Flaws with Theistic Evolution

[salvereginadude]

When I embraced Catholicism one of the things I loved about it was how it allowed for the faithful to hold the theories of evolution as valid and not contradictory with Scripture because the Creation account in Genesis is not necessarily meant to be taken literally, even though it can be.

At my LCMS school we began a unit on evolution today. The pastor said that you cannot be Christian and believe in theistic evolution, and he gave proof for this which was pretty outstanding. He said that if animals evolved into the bodies of humans over a course of millions of years how could death be allowed in this equation? Death, he said is a direct result of original sin, why was there death if the sin had not occured yet? Because, obviously, the earth isn’t capable of holding unlimited amounts of animals for this great amount of time between Creation and the Fall, there are some serious flaws in this theory. He said if Christians still believe in theistic evolution in spite of this fact it erases the need for a Savior and everything that Jesus did on the Cross.

Up until today I have been a very avid supporter of theistic evolution, but the point my teacher raised did seem to make a lot of sense. Ever sense he said it I really have been trying to come up with a good argument for it. I’ve come up with a weak one but it’s an argument. It goes as follows: Sin is something that does not confine animals, our teacher even mentioned today that animals do not go to heaven. If sin does not control animals maybe death would have been natural for them? I know this is a very weak argument.

I’d like your insight on the topic because I very much would like to believe in theistic evolution! Thanks!

 

[steveandersen]

Isn’t it that human death was a result of the Fall?
If pre humans evolved over millions of years and then God gave Adam & Eve souls making them full human AND Then they turned around and sinned and lost it there doesn’t seem to be a conflict with theistic evolution
(As an aside, evolution can’t really say anything about individuals. It can only address populations. The closest science can come was the identification of most recent common ancestors. )

I’m not sure what a LCMS school is but what is this teachers background and qualifications?

Surely an anti evolutionist can’t deny that things have been dying for a long long time.
We fuel our cars with their remains. Coral atolls are made from their skeletons.

 

[salvereginadude]

I’m not sure what a LCMS school is but what is this teachers background and qualifications.

LCMS is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. This is the most conservative faction of Lutheranism, in many ways they are similar to Catholicism but on the other hand they are more hardline on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[salvereginadude]

bump

 

[Nita]

I have a couple problems with accepting any form of evolution (from animals):

It means that at some point there were at least two human persons in the wombs of a couple animals. (I suppose it could be only one womb - boy & girl twins is a possibility )

It’s either that, or at some time after the birth of a “human look-alike” animal, God removed the animal soul and breathed in a human soul. And that’s really strange also - to think of Adam looking at his body and realizing it once belonged to an animal.

Sometimes think this verse seems applicable to the whole concept of evolution: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22)

 

[Zahmir]

I willl tell you that I am a supporter of theistic (guided) evolution.

I do believe that there an evolution that led the animal kingdom to growing into creatures that were similar to humans. And that God specially created, or bestowed upon one or two creatures at the moment of conception, a soul.

I don’t know the specifics, but I do believe that the entire human race was essentially created from these two individuals. I do believe that there was original sin, as in, God created us to be perfect with him, but we chose not to, so involved were we with worldly things. We directly disobeyed him even though God especially created all of creation for us.

Death then, before the creation of humanity, was simply a part of the natural cycle, just as trees die without nourishment, so do other animals who kill other animals for food, etc. However, humans were created above this “natural cycle,” we were created above creation and over creation. But when we sinned and became bound to this world, we took on mortality and a fear of death.

sigh

So anyway, it would be somewhat silly to hold a position that contradicts science. Or at least, one shouldn’t be opposed to the idea that science might “prove” to a certain extent that creation is a false idea. One, at that point, musn’t hold on to a faith in direction creation as happened in Genesis for the story as was told in Genesis isn’t necessary to our faith.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

I
So anyway, it would be somewhat silly to hold a position that contradicts science. Or at least, one shouldn’t be opposed to the idea that science might “prove” to a certain extent that creation is a false idea. One, at that point, musn’t hold on to a faith in direction creation as happened in Genesis for the story as was told in Genesis isn’t necessary to our faith.

---

The account in Genesis is allegorical and not factual. It was written in a way a desert nomad of the time could grasp the idea. As a literal work it is not nec. to the Faith but the message of Genesis is. Namely, God created the universe and all that is in it. He created it for us. He created it with order. He is the supreme master of it all.

 

[Zahmir]

The account in Genesis is allegorical and not factual. It was written in a way a desert nomad of the time could grasp the idea. As a literal work it is not nec. to the Faith but the message of Genesis is. Namely, God created the universe and all that is in it. He created it for us. He created it with order. He is the supreme master of it all.

i really wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s not factual. For all I know, it really honestly could be. You are not going to be welcomed in very many religious circles with an attitude like that.

 

[Northwind]

A thing or two about theistic evolution from my humble perspective…Evolution involves chance, factoring God into this is worse than Darwinian Uniformitarianism. Evolution then doesn’t have original sin, no sin no need of a savior, no savior then there is no need for Jesus…

Lukes geneology goes back to Adam, if its all a farce or some nice story to communicate some truth then the geneology would be myth. If God is who He says He is then there is no reason to dispute the Genesis account of creation as factual…again, just my 2 cents…

 

[steppenwolf1218]

i really wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s not factual. For all I know, it really honestly could be. You are not going to be welcomed in very many religious circles with an attitude like that.

---

I’m not sure what would prompt you to say this. I didn’t mean to be offensive. If you took it that way then I apologize. Only a young earth creationist would hold to the literal meaning of Genesis 6 day creation. Genesis is a multilevel literary masterpiece that holds much meaning for our Faith. It is a culmination of the Yawehist and Priestly traditions, two of the early Jewish biblical sources. These two along with the Elohist and Dueteromist, comprise the Pentatuech. On one level, for example, the account contrasts itself with other other similiar pagan myths in the Mesopotamia region of the time. In it it shows God to be the one true divine Creator. All things were created by Him, for Him out of His goodness and love. His plan for creation is the one that holds true and not our view of how it should be or what we think it is, a point that is brought out continually in the Wisdom books. Further it puts forth that the goodness of God alone is the sole reason for worship and not the quest for supernatural powers via frivolous worship and practices. An example for this is the fall of Adam and Eve. Instead of trusting in God for knowledge and spiritual nourishment they chose to attain greatness through selfish desire. The serpent, although most often equated with Satan is an actual attack on the various pagan worship practices of that era. The power of the serpent held nothing to the power of God, a theme that would continue to run through Exodus and Numbers. This is just one example. As stated earlier there are many levels to explore. To understand and defend our Faith it is crucial that we understand Genesis for it is referenced throughout the Pentatuech or Torah. It is also referenced in the New Testament. It is also the one book of the Bible which draws the most fire from those outside the Christian faith.

 

[steveandersen]

i really wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s not factual. For all I know, it really honestly could be. You are not going to be welcomed in very many religious circles with an attitude like that.

religion isn’t a popularity contest
niether is science

 

[steveandersen]

A thing or two about theistic evolution from my humble perspective…Evolution involves chance,

While there are random elements that contribute to evolution it is not a truly random process, bio-chemistry is fairly deterministic.

There is more chance in your daily life than in the evolution of a species

……… Evolution then doesn’t have original sin,

It doesn’t address it one way or another.
Nor would appropriate for it to do so; science can only offer naturalistic explanations.

Do you want a biologist to comment on theological matters?

……… Lukes geneology goes back to Adam, if its all a farce or some nice story to communicate some truth then the geneology would be myth.

“myth” does not necessarily mean “not true”
Nor does Allegory

Luke’s genealogy differs from Mark’s. Does that make either one a lie or “myth”?
Since the scriptures include two different genealogies it is clear that Jesus was decendant from Adam is more important then exactly how it happened.

If God is who He says He is then there is no reason to dispute the Genesis account of creation as factual…again, just my 2 cents…

If God is eternal and transcendent then a billion years or so mean nothing.
YEC (to my mind) diminishes God to a human scale and paints God as conducting an elaborate hoax with regards to the age of the earth.

I don’t care for either of those.

 

[Zahmir]

---

I’m not sure what would prompt you to say this. I didn’t mean to be offensive. If you took it that way then I apologize. Only a young earth creationist would hold to the literal meaning of Genesis 6 day creation. Genesis is a multilevel literary masterpiece that holds much meaning for our Faith. It is a culmination of the Yawehist and Priestly traditions, two of the early Jewish biblical sources. These two along with the Elohist and Dueteromist, comprise the Pentatuech. On one level, for example, the account contrasts itself with other other similiar pagan myths in the Mesopotamia region of the time. In it it shows God to be the one true divine Creator. All things were created by Him, for Him out of His goodness and love. His plan for creation is the one that holds true and not our view of how it should be or what we think it is, a point that is brought out continually in the Wisdom books. Further it puts forth that the goodness of God alone is the sole reason for worship and not the quest for supernatural powers via frivolous worship and practices. An example for this is the fall of Adam and Eve. Instead of trusting in God for knowledge and spiritual nourishment they chose to attain greatness through selfish desire. The serpent, although most often equated with Satan is an actual attack on the various pagan worship practices of that era. The power of the serpent held nothing to the power of God, a theme that would continue to run through Exodus and Numbers. This is just one example. As stated earlier there are many levels to explore. To understand and defend our Faith it is crucial that we understand Genesis for it is referenced throughout the Pentatuech or Torah. It is also referenced in the New Testament. It is also the one book of the Bible which draws the most fire from those outside the Christian faith.

You are totally right. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Genesis account IS allegorical and not factual. That’s all. I didn’t mean to be bitter, but that in defending the meaning of Genesis, one shouldn’t claim that it’s not history, but rather, one should argue for its theological meaning.

In all honesty, it doesn’t matter how it happened, but the truth is the same. So anyway, hope this clarifies what i intended.

 

[Zahmir]

religion isn’t a popularity contest
niether is science

Can you try to explain what you meant here?

Of course it’s not a popularity contest, but when trying to explain theological meaning which has importantance for the human race, why get caught up on silly things like Evolution vs. Creationism?

 

[steveandersen]

Can you try to explain what you meant here?

I suppose I misunderstood what you had written, sorry. (Note to self don’t go on-line until you’re fully awake)

You had said that steppenwolf1218 wouldn’t be popular in certain cirlces for what he said. I had to throw in my $0.02 that popularity doesn’t matter in some matters.

Like I said it was early…sorry.

Of course it’s not a popularity contest, but when trying to explain theological meaning which has importantance for the human race, why get caught up on silly things like Evolution vs. Creationism?

Agreed.

I’ve just seen people on both sides claim that either Christianity is anti-rational or that science is anti-Christian. I don’t hold to either but I’ve seen it so many times I get a little trigger happy and hit that “send” button…

 

[NickB]

Theistic Evolution, sounds compatable with Catholic teaching.

Theism: Belief in a personal God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, who transcends His creation but works in and through it in revealing himself to men. See article below.

God Bless

ewtn.com/library/Theology/schonevo2.HTM

 

[buffalo]

Theistic evolution has to reconcile these two points of constant Catholic teaching.

Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts

and

Eve coming from Adam

God could have created Adam and Eve and inserted them into the timeline anywhere He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening on the earth at that time.

 

[raikou]

As far as I know, animals, by nature, has a corruptible body and soul. Man on the other hand, has an incorruptible soul, and a body that is naturally corruptible if not for the preternatural gift of incorruptibility which was stripped off when divine justice dealt with original sin. Is this correct?

 

[buffalo]

Man on the other hand, has an incorruptible soul, and a body that is naturally corruptible if not for the preternatural gift of incorruptibility which was stripped off when divine justice dealt with original sin. Is this correct?

Yes

 

[buffalo]

Dogmas:

1. 
   *]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.