Why didn't God save Neanderthals?

[OneSheep]

In real life, it is possible that individual interpretations of natural events going millions of years backwards will oppose Divine Revelation. The real life example is the clash between the Catholic Deposit of Faith and the cladistics system (large random-breeding populations) used in the modern science of human heredity.

In real life, in order for “truth” not to contradict “truth”, science must be conducted properly and Catholic doctrines must be properly understood. Unfortunately, a variety of Catholics want to eliminate annoying Catholic doctrines.

Dearest Granny,

What’s all the malarkey! You are the sharpest knife in the drawer, so just admit it.

The key words above are “clash between the Catholic Deposit of Faith and…”

Granny, many good, faithful Catholics do not rely on a strict interpretation of the Genesis account in order to have a complete commitment to Christ and Church and dedicate their lives to loving God and neighbor. As I have previously stated, however, if the sciences of heredity and genomics are disruptive to your faith, then please ignore the science. In the mean time, are you feeling annoyed that some people can incorporate the science and the CCC?

Of course, it is natural to want the “security” of a doctrine, something for the faithful to rely on if there is confusion and anxiety. Granny, a person with a solid prayer life does not have this anxiety. Christ is found in relationship, not in a book, remember the quote from Pope Francis? We find Christ in prayer, in our Christian community, in creation (including all humanity), and in the scripture/doctrine. If a Catholic relies on only one of those sources, we need to gently encourage them to look further, right?

If nothing else, God has given us the gift of imagination! And with this gift, we can come up with many means of melding the science and the faith.

On that matter, I will suggest a way of doing so, in my next post.

Thanks, Granny, you have again stimulated my fingers to write!

 

[grannymh]

Dearest Granny,

What’s all the malarkey! You are the sharpest knife in the drawer, so just admit it.

The key words above are “clash between the Catholic Deposit of Faith and…”

Granny, many good, faithful Catholics do not rely on a strict interpretation of the Genesis account in order to have a complete commitment to Christ and Church and dedicate their lives to loving God and neighbor. As I have previously stated, however, if the sciences of heredity and genomics are disruptive to your faith, then please ignore the science. In the mean time, are you feeling annoyed that some people can incorporate the science and the CCC?

Of course, it is natural to want the “security” of a doctrine, something for the faithful to rely on if there is confusion and anxiety. Granny, a person with a solid prayer life does not have this anxiety. Christ is found in relationship, not in a book, remember the quote from Pope Francis? We find Christ in prayer, in our Christian community, in creation (including all humanity), and in the scripture/doctrine. If a Catholic relies on only one of those sources, we need to gently encourage them to look further, right?

If nothing else, God has given us the gift of imagination! And with this gift, we can come up with many means of melding the science and the faith.

On that matter, I will suggest a way of doing so, in my next post.

Thanks, Granny, you have again stimulated my fingers to write!

And you have stimulated my brain. I think my brain is with my car keys wherever they are.

Right now, I have no recollection of a strict interpretation of a Genesis account which is not relied on by “good faithful Catholics”. Refer to post 142. As I do recall --the Divinity of Christ is crucial in the Catholic Church. Please check out the last sentence in *CCC *389. I highlighted that sentence in orange in my copy of the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *The paragraph number is in yellow.

Eventually, a computer tech is coming to give my computer stuff a swift kick. So it will be awhile before I can really study what you are implying.

In the meantime, I wonder what a complete commitment to Christ and Church feels like. I am definitely not in the “saint category.”

From post 142. Granny, many good, faithful Catholics do not rely on a strict interpretation of the Genesis account in order to have a complete commitment to Christ and Church and dedicate their lives to loving God and neighbor.

 

[OneSheep]

The Catholic Church challenges the real science of heredity because it posits that the human species emerged over time in indiscriminate random humanizing breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church remains firm, regardless of who is disturbed, that the human species descended from a population of two.

By the way, CCC 1730-1732 refers to the human goal set by the Creator God – in case anyone wants to comment about our Creator Who did not save the Neanderthals from extinction. The human species is the only extant hominin.

Hi Granny,

The Catholic Church challenges the real science? Who? A group of bishops? A few theologians? I have not heard. If there are some Catholics who find the science a challenge, here is one means of incorporating the science and Catholic doctrine:

As I mentioned before, the evolution of one distinct species to another is fuzzy. When can we say that a Homo Sapien sapien really became “sapien”? Well some would say that there is no definite line, but at some point modern humans either took on a new mutation or an old characteristic was bred out that finally distinguished what we can call a modern human. Did it happen quickly, or did it happen slowly?

Feel free to believe that it happened very quickly. We are finding out more and more about how genetic change happens, and we are even learning that environment actually affects genotype! That is, mutations can happen in response to environment, it is not just simply a matter of “survival of the fittest”, which posits that environmental change simply weeds out the individuals with inadequate genes. It is still a matter of inheritance, of course, but environmental change usually occurs slowly enough to allow for suffering parents to possibly give birth to a child that is a little bit different in genotype. (Note: it may be that “genotype” is misused here. Let’s say that the base pairs will remain inherited from the parents, but a shifting or change in hydrogen bonds affects phenotype of the offspring, and these “subtle” changes can be passed on to subsequent offspring.)

Whatever the case may be, the Genesis story indicates that at some point humans had the capacity to have a relationship with their creator, a single couple, a man and a woman. This capacity for relationship, Granny, was a gift.

Was this gift distributed to the generations that followed only through inheritance, or was there some other means that God chose to spread this gift to humanity? If it was only through inheritance, then we can all trace our capacity for faith to a single couple. Science cannot refute this possibility. If it was through other means, that would be “supernatural”.

And, as we know, God is not averse to supernatural behavior, right?

I hope I have demonstrated two means by which the science of heredity does not contradict the CCC. Did this gift happen before the occurrence of the Neanderthal race, or after the race had “disappeared” (which evidence shows happened very slowly, there must have been some half-neanderthals, then one-quarter, etc.)?

Well, we don’t know. Some people will find the exact moment very important, others not. The Church has not come out with a scientific theory about when (number of years ago) in the ancestry of humans the gift had been given.

As I have stated before, Granny, and I invite you to join me, if a person has great anxiety about the exact moment when humanity received the gift of relationship with the divine, we should encourage them to pray, to be a real part of Christian community, to find God in other ways than through material facts, science and/or theological assertions. Faith that is only in the mind is an empty faith. Faith that includes the heart is one that is bound in Love.

Do you understand what I am saying?

God Bless you, Sharpest-knife-in-the-drawer.

 

[OneSheep]

In the meantime, I wonder what a complete commitment to Christ and Church feels like. I am definitely not in the “saint category.”

Well, I’d say you are pretty well committed to the faith, dear!

What I mean is exactly much of what we commit ourselves to in the Sacrament of Confirmation. That we love Christ, our God, the trinity, with all of our heart, mind, and soul, and that we love our neighbors the same way. This is going to be manifest a little differently in every individual, for we all have our sets of limitations and circumstances.

What is in common, in communion, is the commitment to such relationship(s). Do you see how Eucharist ties it all together?

Oops, there I go again, changing the subject… I’m bound to get in trouble again. Please forgive, moderators.

 

[wmw]

The Church challenging science and vise-verse is definitely the wrong characterization of the relationship.

Even Wikipedia makes clear that most historians recognize the complementary relationship of science and religion and very notably the RCC. Though this area of hominization is a unique and tender exception to the general harmony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Acceptance
Main article: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups
According to Eugenie Scott: “In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church”,[9] despite studies showing that acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Europe or Japan (only Turkey had a lower rate in the 34 countries sampled).[33]
Theistic evolutionism has been described as a form of compatibilism, and as such it is viewed with disdain both by some atheists and many creationists.[34]

Hominization
Hominization, in both science and religion, involves the process or the purpose of becoming human. The process and means by which hominization occurs is a key problem in theistic evolutionary thought, at least for the Abrahamic religions, for which the belief that animals do not have immortal souls but humans do is a core teaching.[35] Many versions of theistic evolution insist on a special creation consisting of at least the addition of a soul just for the human species.[36]
Scientific accounts of the origin of the universe, origin of life and subsequent evolution of pre-human life forms may not cause any difficulty (helped by the reluctance of science itself to say anything about what preceded the Big Bang) but the need to reconcile religious and scientific views of hominization and account for the addition of a soul to humans remains a problem. Theistic evolution typically postulates that there was a point at which a population of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms. This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations. The point at which this occurred should essentially be the same as in paleoanthropology and archeology, but theological discussion of the matter tends to concentrate on the theoretical. The term “special transformism” is sometimes used to refer to theories that there was a divine intervention of some sort, achieving hominization.[37]
Several 19th century theologians and evolutionists attempted specific solutions, including the Catholics John Augustine Zahm and St. George Jackson Mivart, but tended to be attacked by both the theological and biological camps,[38] and 20th century thinking has tended to avoid proposing precise mechanisms.[39]

Relationship to other positions
Non-theistic evolution
The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. These critics argue that by the application of Occam’s razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided by natural processes (in particular, natural selection), and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required.[40] Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins considers theistic evolution a superfluous attempt to “smuggle God in by the back door”.[41]

 

[Aloysium]

Goodness me!

We are trying to answer the questions if, how and when Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. These are a scientific questions. I would not go to the Bible or the Catechism to answer them.

If you ask how much this type of knowledge relies on inductive reasoning, then it becomes a philosophical question (philosophy of science).

If you ask at what stage did Homo sapiens get a soul - that’s a question for theology.

Fairly clear cut for me, but I am open to be corrected.

You are advocating a “Christian science”, but then we also need to have a Hindu science, a Muslim science, a Feminist science and what have you. Here in New Zealand some Maori groups are pushing for a Maori science which integrates some of their Maori values.

How do you feel about that? Or should we just go for a Catholic science?

Science is an operating manual for matter. I make money doing science, and it is 100% about politics, economics, ethics and power. It is a social institution. I can understand completely a push for Maori science, showing respect for this earth we are destroying by consumerist science.

When you talk about human species, it is all about science, which is extremely limited at this stage of human knowledge. I will in all confidence assert that if our culture grows and remains in existence 1000 years from now, that the scientific views that you are espousing will sound ridiculous. The theological reality will remain true, adapted to those times.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

The Catholic Church challenges the real science? Who? A group of bishops? A few theologians? I have not heard. If there are some Catholics who find the science a challenge, here is one means of incorporating the science and Catholic doctrine:

The following is the actual quote from post 120.
“The Catholic Church challenges the real science of heredity because it posits that the human species emerged over time in indiscriminate random humanizing breeding populations in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church remains firm, regardless of who is disturbed, that the human species descended from a population of two.”

Please notice that I was talking about a specific section of science. In fact, you were the person who used “Science of Heredity.” I liked that title so I use it. Thank you. Actually, we are both referring to the Science of Human Evolution. Next, I presented the reason why the Catholic Church challenges the Science of Human Heredity. As I pointed out, there is a difference between a population of thousands and a population of two. I really do not think that it takes a group of bishops to figure out the mathematics.

If you are interested in the math, we can discuss why the Catholic Church remains firm that humankind descended from two sole fully-complete human parents.

skip

Whatever the case may be, the Genesis story indicates that at some point humans had the capacity to have a relationship with their creator, a single couple, a man and a woman. This capacity for relationship, Granny, was a gift.

I took note of the plural humans at some point in this sentence from post 144. Are you referring to the math of a population of two or to the math of large populations which is basic to the science of human heredity?
From post 144. “Whatever the case may be, the Genesis story indicates that at some point humans had the capacity to have a relationship with their creator, a single couple, a man and a woman. This capacity for relationship, Granny, was a gift.”

Was this gift distributed to the generations that followed only through inheritance, or was there some other means that God chose to spread this gift to humanity? If it was only through inheritance, then we can all trace our capacity for faith to a single couple. Science cannot refute this possibility. If it was through other means, that would be “supernatural”.

And, as we know, God is not averse to supernatural behavior, right?

skip

Do you understand what I am saying?

God Bless you, Sharpest-knife-in-the-drawer.

My sincere apology. I had to skip to the bottom of post 144 where you asked “do you understand what I am saying?” I have no clue what “this gift” is, so obviously, I do not understand what you are talking about. Poetic expressions of what happened in the Garden can certainly be enjoyed. However, I am talking about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

When it comes to the Catholic Church challenging the precise science of human heredity, it is essential that the actual Catholic teachings be presented in their original form.

 

[OneSheep]

When it comes to the Catholic Church challenging the precise science of human heredity, it is essential that the actual Catholic teachings be presented in their original form.

Granny dearest,

Catholic teaching has evolved on the issue, as science continues to add to unfolding revelation. As can be seen on this thread, we know much more about Neanderthals today than we did only 7 or 8 years ago. The CCC does not address Neanderthals.

The Church hierarchy is not “challenging” the science. Indeed, the Church hierarchy continues to be very open-minded about physical ancestry. The Church is concerned with issues of faith, and this need not be a faith issue. However, if it is a faith issue for you, if your faith commitment relies on the literal interpretation of Genesis, then please, ignore the science. Granny, dear, are you trying to say that your interpretation is the only acceptable Catholic approach to the issue? Is there some condemnation of the science coming from the hierarchy that I don’t know about?

Maybe you missed it. The “gift” I described was that creation (man) was given the capacity to have a relationship (two-way) with God. This is unique. Whether the capacity for relationship was transmitted to offspring through natural means or through supernatural means is an unanswered question. To me, God had His hands in such transmission either way. Please, Granny, do not skip this from my quote this time: The Church does not condemn the science, and does not condemn or challenge the notions that transmission of capacity for relationship with God is natural, nor does it challenge the notion that such transmission is supernatural. Indeed, “natural” and “supernatural” can become quite blurred.

Back to work for me. Thanks, Granny, you did it again.

P.S.
Have I ever told you how much my responding to you helps me clarify my thoughts? You are truly a Godsend. I really do appreciate your efforts.

 

[opusAquinas]

Whether the capacity for relationship was transmitted to offspring through natural means or through supernatural means is an unanswered question.

I understand it to be supernatural.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Whether the capacity for relationship was transmitted to offspring through natural means or through supernatural means is an unanswered question.

I understand it to be supernatural.

Please provide the Catholic teaching which affirms your response in regard to a capacity for relationship.

Please describe this capacity in Catholic terminology.

Please define, according to Catholic teachings, what exactly is “supernatural” according to your understanding.

I am aware of other sources of information. If you are following some of the popular Catholic authors who would like to get rid of some annoying Catholic teachings, please indicate that source. If you prefer privacy about your sources, that is acceptable. As a former journalist, I sincerely respected my sources.

Nonetheless, it is only fair that you give me the opportunity to present correct Catholic teaching if there is incorrect teaching.

 

[wmw]

What is science to do? Let’s assume that there is only a supernatural explanation for the appearance of one man and one woman to be the sole ancestors of all of humanity. Yet, There are all these hominid’s bones lying about and natural evolutionary explanations for every animal other than man.

Empirical science being limited to explanations of natural processes will logically construct one for man. Nothing can be completely proven, but science will be correct that given its focus on natural development that the story they produce of a minimal population of between 10 and 100 thousand that a reasonable distribution of genetic attributes would normally occur from our current measures of known populations is the most likely scientific explanation.

Will the natural evolutionary model differ from the supernatural story? Yes, but it is exactly what we should expect of a purely materialistically limited search for truth. Will more science done more precisely and/or with more data discovered suddenly make it take up the supernatural explanation? I think not, except in the minds of the faithful that see science’s limitations.

This is exactly where science and faith are at arms length and can’t cross into each other’s domain. Science can not make a leap into supernatural explanations and religion can not demand that it’s theology be taken up as scientific theory to be adopted by science.

Through this makes sense given the initial supposition of a supernatural occurrence of humanity. I also put forth that there is also a possible natural explanation, but that because of it’s improbability it is so like a supernatural intersession by God that it follows the same path of separate explanations from science and religion as the above.

Either way we are at the point we should expect to find ourselves and should expect to remain with the sort of separate domains of religion and science that our society requires. I don’t expect science to grow to be in harmony with religion on this narrow topic, and it is folly for religion to fall in line with a purely materialistic explanation when it includes other possible explanation that include spiritual and/or extremely unlikely scenarios.

 

[opusAquinas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Whether the capacity for relationship was transmitted to offspring through natural means or through supernatural means is an unanswered question.

Please provide the Catholic teaching which affirms your response in regard to a capacity for relationship.

Please describe this capacity in Catholic terminology.

Please define, according to Catholic teachings, what exactly is “supernatural” according to your understanding.

I am aware of other sources of information. If you are following some of the popular Catholic authors who would like to get rid of some annoying Catholic teachings, please indicate that source. If you prefer privacy about your sources, that is acceptable. As a former journalist, I sincerely respected my sources.

Nonetheless, it is only fair that you give me the opportunity to present correct Catholic teaching if there is incorrect teaching.

I studied this but can’t recall all my sources.

But in this case, it seems that it would be clearly supernatural.

To paraphrase the question as: How is our relationship with God transmitted?
Or even How is the stain of original sin transmitted?

Naturally? You mean through our DNA? I posit it seems no.

We have souls at the moment of conception. Is that supernatural? Yes because we know from sources that God creates them. But I think we can just know it’s not natural as in just a soul is immaterial.

We know all receive at least sufficient graces to know God.

 

[Hans_W]

Catholic teaching has evolved on the issue, as science continues to add to unfolding revelation. As can be seen on this thread, we know much more about Neanderthals today than we did only 7 or 8 years ago. The CCC does not address Neanderthals.
…
…

OneSheep, you have a great way of explaining things. You are very knowledgeable and obviously a very gentle person. Thank you.

I wish I had more time. I certainly would explain things in more detail and share more of my background in science and philosophy. However, I wouldn’t be able to do a better job than you.

 

[grannymh]

I studied this but can’t recall all my sources.

But in this case, it seems that it would be clearly supernatural.

To paraphrase the question as: How is our relationship with God transmitted?
Or even How is the stain of original sin transmitted?

Naturally? You mean through our DNA? I posit it seems no.

We have souls at the moment of conception. Is that supernatural? Yes because we know from sources that God creates them. But I think we can just know it’s not natural as in just a soul is immaterial.

We know all receive at least sufficient graces to know God.

Original Sin?

 

[grannymh]

What is science to do? Let’s assume that there is only a supernatural explanation for the appearance of one man and one woman to be the sole ancestors of all of humanity. Yet, There are all these hominid’s bones lying about and natural evolutionary explanations for every animal other than man.

Empirical science being limited to explanations of natural processes will logically construct one for man. Nothing can be completely proven, but science will be correct that given its focus on natural development that the story they produce of a minimal population of between 10 and 100 thousand that a reasonable distribution of genetic attributes would normally occur from our current measures of known populations is the most likely scientific explanation.

Will the natural evolutionary model differ from the supernatural story? Yes, but it is exactly what we should expect of a purely materialistically limited search for truth. Will more science done more precisely and/or with more data discovered suddenly make it take up the supernatural explanation? I think not, except in the minds of the faithful that see science’s limitations.

This is exactly where science and faith are at arms length and can’t cross into each other’s domain. Science can not make a leap into supernatural explanations and religion can not demand that it’s theology be taken up as scientific theory to be adopted by science.

Through this makes sense given the initial supposition of a supernatural occurrence of humanity. I also put forth that there is also a possible natural explanation, but that because of it’s improbability it is so like a supernatural intersession by God that it follows the same path of separate explanations from science and religion as the above.

Either way we are at the point we should expect to find ourselves and should expect to remain with the sort of separate domains of religion and science that our society requires. I don’t expect science to grow to be in harmony with religion on this narrow topic, and it is folly for religion to fall in line with a purely materialistic explanation when it includes other possible explanation that include spiritual and/or extremely unlikely scenarios.

The real issue on the Catholic side is not natural science itself. What is being attacked by the interpreters (including miscellaneous “Catholic” authors) are the basic Catholic doctrines (plural intended) on Original Sin.

Please check out this captivating wording.
Whatever the case may be, the Genesis story indicates that at some point humans had the capacity to have a relationship with their creator, a single couple, a man and a woman. This capacity for relationship, Granny, was a gift.

“Indicates?” Are real Catholic doctrines indications of something?

“At some point?” Catholicism is specific in that the “point” is “at the beginning of the history of man.” (Information source. CCC 390; CCC 289; CCC 416; CCC 1730-1732; Genesis 1: 26-28; Genesis 1: 31)

“relationship?” Where are the requirements for a relationship between a human and the Creator God? Perhaps the real question is – Is there a Catholic who knows the requirements for a relationship (describe the kind of relationship) between humanity and Divinity?

“A single couple?” Any single couple? Perhaps the real question is–Is there a Catholic who can explain Genesis 2: 18 according to Catholic teachings, including the teachings of St. Paul, and obviously including the Catholic teaching that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

“Capacity?” Capacity is a good word provided that it is in agreement with Genesis 1: 26-27 and CCC 355-421; *CCC *1730-1732.

“This capacity for relationship, Granny, was a gift?” It is possible to refer to the “capacity” as the spiritual soul. However, the spiritual soul itself is not a “relationship” which can be transmitted to offspring. Catholics should be able to spot the red flag.

 

[simpleas]

I studied this but can’t recall all my sources.

But in this case, it seems that it would be clearly supernatural.

To paraphrase the question as: How is our relationship with God transmitted?
Or even How is the stain of original sin transmitted?

Naturally? You mean through our DNA? I posit it seems no.

We have souls at the moment of conception. Is that supernatural? Yes because we know from sources that God creates them. But I think we can just know it’s not natural as in just a soul is immaterial.
We know all receive at least sufficient graces to know God.

This is where I have never really understood how then the sin of the first parents affected our soul. If God gives us our soul at the time of conception, how could the soul be affected by the human.
We say the soul and body are one, but that man can not produce the soul, man only produces matter, the soul is supernatural, and so can only come from God. So the soul would be good, along with the body being good, because both really come from God.

Why would some say Neanderthals didn’t have a soul? They had human traits did they not? They were not “perfect” but then no one has ever seen a perfect person, only the God-man Jesus.

 

[grannymh]

This is where I have never really understood how then the sin of the first parents affected our soul.

Could it be that the perception of Adam’s Original Sin is incomplete?

It is disheartening to learn that so many Catholics leave out important facts about basic Catholic doctrines --starting with human nature. And then substituting some misinformation or poor guesswork …

No wonder there is “Catholic” confusion on this thread.

 

[wmw]

I agree we are not “out to change science”, but to correct the folly of bending Catholicism to the conclusions of materialistic science. Many take established science theory as fact and mathematics as the language of God. The rise in popularity of atheism makes sense because of the over importance with which our culture has crowned science. Lets continue the fight not to accept the total evaluation of the truth of all things being deemed confirmed or denied through science alone.

I cringe at statements that would include a phrase like “science unfolding revelation”. This materialistic examination we call science may indeed illuminate wonders of the glory of God’s creation, but the Holy Spirit is the source of revelation. The Holy Spirit is not a subject of science. Science is data collection and reasoning upon it to discover the workings of the physical world; no revelation included.

I referred to mathematics also; I find it freeing from the absoluteness of the infallibility of mathematics that the theory of relativity tells us of how space is curved and describes it by mathematics, but the theory points out the falsehood of one of the fundamental axioms of mathematics. That is that there is a straight line between two points that is a minimum distance between them.

 

[wmw]

The immensity of the change in creation and man from Original Sin is difficult to imagine. It is not understood, the only comparison is in the written life of Jesus Christ to our own lives.

When the mind has to make that sort of journey it tends not to take even the first step.

 

[OneSheep]

I understand it to be supernatural.

That work for me!

It all depends on definitions, of course. Since God is in all, is creation natural or supernatural? What is “natural”, if all creation is supernatural? It is all miraculous, is it not?

Is there such thing as a scientific experiment to make such a distinction? Indeed, no one can create an experiment that excludes God, because His hand is omnipresent.

I like the idea of limiting the “supernatural” to the acts that are especially spectacular, though, and I think you would agree. The incarnation was supernatural. When a human forgives an enemy, that is supernatural. When a person makes a life-commitment to love and serve others, that is supernatural.

Yes, we are called to the supernatural!

Thanks, opusAquinas.