Evolution

[Marocchino]

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?

 

[Holyfire]

The bible says that evolution does not exist. If your a True disciple of Jesus Christ You should not question Gods word. I know there are some skeptics saying but how. That is the question and my answer is FAITH. Have faith in God and all your questions will be answered in heaven. So I urge you people to believe in God and Believe in the bible.

 

[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?

I tried the top link pbs and kept getting a – Whoops. You didn’t intend to arrive here. plus blanks referring to a missing page.

What am I doing wrong?

 

[Marocchino]

Don’t include the round brackets or type the key words from the link into Google.

 

[Marocchino]

The bible says that evolution does not exist. If your a True disciple of Jesus Christ You should not question Gods word. I know there are some skeptics saying but how. That is the question and my answer is FAITH. Have faith in God and all your questions will be answered in heaven. So I urge you people to believe in God and Believe in the bible.

Darwinism doesn’t have to be rejected on mere faith. There are some good writers out there that criticize Darwinism from a scientific standpoint (Berlinksi, Behe, etc) and others that take a more Scripture and Tradition-based approach (Warkulwiz, Sungenis, etc).

 

[oriel16]

You knowwhat? You who insists on the relevancy of Cpernicus in this thread is the one who has the duty to show here how copernicus theory is relevant to evolution. Do it, and maybe I could repond to you in another way.

I insist on nothing,a Christian who ascends to the level of Copernicus with the aid of modern imaging will see how inspiring and fresh his work actually is,likewise that of Steno and Smith in geology.It does not limit the discoveries to these men but most people get the general idea that at certain points in history dramatic changes occur.

The Life of Christ is the most inspiring of all,that is not a vacuous statement to preach to this choir here but an actual dynamic that lights up everything else,exposes that which is either poor thinking or distortions and certainly displays the laziness that inflicts many Christians.The empirical agenda robbed the evolutionary framework of the puzzle that is meant to continue for as long as humanity will exist and sent it into a direction of conflict and the continued displacement of scientific investigation outside its Christian heritage to where it exists now.

No doubt you will squeek out a one line sentence or question but at this stage,you are welcome to it.

 

[DavWan]

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.”

The Scriptures and the teaching of the Church are not hearsay, because we find the original witnesses (the Apostles) credible, and we believe the. You are free to disagree with Scientists whose studies come to this approximate date. However, it is not hearsay to cite the consensus of scientists. Nor is it hearsay to cite the combined faith of the Fathers about Church teaching.

Let’s not get disrailed here. I merely object to your “hearsay” charge because it is a dangerous precedent which allows modernists free access to deny Church teachings on the same grounds.

 

[DavWan]

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?

Actually, your error here is concluding the person who errs away from what the Church requires in terms of evolution represents all Catholic thought of evolution.

As I pointed out before, that is the same as saying Lefebvre and Hans Kung hold the same views of Catholicism.

Don’t lump those evolutionists who deny the Church teaching with those evolutionists who embrace Church teaching

 

[Marocchino]

Actually, your error here is concluding the person who errs away from what the Church requires in terms of evolution represents all Catholic thought of evolution.

I never did make this conclusion. Would you care to offer your explanation of how evolution is compatible with the idea that all humans have descended from one original pair (Adam and Eve)?

 

[DavWan]

I never did make this conclusion. Would you care to offer your explanation of how evolution is compatible with the idea that all humans have descended from one original pair (Adam and Eve)?

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
Humani Generis:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

 

[edwest2]

T

A literalistic reading of Genesis is not required or even encouraged by the Church, although you can accept it if you like.

You are wrong.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=445

I ask that you cease writing misleading and heretical things. Science is not god. God is God. He performs miracles to which science can know nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marocchino]

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.

Actually, Genesis tells us how God made man. Just because it does not speak in scientific terms does not mean it should be ignored.

 

[DavWan]

Actually, Genesis tells us how God made man. Just because it does not speak in scientific terms does not mean it should be ignored.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

In Gen 1, God made man last and the Scripture uses this description. In Gen 2, God made man first (Gen 2:18-20), and the description can be understood as God infusing man with the soul.

I see no contradictions.

 

[Marocchino]

In Gen 1, God made man last and the Scripture uses this description. In Gen 2, God made man first (Gen 2:18-20), and the description can be understood as God infusing man with the soul.

I see no contradictions.

This is what I was referring to when I said Genesis tells us how God made man: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (2:7).

You see no contradictions between what and what?

 

[DavWan]

This is what I was referring to when I said Genesis tells us how God made man: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (2:7).

You see no contradictions between what and what?

Between evolution and Genesis, so long as one follows the requirements of the Church.

Gen 2, as I said, can be interpreted as shaping man’s form in evolution.

An over literal reading can lead us to think Man was constructed of

SiO2 60.6
Al2O3 15.9
CaO 6.4
MgO 4.7
Na2O 3.1
Fe as FeO 6.7
K2O 1.8
TiO2 0.7
P2O5 0.1

Meanwhile, the human body is made of
Oxygen 65% Sulfur 0.3
Carbon 18.5 Sodium 0.2
Hydrogen 9.5 Chlorine 0.2
Nitrogen 3.2 Magnesium 0.1
Calcium 1.5 Iodine 0.1
Phosphorous 1.0 Iron 0.1
Potassium 0.4 Everything else 0.1

This is the problem. Does it literally mean man is made out of dirt? Or does it mean that God formed man out of the matter He already had made? The Catholic believing in evolution would argue the second option.

So as I said, I see no contradiction. I believe your reading is more literal than was intended, and more literal than the Church requires

 

[Marocchino]

Between evolution and Genesis, so long as one follows the requirements of the Church.

Gen 2, as I said, can be interpreted as shaping man’s form in evolution.

This is the problem. Does it literally mean man is made out of dirt? Or does it mean that God formed man out of the matter He already had made? The Catholic believing in evolution would argue the second option.

If Gen 2 intended to express the shaping of man’s form with evolution from lower species, is it not reasonable to assume that it would have mentioned the pseudo-human parents of Adam instead of merely saying that his body was formed from aphar, which does not necessarily have the same chemical makeup as dirt.

So as I said, I see no contradiction. I believe your reading is more literal than was intended, and more literal than the Church requires.

How is an evolutionary process compatible with strict monogenism (two original parents)?

Can you back up your claim that my reading is more literal than what was intended with any evidence from Patristic, Scholastic, or Conciliar documents?

I agree that creationism is not required but it is the traditional doctrine of the Church and, as far as I’ve seen so far, theistic evolution is inconsistent with Scripture and Tradition.

 

[DavWan]

If Gen 2 intended to express the shaping of man’s form with evolution from lower species, is it not reasonable to assume that it would have mentioned the pseudo-human parents of Adam instead of merely saying that his body was formed from aphar, which does not necessarily have the same chemical makeup as dirt.

Looking up aphar I see does not dismiss my question:

dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
dry or loose earth
debris
mortar
ore
As for your assumption, it would only be reasonable if Genesis intended to tell us how God formed man from the clay. If it did not, then it would not be reasonable to assume it would

How is an evolutionary process compatible with strict monogenism (two original parents)?

Because humanity is not only physical, but has God’s creating a soul. If we had only two parents (Adam and Eve) then logically, God only created a human soul in two, and from them the human race descended.

Evolution cannot answer theological questions. However, theology does not intend to answer science questions either.

 

[Marocchino]

Looking up aphar I see does not dismiss my question:

dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
dry or loose earth
debris
mortar
ore

Whatever exactly the aphar is, it was transformed into the various tissues that compose the human body.

As for your assumption, it would only be reasonable if Genesis intended to tell us how God formed man from the clay. If it did not, then it would not be reasonable to assume it would.

The only way we can know the intention of the author of Genesis (Moses) is to consult the Patristic writings, as the Fathers were taught Scripture by the Apostles who, in turn, were taught the meaning of Scripture by God incarnate.

The Fathers treat Genesis as a literal-historical text.

Because humanity is not only physical, but has God’s creating a soul. If we had only two parents (Adam and Eve) then logically, God only created a human soul in two, and from them the human race descended.

Evolution cannot answer theological questions. However, theology does not intend to answer science questions either.

Yes, but my question is how can evolution be harmonized with strict monogenism?

 

[buffalo]

Looking up aphar I see does not dismiss my question:
dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
dry or loose earth
debris
mortar
ore As for your assumption, it would only be reasonable if Genesis intended to tell us how God formed man from the clay. If it did not, then it would not be reasonable to assume it would

Because humanity is not only physical, but has God’s creating a soul. If we had only two parents (Adam and Eve) then logically, God only created a human soul in two, and from them the human race descended.

Evolution cannot answer theological questions. However, theology does not intend to answer science questions either.

Adam and Eve’s alleged parents then has mortal souls. The ontological leap needs to be explained.

God could have just decided to insert Adam and Eve supernaturally into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[Marocchino]

Adam and Eve’s alleged parents then has mortal souls. The ontological leap needs to be explained.

God could have just decided to insert Adam and Eve supernaturally into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.

Not only is the ontological leap problematic, but what happened to all of the pseudo-humans? Why aren’t their descendants around? Am I one of them?