Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[Hans_W]

When checking popular sources like BioLogos, we discover that the Catholic doctrine of two, original, sole, real, first originating population of two, fully-complete human parents of humankind is not recognized as part of general Christianity. This is because the Catholic Church has not yielded to the big tent theory, which can ignore annoying Catholic doctrines. The big tent is for happy agreement regardless.

Granny, may I gently remind you that the Church needs to listen to science. If you don’t like the word “Science” because you associate it with atheism, replace it with “Nature” (= God’s handiwork).

The Church has learnt from the Galileo debacle 400 years ago and is very open to all new discoveries coming in from every field of science. After all, it gives us an even better understanding on how wonderful this cosmos was and is being created.

 

[grannymh]

Having actually recovered, physically, the evidence of human existence dating back many thousands of years and done the analysis on the same, I can assure you that what is being questioned in this thread is is, indeed, child’s play. The next great announcements will be coming soon and re-write the current knowledge of human existence in North America.
Contaminated DNA is always taken in to account, but is remarkably rare. What, in your knowledge, would be the contaminants involved with samples over 8,000 BP?

From the mouth of a major paleoanthropologist, in a humorous manner, DNA can fly.

No comment about the definition of child’s play.

Those announcements which will re-write knowledge of “human” existence in our part of the planet were published some time back. The fossil finds are exciting to say the least. Currently, paleoanthropologists are dealing with something somewhat similar on the opposite side of the globe.

Regarding the title of this fascinating thread.

No one denies the existence of pre-historic beings which walked upright. The real issue is when and how Genesis 1: 26-28 was accomplished.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the Church needs to listen to science. . . “Nature” (= God’s handiwork). . .

It sounds to me you are not listening to nature but to men who insert human genes into mice. Persons who do so I can confidently say, have no respect for nature. They are not connected in a loving relationship with God’s creation. Their approach contaminates their findings and will ultimately dehumanize them and those who adopt their world view. Be careful.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

When I said “dehumanizing/demonizing” I was referring to the automatic reaction that occurs when resentment is triggered in peoples’ minds. When a person automatically thinks “that person is evil/worthless”, the dehumanization has already occurred in their mind. They have not willed the perception, it has been triggered. It happens in chimpanzees and humans, and probably also (evidence suggests) neandethal-humans.

Just a clarification.

Thanks, and hope you had a great weekend.

Yes I had a good weekend, thanks for asking

Yes I know what you are saying, but, regardless of what people living today do that we would say is dehumanizing to others, we maintain that they have a soul, do we not?

So the creature walking, eating, talking? killing, living like humans would do in the environment around them, didn’t have a soul according to some people.

I think I’ll just go with my own God given imagination, no harm in that.

Have a nice day

 

[simpleas]

It sounds to me you are not listening to nature but to men who insert human genes into mice. Persons who do so I can confidently say, have no respect for nature. They are not connected in a loving relationship with God’s creation. Their approach contaminates their findings and will ultimately dehumanize them and those who adopt their world view. Be careful.

This would be going off topic, but the church approves the use of animals in science, as long as none suffer and it benefits human kind…

Of course everyone has a choice in what they believe is right or wrong in animal research regardless of what the church says.

 

[simpleas]

This is the most bizarre article I’ve read in a very long time. I would not recommend it as basis for any understanding on Neanderthals.

OneSheep has posted a great link: discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals
Here is another more recent one: blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/11/14/neanderthal-neuroscience/

That’s what nature tells us. I am convinced that many Christian scientists work on these projects.

Ok thanks, so his description of evolution is way off? I’ll take a look at the links you have posted.

 

[grannymh]

Having actually recovered, physically, the evidence of human existence dating back many thousands of years and done the analysis on the same, I can assure you that what is being questioned in this thread is is, indeed, child’s play. The next great announcements will be coming soon and re-write the current knowledge of human existence in North America.
Contaminated DNA is always taken in to account, but is remarkably rare. What, in your knowledge, would be the contaminants involved with samples over 8,000 BP?

Because there have been so many fossil discoveries which challenge species characteristics, I decided to check my memory regarding what you mentioned in post 258. Obviously, you and I could be referring to two entirely different events.

This media link (see headline, 25 August 2010) refers to the popular corpse which was discovered in 2006. Note that three years passed before it was removed.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1305929/Ancient-skeleton-prehistoric-child-removed-Mexican-underwater-cave.html

Even if we are referring to two different fossil finds in two different time frames, natural science remains in the physical/material world. The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of the spiritual world in addition to the material world.

 

[OneSheep]

Even if we are referring to two different fossil finds in two different time frames, natural science remains in the physical/material world. The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of the spiritual world in addition to the material world.

Yes, Granny YES!

The Catholic Church recognizes the Spiritual world, and the study of nature only complements, never takes away from, what we know about the spiritual world. God is found in His creation, in nature! What we find is awesome!

The Catholic Church does not condemn the findings of morally carried-out science, Granny, the Church does not solely express a spirituality that relies on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientific finding are not, and never will be, a threat to the central tenets of our faith, these findings only threaten the faith of *some *Catholics.

So, why are you worried about conclusions that the Catholic Church does not condemn? The “slippery slope” simply does not apply, as you are the only one trying to bring in original sin and so forth. Science does not address Spiritual inheritance, Science is addressing physical and material inheritance. There is a difference, Granny, as you aptly point out.

Good point!

 

[grannymh]

Yes, Granny YES!

The Catholic Church recognizes the Spiritual world, and the study of nature only complements, never takes away from, what we know about the spiritual world. God is found in His creation, in nature! What we find is awesome!

The Catholic Church does not condemn the findings of morally carried-out science, Granny, the Church does not solely express a spirituality that relies on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientific finding are not, and never will be, a threat to the central tenets of our faith, these findings only threaten the faith of *some *Catholics.

So, why are you worried about conclusions that the Catholic Church does not condemn? The “slippery slope” simply does not apply, as you are the only one trying to bring in original sin and so forth. Science does not address Spiritual inheritance, Science is addressing physical and material inheritance. There is a difference, Granny, as you aptly point out.

Good point!

Perhaps you are not aware of the basic tenet for the Darwin model applied to living organisms.

That is understandable because apparently some, not all, Catholics do not realize that the word polygenism, (mentioned in Humani Generis) when applied to the human species, denies the basic Catholic doctrines (plural intended) of Human Origin and the Original First Human’s Original Sin. Perhaps that is because some, not all, Catholics consider some basic Catholic doctrines as annoying.

As I think back. Perhaps, it would be more reasonable if someone, anyone, could name a couple of the basic Catholic doctrines regarding human nature and human origin. Then I can discover if a particular Catholic doctrine opposes the foundation of evolution – which is that species do not evolve as individuals. They evolve as random-breeding populations. Hominin populations are the lineage diverging from a common ancestor population known as Homo/Pan.

In a variety of places, I have nailed some of the specifics of actual real science in regard to the human species. I have done my job.

Now it is up to people, any person, to present the Catholic doctrines which correspond to the appropriate scientific position on humankind. Post 267 can be used as a good source of information.

 

[Hans_W]

It sounds to me you are not listening to nature but to men who insert human genes into mice. Persons who do so I can confidently say, have no respect for nature. They are not connected in a loving relationship with God’s creation. Their approach contaminates their findings and will ultimately dehumanize them and those who adopt their world view. Be careful.

No worries, we scientists are very attuned to nature. We look and listen very carefully. We take note of other people’s work, but are by nature sceptical. It’s called peer review. In the medium and long-term it does take us to a correct understanding of nature.

There are borderline cases of experimentation which are ethically doubtful. Inserting single genes into other species is not one of them. You won’t get a human/mouse hybrid. And look at all the advances in medicine coming from our better understanding of the molecular machineries.

Concerning a loving relationship with God’s creation - many scientists will tell you that their work has strengthened this relationship. You listen too much to Richard Dawkins and his followers. They don’t do science when they trumpet their worldview.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, Granny YES!

The Catholic Church recognizes the Spiritual world, and the study of nature only complements, never takes away from, what we know about the spiritual world. God is found in His creation, in nature! What we find is awesome!

The Catholic Church does not condemn the findings of morally carried-out science, Granny, the Church does not solely express a spirituality that relies on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientific finding are not, and never will be, a threat to the central tenets of our faith, these findings only threaten the faith of *some *Catholics.

So, why are you worried about conclusions that the Catholic Church does not condemn? The “slippery slope” simply does not apply, as you are the only one trying to bring in original sin and so forth. Science does not address Spiritual inheritance, Science is addressing physical and material inheritance. There is a difference, Granny, as you aptly point out.

Good point!

I put in bold the comments from post 267 which deserve an answer from the position of the Catholic Church as found in paragraph 389, last sentence, in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

It is with deep sadness, that I find that some of the most basic literal Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis are being ignored – most likely because they are annoying in our scientific world. Apparently, as the words in bold imply, I happen to be the only one who knows and understands the basic Catholic doctrines which directly connect, that is, intersect with the origin of the human species as described by today’s natural science.

I have done my best to defend the Catholic religion. I will not yield to the attacks which are coming from within the “Catholic” community. I have said all that I could.

 

[Aloysium]

Hans, dude, don’t condescend. You don’t know who you are talking to on these Forums.

I obviously have failed to communicate my intended point.
The short of it boils down to: What we do, what we think and who we are - these are all causally linked to each another.
Whom we become as eternal beings has obviously very profound and serious consequences.

In blogs.discovermagazine.com/lo…-neuroscience/, the writer discusses a presentation that concerned work being done in the area of genes and their association with the anatomy of the brain and behaviour in living things. There is an excitment in the article, projected onto or reflecting that of the room as the findings were made known. It does not take much interpretation to understand that the excitement has nothing to do with a marvelling of God’s creation, little if anything to do with the wonder that is human rationality, but everything about mastery and control. It is clearly demonstrated how we are able to take apart living things, to manipulate what they are, what we are ourselves. We have the capacity to splice human DNA that codes for brain development into lesser creatures, possibly to allow for the ability to speak. We become more god-like in our doing as we please and in our control of nature; in doing so however, we are diminished. Reflected back is an image of ourselves as another form of rodent. And of course, if you actually speak to anyone in the room, you will find that as is true of everyone else, all of us, they are all about honour, money, power and pleasures. Mankind in the service of itself, falls further from its heavenly home.

Some of the repercussions of this world view are seen in the many, many tens of millions of killings of unborn people since Roe and Wade. It is all about ignorance. And when that veil will be lifted, how many will regret what they have done to another and what they have lost as consequence?! The lie is perpetuated by a medical-scientific perspective that does away with the person, reducing him/her to a material substance to be manipulated and played with. If it were left that “molecular machinery” was seen as simply a part of our physical make-up (which can help to discern, for example in Medicine, medication tolerances and variations in metabolism), it would be one thing, but we see it applied to the powerless amomg us, secular-consumerist untouchables - merely molecular machinery.

I’m at work, doing science actually. But, I’m the boss so I can cut myself some slack. Just trying to give you a flavour of what I was getting at.

 

[Hans_W]

Ok thanks, so his description of evolution is way off? I’ll take a look at the links you have posted.

Yes, this article is pure speculation. It was written by a physicist, presumably with no background in palaeontology, nor biology.

St Augustine of Hippo pointed out, 16 centuries ago, that if the evidence we find in nature contradicts our interpretation of the Bible, then we need to go back to the Holy texts and revise our interpretations. Otherwise, he said, Christians are making fools of themselves.

 

[oldcelt]

From the mouth of a major paleoanthropologist, in a humorous manner, DNA can fly.

No comment about the definition of child’s play.

Those announcements which will re-write knowledge of “human” existence in our part of the planet were published some time back. The fossil finds are exciting to say the least. Currently, paleoanthropologists are dealing with something somewhat similar on the opposite side of the globe.

Regarding the title of this fascinating thread.

No one denies the existence of pre-historic beings which walked upright. The real issue is when and how Genesis 1: 26-28 was accomplished.

I think we actually would agree on quite a bit. Probably not the creation issues, but many others.

 

[Hans_W]

Hans, dude, don’t condescend. You don’t know who you are talking to on these Forums.

I obviously have failed to communicate my intended point.
The short of it boils down to: What we do, what we think and who we are - these are all causally linked to each another.
Whom we become as eternal beings has obviously very profound and serious consequences.

In blogs.discovermagazine.com/lo…-neuroscience/, the writer discusses a presentation that concerned work being done in the area of genes and their association with the anatomy of the brain and behaviour in living things. There is an excitment in the article, projected onto or reflecting that of the room as the findings were made known. It does not take much interpretation to understand that the excitement has nothing to do with a marvelling of God’s creation, little if anything to do with the wonder that is human rationality, but everything about mastery and control. It is clearly demonstrated how we are able to take apart living things, to manipulate what they are, what we are ourselves. We have the capacity to splice human DNA that codes for brain development into lesser creatures, possibly to allow for the ability to speak. We become more god-like in our doing as we please and in our control of nature; in doing so however, we are diminished. Reflected back is an image of ourselves as another form of rodent. And of course, if you actually speak to anyone in the room, you will find that as is true of everyone else, all of us, they are all about honour, money, power and pleasures. Mankind in the service of itself, falls further from its heavenly home.

Some of the repercussions of this world view are seen in the many, many tens of millions of killings of unborn people since Roe and Wade. It is all about ignorance. And when that veil will be lifted, how many will regret what they have done to another and what they have lost as consequence?! The lie is perpetuated by a medical-scientific perspective that does away with the person, reducing him/her to a material substance to be manipulated and played with. If it were left that “molecular machinery” was seen as simply a part of our physical make-up (which can help to discern, for example in Medicine, medication tolerances and variations in metabolism), it would be one thing, but we see it applied to the powerless amomg us, secular-consumerist untouchables - merely molecular machinery.

I’m at work, doing science actually. But, I’m the boss so I can cut myself some slack. Just trying to give you a flavour of what I was getting at.

I don’t think that my reply (post #269) to your post was in any way condescending. This is what you advised me in post #262:

“It sounds to me you are not listening to nature but to men who insert human genes into mice. Persons who do so I can confidently say, have no respect for nature. They are not connected in a loving relationship with God’s creation. Their approach contaminates their findings and will ultimately dehumanize them and those who adopt their world view. Be careful.”

I did not realise that you are practising science as well. In that case you will know that scientists follow certain guidelines in the way they do their job, like methodological naturalism. This forces them to come up with purely naturalistic explanations of events they uncover in nature. This does NOT mean that there are only natural causes. There could well be phenomena which science can’t explain, but scientists will keep searching. And that makes their life exciting, like for a mountaineer standing in front of a mountain which hasn’t been mastered yet.

Scientists are human beings and like everybody else they can succumb to pride, envy and greed. Some may be power hungry, some are crooks. That doesn’t reflect anything negative on their profession as scientists. You describe the excitement that followed a presentation of new findings at a conference. I agree with you, that excitement was not about marvelling of God’s creation, but it was the thrill of having achieved a goal, of knowing something which nobody knew before. It is the same excitement as a mountaineer feels once he has conquered that mountain and stands on top.

I am sure that you misinterpret this feeling of excitement as a sign of power, as a feeling of becoming god-like, as being in control of nature. Imagine the excitement at the Large Hadron Collider when the Higgs Boson was discovered, the anxiety when it was not yet confirmed and the disappointments at every setback. We have discovered something new. We know more about this wonderful universe.

Many scientists believe in God, who created all the things we are privileged to discover. When they reflect on their findings, they do marvel at God’s creation. But this has nothing to do with science anymore and you cannot expect them to describe those feelings in a science report.

 

[wmw]

A search for God’s laws should be included as a legitimate philosophy of science.

If Issac Newton would return as a resurrected man he would not be tolerated in this time where your beliefs must be held in check after passing through the lab’s or academia’s door.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, Granny YES!

The Catholic Church recognizes the Spiritual world, and the study of nature only complements, never takes away from, what we know about the spiritual world. God is found in His creation, in nature! What we find is awesome!

The Catholic Church does not condemn the findings of morally carried-out science, Granny, the Church does not solely express a spirituality that relies on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientific finding are not, and never will be, a threat to the central tenets of our faith, these findings only threaten the faith of *some *Catholics.

So, why are you worried about conclusions that the Catholic Church does not condemn? The “slippery slope” simply does not apply, as you are the only one trying to bring in original sin and so forth. Science does not address Spiritual inheritance, Science is addressing physical and material inheritance. There is a difference, Granny, as you aptly point out.

Good point!

Thank you sincerely for this information which serves as a source of examples opposing Catholic doctrines.

Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

I have done my best to defend the Catholic religion. I will not yield to the attacks which are coming from within the “Catholic” community. I have said all that I could.

Granny,

Are you feeling fearful? Behind all fear is an unmet need. What is it you seek, that is not being delivered? What do you want?

Are you requesting that all Catholics believe in the literal, not the figurative, creation story?

God Bless.

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Are you feeling fearful? Behind all fear is an unmet need. What is it you seek, that is not being delivered? What do you want?

Are you requesting that all Catholics believe in the literal, not the figurative, creation story?

God Bless.

I am so fearful that if I would lose a few more pounds, I would be hiding under my bed.

What I seek, which unfortunately is not always delivered, is some basic Catholic doctrines.

I really love this question. It is so indicative of a form of forgetfulness of the Holy Spirit. There are some Catholic doctrines regarding the Holy Spirit which should not be forgotten.
Here is the question.
“Are you requesting that all Catholics believe in the literal, not the figurative, creation story?”

I may be an old cranky granny, but I did not live at the beginning of the Catholic Church when the promised Holy Spirit came. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides the major ecumenical Church Councils when it is time to properly define doctrines based on Divine Revelation. Sorry, but the Holy Spirit, in His wisdom, has already guided the protocol for determining what is to be part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. I do not have the power to change that.

Those who participate at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass profess their belief in the Catholic doctrine based on Genesis 1:1 reference to the “creation story.” In other words, it would be a bit silly for me to request a particular belief about the creation story when the Holy Spirit has already taken care of that.

One of the important Catholic doctrines which Catholics should not forget is the promise of the Holy Spirit in chapter 14, Gospel of John. I do post that reference in other threads. I keep hoping that someone will remember to check it out.

 

[Hans_W]

A search for God’s laws should be included as a legitimate philosophy of science.

If Issac Newton would return as a resurrected man he would not be tolerated in this time where your beliefs must be held in check after passing through the lab’s or academia’s door.

Good point to bring up Isaac Newton. He was a brilliant mathematician and scientist. However, in his days science wasn’t yet a separate discipline. Everything fell under the umbrella of philosophy and what we today call “science” was known as “natural philosophy”.

Yes, in those days “scientists” invoked God when they couldn’t find a natural explanation anymore. But Newton made it clear that one should go as far as possible in trying to find natural causes for observed phenomena. He did a superb job in explaining the planetary movements by invoking an invisible (but natural) force emanating from the sun. In the end he thought that the whole system would be unstable and God would be required to “wind up” the solar system from time to time. His rival Gottfried Leibnitz in Germany was strongly opposed to this idea. He insisted that if God constructs something, it’s done perfectly and doesn’t need any correction.

All these people were deeply religious but recognised that if we want to understand how the world operates, we need to find natural causes and explanations. By the mid 19th century it became a generally accepted rule that science needs to limit itself to natural causes. This does not mean that there are no supernatural causes, but they don’t fall under the domain of science.

As any religious scientist will tell you, you can believe in a creator God but limit your work in science to natural explanations. It’s called methodological naturalism as opposed to ontological naturalism, which is the belief that there is nothing beyond our physical world.

Coming back to your first statement, how do you imagine capturing God’s “laws” in a scientific or mathematical language?