Evolution

[DavWan]

I do not discuss the origins of Adam and Eve from my own authority, but from the authority of the Fathers and Scholastics. I do not bind anyone to creationism, but the onus is on theistic evolutionists to explain their theory and how it doesn’t conflict with revealed truth.

Do you realize that not everything the Fathers said is de fide? Do you realize that the proper interpretation of doctrine comes from the Magisterium and not our own interpretations?

If so, then recognize that the Church has permitted a belief of evolution under limited circumstances. It does not require a belief in Creationism.

 

[Marocchino]

Seems to me, death is referred to with the human being with the immortal soul. Since animals can’t sin, death as a result of sin could not affect them. Even if God’s original intent was for man to be Vegan, it would still cause destruction to plant life. Gen 2:17 indicates the promise of death was to man for disobeying God. Of course Genesis 1:26 seems to indicate man had dominion over the animals as well, which could mean he could eat them, which would mean animals could die.

I gave the wrong impression that I think animals and plants were not subject to death before Original Sin. Actually, I side with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one that only Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall. I refer instead only to Adam’s parents and other relatives, but you seem to see no problem that they were subject to death and that Adam was the only one in the family gifted with immortality. That is logically consistent but I am not convinced that it is consistent with Script. and Trad. If you can provide evidence that Adam had a pseudo-human family then I’ll be persuaded.

God could have meant it in the same context as Genesis 1, and thus not be speaking of literal days.

Or he could have been testifying to the truth of Genesis 1. About 95% of the Father’s believed in 6 day creation so I’ll side with this interpretation.

 

[Marocchino]

Seems to me, death is referred to with the human being with the immortal soul. Since animals can’t sin, death as a result of sin could not affect them. Even if God’s original intent was for man to be Vegan, it would still cause destruction to plant life. Gen 2:17 indicates the promise of death was to man for disobeying God. Of course Genesis 1:26 seems to indicate man had dominion over the animals as well, which could mean he could eat them, which would mean animals could die.

I gave the wrong impression that I think animals and plants were not subject to death before Original Sin. Actually, I side with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one that only Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall. I refer instead only to Adam’s parents and other relatives, but you seem to see no problem that they were subject to death and that Adam was the only one in the family gifted with immortality. That is logically consistence but I am not convinced that it is consistent with Script. and Trad.

God could have meant it in the same context as Genesis 1, and thus not be speaking of literal days.

Or he could have been testifying to the truth of Genesis 1. About 95% of the Father’s believed in 6 day creation so I’ll side with this interpretation.

 

[DavWan]

I gave the wrong impression that I think animals and plants were not subject to death before Original Sin. Actually, I side with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one that only Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall. I refer instead only to Adam’s parents and other relatives, but you seem to see no problem that they were subject to death and that Adam was the only one in the family gifted with immortality. That is logically consistence but I am not convinced that it is consistent with Script. and Trad.

I would define human beings as being created with a human soul, so if the predecessors did not have a human soul, they could not be human.

But keep in mind that evolution is a theory, and one that seems to fit the physical facts. ***If ***it is true, then it can be reconciled with Scripture, as religion and science are not enemies (though some scientists may make themselves an enemy of religion)

Or he could have been testifying to the truth of Genesis 1. about 95% of the Father’s believed in 6 day creation so I’ll side with this interpretation.

It’s your right of course, and it is not against the faith to hold this. I do disagree however, as is my right, and is not against the faith to hold either.

 

[Marocchino]

I would define human beings as being created with a human soul, so if the predecessors did not have a human soul, they could not be human.

That’s why I say pseudo-humans. Creatures with a human body, from which Adam’s body was derived, but lacking an immortal soul. I do not think that such a creature ever existed, but it is a necessary postulate (is that the right word?) of theistic evolution.

But keep in mind that evolution is a theory, and one that seems to fit the physical facts. ***If ***it is true, then it can be reconciled with Scripture, as religion and science are not enemies (though some scientists may make themselves an enemy of religion)

I have read books and articles written by scientists that say evolution does not fit the facts, although most scientists subscribe to it. I am primarily concerned with Scriptural interpretation as science is not my field of expertise. Neither is Scriptural interpretation, but I know enough to get by. What’s your theological MA in if you don’t mind me asking?

It’s your right of course, and it is not against the faith to hold this. I do disagree however, as is my right, and is not against the faith to hold either.

We are in agreement on this point. I just can’t fathom the theistic evolutionists’ interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

Another question: Where would you place Adam and Eve on the historical timeline? Keep in mind, Moses only lists 19 men between Adam and Abraham (ca. 2000 BC).

 

[grannymh]

Angangbern, here are the words of Dr. Ayala (pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_03.html):

"The doctrine of Adam and Eve, I think, in terms of what we know nowadays, cannot be taken literally in the sense of implying two particular human individuals from which we are all descended.

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don’t descend from a single pair."

Here is Dr. Ayala’s understanding of original sin:

“The doctrine of original sin, as I understand it, implies that we humans, because of the possibility of having free will, are inclined to behave in ways that often are not virtues, that often imply sin.”

Here is the Catholic definition of original sin(newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm):

“Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.”

Do you think that Ayala’s and the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definitions are compatible?

Ayala’s remarks, at the PBS Roundtable: Science and Faith, deliberately sidestep the actual meaning of the Catholic doctrine of original sin, thus his half-hearted definition of effects is not compatible with Catholic teaching on the actual sin. Apples and Oranges.

Ayala’s nonchalant opening sentence refers to the doctrine of original sin and redemption as one of the most hopeful. Whereas the Catechism (see below) calls the doctrine a must know and that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. Ayala does tamper as he misnames original sin by calling it the doctrine of Adam and Eve which cannot be taken literally. Paragraph 390 below emphasizes that while figurative language is used in Genesis chapter 3, the actual “fall” that is original sin is a primeval event involving our first parents – not several thousand ones.

Ayala’s following remarks sound like he is standing on a science soapbox. To draw us in, while denying that there could be just two individuals Adam and Eve (see above quote), he speaks of one single species, humankind, of the same ancestors [plural] so that his main point is a very strong statement for equality in general against any kind of racism etc. because we are all brethren… :clapping:

To balance his dismissal of Adam and Eve, Ayala dismisses the real importance of original sin by referring to one of its side effects as his understanding of original sin. (see above quote) It’s just my crazy sense of humor but his water-down language of possibility, inclination, implication are weasel words where I come from. In no way, is Ayala’s definition compatible with the forthright words used in the Catholic Encyclopedia quoted above.

Ayala concludes with some general round the mulberry sentences about sin and a rather poetic closing which may or may not cloud the issue of original sin depending on how it was delivered.

The following is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

"Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”, by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

"389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

"How to read the account of the fall 390 The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs at the foot of Christ’s cross.

P.S. Personally, I do not consider the doctrine of original sin and parts of current evolutionary theory as being mutually exclusive.

 

[DavWan]

That’s why I say pseudo-humans. Creatures with a human body, from which Adam’s body was derived, but lacking an immortal soul. I do not think that such a creature ever existed, but it is a necessary postulate (is that the right word?) of theistic evolution.

It is certainly a possibility. Whether it is necessary I do not know. In this case I will simply say I do not know how it worked. God may have used evolution or may have used a special creation.

You do hit upon the main weakness of the evolutionary theory though, and under Humani Generis, it qualifies as a point that needs to be considered.

This is why I say if the Church ever requires a belief, I will submit without mental reservations, because I trust the authority of the Church.

I have read books and articles written by scientists that say evolution does not fit the facts, although most scientists subscribe to it. I am primarily concerned with Scriptural interpretation as science is not my field of expertise. Neither is Scriptural interpretation, but I know enough to get by. What’s your theological MA in if you don’t mind me asking?

My main focuses were on Patristics and Ecclesiology. The two went together very well as I could see the Church of the past today and the Church of today in the past, and is why I could **never **consider leaving the Church or think the Church could teach error

We are in agreement on this point. I just can’t fathom the theistic evolutionists’ interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

Well, I can only speak for myself. I believe the Scriptures intend to teach us of God. Some of the language is based on human perception, which does not make it wrong, though we need to understand what would have been understood by the writer (a modern example could be speaking of the “Sun Rise” for example. The person probably does not believe in geocentrism, but they use the term nonetheless)

Another question: Where would you place Adam and Eve on the historical timeline? Keep in mind, Moses only lists 19 men between Adam and Abraham (ca. 2000 BC).

They list 19 yes. But remember, for Cain to have a wife (Gen 4:17), there would need to be unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, so clearly there needed to be more people who were the offspring of Adam and Eve (remember I do hold that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the human race).

Because of that, I would not try to guess where Adam and Eve properly fit in. My reading of the geneologies leads me to think that the ancient Jews would have known about them, even if we do not… and emphasis of who is important as it were.

Hopefully this doesn’t sound like a cop out, but I prefer not to try to guess where I have no answer.

 

[grannymh]

However “Man” came to be, his existence with a rational existence and a soul came directly from God. As such, Adam and Eve as the beginning of the human race were willed by God. The Bible tells us God created Adam and Eve, but not how He chose to do so.

Keep in mind, I fully accept what the Church requires of evolution. Therefore Polygenism is unacceptable, and I have to consider all the evidence in favor and against

#37 from Humani Generis is also informative.

 

[buffalo]

It is certainly a possibility. Whether it is necessary I do not know. In this case I will simply say I do not know how it worked. God may have used evolution or may have used a special creation.

You do hit upon the main weakness of the evolutionary theory though, and under Humani Generis, it qualifies as a point that needs to be considered.

This is why I say if the Church ever requires a belief, I will submit without mental reservations, because I trust the authority of the Church.

My main focuses were on Patristics and Ecclesiology. The two went together very well as I could see the Church of the past today and the Church of today in the past, and is why I could **never **consider leaving the Church or think the Church could teach error

Well, I can only speak for myself. I believe the Scriptures intend to teach us of God. Some of the language is based on human perception, which does not make it wrong, though we need to understand what would have been understood by the writer (a modern example could be speaking of the “Sun Rise” for example. The person probably does not believe in geocentrism, but they use the term nonetheless)

They list 19 yes. But remember, for Cain to have a wife (Gen 4:17), there would need to be unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, so clearly there needed to be more people who were the offspring of Adam and Eve (remember I do hold that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the human race).

Because of that, I would not try to guess where Adam and Eve properly fit in. My reading of the geneologies leads me to think that the ancient Jews would have known about them, even if we do not… and emphasis of who is important as it were.

Hopefully this doesn’t sound like a cop out, but I prefer not to try to guess where I have no answer.

Cain’s wife was his twin sister Avan.

 

[grannymh]

You do hit upon the main weakness of the evolutionary theory though, and under Humani Generis, it qualifies as a point that needs to be considered.
.

The main weakness of the evolutionary theory is at its beginning.

 

[agangbern]

You’re going to have to start paying me per reply I give you.

We have a good “businessman” here.

 

[Marocchino]

Granny, I agree. Some of Ayala’s remarks are contradictory to Catholic teaching, which may be why he left the priesthood. But Ayala’s skewed theology is the result of a consistent theistic evolutionary position.

This is why I say if the Church ever requires a belief, I will submit without mental reservations, because I trust the authority of the Church.

Hopefully this doesn’t sound like a cop out, but I prefer not to try to guess where I have no answer.

I admire your loyalty to the Church and your humble admission that theistic evolution leaves many exgetical questions unanswered.

My main focuses were on Patristics and Ecclesiology. The two went together very well as I could see the Church of the past today and the Church of today in the past, and is why I could **never **consider leaving the Church or think the Church could teach error.

Very good. I’m discerning a vocation and thinking of going to seminary following this, my last, year of a BA program in philosophy.

They list 19 yes. But remember, for Cain to have a wife (Gen 4:17), there would need to be unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, so clearly there needed to be more people who were the offspring of Adam and Eve (remember I do hold that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the human race).

 

[DavWan]

Cain’s wife was his twin sister Avan.

Never heard that one before

 

[DavWan]

I admire your loyalty to the Church and your humble admission that theistic evolution leaves many exgetical questions unanswered.

Indeed. While I think it is the best way to understand it, I do not believe science is infallible. It has its limits in the natural world, and the things beyond the natural, it is not qualified to answer

Very good. I’m discerning a vocation and thinking of going to seminary following this, my last, year of a BA program in philosophy.

May God bless you with this, and guide you where He wants you to be

 

[agangbern]

By the rules of evidence, our belief in the bible is one exempt from the hearsay rule.

How so?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the Bible of course. However, what you are saying sounds close to the circular argument of “The Bible is true because God says so, and God is good because the Bible says so.”

As far as the rules of evidence in my place is concerned, the bible is an exception to the hearsay rule. It may not be in your place, but it is in my place. That falls under Sec 41 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence in my place. That is why I said it.

 

[Marocchino]

Do you realize that not everything the Fathers said is de fide? Do you realize that the proper interpretation of doctrine comes from the Magisterium and not our own interpretations?

If so, then recognize that the Church has permitted a belief of evolution under limited circumstances. It does not require a belief in Creationism.

Pope Leo XIII, however, wrote that where there is unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding the sense of a Scriptural passage, we are bound to their interpretation. 6 day creation is held to by almost every Church Father except Origen, who allegorized everything, and St Augustine who said that creation may have been instantaneous. But Augustine was open to the position that 6 day creation was true and his belief in instantaneous creation was influenced by a bad intepretation of a passage from the Latin vulgate and his question about when the angels were created (for more on this visit the Kolbe Center website).

Yes, the Church allows a belief in evolution under strict circumstances – circumstances so strict, I argue, that theistic evolution strays from evolutionary doctrine as understood by evolutionary biologists (ie, with the belief in two original parents of humankind).

 

[Marocchino]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavWan
They list 19 yes. But remember, for Cain to have a wife (Gen 4:17), there would need to be unmentioned daughters of Adam and Eve, so clearly there needed to be more people who were the offspring of Adam and Eve (remember I do hold that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the human race).

I meant 19 ancestors, not men in total.

 

[buffalo]

Never heard that one before

Book Of Jubilees - Pseudepigrapha

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. [190-196 A.M.] And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, [197 A.M.] houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch.

 

[DavWan]

Pope Leo XIII, however, wrote that where there is unanimous consent among the Fathers regarding the sense of a Scriptural passage, we are bound to their interpretation. 6 day creation is held to by almost every Church Father except Origen, who allegorized everything, and St Augustine who said that creation may have been instantaneous. But Augustine was open to the position that 6 day creation was true and his belief in instantaneous creation was influenced by a bad intepretation of a passage from the Latin vulgate and his question about when the angels were created (for more on this visit the Kolbe Center website).

Yes, the Church allows a belief in evolution under strict circumstances – circumstances so strict, I argue, that theistic evolution strays from evolutionary doctrine as understood by evolutionary biologists (ie, with the belief in two original parents of humankind).

Well, where evolution parts from the Church, I part from evolution.

Really, I would not hold to evolution in defiance of the Church

 

[adolfo123]

Many people today view science and religion as two radically different ways to understand the world, but religion and science strengthen each other’s belief because they are both concerned with what is true. They were not meant to live alone in isolation, divorced from each other so tear down the barricades that divide them because faith and reason are meant to live happily together. Reason does not destroy faith, but fulfills it so we can use our intelligence as a path to spiritual awareness and when our intellect can say no
more, our instinctive spiritual view of life will take over. This provides us with a kind of intuitive perception of God as He is reflected in creation.

Lets use bible verse for the theory of evolution… guess what I got some very strong ones. will post if i get a responds …