Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve

[inthecloud]

Petraus you are right, those basic animal instincts are also processed in others part of the brain but the origin of them is in our reptilian part, as mammals and them humans evolved, others parts of the brain evolved to process those instincts because they ahve becomed more complicated.
Another thing about the Big Bang, i recall a atheist biochemical Nobel price winner criticing Stephen Hawkings when he said “God created the numbers”. when according to the atheist the numbers created God. Stephen Hawkings retorded that before the Bing Bang the rules of mathematics and Physics did not exist at all, and going before the Big Bang was not a scientific endeavor but a methaphysical one. Stephen is a pure agnostic, not a deist or atheist. And a friend of Pope John Paul II.
Another agnostic Ludwing Wittestein also pointed out in frustation that you could not accept the rules of logic and mathematic with out incurring in some sort of tautology. Some thing just can not be proved empirically, they have to be taken on faith.
The point is that even in processes that seem so caothic like evolution and the forming of the Universe, there are a both underliying rational rules and some rules that even secular scientists have to take on faith.
Look at the forming of the Bible, fundamentalists often ignore how evolution like was the process of writting it, with the Church, under the Spirit playing the process of selecting several versions of one cannonical text and rejecting another texts at uncannonical.

 

[fierysword1920]

Sort of off the subject but I read once that animals in some ways have faith and belief in God also like ourselves. That they would inherently and officially pay homage to any image or presence from Heaven and that there are accounts of animals like sheep, cows and the like having knelt and bowed their heads to I think possibly an apparition of Mother Mary. I though it was pretty darn cool that we could possibly share this with other non human beings.

You know, I don’t think there is any official Catholic teaching, one way or the other, concerning whether or not there was plant and/or animal death prior to the fall. Church teaching is that human death resulted from the fall.

In Genesis, God’s words speak only of the death of man:
Gen 2:17 “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Also, am not aware of any Scripture that specifically states plant and animal death did not exist before the fall, but rather were a result of it. If there are some, would very much appreciate someone posting them.

I know Romans 8:19-25 is sometimes understood as speaking of plant/animal world. But that seems questionable to me since St. Paul implies the presence of a “will” and “hope” - attributes of a human soul only:
Rom 8:20 *“for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope.” *Given the context of Romans 7 and 8, I think by creation, Paul is referring to our physical flesh which still waits for glorification - glorification that has already begun in our souls through the presence and working of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that the idea of God tricking us with dinosaur bones is ridiculous.

Nita

 

[Benadam]

Doesn’t this negate a literal interpretation? Whence the compulsion for an all-or-nothing approach to sacred scripture?

I don’t know. I’m thinking I’m discussing it as strictly literal, as a factual account of the laws that the people of Israel accepted as having a divine source channeled through it’s valid representative.

I suppose if I were to read it without the pre-requisite understanding of who Moses and God are to these people or me even I would definitely have to agree that Moses and his God are cruel. If that is what you mean by literal interpretation. Yes

 

[Benadam]

Some ideas on theistic evolution and the Genesis story.

It doesn’t resolve the gaps but perhaps narrows them.

In man, intellect for the first time experiences earth. Not just the earth as experienced externally but the earth of the flesh. As intellect allows man to know of two realms, as a single experience, man allows intellect to know two realms as one experience. A faculty once reserved for angels is plunged into the earth. Intellect in man will apprehend spiritual realities as it has always but in man it experiences them through the earth of flesh. All material life is brought to and fulfilled for this purpose.

So God created them male and female and commanded them to populate and rule the earth. Intellect awakens reason in flesh from the onset and these work together towards the goal of subduing and ruling the earth till humanity as one can say 'I Am".

When the command is accomplished and humanity is able to perceive it’self and say 'I Am" God gatheres all man into one man and breathes into man a living soul. Adam is Man.

Male and female He created them and in Adam are embodied as one.

So, it isn’t good that the Man is alone but no suitable helpmeet is found . Of course not he is complete. So, out of Adam God forms a woman who would also be complete and Adam exclaims " Finally, flesh of my flesh bone of my bone"

This Idea is what Christ teaches about the Church but chronologically in reverse. We are His Body He is our Head. " When I am lifted up I will gather all men unto myself".

 

[Steve40]

Evolutuion and the Bible don’t fit. Catholics are required to believe that Eve physically came from Adam. That does not fit the eovolutionary model. We are also required to believe that all man kind came from Adam and Eve. That does not fit the evolutionary model either. Neither Scripture or Tradition fit the evolutionary model so let’s scrap the evolution theroy and move on. It is incompatible with both faih and reason. There is no reason to believe it.

 

[drpmjhess]

Evolutuion and the Bible don’t fit. Catholics are required to believe that Eve physically came from Adam. That does not fit the eovolutionary model. We are also required to believe that all man kind came from Adam and Eve. That does not fit the evolutionary model either. Neither Scripture or Tradition fit the evolutionary model so let’s scrap the evolution theroy and move on. It is incompatible with both faih and reason. There is no reason to believe it.

Steve40, you’ve missed an exciting two weeks of discussion on this thread about how theology can be deeply re-envisioned and enriched in light of the modern scientific world view. You’re just plain wrong in your assertion about what Catholics are required to believe or not to believe. Regarding your other assertion – “let’s scrap the evolution theory and move on” – just what theory do you propose to offer in its stead to the 100,000+ working biologists who employ it on an hourly basis? They will want to subject your alternative theory to the usual rigorous tests before “scrapping” something that has worked increasingly well every year for the past 150 years!

Petrus

 

[Benadam]

Evolutuion and the Bible don’t fit. Catholics are required to believe that Eve physically came from Adam. That does not fit the eovolutionary model. We are also required to believe that all man kind came from Adam and Eve. That does not fit the evolutionary model either. Neither Scripture or Tradition fit the evolutionary model so let’s scrap the evolution theroy and move on. It is incompatible with both faih and reason. There is no reason to believe it.

Well, God formed man out of the stuff of the earth in the light of the sixth day God makes the animals and man. Steve, the bible and evolution can find common ground. Science doesn’t concern it’self with faith but faith is free to concern it’self with science. It’s a rich field

 

[richardwy]

Evolutuion and the Bible don’t fit. Catholics are required to believe that Eve physically came from Adam. That does not fit the eovolutionary model. We are also required to believe that all man kind came from Adam and Eve. That does not fit the evolutionary model either. Neither Scripture or Tradition fit the evolutionary model so let’s scrap the evolution theroy and move on. It is incompatible with both faih and reason. There is no reason to believe it.

Wow. Wonderful.

 

[buffalo]

Steve40, you’ve missed an exciting two weeks of discussion on this thread about how theology can be deeply re-envisioned and enriched in light of the modern scientific world view. You’re just plain wrong in your assertion about what Catholics are required to believe or not to believe. Regarding your other assertion – “let’s scrap the evolution theory and move on” – just what theory do you propose to offer in its stead to the 100,000+ working biologists who employ it on an hourly basis? They will want to subject your alternative theory to the usual rigorous tests before “scrapping” something that has worked increasingly well every year for the past 150 years!

Petrus

See, it’s an either or argument again.

God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished, regardless of what may or may not have been happening on earth at the time.

Now that fits completely!!!

 

[Axion]

We have to loom at how Genesis came to be written. Moses is the traditional author. So where did he get his information on the creation?

I assume he was presented with a sequence of visions from God (The usual process.) If he wrote down what he saw then this disperses a lot of the apparent contradictions between the Genesis account and the established scientific view.

The “days” become eras. The sun and moon appearing after the creation of the earth can be explained if the vision was seen from the surface of the earth, when the sun and moon did not become visible until the initial thick permanent covering of cloud around the early earth dispersed.

Following this, the sequence of the appearance of plants and creatures, and finally man in Genesis correllates surprisingly well with the established scientific pattern.

Where we divert from evolutionary theory, is the insistence that the development of species is a RANDOM process - for which the evidence is small to non-existent

 

[Axion]

We have to look at how Genesis came to be written. Moses is the traditional author. So where did he get his information on the creation?

I assume he was presented with a sequence of visions from God (The usual process.) If he wrote down what he saw then this disperses a lot of the apparent contradictions between the Genesis account and the established scientific view.

The “days” become eras. The sun and moon appearing after the creation of the earth can be explained if the vision was seen from the surface of the earth, when the sun and moon did not become visible until the initial thick permanent covering of cloud around the early earth dispersed.

Following this, the sequence of the appearance of plants and creatures, and finally man in Genesis correllates surprisingly well with the established scientific pattern.

Where we divert from evolutionary theory, is the insistence that the development of species is a RANDOM process - for which the evidence is small to non-existent

 

[drpmjhess]

See, it’s an either or argument again.

Quite: both atheist reductionists and fundamentalist “creationists” push a false dichotomy where there need not be one. The possibilities for fruitful exchange at the interface between scientific endeavor and religious experience are exciting.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Evolutuion and the Bible don’t fit. Catholics are required to believe that Eve physically came from Adam. That does not fit the eovolutionary model. We are also required to believe that all man kind came from Adam and Eve. That does not fit the evolutionary model either. Neither Scripture or Tradition fit the evolutionary model so let’s scrap the evolution theroy and move on. It is incompatible with both faih and reason. There is no reason to believe it.

We are not required to believe that. Popes have said as much. I’m afraid you will get a big hue and cry from the science world, putting them out of work ? What do you intend to replace it with? A spiritural concept? I’m not thinking they can do much science with that. The only reason to believe in evolution: it appears to be true.

 

[inthecloud]

I´m often surprised to find who atheists evolutionists like Dawkins and Harris and Creationists seem to be playing both sides of the same game. Either you are with me or againt me. They both say evolution is incompatible with God. They both want to put you in a corner. Either reject science or reject the Bible.
Of course the Creationists, by forcing people to take the Biblical account literaly, they want to force christians to choose between believing in God or accepting the foundations of modern, biological, physical, antropological, chemical, geological sciences. Of course when a young christian discovers that the evidence of science is more than just a mere theory but the modern paradigm, he or she risk losing the faith. They both are making Satan’s work. Destroying belief in God in the long term.
I could not be member of a church that requires belief in Cretionism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I´m often surprised to find who atheists evolutionists like Dawkins and Harris and Creationists seem to be playing both sides of the same game. Either you are with me or againt me. They both say evolution is incompatible with God. They both want to put you in a corner. Either reject science or reject the Bible.
Of course the Creationists, by forcing people to take the Biblical account literaly, they want to force christians to choose between believing in God or accepting the foundations of modern, biological, physical, antropological, chemical, geological sciences. Of course when a young christian discovers that the evidence of science is more than just a mere theory but the modern paradigm, he or she risk losing the faith. They both are making Satan’s work. Destroying belief in God in the long term.
I could not be member of a church that requires belief in Cretionism.

I could not agree more. Good Post! :getholy:

 

[Steve40]

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.

The geocentric model is exactly what NASA uses for navigation. Personally I’d like to see them perform the Michealson Morley experiment in space but I don’t think they ever will for fear of the results.

 

[Steve40]

Steve40, you’ve missed an exciting two weeks of discussion on this thread about how theology can be deeply re-envisioned and enriched in light of the modern scientific world view. You’re just plain wrong in your assertion about what Catholics are required to believe or not to believe. Regarding your other assertion – “let’s scrap the evolution theory and move on” – just what theory do you propose to offer in its stead to the 100,000+ working biologists who employ it on an hourly basis? They will want to subject your alternative theory to the usual rigorous tests before “scrapping” something that has worked increasingly well every year for the past 150 years!

Petrus

Those 100,000+ biologist will someday be dead. Where will their wild butt-head theory be then. God will still be God and what He said will still be what He said. Why do you want to believe the gueses of men instead of the Word of God?

 

[Steve40]

Well, God formed man out of the stuff of the earth in the light of the sixth day God makes the animals and man. Steve, the bible and evolution can find common ground. Science doesn’t concern it’self with faith but faith is free to concern it’self with science. It’s a rich field

Only if don’t realy want to know who and what you are. Any philosopher who tells you that your body does not have meaning is a fool, and any philosopher who says that how the human body came about does not mater is an idiot. Sicience has developed a faith of it’s own without and often devoid of reason.

I perfer not to worship knowledge which can be based upon a lie.

 

[Steve40]

We are not required to believe that. Popes have said as much. I’m afraid you will get a big hue and cry from the science world, putting them out of work ? What do you intend to replace it with? A spiritural concept? I’m not thinking they can do much science with that. The only reason to believe in evolution: it appears to be true.

Many to most so called scientists believe in poly-geism which is a heresy condemned by the Church including Pope Pius XII. Many scientist, “so called” would say that the first female coming from the first male is a myth yet all Catholics like it or are required to believe this. Anyone who truly looks at evolution objectively can not reconcile Church teaching with it.

Also, many so called scientists do not believe that water once covered the whole earth. This was prophesied by the first Pope and condemned as heresy, see 2Peter3 3-7.

 

[Benadam]

Only if don’t realy want to know who and what you are. Any philosopher who tells you that your body does not have meaning is a fool, and any philosopher who says that how the human body came about does not mater is an idiot. Sicience has developed a faith of it’s own without and often devoid of reason.

I perfer not to worship knowledge which can be based upon a lie.

Science is no threat to faith and shouldn’t be spoken of as if it seeks a particular meaning to attach to humanity. Science doesn’t seek to teach us what matters about ourselves. Science seeks to observe what is and resolve how what it observes ‘is’
If why it is becomes an observable phenomenon it can measure, science would be proving matters of faith.

Science gathers information and applies that information to figuring out how the material world works… If that information offers solutions to our meaning it has served us well. At this time in history the information science gather’s seems to be defining the universe pretty much as faith has revealed since the beginning. The universe is finite and had a beginning. Profound leap into the air for science since it faces a reality that it inherently does not concern it’self with, the unobservable.