"Expelled"

[reggieM]

Science is indeed incompatible with a 6 day/6000 year intepretation of Genesis,

At least you admit that science is incompatible with religion, depending on one’s theological perspective. This is far better than what is commonly said that “there is no conflict between science and religion” – because there certainly is.

One cannot accept, for example, the theological position of many of the Catholic Fathers of the Church regarding the book of Genesis and at the same time accept the ideas of Darwinian evolution. The two points are in conflict. Science and religion cannot be reconciled in that matter.

One could easily take it a bit farther and see how Darwinism conflcts with the traditional Catholic teaching on original sin. Or at least, it puts that teaching into question.

It was argued elsewhere that science proved that the Biblical teaching about Noah’s Ark (referenced by Our Lord and St. Peter) was not true. This has obvious theological implications.

Here’s an obvious case where science attempts to find a naturalistic cause for religious belief itself. If this attempt was successful (it wasn’t), then science would “prove” that religious belief was due entirely to natural causes or as a function of the human imagination.

Religion a figment of human imagination
newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn13782

 

[buffalo]

I suspect that PatThePoet has mistakenly accepted the assertion by some creationists (and by the film Expelled) that you cannot both be Christian and accept evolution. Given that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution, then the dilemma is can a continued belief in Christianity be reasonably maintained?

The answer is of course, “Yes it can”, because the assertion that evolution implies atheism is false. Science is indeed incompatible with a 6 day/6000 year intepretation of Genesis, but there are many other ways of being Christian that do not require such an overly literalist interpretation of Genesis. Nor is such a literalist account of Genesis required by the Catholic Church.

rossum

Evolution can be accepted, just not the evolution of Adam and Eve.

 

[rossum]

Evolution can be accepted, just not the evolution of Adam and Eve.

Personaly I see no real obstacle to the evolution of Adam’s physical body. The Church has stated that Adam’s soul did not evolve and was directly created by God. Eve can either be a one-off miracle from Adam’s rib or else just another evolved body to which God added a soul.

Whatever the details, the main point is that acceptance of evolution does not require abandonment of the Church, as the film tries to assert. It is possible to be Catholic and to accept evolution.

rossum

 

[VociMike]

Evolution can be accepted, just not the evolution of Adam and Eve.

I don’t see what the problem is. Evolution says nothing about souls, which is what differentiates Adam and Eve from creatures they may have evolved from. Why couldn’t God arrange to have pre-human creatures evolve (creating them from “dust”), and then give two of them human souls (breathing “life” into them)?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t see what the problem is. Evolution says nothing about souls, which is what differentiates Adam and Eve from creatures they may have evolved from. Why couldn’t God arrange to have pre-human creatures evolve (creating them from “dust”), and then give two of them human souls (breathing “life” into them)?

Here is the intersect - Adam and Eve were created with preternatural gifts. Eve came from Adam as the constant teaching of the Church has been.

Are you suggesting a reversal of dogma? That is why there is another thread that I started -
Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

My answer to this has been - God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe.

Remember the Star Trek movie - the one where they terraformed a planet at the end? Everyone was pretty cool with that accelerated process. It happened right before our eyes. Now if you lived on that planet a few hundred years later, what would your research show you?

Just thinking for a minute - say God terraformed earth to prepare it for Adam and Eve - and then inserted them in it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

At least you admit that science is incompatible with religion, depending on one’s theological perspective.

It is, of course possible for some religion to make claims that are inconsistent with reality. It is instructive, that the Catholic Church has not. A literal six-day creation has never been part of the Church’s teaching.

Now we know why.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t see what the problem is. Evolution says nothing about souls, which is what differentiates Adam and Eve from creatures they may have evolved from. Why couldn’t God arrange to have pre-human creatures evolve (creating them from “dust”), and then give two of them human souls (breathing “life” into them)?

VociMike, the critical population of hominids in the gradual evolution to Homo sapiens had to be larger than two. The creation of “Adam” from “adma” (dirt) and “Eve” from Adam refers symbolically – but not literally – to the origin of the human race. Evolution is a millions-of-years-long and very gradual process (with saltations, of course), and there is no clear point at which we can say of a human baby that “here is a human being who did not have human parents.”

The human person is a product of evolution. This includes the psychophysical unity that is human nature. God did not prepare a human body and then suddenly insert a “soul” into it. The beauty of the symbolic language in Genesis is the divine calling of spiritually sensitive and morally responsible being out of inanimate nature, and into loving relationship with God.

Petrus

 

[VociMike]

Here is the intersect - Adam and Eve were created with preternatural gifts. Eve came from Adam as the constant teaching of the Church has been.

Are you suggesting a reversal of dogma?

What, precisely, is the dogma involving the creation of Eve that you suggest I am reversing? I need citations. I see nothing in Humani Generis that prevents believing that pre-human forms evolved into which God then infused human souls.

My answer to this has been - God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe.

To me this is exactly like saying that Jesus could have created his own humanity rather than received it from Mary. It suggests that somehow God couldn’t figure out a way to get what he wanted without breaking his own rules, calling “timeout!”, turning off the lights for a bit while he rearranged things. It strikes me as special case pleading, and unnecessary.

 

[VociMike]

VociMike, the critical population of hominids in the gradual evolution to Homo sapiens had to be larger than two. The creation of “Adam” from “adma” (dirt) and “Eve” from Adam refers symbolically – but not literally – to the origin of the human race. Evolution is a millions-of-years-long and very gradual process (with saltations, of course), and there is no clear point at which we can say of a human baby that “here is a human being who did not have human parents.”

The human person is a product of evolution. This includes the psychophysical unity that is human nature. God did not prepare a human body and then suddenly insert a “soul” into it. The beauty of the symbolic language in Genesis is the divine calling of spiritually sensitive and morally responsible being out of inanimate nature, and into loving relationship with God.

Petrus

As long as it all squares with Humani Generis, which insists on exactly one parent of the race: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."

 

[drpmjhess]

As long as it all squares with Humani Generis, which insists on exactly one parent of the race: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."

VociMike, like all theological statements, Humani generis (more than half a century old) stands in need of modification and refinement as our knowledge of the world increases. Adam can justifiably refer to the population of hominids that God called – by means of evolution – into greater cognitive awareness, deeper moral understanding, and richer spiritual responsiveness.

Petrus

 

[VociMike]

VociMike, like all theological statements, Humani generis (more than half a century old) stands in need of modification and refinement as our knowledge of the world increases. Adam can justifiably refer to the population of hominids that God called – by means of evolution – into greater cognitive awareness, deeper moral understanding, and richer spiritual responsiveness.

Petrus

That’s a limb upon which I don’t care to join you.

 

[RobbyS]

VociMike, the critical population of hominids in the gradual evolution to Homo sapiens had to be larger than two. The creation of “Adam” from “adma” (dirt) and “Eve” from Adam refers symbolically – but not literally – to the origin of the human race. Evolution is a millions-of-years-long and very gradual process (with saltations, of course), and there is no clear point at which we can say of a human baby that “here is a human being who did not have human parents.”

The human person is a product of evolution. This includes the psychophysical unity that is human nature. God did not prepare a human body and then suddenly insert a “soul” into it. The beauty of the symbolic language in Genesis is the divine calling of spiritually sensitive and morally responsible being out of inanimate nature, and into loving relationship with God.

Petrus

I think the problem is this infatutation with gradualism. Darwin had an English horror of revolution. One can imagine a naturalist explanation to go along with the notion of “Adam” or “Eve” Jack London even wrote a story about this called “Before Adam,” whose main character was a mutant primate with human capabilities. His "Eve’ was a sister or near relation.

But a broader problem is that people forget that Darwin did not explain the evolution of “species” but simply variations in a population, that what he was conducting a study of animal populations in relative isolation. Evolution is, after all, a loaded term. Originally, I think, it comes from mathematics, and then was applied to growth. Implicit in it is movement from latency to completion. Evolution implies a kind of continuity, predictability, which may not be evident.

As to the theology, it occurs to me that Scripture is full of men who “hear” the voice of God, who have been prepared to listen.

 

[drpmjhess]

That’s a limb upon which I don’t care to join you.

I understand. The limb is already very crowded!

 

[drpmjhess]

I think the problem is this infatutation with gradualism… Evolution implies a kind of continuity, prdictability that we cannot observe.

Evolutionary biology accepts both gradualism and the saltations Steven Jay Gould characterizes as “punctuated equilibrium.” In other words, the fossil evidence supports both long incremental evolution of species, and forced rapid evolution of isolated populations under environmental pressure.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

What, precisely, is the dogma involving the creation of Eve that you suggest I am reversing? I need citations. I see nothing in Humani Generis that prevents believing that pre-human forms evolved into which God then infused human souls.

To me this is exactly like saying that Jesus could have created his own humanity rather than received it from Mary. It suggests that somehow God couldn’t figure out a way to get what he wanted without breaking his own rules, calling “timeout!”, turning off the lights for a bit while he rearranged things. It strikes me as special case pleading, and unnecessary.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

 

[buffalo]

** DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I **

The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows: Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

more…

 

[buffalo]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART II

Vatican Council II recognizes four conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a doctrine to be proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium; and as we shall show, these conditions had indeed already been fulfilled by the year 1880 in the case of the doctrines regarding the origin of Adam and Eve recalled by Leo XIII.

more…

 

[VociMike]

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

1. 
   Which of these dogmas do you imagine that I am attempting to reverse? Nothing you quoted even mentions Eve.

 

[buffalo]

Which of these dogmas do you imagine that I am attempting to reverse? Nothing you quoted even mentions Eve.

Well start with the red lighted.

Then move on to the next posts.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The miraculous creation of Eve from a tissue sample from Adam would certainly make it easier for creationists to accept, and there would be no way for science to deny it.

But it wouldn’t change the fact of human evolution from other primates. It would just be a nifty bit of cloning, with the miraculous substitution of on chromosome for another.

Certainly within God’s ability. The only evidence against it would be the fact that He does almost everything by natural means in this world.

And that’s hardly conclusive.