FIRST POST

Coming Out Swinging

PART I.

A grace-filled Pentecost Friday, everyone!

I was hoping to enter the Substack world on a quiet note, but, sadly have to come out swinging!

Before addressing what raised my ire, I'll present two introductory points:

FIRST, the truth of a person's conclusions is dependent upon their data and upon the paradigm they use to make sense of that data, and that paradigm itself also needs to be based on reality metaphysically and on solid assumptions.

SECOND, do your homework. Investigate a claimant's data set and Investigate the assumptions behind and metaphysical foundation of his paradigm.

I'll be right back with PART II.

PART II:

My ire was raised when I stumbled across an article on the Catholic News Agency website entitled "Scholars break down compatibility of evolution and Catholic doctrine at conference." (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/264663/scholars-break-down-compatibility-of-evolution-and-catholic-doctrine-at-conference)

In said conference, the details of which I'll let the reader find out (Do your homework! 😊), three scholars made

assertions that were patently absurd:

FIRST, distinctions were made among three possible humans in the past: "biological" (possessing human DNA),

"philosophical" (possessing conceptual thought and free will), and

"theological" (able to form a relationship with God).

Now, the correct metaphysical reality is that the soul is the form of the body, true for any living organism: that organism's soul organizes matter into its body, including the DNA. This means that the soul of a slime mold cannot inhabit the body of a cat. Most souls perish at the organism's death, except for the human soul.

A human being is a composite of a human soul and human body, thus the human being not only possesses human DNA bodily, but being a human soul as well, possesses the faculties of a human soul: conceptual thought, free will, and the ability to have a relationship with God. It is thus an immortal soul because it has the immaterial faculty of abstraction and, because God is eternal, the soul's relationship would be.

To hypothesize that there could have been three sorts of human beings in the past is nonsense because metaphysically impossible.

Back in bit.

PART III:

SECOND, the hypothesis was presented that the original two "theological" human beings, ensouled by God, would have bred with the other "humans" who either were simply DNA humans or merely rational with no ability to relate to God. Two problems here:

-- a human can't be rational but unable to relate to God: it's all of a piece; and

-- a merely human-DNA-possessing "human" would be a mere animal, and thus the first "true" humans would be engaging in bestiality!!

That Catholic scholars presenting such bilge at a Catholic conference is scandalous.

More in a bit.

PART IV:

THIRD, an absurd distinction is made between a human who is simply "homo sapiens" and one made in "imago Dei." Every human is made in imago Dei. That is essential to being a human. Any bodily organism not made so is not human.

FOURTH, it is posited that it isn't clear how much time passed between the ensoulment of Adam and Eve and the rest of biological humanity possessing "theological humanity." Because it is metaphysically impossible to have non-"theological" humanity, the only interval of time would be the gestation and birth of Adam and Eve's children.

More shortly.

PART V:

FIFTH, doubt is expressed as to when rational human thought developed, and composite tools and art are given as criteria, and ritualistic art and jewelry are presented as even firmer confirmation. Timescales of 50,000 to 500,000 years before present are employed.

Two problems here:

-- Any art is the product of a human soul at work through its body. Humans are by nature rational and spiritual.

-- The dating of ancient remains and artifacts is fraught with numerous falsifiable assumptions that render said dating inaccurate. (That's a topic for another set of posts.)

Back in two shakes of a lamb's tail!

PART VI:

SIXTH, Neanderthals were fully human, thus fully rational, unlike the speculation that they possibly had "a very special form of pre-rationality," whatever that meyaphysical impossibility means. (Rationality is a binary thing.)

Also, a theory by the late forensic dentist Jack Cuozzo states that Neanderthals exhibit a bone structure of very long-lived humans. It's a bone structure that we shorter-lived nowadays humans do not have time to grow before aging and dying, but would if we could. Look him up. (Do your homework. 😊)

Conclusion shortly.

PART VII:

FINALLY, these presenters, and y'all, need to (Homework again! 😁):

-- Read Genesis LITERALLY;

-- Read the Firmiter of Lateran IV about how God created all types of creatures complete in themselves, including humans;

-- Read Scripture and the Church Fathers to see their consistency over millenia;

-- Look up the assorted assumptions behind archeological dating and question their reliability unless an ironclad proof of reliability.

Our Mother of Perpetual Help aid us!

Ademar