Evolution, Original Sin, and Death

[Saint_Sinner]

Speaking of spiritual vs. material death…isn’t there a hebrewism in the original Genesis account.

I remember someone saying that when God says you will die if you eat of the tree of knowledge he said something like “die, die” rather than just “die”. I was further led to believe that in hebrew this meant more than just physical death. Don’t some translations (?DR) have this as “die the death”? It would be interesting to see some older jewish commentary on the passage to know what their interpritation was…Just a thought.

What do yo think (did this make any sense?)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If evolution is true, then logically ( in my opinion ) those creatures who came before Adam and Eve did not have a soul, thus “man” did not die before the fall. And, men have been making bad mother-in-law jokes ever since – because Adam’s mother-in-law had no soul.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Where is PhilVaz when we need him?

 

[Donald45]

…Imbedded in the word is both scientific and theological truth. How could it be any other way?

Could you provide an example of a “scientific” truth from Scripture?

Here’s the problem: The texts of the Bible are ancient documents written by ancient people for a primarily ancient readership. They assume and express an ancient worldview based upon ancient beliefs and ancient written and oral sources. Given that “science,” properly speaking, did not develop until the 18th century or so (some sixteen hundred years after the last biblical document was composed), to speak of “scientific truths” in Scripture amounts to a glaring historical anachronism.

Faith may “fill the gaps” in our finite understanding of reality, but these ‘divine injections’ cannot be termed “science.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[buffalo]

Could you provide an example of a “scientific” truth from Scripture?

Here’s the problem: The texts of the Bible are ancient documents written by ancient people for a primarily ancient readership. They assume and express an ancient worldview based upon ancient beliefs and ancient written and oral sources. Given that “science,” properly speaking, did not develop until the 18th century or so (some sixteen hundred years after the last biblical document was composed), to speak of “scientific truths” in Scripture amounts to a glaring historical anachronism.

Faith may “fill the gaps” in our finite understanding of reality, but these ‘divine injections’ cannot be termed “science.”

Truly,

Don
+T+

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

God’s word applies to all ages. Since the author’s are all inspired, early words cannot be contradictory to modern views. God cannot deceive or be deceived. There must be a reconciliation. This is what we must search for. Simply excluding passages will not work and is not good scholarship.

I do not agree. God is the creator of all things, including those things scientific. Faith and reason cannot contradict. I don;t think I said that faith is science. Divine interjections are supernatural and science can say nothing about them.

 

[ribozyme]

Wow, you’re very intelligent. My compliments - and I mean that seriously.

Certainly at a glance, evolution seems progressive in many ways even to the untrained eye. After all, life started as simple cellular life and became increasingly complex over time despite (and in fact, because of) various environmental setbacks. I personally don’t believe in a state of perfection myself - rather, I believe in the infinite, while I lean heavily towards theistic and Catholic. So for me, it’s inspiring that the process of evolution seems ever ascendant. To which I have to ask - ascendant towards what? Well, apparently SOMEthing, with all of this complexity - complexity which eventually endowed us with consciousness, and an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, humanity now is capable of taking over tasks that evolution as we know it once was relied upon - and even atheists like Dawkins and Dennett have to come up for new, human-specific methods by which we ‘evolve’ thanks to that (Meme theory comes to mind.)

On the other hand, I recognize you can argue against this; You’ve already given some examples of ‘perfection’ in evolution (HIV - but really, can’t HIV get better?) Still, you can always shift your perspective to what I and other theistically inclined types are saying - you may not agree, but I’d hope you could at least admit to the validity of it in some way.

I regard evolution as a cyclic process of mutation, amplification, and selection. I hope one does not get the wrong idea of evolution by watching Pokemon as people evolve to more powerful creatures as they are exposed to certain stones and gain experience in battle. This conveys the idea of progress. Most evolutionary “progress” is the result of adaptation.

No, I wasn’t arguing that HIV is a perfect virus, but I was arguing that it has adapted well to its niche: infecting human (I do not know about its infectivity in other animals) T-cells. It does this by being able interact with the CD4 protein on helper T cells. This allows it to subvert the immune response.

My point is that evolution generates organisms detrimental to the human condition.

 

[buffalo]

I regard evolution as a cyclic process of mutation, amplification, and selection. I hope one does not get the wrong idea of evolution by watching Pokemon as people evolve to more powerful creatures as they are exposed to certain stones and gain experience in battle. This conveys the idea of progress. Most evolutionary “progress” is the result of adaptation.

No, I wasn’t arguing that HIV is a perfect virus, but I was arguing that it has adapted well to its niche: infecting human (I do not know about its infectivity in other animals) T-cells. It does this by being able interact with the CD4 protein on helper T cells. This allows it to subvert the immune response.

My point is that evolution generates organisms detrimental to the human condition.

and since no new information is added to a mutation it is also can be destructive to humans.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

science in scripture?

Genesis 7

7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

1. if you don’t move to higher ground you drown.
2. it takes male and female animals to mate.
3. water cycle, rain.

 

[Nullasalus]

I regard evolution as a cyclic process of mutation, amplification, and selection. I hope one does not get the wrong idea of evolution by watching Pokemon as people evolve to more powerful creatures as they are exposed to certain stones and gain experience in battle. This conveys the idea of progress. Most evolutionary “progress” is the result of adaptation.

No, I wasn’t arguing that HIV is a perfect virus, but I was arguing that it has adapted well to its niche: infecting human (I do not know about its infectivity in other animals) T-cells. It does this by being able interact with the CD4 protein on helper T cells. This allows it to subvert the immune response.

My point is that evolution generates organisms detrimental to the human condition.

And your point is taken - I think most people who understand the basics of evolution (certainly people who have heard of microevolution) understand that there is and was more to the process than ‘humans evolved from lesser (You would say previous?) life’. Viruses evolve, vermin evolve, grass evolves. Life - and anything that you can call ‘alive’ - evolves.

However, the fact that evolution comes as a result of adaptation in a world where detrimental organisms are also evolving doesn’t do away with a strong argument for progress and even benevolence to a certain point. Evolution points out that mankind has attained our current state of consciousness (The ability to reason, to understand right and wrong, good and evil, as well as the capability to - in a very limited way - know God) as a result of environment and adaptation. But ‘detrimental organisms’ were part of the environment that led to our evolution and progress - though I oversimplify, since it seems like we’re still trying to figure out just what conditions led to humanity being what it is.

I’d ask you another question - when it comes to HIV, has our study of it led to any insights and innovation that can be applied not only to HIV itself, but to other areas as well? And if so, doesn’t that blur what counts as a ‘detrimental organism to humans’ even while acknowledging the obvious evil and suffering such a virus has caused us?

One unique gift that has been granted to mankind is our ability to ultimately turn just about anything malignant into a boon. I’m sure there was a point where the wolf seemed like nothing more than a ‘detrimental organism’ - then it became a hunting dog, a companion, and filled other niches. The radioactive rock that killed Marie Curie now is relied on as a source of power. Deserts that are almost completely inhospitable to human life happen to make for fantastic solar power resources.

I could go on. But I understand perspectives can go a few ways on this - not everyone will agree. On the one hand, you can argue (rightly) that all of these ‘advantages of the hostile’ are specific to humanity due to our mental traits, and that only humans are doing anything that can really be considered ‘progressing’ - but then I’d have to ask what makes humanity so special. On the other, you can point out that advantageous or no, this still spells out to a lot of suffering and death for humanity - which again, I would agree to. But I’d also argue that it strongly hints at how the promises of a human existence restored to the Christian God’s vision is also possible in a very real sense.

 

[ribozyme]

and since no new information is added to a mutation it is also can be destructive to humans.

Huh?

What is information? Gene duplication is one way to generate new “information” as if two copies of a gene are expressed, one is free to mutate without any selection pressure. Usually, if this happens, the gene would be rendered non-functional. But, sometimes this gene might mutate into a form with a slightly different function.

Another way is exon shuffling where the exons from one part of a chromosome migrate to another part, allowing the expression of hybrid proteins. This could generate proteins with novel functions.

Usually, Darwinian evolution works by preserving a function (occasionally novelity arises) that has been fine-tuned over millions of years of selection. If a critical function has been lost, organisms with this phenotype would be culled out by natural selection.

 

[Donald45]

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light… God is the creator of all things, including those things scientific. Faith and reason cannot contradict…

“Let there be light” is in no way a “scientific” statement. It is something we know by divine revelation, not by scientific investigation. Science is not merely a body of knowledge, but is a methodology, a process of investigating the material world by means of empirical observation, inference from physical objects and phenomena, and extrapolation based on such data. The idea that “God said ‘Let there be light’” is a divinely revealed theological concept, not a scientific one.

Yes, God is the Creator of the things we discover through scientific investigation. But this does not thereby make statements about the Creator’s transcendent activities somehow “scientific.” And, true, faith and reason cannot contradict one another, but neither should they be blended or confused. Faith is not science, nor science faith.

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[buffalo]

“Let there be light” is in no way a “scientific” statement. It is something we know by divine revelation, not by scientific investigation. Science is not merely a body of knowledge, but is a methodology, a process of investigating the material world by means of empirical observation, inference from physical objects and phenomena, and extrapolation based on such data. The idea that “God said ‘Let there be light’” is a divinely revealed theological concept, not a scientific one.

Yes, God is the Creator of the things we discover through scientific investigation. But this does not thereby make statements about the Creator’s transcendent activities somehow “scientific.” And, true, faith and reason cannot contradict one another, but neither should they be blended or confused. Faith is not science, nor science faith.

Truly,

Don
+T+

Let’s go back in time. Divine revealed or not - the fact is there is light and the majority we see is from the sun. To the ancients this was observable. And every day it is testable. Simple? Perhaps, but all science does not have to be complicated.

 

[Donald45]

science in scripture?

Genesis 7

7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

1. if you don’t move to higher ground you drown.
2. it takes male and female animals to mate.
3. water cycle, rain.

See my post #31 above. My comments there apply equally to your statements.

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

Let’s go back in time. Divine revealed or not - the fact is there is light and the majority we see is from the sun. To the ancients this was observable. And every day it is testable. Simple? Perhaps, but all science does not have to be complicated.

The fact that there is light is a scientific conclusion. That “God said, ‘Let there be light’” is a theological conviction. Simple.

Don
+T+

 

[ribozyme]

And your point is taken - I think most people who understand the basics of evolution (certainly people who have heard of microevolution) understand that there is and was more to the process than ‘humans evolved from lesser (You would say previous?) life’. Viruses evolve, vermin evolve, grass evolves. Life - and anything that you can call ‘alive’ - evolves.

…

I’d ask you another question - when it comes to HIV, has our study of it led to any insights and innovation that can be applied not only to HIV itself, but to other areas as well? And if so, doesn’t that blur what counts as a ‘detrimental organism to humans’ even while acknowledging the obvious evil and suffering such a virus has caused us?

One unique gift that has been granted to mankind is our ability to ultimately turn just about anything malignant into a boon. I’m sure there was a point where the wolf seemed like nothing more than a ‘detrimental organism’ - then it became a hunting dog, a companion, and filled other niches. The radioactive rock that killed Marie Curie now is relied on as a source of power. Deserts that are almost completely inhospitable to human life happen to make for fantastic solar power resources.

I could go on. But I understand perspectives can go a few ways on this - not everyone will agree. On the one hand, you can argue (rightly) that all of these ‘advantages of the hostile’ are specific to humanity due to our mental traits, and that only humans are doing anything that can really be considered ‘progressing’ - but then I’d have to ask what makes humanity so special. On the other, you can point out that advantageous or no, this still spells out to a lot of suffering and death for humanity - which again, I would agree to. But I’d also argue that it strongly hints at how the promises of a human existence restored to the Christian God’s vision is also possible in a very real sense.

Hmm… I doubt Curie only worked with uranium isotopes. Radiation and nuclear fission are different phenomenons. From wikipedia polonium and radium are far more radioactive than uranium and she worked with them. Of course, uranium 235 (the fissile isotope of uranium) is used in nuclear bombs e.g. Little Boy (I think hydrogen and neutron bombs are preferred now) and in nuclear reactors.

Regarding HIV, do YOU have any information about this virus having a beneficial application in scientific studies? Well, reverse transcriptase is used as an important tool in ribozyme evolution studies as an RNA strand could be converted into DNA and subject to PCR. In addition, some viruses could act as vectors for gene therapy. But, this is not directly related to AIDS as HIV is not the only virus with reverse transcriptase.

It is incorrect to see these organisms as “evil.” They have no desire to cause destruction. All they are doing is trying to undergo evolution in their niche. But there existence to me shows that evolution is unguided; it seems that God did not design the laws of nature to be amiable to Homo sapiens as some of the products of evolution thrive while harming us. All we are is a byproduct of evolution, much like the other “unpleasant” creatures of nature.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hmm… I doubt Curie only worked with uranium isotopes. Radiation and nuclear fission are different phenomenons. From wikipedia polonium and radium are far more radioactive than uranium and she worked with them. Of course, uranium 235 (the fissile isotope of uranium) is used in nuclear bombs e.g. Little Boy (I think hydrogen and neutron bombs are preferred now) and in nuclear reactors.

I think you get the point I was making with Curie. She handled something naturally occuring that was harmful to her. You could call this ‘a bad thing’. And yet it has great application, it’s beneficial to us on a large scale. I also see the point you’re making with the nuclear bombs; sure, you can make a good (or neutral) thing bad as well, depending on how you handle it.

Regarding HIV, do YOU have any information about this virus having a beneficial application in scientific studies? Well, reverse transcriptase is used as an important tool in ribozyme evolution studies as an RNA strand could be converted into DNA and subject to PCR. In addition, some viruses could act as vectors for gene therapy. But, this is not directly related to AIDS as HIV is not the only virus with reverse transcriptase.

Well, you’ve supplied enough for me - even things that are harmful by their nature have a use, a good use, for humanity. Specifically humanity, in fact, because of what we’ve been endowed with as far as mental capability goes. So that gives one answer to the question of ‘Why are there all of these things in a world God created?’ - because the central focus of creation, humankind, is capable of turning these things into blessings, if only we provide the discipline and the desire for good.

It is incorrect to see these organisms as “evil.” They have no desire to cause destruction. All they are doing is trying to undergo evolution in their niche. But there existence to me shows that evolution is unguided; it seems that God did not design the laws of nature to be amiable to Homo sapiens as some of the products of evolution thrive while harming us. All we are is a byproduct of evolution, much like the other “unpleasant” creatures of nature.

And I think the conclusion you come to is unwarrantedly pessimistic. I personally see little difference between naturally occuring agents that cause cancer in humanity, and, say… fire. Fire burns, it hurts, it kills. And yet, look what the potentials for good are with it.

If we were any other creature - apes, snakes, birds - we wouldn’t have the capability to make proper, active use of these things. At the same time, we wouldn’t have the mental faculties (I believe in ensoulment, but let’s leave that out of this) that would make the situation so pressing and particularly ‘evil’ either. Are we a product of evolution? I would say so. By chance, without purpose? I’d disagree, and I think strong inferment of such is evident just by examining the details. But, that’s my philosophy (and, I guess, theology.)

 

[ribozyme]

And I think the conclusion you come to is unwarrantedly pessimistic. I personally see little difference between naturally occuring agents that cause cancer in humanity, and, say… fire. Fire burns, it hurts, it kills. And yet, look what the potentials for good are with it.

If we were any other creature - apes, snakes, birds - we wouldn’t have the capability to make proper, active use of these things. At the same time, we wouldn’t have the mental faculties (I believe in ensoulment, but let’s leave that out of this) that would make the situation so pressing and particularly ‘evil’ either. Are we a product of evolution? I would say so. By chance, without purpose? I’d disagree, and I think strong inferment of such is evident just by examining the details. But, that’s my philosophy (and, I guess, theology.)

No, my main argument concerns organisms whose niche involves causing human suffering i.e. one way they reproduce is the cause illness to humans. My point is that the process, which God supposedly used to create humans, also generated organisms that harm humans as their way of surviving and reproducing. For example, HIV has to be assimilated by a human helper T-cell (or a closely related mammal’s T-cell), and cannot reproduce without infecting other cells.

I am not making the argument that benzene, a known carcinogen, is “evil.” If I did, one could easily rebut my point by saying that it many useful applications in the synthesis of many organic compounds. It is intuitive that many things that could be potentially dangerous to humans have positive applications in human life.

Oxygen itself is another example. One time before the development of enzymes that were able to deal with its destructive radicals (such as superoxide dismutase), many organisms on Earth perished during the advent of photosynthesis. But a small subset of organisms relied on it for respiration (which oxygen is used to maximize the yield of ATP from catabolic pathways).

 

[Nullasalus]

No, my main argument concerns organisms whose niche involves causing human suffering i.e. one way they reproduce is the cause illness to humans. My point is that the process, which God supposedly used to create humans, also generated organisms that harm humans as their way of surviving and reproducing. For example, HIV has to be assimilated by a human helper T-cell (or a closely related mammal’s T-cell), and cannot reproduce without infecting other cells.

I am not making the argument that benzene, a known carcinogen, is “evil.” If I did, one could easily rebut my point by saying that it many useful applications in the synthesis of many organic compounds. It is intuitive that many things that could be potentially dangerous to humans have positive applications in human life.

Oxygen itself is another example. One time before the development of enzymes that were able to deal with its destructive radicals (such as superoxide dismutase), many organisms on Earth perished during the advent of photosynthesis. But a small subset of organisms relied on it for respiration (which oxygen is used to maximize the yield of ATP from catabolic pathways).

And my response is that there’s little effective difference between an organism which thrives by causing harm to humans and anything else which causes harm to humans when you’re talking about the concept of a benevolent God designing the universe with humanity in mind.

Notice that I’m not going with the opposite claims - namely that arguing that the biological evolution of things that are very beneficial to mankind (Aloe comes to mind) are indicative of a God. Rather, that the unique state of humanity specifically allows us to, with time, effort, and good intention, turn just about anything that is ‘negative’ in creation to something beneficial. You already gave some examples of viruses that are harmful to humans whose study and understanding will enable us to produce something good.

Let me ask you something more open-ended. If what you understand as the Christian God created a universe, intended for humanity to occupy it, and had the same eventual wants for this humanity as it’s argued he has for us (Morality, eternal life through God, happiness), what would it look like?

 

[ribozyme]

And my response is that there’s little effective difference between an organism which thrives by causing harm to humans and anything else which causes harm to humans when you’re talking about the concept of a benevolent God designing the universe with humanity in mind.

Let me ask you something more open-ended. If what you understand as the Christian God created a universe, intended for humanity to occupy it, and had the same eventual wants for this humanity as it’s argued he has for us (Morality, eternal life through God, happiness), what would it look like?

Ok, there is no objective difference between an organism that survives by harming humans and ones that benefit humans if humans are nothing special. But if humans are special, why is there no difference. It does not seem that God created the universe with humans in mind.

For a start, no hereditary diseases. (No need to post a large list of hereditary diseases). Also, people like Stanley Tookie Williams will be alive today.

 

[Nullasalus]

Ok, there is no objective difference between an organism that survives by harming humans and ones that benefit humans if humans are nothing special. But if humans are special, why is there no difference. It does not seem that God created the universe with humans in mind.

For a start, no hereditary diseases. (No need to post a large list of hereditary diseases). Also, people like Stanley Tookie Williams will be alive today.

Are you saying that humans would physically (or at least mentally) immortal before any kind of salvation is attained?

As for no objective difference, that strikes me as a bit vague. Why is there no difference in what - the harmful organisms and the good organisms? What kind of difference would you expect - a signal that they’re harmful? But we get that already with the human capacity to reason and self-identify. And as I’ve talked about, even the ‘harmful’ organisms can yield good things through control, study, and effort.