Is Evolution official?

[Donald45]

Isn’t it convenient how you neglected to deal with my bringing up the contextual issue of the modifiers of the word day in Genesis 1 and then accuse me of not trying to read Genesis in context.

I quoted you in briefer form simply to save time and space (there’s a character limit for posts), nothing more. The grammatical factors you mentioned are merely part of the overall literary framework upon which the writer builds his essentially poetic composition (see Posts 79 & 80 above). My point was that you rest nearly your entire argument on the Hebrew word yom, a most tenuous position. Given the content of my posts just mentioned, the weak weight of this supposed argument simply collapses.

Should Genesis be taken literally?

No:

geocities.com/athens/thebes/7755/genesismetaphor.html
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Fischer.html
upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

The writer of these exact words felt they were important enough to carve it in stone with his “finger” (Yes, I know its an anthromorphism)…

I’m unsure of why you quoted these particular biblical texts. Yes, several passages make passing reference to “six days” of creation, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the fact that Genesis 1 is a poetic composition. You quoted texts which state that something occurred “in the beginning,” but this seems irrelevant to the discussion as well, since I in no way deny that the world had a beginning. Perhaps you could clarify.

Also, what is your reply to my posts (79 & 80) in their entirety, taken together? Do you deny these observations, and, if so, on what basis? Will you face and accept these literary, historical, and cultural facts, or simply dismiss them out of hand in order to maintain your preferred interpretation of Genesis 1?

Blessings,

Don+T+

 

[rossum]

I would like a little help here.

According to some here, evolution produces Adam and Eve and God at some point infused an immortal soul into them.

Reading Genesis 2:7 “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” this can be seen as a two stage process, firstly “God formed man of dust from the ground”, and secondly God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”.

The first stage is seen as the formation of a physical body, without a soul, just like an animal’s body. In Genesis 19 God formed animals “out of the ground”, which can be seen as a similar process to using the “dust of the ground” to form Adam’s body. This first stage can be seen as the development, through evolution, of an upright walking large-brained ape, but one without a human soul and hence not yet a fully human being. Since a soul is immaterial it does not fossilise and does not appear in our DNA so it is not possible to tell by looking at a fossil or its DNA whether or not that organism had a soul.

The second stage, the “breath of life”, is God infusing a soul into two of the uptight walking large-brained apes from the first stage. Adam and Eve’s parents will not have had souls, but Adam and Eve’s children will have had souls because God gave them souls. Souls do not evolve, they are created directly by God as required. Only those to whom God gives souls will have them. Hence in the early years after Adam and Eve, there will have been a mixed population, some with souls and some without. I would presume that if a souled human bred with a non-souled upright ape (in biological terms they will still have been the same species) then God would give the resulting child a soul. Hence all souled humans will have descended from Adam and Eve.

So that means Adam and Eve had parents.

Yes.

They would have had mortal souls.

What do you mean by “mortal soul” here? They did not have a human soul because Adam and Eve were the first humans. They may have had an animal soul, if such a thing exists.

There would have had to be more than just one of these creatures.

Yes. The evidence of variation in our DNA indicates that the minimum population of Homo sapiens in the last 70,000 years was between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs.

They could not have been men because Adam was the first man.

If man must have a human soul then they were not men.

What were they then?

They were upright walking large-brained apes of the same biological species as Adam and Eve. Their fossils and DNA would be indistinguishable from fossils or DNA of Adam, Eve and their immediate descendants. A soul does not show up in fossilised bones or in DNA.

What happened to them?

They died of old age. Given that any child of an unsouled and souled parent will have a soul then eventually souls will have spread through the whole population.

Imagine a flock of sheep. The farmer marks a single ram and a single ewe with a purple spot of paint. Every lamb of those two sheep also gets marked. Every further lamb that has at least one parent with a purple mark also gets a purple mark. Eventually all the sheep in the flock will have the purple mark. Souls could have spread through the human population in much the same way.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I would like a little help here.

According to some here, evolution produces Adam and Eve and God at some point infused an immortal soul into them.

So that means Adam and Eve had parents. They would have had mortal souls. There would have had to be more than just one of these creatures. They could not have been men because Adam was the first man. What were they then? What happened to them? I see a conflict can it be resolved?

Not all of this can be resolved and it must, for faith and reason cannot be opposed.

However, it doesn’t have to be either or.

God could have supernaturally created Adam and then Eve from him with preternatural gifts and inserted them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening here on earth at the time. What rossum writes is highly speculative.

The points of intersect are Eve coming from Adam and preternatural gifts.

 

[wildleafblower]

I would like a little help here.

According to some here, evolution produces Adam and Eve and God at some point infused an immortal soul into them.

Hi adrift,

We, as human beings, will never know when GOD decided to give the first human couple (Adam and Eve) an immortal soul. There isn’t a scientist alive with a lick of sense that would tell you otherwise unless they are a creationist. Remember that Adam and Eve represent the image of mankind. The difference between us and other mammals is language. “Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. We cannot envisage humanness without the ability to think abstractly, but abstract thought requires language. This finding confirms that the molecular basis for the origin of human speech and, indeed, the human mind, is critical.” (FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language
by Alec MacAndrew evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm )
http://www.evolutionpages.com/FOXP2_language.htm

You need to return to the following topic for further information:
**Catholic Position on Evolution **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2984065#post2984065
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2984065#post2984065
Take care and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

I find it highly more likely that it is the fundamentalist and his irrational need to define this book [Bible] as some blueprint sent directly from God as the crazy one.

SpiritMeadow, please don’t insinute to other Catholics that the Bible isn’t based on truths. You too need to review the topic I’ve provided with CATECHISM of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and The Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH along with comparing it with The New American Bible (2002)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM#fonte
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM#fonte

Thanks and have a nice holiday! By the way, you might not be aware of it but you constantly call people you don’t agree with fundamentalists. It’s rude.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

When you posit that genesis is a true statement of how the earth and universe was created, you posit that God created deliberate falsehood with the intention to misdirect us and to deceive us.

I don’t think that’s necessarilly so. But let’s take a walk down this garden path for a bit and see where it leads.

I’m old enough to remember when fundies said that dinosaur bones were there as a test to see if we would follow our senses or God’s word. They’ve gotten a bit more sophisticated but not much.

Me personally, unless I see data to suggest otherswise, I think that dinosaur bones are dinosuar bones, fossilized after millions of years of being replaced by mineral deposits. But let’s work with your position for a moment.

There are passages, such as Abraham’s test of faith, where God really does appear to be testing people’s faith.

How does one respond when confronted with passages such as the Story of Abraham (which prefigures Mary’s test), Exodus 16:4, Exodus 20:20, Deuteronomy 8:2, Judges 2:22, the entire Book of Job, Jeremiah 9:7, Zechariah 13:9, 2 Corinthians 2:9, 2 Corinthians 8:8, and James 1:12-- all books which clearly speak of God in some testing the faith of people to see if their faith is sincere?

I would disagree that God created deliberate falsehood with the intention to misdirect us and to deceive us. But I would agree that God allows deliberate falsehood with the intention to see if our faith is sincere.

If God creates the earth there is no reason to make it appear billions of years old, containing fossils of long extinct creatures, and early forms of humanity.

At this point in time I’m certainly not defending any young earth position. I think the universe appears billions of years old because it most likely is billions of years old. I think the strata of the earth appears to contain fossils of long extinct creatures because the strata of the earth most likely does contain fossils of long extinct creatures. And I think some of these fossils appear to be early forms of humanity because some these fossils most likely are early forms of humanity. I just wanted to make my position clear on this.

However, if indeed God did supernaturally create humanity by borrowing from the design of pre-existing creatures, this would in no way “necessarilly” make him a deceiver either. For all we know, it could also just as likely mean that those who think they understand how “God did it” are dissapointed with the possiblity that they’ve allowed science to mislead them from God miraculously creating life too. In other words, the deception can certainly work both ways.

For example, what if God did actually create Adam and Eve by a supernatural act after all?

Would this mean that God deceived everyone that believed God used evolution to create Adam and Eve?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

God doesnt’ need to “practice”.

Continuing down the garden path I have to ask who said that he needs to practice?

I know I didn’t.

He would have no reason to create creatures and then destroy them as unsatisfactory.

He apparently created humanity perfect and then allowed us to die too. Certainly, our ability to sin is unsatisfactory to the point that he allows us to go to hell if we so choose to go there.

Omnipotence doesn’t allow for mistakes.

But omnipotence does allow for humanity to have the freedom to make mistakes, doesn’t it?

Is evolution your theodicy of God?

Thus you are stuck admitting that God has some reason to make it look different that what you claim “HE” said in a book.

So far, I’m not really seeing how this is “necessarilly” so.

But let’s continue down the garden path a bit longer…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

We’re apparently starting to see two trees at the end of the garden path now.

Given your posiition, God created humans, and apparently endowed them with certain capabilities since we can see them. We have minds that so far have enabled us to change the world quite significantly, we create airplanes and they fly, we create medicine and it works. So the mind is a legitimate thing we possess and you would agree it was given as designed directly from God. So now, we are not to use it? It is made a mockery of?

Is the human intellect made a mockery by the Trinity, something which cannot be fully comprehended using pure human reason?

How about the Eucharist?

How about miracles in general? Do miracles make a mockery of our God-given human intellect?

For example, when Jesus miraculously healed the ear of the man that Peter had struck, did God deceive us by healing the man, thus giving his flesh the “appearance of age”?

This would normally take weeks or months for something like this to happen (assuming the ear was stitched on correctly)

Or how about the water turning into wine? When Jesus miraculously turned water into wine, did God deceive us by causing this to happen in an instant, thus giving the wine the “appearance of age”?

The fermenting of wine usually takes some time too.

What about Aaron’s rod?

I could go on with this but I think this illustrates a point. God creating something with the “appearance of age” does not necessarily mean God is deceiving people.

Actually, everytime I read of some miracle within the Scriptures or Church History, a miracle where the end result has the appearance of age, it is in no way deceptive. More to the point, the appearance of age simply seems to be a testimony to the fact that God is not bound at all by natural laws.

I guess we’re standing before the tree of knowledge and the tree of life now…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is useful in somethings but must be totally discarded when it comes to this book which we must read with total abandonment of our senses.

Not only is the book of Genesis prophetically christological in nature, the book of Genesis does reveal the dogmas of creatio ex nihilo and the truth of original sin too. In addition to this, it also reveals the truth of the theology of the body as well, something which has been clearly expanded upon much later by Pope John Paul II but previewed elsewhere in the Scriptures too.

As such, I don’t think it must be totally discarded when it comes to this book, something which you seem to think we must read with total abandonment of our senses.

Many of the truths within the book of Genesis are logically inferred truths which agree readilly with Divine Revelation.

What kind of Image am I thus made in? Is God crazy?

Me personally, I think Adam’s creation in the image and likeness of God is christological to Christ’s incarnation as true God and true man. Many elements in the Book of Genesis, especially the creation of man, are, in my opinion, highly christological in nature.

So, no, I don’t think we’re made in the image of some mad god of the gnostic heretics. I think we’re made in the image of the God-man that Adam’s human life fore-shadowed: Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I find it highly more likely that it is the fundamentalist and his irrational need to define this book as some blueprint sent directly from God as the crazy one.

I don’t think it’s only the fundamentalists who think this though. Roger Penrose seems to think that most of what we need to scientifically understand the universe is contained in the first few chapters of Genesis if I recall correctly. He’s definitely not a fundamentalist either-- and is perfectly happy with theistic evolution I think.

I think God should he chose to write me a handbook would have written it clearly. You would I assume concede its not clear. Else why these 33,000 and counting sects of christianity all staking their claim on what it means?

That’s why we have the Magisterium put in place by Christ as guided by the Holy Spirit to protect us from error.

Consequently, if we participate in the tree of knowledge, we are indeed in abandonment of our God-given senses. The tree of life is the fruit I would rather participate in-- it allows our senses to partipate in the beautific vision.

 

[MariaG]

We’re apparently starting to see two trees at the end of the garden path now.

Thanks for the stroll

I enjoyed it immensely

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Steve40]

I have been tring to study the whole issue of creationism/evolution. I have noticed that everyone here at CA forums seems to dislike creationism (in any of its forms). Has the Church officially disavowed creationism (in any or all forms) for evolution taking a symbolic/allegorical look at Gen. 1 as it? Thanks and God bless.

Right now the collective understanding of the Church which includes the saints in the Heaven and the souls in Purgatory is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is correct. What you need to do is look at what has been said from a position of authority throughout history and what has been said in opinion. The authoritative is more heavily toward a literal interpretation. This is consistent with the rule of St. Augustine which says unless by necessity, do not depart from the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture. Since it is not necessary to believe in evolution, it is far from proven, the historical and true Catholic view is that the Bible means what it says.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Thanks for the stroll

I enjoyed it immensely

God Bless,
Maria

Thank you.