Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve

[scottm]

In Genesis, God recognizes six times that the created world is good (Gen. 1:10,12 18, 21, 25, 31).
Petrus

But you said the story is a myth. These statements are necessarily then, references to just a myth – a made up, fiction, fantasy bedtime story we tell our hildren. These statements are references to the mythical creation. They are not references to the actual, physical, real planet that we live on.

 

[drpmjhess]

But you said the story is a myth. These statements are necessarily then, references to just a myth – a made up, fiction, fantasy bedtime story we tell our hildren. These statements are references to the mythical creation. They are not references to the actual, physical, real planet that we live on.

Scott you trivialize myth when you write this way. Myths are time-honored dimensions of cultural memory, architectonically woven into the fabric of life, liturgy, tradition, scripture, art and music. Genesis is no more a fantasy or bedtime story than is the creation myth of the Maya, the “Popol Vuh,” or the “Earth Diver” myth of the North American indigenous peoples or than the creation stories of countless other groups. They very much refer to the real planet on which we live, but not in the same measurable, quantifiable way that chemistry or physics or biology looks at it. I’m sure you can understand the difference between these genres.

Petrus

 

[homeric]

After doing some research I am most definitely aligned with the panentheism crowd. I can definitely reject the other three as being incorrect in my opinion. There is an interesting article on it at Wikipedia. I was most amused to find that non-Catholic faith systems which, you guessed it, came from a panentheistic viewpoint,( native americans for one) are one;s I’ve always felt a resonance with.

I think I’m still not heretical.

The Catholic Church has condemned pantheism on several occasions.

You may want to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on pantheism.

I would print this article on paper and take it to a coffee shop to read on your own or with a friend.

 

[homeric]

Petrus,

Thanks again for your excellent reply earlier. I found a nice compliment to your reply: an article called God and Evolution by Avery Dulles.

 

[drpmjhess]

The Catholic Church has condemned pantheism on several occasions. You may want to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on RL=“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm”]pantheism

.

Homeric, SpiritMeadow was referring to panentheism, not to pantheism, which is rightly rejected. Pantheism is the idea that God is all and all is God; in some traditions it is “emanationism” in the sense that plurality (the world and its elements) has emanated from “the One” and will eventually be reabsorbed by the One.

Panentheism, on the other hand, is a metaphysical assumption, distinguishable from Christian thought but compatible with it. It posits God as the one all encompassing generative source of reality, within whom we live and move and have our being (Acts, 17:28). The 50th Surah of the Qur’an expresses it beautifully: God is beyond our sight and understanding, yet at the same time “nearer to us than our jugular vein” (Qur’an 50:16). But this divine reality we discover in nature ― whether serendipitously or through our questing ― will always remain mysterious to us. In its Greek etymology, a mystery is that before which we are compelled to remain silent. In describing modernity’s difficulty with mystery, Patristic theologian Andrew Louth once wrote that God is not “a problem to be solved,” but rather a mystery to be worshipped and contemplated. We discover and worship the divine when and where we least expect it, through everyday encounters with evolving nature and its inhabitants, human, animal, plant, and inorganic.

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus,
Thanks again for your excellent reply earlier. I found a nice compliment to your reply: an article called God and Evolution by Avery Dulles.

Homeric, thanks on all accounts. I re-read the Avery Dulles article, and it is very sound. I encourage you some day to look at John Haught’s “Deeper than Darwin: the prospect for religion in the age of evolution.” Haught is a deep thinker and brings Catholic theology to important places.

 

[Newchasm]

Well the problem, I see with evolution is the natural/semi-random processes that go along with it. Especially, the waste of life that evolution uses along the way.

I have some experience with Old Earth creation through my Calvinism. Even if you don’t restrict human will, you can restrict nature and in part hide God’s creative actions in natural law. It can lead to Deism with respect to everything but the existance of rational human beings.

Now there are other ways of reading old earth creation but it requires man to be created in a way seperate from animal flesh. Man did not multiply before the Fall. Animals did. Likewise, man did not die before it. It stands to reason that Animals could have. This may throw a wrench in Christus Victor and certain parts relating to infralapsarianism but oh well. Old earth is much more difficult to discuss than Young Earth creation.

 

[buffalo]

Scott you trivialize myth when you write this way. Myths are time-honored dimensions of cultural memory, architectonically woven into the fabric of life, liturgy, tradition, scripture, art and music. Genesis is no more a fantasy or bedtime story than is the creation myth of the Maya, the “Popol Vuh,” or the “Earth Diver” myth of the North American indigenous peoples or than the creation stories of countless other groups. They very much refer to the real planet on which we live, but not in the same measurable, quantifiable way that chemistry or physics or biology looks at it. I’m sure you can understand the difference between these genres.

Petrus

One thing though about Catholic Scripture is it is guaranteed.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

One thing though about Catholic Scripture is it is guaranteed.

Yes. Genesis is true, more true than evolution. Since the word ‘myth’ in common parlance means something that isn’t true, it shouldn’t be used to refer to the creation accounts. Theologians should find a better word.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. Genesis is true, more true than evolution. Since the word ‘myth’ in common parlance means something that isn’t true, it shouldn’t be used to refer to the creation accounts. Theologians should find a better word.

The use of the word myth in teaching has confused a great many.

 

[drpmjhess]

One thing though about Catholic Scripture is it is guaranteed.

Guaranteed?

 

[drpmjhess]

The use of the word myth in teaching has confused a great many.

That’s why education is a good thing.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes. Genesis is true, more true than evolution. Since the word ‘myth’ in common parlance means something that isn’t true, it shouldn’t be used to refer to the creation accounts. Theologians should find a better word.

Among educated people the meaning of “myth” is clear: it does not mean “false” or fairy tale." However, there is a good forum for challenging the established use of terms, and proposing new terms. You could submit a paper proposal to the American Academy of Religion, which will meet this year in San Diego, with a potential audience of 10,000 scholars in religious studies from around the country, and indeed around the world.
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Well the problem, I see with evolution is the natural/semi-random processes that go along with it. Especially, the waste of life that evolution uses along the way.

Newchasm, good point. Evolution is never going to be abandoned by scientists until there is a viable alternative explanation for the mechanism of speciation. So far it has been confirmed consiliently by dozens of sciences. Similary, the theory of gravity is not going away until we have a viable alternative explanation for why things fall down.

As John Henry Newman pointed out more than a century ago, doctrine evolves over time, and the best theology remains in vigorous dialogue with developing culture. One of the best theological treatments of suffering in an evolutionary context is John Haught’s essay “What if theologians took suffering seriously?” New Theology Review 13:4 (2005).

Petrus

 

[scottm]

Scott you trivialize myth when you write this way. Myths are time-honored dimensions of cultural memory, architectonically woven into the fabric of life, liturgy, tradition, scripture, art and music. Genesis is no more a fantasy or bedtime story than is the creation myth of the Maya, the “Popol Vuh,” or the “Earth Diver” myth of the North American indigenous peoples or than the creation stories of countless other groups. They very much refer to the real planet on which we live, but not in the same measurable, quantifiable way that chemistry or physics or biology looks at it. I’m sure you can understand the difference between these genres.

I love stories as much as anybody. I have several copies of Rudyard Kiplings “Just So Stories” in my house. But when we make the Bible into a story then we are the same as all those religions you mentioned plus similar other religions – we have no greater claim to historical reality than they do. Our religion is suddenly not historical. Our religion is the product of someone’s imagination without any foundation in historical events.

With that approach to God, we would be more honest to call ourselves Hindus rather than Christians, because that’s what we are. We’re Hindus the moment we stop saying that our religion is historical.

 

[drpmjhess]

But when we make the Bible into a story then we are the same as all those religions you mentioned plus similar other religions – Our religion is the product of someone’s imagination without any foundation in historical events…

Who said Christianity is not historical? To recognize that the Bible is a composite document comprised of many different literary genres is not to reject its historicity in toto. Now, those who deny that Jesus ever existed are in fact rejecting the historical foundation of Christianity. The Qur’an too contains elements that are not scientifically accurate, but I’m not questioning the validity of Islam any more than I’m questioning the validity of my own faith.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Among educated people the meaning of “myth” is clear: it does not mean “false” or fairy tale." However, there is a good forum for challenging the established use of terms, and proposing new terms. You could submit a paper proposal to the American Academy of Religion, which will meet this year in San Diego, with a potential audience of 10,000 scholars in religious studies from around the country, and indeed around the world.
Petrus

But I’m not educated enough to submit such a paper. I do watch “myth-busters” sometimes tho. Have you seen that? It’s about debunking false claims

 

[drpmjhess]

But I’m not educated enough to submit such a paper. I do watch “myth-busters” sometimes tho. Have you seen that? It’s about debunking false claims

Great show – my kids love it! The meaning of the term “myth” is very different, however, and to my knowledge, they’ve never tried to “bust” a religious myth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But you said the story is a myth. These statements are necessarily then, references to just a myth – a made up, fiction, fantasy bedtime story we tell our hildren. These statements are references to the mythical creation. They are not references to the actual, physical, real planet that we live on.

i guess I find it hard to understand why those of you who intend to believe in creationism, as is your choice, always insist its all or nothing. Either believe this particular part is literal, or throw out the entire thing. I guess you want it to look that dramatic to make your position more favorable or something

The fact is, whether truth of myth, the message is still the same. And the message is the point. I can’t understand why granting the text its obvious independent value threatens your need for certainty. Isn’t the promise of salvation certain enough for you?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Catholic Church has condemned pantheism on several occasions.

You may want to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on pantheism.

I would print this article on paper and take it to a coffee shop to read on your own or with a friend.

Excuse me? I have no interest in patheism, so why would I want to find some friend to talk to about it at some coffee shop that would be in excess of twenty miles from where I live with my husband?