Original Sin vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomaskovarik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you should explain what you understand evolution to be. Evolution to me is the way life has changed over time. Nothing political or social there.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not a true theory in the same sense as General Relativity or Quantum Theory. Not all of it has its roots in experiment or observation.
Natural selection is still a big part of evolutionary theory. Are you suggesting that it isn’t?
Click to expand...
No, quite the contrary. Natural Selection is almost all that still survives from Darwin, himself. If the entire Evolution proposal was limited to the Theory of Natural Selection, then it would be a valid theory. Unfortunately, Evolution is not Natural Selection alone.
They “invent” new species? That is a pretty damning charge. What is your evidence that scientists “invent” new species?
Click to expand...
I will give one example, Homo Ergaster. Until quite recently, Homo Ergaster was a population of Homo Erectus. Homo Ergaster was spun-off during the 1950’s and called a new species. It is my understanding that the anotomical justification for this split was rather weak and could be easily explained as random variation with a single species. Why? I don’t know. Maybe the first person to make the proposal was trying to secure an associate professorship someplace. Maybe he saw some crazy white-supremicist preacher on television try to justify racism by saying that blacks were really a different species. Who knows what the real motivation was? I doubt very much that it was purely anotomical.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
That’s a paradox, that’s why I oppose evolution so vehemently, If you have trouble why there’s one aspect of the origin of human that doesn’t need God, you’ll eventually end of worshipping that non-God “god” also. If you think God took active part in every part of the origin of human. then tell me why God can’t create human body and soul directly. what God is trying to prove when He first made a monkey/ape then turned it into human body? and if one admits God’s active involvement in the creation of human body, he also admit it can’t be understand using physics laws. If one use physics law to interpret the resurrection of Jesus, he will inevitably come to the conclusion: the resurrected Jesus isn’t the one on the cross
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that all this somehow leads to a non-theistic image of God (as explained by Shelby Spong), non-personal deity of sorts. We are trying to substitute, or modify the concept of creation to allow for evolution, but it is just a word play and I feel that most of us at least tacitly know about this problem. Some people here, without much intelligence obviously, do not feel that there is any problem at all.
But when the word Creation is mentioned everywhere, it is creation, it is not “creation with the possibility of evolutionary creation”, Moses didn’t have that in mind.
We are just trying to stay away from the power of science, to change the wordings of our faith so that it harmonizes with science.
Now, what if tomorrow, scientists discovered that no evolution took place at all, that everything was created, I think we would all be much happier, wouldn’t we? But why? Are we in search for truth, or are we just trying to preserve an outdated religious system so that it doesn’t fall flat on its face in front of the stronger competitor, which is science.
I see theology as ever continually, with great anxieties, trying to “please” science and morph into something which it is not. This is true at least now, in our “modern age”, in which a PhD scientist is respected much more than a ThD theologian by the general public.
So, yes, for that guy who said that he didn’t see any implications of all this…yes, there are fundamental implications for any thinking human being.
Tomas
 
abc << I’ll start another thread in 4 hours. Hijacking threads is against forum rules. >>

Go ahead, and feel free to present your scientific evidence against evolution here also. Yeah I am hijacking the thread :rolleyes: since I’ve answered the thread’s topic on evolution and original sin, in case you missed it. See post #2 above. Your previous attempt at scientific disproof wasn’t very convincing. I point to this thread here. Maybe you have something better than that? I’ve answered your poll question on Darwinism and Catholicism in this thread, and again I’ve dealt with your “traditional Catholic teaching” on creation and evolution in this thread. Now its time for your excellent scientific objections to evolution if you have any. Yes, I am pushing and poking you with a stick. 😃

Phil P
 
tomas << I see theology as ever continually, with great anxieties, trying to “please” science and morph into something which it is not. >>

I don’t know, sounds like the old “warfare” model of science vs. religion, for example this famous quote of Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” :

“It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and the end of sound science; and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade Nature to the level of primitive Judaism.” (from Huxley’s review of Origin of Species)

Or the famous book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

A book like Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by evangelical Christians is the antidote. It claims the “warfare model” is outdated and historically false, and as I’ve pointed out it was Christian creationist geologists for the most part who discovered the ancient age of the earth before Darwin. Many founders of modern evolutionary theory were Christians (Ronald Fischer and Theodosius Dobzhansky to name two).

tomas << This is true at least now, in our “modern age”, in which a PhD scientist is respected much more than a ThD theologian by the general public. >>

How about PhD scientists who are also ThD theologians? Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Stanley Jaki, Fr. George Lemaitre, Denis Lamoureux? Many more…

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
tomas << I see theology as ever continually, with great anxieties, trying to “please” science and morph into something which it is not. >>

I don’t know, sounds like the old “warfare” model of science vs. religion, for example this famous quote of Thomas Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” :

“It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and the end of sound science; and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade Nature to the level of primitive Judaism.” (from Huxley’s review of Origin of Species)

Or the famous book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

A book like Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by evangelical Christians is the antidote. It claims the “warfare model” is outdated and historically false, and as I’ve pointed out it was Christian creationist geologists for the most part who discovered the ancient age of the earth before Darwin. Many founders of modern evolutionary theory were Christians (Ronald Fischer and Theodosius Dobzhansky to name two).

tomas << This is true at least now, in our “modern age”, in which a PhD scientist is respected much more than a ThD theologian by the general public. >>

How about PhD scientists who are also ThD theologians? Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Stanley Jaki, Fr. George Lemaitre, Denis Lamoureux? Many more…

Phil P
Click to expand...
Good, I agree with most of what you said, especially that the warfare model is outdated. There are some modern tendencies to reconcile the two. And yes, I know many PhD’s and ThD’s, but still, I am not convinced. (I also have a PhD, so I know that just having credentials is not all that heavy and convincing.).
My original query was actually about what happens to the concept of original sin (without which christianity is inconceivable), when one takes evolution theory into consideration.
Unless, as someone pointed out, there was, at certain point, another “special creation”, in which God specifically created souls, or humans (maybe I didn’t get it correctly).
But even that would not explain the question about death before the fall (unless we are willing to admit that death is a natural process and is unnatural only for human beings with soul). So, these are the dilemmas on the table, not the validity of evolution.
Evolution, by the way is a meta-science at its best. Not more.
Tomas
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
tomas << This is true at least now, in our “modern age”, in which a PhD scientist is respected much more than a ThD theologian by the general public. >>

How about PhD scientists who are also ThD theologians? Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Stanley Jaki, Fr. George Lemaitre, Denis Lamoureux? Many more…

Phil P
Click to expand...
Hello Phil,

Happy New Year! 🙂 Fr. George Coyne is an astrophysist. I honestly don’t think he is a theologian too nor a supporter of a ‘Theistic evolution’ as defined by two quotes from Wikipedia. ( I didn’t review the site throughly.):

"The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal ** Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it." ** Fr. Coyne doesn’t take all of Genesis as literal."

“Evolutionary creationism is a variant of creationism which accepts microevolution and macroevolution while retaining a theistic interpretation of evolution. Theistic evolution is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism; some Judaism denominations; and other religious organizations that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature.”

Please note that in the last quote Wikipedia’s ‘Macroevolution’
website has a notice on the site ‘The neutrality of this article is disputed’.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Best to refer folks to this website in the meantime:

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Father Coyne is totally against creationism in every sense of the word. Remember the website I referenced you to regarding Fr. Coyne? Read what he wrote.

Hey, did you notice that Cardinal Schönborn isn’t on the Vatican Scientific Advisory Committee? There are theologians and philosphers along with scientists and even the Pope, but none of them are creationists. What’s that tell you? 🙂

Here is a treat for you, that is if you haven’t already found it! 😃 The Tree of Life Project. Great for kids and adults.
tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Phil, you are doing a fantastic job. 👍 Catch you on the next run…I’m sorry I haven’t answered several of your other comments to me on another thread. Will take care of that later in the week.

Blessing of cheer for a super year. Kudos to you. 🙂
 
wild << Happy New Year! Fr. George Coyne is an astrophysist. I honestly don’t think he is a theologian too nor a supporter of a ‘Theistic evolution’ as defined by two quotes from Wikipedia. >>

Coyne has a non-divine-intervening view of evolution. He doesn’t believe God “directly” intervenes in natural history. The definition of theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism) depends on the particular believer in God and evolution of course. Evolution or “methodological naturalism” is silent on God.

wild << Father Coyne is totally against creationism in every sense of the word. Remember the website I referenced you to regarding Fr. Coyne? Read what he wrote. >>

Yes, he rejects creationism. He lays out his position in that Tablet article, also in video talks available from the Arizona observatory site. He is a “theistic evolutionist” in that he believes in God and evolution both. To become a Jesuit priest don’t you have to take a lot of theology? He does have the licentiate in sacred theology but is not a professional theologian. I wrote the entry for George Coyne in Wikipedia as well.

wild << Please note that in the last quote Wikipedia’s ‘Macroevolution’ website has a notice on the site ‘The neutrality of this article is disputed’ >>

Probably a creationist or two has a problem and put the disclaimer up. They are supposed to work those out in “talk” under the article. Weird how that encyclopedia works. Anyone can edit!

wild << Hey, did you notice that Cardinal Schönborn isn’t on the Vatican Scientific Advisory Committee? There are theologians and philosphers along with scientists and even the Pope, but none of them are creationists. What’s that tell you? >>

I pointed out the same thing to Sungenis. He thinks it is a conspiracy. 😃 In addition all the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences are evolutionists (as is 99% of professional scientists), many of them Nobel Prize winners. Schonborn does not have a degree in science that I know of so he can get himself in trouble when he writes on science.

wild << The Tree of Life Project. Great for kids and adults.
tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html >>

I think I’ve seen that. Thanks.

wild << Phil, you are doing a fantastic job. Catch you on the next run…I’m sorry I haven’t answered several of your other comments to me on another thread. >>

You can’t answer everything. Later dude. Blessed 2006.

Phil P
 
I’m not a dude. I’m a dudette. :rotfl: Sometimes I wear a cowgirl hat and boots othertimes stilletos like on New Year’s Eve when I tweaked my back after dancing four hours straight. Dude it’s a cosmic life. 😃

p.s. Thanks Jason. I’ll check out the site tomorrow. Appreciate the gesture. 🙂
 
wild << I’m not a dude. I’m a dudette. >>

Sorry not a dude. I can’t tell. I am definitely a dude. :whacky:

Phil P
 
40.png
richbansha:
Evolution is not a true theory in the same sense as General Relativity or Quantum Theory. Not all of it has its roots in experiment or observation.
Click to expand...
What part of the theory is not based on either experiment or observation?
No, quite the contrary. Natural Selection is almost all that still survives from Darwin, himself. If the entire Evolution proposal was limited to the Theory of Natural Selection, then it would be a valid theory. Unfortunately, Evolution is not Natural Selection alone.
Click to expand...
What part of evolution (and I am speaking only of biological evolution) do you claim invalidates evolutionary theory?
I will give one example, Homo Ergaster. Until quite recently, Homo Ergaster was a population of Homo Erectus. Homo Ergaster was spun-off during the 1950’s and called a new species.
Click to expand...
The 1950s is quite recently?
It is my understanding that the anotomical justification for this split was rather weak and could be easily explained as random variation with a single species. Why? I don’t know. Maybe the first person to make the proposal was trying to secure an associate professorship someplace. Maybe he saw some crazy white-supremicist preacher on television try to justify racism by saying that blacks were really a different species. Who knows what the real motivation was? I doubt very much that it was purely anotomical.
Click to expand...
You made a claim that it was racial then you admit that it may have been something else. I will take that as a retraction of your original claim and that you are replacing that as only your opinion.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
wild << I’m not a dude. I’m a dudette. >>

Sorry not a dude. I can’t tell. I am definitely a dude. :whacky:

Phil P
Click to expand...
You know guys, dudes,
as I am reading all these essays, all of it seems to me so artificial. Like trying so hard to rescue creation amidst evolution. If I was an atheist, I wouldn’t see any reason or any need to consider creation. Evolution appears to be sufficient explanation for things. So, what is there left of God? The universe and all that came here spontaineously as we know (or think that we know), why are we trying to believe in a creative God?
You can no longer use the “argument from design” since evolution explains it quite nicely.
So, I started this thread with a simple question about original sin, but now it appears that the problem grew bigger.
All these attempts to reconcile evolution and creation make no sense, unless we can argue that evolution needs a creative factor. If it doesn’t need this factor, then we are just trying to rescue something which is doomed to die.
So, this is the question for you smart people here, who understand the problem at hand.
 
I don’t believe we are trying to save Christianity from evolution. There are many things that evolution cannot explain…

Conscience
Purpose
Love
Regret
Reason
Shame

CS Lewis used something like the following to prove God exists. There are absolute truths that have been accepted by all societies across all times. For example no society has ever honored liars or cowards. Courage and honesty have always been accepted as virtues.

How does one explain the existence of an absolute truth that cuts across all times and all societies except to say that God has blessed us with a moral compass called a conscience that he uses to inform us (believers or not) about what is right and what is wrong.

I think to really answer these large questions we need to step outside of pure scientific research. Science is a slice of the truth. It is not the whole truth. Science, in order to be science, cannot look to God for answers. He must be removed from the equation and we are left only with the ability to answer questions based on natural evidence. This is fine for science but it will not do in and of itself when seeking the truth. We must also consider history, philosiphy, and divine revelation.
 
What part of the theory is not based on either experiment or observation?
Click to expand...
Invention of species for non-scientific reasons.
What part of evolution (and I am speaking only of biological evolution) do you claim invalidates evolutionary theory?
Click to expand...
same answer
The 1950s is quite recently?
Click to expand...
Sure in a 2 million year time frame. The main point is that there are still experts who do not support the division of the Homo Erectus species. That makes it contemporary.
You made a claim that it was racial then you admit that it may have been something else. I will take that as a retraction of your original claim and that you are replacing that as only your opinion.
Click to expand...
I don’t retract. My point was that Evolution has unscientific components and therefore does not constitute a valid theory. Racism? Avarice? Ambition? No matter. None are science.

I shall post no more on the subject. I sense that you are defending turf here. Not a thing wrong with that. It is comendable that you hold your beliefs so tightly. It was my aim to merely cast doubt upon Evolution, not to bury it now and for all time. That would take a PHD level dissertation of many volumes. Since I am not likely to undertake such a project, I will concede defeat on this question. Well Done!
 
Sugar Ray:
I don’t believe we are trying to save Christianity from evolution. There are many things that evolution cannot explain…

Conscience
Purpose
Love
Regret
Reason
Shame

CS Lewis used something like the following to prove God exists. There are absolute truths that have been accepted by all societies across all times. For example no society has ever honored liars or cowards. Courage and honesty have always been accepted as virtues.

How does one explain the existence of an absolute truth that cuts across all times and all societies except to say that God has blessed us with a moral compass called a conscience that he uses to inform us (believers or not) about what is right and what is wrong.

I think to really answer these large questions we need to step outside of pure scientific research. Science is a slice of the truth. It is not the whole truth. Science, in order to be science, cannot look to God for answers. He must be removed from the equation and we are left only with the ability to answer questions based on natural evidence. This is fine for science but it will not do in and of itself when seeking the truth. We must also consider history, philosiphy, and divine revelation.
Click to expand...
Beauty, morality, conscience are all relative, changeable, culture dependent things. I know that C.S. Lewis talked about absolute truth pointing toward some source (God), but I am afraid that all that could be explained by evolution, by socio-economic, cultural, educational etc. factors.
For example, what Westerners considers a beatiful harmony in music is totally rejected as a noise by asians. Their concept of beauty is totally different than ours. So, there is no absolute norm for beauty. the same for morality. Morality could be explained as being advantageous for species survival.
The only interesting thing actually, which I have no idea how to explain - is the unending quest of people for God. The reason why I and you are here. Why are we wasting our time thinking so hard about God?
I think that the solution lies exactly here. God gave us this need for Him…need to search Him, with all pertaining frustrations and difficulties. This could be an avenue towards faith. But I dont believe that any amount of intellectual rationalization will suffice.
Tom
 
tomas << The only interesting thing actually, which I have no idea how to explain - is the unending quest of people for God. The reason why I and you are here. Why are we wasting our time thinking so hard about God? >>

Uh oh, then you absolutely do not want to read Daniel Dennet’s new book. However, if you do, you can then replace Richard Carrier as president of the Internet Infidels. 😃 :eek: :mad: :mad:

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
tomas << The only interesting thing actually, which I have no idea how to explain - is the unending quest of people for God. The reason why I and you are here. Why are we wasting our time thinking so hard about God? >>

Uh oh, then you absolutely do not want to read Daniel Dennet’s new book. However, if you do, you can then replace Richard Carrier as president of the Internet Infidels. 😃 :eek: :mad: :mad:

Phil P
Click to expand...
hahah, funny note. I will read that book in spite of the fact that it was suggested by you (and therefore it shouldn’t be recommended to anyone with common sense).
You are a great defender Phil, indeed.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Invention of species for non-scientific reasons.

same answer

Sure in a 2 million year time frame. The main point is that there are still experts who do not support the division of the Homo Erectus species. That makes it contemporary.

I don’t retract. My point was that Evolution has unscientific components and therefore does not constitute a valid theory. Racism? Avarice? Ambition? No matter. None are science.

I shall post no more on the subject. I sense that you are defending turf here. Not a thing wrong with that. It is comendable that you hold your beliefs so tightly. It was my aim to merely cast doubt upon Evolution, not to bury it now and for all time. That would take a PHD level dissertation of many volumes. Since I am not likely to undertake such a project, I will concede defeat on this question. Well Done!
Click to expand...
Please don’t retract, you are a voice of reason among the infidels here 🙂
No need for dissertations, just keep posting, I urge you.
Tomas
 
40.png
tomaskovarik:
For example, what Westerners considers a beatiful harmony in music is totally rejected as a noise by asians. Their concept of beauty is totally different than ours. So, there is no absolute norm for beauty. the same for morality. Morality could be explained as being advantageous for species survival.
Tom
Click to expand...
That is rubbish! I have lived in Asia for the past 20 years and what you say is nonsense!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top