New Post: "Were Adam and Eve Real?..."

Hello all, here's a new post, Catholic Stand, on evolution and Catholic teaching: "Were Adam and Eve real?  Evolutionary Bottlenecks and Darwin's Radio."   Enjoy!

New Post: ESSAY 5: Evolution; No War between the Church and Science

Hello all, "Essay 5: No War between the Church and Evolution," is up.   It explores the position of the Catholic Church on evolution, refutes arguments by Creationists that we can't believe in evolution, common descent (not the neo-Darwinian model for evolution occurs), because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Creation account given in Genesis 1. 

Also the evidence for evolution, common descent, is outlined and various models--theories--for how evolution occurs are discussed.

New Post: "The Catholic Two-front War against Scientism and Scriptural Literalism

Hello all:   a new post, "The Catholic Two-front War against Scientism and Scriptural Literalism".  I'd be grateful for comments, for and against.

You Lie! Said the Geocentrist to the Catholic Scientist*

Galileo's Trial--adapted from Wikimedia Commons 

“People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.” --Martin Luther, Table Talk of Martin Luther

"The plain and obvious sense of these verses [Gen 1:14-19] is that God created the celestial bodies immediately and instantly, solely by His own omnipotent power and without support from natural processes over long ages of time as the idea of cosmic evolution suggests. That this is indeed the way the Lord created the universe is confirmed by the commentaries of the church fathers like St. Ephrem the Syrian..."--Dr. Thomas Seiler, Cosmology, Thermodynamics and the Christian Doctrine of Creation (KolbeCenter.org)

Last night I dreamt that I was judge, prosecutor, defense attorney and defendant in a trial in which I was accused of heresy, because I believed in the scientific evidence for cosmology and evolution, rather than the literal truth of Genesis: my conversion to the Catholic faith was, therefore, a fraud.   Here, as best as I can recall (having fudged the details) is an account of that trial.   (I'm not learned in the law, and it was a dream, so ...legal beagles, please excuse the deviations from procedure.)

THE INDICTMENT

PROSECUTOR, GEOCENTRIST**: Opening Case:
The defendant has foresworn the baptismal vows he made on conversion to the Catholic faith;   he has traduced the role of Scripture in the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church by proposing allegorical interpretations consistent with unproved scientific theories--the Big Bang, evolution.   The defendant, Mr. Kurland, has attempted to hoodwink faithful Catholics by presenting nonsensical arguments of scientists who refuse to accept the limits of science and the reality of the single universe that God created for us, created at a single time, to adore as part of His overall creation.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY, JESUIT SCIENTIST***: Objection,  m'Lord, Judge Kurland!****.  Please ask the prosecution to refer to the defendant by his proper title, "Dr. Kurland".

JUDGE: Prosecutor Kurland, please refer to the defendant by his proper title, Dr. Kurland.

PROSECUTOR: To continue after this untimely interuption!  Further, he has falsely declared  that our Holy Mother Church approves of these heresies, by taking arguments from recent Encyclicals out of context and ignoring edicts of Church Councils from Medieval times.    He has tried to reconcile the teachings of the Catholic Church with fallacious modern scientific theories, particularly those of quantum mechanics ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

For these offenses and others too unspeakable to mention, we demand that the defendant be banned from blogging and writing,  and sentenced to hard time in a room where he will encounter his secret fear*****.

THE DEFENSE

DEFENSE ATTORNEY, JESUIT SCIENTIST: Cross-examination of Prosecutor******:
Question (defense attorney): My learned geocentrist--what would you say about this comment  by a fourth century sage:

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

Response (prosecutor):  I would say that "sage" was probably a pagan, and knew nothing about Christianity.

Response (defense attorney):  Then you would be surprised to learn that the sage was St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the great theologians and interpreters of our faith.  The quote was taken from "De Genesi Litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)".

Question (defense attorney): You said the defendant

"falsely declared that our Holy Mother Church approves of these heresies, by taking arguments from recent Encyclicals out of context and ignoring edicts of Church Councils from Medieval times. He has tried to reconcile the teachings of the Catholic Church with fallacious modern scientific theories." 

 How do reconcile that comment with following quotes from Pope St. John Paul II?

"there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."  St. John Paul II, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

 "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  St. John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.

Interjection (judge):  You're getting off-track, Defense Attorney Kurland.   Get to the point!

Reply (defense attorney):  My apologies,  M'Lord, Judge Kurland.   I was trying to show that the prosecutor's statement is not correct if he means to imply that the Church does not approve of scientific discoveries.   May I continue?

Reply (judge): Proceed, but keep it relevant.

Question (defense attorney):  According to  posts on the web site of a group you represent, both evolution and the Big Bang cosmology are false, heresies that contradict scripture.   Is that correct?

Response (prosecutor): It is indeed.  Unscientific, false, heretical.

Question (defense attorney):  What do you say then to  the fact that cornerstone, ground-breaking theories underlying evolution and the Big Bang cosmology were produced by Catholic religious:  genetics by Br. Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Friar,  and the Big Bang hypothesis by Abbe Fr. Georg LeMaitre (which he called "The Primeval Atom").

Response (prosecutor): I'd say that religious can commit heresies too.   Look at Giordano Bruno.

Interjection (judge):  That is quite enough.

Interjection (defendant):  The prosecutor is showing a bias and a disregard of reality.

Interjection (judge): Mr. Kurland, that last comment was entirely out of order (although I agree with it).   Be careful or I'll eject you from the court.

Objection (defense attorney):  M,Lord, Judge Kurland, again, just to keep the record straight, the defendant's title is Dr. Kurland.

Reply (judge): duly noted.

Question (defense attorney):  You said the defendant has attempted to reconcile the teachings of the Catholic Church with contemporary science, including quantum mechanics.    Can you point out any errors in theology he has discussed?

Response (prosecutor):  No I can't, but I bet there are some.

Question (defense attorney):  Are there any parts of modern science you think are valid representations of how the world works?  And following that, if some parts are valid, why are others not?

Response  (prosecutor):  I can't in a limited space answer that question.

Comment (defense attorney):  In other words, you can't answer the question and the charge is not justified.

Interjection (judge):   This farce has gone on long enough.

VERDICT

At this point the dream ended, as the Judge was pronouncing the verdict "I
find the defendant .... "   (Dear reader, you fill in the blank.).   And I never did get around to finding out whether I was guilty of heresy, but I hope and pray that I am not, asking God for guidance.

NOTES

*This post is, more or less, the converse of another post of mine: " 'What is truth?' said the scientist to the theologian. "   A mirror image, if you will.

**I would put a name here (you can see some by going to the KolbeCenter.org web site), but who wants to put intelligent words into the mouth of somebody who wouldn't understand them?

***There are, I believe, many Jesuit scientists, past and present, who might come to my defense, but I wouldn't want to put my stupid words into their more intelligent mouths, so in my dream, I was the Defense Attorney.

****The judge is also me, but the dream is in an English court so he is wearing a wig and addressed as "M'Lord.    (I'd been watching reruns of "Rumpole of the Bailey" that evening.)

*****My secret fear is being forced to watch rebroadcasts of "The View" for 16 hours / day.   What's yours?

******I told you this dream did not proceed according to standard legal practice.

Evolution directed by God? The Lactase Persistence Gene

Distribution of the Lactase Persistence Gene 
from the University College of London

INTRODUCTION
Mammalian babies drink milk. Almost all non-human adult mammals do not drink milk. Some human adult mammals drink milk (northern Europeans, East Africans, West Africans), while many adult human mammals (East Asian, Bantu, Basque) cannot drink milk without suffering lactose intolerance symptoms (lactose, a milk sugar, cannot be metabolized).

Here's the story: mammalian infants have an enzyme, lactase that enables lactose to be metabolized. This enzyme is normally lost after infants are weaned. However in certain groups where dairy farming has been carried out, a gene, "lactase persistence gene",  enables the enzyme to continue to be present. This gene was not present in these groups (Northern Europeans/East Africans) 8000 to 10,000 years ago, but is now (77% or higher in Northern Europeans). Therefore it must have appeared as a mutation and by enhancing survivability, spread.

This was the story I heard in John Hawkes' audiobook, "The Rise of Humans", (see also the article linked in the picture caption), and it seemed plausible, but as physicist I wanted numbers. The best science according to Fr. Stanley Jaki is quantitative, so that predictions or retrodictions can be assessed quantitatively. And I have found such a mathematical test in an article by Todd Bersagiliari and many others, Genetic Signatures of Strong Recent Positive Selection at the Lactase Gene.

MATHEMATICS IN EVOLUTION

Dancing on a tightrope of very involved statistical and Markov chain calculations (I have to confess I don't fully understand all the math, but accept it) the authors find that this mutated gene, which allowed persistence of the lactase enzyme action, enhanced survivability by between .09 and 0.19 for the Scandinavian population and between 0.014 and 0.15 for the East African. I take this "coefficient of selection" to mean that those Scandinavians carrying this dominant gene produced between 1.09 to 1.19 more children per generation than those who did not have the gene.    Their retrodictive frequencies are in accord with the relative frequencies of the gene: orange to red, high;  blue to indigo, low.

COMMENTARY

Here are some of the features of this problem that I don't understand.   The lactose intolerance symptoms described in the linked article (and others) cause discomfort but are not altogether debilitating.   In many cases, yogurt and other dairy products in which lactose has been degraded can be eaten by lactose intolerant individuals.   If dairy farming started out with products such as those, whence the 10 to 20 % increase in progeny from lactase persistent gene, which enabled less refined dairy products to be eaten?

When this article was posted as a short commentary in the Biologos Forum, I put a question to one of the authors of the linked paper:  how did the mathematical analysis distinguish between a single mutation that spread and multiple mutations?   He answered that the analysis was predicated on just a single mutation, and that was all that was necessary for the spread of the desirable trait.
If one looks at the map of incidence of high proportion of this gene, it appears in multiple regions: Northern Europe, East Africa and the Arabian peninsula, West Africa, such that migration of peoples with the gene would not have been a likely mechanism for its spread.   (I've read various accounts of where the mutation originated--Hungary, Iranian plateau--but a single geographic origin doesn't seem to be compatible with the present distribution.)

My point then is (and it's altogether speculative) what about God directing such a mutation (or more) to occur where dairy farming was prevalent?   There's no way of proving it (or disproving it), but it's consistent with the facts.

And we'll leave it there for critical comments (be nice, please).  Finally, let me say that I'm happy to not throw brickbats at the Neo-Darwinians who argue for survival of the fittest as a mechanism for evolution (provided God lends a helping hand).

ADDENDUM

My wife added some enlightening comments after she read this:  perhaps I had reversed causal relations:  dairy farming came after the mutation.   Also, in the Mediterranean and other warmer climates where sheep and goats rather than cattle are raised, yogurt and hard cheese are more common than milk and soft cheeses as dairy products (less liable to spoil) and less likely to cause lactose intolerance symptoms.

The Theology of Science-Fiction V*: Genesis and Darwin's Radio

HAR1, gene for accelerated human development
See Wikipedia

"Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine—that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law—cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis. [emphasis added]” 
― Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

 "What you seem to be implying, however, is a hitherto undiscovered mechanism whereby the genome takes control of its own evolution, somehow sensing the right time to bring about change." Greg Bear, Darwin's Radio, p. 272

INTRODUCTION 

Although I believe that evolution, the descent of species, is a fact, I have always been puzzled by the apparent simultaneous (i.e. appearing within a relatively short time span) appearance of favorable mutations leading to new species.   Where is a mathematical description of evolution, giving the probability of n favorable mutations simultaneously appearing?   I've searched for such on the web, but haven't found any resources.    

That such is implausible has also occurred to others, not all of whom believe in God:  Thomas Nagel (quoted above); Stuart Kauffman; Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, among others.   Kauffman's approach is spontaneous self-organization. Behe and Meyer would replace the neo-Darwinian model for evolution by Intelligent Design (ID).    I would argue for ID as a philosophic or metaphysical proposition, but not as a scientific one.**

As is often the case, science-fiction does offer answers (not always satisfying) to theological questions: a classic science-fiction novel, Darwin's Radio, by Greg Bear, answers the question "What is the mechanism by which the Designer might form new species?".    Whether this mechanism is a possible one (or testable), I won't judge, since I have minimal expertise in molecular biology.   However, it is an interesting idea, so let's see what Greg Bear has to say.

DARWIN'S RADIO--THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

I'm not going to summarize the plot of Darwin's Radio; that is done elsewhere, and if you haven't read the book (on the Best-Seller list of the NY Times for many weeks) and want to do so, it would be a spoiler.     An extended discussion of the molecular biology on which the plot is based is also given, so I'll not repeat that here.

We'll summarize the salient points. (WARNING: semi-spoiler if you want to read the book.) HERV (Human Endogenous RetroVirus) cause an epidemic: the HERV is transmitted by men to women with whom they have a "steady" sexual relation; the virus causes spontaneous abortions, but the aborted fetus carries an egg that produces a second pregnancy. The child born in this second pregnancy has unusual and different capabilities, including parallel processing in the brain, pherenomes and facial pigmentation changes to convey subtleties in communication--in short a new species.

That such an evolutionary change has occurred before is shown in the novel by the discovery of a prehistoric couple preserved in a glacial cave; the male and female are some 15000 years old, and apparently Neanderthals--but there is also a baby, which is apparently Homo Sapiens. The discovery in this prehistoric couple of the HERV that occurs in the modern epidemic suggests that this was the cause of change to Homo Sapiens from early forms. (In this Bear make a paleontological error; Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were both present over a fairly long time period, and various human races contain up to 3% of Neanderthal genes.)

So, Bear's suggestion is that somehow, a concerted epidemic carried by ERV, is the mechanism by which jumps to new species occurs. An important question (not answered in the novel) is "who sends the signal for Darwin's Radio to sound?", i.e. what causes this epidemic to occur over a limited time span?   Is it God, or is the time span set by some Designer, so that after some period of time, the mutations will occur?  

My own scientific expertise is not in molecular biology, so I welcome criticisms of Bear's speculative mechanism for speciation and suggestions for alternatives.

I'll add that Robert Sawyer has given a fine treatment of parallel evolution of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens in his trilogy The Neanderthal Parallax, but I won't discuss it here, since it doesn't touch my principal interest, the mechanism for species change in evolution.    The same can be said for a whole host of other SF (book, TV and cinema) works which don't deal with the scientific issues of evolution.

*This is the fifth in a series about how science-fiction deals with theological issues.   The others are

• The Theology of Science-fiction I:  Some SF Gospels
• The Theology of Science-fiction II: Paradise not Lost
• The Theology of Science-fiction III: Does Data Have a Soul?
• The Theology of Science-fiction IV: End-Times

**See the post Reflections on Intelligent Design: Good, Bad or Indifferent Science.  In this post I argue that proponents of ID do not offer a mechanism by which the Designer implements evolution, nor do they propose any experiments or  measurements by which  ID could be tested/falsified.

Did Neanderthals have a soul?*

The Thinking Neanderthal
Image from Althouse
Model in Halle/Salle Prehistory Museum

"The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God....

"Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God...

"As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man...

"The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life." Pope St. John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution.

INTRODUCTION* 

I've recently finished a SF trilogy, "The Neanderthal Parallax", by Robert Sawyer, describing a parallel universe in which there is a civilization (technical--quantum computers, and all that) in a world in which Neanderthals, rather than Homo Sapiens, are the intelligent species
.
We have an  image of Neanderthals as brutes, sub-human, but their brain size was generally greater than that of Homo Sapiens.   There is archeological evidence to indicate that they cooperated as a hunter-gatherer community, and that they cared for disabled members of the community, thus showing compassion.  

There is evidence from genetic research to reinforce the notion that Neanderthals were not subhumn.   The Neanderthal genome has been explored in detail, to show that there is a 99.7% similarity between human (homo sapiens) and Neanderthal DNA.  However, since there are so many genes, that leaves quite a few that aren't common.  Nevertheless, the similarities are important.   For example, Neanderthals had the same two modifications in the FOXP2 gene as do humans; this is the the gene that governs development of language centers in the brain.   Moreover, genomic analysis suggests that trace amounts (1 to 4 %) of Neanderthal genomic material affects traits in modern humans, Eurasians, but not in Africans.

So, did the first humans intermarry with Neanderthals in Europe or East Asia?  And did these first humans AND Neanderthals have souls?  There is some evidence (controversial) that Neanderthals buried their dead and gave them gifts for an after-life.

The Church has taken a position on evolution put forth by Pope St. John Paul II in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (see the quotes above), a position which makes a clear distinction between evolution of a material body, and a soul endowed by God.   Even if one grants that this position is neither doctrine nor dogma, it still is a teaching that has to be carefully considered by the Catholic faithful (coming from the Vicar of Christ).

Here, then, are several questions that occur to me.  Some have been answered, at least partially, in Kenneth Kemp's article, Science, Theology and Monogenesis. I ask the reader to assess critically these questions, the partial answers given below and then to consider the following general issue:
Is  there a conflict between what paleoanthropology and genomic research tell us and what we are to believe from Catholic doctrine and dogma?

• The evolutionary theory I have read suggests that new species arise not from one or two individuals, but from populations.  If new species arise from differences in DNA, and these differences occur because of mutations, how is it that for a large number of individuals the same mutations  occur that give rise to a new species (within some limited time period)?
• Definitions of soul from the Catholic Catechism and from the writings of Thomas Aquinas state that the soul is the "form" (in the Aristotelean sense) of the body, but immaterial.  Rational faculties, the capacity to reason and to form abstractions, are attributes of a soul.   These are presumably necessary conditions for there to be a soul.   Are they sufficient conditions?
• What kinds of archeological data would provide evidence for such rational faculties of a hominid--tool making, art, burial of the dead?
• Does genetic similarity between two species, and the possibility that interbreeding has occurred, imply that if members of one species possess a soul, so do members of the other? 

MONOGENESIS AND ORIGINAL SIN

Monogenesis supposes that humans descend from one pair of ancestors, male and female, as opposed to polygenesis, that many humans were ancestors.   That humans descended from only two is a cornerstone of Catholic dogma on original sin.    As set forth by Pope Pius XII,

"For the Christian faithful cannot maintain the thesis which holds that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take
their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that “Adam” signifies a number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the magisterium of the Church propose with regard to original sin, [emphasis added] which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Even if "biological" monogenesis does not obtain, what might be termed "theological" monogenesis could occur, and so Pius XII's objection could be countered.   This proposition has been explored in some detail by Kenneth Kemp, in his article Science, Theology and Monogenesis, which will be discussed at greater length below.  The essential base for this argument is a Thomistic view of body and soul, reflected in Pope St. John Paul II's remark (quoted above) that "[even] if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God."

DID "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE" EXIST?**

Illustration of descent through female line
(traced by mitochondrial DNA)
from Wikipedia article

Is it the case that biological monogenesis did occur?   Some evolutionary geneticists have justified the idea of descent from one ancestor (or a pair of ancestors) by the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis, which proposes that all humans are descended from an African lady who lived some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.   It's important here to realize that Mitochondrial Eve might have contributed only a small amount to our gene pool, given that there would have  had to be many, many other great-great-......-great grandmothers.  (I have two great-grandfathers who were rabbis, but there were two other great-grandfathers who could have been real low-lifes.)

The Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis has been criticized by evolutionary geneticists who argue that "bottlenecks" (small population sizes) lead to minimal genetic variation and thus lower survival of species.   Francisco Ayala has examined the variation in the gene DRB1 and concludes the variation is too large to admit of a small population (bottleneck) as ancestors.***   Ayala's calculations have been criticized as being biased and based on assumptions that don't apply.   Let's bypass the question of biological monogenesis and turn to Kemp's proposal for theological monogenesis.

THEOLOGICAL MONOGENESIS

Kemp's thesis, theological monogenesis, rests on the notion of philosophical and theological species:

"The biological species is the population of interbreeding individuals.
The philosophical species is the rational animal, i.e., a natural kind characterized by the capacity for conceptual thought, judgment, reasoning, and free choice. St. Thomas Aquinas argues that a certain kind of body is necessary for rational activity, but is not sufficient for it. Rational activity requires, in addition the presence of a rational soul, something that is more than the power of any bodily organ, and that therefore can only come into being, in each individual case, through a creative act of God. [emphasis added]   The theological species is, extensionally, the collection of individuals that  have an eternal destiny. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says 'God created man in his image and established him in his friendship.' [CCC 396] Kenneth Kemp, Science, Theology and Monogenesis

 I won't give Kemp's arguments in detail, but only a summary--please go to the original paper for a complete story.   He supposes that a small population, about 5000, existed with the necessary physical characteristics ("body") for rational activity.   God selected two of these, a man and woman to be endowed with a soul, the capacity for abstract thought: e.g. to know that one would die, to have knowledge of one-self as an individual (self-consciousness), etc.

When would Adam and Eve have appeared in human pre-history?   That point is not clear.   Certainly tool-making is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for rational activity in the sense Kemp would take.    Pebble tools go back to Homo Habilis some 2.6 million years ago, and in more advanced forms, possibly requiring rational forethought, to Homo Erectus, some 2 million years ago.   Neanderthal man had a sophisticated tool-making capability, used fires, buried his dead with accompaniments.

SUMMARY

The questions raised at the beginning of this post have been answered only partially.   It is unlikely, but not impossible, that biological monogenesis occurred.   If we accept (as I do) that mind, self-consciousness and what we please to call "soul" are not solely a physical thing, but are immaterial, then we still are in the dark as to what constitutes paleo-archeological evidence for rational activity, activity that is sufficient to show that individuals in a species are endowed with souls.    We are unsure when in pre-history God gave two individuals their souls, and continued to do so thereafter for each of their descendants.

To the question put in the title, I would answer "Yes!", Neanderthals did have a soul.    I would argue that any species that buries its dead has knowledge that life will end, and is therefore endowed rationally.

Finally, to all who would dispute that there is such a thing as a soul, and that mind/consciousness/etc. are purely physical phenomena--you're welcome to your opinion, but I (and many others) don't agree with you.

NOTES. 

*This article is a major revision of an article published in 2015

**Note that a similar story is given for an original "Adam", traced through the Y-chromosome (passed from father to son), who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.   Whether Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were alive at the same time and had children is an interesting question, to which we'll not know the answer (while alive).

***Here's the quote from Kenneth Kemp's article that explains this argument in more detail.

""This argument is based on variation in the DRB1 gene in the human population.  This gene, one of one hundred or so that make up the human leukocyte antigen complex, is very old. The fact that thirty-two of the fifty-nine variants found in man are also found (in similar, though not identical form) in chimpanzees shows that these variants arose before the phylogenetic divergence of chimpanzee and man, some 6 mya [million years ago].  Since no individual can carry more than two such variants, the absolute minimum human population in every generation after the evolution of man  from a common human-chimpanzee ancestor is sixteen. (The other twenty-seven variants could have arisen from later mutations.)   

This genetic diversity precludes very narrow population bottlenecks as
well as very long-lasting ones, as such bottlenecks are too small to transmit the observed range of variation to succeeding generations. ...Ayala calculates that the minimum bottleneck sufficient to maintain that level of diversity (and then to return to the mean population size) is about 4,000 synchronously reproducing individuals, or perhaps slightly less. That suggests an actual population of some 15,000–20,000 individuals."  Kenneth Kemp, Science, Theology and Monogenesis. 

REFERENCES

Francisco Ayala, Am I a Monkey?

Anne Gauger, Douglas Axe, Casey Luskin, Science and Human Origins

Warren Brown (author), Nancey Murphy (editor), H.N. Maloney (editor), Whatever Happened to the Soul?

On Pope St. John Paul II's Feast Day: His Rapprochement with Science

from Power Point Search, Sainted Word .  com

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  St. John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.

 "Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself  and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic." ibid.

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." St. John Paul II, Encyclical Fides et Ratio.

"It can be said, in fact, that research, by exploring the greatest and the smallest, contributes to the glory of God which is reflected in every part of the universe."
St. John Paul II, Address on the Jubilee of Scientists, 2000

NOTE:   This post was published in  June, 2014.   Today is Pope St. John Paul II's Feast Day and I thought it appropriate to post it again.

Among the many posts and articles on the canonization of St. John Paul II*, there have been few comments about his efforts to effect a rapprochement between the Church and science (notice the upper case and lack thereof).    The term "rapprochement" has been chosen with care: "an establishment or resumption of harmonious relations" (Oxford English Dictionary).   The term is applied to peace treaties after a state of war, and although the Catholic Church has not declared war on science, there are those scientists who do think there is such a war, and there are those advocates of scientism--that science explains all we need to know about the world--who have declared war on the Church.    These last ignore the founding contribution of the Church to the establishment of science (see Stacy Trasanco's Science was born of Christianity , and the contribution of Catholic Religious (Mendel, LeMaitre amongst many) to science in Fathers of Science.

There are three ways in which St. JP II tried to bring about this rapprochement:  1) redressing the Galileo Affair;  2) making the position of the Church on evolution clear and consistent with both dogma and science;  3) instituting conferences on how Divine Intervention might be manifested in several scientific disciplines.      The first two have been dealt with at some length in the blogosphere, so I'll treat those only briefly.   I'll focus on the third, which has been an invaluable resource for me in my discussions of science and religion.

THE GALILEO AFFAIR

As George Sim Johnston puts it in his book, The Galileo Affair

"The Galileo affair is the one stock argument used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. While Galileo's eventual condemnation was certainly unjust a close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend." George Sim Johnston

Summarizing his arguments, one can say that both Galileo and some Church officials were at fault, but it was a different time with different concerns--high officials in the Church, initially sympathetic to Galileo, were defending orthodoxy against the onslaught of the Reformation.    Galileo was condemned not for his advocacy of the Copernican theory per se, but for his advocacy that Scripture was to be interpreted loosely (even though the same had been done by St. Augustine).   And his science was wrong--circular orbits for the planets and his theory of tides.    All this is dealt with at greater length in the article linked above.

Nevertheless, this one piece of history has been the cannon used in the war of materialists and scientists against the Church, in their perceived conflict between the Church and Science.    In 1979  St. JP II asked the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to make an in-depth study of the affair.   Commenting on their report in 1992, he said, as an apology, explaining what had happened:

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."  St. John Paul II, Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as quoted in  L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992 

Liberal news media made much of this apology, but it was only recognizing in a formal way earlier actions of the Church--removing Galileo's book from the index, setting up a Vatican Observatory--and setting the affair in a historical context.     What was important was his  affirmation in this apology that  science and the Church both have domains of truth, which do not deny each other--as in his address on evolution, "Truth cannot contradict Truth"

ON EVOLUTION

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science St. JP II, expanding on the doctrine set forth by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis, asserted that

"there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."  St. John Paul II, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Among these points is the most important requirement that the soul of man is endowed by God (the Holy Spirit) and not materially constructed:

"It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)" ibid.

He also showed much insight in commenting on the scientific aspects of evolution, that while evolution (the descent of species) is a fact, there is more than one theory--mechanism--proposed to explain evolution.

"As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person."

It is unfortunate that both scientists and lay persons do not share St. JP II's understanding but equate the Darwinian model for evolution--"survival of the fittest"--with evolution, the descent of species.   And as with his apology for the Galileo affair, the liberal media made much of his acknowledgement that evolution is a fact, but neglected the historical and theological context which he brought to that statement.

A QUEST FOR COMMON UNDERSTANDING--DIVINE INTERVENTION CONFERENCES

In 1987 St. JP II instituted the first of a series of conferences, held at the Papal Summer Residence, Castelgandalfo, bringing together scientists, philosophers and theologians.    Not all of these were Catholic and, indeed, a few were not even theists, as the term is commonly understood.    He addressed the conferees at this first meeting ("Our Knowledge of God and Nature: Physics, Philosophy and Theology") via a letter to George Coyne, SJ, Director of the Vatican Observatory.  (I recommend the reader go to the link for that letter, to get the full import of St. JP II's thoughts on science and the Church.)  He stressed first, as in the quote at the beginning of this post, the contributions science could make to the Church and the Church to science, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."  

He showed a sophisticated knowledge of frontier research in physics and biology in his comments on how scientists were trying to achieve a unified picture of scientific theory in physics and biology:

"The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe...seems to be reflected and even reinforced in  what  contemporary science is revealing to us....Contemporary physics forms a striking example.  The quest for unification of all four fundamental physical forces--gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear interactions--has met with increasing success....In the life sciences, too, something similar has happened.  Molecular biologists have probed the structure of living material...(and) have discovered that the same underlying constituents (genes and proteins coded by genes) serve in the make-up of all living organisms on earth." St. John Paul II, letter to George Coyne.

Although St. JPII argued that science and theology could, and should, mutually enrich the other, he did not think they should be unified, as in unified science or unified theology:

"By encouraging openness between the Church and the scientific communities, we are not envisioning a disciplinary unity between theology and science like that which exists within a given scientific field or within theology proper....The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science...To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness....Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself  and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic (emphasis added).   Science must bear witness to its own worth....neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other."   ibid.

The quotation above reminds me of my encounters playing harmony parts (tenor and bass) in our Church instrumental group:  the musical lines are distinct, for the most part different,  but the harmony enriches the melody, as does science, theology.

Although St. JP II respected the integrity and distinctiveness of science and theology, he did emphasize that they could and should enrich each other in areas such as cosmology and molecular biology, and, accordingly, set up conferences to effect such enrichment.   He stressed the importance of putting scientific findings in a proper context, and the difficulty of doing such in our contemporary setting:

"For the truth of the matter is that the Church and the scientific community will inevitably interact....Christians will inevitably assimilate the prevailing ideas about the world, and these are inevitably shaped by science.  The only question is whether they will do this critically or unreflectively, with depth and nuance or with a shallowness that debases the Gospel and leaves us ashamed before history.   Scientists, like all human beings, will make decisions on what gives value and meaning to their lives and to their work.   This they will do well or poorly, with the reflective depth that theological wisdom can help them attain, or with an unconsidered absolutizing of their results beyond their reasonable and proper limits." ibid.

The last sentence in the above quote applies very well, I believe, to those cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and cognitive scientists such as Stephen Pinker, who deny God on the basis of a limitless science.

I'll have to add that all the insights above (with the possible exception of the musical analogy) are those of  St. John Paul II.   I've been blessed in being able to bring these to the attention of others.

And, finally, as  a postscript, here is a list of these conferences and links to the proceedings published by the Vatican Observatory and University of Notre Dame Press.   On the web page of the Center for Natural Sciences and Theology that lists the books, you will see images of each book.  If you click on the book image, there will appear article headings at the right of the web-page, which will link to the article of interest.

Physics, Philosophy and Theology--A Quest for Common Understanding.
Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. 
Chaos and Complexity--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Neuroscience and the Person--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Evolutionary and Molecular Biology--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Quantum Mechanics--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.

*In what follows I will try to avoid the cumbersome form "Pope St. John Paul II", and meaning no disrespect (he is my hero!) will refer to him as St. JP II.

Which is real--science or God?

“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass

“The absence of a scientific proof for God is more indicative of the limits of science than the lack of a deity."  Michael Asher, Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist

I've wondered, since my conversion, why some found it so much harder to believe in God than in Science.   When I was younger in college, I took the pronouncements of  my teachers--Nobel Prize winners* and graduate students--as holy writ (although I didn't know then what holy writ was).    In laboratories we repeated famous experiments, Galileo's inclined plane,  Millikan's charge/mass ratio, Morgan's experiments with fruit flies (what a headache from the ether, picking out anesthetized flies), etc... As physics and chemistry became more sophisticated--quantum mechanics and electrodynamics--the experiments, the thesis work verified H psi = E psi, Maxwell's equations, and the Second Law.  But very few atheists and agnostics--journalists and politicians for the most part--have had this experience;  nevertheless, they believe what "scientists" tell them about the world as an article of faith, not justified by what they themselves have done or perceived.

 It was only until after retirement that I started looking into the philosophical foundations of science and its various disciplines and realized that there is a contingent of philosophers--"anti-realists", "constructivists", "empiricists"--who question whether there is a reality that lies behind science.   Their arguments make sense, but more of that in a later post. I assert that the vast majority of people put a faith in science that is much less justified than a faith in God.  In a previous post (Top Down to Jesus) I've argued that a rational, historical approach will justify a faith in the Resurrection and in the Divinity of Our Lord.    Moreover, the subjective experiences we ourselves have had and that have been related to us, the tested accounts of miracles, are as good evidence for the existence of God as  are accounts of  scattering experiments for the existence of the Higgs boson.

 The best account of the uncritical atheistic foundational belief system has been given in a excellent review by Michael Potemra (see NRO, "The Corner", April 28,2012)  of a new book by a noted paleontologist, Michael Asher: Evolution and Belief:Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.    I can add very little to Potemra's review, but I would like to repeat his quote from the book, because it expresses my attitude about science and religion to a T:

“The absence of a scientific proof for God is more indicative of the limits of science than the lack of a deity (emphasis added). . . . Evolutionary biology is not about the origin of life or the existence of God. It is about how living things are interconnected through a specific, natural mechanism, one which we can understand through the fossil record, individual development, and molecular biology.”  Michael Asher

and

“it is rational to believe that an entity beyond our comprehension was the agency by which something was derived from nothing at the beginning of time. . . . Although I acknowledge my belief to be non-scientific, it is entirely rational. Science is a subset of rationality; the former has a narrower scope than the latter. To ignore rationality when it does fall beyond the scientific enterprise would be an injustice to both reason and humanity.”  Michael Asher

Most people aren't aware of the distinction between science and other rational enterprises--science requires theory (usually mathematical and linked to other theories, more basic and fundamental), confirmed or falsified by observation/reproducible experiment.

 Because faith in God is not quantifiable, the atheists classify it as one of the White Queen's "Six impossible things before breakfast".   That's hokum!   Many rational beliefs cannot be assessed numerically;    it is science itself that is limited in that science, in its best and purest practice,  is restricted to those tests that can be verified by quantitative measurements.    It is faith in God that is most easily tested by the person, in his/her own experience and what historical evidence provides.
  *The graduate students were usually better teachers if not always as spectacular as the the Nobel Prize winners: Pauling, Delbruck, Feynman, Schwinger, Purcell, Van Vleck

St. John Paul's Rapprochement with Science: "A Quest for Common Understanding"

From saintedward-com

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."  St. John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.

 "Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself  and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic." ibid.

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." St. John Paul II, Encyclical Fides et Ratio.

"It can be said, in fact, that research, by exploring the greatest and the smallest, contributes to the glory of God which is reflected in every part of the universe."
St. John Paul II, Address on the Jubilee of Scientists, 2000

Among the many posts and articles on the canonization of St. John Paul II*, there have been few comments about his efforts to effect a rapprochement between the Church and science (notice the upper case and lack thereof).    The term "rapprochement" has been chosen with care: "an establishment or resumption of harmonious relations" (Oxford English Dictionary).   The term is applied to peace treaties after a state of war, and although the Catholic Church has not declared war on science, there are those scientists who do think there is such a war, and there are those advocates of scientism--that science explains all we need to know about the world--who have declared war on the Church.    These last ignore the founding contribution of the Church to the establishment of science (see Stacy Trasanco's Science was born of Christianity , and the contribution of Catholic Religious (Mendel, LeMaitre amongst many) to science in Fathers of Science.

There are three ways in which St. JP II tried to bring about this rapprochement:  1) redressing the Galileo Affair;  2) making the position of the Church on evolution clear and consistent with both dogma and science;  3) instituting conferences on how Divine Intervention might be manifested in several scientific disciplines.      The first two have been dealt with at some length in the blogosphere, so I'll treat those only briefly.   I'll focus on the third, which has been an invaluable resource for me in my discussions of science and religion.

THE GALILEO AFFAIR

As George Sim Johnston puts it in his book, The Galileo Affair

"The Galileo affair is the one stock argument used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. While Galileo's eventual condemnation was certainly unjust a close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend." George Sim Johnston

Summarizing his arguments, one can say that both Galileo and some Church officials were at fault, but it was a different time with different concerns--high officials in the Church, initially sympathetic to Galileo, were defending orthodoxy against the onslaught of the Reformation.    Galileo was condemned not for his advocacy of the Copernican theory per se, but for his advocacy that Scripture was to be interpreted loosely (even though the same had been done by St. Augustine).   And his science was wrong--circular orbits for the planets and his theory of tides.    All this is dealt with at greater length in the article linked above.  

Nevertheless, this one piece of history has been the cannon used in the war of materialists and scientists against the Church, in their perceived conflict between the Church and Science.    In 1979  St. JP II asked the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to make an in-depth study of the affair.   Commenting on their report in 1992, he said, as an apology, explaining what had happened:

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."  St. John Paul II, Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as quoted in  L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992 

Liberal news media made much of this apology, but it was only recognizing in a formal way earlier actions of the Church--removing Galileo's book from the index, setting up a Vatican Observatory--and setting the affair in a historical context.     What was important was his  affirmation in this apology that  science and the Church both have domains of truth, which do not deny each other--as in his address on evolution, "Truth cannot contradict Truth"

ON EVOLUTION

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science St. JP II, expanding on the doctrine set forth by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis, asserted that

"there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."  St. John Paul II, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Among these points is the most important requirement that the soul of man is endowed by God (the Holy Spirit) and not materially constructed:

"It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)" ibid.

He also showed much insight in commenting on the scientific aspects of evolution, that while evolution (the descent of species) is a fact, there is more than one theory--mechanism--proposed to explain evolution.

"As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person."

It is unfortunate that both scientists and lay persons do not share St. JP II's understanding but equate the Darwinian model for evolution--"survival of the fittest"--with evolution, the descent of species.   And as with his apology for the Galileo affair, the liberal media made much of his acknowledgement that evolution is a fact, but neglected the historical and theological context which he brought to that statement.

A QUEST FOR COMMON UNDERSTANDING--DIVINE INTERVENTION CONFERENCES

In 1987 St. JP II instituted the first of a series of conferences, held at the Papal Summer Residence, Castelgandalfo, bringing together scientists, philosophers and theologians.    Not all of these were Catholic and, indeed, a few were not even theists, as the term is commonly understood.    He addressed the conferees at this first meeting ("Our Knowledge of God and Nature: Physics, Philosophy and Theology") via a letter to George Coyne, SJ, Director of the Vatican Observatory.  (I recommend the reader go to the link for that letter, to get the full import of St. JP II's thoughts on science and the Church.)  He stressed first, as in the quote at the beginning of this post, the contributions science could make to the Church and the Church to science, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."  

He showed a sophisticated knowledge of frontier research in physics and biology in his comments on how scientists were trying to achieve a unified picture of scientific theory in physics and biology:

"The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe...seems to be reflected and even reinforced in  what  contemporary science is revealing to us....Contemporary physics forms a striking example.  The quest for unification of all four fundamental physical forces--gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear interactions--has met with increasing success....In the life sciences, too, something similar has happened.  Molecular biologists have probed the structure of living material...(and) have discovered that the same underlying constituents (genes and proteins coded by genes) serve in the make-up of all living organisms on earth." St. John Paul II, letter to George Coyne.

Although St. JPII argued that science and theology could, and should, mutually enrich the other, he did not think they should be unified, as in unified science or unified theology:

"By encouraging openness between the Church and the scientific communities, we are not envisioning a disciplinary unity between theology and science like that which exists within a given scientific field or within theology proper....The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science...To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness....Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself  and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic (emphasis added).   Science must bear witness to its own worth....neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other."   ibid.

The quotation above reminds me of my encounters playing harmony parts (tenor and bass) in our Church instrumental group:  the musical lines are distinct, for the most part different,  but the harmony enriches the melody, as does science, theology.

Although St. JP II respected the integrity and distinctiveness of science and theology, he did emphasize that they could and should enrich each other in areas such as cosmology and molecular biology, and, accordingly, set up conferences to effect such enrichment.   He stressed the importance of putting scientific findings in a proper context, and the difficulty of doing such in our contemporary setting:

"For the truth of the matter is that the Church and the scientific community will inevitably interact....Christians will inevitably assimilate the prevailing ideas about the world, and these are inevitably shaped by science.  The only question is whether they will do this critically or unreflectively, with depth and nuance or with a shallowness that debases the Gospel and leaves us ashamed before history.   Scientists, like all human beings, will make decisions on what gives value and meaning to their lives and to their work.   This they will do well or poorly, with the reflective depth that theological wisdom can help them attain, or with an unconsidered absolutizing of their results beyond their reasonable and proper limits." ibid.

The last sentence in the above quote applies very well, I believe, to those cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and cognitive scientists such as Stephen Pinker, who deny God on the basis of a limitless science.

I'll have to add that all the insights above (with the possible exception of the musical analogy) are those of  St. John Paul II.   I've been blessed in being able to bring these to the attention of others.

And, finally, as  a postscript, here is a list of these conferences and links to the proceedings published by the Vatican Observatory and University of Notre Dame Press.   On the web page of the Center for Natural Sciences and Theology that lists the books, you will see images of each book.  If you click on the book image, there will appear article headings at the right of the web-page, which will link to the article of interest.

Physics, Philosophy and Theology--A Quest for Common Understanding.
Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. 
Chaos and Complexity--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Neuroscience and the Person--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Evolutionary and Molecular Biology--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.
Quantum Mechanics--Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action.

*In what follows I will try to avoid the cumbersome form "Pope St. John Paul II", and meaning no disrespect (he is my hero!) will refer to him as St. JP II.