Extending the approach to a ‘theology of science’ developed in Faith and Wisdom in Science (McLeish 2014), I expand its theme of the tension between chaos and emergent order, within the arc of the Biblical story of creation, towards a theology of evolutionary science. In addition to the material in Job , the book of Wisdom provides a remarkable account of transmutation of species, within a recapitulation of the Exodus theme, that I juxtapose with a modern genotype-phenotype theory of evolutionary dynamics, exploiting analogies with statistical mechanics. The dual and connected structures of microscopic and macroscopic provide a locus for the Joban tensions of chaos and emergent order, and provide an interpretative narrative for the emergent directionality of evolution, and a theology that situates within a creation of freedom to explore the potential of the created order.
{"title":"Evolution as an Unwrapping of the Gift of Freedom","authors":"T. McLeish","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.014","url":null,"abstract":"Extending the approach to a ‘theology of science’ developed in Faith and Wisdom in Science (McLeish 2014), I expand its theme of the tension between chaos and emergent order, within the arc of the Biblical story of creation, towards a theology of evolutionary science. In addition to the material in Job , the book of Wisdom provides a remarkable account of transmutation of species, within a recapitulation of the Exodus theme, that I juxtapose with a modern genotype-phenotype theory of evolutionary dynamics, exploiting analogies with statistical mechanics. The dual and connected structures of microscopic and macroscopic provide a locus for the Joban tensions of chaos and emergent order, and provide an interpretative narrative for the emergent directionality of evolution, and a theology that situates within a creation of freedom to explore the potential of the created order.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88761358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article analyzes aspects of the relationship between evolution and biological complexity and the attempts made by scholars and theologians to interpret it within the limits of reductionist scientism or theism. For this purpose, firstly, attention is focused on explaining the meaning of the concept of "evolution" and its historical and philosophical transformation in the context of the idea of complexity. Secondly, the notion of complexity in theology is used as evidence to support teleology. This approach is criticized by some scholars who consider evolution as a random prosses. They give it the status of a universal metaphysical assumption in evolution. The scientists and theologists both formulate metaphysical assumptions differently to interpret evolution.
{"title":"Scientific and Theological Responses for Evolution and Biological Complexity","authors":"A. Kadykalo","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.025","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes aspects of the relationship between evolution and biological complexity and the attempts made by scholars and theologians to interpret it within the limits of reductionist scientism or theism. For this purpose, firstly, attention is focused on explaining the meaning of the concept of \"evolution\" and its historical and philosophical transformation in the context of the idea of complexity. Secondly, the notion of complexity in theology is used as evidence to support teleology. This approach is criticized by some scholars who consider evolution as a random prosses. They give it the status of a universal metaphysical assumption in evolution. The scientists and theologists both formulate metaphysical assumptions differently to interpret evolution.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88528117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ongoing debate on the Christian philosophical and theological approach to the theory of biological evolution is multifaceted. It refers to the biblical notion of creation, as well as to some strictly philosophical issues such as the difficulty in defining species and units of evolutionary transitions, the nature of chance, and the classical principle of proportionate causation (saying that an effect cannot exceed its own cause). Moving toward theology, it refers to the distinction between creation ( creatio ) and production ( productio ), and to the notion of secondary causation of creatures in the origin of new forms of organisms – contrasted with the classical assertion that creatures cannot create (even instrumentally).
{"title":"Special Issue of Scientia et Fides on Evolution – Introduction","authors":"Mariusz Tabaczek","doi":"10.12775/31795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/31795","url":null,"abstract":"The ongoing debate on the Christian philosophical and theological approach to the theory of biological evolution is multifaceted. It refers to the biblical notion of creation, as well as to some strictly philosophical issues such as the difficulty in defining species and units of evolutionary transitions, the nature of chance, and the classical principle of proportionate causation (saying that an effect cannot exceed its own cause). Moving toward theology, it refers to the distinction between creation ( creatio ) and production ( productio ), and to the notion of secondary causation of creatures in the origin of new forms of organisms – contrasted with the classical assertion that creatures cannot create (even instrumentally).","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77697924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The short monograph Creative Nature (Francisco Javier Novo, Ruben Pereda, and Javier Sanchez-Canizares. 2018. Naturaleza Creativa. Madrid: Rialp. ISBN: 978-84-321-4916-0. 196 pp. Paperback, €14.25) is a welcome contribution to the philosophy of nature that arose from interdisciplinary conversations between authors who are both up-to-date in the scientific literature and deeply grounded in the Western intellectual tradition. In this third and final part of the review essay, I take Creative Nature as a point of departure and develop a theological synthesis of our relationship with the natural world. My approach to making sense of natural evil draws on the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical tradition. I emphasize the wisdom of viewing nature as a whole and avoiding anthropomorphisms, in order to both come to peace with our common home and feel like we belong in a welcoming world. I draw from St. Paul’s teaching on cosmic redemption in his letters to the Colossians and Ephesians to shine the light of supernatural faith on our relationship with the natural world. This approach illustrates how a sound philosophy of nature and biblical interpretation are pivotal for faith–science dialogue. The short monograph Creative Nature (Francisco Javier Novo, Ruben Pereda, and Javier Sanchez-Canizares. 2018. Naturaleza Creativa . Madrid: Rialp. ISBN: 978-84-321-4916-0. 196 pp. Paperback, €14.25) is a welcome contribution to the philosophy of nature that arose from interdisciplinary conversations between authors who are both up-to-date in the scientific literature and deeply grounded in the Western intellectual tradition. In this third and final part of the review essay, I take Creative Nature as a point of departure and develop a theological synthesis of our relationship with the natural world. My approach to making sense of natural evil draws on the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical tradition. I emphasize the wisdom of viewing nature as a whole and avoiding anthropomorphisms, in order to both come to peace with our common home and feel like we belong in a welcoming world. I draw from St. Paul’s teaching on cosmic redemption in his letters to the Colossians and Ephesians to shine the light of supernatural faith on our relationship with the natural world. This approach illustrates how a sound philosophy of nature and biblical interpretation are pivotal for faith–science dialogue. Normal 0 21 false false false PL X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Standardowy; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language:EN;}
{"title":"Review of Creative Nature (part 3)","authors":"G. Woollard","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.028","url":null,"abstract":"The short monograph Creative Nature (Francisco Javier Novo, Ruben Pereda, and Javier Sanchez-Canizares. 2018. Naturaleza Creativa. Madrid: Rialp. ISBN: 978-84-321-4916-0. 196 pp. Paperback, €14.25) is a welcome contribution to the philosophy of nature that arose from interdisciplinary conversations between authors who are both up-to-date in the scientific literature and deeply grounded in the Western intellectual tradition. In this third and final part of the review essay, I take Creative Nature as a point of departure and develop a theological synthesis of our relationship with the natural world. My approach to making sense of natural evil draws on the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical tradition. I emphasize the wisdom of viewing nature as a whole and avoiding anthropomorphisms, in order to both come to peace with our common home and feel like we belong in a welcoming world. I draw from St. Paul’s teaching on cosmic redemption in his letters to the Colossians and Ephesians to shine the light of supernatural faith on our relationship with the natural world. This approach illustrates how a sound philosophy of nature and biblical interpretation are pivotal for faith–science dialogue. The short monograph Creative Nature (Francisco Javier Novo, Ruben Pereda, and Javier Sanchez-Canizares. 2018. Naturaleza Creativa . Madrid: Rialp. ISBN: 978-84-321-4916-0. 196 pp. Paperback, €14.25) is a welcome contribution to the philosophy of nature that arose from interdisciplinary conversations between authors who are both up-to-date in the scientific literature and deeply grounded in the Western intellectual tradition. In this third and final part of the review essay, I take Creative Nature as a point of departure and develop a theological synthesis of our relationship with the natural world. My approach to making sense of natural evil draws on the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical tradition. I emphasize the wisdom of viewing nature as a whole and avoiding anthropomorphisms, in order to both come to peace with our common home and feel like we belong in a welcoming world. I draw from St. Paul’s teaching on cosmic redemption in his letters to the Colossians and Ephesians to shine the light of supernatural faith on our relationship with the natural world. This approach illustrates how a sound philosophy of nature and biblical interpretation are pivotal for faith–science dialogue. Normal 0 21 false false false PL X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ \u0000 table.MsoNormalTable \u0000 {mso-style-name:Standardowy; \u0000 mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; \u0000 mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; \u0000 mso-style-noshow:yes; \u0000 mso-style-priority:99; \u0000 mso-style-parent:\"\"; \u0000 mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; \u0000 mso-para-margin:0cm; \u0000 mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; \u0000 line-height:115%; \u0000 mso-pagination:widow-orphan; \u0000 font-size:11.0pt; \u0000 font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif; \u0000 mso-ansi-language:EN;}","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78188628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The science of evolution acutely raises the perennial question of humankind’s place in the world. How does the theological anthropology of humans as imago Dei relate to an evolutionary anthropology with human beings derived from ancestral hominid species? Evolutionary biologists disclose ever greater similarities and continuity between animals and humans. Is human distinctiveness simply continuous with other ancestral forms of life or is there any kind of discontinuity? The answers to these questions depend not only on zoological considerations but also on one’s philosophy of nature. The standard anthropology within the Catholic Church is the dual-origin model: the human body originates through evolution, but the human soul is directly created by God. This formulation, however, is not without difficulties, primarily for its seeming Cartesian dualism of a body and soul as distinct substances. This paper develops the anthropology of David Braine who, drawing upon Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, clearly situates humans as animals in great continuity with them. However, as linguistic animals who think in a medium of words, humans have a form of life—a soul—that transcends bodily processes. Braine’s anthropology provides a more coherent anthropology to understand the continuity and discontinuity of the human person in phylogenetic relationship to other species within an evolutionary perspective.
{"title":"Anthropogenesis and the Soul","authors":"Terrence Ehrman, C.S.C.","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.018","url":null,"abstract":"The science of evolution acutely raises the perennial question of humankind’s place in the world. How does the theological anthropology of humans as imago Dei relate to an evolutionary anthropology with human beings derived from ancestral hominid species? Evolutionary biologists disclose ever greater similarities and continuity between animals and humans. Is human distinctiveness simply continuous with other ancestral forms of life or is there any kind of discontinuity? The answers to these questions depend not only on zoological considerations but also on one’s philosophy of nature. The standard anthropology within the Catholic Church is the dual-origin model: the human body originates through evolution, but the human soul is directly created by God. This formulation, however, is not without difficulties, primarily for its seeming Cartesian dualism of a body and soul as distinct substances. This paper develops the anthropology of David Braine who, drawing upon Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, clearly situates humans as animals in great continuity with them. However, as linguistic animals who think in a medium of words, humans have a form of life—a soul—that transcends bodily processes. Braine’s anthropology provides a more coherent anthropology to understand the continuity and discontinuity of the human person in phylogenetic relationship to other species within an evolutionary perspective.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78229703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article I analyse the texts in which Joseph Ratzinger deals with the topic of evolution, particularly in the context of the compatibility between faith in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution. I have grouped his writings into three periods that reflect the changes in his ideas on this topic. His early writings, until 1979, contain the most elaborate and deepest theological insights, with a defence of the compatibility between faith in creation and the theory of evolution when each one is kept within the boundaries of its own explanatory framework. There is a clear change of attitude at the beginning of the 1980s, when he becomes aware of the attempts by some atheist scientists to portray evolution as a “first philosophy”. This triggers a critical response against some technical aspects of the theory of evolution, a position that was reinforced by his contacts with anti-evolution German intellectuals during this period. The conflict reached its climax in the 1999 lecture at the Sorbonne University and the 2006 meeting of the Schulerkreis in Castel Gandolfo. After 2006 his references to this topic were few, and he seemed to return to the original ideas expressed in his early writings, stressing the intrinsic rationality and inner logic of the cosmos.
{"title":"The Theory of Evolution in the Writings of Joseph Ratzinger","authors":"F. J. Novo","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.024","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I analyse the texts in which Joseph Ratzinger deals with the topic of evolution, particularly in the context of the compatibility between faith in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution. I have grouped his writings into three periods that reflect the changes in his ideas on this topic. His early writings, until 1979, contain the most elaborate and deepest theological insights, with a defence of the compatibility between faith in creation and the theory of evolution when each one is kept within the boundaries of its own explanatory framework. There is a clear change of attitude at the beginning of the 1980s, when he becomes aware of the attempts by some atheist scientists to portray evolution as a “first philosophy”. This triggers a critical response against some technical aspects of the theory of evolution, a position that was reinforced by his contacts with anti-evolution German intellectuals during this period. The conflict reached its climax in the 1999 lecture at the Sorbonne University and the 2006 meeting of the Schulerkreis in Castel Gandolfo. After 2006 his references to this topic were few, and he seemed to return to the original ideas expressed in his early writings, stressing the intrinsic rationality and inner logic of the cosmos.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79279930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
En este articulo exponemos las intuiciones del teologo y biologo aleman Karl Schmitz-Moormann sobre la evolucion. Como leitmotiv subyacente en toda su obra, Schmitz-Moormann tiene a Teilhard de Chardin. Inspirado por Teilhard y su metafisica de la union, introduce un nuevo concepto, a saber, la uni-totalidad . Veremos aqui como Schmitz-Moormann observa diversas uni-totalidades a lo largo del progreso evolutivo, desde las particulas subatomicas hasta las agrupaciones humanas. Esas diversas uni-totalidades implican, a la vez, diversidad de union, que puede ser explicada por causas que van desde la interaccion nuclear hasta el amor interpersonal. Analogamente, Schmitz-Moormann ve nuestro Dios tri-uno como la Uni-totalidad suprema unida por amor, a la que se acercan las uni-totalidades creadas.
{"title":"La impronta de Pierre Teilhard de Chardin en las tesis evolutivas de Karl Schmitz-Moormann","authors":"Ricard Casadesús","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.026","url":null,"abstract":"En este articulo exponemos las intuiciones del teologo y biologo aleman Karl Schmitz-Moormann sobre la evolucion. Como leitmotiv subyacente en toda su obra, Schmitz-Moormann tiene a Teilhard de Chardin. Inspirado por Teilhard y su metafisica de la union, introduce un nuevo concepto, a saber, la uni-totalidad . Veremos aqui como Schmitz-Moormann observa diversas uni-totalidades a lo largo del progreso evolutivo, desde las particulas subatomicas hasta las agrupaciones humanas. Esas diversas uni-totalidades implican, a la vez, diversidad de union, que puede ser explicada por causas que van desde la interaccion nuclear hasta el amor interpersonal. Analogamente, Schmitz-Moormann ve nuestro Dios tri-uno como la Uni-totalidad suprema unida por amor, a la que se acercan las uni-totalidades creadas.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81288775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is commonly thought that evolution is a chance process, an idea found in popular writings on evolution, but also in academic writing in a broad range of scientific disciplines: scientific, philosophical and theological. One problem is that words such as ‘chance’ and ‘random’ are used with a range of different meanings according to context, and in evolutionary biology the word ‘chance’ is sometimes used in a way that is different from its use in mathematics and philosophy. The present article aims to clarify the range of meanings and to argue the case that the evolutionary process is far from being a ‘theory of chance’ from biological, mathematical, or indeed philosophical and theological perspectives.
{"title":"Is Evolution a Chance Process?","authors":"D. Alexander","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.013","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonly thought that evolution is a chance process, an idea found in popular writings on evolution, but also in academic writing in a broad range of scientific disciplines: scientific, philosophical and theological. One problem is that words such as ‘chance’ and ‘random’ are used with a range of different meanings according to context, and in evolutionary biology the word ‘chance’ is sometimes used in a way that is different from its use in mathematics and philosophy. The present article aims to clarify the range of meanings and to argue the case that the evolutionary process is far from being a ‘theory of chance’ from biological, mathematical, or indeed philosophical and theological perspectives.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77414273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marcos Eberlin is a chemist and mass spectrometer who advances in a new book a refined Intelligent Design (ID) theory hinging on “foresight,” or the apparent teleology and purpose discernible in biological, chemical, and other complex life systems. Repurposing older ID arguments, such as those of “irreducible complexity,” and introducing new examples of phenomena pointed to by other ID theorists, Eberlin makes a strong argument for mindful creation by a “superintellect”. But is ID sufficient to answer Darwinism? Does “foresight” go far enough in providing an alternative view of the origin of complex lifeforms? I argue that Eberlin, and other ID theorists, does not have a robust-enough definition of science to counter non-theistic theories of biology and biochemistry. An Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of science allows us to go beyond the divide between ID and a-theistic theories and move the science-and-faith debate onto more solid ground.
{"title":"Is Intelligent Design the Answer to Darwinism? Marcos Eberlin’s Foresight and the Limits of Irreducible Complexity as Scientific Paradigm","authors":"J. Morgan","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.027","url":null,"abstract":"Marcos Eberlin is a chemist and mass spectrometer who advances in a new book a refined Intelligent Design (ID) theory hinging on “foresight,” or the apparent teleology and purpose discernible in biological, chemical, and other complex life systems. Repurposing older ID arguments, such as those of “irreducible complexity,” and introducing new examples of phenomena pointed to by other ID theorists, Eberlin makes a strong argument for mindful creation by a “superintellect”. But is ID sufficient to answer Darwinism? Does “foresight” go far enough in providing an alternative view of the origin of complex lifeforms? I argue that Eberlin, and other ID theorists, does not have a robust-enough definition of science to counter non-theistic theories of biology and biochemistry. An Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of science allows us to go beyond the divide between ID and a-theistic theories and move the science-and-faith debate onto more solid ground.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83762693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
No later than ~500kya the population of Homo sapiens split into three lin¬eages of independently evolving human populations: Sapiens, Neanderthals and Den¬isovans. After several hundred thousands years, they met several times and interbred with low frequency. Evidence of coupling between them is found in fossil records of Neanderthal – Sapiens offspring (Oase 1) and Neanderthal – Denisovans (Denisova 11) offspring. Moreover, the analysis of ancient and present-day population DNA shows that there were several significant gene flows between populations. Many introgressed sequences from Denisovans and Neanderthals were identified in genomes of currently living populations. All these data, according to biological species definition, may in¬dicate that populations of H. sapiens sapiens and two extinct populations H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens denisovensis are one species. Ontological transitions from pre-human beings to humans might have happened before the initial splitting of the Homo sapiens population or after the splitting during evolution of H. sapiens sapiens lineage in Africa. If the ensoulment of the first homo occurred in the evolving populations of H. sapiens sapiens, then occasionally mixed couples (Neanderthals – Sapiens or Denisovans – Sapiens) created relations that functioned as a family, in which children could have matured.
{"title":"Could There Have Been Human Families Where Parents Came from Different Populations: Denisovans, Neanderthals or Sapiens?","authors":"M. Uhlik","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.019","url":null,"abstract":"No later than ~500kya the population of Homo sapiens split into three lin¬eages of independently evolving human populations: Sapiens, Neanderthals and Den¬isovans. After several hundred thousands years, they met several times and interbred with low frequency. Evidence of coupling between them is found in fossil records of Neanderthal – Sapiens offspring (Oase 1) and Neanderthal – Denisovans (Denisova 11) offspring. Moreover, the analysis of ancient and present-day population DNA shows that there were several significant gene flows between populations. Many introgressed sequences from Denisovans and Neanderthals were identified in genomes of currently living populations. All these data, according to biological species definition, may in¬dicate that populations of H. sapiens sapiens and two extinct populations H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens denisovensis are one species. Ontological transitions from pre-human beings to humans might have happened before the initial splitting of the Homo sapiens population or after the splitting during evolution of H. sapiens sapiens lineage in Africa. If the ensoulment of the first homo occurred in the evolving populations of H. sapiens sapiens, then occasionally mixed couples (Neanderthals – Sapiens or Denisovans – Sapiens) created relations that functioned as a family, in which children could have matured.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73952685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：