Evolution and Original Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Walty

Guest
As I’ve been watching and reading all sorts of Richard Dawkin’s lately (in order to better understand atheistic evolution) I have come up with a few questions. I understand that evolution is not entirely exclusive or contradictory with Theism and that the Church even recognizes its possibility.

The scientific argument for evolution is pretty significant and hard to refute. I am comfortable with atheism except for one very large question.

If Genesis says that all sin (and thus death) entered the world through the original sin of mankind how could natural selection (dependant on death) have taken place before man existed and brought man into existence itself?

Also, I just can’t shake the idea that evolution and natural selection are dependant on, and in some ways, glorify death. It all just doesn’t seem right, but then again the evidence does seem pretty substantial.
 
Walty said:
As I’ve been watching and reading all sorts of Richard Dawkin’s lately (in order to better understand atheistic evolution) I have come up with a few questions. I understand that evolution is not entirely exclusive or contradictory with Theism and that the Church even recognizes its possibility.

The scientific argument for evolution is pretty significant and hard to refute. I am comfortable with atheism except for one very large question.

If Genesis says that all sin (and thus death) entered the world through the original sin of mankind how could natural selection (dependant on death) have taken place before man existed and brought man into existence itself?

Also, I just can’t shake the idea that evolution and natural selection are dependant on, and in some ways, glorify death. It all just doesn’t seem right, but then again the evidence does seem pretty substantial.
Click to expand...
The death that entered the world was spiritual death. When we sin, we separate ourselves from God, and God is life.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
. . .God is life.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
BEAUTIFUL! Thanks Tim:) Those three words that you wrote reminded me of the January 1, 2002 homily of John Paul II on SOLEMNITY OF MARY, MOTHER OF GOD XXXV WORLD DAY OF PEACE. Here is an excerpt from it:

"In God’s name I renew my heartfelt appeal to all, believers and non-believers, so that the two words, “justice and peace” may always be impressed upon relations between individuals, social groups and peoples.

“This appeal is first and foremost for those who believe in God, in particular for the great “Abrahamic religions”: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, called to declare their firm and decisive rejection of violence. No one, for any reason, can kill in the name of God, who is one and merciful. God is life and the source of life. To believe in Him means to witness to His mercy and forgiveness, rejecting the exploitation of his holy Name.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20020101_madre-di-dio_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ts/hf_jp-ii_hom_20020101_madre-di-dio_en.html

I hope you don’t mind me adding a tad more about God.😃

“Certainly one must not minimise the important role and absolute necessity of justice in relations between people; I only wish to point to the higher role and “deeper power” possessed by love. That is why the Prophet encourages us to act justly but also to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God.” (ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE ACADEMY OF AMERICAN AND ITERNATIONAL LAW on Saturday, 27 September 1986)

As you can see, I’m on a roll. 😃 My all time favorite is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, PART THREE, LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION ONE, MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT, CHAPTER ONE, **THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON **, ARTICLE 7, THE VIRTUES
1803 “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions.

The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God.

I must admit that I know many people (believers and non-believers) who do live a virtuous life but don’t realize they are like God though my heart and mind acknowledge it to be the truth. :yup:

Learning is great fun! 😃 Here’s a few links pertaining to EVOLUTION by our dear friend Alec MacAndrew who is a treasured member of Catholic.com. :clapping:

Introduction to the history of the theory of Evolution and the key scientific concepts with in the theory
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

And Tim you helped Alec with this one! 🙂
The Curious Case of the One-Man Band
The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
 
Hello Walty. It’s called biological evolution, not atheistic evolution. There is no atheistic or theistic evolution. It’s just science and the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with it. Like any other scientific fact, evolution does not require the God hypothesis to explain it. Like any other scientific fact, evolution says nothing about whether or not there is a God. Some non-scientists invoke God to explain the diversity of life, but biologists (including religious biologists) don’t invoke God to explain natural processes like biological evolution.

Does the mechanism of evolution called natural selection depend on death? It sure does. Natural selection means the animal (or plant) that lives long enough to reproduce is the animal that passes its genes on to the next generation. The animals that drop dead before they reproduce do not pass on their genes. After several generations, animals either gradually change or they become extinct if changes in the environment require those changes. After thousands of generations over vast periods of time, new species develop very gradually.

Natural selection depends on death. Does it glorify death? Well, it’s just a mechanism of nature, so it couldn’t glorify anything.

You said “It all just doesn’t seem right, but then again the evidence does seem pretty substantial.”

You’re right about the evidence. When biologists say the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and powerful, they are not exaggerating. I don’t know why you would say it doesn’t seem right. Evolution is how the world works. Nothing can be done about it. It is often quite bloody. I have heard a scientist call it “bloody natural selection”. That’s called reality.

You also talked about Genesis. I assume you understand Genesis was written long before anyone knew anything about science. Genesis is a nice story, but that’s all it is, just a story. Nothing in Genesis should be taken seriously.
 
To Bob,

Firstly, I would have to disagree wholeheartidly with your assesment of Genesis. Certainly you can’t believe there is absolutely nothing to be taken seriously in Genesis? Indeed, I believe everything in Genesis is of supreme relevance, but I digress.

My hang up with evolution is that it just doesn’t seem to jive with the view of life as sacred that we find in our faith (indeed the love of life that comes from the Creator). It would seem that nature as God created her should reflect (like all creation) her Creator. Why would God create a nature that requires death to create life? Why would nature require (or in a matter of speaking, at least ‘want’) ugly and dumb (or even slightly mentally handicapped) people to die (or at least not reproduce) while God calls for all people to be fruitful and multiply. It just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
 
Why would God create a nature that requires death to create life?
Click to expand...
That’s what happens in nature. You, for example, cannot live unless something else dies. Why God made it that way, is His secret.
Why would nature require (or in a matter of speaking, at least ‘want’) ugly and dumb (or even slightly mentally handicapped) people to die (or at least not reproduce) while God calls for all people to be fruitful and multiply.
Click to expand...
And yet, we look at the world, and that is what happens.
It just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Click to expand...
For that, you’ll have to speak to the Management.
 
I don’t understand what you guys call the necessity for death in order to have life. Where is this in Genesis?

There is only the case for Jesus. Jesus died in order to give us life.
The reason he had to die is because we were dead. So he had to enter the death realm in order to get those who were there out.

God bless

Alain
 
When looked at from a strictly biological material point of view, evolution makes reasonable account for everything, but the discontinuity. What discontinuity one might ask? Suddenly you have an animal that can “decide” how to behave. An animal that can reflect on its own existence. When the hormones rage an animal that is not driven to mate, but which can decide to mate or not. An animal that can trace the history of its ancestors back for generations. Ain’t no other animal out there that does these things. Something happened at some point as homo developed in parallel with other biped species.

A good book that discusses the Dawkins, et.al. material is Dinesh D"Souza’s book “What’s So Great About Christianity” less than 30 bucks at Amazon or your local bookstore. Dawkins et.al. have done no more than rehash arguments and opinions that go back several generations if not further. In short it is reheated slop.🙂
 
If you read the lengthy Church document titled “Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” there are several key points. While Pope John Paul II did say that evolution was more than a hypothesis, it was made clear that there are theories of evolution, but even neo-Darwinian evolution that denies to God a truly causal role in the creation of life in the universe is not acceptable to the Church.

The same document tells Catholics that without divine providence to guide it, nothing like evolution could have occurred. This is where people like Dawkins attribute life to chance and necessity, an idea Pope John Paul II rejected because it does not ground the dignity of man. The dignity given to him by God who made him.

Death, including physical death, entered the world after our first parents sinned. Those who look at Genesis and interpret it as if God was not actually there, are missing out on the fact that God, as God, can do as He will. "And the morning and the evening was the second (third, fourth, etc.) day. They don’t give to God the ability to step outside of the “natural” and perform miracles such as the miracles Jesus, as God, performed.

God bless,
Ed
 
God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished no matter what may have or not have been happening in the universe at the time.

It is Catholic Dogma that Adam and Eve possessed preternatural gifts.

This harmonizes very well.
 
buffalo said:
God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished no matter what may have or not have been happening in the universe at the time.

It is Catholic Dogma that Adam and Eve possessed preternatural gifts.

This harmonizes very well.
Click to expand...
Buffalo
That sits very nicely and a very natural (theistic) explanation. I’d always struggled to discern at what point Adam and Eve came into existence thru the evolutionary branch. Evolution has too much evidence to support it and creationism forces us to ignore all this evidence.
Gerry
 
Walty said:
To Bob,

Firstly, I would have to disagree wholeheartidly with your assesment of Genesis. Certainly you can’t believe there is absolutely nothing to be taken seriously in Genesis? Indeed, I believe everything in Genesis is of supreme relevance, but I digress.

My hang up with evolution is that it just doesn’t seem to jive with the view of life as sacred that we find in our faith (indeed the love of life that comes from the Creator). It would seem that nature as God created her should reflect (like all creation) her Creator. Why would God create a nature that requires death to create life? Why would nature require (or in a matter of speaking, at least ‘want’) ugly and dumb (or even slightly mentally handicapped) people to die (or at least not reproduce) while God calls for all people to be fruitful and multiply. It just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Click to expand...
Genesis has a great deal of relevancy as you say, as regards the spiritual truths conveyed, namely that God is the center and source of all creation. It however is not to be read literally as factually how things happened. It is one of two stories of creation in Genesis, and this is clear from reading JPII’s Theology of the Body.

The Church accepts the basic premise of evolution. The evidentiary facts are overwhelming at this point. Recent advances in genetic DNA analysis quite simply proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. I’m not sure wherein you see this split between life and death. I’m sorry but I’m not understanding you on that point.
 
Walty said:
To Bob,

Firstly, I would have to disagree wholeheartidly with your assesment of Genesis. Certainly you can’t believe there is absolutely nothing to be taken seriously in Genesis? Indeed, I believe everything in Genesis is of supreme relevance, but I digress.

My hang up with evolution is that it just doesn’t seem to jive with the view of life as sacred that we find in our faith (indeed the love of life that comes from the Creator). It would seem that nature as God created her should reflect (like all creation) her Creator. Why would God create a nature that requires death to create life? Why would nature require (or in a matter of speaking, at least ‘want’) ugly and dumb (or even slightly mentally handicapped) people to die (or at least not reproduce) while God calls for all people to be fruitful and multiply. It just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with requiring death to create life? You already believe that death is required for life: it is a parallel to Christ Himself!
 
Orogeny said:
The death that entered the world was spiritual death. When we sin, we separate ourselves from God, and God is life.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
But the Church teaches that Adam & Eve had been given the gift of immortality prior to their sin and that both spiritual and physical death arrived on the scene after committing it.
 
fhansen said:
But the Church teaches that Adam & Eve had been given the gift of immortality prior to their sin and that both spiritual and physical death arrived on the scene after committing it.
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve would have been the first humans. Special things were in store for them once the soul was mated with the body. Prior to that, the immortal soul wasn’t present and, therefore, no human was present. Death for non-humans doesn’t contradict that teaching.

Peace

Tim
 
Adam and Eve were endowed by God with supernatural life in the form of sanctifying grace (de fide) and with certain other preternatural gifts, namely bodily immortality (de fide), perfect control of nature by reason or freedom from irregular desire, i.e., concupiscence (sententia fidei proxima), freedom from suffering (sententia communis) and a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God (sententia communis); and Adam and Eve received these gifts not only for themselves but for their posterity (sententia communis).

The first sins of Adam and Eve affected the whole of creation. This is why Darwinism and Catholic teaching are not reconciled on this point.

I’ll just quote from an ardent Catholic-Darwinist who posted this here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2881105&postcount=2
From PhilVaz: After 3+ years of discussing this subject in here, I still don’t have good answers to the theological objections. I simply affirm macroevolution, affirm traditional Catholic dogma, and say I don’t know how to completely reconcile.
Click to expand...
 
Orogeny said:
Adam and Eve would have been the first humans. Special things were in store for them once the soul was mated with the body. Prior to that, the immortal soul wasn’t present and, therefore, no human was present. Death for non-humans doesn’t contradict that teaching.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be polygenism? If there were other beings identical to humans except they had an animal soul instead of a human soul?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Wouldn’t that be polygenism? If there were other beings identical to humans except they had an animal soul instead of a human soul?
Click to expand...
Those beings who were identical to Adam and Eve (minus the human soul) would have had suffering and death before Original Sin was committed also.

There are other problems with Adam & Eve’s intelligence (unevolved) and language capability (they named all the animals).

The only way I can see them being the first humans, living with those preternatural gifts (immortality, freedom from sin, suffering and death) is if they were a special creation ex nihilo (and not born from animal parents).

But this contradicts Darwinian theory.
 
Hello all,
I have been reading through the posts and have been surprised at how much faith people put in science ( here it is biology). Although there is much evidence to support the theory of evolution, there are also many flaws. Evolution in terms of adaptation, is very clear, as we can see through our own lives. However, evolution between species is another story. To believe in evolution without God causes many problems.
For example, evolution requires natural selection to be valid. However, take a single cell organism. Some have a tail like feature called a flagellum. This tail alone has over twenty mechanisms making it work. In order for this to occur, all 27 parts would have had to evolved at the exact same time, or else, the tail would not function, and thus the cell could not move and would die, contradicting natural selection.
This is just one example. Remember that science functions on set paradigms. Physics used the Newtonian paradigm until Einstein changed everything. All other theories try to fit that paradigm. However, if there is evidence countering the paradigm, it is simply ignored or deemed to be an error.
Besides, evolution is a new theory that is still being developed. To put full faith in it would be foolish. We once thought the world was flat. We thought that the world only functioned on Newtonian mechanics. It was once deemed shameful to think that light was a wave, since Newtone thought it was a particle. If anyone went against this in the scientific community, they would likely have a bit of a struggle. Science trys to explain how the world works, but it doesn’t mean it is perfect.
Code: 
In fact not even fifty years ago, scientists thought that brain size was dependent on race. That is, some races had bigger brains then others. It has obviously been disproved, yet to this day, some professors still teach it in University!
The moral is be careful what you put your faith in. God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top