Evolution and Original Sin

[Camron]

No. If you mean mere intent, then you have not limited God. If you mean planning, then you say that God is not omnipotent.

That’s not necessarily true. God could still be omnipotent in how His plans work out. If you meant omniscient then I would agree. If one is omniscient then they need not plan for anything. It’s already been determined (and perhaps even already completed from God’s eternal perspective) well before we chose to do what God already knew we would do.

Argh…this is getting loopy again…funky reverb coming in…echo of an echo… echo of an echo… echo of an echo…

Until you accept that nature is merely God acting in this world, you will not understand.

I would again caution with this. The way you’ve phrased this sounds very much like you are saying that nature is God, a semi-pantheistic view which I’m fairly sure you’re not meaning to imply. Nature is the manifestation of God’s creative actions filtering throughout His creation, whether by evolution of what have you. But nature is not God Himself acting in this world.

Nature is still nature and God is still God. And the two are only joined in Christ Jesus, True God and true man.

It would be like ripples running along the surface of a pond when someone steps into the water. The ripples are not actually the person stepping into the pond (just as God’s creation is not actually God). But the ripples definitely are dependent on the person stepping into the water and directly caused by them (just as God’s creation is definitely dependent on God Himself stepping into His creation and directly caused by His presence).

God does not merely direct nature; nature exists only by the action of God.

True. And I agree 100% with this.

 

[Camron]

Perhaps we need to clarify the Catholic understanding of omnipotent. What is your understanding?

I think this is indeed a source of many problems with these discussions. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone from any side of this debate has any easy answers, partly because we need to be omnipotent in order to know what omnipotence really entails.

Does omnipotence mean that one can do the logically impossible?

It seems to me that the Catholic position on this question is no.

But if God can only do what is logically possible we would also need to know everything that is logically possible too.

We don’t have all that information, although the Church has definitely provided some strong guidelines revealed by God Himself.

 

[Nickkname]

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.

Only man was given the gift of immortality. Animals aren’t immortal. It’s simple.

 

[buffalo]

I think this is indeed a source of many problems with these discussions. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone from any side of this debate has any easy answers, partly because we need to be omnipotent in order to know what omnipotence really entails.

Does omnipotence mean that one can do the logically impossible?

It seems to me that the Catholic position on this question is no.

But if God can only do what is logically possible we would also need to know everything that is logically possible too.

We don’t have all that information, although the Church has definitely provided some strong guidelines revealed by God Himself.

Actually the term is “almighty” meaning God can do what He sets out to do.

 

[Camron]

Actually the term is “almighty” meaning God can do what He sets out to do.

Then what did God set out to do?

And does ‘almighty’ define the exact method by which God accomplishes these things which He sets out to do?

 

[Camron]

Only man was given the gift of immortality. Animals aren’t immortal. It’s simple.

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

2 Kings 2:11​

I’ve always been curious about the horses which carried Elijah into the heavens to be honest. It seems to be poetic language, a popular saying at the time used by the Israelites to express a majestic concept. And I know that, technically speaking, it doesn’t say that the horses went to heaven (it only says that they separated Elijah and Elisha). But I’m still curious to know if there were literal heavenly horses accompanying him.

I know this is off topic, but I thought I would briefly note this.

 

[buffalo]

Then what did God set out to do?

And does ‘almighty’ define the exact method by which God accomplishes these things which He sets out to do?

We are told He set out to create the universe and man in His own image. When you set out to do something you could:

Keep rolling the dice to get an outcome
Keep rolling the dice and accept an outcome
Limit the outcomes by modifying the dice and accept one of them
Create the dice so that the outcome is the one you want

Almighty does not define the method.

 

[Camron]

We are told He set out to create the universe and man in His own image. When you set out to do something you could:

Keep rolling the dice to get an outcome
Keep rolling the dice and accept an outcome
Limit the outcomes by modifying the dice and accept one of them
Create the dice so that the outcome is the one you want

Almighty does not define the method.

In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Proverbs 16:9​

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Proverbs 16:33​

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

Ecclesiastes 9:11​

I’m guessing that all these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and He gives them to each one of us, just as He determines. This doesn’t’ mean that everything is reducible to chance. It means that God is the provider of the chance. Without God there is no chance.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

God probably followed “wait and see” just like parents who refuse to genetically engineer their child to certain specifications for hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, etc, but who wait patiently to see what comes out. That’s what we did, and we’ve thrilled with our children.

You’re suggesting that God’s knowledge is limited and He didn’t know what would happen right from the start? :whacky: What a bizarre notion of God, especially from a theologian!

 

[edwest2]

God infallibly arranged the chances and infallibly brought them in a certain direction according to His will. See Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.

Science cannot be the whole answer. It falls to the Church to add the complementary and completing facts. God is the rational mind behind Creation. Chance and necessity alone are insufficient. As clearly stated in Human Persons, a completely random and unguided process cannot exist. Only the atheist wishes to believe that no mind exists to guide Creation into being. This is clearly not what the Church teaches. It is just as much a fact as any scientific fact.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

God infallibly arranged the chances and infallibly brought them in a certain direction according to His will.

Hi Ed,
I see you finally came around to accept theistic evolution!

 

[masterjedi747]

God infallibly arranged the chances and infallibly brought them in a certain direction according to His will.

Science cannot be the whole answer. It falls to the Church to add the complementary and completing facts. God is the rational mind behind Creation. Chance and necessity alone are insufficient. As clearly stated in Human Persons, a completely random and unguided process cannot exist. Only the atheist wishes to believe that no mind exists to guide Creation into being. This is clearly not what the Church teaches.

THAT I will absolutely agree with you on.

I have minor quibbles over the “chance and necessity alone are insufficient” part… mostly because I cannot wrap my mind around what chance means (I’m not sure that it can mean anything) if considered as something apart from Divine Providence, unless it collapses back into a “something coming from nothing” sort of explanation (which I think is absurd)… but at any rate, I see the more universal idea behind what you’re saying, and I absolutely agree.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,
I see you finally came around to accept theistic evolution!

Nope. I have accepted Church teaching about God’s role but evolutionary theory as written, I’ve got lots of doubts. First, computers don’t program themselves. Cells, and their DNA, did not program themselves either. I know someone who writes programs and he tells me about having to hunt through hundreds of lines of code if a computer program doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. A bad line of code has to be found, corrected by the programmer, and then the program does what it’s supposed to do.

Now let’s drop a random mutation into DNA. I’m not convinced evolution makes sense as currently written in the science texts. I think it is a bigger article of belief to say some random change produces a functional change in an organism. Going back to the computer, adding additional code without knowing ahead of time what it’s for is shooting in the dark. The program will do something but will it be useful? No. The programmer decides what the program will do before he writes the first line of code.

Evolution, as written, makes little sense to me.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

THAT I will absolutely agree with you on.

I have minor quibbles over the “chance and necessity alone are insufficient” part… mostly because I cannot wrap my mind around what chance means (I’m not sure that it can mean anything) if considered as something apart from Divine Providence, unless it collapses back into a “something coming from nothing” sort of explanation (which I think is absurd)… but at any rate, I see the more universal idea behind what you’re saying, and I absolutely agree.

In evolutionary theory, random mutation equals chance, which, supposedly, a totally unconcerned “nature” selects. Random mutation + natural selection = human beings. I don’t think that works.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Nope. I have accepted Church teaching about God’s role but evolutionary theory as written, I’ve got lots of doubts. First, computers don’t program themselves. Cells, and their DNA, did not program themselves either. I know someone who writes programs and he tells me about having to hunt through hundreds of lines of code if a computer program doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. A bad line of code has to be found, corrected by the programmer, and then the program does what it’s supposed to do.

Now let’s drop a random mutation into DNA. I’m not convinced evolution makes sense as currently written in the science texts. I think it is a bigger article of belief to say some random change produces a functional change in an organism. Going back to the computer, adding additional code without knowing ahead of time what it’s for is shooting in the dark. The program will do something but will it be useful? No. The programmer decides what the program will do before he writes the first line of code.

Evolution, as written, makes little sense to me.

God bless,
Ed

What do you guys think of this?

The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[Doug50]

No. If you mean mere intent, then you have not limited God. If you mean planning, then you say that God is not omnipotent.

Until you accept that nature is merely God acting in this world, you will not understand.

God does not merely direct nature; nature exists only by the action of God.

Exactly,

BTW, Barbarian, check your inbox. I sent you a private message.

 

[Doug50]

clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VOFTalks.html

real20.audiovideoweb.com/ramgen/avwebbb1013/Vaticanone.rm

real20.audiovideoweb.com/ramgen/avwebbb1013/Vaticantwo.rm

 

[Camron]

In evolutionary theory, random mutation equals chance, which, supposedly, a totally unconcerned “nature” selects. Random mutation + natural selection = human beings. I don’t think that works.

God bless,
Ed

Without God there is no chance. But with God all things are possible, including random mutation + natural selection = human beings (cf., evolution).

In addition to this, strictly speaking, I don’t think that anyone who holds to any form of theistic evolutionary view says that God was totally uninvolved with His creation. At some point He had to have stepped in. We wouldn’t be here if Had not done so.

And it is, in my opinion, most likely certain that God has stepped in more often than just the initial point of creation. In fact, revelation, on a spiritual level, demands that we assent to God being active on both a spiritual and physical level in Christ Jesus. God does indeed sustain His creation, either actively or passively, probably both at the same time in certain instances and on many different levels that we cannot even perceive fully.

Regarding evolution, I personally don’t have any problem with this. I just don’t see any direct scientific evidence available to make this claim (and I also don’t see this lack of scientific evidence as any justification to claim that God did not actually do it either).

God, as pure Spirit, is ultimately working from the pinnacle definition, the vanishing point if you will, of action at a distance – something which the secular scientific community absolutely abhors precisely because they absolutely cannot directly measure the infinite source of where this action at a distance originally comes from.

The only forms of theistic evolution which I think the Church does indeed condemn are those that are pantheistic (which actually dares to claim that nature is God) and those that profess toward some form of process theology (which actually dares to claim that Himself didn’t actually know what would happen in the future).

Beyond that, I’m not aware of any other specific dangers involved in theistic evolutionary claims.

 

[reggieM]

The only forms of theistic evolution which I think the Church does indeed condemn are those that are pantheistic (which actually dares to claim that nature is God) and those that profess toward some form of process theology (which actually dares to claim that Himself didn’t actually know what would happen in the future).

Beyond that, I’m not aware of any other specific dangers involved in theistic evolutionary claims.

I think one other kind of theistic evolution which is condemned is that which is based on classic “theism”.

Actually, this may the most common form of theistic evolution – it’s that of Kenneth Miller and some of the Catholics on these CAF evolutionary threads.

I think that kind of theistic evolution is indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. In fact, its defenders will say just that – that evolution does not need to include God, no more than mathematics or chemistry does.

So, in that belief system, God has no discernable effect on the processes in nature. God is remote from nature. Again, it’s identical to the atheistic view except to say that God “started” things. Atheists merely argue that things started in some other manner other than God’s creative will. In either case, the results of evolution or observations of nature do not show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything.

As I see it, that’s the worst danger with theistic evolution (at least that particular brand of it).

I think any believer must accept intelligent design theory at least to some extent.

 

[edwest2]

As Catholics, we do not rely on science alone. Facts do not come from science alone.

When the Pope gives his blessing in the name of God, is this just the excersize of some meaningless ritual? Is there no actual being from which this blessing comes?

Is the physical appearance of the Son of God a fiction?

Ask yourself, if you are Catholic, is this a fantasy I follow or the eyewitness truth passed down through the generations and in combination with real miracles and appearances of the Blessed Virgin?

Just saying “science” can’t measure something is not the limit of human reason. Real divine revelation is held by the Church. It is factual knowledge. Just like Original Sin is factual knowledge.

God bless,
Ed