S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yep – I work with paleontologists. We have an enormous array of fossils, from fragments to practically whole skeletons.
If Adam and Eve were real people but existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, then what about Noah?
- Status
S
shuzo1189
Guest
If i may ask Anastasia what do you do? I remember visiting the Badlands up in Alberta and being totally fascinated but i lacked any sense of patience to actually have a knack for archeology.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I don’t believe that science is meaningless, I just believe it doesn’t need to be involved with some biblical matters, mainly the Bible. I do believe however science is good for many things and we are to respect the physician as told in scripture. Those that can present the their case for a 4.6 billion year earth theory, great and for those who can present evidence for 6000 year earth theory, great for them too. We don’t have an official church teaching, but I will stick the 6000 year earth theory based on the chronology in my Douay-Rheims.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I teach theology and philosophy at a university, and I also work with scientist to promote the understanding of science on the part of religious communities, and to show how Christianity has gradually integrated the idea of an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe into its theologies. I write and do speaking engagements about the theolgoical interpretation of cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience and genetics. Although I am not competent as a practitioner in any of these fields, I work with experts – often interdisciplinary. In that capacity I went to Rome as a delegate to the excellent conference sponsored a couple weeks ago by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
StAnastasia
D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
As a retired full professor of philosophy myself, I have long been interested in the interface between philosophy, theology, and natural science. That is what led me to take two sabbaticals in which I explored the philosophical and theological significance of the biological theory of evolution. That led me to publish the book I referred to earlier.
Hundreds of books deal with evolutionary theory and human origins. The vast majority fall into one of two categories: (1) those that offer conventional natural science, but embrace either atheistic naturalism or a theistic evolutionism that fails to support basic elements of Christian theology, especially the historicity of Adam and Eve and the reality of Original Sin, or (2) those that try to sustain basic Christian beliefs about Genesis, but embrace a young-Earth creationism whose scientific credentials are suspect. Origin of the Human Species differs in that it shows in great detail how conventional human evolutionary theory is entirely compatible with sound Scriptural interpretation and traditional theology. The book’s preface was written by Dr. Michael Behe.
Many Christian thinkers will say that evolution can, in principle, be comported with Christian belief, but the “crunch” comes when you ask them about Adam and Eve and Original Sin. Unless some concrete solution as to how Original Sin as an actual sin of an actual individual can be reconciled with evolutionary science, the claim that evolution fits with Christian belief rings hollow. That is what I attempt to do in my book. And again, for those who wish to see exactly how such a reconciliation may be possible, take a look at my book’s web site at www.drbonnette.com , where you will find two complete articles on the left side of the home page – published articles which present a possible scenario for such detailed resolution of the “evolution/Adam” problem.
Hundreds of books deal with evolutionary theory and human origins. The vast majority fall into one of two categories: (1) those that offer conventional natural science, but embrace either atheistic naturalism or a theistic evolutionism that fails to support basic elements of Christian theology, especially the historicity of Adam and Eve and the reality of Original Sin, or (2) those that try to sustain basic Christian beliefs about Genesis, but embrace a young-Earth creationism whose scientific credentials are suspect. Origin of the Human Species differs in that it shows in great detail how conventional human evolutionary theory is entirely compatible with sound Scriptural interpretation and traditional theology. The book’s preface was written by Dr. Michael Behe.
Many Christian thinkers will say that evolution can, in principle, be comported with Christian belief, but the “crunch” comes when you ask them about Adam and Eve and Original Sin. Unless some concrete solution as to how Original Sin as an actual sin of an actual individual can be reconciled with evolutionary science, the claim that evolution fits with Christian belief rings hollow. That is what I attempt to do in my book. And again, for those who wish to see exactly how such a reconciliation may be possible, take a look at my book’s web site at www.drbonnette.com , where you will find two complete articles on the left side of the home page – published articles which present a possible scenario for such detailed resolution of the “evolution/Adam” problem.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Science is meaningless if we cannot rely on its consistency. If you trust it to establish a timeline of some things, but reject the timeline established and accepted by geologists around the world, geology is meaningless. If you accept genetics where it is advantageous to you – say in medicine – but reject what genetics has shown regarding the common descent of all living things, science is meaningless. Science is not a salad bar, where you can pluck out certain elements for the salad of your life, and reject other elements.
The Doauy-Rheims chronology is worthless as history. Its worthlessness is proven by the fact that so-called Young Earth Creationist groups such as AiG and ICR have produced absolutely nothing in the way of scientific knowledge about the history of life on earth.
StAnastasia
V
voltape
Guest
As a Catholic from birth it makes me very sad to see how any catholics may still contend that the Douay-Rheims is an authority! It is a translation from Latin Vulgate which in turn is a translation from the Greek Septuagint (old testament)- Such version is as dated as Torres Amat or Scio de San Miguel in Spanish. You have to get an up-to-date version, like the Jerusalem Bible. Moreover you have to recognize that at least the first 11 chapters of Genesis are holy legend and not to be taken literrally like protestant fundamentalists do. To take them literally is to insult the word of God, as they teach a sublime story which is beautifully represented in the legend, like the idea that God created man, that the woman came from a rib of Adam, that of course means that your wife is part of you, your best half, and as such you must love her. Of course no rib was necessary to extirpate, but the idea is magnificent; and so forth. Please, we must stop repeating unbelievable, unacceptable fables because all this undermines the face of the Church. Let’s present the Church in her pristine magnificence, in harmony with science and with history
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Voltape, your thinking is consonant with the discussion we had in Rome at the recent conference on evolution. You need not fear that leading theologians take a woodenly literal approach to the interpretation of stories in the Hebrew Bible. However, if I may caution you, I find it more helpful in my teaching to speak of “symbolic language” than of “holy legend.” I know what you mean, of course, but to many students not versed in biblical interpretation or in systematic theology, the words “legend” and “myth” – which we theologians understand to mean stories containing symbolic truth – are words that connote falsehood (“legend” = “fable”). “Symbol” and “symbolic” are rich terms in both Catholic and Protestant theology, and are probably better used than “legend” or “myth.”
StAnastasia
V
voltape
Guest
Thank you, StAnastasia, for you specific clafication. It is really symbolic language. I shall avoid “fables” and words with derogatory connotaions. Yet we must remember there is the Medieval Golden Legend by Jacopo da Voragine.
B
buffalo
Guest
Not Catholic teaching.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Voltape, pleae don’t misunderstand me – I quite agree with you about the proper use of terms like “legend” and “myth,” and I don’t dumb things down for my students who can handle it. What I find useful, however, is to begin a course with a discussion of the meaning and connotations of terms like these, and to give examples. We discuss legends about George Washington and the cherry tree, or Isaac Newton and the apple, and we tease out the truths hidden in these legends.
Then we compare creation stories: e.g., Genesis 1-3 and the Mayan Popol Vuh. I show them how in the Hebrew and Mayan myths there are wonderful parallels, such as creation byu divine fiats and the plural nature of the Godhead, and the later creation of humans, and the origin of evil. Thanks for reminding me of Jacopo da Voragine’s splendid Catena aurea – I’ll re-read it!
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Depends on which Catholic you ask.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you ask a Catholic they say no.
If you ask a heretic they say yes.
D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
Buffalo is right. This is not Catholic teaching. The Church herself is the ultimate authority about the meaning of Her Book, the Holy Bible. And while the “literal historical” meaning need not always entail a literalist, fundamentalist reading, such as saying the the six days of creation were 24 hour days, still, some truths expressed in Genesis are not merely figurative or symbolic. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission insists that we must believe in “the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience, the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer.” These specific teachings about Genesis have historical teeth which retain their objective meaning to the present day. Evolutionists who would evade these specific teachings revealed in Genesis by advocating instead merely symbolic content do so at the price of their own authenticity as Catholics. I am aware that Pope Benedict XVI has expressed support for some sort of theory of evolution, but he has never rejected the teachings of his own Biblical Commission.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Four questions:
(1) Are you familiar with important scientific advancements since 1909?
(2) Are you conversant with the genetics of 2009, which demonstrates the genetic impossibility of Homo sapiens having evolved from a single breeding pair?
(3) Do you know about the conference just held in Rome on the theme of “Biological evolution: facts and theories”?
(4) Have you read Pope Benedict’s Creation and the Fall? He does not read the Adam and Eve story literally
D
Dr.Bonnette
Guest
To StAnastasia:
You write:
"Four questions:
(1) Are you familiar with important scientific advancements since 1909?
(2) Are you conversant with the genetics of 2009, which demonstrates the genetic impossibility of Homo sapiens having evolved from a single breeding pair?
(3) Do you know about the conference just held in Rome on the theme of “Biological evolution: facts and theories”?
(4) Have you read Pope Benedict’s Creation and the Fall? He does not read the Adam and Eve story literally"
Reply to 1: I am not a natural scientist, but a philosopher with some background in chemistry. I do not know all the important scientific advancements since 1909. But neither does anyone else, since each of us is educated in our own discipline, and therefore, takes the rest of our scientific knowledge on the personal authority of those outside our discipline. Since some controversy exists in most disciplines, this leaves us to render a qualified educated judgment about some matters of scientific speculation. Nonetheless, I am not totally unaware of the last century’s scientific findings, theories, and speculations.
Reply to 2: The genetic origins of Homo Sapiens do not concern me, since, if you have read my book, Origin of the Human Species, or the articles on human origins posted on my web site (www.drbonnette.com), you would be aware that I speculate that Adam and Eve might have appeared in the much earlier population group of later Homo Erectus, some 500,000 years ago. Beware though, this is theoretical speculation only.
Reply to 3: Yes, I am aware of the recent conference on biological evolution held in Rome. Still, a conference of experts, speculating about matters of natural science and other disciplines – often speculating outside their own sphere of competence – does not possess the authority in matters of Catholic Faith, including the meaning of Holy Scripture, possessed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Reply to 4: I am aware that Benedict XVI does not read all aspects of Genesis literally. Still, he does not reject the findings of his own Biblical Commission, especially as relates to the individual pair of first humans who committed Original Sin. Without the Fall, there would be no need for a Redeemer. Please show me where Benedict XVI has denied the reality of Original Sin as an actual sin committed by a first individual human being, Adam.
Incidentally, have you read my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003,7), which is described on my web site at www.drbonnette.com and sold on Amazon? You can read reviews of it on Amazon. In that work, I explore the philosophical meaning and validity of evolution theory in terms of such topics as the biological and natural philosophical meaning of species, recent-ape language studies and their significance for human essential superiority, extraterrestrial life, current paleoanthropological theories of human origins and their compatibility with sound Scriptural interpretation of Genesis, and Biblical chronology.
You write:
"Four questions:
(1) Are you familiar with important scientific advancements since 1909?
(2) Are you conversant with the genetics of 2009, which demonstrates the genetic impossibility of Homo sapiens having evolved from a single breeding pair?
(3) Do you know about the conference just held in Rome on the theme of “Biological evolution: facts and theories”?
(4) Have you read Pope Benedict’s Creation and the Fall? He does not read the Adam and Eve story literally"
Reply to 1: I am not a natural scientist, but a philosopher with some background in chemistry. I do not know all the important scientific advancements since 1909. But neither does anyone else, since each of us is educated in our own discipline, and therefore, takes the rest of our scientific knowledge on the personal authority of those outside our discipline. Since some controversy exists in most disciplines, this leaves us to render a qualified educated judgment about some matters of scientific speculation. Nonetheless, I am not totally unaware of the last century’s scientific findings, theories, and speculations.
Reply to 2: The genetic origins of Homo Sapiens do not concern me, since, if you have read my book, Origin of the Human Species, or the articles on human origins posted on my web site (www.drbonnette.com), you would be aware that I speculate that Adam and Eve might have appeared in the much earlier population group of later Homo Erectus, some 500,000 years ago. Beware though, this is theoretical speculation only.
Reply to 3: Yes, I am aware of the recent conference on biological evolution held in Rome. Still, a conference of experts, speculating about matters of natural science and other disciplines – often speculating outside their own sphere of competence – does not possess the authority in matters of Catholic Faith, including the meaning of Holy Scripture, possessed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Reply to 4: I am aware that Benedict XVI does not read all aspects of Genesis literally. Still, he does not reject the findings of his own Biblical Commission, especially as relates to the individual pair of first humans who committed Original Sin. Without the Fall, there would be no need for a Redeemer. Please show me where Benedict XVI has denied the reality of Original Sin as an actual sin committed by a first individual human being, Adam.
Incidentally, have you read my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003,7), which is described on my web site at www.drbonnette.com and sold on Amazon? You can read reviews of it on Amazon. In that work, I explore the philosophical meaning and validity of evolution theory in terms of such topics as the biological and natural philosophical meaning of species, recent-ape language studies and their significance for human essential superiority, extraterrestrial life, current paleoanthropological theories of human origins and their compatibility with sound Scriptural interpretation of Genesis, and Biblical chronology.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Think what you will. I don’t view history as worthless. I do find Evolution as garbage and I do stand by that statement. I do respect those that use evolution and science to help determine the age of the earth, but I put my trust into scripture and other biblical works over science any day. I stand by the fact that science should have no business in biblical matters. Just because someone may produce some sort of evidence of the earth’s age being 4.6 billion doesn’t mean I have to believe it being true nor do you have to believe the young earth conception. I choose to believe in biblical matters over science as since is simply trial and error.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thank you. I’ll try to find a copy of your book and read it!
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
woh, woh, who!!!. The Douay-Rheims is the most accurate of all English Bibles. The Latin Vulgate was free from doctrinal and moral matters and the Douay-Rheims is the word for word English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I use both on a daily basis. Upgrade. I have the Jerusalem NT, 2 NAB besides the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate. I have read the JB along with NAB and I felt something lacking with the translation. The Douay-Rheims filled the void in what was missing from what I was lacking in the JB and NAB. Don’t ever degrade me to a fundamentalist protestant again. I take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally. If you feel that Genesis is fable, you are sorrily mistaking my friend. My purpose is to teach the Catholic faith. I will do that with whatever Catholic Bible translation I choose to. I encourage you to do the same. I most certainly don’t need an updated Bible version. If I did use a modern Catholic Bible version it would probably be the Confraternity or Ronald Knox if I could find one, if not the RSV-CE would be my choice. Furthermore, I prefer biblical matters over science in a heartbeat. Science shouldn’t be an issue with biblical matters, but we should embrace it as an important attribute in society.
M
missal
Guest
Our Church acknowledges verneralble Catherine Emmerich’s visions without question.
And she talks about “seeing” Adam created and Eve come from his rib…
How doe’s this fit in with “legend”?
View attachment 5452
- Status