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.
Oh… wait! You don’t allow quoting from your site! OK – I think we’re done here.
I spent 16 years researching, studying, and writing my two-volume book. Already, several websites have pirated it, turning it into PDFs, and are selling it at a reduced rate. If you Google the book, you will probably run across some of those sites. STOSSbooks.com is based, mostly, upon what I learned from writing that book. So you will forgive me if want to, at least, deter any further pirating. Sorry for your inconvenience. Unfortunately, it happens all to often that the criminals ruin it for the honest people.
 
(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… )
You are characterizing my writing incorrectly. I am not requiring a literalistic interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. Even though much of Genesis is allegory, it would be incorrect to turn that into a blanket statement. Yes, I do believe that the literalistic and literal interpretations of the account of Adam and Eve’s creation are virtually identical. I make the case for that in several of the blogs and articles on my website. Since I’m I’m pretty sure you won’t read them, I won’t bother linking to them. So the “problem” you are referring to is, in my view, not a problem, but a solution.

Edited: In Paragraph 371 of the CCC, it states that Adam and Eve were somehow made together and for [both emphasis are CCC’s] each other. The ITC states that original man could not have occurred naturally, but would have required divine intervention. The conclusion that can be reached from the blog in question is this; the only way that the science of mtEve, and the Truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation account in Genesis can both be true, is if the literalistic and literal interpretation of their creation are virtually the same. Any other interpretation will lead to theological problems.
 
Last edited:
the only way that the science of mtEve, and the Truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation account in Genesis can both be true, is if the literalistic and literal interpretation of their creation are virtually the same.
What is “the Truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation account in Genesis”? Aren’t you just identifying that truth with the literalistic interpretation?
 
40.png
stephenSTOSS1:
the only way that the science of mtEve, and the Truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation account in Genesis can both be true, is if the literalistic and literal interpretation of their creation are virtually the same.
What is “the Truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation account in Genesis”? Aren’t you just identifying that truth with the literalistic interpretation?
Yes, but it goes beyond that. The literal/literalistic interpretation tells us what happened, but the truth is further understood by the how of Eve’s creation, in particular. When the “how” is known, then we can understand why the study conducted by Cann et al is basically correct regarding our earliest common female ancestor, but incorrect, because of their study assumptions, as to how Eve got her mitochondria. This flaw has led to false theological conclusions about the interpretation of the Genesis account of their creation.

I have written extensively about Adam and Eve’s creation and the so-called mtEve research. If anyone is interested, I can provide the links.
 
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.
No. You’re still missing the point. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ is not a single individual throughout all time. She’s the most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans. In other words, the m-Eve of 5000 years ago might not be the m-Eve of today. It all depends on who the ‘currently living humans’ are, and who their common ancestor is.

So… when we try to ascribe an immutable identity to m-Eve, we’re missing the point of the notion.
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.
Yeah… I’m not even going there, yet. 😉
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.
OK. Got it. I tend to use ‘ensouled hominin’ or ‘unensouled hominin’. 👍
So you will forgive me if want to, at least, deter any further pirating.
I get wanting to protect your IP. But, this was a blog post, not your book… right?
 
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.
I’m afraid it is you who are not getting my point. I am fully aware that the individual who is mtEve can shift over time. My comments in the blog are referring to what Cann et al are saying in their study. At the time of the study, our most recent common ancestor lived 200,000 years ago. And yes, it was an individual that they were identifying. Later research, however, has revised the molecular clock to place the time of her existence to approximately 150,000 years ago. Also, the researches didn’t identify her mitochondrial Eve. Other people did that.
 
Last edited:
God made them all, why would he object to this classification of them?

More seriously, evolution introduced a more dynamic notion of species than was in use before. The older philosophy saw each member of a species as an instance of a perfect “idea.” That does not work so well with the concept of change within species, so I am sure God never liked that kind of classification.

Evolutionary classification took over the traditional classification system and provided it with a rationale that highlighted interaction with the environment. This seems loke a better way to go if we are going to care for the earth as God asks of us.
 
I was just trying to make the point that your bundling of mtEve and Genesis did not really establish your point that the literalistic has to be similar to the literal meaning. If the “truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation” is a literalistic reading of Genesis, then the literalistic has to be true. Otherwise it does not. Adding mtEve and a literal understanding to the sentence doesn’t change that assertion at all; it just lets you reassert that you are using a literalistic reading. Not a big deal.

More important is the overall understanding of how the Bible was written. The author of Genesis uses the family groupings of his time to describe how sin came into the world. Humanity is traced back through parents to the “original parents” because that is how he thought of families. Modern scientists trace our origins through dna, something that could lead back to “original parents” or not. There is some overlap between the two systems, but I think we need to keep their limitations in mind.

I haven’t followed your explanations very carefully, so I can’t really judge them. But at least you are trying.
 
Evolutionary classification took over the traditional classification system and provided it with a rationale that highlighted interaction with the environment. This seems loke a better way to go if we are going to care for the earth as God asks of us.
It is now no longer valid. We also know the tree of life has fallen and is now a tangled bush. We did not have genetics and did not know about HGT. Now we do.
 
40.png
stephenSTOSS1:
Humans are hominins.
Would God agree with this man made classification?
I don’t see why he would disagree with, as long as people understand that not all humans can be classified as created in the image and likeness of God. In my view, it would create less misunderstandings by creating a separate genus and species for those created after, and as descendants of, Adam and Eve.
 
If the “truth behind Adam and Eve’s creation” is a literalistic reading of Genesis, then the literalistic has to be true.
Yes but we have to understand that the literal meaning simply means that it conveys the truth the human author, inspired by the Divine author, meant to convey … doing so in a allegorical, historical, etc. way. For example, the literalistic interpretation of the six days of creation represent six 24 hour days. The literal interpretation would be something other than that. Six successive periods of time representing, perhaps, thousands of years. It is important to make the distinction, in the case of Adam and Eve. I make the case that the literalistic (created from Adam’s rib) and the literal are virtually the same.
 
I am sure God is laughing so hard, that He is gasping for breath.
Yeah, humans. I told them what they need to know, but they think they know better.

Job 38:
1 Then from the heart of the tempest Yahweh gave Job his answer. He said:

2 Who is this, obscuring my intentions with his ignorant words?

3 Brace yourself like a fighter; I am going to ask the questions, and you are to inform me!

4 Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Tell me, since you are so well-informed!

5 Who decided its dimensions, do you know? Or who stretched the measuring line across it?

6 What supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone

7 to the joyful concert of the morning stars and unanimous acclaim of the sons of God?

8 Who pent up the sea behind closed doors when it leapt tumultuous from the womb,

9 when I wrapped it in a robe of mist and made black clouds its swaddling bands;

10 when I cut out the place I had decreed for it and imposed gates and a bolt?

11 ‘Come so far,’ I said, ‘and no further; here your proud waves must break!’

12 Have you ever in your life given orders to the morning or sent the dawn to its post,

13 to grasp the earth by its edges and shake the wicked out of it?

14 She turns it as red as a clay seal, she tints it as though it were a dress,

15 stealing the light from evil-doers and breaking the arm raised to strike.

16 Have you been right down to the sources of the sea and walked about at the bottom of the Abyss?

17 Have you been shown the gates of Death, have you seen the janitors of the Shadow dark as death?

18 Have you an inkling of the extent of the earth? Tell me all about it if you have!

19 Which is the way to the home of the Light, and where does darkness live? -

20 You could then show them the way to their proper places, you could put them on the path home again!

21 If you do know, you must have been born when they were, you must be very old by now!

22 Have you visited the place where the snow is stored? Have you seen the stores of hail,

23 which I keep for times of distress, for days of battle and war?

24 From which direction does the lightning fork, where in the world does the east wind blow itself out?

25 Who bores a channel for the downpour or clears the way for the rolling thunder

26 so that rain may fall on lands where no one lives, and the deserts void of human dwelling,

27 to meet the needs of the lonely wastes and make grass sprout on the thirsty ground?

28 Has the rain a father? Who begets the dewdrops?

29 What womb brings forth the ice, who gives birth to the frost of heaven,
 
30 when the waters grow hard as stone and the surface of the deep congeals?

31 Can you fasten the harness of the Pleiades, or untie Orion’s bands?

32 Can you guide the Crown season by season and show the Bear and its cubs which way to go?

33 Have you grasped the celestial laws? Could you make their writ run on the earth?

34 Can your voice carry as far as the clouds and make the pent-up waters do your bidding?

35 Will lightning flashes come at your command and answer, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who endowed the ibis with wisdom and gave the cock his intelligence?

37 Whose skill details every cloud and tilts the water-skins of heaven

38 until the dust solidifies and the cracks in the ground close up?

39 Do you go hunting prey for the lioness; do you satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 where they crouch in their den, waiting eagerly in the bushes?

41 Who makes provision for the raven when his little ones cry out to God craning their necks in search of food?
 
Last edited:
Yes but we have to understand that the literal meaning simply means that it conveys the truth the human author, inspired by the Divine author
Hmm… perhaps I need to re-read your comments in this thread. It seemed to me that you were, actually, conflating the “literal sense of Scripture” with “Scriptural literalism”… 👍
 
40.png
stephenSTOSS1:
Yes but we have to understand that the literal meaning simply means that it conveys the truth the human author, inspired by the Divine author
Hmm… perhaps I need to re-read your comments in this thread. It seemed to me that you were, actually, conflating the “literal sense of Scripture” with “Scriptural literalism”… 👍
Okaaaay … who are you and what have you done with Georgias? 😁
 
I get wanting to protect your IP. But, this was a blog post, not your book… right?
Well, yes and no. It is a blog, but it was written as more of an academic paper. I had given some thought to, at some point in the future, monetizing it as a compilation of articles in book form. Your comments have led me to reconsider how tightly I hold the reigns of my IP.

In your opinion, what benefits would I gain by giving up that tight hold?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top