotes about evolution, those are off-topic and unresponsive to the comments you were responding to. Allow me to set the record straight. In my original comments, I was actually referring to the following Msgr. Pope comments: After citing (Rom 5:11, 19) and (1 Cor 15:22) he writes,

We are thus all linked not to a group, but to a man, Adam. And when he sinned, we sinned. Sin reaches us all since we all share one common ancestor. Further, it is hard to conceive a group of early humans, all sinning in such as way as all our ancestors went into this state commonly. Scripture says, sin came through one man. Scripture is inerrant in such a matter. We cannot simply set its truth aside.

Scripture also affirms our connection to the one man, Adam when it records that God sent one, Jesus Christ, as the New Adam. This sets up a parallelism: One Adam, One New Adam. God did not send a committee, or a squadron to save us which would be the parallel for polygenism and/or group sin.

I noticed that you didn’t quote Dr. Ludwig Ott or Heinrich Denziger. Let me help you.

Ott wrote: The Encyclical “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) rejects polygenism on account of its incompatibility with the revealed doctrine of original sin. (Denziger, 3028). The biblical proof derives from the narration of the creation, which purports to relate the origin of all things, and therefore also the first emergence of man. Explicit testimonies are Gn. 2, 5: “And there was not a man to till the earth.” Gn. 3, 20: “Adam called the name of his wife, Eve; because she was the mother of all the living.” Acts 17, 26: “And hath made of one all mankind to dwell upon the whole face of the earth.” Cf. Wis. 10, 1; Rom. 5, 12, et seq.; I Cor. 15, 21 et seq.; Hebr. 2, 11; St. Augustine, In Ioan. tr. 9, 10.

Notice the Scripture passages? Notice the reference to Augustine? Heinrich Denziger categorized polygenism as, “False Opinions that Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine.”

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

They could not know the mind of the Pope. The clues suggest they were second guessing.

"Gorgias:

By this theory, no one can know the mind of another, and therefore, no interpretation of the written word is possible at all. (Hardly a tenable position. )

They are reading into the quote that which may or may not be true. It is pure conjecture if they have no evidence (linguistically or otherwise) to back up their speculation. Fr. Nicanor Austriaco is simply trying to interpret Pope Pius XII’s words in Humani Generis based on what the Pope doesn’t say as opposed to what he actually said. He has no other evidence than that. That makes it a guess. I have previously said that I believe the Pope worded his comments about polygenism for a different reason.

I, however, have some evidence to backup my thinking. I believe he did not want to fall into the the whole Galileo trap, where the Church is characterized as being anti-science. This would be a real possibility were he to declare scientific polygenism a heresy. Remember, this is the same Pope who, seven years earlier, wrote Divino Afflante Spiritu. In this encyclical, Pope Pius XII wanted to promote a fuller utilization of scientists within the Hermenuetical sciences. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu … was able to to provide largely positive encouragement toward making the modern methods of understanding the Bible fruitful.”

Pope Pius XII would not want to undo what he was accomplishing through his earlier encyclical. As described at the beginning of this paragraph, openly declaring polygenism a heresy would lead to that.

Furthermore, Fr. Nicanor Austriaco et al have a vested interest in speculating the way they did regarding Pope Pius XII comments concerning polygenism. I’m not accusing anybody of bias, but there is the potential. The Thomisticevolution site is a non-profit. This is what they say about their funding:

This website is supported by a grant from the Evolution and Christian Faith (ECF) Program of the BioLogos Foundation. The BioLogos ECF Program is a multi-million dollar grants program sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation.

These foundations award research grants to those wishing to incorporate science into theology. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of faith and reason … science and Scripture. The problem arises when, or if, the science they want to incorporate conflicts with Scripture. An example of this problem is the research concerning so-called mitochondrial Eve. The study by Stone et al contains assumptions that conflict with the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation. This conflict can, and has in many cases, led to heretical conclusions. See Mitochondrial Eve Part I and Part II

I will do more research on Fr. Austriaco’s site and writings.

 

[Gorgias]

Frankly, you have no basis upon which to judge whether or not my, or anybody else’s, exegetical endeavors produce interpretations that contain Truth upon which can be made judgement about, and criticism of, comments about other issues concerning the Bible. Are you able to judge whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in the heart of another? Were you there when they prayed, passing judgement on the quality of their prayers?

No need to get huffy. All I’m pointing out is that, when you say, “it’s against the Bible”, what you really are saying is, “it’s against my interpretation of the Bible.” And yeah… I have a basis for saying that: it’s called “understanding the difference between a literary work and an interpretation thereof.”

So according to your comments, any Truths we gained based on what the Holy Spirit teaches us, should be put away in the cupboard because they are nothing more than opinions, and cannot be used to judge whether or not other matters are in harmony with Scripture.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that, when you do that, it’s important to remember that what you’re doing is providing your perspective – and not the authoritative and sole possible interpretation.

Lastly, I believe your premise presents us with a logical fallacy. More specifically, circular reasoning.

You would be mistaken, then… because you’ve added to what I’ve said, and seem to be building a straw man from your additions. To wit:

THE UNPROVEN PREMISE: The interpretations of individuals who are not part of the Teaching Authority of the Church are simply opinions and the Truth of them cannot be known.

I never said that. So, the rest of your argument falls apart, inasmuch as it attempts to refute this claim that I never made.

THEREFORE, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT… you’re kinda grasping at straws.

My comment was this: “Their theories [about polygenism] may sound great, but they contradict a large number of Bible passages concerning Adam and Eve.”

No… your comment – to which I replied – was that you had a wealth of “heavyweight theologians” who agree with your interpretation. I merely pointed out to you that Msgr Pope isn’t saying what you say he’s saying.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you see any Scripture passages cited and discussed in the various off topic quotes from Msgr. Pope? I’ll save you some time. There aren’t any.

Then why did you cite him as an authority in your argument?

I noticed that you didn’t quote Dr. Ludwig Ott or Heinrich Denziger.

That’s because I’m not asserting that ‘monogenism’ is false. (I might, on the other hand, have an issue with what you call an example of ‘polygenism’, however.)

Nevertheless, you cited folks who you claim supported your point. I demonstrated that Msgr Pope seems not to be doing that. That’s all the counter-example I need.

They are reading into the quote that which may or may not be true.

Wow. Pretzel much? In your first reply to me, you accuse me of claiming that it’s impossible to know the truth. In this reply, you take me to task for pointing out that your claims lead us to that precise conclusion!

I believe he did not want to fall into the the whole Galileo trap, where the Church is characterized as being anti-science.

And I can’t use your own reply against your later assertion? How could you possibly know the mind of the Pope? How are you not second-guessing? C’mon… at least be consistent, ok?

The study by Stone et al contains assumptions that conflict with the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation. This conflict can, and has in many cases, led to heretical conclusions. See Mitochondrial Eve [Part I][Part II]

Rather than advertise your website that markets your books, would you be willing to give us a concise statement here that identifies these “conflicting assumptions” and how it is that they are heretical? Thanks!

 

[buffalo]

We might have to have a discussion of whether the ‘flood’ was a ‘global flood’, however.

Like this???

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

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

The study by Stone et al contains assumptions that conflict with the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation. This conflict can, and has in many cases, led to heretical conclusions. See Mitochondrial Eve [Part I][Part II]

Wow. Do you have some imagined gift that makes you think you are competent to judge people’s hearts and minds? I send them to the website because I deal with complex issues of theology that require comprehensive answers. It’s not a question of less is more or even less is less. It’s a question of less is not enough. I don’t do Readers Digest versions of these complicated topics.

 

[buffalo]

Wow. Do you have some imagined gift that makes you think you are competent to judge people’s hearts and minds? I send them to the website because I deal with complex issues of theology that require comprehensive answers. It’s not a question of less is more or even less is less. It’s a question of less is not enough. I don’t do Readers Digest versions of these complicated topics.

Always try to discredit the poster. It is much easier than dealing with the arguments.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow. Do you have some imagined gift that makes you think you are competent to judge people’s hearts and minds?

Nah. I just judge the words you write.

I send them to the website because I deal with complex issues of theology that require comprehensive answers. It’s not a question of less is more or even less is less. It’s a question of less is not enough. I don’t do Readers Digest versions of these complicated topics.

Fair enough. If I read it, though, and find that there is a concise summary, then… get ready – I won’t hesitate to let you know!

Always try to discredit the poster. It is much easier than dealing with the arguments.

That does seem to be the approach that’s being used on this thread and around here, doesn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t do Readers Digest versions of these complicated topics.

Maybe you should.

From your page:

…

Oh… wait! You don’t allow quoting from your site! OK – I think we’re done here.

(BTW, m-Eve isn’t the ancestor of all humans, as you claim, but rather, the ancestor of all living humans. In other words, it’s not a static moniker – it’s a moving target. Finding that error right at the beginning tells me that my intuition not to read the whole thing was probably right. )

Incidentally, you use a non-standard definition of the term ‘hominin’. Humans are hominins.

(Edited to add: BTW – your interpretation as found on your webpage requires us to hold to a literalistic reading of the first three chapters of Genesis… which the Church doesn’t require of us. So, you’ve got that problem right from the start… )

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Oh… wait! You don’t allow quoting from your site! OK – I think we’re done here.

Apparently the post must be 10 characters. Had to fill space. There I think I did it. All I wanted to say is…
OK

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Oh… wait! You don’t allow quoting from your site! OK – I think we’re done here.

Apparently the post must be 10 characters. Had to fill space. There I think I did it. All I wanted to say is…
OK

Seriously, though: if you hinder fair use of your text, what do you expect?

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

(BTW, m-Eve isn’t the ancestor of all humans, as you claim, but rather, the ancestor of all living humans .

I believe the sentence you are referring to is this:

In 1987, research undertaken by Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Wilson was published in Nature magazine. They concluded that all human beings descended from one female living in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago.

I probably could have worded it more clearly (which I will do shortly), but the sentence is correct, nevertheless. The term “all humans” is modified by the time-frame of 200,000 years ago. So I could achieve the same meaning by wording it something like this: all humans since 200,000 years ago … Thanks pointing that lack of clarity, on my part, out to me.

The truth of your statement, “ancestor of all living humans”, would depend on how you are interpreting the word, living. Does it mean biological living or spiritual living. In Genesis, God breathed (the Holy Spirit) the breath of life into Adam and he became a living being. This type of life is different from biological life, as can be seen in John 8:52 where it is written, “Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death.” and John 11:6 where it reads, “whoever lives by believing in me will never die.”

The phrase you used is very close to the Bible’s description of Eve. Genesis 3:20 reads, “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living and the word human.” In other words, the mother of all men created in the image and likeness of God. So-called mtEve is not the same person as the Eve in the Bible. Are you equating the one with the other?

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Incidentally, you use a non-standard definition of the term ‘hominin’. Humans are hominins.

Yes, I am aware of that. However, it is only non-standard because, for the purpose of dilineating the meanings of my words throughout the blog, I artificially limited it. For example, the modern usage of the word hominin could mean rational humans or animal humans. The classification of hominin includes humans (animal and rational man), chimpanzees, and gorillas. This could become very confusing to the reader. My first use of the word, hominin early quote from St. John Paul II, before I set up a word “legend” so-to-speak.

The following is how I lay out the terms I used and how the reader is to interpret them:

Please note: in this blog, the term man, modern man, or human will refer to man who was created in the image and likeness of God; hominin or pre-human will refer to all of modern man’s precursors (i.e. animal man). For more information about Eve’s creation, see Aquinas’ writings here.