Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
The “church’s” opinion on evolution is irrelevant to science.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church’s teaching on true fully complete human nature, as exhibited by the two sole parents of the human species, is absolutely relevant for all people in all places in the world.

Where else does one learn about the importance of the spiritual?
 
StAnastasia said:
The “church’s” opinion on evolution is irrelevant to science.
Click to expand...
Ah. That’s why you use this signature (as defender of the Scientists - per one poster):

**“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)"

LOL

**
 
edwest2 said:
Uh, where was the Supreme Court prior to 1964? And now add the segregation distraction card :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They were in the same place they were after, 1 1st St. NE Washington, DC. You never answered my question about the First Amendment and sectarian prayer, by the way but I’m sure that was accidental. That wasn’t a distraction card but the first example that came to mind that was plainly illegal under a plain reading of the Constitution but remained on the books because people wanted it to be other than it is (and was).
edwest2 said:
Suppositions are not the issue, the defense of the truth is. Therefore, there are no scientific, peer reviewed studies examining any book in the Bible. All that gets posted here are opinions - some with a little extra emotional oomph but opinions nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I’d be careful with very broad generalizations of this sort. Here are a couple:
  • Genesis - Carrier, Richard. “The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life.” Biology & Philosophy 19.5 (November 2004)
  • Gospels and Acts - Carrier, Richard. “Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity.” Journal of Higher Criticism 11.1 (Spring 2005)
  • Gospels - Case, Shirley Jackson, “Recent Books on the Question of Jesus’ Existence”, The American Journal of Theology, 15, (4), 1911, pp. 626–628.
  • Gospels and Daniel - Carrier, Richard. “The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion’s Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft.” Journal of Higher Criticism 8.2 (Fall 2001): 304-18.
If you’re looking for something longer there is Richard Carrier’s Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed or the documentary in which he is interviewed The God Who Wasn’t there. I acknowledge the above list is by no means exhaustive and is (quite) heavy on the work of Richard Carrier but he is the author whom I know off hand has written and published on the questions which you said were unexplored and uncriticized. I assume you would be unamused if I cited the Journal of Evolutionary Biology so I shall not.
edwest2 said:
The goal for Catholics is to uphold the truth and not the current trends in society that wish to cause doubt or confusion. Evolution is not a fact here. Pope Benedict has said what he knows to be true about this issue.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you feel the need to distinguish that evolution ‘is not a fact here’ (emphasis added) as though it is a fact in the real world but here on this forum you have the ability to reject otherwise factual statements. I know this is not what you intended but I find it interesting none the less.
 
ThomasToo said:
They were in the same place they were after, 1 1st St. NE Washington, DC. You never answered my question about the First Amendment and sectarian prayer, by the way but I’m sure that was accidental. That wasn’t a distraction card but the first example that came to mind that was plainly illegal under a plain reading of the Constitution but remained on the books because people wanted it to be other than it is (and was).

I’d be careful with very broad generalizations of this sort. Here are a couple:
  • Genesis - Carrier, Richard. “The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities Against a Natural Origin of Life.” Biology & Philosophy 19.5 (November 2004)
  • Gospels and Acts - Carrier, Richard. “Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity.” Journal of Higher Criticism 11.1 (Spring 2005)
  • Gospels - Case, Shirley Jackson, “Recent Books on the Question of Jesus’ Existence”, The American Journal of Theology, 15, (4), 1911, pp. 626–628.
  • Gospels and Daniel - Carrier, Richard. “The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion’s Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft.” Journal of Higher Criticism 8.2 (Fall 2001): 304-18.
If you’re looking for something longer there is Richard Carrier’s Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed or the documentary in which he is interviewed The God Who Wasn’t there. I acknowledge the above list is by no means exhaustive and is (quite) heavy on the work of Richard Carrier but he is the author whom I know off hand has written and published on the questions which you said were unexplored and uncriticized. I assume you would be unamused if I cited the Journal of Evolutionary Biology so I shall not.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to distinguish that evolution ‘is not a fact here’ (emphasis added) as though it is a fact in the real world but here on this forum you have the ability to reject otherwise factual statements. I know this is not what you intended but I find it interesting none the less.
Click to expand...
Since I know you follow StAnastasia’s comments, you can read back a few posts as to how she regards what the Church thinks about science.

I think I need to be a bit more blunt. This forum is called Catholic Answers, and I attempt to provide the Catholic Answer(s). However, I am often met by those with opinions but little to back themselves up with.

I am not referring to philosophy, but the Biology textbook as my starting point. All I try to point out is this: it is a woefully incomplete and misleading collection of data. Catholics need to be reminded of the rest of the story.

What is being sold here is a product, essentially a Biolgy textbook stapled to a copy of the Bible. If Catholics reject this arrangement, we are called ignorant, irrational, fundamentalists, literalists and just plain bad Catholics. If we do not submit to scientific circumcision, our Churches are not worth entering. They become less appealing to the highly educated.

The work of God cannot be taken into the laboratory and examined.

Your question about sectarian prayer ignores my comment regarding how prayer came to be in public schools in the first place. And I can add “In God We Trust” on our currency. Somehow, the sensitivity of the American judicial system was rather low in the period 1957 to 1962. I wonder why that is.

In any case, science as marketed here, cannot align with certain truths held by the Church, which is why this topic will go on ad infinitum for the forseeable future. It makes some people uncomfortable to know that with one billion adherents, evolution is still a tough sell (according to an article published in the New York Times).

And the final bit of hyperbole is the totally unprovable idea that God picked a pair of hominids out of the bunch. And it gets worse, much worse. A bag of chemicals grew a brain, went through this crazy God/gods/belief thing, but now that we’re modern (as opposed to a few weeks ago), we now get that all that delusional God/gods/belief stuff can be safely jettisoned. And so the billboard proclaims: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Then there are hints of the next phase: the post-theistic god where everything is wonderfully symbolic.

I have no problem with prayer in public schools. I support Santa Fe 530 U.S. at 313.

God bless,
Ed
 
Benadam said:
You wrote catholics are free to interpret in the statement below. I was wondering if that extended to the freedom to believe.

To be more specific I ask;
Free to dissent from the belief that Adam and Eve are real people who are the parents of the entire human race?
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of dissent. Dissent would be claiming that God is not the creator and source of all human life. It’s not a matter of dissent to interpret Genesis 1-11 differently than the rest of Scripture regarding its historicity and literary form.
 
ricmat said:
It depends on what the listener hears. And what the speaker intends. Most people, when they hear the term, associate it with a series God-not-involved random events. Most professional biologists (70% of whom are atheists or agnostics), when they use the term associate it with a series of God-not-involved random events.

You’re trying to get around this by saying that technically speaking, the exact definition of evolution doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Maybe not, but the real definition of evolution is what scientists mean when they say it, and what people interpret when they hear it.
Click to expand...
I think you confirmed my point, though you may not have intended to. Thanks.
 
edwest2 said:
Better supported by what? The ever increasing complexity of the human genome which, even given millions of years, does not just appear by itself? God bless,d
Click to expand...
Yes, genetics is one of the consilient lines of evidence confirming evolution, along with vertebrate homology, paleontology, and other sciences.
 
edwest2 said:
(2) The Church teaches that Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. See the encyclical Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII.
Click to expand...
Where, exactly, did Leo teach this as you claim? I have read that Encyclical and disagree. Thanks for the clarification.
 
buffalo said:
Truth should be taught in school

Either Catholicism is true or it is not.

If true, it should be taught. If not, it should not be taught as true.

Is Catholicism true?
Click to expand...
Truth should be taught in school.

I love my wife and children.

Either that’s true, or it’s not.

If true, it should be taught. If not, it should not be taught as true.
 
diggerdomer said:
So you agree, then, that a “theory of evolution” without further qualification cannot be said to be contrary to Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
ricmat said:
It depends on what the listener hears. And what the speaker intends. Most people, when they hear the term, associate it with a series God-not-involved random events. Most professional biologists (70% of whom are atheists or agnostics), when they use the term associate it with a series of God-not-involved random events.

You’re trying to get around this by saying that technically speaking, the exact definition of evolution doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Maybe not, but the real definition of evolution is what scientists mean when they say it, and what people interpret when they hear it.
Click to expand...
diggerdomer said:
I think you confirmed my point, though you may not have intended to. Thanks.
Click to expand...
My point was quite clear to me but I think you missed it.

When one says “Evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith” with no further qualification of exactly what one means by “evolution”, the listener will interpret this statement as “Random mutations and natural selection, without any involvement by some mythical god, is responsible for all complex life, and is compatible with the Catholic faith.” And that is exactly what most (70% atheist) of biologists intend that statement to mean. So people who hear it that way are indeed hearing the intended message.

Now that we both know what the biologists intended to say, and how most listeners are likely to interpret what they say, a Catholic should not say that “evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith.” The reason is that this reinforces the message that God is not involved. When God is not involved, that is contrary to the Catholic faith.

You can, of course, say “Well, my personal definition of evolution includes God and/or allows for the action of God in the process.” And that would be fine. But then if you would need to modify your statement e.g. “Evolution in which God is involved is compatible with the Catholic faith.” But then you’ll need to propose a new mechanism in which “random” is not involved.
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, genetics is one of the consilient lines of evidence confirming evolution, along with vertebrate homology, paleontology, and other sciences.
Click to expand...
Regarding the origin of the human species, “evidence” includes all those maybe valid or maybe not valid assumptions, speculations, estimates and various math formulas which are fed into the computer to provide the Experimental Simulated Populations that cannot account for every year and every event predicted backwards millions of years.

Blessings,
granny

The human species is the pinnacle of God’s creation.
 
diggerdomer said:
What possible substantive meaning does that provide to this discussion?
Click to expand...
It is just another example of the "substantive meaning’ referred to in the post below. I am not sure who made the original statement.
Originally Posted by diggerdomer forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Good point. Saying “evolution” by itself, with no further explanation, does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by grannymh
Click to expand...
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Melting ice cream does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith. :rolleyes:

Both statements " does not in and of itself adhere to or deny Catholic faith."

It is my humble opinion that the time has arrived when we need to stop using wishy-washy items such as “evolution with no further explanation” when describing or avoiding the reality of Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
diggerdomer said:
Truth should be taught in school.

I love my wife and children.

Either that’s true, or it’s not.

If true, it should be taught. If not, it should not be taught as true.
Click to expand...
Is it relevant?

In a macro way, yes it is. It supports family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top