N
Nanotwerp
Guest
The Garden of Eden in America?! Huehuehuehueh.My Mormon wife says it was in Independence, Missouri.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
What current science is saying is that what we consider a “soul” is actually a material anatomical epiphenomenon. St, John Paul II recognized this denial of the God-created soul. Here is what he said in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
“Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
H
Hans_W
Guest
What does it matter what you call them? So, “hominins” are a subset of “hominids”.
What matters is that we are all related. We all have a common ancestor. This is evident from the detailed fossil record we have amassed in the last hundred years. And it is fully supported by the DNA evidence from the last fifty years.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Again, I need to protest here. Paragraph 3 of your reference says:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
…
- …Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
- The Church’s magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution,… Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."
That was in 1996, and again today in 2014 we have amassed even more evidence. John Paul II emphasized - correctly - that philosophies and interpretations of evolution as “spirit emerging from the forces of living matter” are incompatible with the teaching of the Church.
Where does it say that science teaches the emergence, or non-emergence of a soul? I repeat: science does not talk about souls. If you have read that somewhere, it was probably written by an atheist misusing science to further his viewpoint.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
If I might…
IIRC, what some scientists claim is an emergent property is consciousness. To the extent that some religious people equate consciousness with soul possession, then any time scientists speak of consciousness some religious people will hear them as speaking about the soul as well – but they’re really just speaking about consciousness.
H
Hans_W
Guest
That might explain the confusion. Yes, thank you - consciousness is something we share with some of the higher animals.
The question then remains of what is meant by “spirit”. I assume it means soul rather than consciousness.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Except that angels are pure spirit and, unless I’m mistaken, they aren’t supposed to have souls – though they have consciousness.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
That is so untrue. Please learn the difference.
G
grannymh
Guest
It matters because natural science requires precise definitions.
Here is a brief link to our common ancestor.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
However, it would be helpful to first understand the cladistic system along with some basic principles of evolution.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_toc_01
Because of the major fossil find in 2013, the fossil record of the last hundred years is currently being re-evaluated on a world wide scale.
It is precisely the Garden of Eden which directly opposes
the contemporary evolution cladistics method (diverging common ancestors) for determining the origin of the human species.
G
grannymh
Guest
Teachings, as well as talk, are usually interpretations of properly published research papers over the years. Those who teach and those who talk may choose individual items.
If you say that science teachings and talk do not talk about souls, your statement is fine with me…
What the Catholic Church opposes is some, not all, conclusions and applications found in published research papers such as the one in 1987 and the one in 1995.
It is not my intention to debate actual research papers for a number of reasons. Wikipedia does have some important comments about the “Eve” in 1987.
However, the reality of the Garden of Eden does lead to the reality of some basic Catholic doctrines which are now being attacked. You may have the last word about “soul” in science. I need to return to the descriptions and implications found in the first three chapters of Genesis.
M
minkymurph
Guest
It is not untrue. I know how scholarship defines and describes the two terms. Please don’t make assumptions as to what I may or may not know and please do not be condesending by presuming to know what I need to learn.
I note you have also chosen not to define or explain the distinction between the terms yourself. Isn’t it so easy to simply tell someone they are wrong, and go and find out for themselves why?
R
Richca
Guest
Some of the statements that St Pope John Paul II made at his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 23, 1996 in which he addressed the subject of evolution can be taken out of context or misunderstood. According to this informative article by Jimmy Akin concerning the Pope’s speech, Pope John Paul II was not personally endorsing the theory of evolution and even indicated that it could be a false hypothesis.
jimmyakin.com/evolution-what-the-pope-said
H
Hans_W
Guest
That’s right. In 1950 the theory of evolution was a firmly established theory with biologists. The Church, rightfully skeptical, still had a question mark on that topic.
In 1996 John Paul II said “…Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis…”. I don’t think there is much to misunderstand. He made it clear that God puts a soul directly into every human being. Scientists, religious or non-religious, won’t disagree with this statement, simply because it is outside their territory.
I really don’t know what the matter is with this imaginary religion-science conflict which some people seem to have. It’s mainly an American phenomenon. It’s an infection from the fundamentalist Protestant churches. Luckily, most Catholics outside the US are not affected by this virus.
If you want to establish the validity of a scientific theory, say evolutionary theory, who are you going to ask? Chemists, engineers, politicians, bishops, lawyers, doctors, physicists? No, you will go to the community of biologists, and they will tell you that 99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. That includes hundreds of thousands of Christian scientists. And that’s all you need.
The Church has been very open to new scientific discoveries, at least since the Galileo debacle 400 years ago. There are lots of outstanding Christian scientists, even Catholic priests. Georges Lemaître, the discoverer of the Big Bang theory, is just one of many.
Coming back to your post, it is not John Paul II’s job to endorse a scientific theory. Only the experts in that particular field can do that. He can voice an opposition to the theory if it contradicts the teaching of the church. Obviously it doesn’t.
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
It’s very possible. Of course, America might not have been in the same location relative to other continents, and might have even been connected to other continents before Noah’s flood, but it’s possible that the Garden of Eden stood on top of the same general landmass.The Garden of Eden in America?! Huehuehuehueh.
Hey, the Garden of Eden might have been at my house.
G
grannymh
Guest
Pius XII, the brilliant author of the 1950 encyclical, concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine, made it plain that one of the basic evolution principles, polygenism, cannot be embraced by the Faithful. Note: in this century, polygenism is referred to as a common ancestor population which diverges into different lineages, one of which are the hominins.
I do recognize that many people like to interpret the word “apparent” in section 37 as an open door to change Catholic doctrines flowing from the events in the real Garden of Eden.
My response is to respectfully study footnote 12, section 37. After 60 some years, these citations have not been revoked.
The basic tenet of the Science of Human Evolution (humanity evolved as a population, i.e., polygenism) was already denied in 1950 in *Humani Generis, section 37. *Apparently, in 1996, St. John Paul II assumed that because his audience were scientists, they had the intelligence to both read and understand section 37.
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)
Footnote: 12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
Yes, absolutely, the evolution model is more than a hypothesis, as it excels in the medical arena. But the last time I looked in the mirror, I saw a person and not bacteria or HIV. Neither did I see a puppy or an eagle.
Obviously, God creates the spiritual soul. I think that is obvious. Nonetheless, we need to move on and examine the real world of the Science of Human Evolution which holds that humanity developed as a population which previously had taken thousands of years to break apart from common ancestors. (The scientific plural is intended.) The Catholic Church continues to oppose the population breeding tenet when it comes to human origin.
One good thing about this discussion is that it leads to the truth of the Garden of Eden.
I have noticed that the proposed locations for this Garden do not indicate the Garden’s inhabitants which happen to be both the Creator God and the created creature biblically known as Adam.
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
What do you mean?
I don’t think there is any evidence to establish the location of the Garden of Eden any more accurately than “somewhere on Earth.”
G
grannymh
Guest
I agree that there is not enough evidence to establish the location any more accurately than “somewhere on earth” because a lot of the physical environment could have changed between the time of Adam and the time of the inspired author. It is the presence of God which is key to the real events in the location.
What I mean is that it would be interesting to look at the Garden of Eden as it appears in traditional Catholic teachings. Genesis 2: 8-17 affirms the existence of the Garden. Paragraph 378, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, offers this explanation. “The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.”
For Catholicism, the existence of the Garden of Eden is far more important than its precise location. The friendship relationship between the Garden’s Creator and the two humans is a basic truth. Adam and his spouse Eve were in the State of Original Holiness and Justice which, in our time, is the State of Sanctifying Grace. (Information source: “Man in Paradise” CCC, 374-379; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)
While many of the location suggestions tickled my funny bone, I am concerned about the modern attempt to set aside the reality of Adam and Eve because of the Science of Human Evolution. When it comes to the Garden per se, it is both literal and figurative which means that we have to rely on Catholic doctrines per se. My gut instinct is that when we learn the reason for a real Garden of Eden, we will be more comfortable with the sometimes mysterious first three chapters of Genesis.
When I think about traditional Catholicism, I think about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Interestingly, Eucharistic Prayer IV refers to Adam . “And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, You did not abandon him to the domain of death.”
Deep down, I want to know more about the Garden of Eden than its location.
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
What do you mean, “sometimes mysterious”? Genesis is pretty straightforward.
G
grannymh
Guest
To me, some of the language can be mysterious as I wonder if it is literal or figurative or both. Genesis 1: 1-19 is a marvelous description of the creative power of God. In my old Bible there is a “graphic representation of the Hebrew conception of the world,” The Scripture verses and the drawing of the universe were mysteries to me since they did not comport with the reality of our physical environment. The origin of Adam, earth and breath, was a mystery. Naturally, a talking snake was a mystery, Fortunately, I had learned the doctrines connected to the first three chapters of Genesis; therefore I used doctrines to clear up the “mysteries.”
These samples of “mysteries” in my eyes did not prevent me from understanding the Divine Revelation which was being presented. Granted, I had to study in order to understand the truth in the mystery. The result was worth the effort because I now find that Divine Revelation is pretty straightforward.
R
Richca
Guest
Well Genesis places it somewhere around the Euphrates and Tigris rivers which only exist in the mesopotamia area of the world as we know it. This appears to me as some kind of evidence of the location of the Garden of Eden.
- Status