Evolution and Original Sin

[Doug50]

Your view of science is strange. Regardless of the examples I’ve given, it seems you believe that “science” is walled off from the totality of existence. Peace,
Ed

Ed, are you a scientist?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your view of science is strange.

It seems strange to you, because you don’t understand how science works.

Regardless of the examples I’ve given, it seems you believe that “science” is walled off from the totality of existence.

No, you still don’t get it. Science is a very limited method. It works great for understanding the physical universe, but that’s it. Beyond that, it can’t do anything. You might as well try to use your telephone to drive to the store.

The Church has recognized that science has certain limits but, and this is the important part, it provides the other forms of reason that we still need, according to Pope Benedict.

So why won’t you accept this? Science can’t deal with the supernatural. It only works for nature.

You appear to not be very interested in those other forms of reason which provide factual information.

As I said, those other forms work fine for me. I’m wondering why they don’t for you, to the point that you hope science will do it for you.

A scientist, today, can examine the tilma or cloak with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadelupe. What would he say?

Whatever the physical evidence showed. What he couldn’t say, was if there was truly a miracle there, so long as he confined himself to scientific methods. Of course, scientists aren’t limited to scientific methods, so he could make use of reason in other ways to know if it was a miracle or not.

Give me a break.

The truth is what it is. I’m not unsympathetic, ed, but you don’t get it.

 

[edwest2]

To answer the original topic. Original sin is the fault of our first parents, Adam and Eve. This Original Sin necessitated the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A dramatic example of God directly intervening in His Creation on a physical/personal level and a spiritual/personal level.

Evolution cannot explain either Adam and Eve or Jesus Christ. In both cases, God acted directly. The correct answer involves the power of God and the manipulation by God of physical matter. Evolution alone is not capable, and evolution alone (without divine providence) is against Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution cannot explain either Adam and Eve or Jesus Christ.

It’s not supposed to, ed.

In both cases, God acted directly.

Jesus is God, Ed. But the Church does not say how God made Adam and Eve; if you want to believe directly, you may. If you want to accept that they were the product of evolution, you may, so long as you remember that nature is God’s tool in this world.

 

[edwest2]

"nature’ has no active component. Not as it relates to evolution.

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

“Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that,” Benedict said in the book…"

“Just what is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It does not exist at all!” the Pope said.

I agree 100%. "Nature’ does not do anything by itself. God is the rational mind behind the Intelligent Project (no allusions to political Intelligent Design intended).

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

"nature’ has no active component. Not as it relates to evolution.

Nevertheless, it works. It’s like saying that a hammer is not an active component. It still drives nails.

Nature is just God’s tool in this world. And because it is the nature of God to be consistent, evolution proceeds in a predictable and regular way.

 

[tonyl]

Nevertheless, it works. It’s like saying that a hammer is not an active component. It still drives nails.

Nature is just God’s tool in this world. And because it is the nature of God to be consistent, evolution proceeds in a predictable and regular way.

To add to that, here is a quote by the Pope found on pages 165-166 of the book Ed’s article was quoting that compliments your statement rather nicely. (Note that this book is the compiled proceedings from the 2006 Schulerkreis with Pope Benedict)

“These are the great perennial questions of philosophy, which confront us in a new way: the questions of where man and the world come from and where they are going. Apropos of this, I recently became aware of two things that the three following lectures also made clear: There is, in the first place, a rationality of matter itself. One can read it. It has mathematical properties; matter itself is rational, even though there is much that is irrational, chaotic, and destructive on the long path of evolution. But matter per se is legible. Secondly, it seems to me that the process, too, as a whole, has a rationality about it. Despite its false starts and meanderings through the narrow corridor, the process as such is something rational in its selection of the few positive mutations and in its exploitation of the minute probabilities. This twofold rationality, which in turn proves to correspond to our human reason, unavoidably leads to a question that goes beyond science yet is a reasonable question: Where does this rationality originate? Is there an originating rationality that is reflected in these two zones and dimensions of rationality? Science cannot and must not answer this question directly, but we should acknowledge that the question is a reasonable one and dare to believe in the creative Reason and to entrust ourselves to It.” (bolding mine)

This book just arrived in the mail today and I jumped ahead to read this section of the book after I read the article Ed linked to, so that I could get some context on the quote. (this section is the discussion amongst the participants and the Pope and is pretty interesting.)

 

[Camron]

It looks like I’m going to have read Cardinal Schoenborn’s book for myself to see exactly what was being said. I’m currently reading God, Chance, and Purpose by Bartholomew. When I’m done with this I will seek out Cardinal Schoenborn’s book.

For the record, much of the argument appears to be over semantic usages of language. But I’ll reserve my judgment for now until I read further.