Evolution and Original Sin

[Jordan_Francis]

• This question is for those Christians only who accept evolution as a scientific fact*

While it seems clear to me that evolution is an established scientific fact, I am currently struggling with how to figure this into the doctrine of Original Sin and its link with death. Evolution has the consequence of mythologizing the story of Adam and Eve, so that we can not really say that sin entered the world through two primal parents alike either you or I. I understand “Adam” to mean the nature that is common to us all, the principle of our ontological unity, injured or wounded at the dawn history.

But death, it must be maintained, has always been part of creation even before human beings had the freedom to sin. Does this not challenge St. Paul when he says that “sin came to all through one man and death through sin” ?

Is death, then, really the consequence of sin?

Because I accept both the dogmas of the Church and evolution, in accordance with what Pope Pius said in Humanis Generis that “whatever new truth is discovered can not possibly contradict the truth received, as God is the author of truth” (paraphrase), I am interested in the creative ways that other posters here have tried to resolve this obvious dilemma. Do we have to simply wait and take on faith that evolution changes nothing essential? Does it reshape and alter fundamental questions and answers?

Thanks.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is death, then, really the consequence of sin?

Well, spiritual death, at least. That is why some sins are called “mortal” (ie, resulting in death - see 1Jn 5:16). Such sins “kill” our souls and separate us from God. Fortunately, our souls can be resurrected through contrition and Confession.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

But St. Paul, I think, clearly meant physical death was the result of sin- and this has an important bearing on our traditional understanding of Christ’s physical death and resurrection in the flesh.

If sin is only linked to spiritual death, does this open the way for a spiritual resurrection?

 

[DavidFilmer]

But St. Paul, I think, clearly meant physical death was the result of sin

Well, you didn’t cite your verse, so maybe I’m thinking of a different verse than you are. Because, for the verse I’m thinking about, I don’t think that it could even remotely be “clearly” interpreted as meaning physical death.

I was thinking of this verse:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 6:23 (NIV)
​

If this verse supposes that the wages of sin is *physical *death, then it must also be supposed that the obverse is eternal (physical) life. I don’t know of anybody (except maybe some Jehovah’s Witnesses) who view this verse in this way. Clearly nobody has “lived forever” (in this physical life), not even the Apostles themselves.

If sin is only linked to spiritual death, does this open the way for a spiritual resurrection?

Um, yes, of course. That’s what Confession is all about.

 

[Rogerteder]

These people accept science over the faith. Over the clear words of scripture, and clear words of Pius XII. One person even said “I accept spiritual monogenism,” “and and physical polygenism.” Where is his faith? “WHOEVER HEARS YOU HEARS ME.” “WHOEVER REJECTS YOU REJECTS ME.” “WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH IS BOUND IN HEAVEN.”