Evolution Must Go
(11-30-2012, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: Original Sin is dependent on the bottleneck, not that it took place between the Tigris and the Euphrates.  Original Sin would be just as valid if it took place in Kenya.

That is true.  The bottleneck ruins the entire doctrine; the location only ruins the geographical accuracy of the Bible.  Maybe you don't consider that such a big deal, but I do.  If Original Sin took place in Kenya, why does the inspired word of God say it took place in Iraq?  How much are you willing to concede to science before our Holy Writ starts to look as true as the Kalevala?

(11-30-2012, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: I haven't payed much attention to the genetic issue from science, but every time I hear it referenced, I have never heard that the consensus was for polygenism.  That's one hypothesis among many.  I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on that particular point.

Pius XII used the word "polygenism" in a different sense than evolutionists use it.  He used it to mean that you could not believe that humans evolved from a wider population than 2.  That the human population was never two is a broad consensus in science.  If you know of a geneticist who will say otherwise, that would be surprising.  IIRC, Axona said she works in a lab and is kept pretty current on what the mainstream accepts.  I'm sure she would've corrected me 19 pages ago if there were any surveys that mapped out DNA evidence to show a population of 2.

Anyway, "polygenism" in the other sense generally refers to the theory that the different races evolved separately from each other.  I don't think there are many scientists who seriously believe this based on any DNA evidence, but it's a minor bone of contention as you pointed out.  In this thread we're using polygenism as Pius XII used it, to indicate the theory that humans evolved from a broader population than just 2.  In that respect, evolution is indeed a polygenistic theory.
Reply
Hanno I have to say I like the cut of your jib....your posts are solid.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 12:51 PM)Hanno Wrote: That is true.  The bottleneck ruins the entire doctrine; the location only ruins the geographical accuracy of the Bible.  Maybe you don't consider that such a big deal, but I do.  If Original Sin took place in Kenya, why does the inspired word of God say it took place in Iraq?  How much are you willing to concede to science before our Holy Writ starts to look as true as the Kalevala?

I don't see it as a big deal, because the people Genesis was originally written for would have had limited geographical knowledge.  I don't know where you live, but if I told you a story that took place between the Bush and Gunpowder rivers, would you know to which location I was referring?

I'm willing to concede to science that which it can actually prove.  If it's a strong hypothesis, but there is still a possibility of error, then I believe what the Church teaches until it is shown demonstrably false.

Quote:Pius XII used the word "polygenism" in a different sense than evolutionists use it.  He used it to mean that you could not believe that humans evolved from a wider population than 2.  That the human population was never two is a broad consensus in science.  If you know of a geneticist who will say otherwise, that would be surprising.  IIRC, Axona said she works in a lab and is kept pretty current on what the mainstream accepts.  I'm sure she would've corrected me 19 pages ago if there were any surveys that mapped out DNA evidence to show a population of 2.

Anyway, "polygenism" in the other sense generally refers to the theory that the different races evolved separately from each other.  I don't think there are many scientists who seriously believe this based on any DNA evidence, but it's a minor bone of contention as you pointed out.  In this thread we're using polygenism as Pius XII used it, to indicate the theory that humans evolved from a broader population than just 2.  In that respect, evolution is indeed a polygenistic theory.

I understand polygenism in the sense of Piux XII.  Even if the consensus of scientists is that there were never less than 1200 human individuals, genetics can never tell us when the initial ensoulment took place, so it can't tell us when the Original Sin took place.  To play devil's advocate for a minute, I'm assuming geneticists say particular changes in the human g-nome took place X years ago, because they occur where we know of a particular acheological divergence.  So, for example, a given haplogroup only exists in european and central asian populations, but not african, south asian, east asian or american.  Archaelogically, we believe the european and central asian populations diverged from everyone else at a certain point, so the genetic divergence is placed at that point as well (Axona, correct me if I'm wrong).  But we already know carbon-dating, the means we used to get to our age of particular belief of an archaeological timeline, is notoriously unreliable, so perhaps the 1200 population wasn't as far back as we believe.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 01:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-30-2012, 12:51 PM)Hanno Wrote: That is true.  The bottleneck ruins the entire doctrine; the location only ruins the geographical accuracy of the Bible.  Maybe you don't consider that such a big deal, but I do.  If Original Sin took place in Kenya, why does the inspired word of God say it took place in Iraq?  How much are you willing to concede to science before our Holy Writ starts to look as true as the Kalevala?

I don't see it as a big deal, because the people Genesis was originally written for would have had limited geographical knowledge.  I don't know where you live, but if I told you a story that took place between the Bush and Gunpowder rivers, would you know to which location I was referring?

No.  But that doesn't answer the question at all.  First off, Christianity is a universal religion, and Genesis was "originally written" for everyone in every age, otherwise it's just a mythical Hebrew folk tale.  We're Catholics, so we can't take that view.  Secondly, why do you suppose the sacred author was obligated to set the story in a locale familiar to the people who first heard it?  The ancient Jews knew what north, south, east, and west meant.  Instead of identifying the Tigris and the Euphrates, the text (if evolution is true) could've said "in a distant land far to the south, south beyond the lands of the Egyptians, the Nubians, and the Ethiopians."  It would've given an orientation to the Jews that they could just as easily appreciate as the Tigris and the Euphrates.  It also would've been in concert with Darwin's discovery.  So why isn't it?

(11-30-2012, 01:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: I understand polygenism in the sense of Piux XII.  Even if the consensus of scientists is that there were never less than 1200 human individuals, genetics can never tell us when the initial ensoulment took place, so it can't tell us when the Original Sin took place.  To play devil's advocate for a minute, I'm assuming geneticists say particular changes in the human g-nome took place X years ago, because they occur where we know of a particular acheological divergence.  So, for example, a given haplogroup only exists in european and central asian populations, but not african, south asian, east asian or american.  Archaelogically, we believe the european and central asian populations diverged from everyone else at a certain point, so the genetic divergence is placed at that point as well (Axona, correct me if I'm wrong).  But we already know carbon-dating, the means we used to get to our age of particular belief of an archaeological timeline, is notoriously unreliable, so perhaps the 1200 population wasn't as far back as we believe.

Melkite, we've been over this.  Umpteen times.  But fine, let's play it out again.  At what period do you want to suppose "the initial ensoulment" took place?  Go ahead.  Take your pick.  Any point in history, really (although if you want to be serious about it, you should give the original timeline a reasonable margin of error).  Anyway, it's not the date that's the problem, it's the population: it's the implications that arise from positing one family of ensouled people amidst a global community of unensouled brutes.  The 1,200-person bottleneck will confound you no matter which date you choose.

And remember, if you want to play devil's advocate, you have to play within the boundaries established by Pius XII.  We're trying to find out how traditional Catholicism can be reconciled with evolution.  I know you're openly modernist, but you can't use that as your escape hatch.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 01:06 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: Hanno I have to say I like the cut of your jib....your posts are solid.

As are yours, my brother!

:cheers:
Reply
Quote:I know you're openly modernist, but you can't use that as your escape hatch.

Is this true?
Reply
(11-30-2012, 02:58 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
Quote:I know you're openly modernist, but you can't use that as your escape hatch.

Is this true?

Good point.  It may've been a poor choice of words on my part. 

Nevertheless, earlier in the thread, I accused him of thinking and talking like a modernist, and he basically shrugged it off and admitted that he wasn't a traditional Catholic anymore.  He is at least open about the fact that he would re-define a Church doctrine in light of what science told him.

But modernist is a strong and dangerous term to use.  I hereby retract the accusation.  I will say that Melkite strikes as me pretty loosey-goosey when it comes to the faith, though.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 03:05 PM)Hanno Wrote: Good point.  It may've been a poor choice of words on my part. 

Nevertheless, earlier in the thread, I accused him of thinking and talking like a modernist, and he basically shrugged it off and admitted that he wasn't a traditional Catholic anymore.  He is at least open about the fact that he would re-define a Church doctrine in light of what science told him.

But modernist is a strong and dangerous term to use.  I hereby retract the accusation.  I will say that Melkite strikes as me pretty loosey-goosey when it comes to the faith, though.

Yeah, I wouldn't call myself a modernist.  I don't believe in subjective truth, for starters.

You likewise seem inordinately strict when it comes to the faith, in areas where such strictness is not necessary.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 12:31 PM)Hanno Wrote:
(11-30-2012, 10:49 AM)JayneK Wrote: To the extent that the theory of evolution is true, it will agree with Church teaching.  Science is always open to reformulation as new data becomes available.  If we do not yet have enough information to show how evolution is compatible with Church teaching, we can wait.

Then, to use Melkite's argument, if science presented you with a theory contrary to Church teaching, you would necessarily reject it as false: is that correct?

Correct. 
(11-30-2012, 12:31 PM)Hanno Wrote: I don't think your position allows for any genuine dialogue between evolutionary science and the faith.  Ultimately we will always arrive back to the fact that the two cannot be reconciled.  I am a creationist, but your position is very similar to mine, only you've chosen to accommodate science just a little bit more.

Science has the purpose of discovering physical truths through reason.  I think that reason has the potential to discover a lot of truth so I do not see faith and evolutionary science as that unlikely to reconcile.
Reply
(11-30-2012, 10:49 AM)JayneK Wrote: To the extent that the theory of evolution is true, it will agree with Church teaching. Science is always open to reformulation as new data becomes available.  [b]If we do not yet have enough information to show how evolution is compatible with Church teaching, we can wait.

I basically agree with everything Jayne wrote. The right approach is to wait and see if the two can be reconciled. It is not to go about rejecting whole scientific theories outright. Certain aspects of evolution have been modified before, such as the mode of heredity, so it is not an outrageous proposition that new information could lead to a more apparent reconciliation between the two.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)