Evolution

[buffalo]

I know, those were rhetoricaquestions for Barbarian.

Just helping him out. I retract it.

The questions stands barbarian.

 

[grannymh]

If that were true, we wouldn’t have the modern synthesis or genetics, or punctuated equilibrium, or population genetics, or…
(long list of new theory since Darwin) Notice that John Paul II alludes to it. He knew what he was talking about.

Apparently, you and I are in different historical time periods.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Neither scripture nor tradition says so. And the evidence is overwhelmingly for common descent.

When was this first declared?

When God willed the Earth to bring forth living things.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Pope seems to think it’s not a problem.

Has the Pope ever discussed the ontological gap that would be necessary between the first generation of human beings with immortal souls and their parents? Has the Pope ever spoken of Adam’s parents? Has he ever explained how a genealogy with 19 men between the year 2000 BC (Abraham) and Adam can encompass the 150 000 timespan according to evolution that modern homo sapiens have been around?

Since the Church doesn’t claim that this is a literal period of time, I suppose he doesn’t think that is a problem, either. You can do that, if you like, but it’s not a teaching of the Church.

If you think the Pope hasn’t thought it out very well, why not offer him some correction?

Has he ever explained why the Church Fathers and Scholastics (and thus the Church) were wrong for nearly 20 centuries by interpreting Genesis 1-11 in a literal-historical sense?

Probably, because that was never Church teaching. Some Fathers thought so, but the Church never made it dogma. Others, like Augustine, didn’t think so.

Barbarian suggests:
If I’m wrongly judging you, and you do know what you’re talking about, how about supporting your guy’s assertion that there are species virtually unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?

I thought I made it clear that I’m not a scientist. I am interested in finding answers to the questions posted above.

If you don’t know about it, why do you think your guy is right, and almost all of his fellow geneticists think he’s wrong?

 

[Marocchino]

Since the Church doesn’t claim that this is a literal period of time, I suppose he doesn’t think that is a problem, either. You can do that, if you like, but it’s not a teaching of the Church.

So are all of the events that occur between Adam and Abraham occuring in a parallel reality whose events (eg, the Fall, the Flood) have spiritual effects in the real world?

If you think the Pope hasn’t thought it out very well, why not offer him some correction?

If I had a magic genie, I would use one of my 3 wishes on a personal meeting with the Pope during which I would ask him the questions I posted.

Probably, because that was never Church teaching. Some Fathers thought so, but the Church never made it dogma. Others, like Augustine, didn’t think so.

That is false. Every Father (except Origen maybe on a few points) and Scholastic intepreted Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Scripture in a literal-historical sense.

If you don’t know about it, why do you think your guy is right, and almost all of his fellow geneticists think he’s wrong?

Because I’m more willing to side with a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God than with atheists.

 

[grannymh]

I have never known any who say that. Darwin sure never said that. You ought to be a little more careful with your facts.

Dear Namesake,

This is the second reply to this post. As I am going over posts, I find that both you and The Barbarian are operating from a broader historical time period than I am. In other words, you know about evolution across 150 years and longer if you include the naturalists before Darwin. I understand where you are coming from. I will try to be more careful with your facts. However, as a free spirit, I will not limit my curiosity and imagination when it comes to viewing the natural world.

Blessings,
granny

The human race is God’s pride and joy.

 

[grannymh]

Barbarian observes:
Neither scripture nor tradition says so. And the evidence is overwhelmingly for common descent.
When God willed the Earth to bring forth living things.

This sounds like God excluded other possibilities. Could be.
Or maybe we are looking at a misinterpretation of common descent. Man’s misinterpreation of “happenings” in the natural world has happened before, So what is so scary about other possibilities?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since the Church doesn’t claim that this is a literal period of time, I suppose he doesn’t think that is a problem, either. You can do that, if you like, but it’s not a teaching of the Church.

So are all of the events that occur between Adam and Abraham occuring in a parallel reality whose events (eg, the Fall, the Flood) have spiritual effects in the real world?

The Bible often uses allegory, parables, etc. No alternate reality needed.

Barbarian suggests:
If you think the Pope hasn’t thought it out very well, why not offer him some correction?

If I had a magic genie, I would use one of my 3 wishes on a personal meeting with the Pope during which I would ask him the questions I posted.

I guess we’ll have to decide whether you or the Pope is the better theologian.

Barbarian observes:
Probably, because that was never Church teaching. Some Fathers thought so, but the Church never made it dogma. Others, like Augustine, didn’t think so.

That is false

It’s quite true. The Church never made a literal six-day creation week or any particular number of years a matter of dogma. Augustine thought creation occured instantaneously, with all things unfolding from that in an unspecified amount of time.

Barbarian asks:
If you don’t know about it, why do you think your guy is right, and almost all of his fellow geneticists think he’s wrong?

Because I’m more willing to side with a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God than with atheists.

I doubt if the Pope is an atheist. More to the point, I’m a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God. And the guy you’re listening to, apparently doesn’t.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This sounds like God excluded other possibilities.

I have to think He did it right.

Or maybe we are looking at a misinterpretation of common descent. Man’s misinterpreation of “happenings” in the natural world has happened before,

We could be wrong about almost anything. But the smart money is on the evidence, and God’s word, which are consistent.

So what is so scary about other possibilities?

I really don’t have any insight into that. I think that for most of them, if it turns out that evolution is the way God creates the diversity of life, then we are “nothing but animals.” The fear is that we aren’t really His beloved children after all. Silly notion.

We are from the dust, but we have been given an immortal soul. Isn’t that enough?

 

[Marocchino]

The Bible often uses allegory, parables, etc. No alternate reality needed.

Are the men from Abraham to Adam in Gensis 1-11 real historical people? Yes or no?

I guess we’ll have to decide whether you or the Pope is the better theologian.

Considering I just ordered 2 books written by the Pope I would have to say the Pope. The longest paper I’ve ever written was about 12 pages and it was not on theology. The Pope is an intelligent man, but he has not answered the questions that I have posted.

It’s quite true. The Church never made a literal six-day creation week or any particular number of years a matter of dogma. Augustine thought creation occured instantaneously, with all things unfolding from that in an unspecified amount of time.

I was referring to the literal-historical interpretation of the events recounted in Genesis 1-11. Did the Fathers and Scholastics believe that the events actually happened? Yes or no?

I doubt if the Pope is an atheist. More to the point, I’m a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God. And the guy you’re listening to, apparently doesn’t.

I never even remotely implied that the Pope was an atheist. Why don’t you be a gentleman?

You appear to accept the Bible as the word of God as far back as Abraham – and Genesis 1-11 as allegorical legends.

Dr. Maciej Giertych doesn’t accept the Bible as the word of God? From whence did you get that preposterous claim?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Bible often uses allegory, parables, etc. No alternate reality needed.

Are the men from Abraham to Adam in Gensis 1-11 real historical people? Yes or no?

All of them? Almost certainly not. You don’t know for sure which are, and which are not.

Barbarian observes:
I guess we’ll have to decide whether you or the Pope is the better theologian.

Considering I just ordered 2 books written by the Pope I would have to say the Pope. The longest paper I’ve ever written was about 12 pages and it was not on theology. The Pope is an intelligent man, but he has not answered the questions that I have posted.

He has written that common descent of all living things on Earth is virtually certain, and that humans evolved from other organisms.

Barbarian observes:
It’s quite true. The Church never made a literal six-day creation week or any particular number of years a matter of dogma. Augustine thought creation occured instantaneously, with all things unfolding from that in an unspecified amount of time.

I was referring to the literal-historical interpretation of the events recounted in Genesis 1-11. Did the Fathers and Scholastics believe that the events actually happened? Yes or no?

Did they think that the creation week was a literal six days? Some did. But not all of them. The Church does not teach that it was, although it permits you to believe it, if you like.

It also permits you to accept a long period of time, or even instantaneous creation, if you like.

Because I’m more willing to side with a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God than with atheists.

Barbarian observes:
I doubt if the Pope is an atheist. More to the point, I’m a Catholic scientist who accepts the Bible as the word of God. And the guy you’re listening to, apparently doesn’t.

I never even remotely implied that the Pope was an atheist.

Then it might be useful for you to not refer to those who disagree with your guy as atheists, you being a gentleman and all.

You appear to accept the Bible as the word of God as far back as Abraham – and Genesis 1-11 as allegorical legends.

Even if you get angry, it’s not smart to make misrepresentations.

Dr. Maciej Giertych doesn’t accept the Bible as the word of God?

It appears he’s a YE creationist. If so, he denies God’s word in Genesis. I read his rambling diatribe, in which he seems to think that God directly created living things, instead of by nature, as He says in Genesis.

 

[Marocchino]

All of them? Almost certainly not. You don’t know for sure which are, and which are not.

So then, symbolic characters give birth to historical people, which sometimes give birth to symbolic characters in Genesis 1-11 – since some of the names signify real men and some do not?

Did they think that the creation week was a literal six days? Some did.

No, almost all did (about 95%).

The Church does not teach that it was, although it permits you to believe it, if you like.

It also permits you to accept a long period of time, or even instantaneous creation, if you like.

I am well aware of that liberty. My point is that, as far as I have seen so far, evolution and original sin are not compatible. But I am willing to change my mind anytime someone gives me a reasonable explanation of how they are.

Then it might be useful for you to not refer to those who disagree with your guy as atheists, you being a gentleman and all.

Most evolutionary biologists are atheists. It is a fair generalization.

Even if you get angry, it’s not smart to make misrepresentations.

Don’t flatter yourself with the assumption that you have in any way affected my emotional state. For all you know, arguing makes me happy and I am sitting here laughing. In fact, there is no emoticon to express the great mood I’m in right now – not even that little green one.

It appears he’s a YE creationist. If so, he denies God’s word in Genesis. I read his rambling diatribe, in which he seems to think that God directly created living things, instead of by nature, as He says in Genesis.

A young earth creationist denies God’s word in Genesis? That is ridiculous. Genesis clearly says that God directly created all things and this is how the Church understood it for centuries. Where does Genesis say that God created by an evolutionary process unfolding over billions of years?

 

[grannymh]

IWe are from the dust, but we have been given an immortal soul. Isn’t that enough?

I understand what you are saying about the immortal soul. Praise God!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
All of them? Almost certainly not. You don’t know for sure which are, and which are not.

So then, symbolic characters give birth to historical people

No. But it’s quite possible that real people, like Adam can coexist in scripture with parables about other people who do not really exist. If you thought about it, you could see this, I think.

Barbarian
Did they think that the creation week was a literal six days? Some did.

No, almost all did (about 95%).

Almost as many who thought the Earth was stationary and the sun orbited around it. Not surprising. Augustine had a cautionary word for trying to make that sort of thing into God’s word:

**Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn. **
St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”

The Barbarian observes:
The Church does not teach that it was, although it permits you to believe it, if you like.

It also permits you to accept a long period of time, or even instantaneous creation, if you like.

I am well aware of that liberty. My point is that, as far as I have seen so far, evolution and original sin are not compatible.

If that were true, I very much doubt the Pope would have accepted evolution, no matter how strong the evidence.

Barbarian Obsrves:
Then it might be useful for you to not refer to those who disagree with your guy as atheists, you being a gentleman and all.

Most evolutionary biologists are atheists. It is a fair generalization.

Most Christians who deny evolution are Protestants. Should I assume you are a Protestant?

Barbarian
Even if you get angry, it’s not smart to make misrepresentations.

Don’t flatter yourself with the assumption that you have in any way affected my emotional state.

I see your denial, but your behavior is more eloquent.

Barbarian observes:
It appears he’s a YE creationist. If so, he denies God’s word in Genesis. I read his rambling diatribe, in which he seems to think that God directly created living things, instead of by nature, as He says in Genesis.

A young earth creationist denies God’s word in Genesis? That is ridiculous.

No, it’s a fact. The “life ex nihilo” doctrine of YE is directly contradicted by God’s word, which says the Earth brought forth living things.

Genesis clearly says that God directly created all things…

Let’s take a look:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Nope. It doesn’t say that at all. Not “life ex nihilo”, but “life from the earth.”

and this is how the Church understood it for centuries.

Can’t find a Bible that says it the way you want it to be. Sorry.

Where does Genesis say that God created by an evolutionary process unfolding over billions of years?

Where does it say He created protons and electrons to have a process? There are many, many things that are true, that are not in the Bible.

This is not license to make up stories for the things not mentioned. God gave us curiosity and intelligence to find the evidence for those things.

 

[grannymh]

From Marocchino post 351
I am well aware of that liberty. My point is that, as far as I have seen so far, evolution and original sin are not compatible.

Help! Anyone who can enlighten me!

Please explain which part of the evolutionary theory is not compatible with original sin.

In other words, what have you seen so far?

Thank you.
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Marocchino]

Barbarian observes:
All of them? Almost certainly not. You don’t know for sure which are, and which are not.

I said “most” and this judgement is according to a statistic (about 90% or so) gleaned from Bill Maher’s “Religulous” documentary. Not a scholarly source I know, but he stated the statistic in an interview with Dr. Francis Collins so I assume that he did his homework.

No. But it’s quite possible that real people, like Adam can coexist in scripture with parables about other people who do not really exist. If you thought about it, you could see this, I think.

This line of thought sounds interesting but it is unclear. Can you explain please?

Almost as many who thought the Earth was stationary and the sun orbited around it. Not surprising.

The difference is that whether or not the earth rotates does not directly affect any doctrine that I could think of. Evolution, on the other hand, creates the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve.

Augustine had a cautionary word for trying to make that sort of thing into God’s word:

You’re not the first theistic evolutinist that has brought this quote up with me. Keep in mind that St. Augustine also said that the authority of Scripture outweighs any human reasoning. Speaking about the waters above the firmament alluded to in Genesis, St. Augustine proposes various possibilities about what this water may be, which was not observed by science, and to conclude his discussion he says (I am paraphrasing): whatever the “waters of the firmament” may be we must accept that they exist, for the authority of Scripture is higher than any human reasoning.

If that were true, I very much doubt the Pope would have accepted evolution, no matter how strong the evidence.

So then logically the Pope’s next step would be to answer the questions I have posted. He has not done so yet.

Most Christians who deny evolution are Protestants. Should I assume you are a Protestant?

Since my creationist stance has been gleaned from the Patristics, Scholastics, and Catholic Catechism (The Fall, Paragraph 7), the Protestant label would not be fitting. But do what you like, I’ve been called worse.

Let’s take a look:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Nope. It doesn’t say that at all. Not “life ex nihilo”, but “life from the earth.”

Where did I say “life ex nihilo”? I am well aware that God fashioned the animals according to their kinds from preexisting matter, just like how he fashioned Adam’s body from the aphar (slime or dust), and the sun and stars from the diffuse light of Genesis 1.

Can’t find a Bible that says it the way you want it to be. Sorry.

If you say “sorry” too much it loses its meaning and people will think you don’t really mean it.

Where does it say He created protons and electrons to have a process? There are many, many things that are true, that are not in the Bible.

Genesis need not enter into such details. But the scientific statements it does make are true.

Are there things that are false that are in the Bible? How about Exodus 20:11: “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested.” (Direct quote from God by Moses)?

This is not license to make up stories for the things not mentioned. God gave us curiosity and intelligence to find the evidence for those things.

When we assume that the origins of the universe and all life has a naturalistic explanation (Big Bang and evolution), which excludes the possibility of direct creation by God of all things pretty much as they are in their current state, this will lead to false conclusions.

**The following, however, are the biggest problems with theistic evolution that must be addressed: the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve. **

 

[oriel16]

I said “most” and this judgement is according to a statistic (about 90% or so) gleaned from Bill Maher’s “Religulous” documentary. Not a scholarly source I know, but he stated the statistic in an interview with Dr. Francis Collins so I assume that he did his homework.

This line of thought sounds interesting but it is unclear. Can you explain please?

The difference is that whether or not the earth rotates does not directly affect any doctrine that I could think of. Evolution, on the other hand, creates the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve.

You’re not the first theistic evolutinist that has brought this quote up with me. Keep in mind that St. Augustine also said that the authority of Scripture outweighs any human reasoning. Speaking about the waters above the firmament alluded to in Genesis, St. Augustine proposes various possibilities about what this water may be, which was not observed by science, and to conclude his discussion he says (I am paraphrasing): whatever the “waters of the firmament” may be we must accept that they exist, for the authority of Scripture is higher than any human reasoning.

So then logically the Pope’s next step would be to answer the questions I have posted. He has not done so yet.

Since my creationist stance has been gleaned from the Patristics, Scholastics, and Catholic Catechism (The Fall, Paragraph 7), the Protestant label would not be fitting. But do what you like, I’ve been called worse.

Where did I say “life ex nihilo”? I am well aware that God fashioned the animals according to their kinds from preexisting matter, just like how he fashioned Adam’s body from the aphar (slime or dust), and the sun and stars from the diffuse light of Genesis 1.

If you say “sorry” too much it loses its meaning and people will think you don’t really mean it.

Genesis need not enter into such details. But the scientific statements it does make are true.

Are there things that are false that are in the Bible? How about Exodus 20:11: “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested.” (Direct quote from God by Moses)?

When we assume that the origins of the universe and all life has a naturalistic explanation (Big Bang and evolution), which excludes the possibility of direct creation by God of all things pretty much as they are in their current state, this will lead to false conclusions.

**The following, however, are the biggest problems with theistic evolution that must be addressed: the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve. **

Centuries ago they had such an incredible comparison between Adam and Jesus in those terms which are still understandable -

"Again, when we read of the old man and the new man we must mark what that meaneth. The old man is Adam and disobedience, the Self, the Me, and so forth. But the new man is Christ and true obedience, [a giving up and denying oneself of all temporal things, and seeking the honour of God alone in all things]. And when dying and perishing and the like are spoken of, it meaneth that the old man should be destroyed, and not seek its own either in spiritual or in natural things. For where this is brought about in a true divine light, there the new man is born again. In like manner, it hath been said that man should die unto himself, [that is, to earthly pleasures, consolations, joys, appetites, the I, the Self, and all that is thereof in man, to which he clingeth and on which he is yet leaning with content, and thinketh much of. Whether it be the man himself, or any other creature, whatever it be, it must depart and die, if the man is to be brought aright to another mind, according to the truth.]

Thereunto doth St. Paul exhort us, saying: “Put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts: . . . and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Now he who liveth to himself after the old man, is called and is truly a child of Adam; and though he may give diligence to the ordering of his life, he is still the child and brother of the Evil Spirit. But he who liveth in humble obedience and in the new man which is Christ, he is, in like manner, the brother of Christ and the child of God."

passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm

Nowadays everybody wants everything from the texts.

 

[Marocchino]

Oriel, that is an excellent allegorical exegesis of Scripture but here we are discussing the literal-historical meaning. The Fathers and Scholastics discussed the symbolism of Genesis on end, as it is a rich and layered text, but the literal-historical truth of the passages was always presupposed.

It’s just like discussing the theological meaning of the Crucifixion. We can do this all that we want, provided we stay in the bounds of Catholic Tradition, as long as we keep in mind that it is an historical event.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Marocchino,

Is this your answer to my question to you in Post 354?

the following, however, are the biggest problems with theistic evolution that must be addressed: the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve**.**

 

[Marocchino]

Yes ma’am.