Original Sin & Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter FatherMerrin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
semper_catholicus said:
Oh interesting.

Not sure if I buy that though.
Click to expand...
I used to be a “six day” literalist, but I came to see that interpretation as being out-dated by the findings of modern geology and paleontology. It explains the fossil record rather well, I think - as opposed to evolution, which S.J. Gould described as “an embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory of gradualism.

There are a few sites devoted to progressive creationism, if you want to investigate further.
 
Last edited:
excuse me? do you understand how it happens? If you do, you are the first human on earth that does.

I am flagging you for your uncharitable words
 
edwest211 said:
Pure speculation.
Click to expand...
No it is not. DNA analysis shows that the population of biological humans (my ‘huma’ plus souled humans) never dropped below 1,000 breeding pairs at a minimum, and was more likely never below 10,000 breeding pairs.

Science cannot tell how many of that minimum population had souls, so that part is speculation based on Genesis talking about a single couple.

My scenario is based on DNA research and on Genesis.

rossum
 
Science cannot be shoehorned into Genesis, which describes things God actually did. Estimating anything about souls has no scientific backing.
 
edwest211 said:
Science cannot be shoehorned into Genesis, which describes things God actually did. Estimating anything about souls has no scientific backing.
Click to expand...
6ac4b6f8a8de70da63c589d7ce09402f1094fe5a.jpeg
 
Cruciferi said:
It’s downright comedic! Adam and Eve trying to enjoy the holidays with their In-laws.

Mother in Law: So, you claim that “God” gave you both rational souls?

Adam: Yes! Me and Eve are quite excited to not be poo throwing apes! 🤓

Father in Law: That’s it Beatrice! I told you he’d destroy our family and ruin our daughter! Yeah right Adam, you’re an ensoulled ape and I’m a monkeys uncle!

Adam: Well, sir, technically you are…

Father in Law: WHY YOU LITTLE!!!
Click to expand...
I don’k think it works quite the way you seem to be imagining it. (Or at the very least, cheapening it into the butt of a Simpsons joke). The first “en-souled” humans probably wouldn’t even be aware of their sudden new cognitive abilities - not fully, anyway. These things take time, anywhere from hundreds to thousands to millions of years, just like the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
FatherMerrin said:
The first “en-souled” humans probably wouldn’t even be aware of their sudden new cognitive abilities - not fully, anyway. These things take time, anywhere from hundreds to thousands to millions of years, just like the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Now you’re talking about soul evolution?
 
FatherMerrin said:
Technically, so is evolution.
Click to expand...
If the scientific evidence is worthy of belief, the fossil record does reveal what appears to be evolution - relatively simple forms of life, followed by increasingly more-complex creatures, culminating in man. However, biological evolution is not the only explanation for what the earth has revealed.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
No it is not. DNA analysis shows that the population of biological humans (my ‘huma’ plus souled humans) never dropped below 1,000 breeding pairs at a minimum, and was more likely never below 10,000 breeding pairs.
Click to expand...
So they say. Is science infallible?
 
Cruciferi said:
Now you’re talking about soul evolution?
Click to expand...
I a bit open to the possibility of what might be called “soul evolution”. Consider the law of God, for example: We no longer stone sinners to death, do we? And instead of the OT’s “eye for an eye”, Christianity (ie, Jesus) favours loving your neighbour and forgiveness.
Even on a physical level, creation seems to be on some kind of course of “evolution” - in Heaven there will be no death and no animals eating each other, conditions that have apparently been in existence for millions of years.
 
If we assume the mountain of evidence for evolution is true, and we also assume Original Sin is true:
  1. What was the act that conferred original sin to humanity?
  2. Was the act something that was unlikely to have been performed by other humans then and in the future?
  3. Did God speak to the nascent members of humanity?
  4. Were the nascent humans who committed this sin aware that it was a sin or even what sin was?
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
So they say. Is science infallible?
Click to expand...
One of the good things about science is that it knows it is not infallible, so it includes error-correcting mechanisms to find and correct errors.

Claiming infallibility also means that there is no apparent need for error-correcting mechanisms because no errors are even made. That is not wise, since humans do make errors.

Given that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, all with different interpretations of whatever version of the Bible they use, then I do no see it as wise to claim infallibility. Suppose a Pope had claimed “infallibly” that Copernicus was wrong and that the sun went round the earth?

Science is not infallible, but it does have a lot of evidence. Do you have any evidence that the human population was ever reduced to two individuals?

rossum
 
No. Don’t make this any more complicated than it already is, please.
 
If FatherMerrin says he’s not talking about soul evolution, I’d assume he meant the process of evolution for our physical bodies is what took a long time.
Mike_from_NJ said:
  • What was the act that conferred original sin to humanity?
  • Was the act something that was unlikely to have been performed by other humans then and in the future?
Click to expand...
Who knows? Personally, I’d think it was probably something to do with pride. Like maybe they created an idol or something to make their own god? But your guess would be good as mine.
Mike_from_NJ said:
Were the nascent humans who committed this sin aware that it was a sin or even what sin was?
Click to expand...
Well, to sin you have to know what you’re doing is wrong, so it’d be necessary for them to know that for a first sin.
 
mVitus said:
Who knows? Personally, I’d think it was probably something to do with pride. Like maybe they created an idol or something to make their own god? But your guess would be good as mine.
Click to expand...
I think that’s part of the problem. There is a very wide range of possibilities for what that act could be. It could not going beyond a certain landmark, killing a certain kind of animal, or saying a particular word. The reason I asked whether the act was something that could have easily been duplicated by other humans is that if the current understanding is to be believed God did not want people to fall into sin, yet if this was a reproducible act then God’s plan was quite fragile.

We also have to remember that if we assume both evolution and Original Sin to be true then the ones designated as Adam and Eve were very similar to the other “pre-humans” from which they spawned. Changes between generations tend to be very minor, so the traits we ascribe to Adam and Even must very closely match their brethren with which they inhabited the land.
 
That’s not Church teaching. Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts by God:
Code: 
impassibility (freedom from pain)
immortality (freedom from death)
integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)
infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)
Source: Catholic Answers
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top