Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I’ve been rereading BokenKotter’s “A Concise History of the Catholic Church”, and have been rather astounded at how much that was heresy is no longer. Theologians expecially seem to get banned and then taken off, usually long after their death. Times do change, and the Church struggles to find its way “in the world” while remaining “of the world”. It’s stubborness with liberalism i think may not have served it well. We are aware of the embarassments of the past.

I agree, that the best thing for the Church in the long run is to pursue theology and biblical studies vigorously, as well as keep itself well educated on the developments of the sciences, with the intent to attempting to integrate the two when apparent conflict appears.

It seems to me, that the Church’s moral authority in the world, which I would argue is extensive and should be, is only enhanced when the world views the Church as a rational partner on the international scene. That requires some sensible statements about religion and science. I would argue that those statements have been made by at least 3 popes. I would hate to see any backing away.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’ve been rereading BokenKotter’s “A Concise History of the Catholic Church”, and have been rather astounded at how much that was heresy is no longer. Theologians expecially seem to get banned and then taken off, usually long after their death. Times do change, and the Church struggles to find its way “in the world” while remaining “of the world”. It’s stubborness with liberalism i think may not have served it well. We are aware of the embarassments of the past.

SpiritMeadow, good point (Bokenkotter’s is good work). While it did take the Church some time to reverse itself on the quest of Galileo’s theory, heliocentrism is now generally accepted, except by such Catholics as Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International, who appears to champion geocentrism, or at least to argue that the jury is still out on whether the earth goes around the sun or the universe revolves around the earth. Biblical “literalists” who reject the flat earth are already tacitly rejecting literalism in geography.

The Church was cautious after Darwin’s book appeared because no one wanted to get it wrong again. Even liberalism has been accommodated, in that virtually all theologians and most priests and bishops who have been trained in seminaries accept that the Bible is an ancient, inspired, multi-genred, composite document, not a verbatim transcript from God.

Petrus

 

[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

Neil, I’m not wedded to “myth,” if you think it carries too much cultural baggage to be useful to the average Catholic. “Tale” and “fable” also carry impossible baggage. How about “Creation story”? We know Genesis 1-9 is not a literal historical account, but story is neutral enough (e.g., “news story”) that it might be serviceable. It probably won’t convince most theologians to stop using “myth” but it might help in apologetics.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

S Biblical “literalists” who reject the flat earth are already tacitly rejecting literalism in geography.

Don’t use the flat earth myth anymore. It is not true.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil, I’m not wedded to “myth,” if you think it carries too much cultural baggage to be useful to the average Catholic. “Tale” and “fable” also carry impossible baggage. How about “Creation story”? We know Genesis 1-9 is not a literal historical account, but story is neutral enough (e.g., “news story”) that it might be serviceable. It probably won’t convince most theologians to stop using “myth” but it might help in apologetics.

Petrus

Sure those would be fine. I like the term “creation accounts”.

 

[drpmjhess]

Don’t use the flat earth myth anymore. It is not true.

I’ve always wondered why Robert Sungenis so strongly defends geocentrism. NASA must assume earth’s diurnal rotation or they wouldn’t so consistently launch satellites in an eastward direction to facilitate reaching orbit. And nothing in scripture or tradition requires geocentrism, to my knowledge.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

creation accounts…I like that…its utterly benign. Kudos!

 

[buffalo]

I’ve always wondered why Robert Sungenis so strongly defends geocentrism. NASA must assume earth’s diurnal rotation or they wouldn’t so consistently launch satellites in an eastward direction to facilitate reaching orbit. And nothing in scripture or tradition requires geocentrism, to my knowledge.

NASA assumes a stationary earth in their calculations.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve always wondered why Robert Sungenis so strongly defends geocentrism. NASA must assume earth’s diurnal rotation or they wouldn’t so consistently launch satellites in an eastward direction to facilitate reaching orbit. And nothing in scripture or tradition requires geocentrism, to my knowledge.

Well scripture does refer to floodgates in the sky, and says that God lives up there past the floodgates somewhere. Isn’t that why the Church disliked copernicus’ theory so much?

 

[drpmjhess]

Well scripture does refer to floodgates in the sky, and says that God lives up there past the floodgates somewhere. Isn’t that why the Church disliked copernicus’ theory so much?

The Church had no problem with Copernicus.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Church had no problem with Copernicus.

wikipedia:

In connection with the Galileo affair, Copernicus’ book was suspended until corrected by the Index of the Catholic Church in 1616, because the Pythagorean doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun “is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture”.[5][6] These corrections were indicated in 1620, and nine sentences had to be either omitted or changed. [7] The book stayed on the Index until 1758. In that period Galileo Galilei was found guilty in 1633 for “following the position of Copernicus, which [is] contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture …”[8], and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life in 1638.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Decree of General Congregation of the Index

March 5, 1616

…And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture—of the motion of the Earth, and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego de Zuniga [in his book] on Job, is not being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615: wherein the said Father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the centre of the world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium, and Diego de Zuniga, On Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the fifth day of March, 1616.

 

[homeric]

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?

Sorry, I misread pantheism for panentheism.

It is worth mentioning that pantheism and panentheism are related on the Vatican website:

Pantheism: (Greek pan = everything and theos = God) the belief that everything is God or, sometimes, that everything is in God and God is in everything (panentheism). Every element of the universe is divine, and the divinity is equally present in everything. There is no space in this view for God as a distinct being in the sense of classical theism.

 

[homeric]

I thought I would throw this into the debate:

If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

From Vatican I

 

[scottm]

Who said Christianity is not historical?

You did when you said that the stories didn’t happen. I’ve had this talk before with atheists. When you say that the stories are myths, legends, whatever word you want, you will always and necessarily reach the conclusion that Jesus was not an historical person. Now we don’t even have a foundation for our religion. Wow.

I’m unaware of anybody doubting that the Buddha was an historical person. I personally know people who believe that Jesus was not an historical person. They believe that Jesus was just a legend, just a myth, just a “tall tale” that people made up for their own personal religious reasons. They get there by asserting that Bible stories are legends, myths, whatever. And that’s exactly what you’re saying about this and that Bible story. The road you’re on leads only to one place: a denial of Jesus. Get off that road.

 

[drpmjhess]

Of course Jesus existed!

 

[drpmjhess]

NASA assumes a stationary earth in their calculations.

Buffalo, I ran this by my Swiss neighbor, who is a planetary physicist. He suggests you inform the French astronomical community that NASA assumes a stationary earth. For decades the French have apparently been launching their communications satellites from positions as close to the equator as possible, under the assumption that greater equatorial velocity of a rotating earth would facilitate their attaining orbit.
Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, I ran this by my Swiss neighbor, who is a planetary physicist. He suggests you inform the French astronomical community that NASA assumes a stationary earth. For decades the French have apparently been launching their communications satellites from positions as close to the equator as possible, under the assumption that greater equatorial velocity of a rotating earth would facilitate their attaining orbit.
Petrus

It will work either way.

 

[drpmjhess]

It will work either way.

I suppose one could launch a satellite from a stationary earth. But in this I stand with Galileo: the earth does in fact move! And it does not conflict with my Catholic faith. I do not interpret the stroy of the sun standing still (Joshua 10:12-13) literally any more than I interpret the stories of Adam and Eve and talking serpents and Noah’s great boat and Moses and the burning bush literally.

 

[drpmjhess]

The road you’re on leads only to one place: a denial of Jesus. Get off that road.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. One sip of beer and you eventually end up in a federal maximum security prison facility. One pericope of scripture interpreted non-literally and you eventually end up denying that Jesus ever existed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You did when you said that the stories didn’t happen. I’ve had this talk before with atheists. When you say that the stories are myths, legends, whatever word you want, you will always and necessarily reach the conclusion that Jesus was not an historical person. Now we don’t even have a foundation for our religion. Wow. **I cannot fathom this leap in logic. Why not believing in the Creation story as historical fact, means Jesus was not real? I’m too dumbfounded to respond. How do you get from A to Q like that? Rest assured there is evidence of Jesus’ having lived in none biblical material. Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus for sure. **

I’m unaware of anybody doubting that the Buddha was an historical person. I personally know people who believe that Jesus was not an historical person. They believe that Jesus was just a legend, just a myth, just a “tall tale” that people made up for their own personal religious reasons. They get there by asserting that Bible stories are legends, myths, whatever. And that’s exactly what you’re saying about this and that Bible story. The road you’re on leads only to one place: a denial of Jesus. Get off that road.

**The fact that “some” people believe Jesus to be myth does not prove either that they got there by starting with genesis as myth, nor certainly that disbelief in the literalness of Genesis must lead to disbelief in Jesus. **