Could Abronia aurita have survived on the Ark?

In fact, we Creationists would agree with Evolutionists that genus Abronia has a common one species ancestor, extant or extinct, ancestral to the present species.

We would probably agree with them on alligator lizards (Gerrhonotinae), perhaps even on Anguidae between both Gerrhonotinae and Anguinae.

Abronia is 37 species, Gerrhonotinae 58, while the other subfamily is 19 species, which would make a total of 77 species.

How much space does that save on the Ark?/HGL

I heard my mother died

Creation vs. Evolution: I heard my mother died · New blog on the kid: Paris, I'm Back · I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live · Who Respected the Mother? · I have never regretted being Christian

She has been praying for me: I'm in Germany and had a great time voyaging - like the days of old, with her, when I was a child.

She also told me to believe Genesis. Gospel first, then when Genesis conflicted with the Evolution propaganda other family members had been providing, she told me Genesis was reliable too, and I need not bother about the theory of Evolution: I have been part time compromising about Biblical chronology, though no longer since c. 24 years ago; but I haven't been believing Adam developed from apes or didn't exist.

God rest her soul, if she still needs it!
/HGL

PS, so far I only have it from one source. Wish it was just a test./HGL

PPS, it wasn't, the burial is today, 12:00 h in Malmö. I'm in Paris./HGL

PPPS, the last previous PS is from 26.VI.2023./HGL

PPPPS - or was it? Some news sources are still lacking for it./HGL

Or Ayala

Until the Mid XX Century, Catholic Theologians could read · Can't Have you Miss Rahner · Or Ayala

Ayala warned that theologians such as John O’Rourke (O’Rourke 1965) were inadequately informed about the consensus among geneticists concerning polygenism and that “from the point of view of the natural sciences only polygenism makes sense. Evolution does not happen in individuals, but in populations.” Furthermore, “There is no known mechanism by which the human species might have arisen by a single step in one or two individuals only, from whom the rest of mankind would have descended” (Ayala 1967, 15). Ayala concluded that Catholic theologians are confronted by a difficult dilemma.

Well, neither is there any known mechanism by which men could at all have descended from non-human ancestors.

If Atelerix Algirus and Hemiechinus auritus share a common ancestor, that common ancestor was a couple of hedgehogs on the Ark.

This kind of process of diversification cannot explain how mankind could arise from non-human kinds, any more than there is either proof or explanation of hedgehogs diversifying from non-hedgehogs.

Now, here we go Ayala, Robert G. North, René Lavocat.

Ayala

I can see only two possible alternate solutions for the Catholic theologian. One, to find an explanation which would make polygenism compatible with the doctrine of original sin – an explanation that, according to Pius XII, does not appear likely to be forthcoming. Two, to bring additional theological hypotheses in support of monogenism. Such hypotheses are not available from, and are consistently opposed by, the natural sciences (Ayala 1967, 16).

Robert G. North, SJ

Among those Ayala mentioned was Robert North who noted that polygenism had become such an integral aspect of evolutionary science that there was no scientific reason to expect any radically different process for the transition to Homo sapiens. North was a strong advocate of Teilhard’s ideas and credited him for helping to shift theological attention away from skepticism about polygenism to a more fundamental reconsid- eration of original sin doctrine (North 1963). Furthermore, the theological status of monogenism was unclear. “Is it a truth of revelation? Is it a fact of partially human knowledge, yet genuinely certain and therefore of itself unalterable? Is it a reformable decree of authority? No one can claim a consensus of experts for his answer today” (North 1967, 57).

René Lavocat

Abbé René Lavocat was sympathetic to North’s assessment. As Director of the Laboratoire de Paléontologie des Vertébrés at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Montpellier, he agreed with the scientific consensus that human origins took place through gradual genetic changes in a population and not due to an “exceptional mutation” in one or two individuals (Lavocat 1967a, 584). ... He also interpreted Humani generis as an invitation to investigate how polygenism might be compatible with innovative theological understanding of original sin.

Well, no. This is to orthodox theology what a media personality close to Bud Light is to decent clothing and behaviour.

Apart from the gross reinterpretation of the outright ban into an invitation, we have the despair of considering factuality of the Biblical account as even possible, and an adulation before consensus, if between today's scientists. And the solutions.

Then we have Hoger Katechetisch Instituut of Nijmegen. Schoonberg, Schillebeeckx ...

At first sight it seems that his intention is to stress the fact that it was through one man that sin came into the world. But the repetition of the word “one”, occasioned by the view of the world history as it existed in Paul’s time, is only part of the literary dress, not the message. What this difficult passage teaches is that though sin and death ruled over mankind, grace and eternal life, the restoration, has come in greater abundance through Jesus (A New Catechism 1967, 262).

There were no supporting arguments, because there was no attack. All sides of the Renaissance conflict were describing Adam and Eve as a real couple and Genesis 3 as a historic account.

Asking why Trentine Fathers, if they intended monogenism to be understood as doctrinal in the first three canons of decree one of session five, did not give supporting argument is to forget:

• everyone took it for granted
• it was used as supporting argument for the doctrine.
• a series of canons is not a discussion.

It's like asking Lavocat to give supporting arguments for taking the scientific consensus for granted. Which in a sense I do, of course, but not for believing him he really reasons from that as from a foundation of intellectual, not just cultural backdrop, only for asking him why I should believe him. An attitude he cannot take with Trent, obviously./HGL

Can't Have you Miss Rahner

Until the Mid XX Century, Catholic Theologians could read · Can't Have you Miss Rahner · Or Ayala

Hoffmann has this to say:

Karl Rahner was not deterred by the pope’s introductory warning and in fact used the ensuing symposium as the occasion to report that he had changed his mind and no longer considered polygenism to be theologically objectionable. He summarized his new perspective in a 1967 essay and expanded it for a 1970 publication in which he commented that Paul VI’s speech had not prevented the symposium participants from considering polygenism compatible with original sin doctrine. As he wrote in December of 1967:

The question of polygenism within Catholic theology may with all due respect for the interpretation of Humani Generis be treated as still open. There is certainly no dogma of monogenism. Cautious theological reflection enables us to show today that Trent’s dogma of original sin does not exclude polygenism. The two can coexist. On this point I have reappraised my own earlier view (Rahner 1967a, xii).

Rahner presented his new position as a thesis to be defended.

In the present state of theology and natural science, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that polygenism is incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin. Therefore, it is preferable and more prudent that the magisterium refrain from censuring polygenism (Rahner 1970, 185).

Rahner explained that he used a negative formulation because polygenism is a scientific hypothesis that cannot be deduced theologically. He offered two polygenetic hypotheses as legitimate settings for the occurrence of original sin. One possibility was that a single individual sinned and thereby blocked “the grace-transmitting function” of the entire human population. This was essentially the process he had hypothetically discussed in 1954 and then discarded as incompatible with the teachings of Trent unless the propagation of sin transpires in a manner other than through physical descent, a possibility he now accepted. Rahner also suggested another option that would involve a collective sin so that Adam represents “the concrete expression used for that one group,” the population that caused “the consequences which traditional teaching attaches to this sin” (Rahner 1967b, 71).

"There is certainly no dogma of monogenism."
Well, there is at the very least a taking for granted of monogenism in the context of dogma.

"Cautious theological reflection enables us to show today that Trent’s dogma of original sin does not exclude polygenism."
Cautious? Or highly incautious?

"In the present state of theology and natural science, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that polygenism is incompatible with the orthodox doctrine of original sin."
But in the previous state, in the times of Haydock, it could?

Is theology regressing as science progresses?

The allegation is reminiscent of the certainly unfair quip about "God of the gaps" ... but it is provoked by attitudes such as Rahner's ...

If the quip is not fair to Catholic theology, it is fair to Rahner.

"He offered two polygenetic hypotheses as legitimate settings for the occurrence of original sin."

All ears ...

"One possibility was that a single individual sinned and thereby blocked “the grace-transmitting function” of the entire human population. This was essentially the process he had hypothetically discussed in 1954 and then discarded as incompatible with the teachings of Trent unless the propagation of sin transpires in a manner other than through physical descent, a possibility he now accepted."

"Unless the propagation of sin transpires in a manner other than physical descent"

Which is how it was always understood. We are ented into the sin of Adam by our physical descent. We are ented into the righteousness of Christ by Baptism. Propagatio is from:

1) the breeding of specimens of a plant or animal by natural processes from the parent stock.
"the propagation of plants by root cuttings"

In other words, allowing propagation to proceed by other means than physical descent means, it is not propagation.

But what about the next sense?

2) the action of widely spreading and promoting an idea, theory, etc.
"a life devoted to the propagation of the Catholic faith"

This would fall into "imitatione" ... something denied by Trent V.

So, option one by Rahner is out.

Rahner also suggested another option that would involve a collective sin so that Adam represents “the concrete expression used for that one group,” the population that caused “the consequences which traditional teaching attaches to this sin”

In fact, collective sins are individual sins. If no individual of a whole collective sins, the collective doesn't sin. One tends to speak of collective sins as in the fact of others already sinning being a weakening of one's resolve not to sin, and therefore a mitigation of individual responsibility. This could not happen if one was not already weakened before that by original sin. Collective sins cannot explain the original one.

This is also the response or a second response to the first one.

"One possibility was that a single individual sinned and thereby blocked “the grace-transmitting function” of the entire human population."

The one thing we do know about the original grace-transmitting function is that it would have been by propagation. This is sth only parents could block in relation to children, and for it to be blocked for all children, for the entire mankind, the parents doing it need to be the original single parent couple or even a single parent.

But I think the idea is about how in the Church today, certainly not on the level of the Church universal, but on the level of a parish or a diocese, the sin of one man could indeed block the grace transmitting function of the Church. In the Church, grace is transmitted sacramentally. A man could invalidate his sacraments or tie them to evil conditions that block the grace, if he were curate or bishop. However, this is to recall, God can confer His grace without the viciated sacraments, and as long as the sin in superiors is limited locally, it can be corrected from the outside. Similarily, parallel to parents (going back to the more Catholic version, for a moment) blocking grace for their children by their sins, there would be graces not blocked by parents, there would be parallel tribes of immortals with no sin tainting them.

The problem with this model is, we receive grace through sacraments instead of first from parents and then from walking directly with God, only due to Adam's sin. A condition following from its completion in effect, cannot explain what it is in its origin. Hence, this model too for polygenism is off too, even heavily so. A condition that's God's medicine for the fall cannot be one which preceded the fall and therefore and explains it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost*
28.V.2023

* Will be published on May 29th, Pentecost Monday

Until the Mid XX Century, Catholic Theologians could read

Until the Mid XX Century, Catholic Theologians could read · Can't Have you Miss Rahner · Or Ayala

The decree further asserted that “this sin of Adam, –which in its origin is one (origine unum), and being transfused into all by propagation (propagatione), not by imitation (imitatione), is in each one as his own.” Additional theo- logical reflection is needed to determine whether these references to Adam as “the first man” might be implicit or co-defined by the doctrine at stake or are simply a non-doctrinal mode of expression. Until the mid-twentieth century, the preferred interpretation was that this phrase, used together with the terminology propagatione and origine unum, implies a unique sinful act with effects that are transmitted to all humanity through direct physical descent from Adam, the first human.

Catholicism and Evolution: Polygenism and Original Sin
JAMES R. HOFMANN
California State University Fullerton
https://www.tradicatolica.com/file/si2079177/Catholicism-and-Evolutionism.-Polygenism-and-Original-Sin-fi33106729.pdf

The present situation amounts to a quandary for theologians. On the one hand, even though it has not been formally addressed by the magisterium since Humani generis, monogenism continues to be accepted as a basic premise in Church teaching, as is shown by the relevant sections of the The Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 374–379, 390, 399–407). On the other hand, to deny the polygenistic origin of the human species places the theologian in clear opposition with science, and conjures up the image of an obscurantist faith combating the truth of reason. And yet it may very well prove to be that science, in its forthright drive for empirical knowledge, has only forced theology to deeper reflection on its own central claim that Christ lies at the heart of all (McMahon 2003).

• How long ago can a Church teaching have been stated centrally and it still be binding? When will we get reassurings that Nicaea against Arius is still binding?
• Have they even tried the Creationist solution?

The goal of the present paper is to clarify how this longstanding “quandary” took root and became established. In the tradition of drawing comparisons between Catholic responses to evolution and heliocentrism, it is tempting to construct an analogy using Galileo and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as protagonists. Although that exercise might be informative, it ultimately loses traction because for polygenism there is no iconic public event of comparable notoriety when measured against the trial of Galileo. Instead of placing a focus on a representative individual, the present paper has a broader conceptual basis.

Oh, you actually mean, you don't find Teilhard as at the original sin of Polygenism? Or that he is treated as representative of a larger number of first sinnerS?

Wait ... you mean, being a Polygenist is actually OK?

I think, this search says it all./HGL

To be continued on: Can't Have you Miss Rahner, Or Ayala

Did Pentecost Reverse Babel?

• If it comes to repentance reversing sin, yes.
• But understanding of tongues does not reverse creation of them.

Town, Not Temple

Some would perhaps argue as one discrepancy between Göbekli Tepe and the Biblical criteria for the Babel of Genesis 10 and 11 that GT was a temple, Babel was a city. Watch this still from Curious Being:

Link: Göbekli Tepe and its “Handbags”: Latest Excavation Results Reveal a Whole New Story
Curious Being, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5sGNc99JoQ

Two more clips: