Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:44:35 CST
From:         Christopher Monsour <monsourc@MATH.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Origins
 <C19MqG.2nr@news.udel.edu> <C1E2CL.KnL@unix.portal.com>
Distribution: bit.listserv.catholic
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics

In article <C1E2CL.KnL@unix.portal.com> zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E
 Zerucha) writes:
>>Article: 4336 of bit.listserv.catholic
>>From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
>
>>      Let me add, that I believe there was a first pair of
>>human beings, that all human beings are lineal descendants
>>of them, that they were created innocent and fell through sin,
>>and that as a consequence we are all born in Original Sin.
>>Steve.
>This is in perfect harmony with what I believe.
>

This is from memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.  Also, I read about
it in a catechism instead of in the original documents.  I believe that
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical _Humani Generis_ specified three things that
all Catholics must believe about the origin of the human race (this is
only addressing the origin of the human race, the Fall would be a separate
post):

(1) that all men are descended from a first man and first woman;

(2) that the first parents were not the children of beasts;

(3) that the first woman was in some way derived from the first man.

I don't see how any of this could ever contradict science: Science deals with
general laws of nature, not unique events of history.  Other species came
about however they came about; science can make generalizations and
excellent guesses, but can never reconstruct the sequence of events in the same
sense that an historian can reconstruct the reign of Charlesmagne.  Science
deals with the repeatable; since the human race is unique, science can not
speak with any certainty about the origin of the human race.  Analogy:
Supernovae usually occur for reasons that scientists understand to a certain
extent; this does not preclude the possibility that any particular supernova
may not be a miracle.  If I were to see a monk levitate, it would not
destroy my belief in gravity because science only deals with generalities,
not with specific exceptions.

My point is this: Everyone who reads this list believes in miracles.  Some
time between, say, 10,000 and 4,000,000 years ago (to give a range that no
one here will quarrel about), a very important miracle occurred that is
ultimately the origin of all of us.  The Author of that miracle has
communicated some of its details to us.

Should we investigate concerning the origin of life.  Certainly!  We should
simply recognize the proper limits of science and recognize that it can
never be expected to explain miracles.  The discussion about evolution
really does not seem relevant to this list except in two ways:

(1) Some people (not people on this list) think that science can determmine
the origin of the human race.  Anyone who can actually use science to
determine the origin of the human race hasn't found his calling in life--he
ought to be working in a police forensics lab here in Chicago.

(2) Evolutionary theories (without prejudice to their truthfulness) have
corrupted language (or rather many people have corrupted their own
language under the influence of such theories).  People think that if a rodent
can evolve into a bear, what meaning is then left to the words "rodent"
and "bear"?  Plenty, for even if evolution happens, no individual rodent ever
changed into anything but an adult rodent.

                                       Christopher J. Monsour
                                       monsour@zaphod.uchicago.edu
.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic