Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But is incest acceptable? The reality is, either explanation seems to lead to behavior outside the bounds of Christian sexual morality.
This is an example of why I am struggling with this. It seems we may need some radical developments in our understanding and I definitely seek to understand how evolution is reconciled with the teaching about Adam and Eve. For example, could Adam and Eve have been “two” but spiritually rather than physically (i.e. all males were one in the Spirit and so were the females) ?

I would say this is one of the major theological questions of our age. What theologians are at work addressing this question? Is there a Catholic organization funded to address this question?
 
This is an example of why I am struggling with this. It seems we may need some radical developments in our understanding and I definitely seek to eliminate what appear to problems with reconciling this with the teaching about Adam and Eve. For example, could Adam and Eve have been “two” but spiritually rather than physically (i.e. all males were one in the Spirit and so were the females) ?
I started a thread several months ago entitled Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough for this very reason.

This is my opening post:

With regard to creation the Catholic Church has interpreted Genesis consistently for centuries.

Science has recently challenged much of this with raw data. I have immense respect for science as I have much respect for Tradition.

The question - The Holy Spirit guarantees the Church will be free from error. How could the Holy Spirit let us be so misguided for so long, and only now science is correcting these errors? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping? Why did he let us misinterpet Scripture? This makes no sense.

I submit that the Holy Spirit was not sleeping. There must be something we are missing.
 
Incest in the direct line is intrinisically evil. Incest in the line brother, sister, cousin is not. In the beginning it was ordained by God. Only later was it stopped.
The same argument can be (must be) used for either situation.
 
God’s hand in the process is evident.

God could also have specially created Adam and Eve supernaturally in His likeness and inserted them into the timeline anywhere He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.
That’s true, of course, but to a great many rational human beings that would be equivalent to dealing from the bottom of the deck. Either God is revealed in nature or he isn’t. Which is it?
 
The same argument can be (must be) used for either situation.
No - Collateral incest is regulated today by Canon law. It was never part of Divine Law.

Can. 1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.
§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.
 
That’s true, of course, but to a great many rational human beings that would be equivalent to dealing from the bottom of the deck. Either God is revealed in nature or he isn’t. Which is it?
Both - God is revealed in nature and in the supernatural. He can act in nature at any time. Miracles for example. Is it so hard to believe Adam and Eve’s creation was a miracle?

Here is where I believe the weakness lies - We now have a mindset that through our training and schooling that is biased towards empericism. However, empericism stated we can observe repeat and predict the experiment. We cannot do this with origins since none of us were there to see it. We cannot repeat it or predict it.
 
According to the magazine, Nature, most leading scientists reject God. That is their choice. However, by making this choice, the relationship between the observer and things he observes changes. A bias is introduced.

Currently, this bias manifests itself as scientific information which is known with a relatively high degree of certainty and information that is not known. God is excluded since God, it is claimed, cannot be detected. Therefore, aside from assigning explanations to physical evidence, science develops what it calls evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. These two approaches deal with man’s actions and reactions in response to his environment through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, and to man’s preprogrammed genetic functions. It places the mind of man in a predetermined set of behaviors guided solely by his genes with secondary (name removed by moderator)ut from his environment. Man’s only goal is to survive, reproduce, protect his family or tribe and die. Whatever occurs in the meantime that would fall under other categories like ‘leisure activities’ are purely genetically based. They are adaptive in some way, but in a way that science has not yet fully figured out.

And that is the faith statement: science will find an answer. Currently, the answer appears to be purely genetic. In fact, genes are described as choosing, not us, or our mental idea of ourselves. Individual existence is rendered somewhat incorrect, since it was our genes alone who raised us from a primitive to a “modern,” or so it is assumed, level.

A man by the name of Ray Kurzweil has written a book about being post-human. The idea is simple but difficult to execute. Man will create a synthetic version of himself. The brain will be like our own but it would have learning capabilities far beyond our own. It could be eternal, able to be upgraded, and placed into any type of body. An old SF idea. This device would never be human, but there is speculation that ‘spiritual machines’ could be made. And what exactly, would make these devices spiritual? How does that concern ‘science’?

Since the Fall, man was told, “ye shall be as gods.” And I suspect that this is part of the motivation. After all, it has been said that religion was just something our genes created so that we could muddle through until we reached a future where we could genetically modify ourselves, eliminate disease, and perhaps live for a very long time; also old SF ideas.

Now we look at the idea of evolution from the Catholic perspective. There is no longer two realities, one scientific and one spiritual, but only one. This integrated view acknowledges some type of physical development of the human being in the past but assigns all changes to divine providence. Since this information is forbidden by science to cross into the scientific realm, Pope Benedict has clearly stated that the answer must be found outside of it. The Church teaches that God is the first cause, and that nothing causes itself to come into existence on its own. Further, that random mutation and natural selection by themselves are insufficient, and the rational mind behind creation, identified as God by him, is the motivating force. God infallibly allowed life to unfold by His will. And therein lies the problem with textbook evolution as currently taught. Using chance and natural selection alone, we could have all ended up looking like upright chinchillas or humanoid butterflies.

And the current problem arises from scientists writing books like The God Delusion. The idea is that we are just the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. A cosmic construction of purely non-God, natural forces.

The Church teaches there were two individuals who freely sinned. Then, Jesus Christ was born, and here we are. Miracles still happen. Saints need two miracles, thoroughly investigated by the Church and secular experts, to become saints. This is ongoing and will not stop. Jesus Christ existed in real time as a real man and as God. Science cannot address this but… It does. It tells us one year that a stone box was found that contains his remains, another time, it tells us Exodus never happened, and then it tells us that the plagues brought against Egypt by God through Moses can all be explained away by ‘natural’ events. This cannot be ignored. Cardinal Schoenborn is warning Catholics that science is overstepping its own boundaries. We need to heed that warning.

God bless,
Ed
 
Dear Ed, we are on the same team. A few posts back I showed that the popes accept evolution as a real possibility and perhaps even probability. They do not consider that science is overstepping its bounds in the study of human evolution.

No one is debating that humans are a creation of God. We believe that and are grateful to Our Father for creating us. What I am asking is how evolution modifies our understanding of the first true humans. Were they born of pre-human creatures? Are we are to accept the possibility of true humans “joining” with pre-humans. If not, how were the first humans separated from the pre-humans? The Church document I showed also seems to allow for multiple first humans. Does this mean that Adam was “one” spiritually and not physically?

I invite you to address these questions Ed unless you are saying that you don’t think evolution is possible at all which is OK but as the pope said it is “more that a hypothesis”.
 
Coder-

Read part 64 of this document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

It appears, based on some scientific evidence, that something similar to evolution happened. However, the “more than a hypothesis” statement included “fixed points” which are elaborated upon in the document above.

If you seek purely scientific or natural explanations, you will not find the real answer. The real answer includes God’s divine providence and the infallible action of His will. Since it is forbidden for this information to enter the scientific realm, the answer, as Pope Benedict has stated, is found outside of empirical science. Cardinal Schoenborn has said that ideology has crept into science. In other words, scientists are making claims related to evolution that they cannot demonstrate as true. Some scientists are saying that evolution negates a role for God. So that is where the current debate comes from.

God bless,
Ed
 
If you seek purely scientific or natural explanations, you will not find the real answer.
Hi Ed, I’m not seeking purely scientific answers. We know that faith and reason cannot contradict.

If we physically evolved, then were the first humans born of pre-humans?
 
pre humans existance? but that would explain who Cain was afraid of ,aswell whom his wife was.
 
One explanation has been incest such that others were children of Adam and Eve. I don’t know of the Church requires us to subscribe to that however and unless required I don’t subscribe to that.
 
I think to understand evolution. the question would be why would God evolve creation in a period of time and not simultaniously?
 
I think to understand evolution. the question would be why would God evolve creation in a period of time and not simultaniously?
That’s an excellent question!

One thought: God is not limited by time so He can see it all at once. For Him, time is not a factor.

But still, the question of what the purpose of evolution would be remains and it is a good question.
 
I think to understand evolution. the question would be why would God evolve creation in a period of time and not simultaniously?
In my opinion,since the Paradise of Heaven is a Spiritual place, not in the sense of non materialistic, but having a superealistic, abstract or metaphysical essence, I understand Adam and Eve as having the same characteristics. I believe that earthly life (as opposed to heavenly)did not actually evolve in the Neo- Darwinian sense of the word, but that the fist life seed ( Iron-sulfur world theory would have the image of Adam’s creation from the “red earth”) had already the genetic capability or actually "tendency"to “develop’ into the human form who might actually be " an image of Adam” being in turn, made in God’s image.
The development of earthly life into humans is found in Genesis
to be on the 6th day, while Adam was formed before earthly life began

Genesis
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
2:6 **But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man **of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God **planted a garden **eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The earthly lifeform might have been created “after” the creation of “Eden” (heaven)
being an image thereof.

Andre
 
For awhile in royal lineages, only siblings were considered ‘worthy’ to marry the monarchs and continue the line!

In Hawaiian and Island history, this also was the practice.

From memory, some of the Biblical patriachs bedded their sisters or cousins. (Can’t look it up)

Adam lived almost a 1000 years, didn’t he? You can have two babies biannually! Considering that the offsprings, themselves, can do the same, it doesn’t take a mathematician to work it out! Cain and Abel were the first sons, but it doesn’t say how ‘old’ they were when Cain took out Abel. Perhaps, their siblings had already ‘flourished’ in the neighbouring countrysides. (I don’t know)

What Cain and Abel do show us is that there must have been a practice of offering sacrifices to God already in place, for them to do the same. There is no mention that Adam and Eve ever did, but from Cain and Abel’s behaviour, ‘someone’ had been doing likewise beforehand.

Incest evil? Now that we have been revealed its ‘evilness’ we no longer condone it. But before the fall, what did we expect Adam and Eve to do in the garden? It is likely, they were already ‘at it’ and for some time, before the ‘forbidden fruit’ incident. Had they ‘populated’ the land BEFORE the fruit incident?

Mind you, what do I know?

:cool:
 
Adam lived almost a 1000 years, didn’t he?
Hi, it was thought that the age of the earth is 6,000 years. The Church tells us that Genesis uses figurative language, it is not to be taken as a completely literal account.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top