Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

Based on current scientific theories, plate tectonics, gravity, special relativity, and the medical roots of disease are not compatible with the first three chapters of Genesis.

Based on the actual text of Genesis, polygenism is compatible with the first three chapters.

As far as any of the other things you’re talking about goes, I know what gravity is. That’s about it. I firmly believe in not arguing with experts concerning their area of expertise. That is my problem with ID. It appears to take on the scientific world on their turf and at their level, which I think is a mistake. If your not a scientist and have no real understanding of certain areas of science, don’t argue with an expert in that field.

 

[grannymh]

Based on current scientific theories, plate tectonics, gravity, special relativity, and the medical roots of disease are not compatible with the first three chapters of Genesis.

And why would anyone want to compare
plate tectonics, gravity, special relativity, and the medical roots of disease to the first three chapters of Genesis besides yourself? Or did I misunderstand your comment? If I did, my apology.

 

[buffalo]

Based on the actual text of Genesis, polygenism is compatible with the first three chapters.

As far as any of the other things you’re talking about goes, I know what gravity is. That’s about it. I firmly believe in not arguing with experts concerning their area of expertise. That is my problem with ID. It appears to take on the scientific world on their turf and at their level, which I think is a mistake. If your not a scientist and have no real understanding of certain areas of science, don’t argue with an expert in that field.

I can produce many many references to Adam and Eve being our first parents.

 

[buffalo]

· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)

· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

·

 

[minkymurph]

I can produce many many references to Adam and Eve being our first parents.

If you can produce them I’ll give it a go. I’m undecided in relation to polygenism so I’m open-minded on the issue.

 

[minkymurph]

If you can produce them I’ll give it a go. I’m undecided in relation to polygenism so I’m open-minded on the issue.

Sorry, posted this before I saw your post with references.

 

[buffalo]

I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… ).** Pope Pelagius I

**What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in his supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity. Pope Leo XIII

Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative) Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909

 

[buffalo]

“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.” Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX

 

[tonyrey]

So you don’t believe the accumulation of carbon on this planet will be disastrous for life?

An excess of carbon and its compounds will lead not only to Carbon Dioxide but also Carbon Monoxide - which is far more lethal and produced by the sun’s rays in the earth’s atmosphere.

The topic is Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution - which clearly regards evolution as an alternative explanation to Creationism and Intelligent Design.

I disagree. Every Catholic accepts that God created the world, and that He can be seen as an Intelligent Designer. A Catholic like Ken Miller, who accepts evolution, sees that God used evolution to implement the design He created for the world. Evolution is not necessarily an alternative, it can be part of the same solution.

I agree but the OP does not!

Evolution is therefore regarded as a metaphysical explanation of life - which must include abiogenesis.

The Theory of Evolution is no more a metaphysical explanation for the origin of life than the Theory of Gravity is a metaphysical explanation for the origin of matter. You are setting up a straw man of evolution here. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”. Just species.

To be more precise both abiogenesis and evolution are regarded by physicalists as an essential part of their metaphysical explanation of life. How else?

The fact that you reject the fine tuning argument implies that you must believe life has emerged as the result of physical necessity. There is no other possible explanation.

I am Buddhist so life in general has been around for ever; the Buddha saw no beginning to the process of death and rebirth. That is theology, not science. In scientific terms life on Earth did have a beginning.

You are changing the subject. Until now you have been equating life with biological life and its chemical origin.

I find the fine tuning argument unconvincing because of the massive uncertainty in what values of various constants are allowed and also there is the anthropic principle to deal with.

There is no uncertainty about the range of values necessary for life. For example a change in the value of the fine-structure constant (α) by a few percent would be enough to eliminate stars like our Sun and prevent life appearing.

If Earth wasn’t suitable for life then we wouldn’t be here. By being here at all we set strict limits on where we are. Earth is automatically a biased sample.

The limits for life would exist even if we weren’t here! We don’t invent them. And in the absence of evidence of other forms of biological life we are justified in basing our conclusions on what we know about life on earth. It is unscientific to do otherwise. It is also ironic that physicalists postulate the possibility of other forms of life but demand they must all be physical…

The laws of nature could indeed be different. What is impossible to estimate is how different they could be. If the value required for life is between 50 and 60, but variation is allowed from 48 to 63 then life is reasonably probable. If the variation allowed is from 0 to 50,000,000 then life is much less probable. How do you propose to determine the boundaries within which a ‘fine tuned’ constant can vary?

That is a task for specialists but I have already given one example.

Then why did you make the following statement?

Because it is true. DNA is a combination of chemicals. My DNA is different from your DNA and we are both alive. That is two different “combinations of chemicals” that make life.

You stated:

1. There is more than “one” combination of chemicals that makes life.
2. Life is not solely material.
3. Two different “combinations of chemicals” make life.

What logic is there in that?

 

[minkymurph]

· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)

No problem with that. I’m not of the opinion Genesis is nothing more than purified myth. I believe it contains divinely inspired truths. It’s what the divinely inspired truths are that is in question because of the text itself.

· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

It does contain real history. I believe creation and the fall actually happened. It’s the logistics of how they happened is in question and the text of Genesis itself indicates the author does not intend it to be read literally.

· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

I can go with Adam and Eve were real human beings. The first human parents, ah! Problem.

· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

Ok. This spells it out. I’ll come back to Pius XII.

· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

Don’t dispute Adam and Eve were created or the Fall happened. How is another matter.

· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Yep, I could go with Eve was specially created from Adam. She could have originated via evolution? Does the next sentence leave the door open on that one?

· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
buffalo;7910672:

This is what I mean by leaving the door open. What if reason does dictate and necessary requires the literal, obvious sense needs re-examined?

· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

No one knows what would have happened had Adam and Eve remained obedient.

· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

No problem with that. Other than we don’t know it was a literal Garden.

· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

Okay, this does state we inherited sin from Adam and Eve. What if reason dictates and necessity requires we reconsider the author of Genesis means by use of the names Adam and Eve?

· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
·

OK. Firstly, I appreciate the effort you have made and there’s no doubt you’ve delivered. I think it can safely be said that for a long time the Church interpreted Genesis literally, and was of the opinion we descended from one human pair.

I have commented along the way here, and it’s not for the purpose of being argumentative. I read an autobiography on Pius XII. In it he is reputed to have been the only survivor of ‘witch hunts’ in the Vatican against modernists due to his great ability to be able to respond to questions without actually giving an answer. Not that he could be called a modernist by any stretch of the imagination, he was very conservative.

My point being is that he was Pope, as was Pius XI, during a particular time period which was a very different climate. I think Leo XIII was too but I stand to be corrected. Vatican I was very much against modernism and many were ousted from the Vatican at that time for being sympathetic towards modernism. Historical and literary criticism was to say the least, discouraged. Interestingly, and while cannot be said that Pius XII actively encouraged it, he didn’t oppose it as actively as his predecessors and opened the door to it. Apparently his greatest fear was communism. The Church has now relaxed it’s view concerning historical and literary criticism. Paul VI, whom I believe was the darling of liberals, had a more relaxed view toward communism. What I would say that now, in light of greater understanding, does reason dictate and necessity require re-consideration of the view that the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally? The Church has modified it’s view in relation to ‘no salvation outside the Church’ and those not baptized and those who commit suicide to mention but a few. You mention Trent but this Council didn’t have the understanding we have today. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Don’t know Pope Pelagius I, what time period was he? Can it also be said people quote from Pope’s they like? The reason I ask is because I’ve seen many a post on these forums disagreeing with what certain Pope’s have said.

 

[buffalo]

No problem with that. I’m not of the opinion Genesis is nothing more than purified myth. I believe it contains divinely inspired truths. It’s what the divinely inspired truths are that is in question because of the text itself.

It does contain real history. I believe creation and the fall actually happened. It’s the logistics of how they happened is in question and the text of Genesis itself indicates the author does not intend it to be read literally.

I can go with Adam and Eve were real human beings. The first human parents, ah! Problem.

Ok. This spells it out. I’ll come back to Pius XII.

Don’t dispute Adam and Eve were created or the Fall happened. How is another matter.

Yep, I could go with Eve was specially created from Adam. She could have originated via evolution? Does the next sentence leave the door open on that one?

· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires

(Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

This is what I mean by leaving the door open. What if reason does dictate and necessary requires the literal, obvious sense needs re-examined?

No one knows what would have happened had Adam and Eve remained obedient.

No problem with that. Other than we don’t know it was a literal Garden.

Okay, this does state we inherited sin from Adam and Eve. What if reason dictates and necessity requires we reconsider the author of Genesis means by use of the names Adam and Eve?

OK. Firstly, I appreciate the effort you have made and there’s no doubt you’ve delivered. I think it can safely be said that for a long time the Church interpreted Genesis literally, and was of the opinion we descended from one human pair.

I have commented along the way here, and it’s not for the purpose of being argumentative. I read an autobiography on Pius XII. In it he is reputed to have been the only survivor of ‘witch hunts’ in the Vatican against modernists due to his great ability to be able to respond to questions without actually giving an answer. Not that he could be called a modernist by any stretch of the imagination, he was very conservative.

My point being is that he was Pope, as was Pius XI, during a particular time period which was a very different climate. I think Leo XIII was too but I stand to be corrected. Vatican I was very much against modernism and many were ousted from the Vatican at that time for being sympathetic towards modernism. Historical and literary criticism was to say the least, discouraged. Interestingly, and while cannot be said that Pius XII actively encouraged it, he didn’t oppose it as actively as his predecessors and opened the door to it. Apparently his greatest fear was communism. The Church has now relaxed it’s view concerning historical and literary criticism. Paul VI, whom I believe was the darling of liberals, had a more relaxed view toward communism. What I would say that now, in light of greater understanding, does reason dictate and necessity require re-consideration of the view that the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally? The Church has modified it’s view in relation to ‘no salvation outside the Church’ and those not baptized and those who commit suicide to mention but a few. You mention Trent but this Council didn’t have the understanding we have today. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Don’t know Pope Pelagius I, what time period was he? Can it also be said people quote from Pope’s they like? The reason I ask is because I’ve seen many a post on these forums disagreeing with what certain Pope’s have said.

:tiphat: You are a pleasure to post with.

I am attempting to show what the constant teaching and understanding of Genesis has been. For me, I would need a Magisterial document that would overturn it and an explanation of why we got it wrong so long.

 

[grannymh]

What do you mean 'based on scientific theories polygenism is not compatible with Genesis?

The common sense approach to the reality of Adam is to learn what science is currently proposing in regard to polygenism. For example, science is exploring substitutes for the spiritual soul of human nature. Do advocates of polygenism really want to give up their intellectual freedom of choice which is found in the first three chapters of Genesis? Do they really want to give up any kind of a relationship with God?

At this point, I will yield to Buffalo who is doing an excellent job with Catholicism. There is no real need to talk science, especially the kind which belongs in the Back Fence forum. Your conversion will be in my prayers.

Blessings,
granny

The Gospel of John, chapter six

 

[edwest2]

The Bible clearly tells us sin entered the world through one man.

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

:tiphat: You are a pleasure to post with.

I am attempting to show what the constant teaching and understanding of Genesis has been. For me, I would need a Magisterial document that would overturn it and an explanation of why we got it wrong so long.

Thanks for the compliment.:blushing:

To me, you have shown that the constant teaching and understanding of Genesis has been we descended from one human pair. For you, you would need a Magisterial document to overturn that and explain why the Church got it wrong for so long. That’s fair enough. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to form a strong, religious conviction based on what someone on the Internet says; even if it was me!

I glad we had this exchange of views because now I feel I understand you’re position better. I couldn’t understand why the issues being discussed were such a big deal for some Catholics. I do now.

But - sorry buffalo. I’ve thought long and hard and I’m going to have to disagree with you. I’ll explain why in another post.

 

[minkymurph]

The common sense approach to the reality of Adam is to learn what science is currently proposing in regard to polygenism. For example, science is exploring substitutes for the spiritual soul of human nature.

I’ve heard of those theories. If someone wants to explore substitutes for the soul, that’s up to them. It’s of no interest to me because my belief in the spiritual soul has nothing to do with science. It’s based on my religious beliefs which there is no empirical evidence for.

Do advocates of polygenism really want to give up their intellectual freedom of choice which is found in the first three chapters of Genesis? Do they really want to give up any kind of a relationship with God?

There are people who would say anyone who believes in God has given up their intellectual freedom of choice. I personally think it’s a bit childish - '‘we’re smarter than you’, and ‘ha ha you to do what your church says, we free to make our own decisions,’ I don’t like to resort to the same line of defense.

If people want to give up a relationship with God there’s probably not a lot you can do about it. If they do, you won’t be able to stop them because you don’t agree with some of their views. Believing God created more than one human pair is no more a rejection of God, the belief in an immortal soul any more than accepting evolution is a rejection of creation. I don’t understand why some people assume that if you hold one opinion you must hold others. How would you feel if someone said to you, ‘you must believe in once saved, always saved because you are Catholic?’

At this point, I will yield to Buffalo who is doing an excellent job with Catholicism. There is no real need to talk science, especially the kind which belongs in the Back Fence forum.

If you think this discussion belongs on the Back Fence forum, why have you joined it? The greatest challenges to our faith today come from scientific thinking. How can you say there is not need to talk science?

Your conversion will be in my prayers.

Blessings,
granny

The Gospel of John, chapter six

I don’t mean to sound rude, and I’m sorry if you mean it in a sincere way, but that sounds patronizing. What do you want to convert me to? If it’s ‘the one true faith’ I’m already a Catholic. if you think by considering polygenism I have rejected the one true faith, then what you want to convert me to is monogensim. I wouldn’t call that a conversion. I would call it a change of opinion.

 

[minkymurph]

But - sorry buffalo. I’ve thought long and hard and I’m going to have to disagree with you. I’ll explain why in another post.

buffalo, this is a post I put in earlier. If everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, then the Garden of Eden must have been a literal place. For a long time the Church believed and taught it was a literal place. Therefore, it could be argued believing the Garden of Eden was a literal place is part of the Deposit of Faith. Here is one problem I have with literal interpretations of Genesis.

*According to Genesis, the Garden of Eden was in the land of Cush which may have been somewhere in modern Iraq.

Today there are:
24 500 species of fish
10 000 species of bird
100 000 species of tree
11 000 species of bat
900 000 species of insect
36 species of wild cat
millions of species of fruit
trillions of species of bacteria

I could go on, but this list will suffice for now.

We can assume there was at least one pair of each species of fish. Unless anyone want to argue they were all hermaphrodites. We can also assume they had offspring. Anyone know of a sea in modern day Iraq that could contain not only all species of sea water fish, but all the species of whales, crustaceans, etc. there are today? Perhaps there was one before the fall? Possible.

Moving on to the most obvious one: species of insect. The Garden of Eden must have been teaming with insects. However, it could be argued it’s possible all 900 000 species of insect existed in Eden. It’s also the millions of species of fruit and trillions of species of bacteria existed in the Garden of Eden. Maybe even 36 species of wild cat. Interestingly, I believe there is one species of dog, so we can assume there were dogs in Eden.

Now, I haven’t mentioned any other species of living things but by now, I reckon the Garden of Eden is getting pretty crowded. Now, the fish, birds, insects etc. may have lived outside Eden, and only man lived in Eden. Possible, but not according to the way some interpret Genesis and if their were animals and vegetation outside Eden, that’s dangerous territory because someone might have the idea there were humans outside Eden. Alternatively, Eden may not have been a literal place. However, if Eden is not a literal place, can we be sure all the other details are literal?
*

Does all this mean the Church got it wrong? The Church has never claimed it can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly. The Church understood the account as literal based on their understanding at the time. The Church traditionally thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch. They wouldn’t be dogmatic about that now due to developments in biblical scholarship. Based on what the Church now knows, not just as a consequence of science but as consequence of historical, literary and redaction criticism, does reason not dictate and necessity not demand a literal interpretation of Genesis be re-considered?

I you may get a statement from the Vatican at some point in the future. I’m not saying it’s going to be in support of polygenism. They may issue a statement rejecting it, but we’ll get clarification concerning the challenges scientific developments and biblical scholarship presents to a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[rossum]

I agree but the OP does not!

It would be a very boring thread if everybody agreed with the OP.

To be more precise both abiogenesis and evolution are regarded by physicalists as an essential part of their metaphysical explanation of life. How else?

Agreed, but in your terms I am not a physicalist. I use scientific explanations in the material arena, where science is applicable.

You are changing the subject. Until now you have been equating life with biological life and its chemical origin.

Evolution deals with physical life. Abiogenesis deals with the chemical origin of physical life. ID, as defined by the Discovery Institute, deals with physical life as well. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss physical life in this thread. I was responding to your statement “there is no other possible explanation”. I was pointing out the false dichotomy inherent in your statement.

There is no uncertainty about the range of values necessary for life. For example a change in the value of the fine-structure constant (α) by a few percent would be enough to eliminate stars like our Sun and prevent life appearing.

I have two points here. While a small change in the FSC (α) would indeed eliminate life as we know it, we cannot be sure that it would eliminate all possible forms of physical life. Secondly, what are the maximum and minimum allowed values of α? Unless we know the allowed range we cannot work out any probability. We know the range required for life; we need to know the overall possible range of values from which to pick α.

There is also the anthropic principle. If α were too far away from its present value then we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Because we are here we know that our universe is a biased sample. It is not wise to base an argument on a single biased sample.

You stated:

1. There is more than “one” combination of chemicals that makes life.
2. Life is not solely material.
3. Two different “combinations of chemicals” make life.

What logic is there in that?

You are taking my points from different parts of our discussion. If you like you can amend 1 and 3 to read “the material components of life”. In point 3, you are in error. There are billions of different combinations of chemicals that make the material components of life. Every living organism has unique DNA; even identical twins have minor differences…

rossum

 

[buffalo]

buffalo, this is a post I put in earlier. If everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, then the Garden of Eden must have been a literal place. For a long time the Church believed and taught it was a literal place. Therefore, it could be argued believing the Garden of Eden was a literal place is part of the Deposit of Faith. Here is one problem I have with literal interpretations of Genesis.

*According to Genesis, the Garden of Eden was in the land of Cush which may have been somewhere in modern Iraq.

Today there are:
24 500 species of fish
10 000 species of bird
100 000 species of tree
11 000 species of bat
900 000 species of insect
36 species of wild cat
millions of species of fruit
trillions of species of bacteria

I could go on, but this list will suffice for now.

We can assume there was at least one pair of each species of fish. Unless anyone want to argue they were all hermaphrodites. We can also assume they had offspring. Anyone know of a sea in modern day Iraq that could contain not only all species of sea water fish, but all the species of whales, crustaceans, etc. there are today? Perhaps there was one before the fall? Possible.

Moving on to the most obvious one: species of insect. The Garden of Eden must have been teaming with insects. However, it could be argued it’s possible all 900 000 species of insect existed in Eden. It’s also the millions of species of fruit and trillions of species of bacteria existed in the Garden of Eden. Maybe even 36 species of wild cat. Interestingly, I believe there is one species of dog, so we can assume there were dogs in Eden.

Now, I haven’t mentioned any other species of living things but by now, I reckon the Garden of Eden is getting pretty crowded. Now, the fish, birds, insects etc. may have lived outside Eden, and only man lived in Eden. Possible, but not according to the way some interpret Genesis and if their were animals and vegetation outside Eden, that’s dangerous territory because someone might have the idea there were humans outside Eden. Alternatively, Eden may not have been a literal place. However, if Eden is not a literal place, can we be sure all the other details are literal?*

Does all this mean the Church got it wrong? The Church has never claimed it can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly. The Church understood the account as literal based on their understanding at the time. The Church traditionally thought Moses wrote the Pentateuch. They wouldn’t be dogmatic about that now due to developments in biblical scholarship. Based on what the Church now knows, not just as a consequence of science but as consequence of historical, literary and redaction criticism, does reason not dictate and necessity not demand a literal interpretation of Genesis be re-considered?

I you may get a statement from the Vatican at some point in the future. I’m not saying it’s going to be in support of polygenism. They may issue a statement rejecting it, but we’ll get clarification concerning the challenges scientific developments and biblical scholarship presents to a literal reading of Genesis.

Last year, Andrew Hamilton at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues took all these factors into consideration in a new statistical analysis based on beetle counts in 56 species of tree in Papua New Guinea. They came up with a far lower figure for the arthropods – just 2.5 million species or thereabouts (American Naturalist, DOI: 10.1086/652998).
Multiply this by three, and you come to a total of fewer than 8 million species. Hamilton goes even lower, arguing that vertebrates and plants have been more thoroughly catalogued than tropical arthropods. “The magic number is 5.5 million,” he says (New Scientist, 12 June 2010, p 4)

 

[minkymurph]

Last year, Andrew Hamilton at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues took all these factors into consideration in a new statistical analysis based on beetle counts in 56 species of tree in Papua New Guinea. They came up with a far lower figure for the arthropods – just 2.5 million species or thereabouts (American Naturalist, DOI: 10.1086/652998).
Multiply this by three, and you come to a total of fewer than 8 million species. Hamilton goes even lower, arguing that vertebrates and plants have been more thoroughly catalogued than tropical arthropods. “The magic number is 5.5 million,” he says (New Scientist, 12 June 2010, p 4)

OK. Let’s say he’s right and there number of species of both plants and animals is less than 5 million. Let’s say for the sake of argument it’s 3 million. Do you think the area the bible describes as the Garden of Eden could have supported that number of species? There is also the question of salt water that would have supported marine life.

 

[buffalo]

OK. Let’s say he’s right and there number of species of both plants and animals is less than 5 million. Let’s say for the sake of argument it’s 3 million. Do you think the area the bible describes as the Garden of Eden could have supported that number of species? There is also the question of salt water that would have supported marine life.

I do not get the salt water question. Are you thinking fish lived in Eden?

I do not believe our present day species classification is the same as the biblical “kinds”. I think that as we genetically map species we will see a convergence. Even at that point epigenetics will have to be considered.