M
Matt16_18
Guest
What is that last sentence supposed to mean? Do you believe God breathed human souls into Adam and Eve while they were gestating in the wombs of animals?
- Status
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Chris W:
I would sincerely like to know how you can “lean toward a young earth position” without being hostile to reason.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
Since I don’t think that I said it before, I think that evolution is a mechanism used by God.
Relativity is not self evident. Is it a false doctrine because you don’t understand it?
Peace
Tim
Well, then, you completely agree with what I said. I said that science does not seek to prove the existence of God. I also said that many, if not most, scientists are athiests. So, once again - science is not against God.
It is still separate from evolution. By the way, what did God create Adam from? Clay? Interesting!
Some are. I am a scientist. Do you speak for me? Let me say it once again. I believe that God created everything. I believe that God made me and you human by giving us souls.
Since I don’t think that I said it before, I think that evolution is a mechanism used by God.
Not unguided? Where in the Big Bang do you find scientists placing God?
What “evidence” did you evaluate to validate your “faith”? My faith requires no evidence. I believe what I do because of the grace given to me by God. I don’t need evidence to believe.
They??? Evaluating evidence and reaching a conclusion based on that evidence is called science.
Relativity is not self evident. Is it a false doctrine because you don’t understand it?
I’m not sure why you get that impression. I have no trouble separating the two. My faith is the most important thing in my life. Evolution is still a fact.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
I believe that Adam and Eve became human only when God breathed souls into them. I didn’t mean to imply that it was done during any gestation. I don’t know when (during their development) it happened, but that is not important to me.
Peace
Tim
C
Chris_W
Guest
Sorry, I don’t mean to beat this issue to death:
You start by saying genetically the evidence would not indicate a single set of parents. I’m with you this far.
Then you say evidence would support Adam and Eve as our single physical parents. But then you say perhaps there were more than one set of physical parents but only one set of spiritual parents. Now I’m confused again.
I don’t think any Christian (evolutionist or not) disputes Adam and Eve were our spiritual parents. That is irrelevent. Evolution doesn’t deal with spiritual descendency.
So if we ignore the spiritual paternal issue, and deal with the physical that evolution actually deals with, then does the evidence provided by evolutionists support the belief in a single set of parents or not? My understanding is that it does not, which I cannot reconcile with Christianity beacuse there is no logical point in time where God could have breathed life into our first two parents, from whom the rest of mankind came.
The only possibility that makes any sense (and I don’t know how this would fit into the evolutionary world) would be if God picked two people, from the many people who existed at the time, and then breathed a spiritual life into them. But this begs the question, what happened to all the others? Did they die out over time or are their soulless descendents still roaming the earth? (perhaps John Kerry supporters?..kidding
) If they did die out, then why? And is there any evidence of this occurring? Is there something biologically different about people with a soul than there would be without a soul?Too many unanswered questions for me to accept evolution.
C
Chris_W
Guest
I’ve done a lot of reading (maybe not a lot by scientist standards, but a lot for a guy who finds it very dry reading) about how scientists have determined the age of the earth, the age of fossils, how they use the geological column as it relates to radiometric dating, etc. Much of it is credible, although I personally find the arguments against the reliability of these methods to be pursuasive as well.
So what do I mean? I mean the earth could be a gazillion years old without contradicting the truths of Christianity. Personally I don’t buy it. I see a lot of assumptions in the methodology that are based on presumptions, but it is possible and I have no real reason to object to the idea.
BTW this is the very same position I could take on evolution if I wasn’t so convinced it is anti-God.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Chris W:
Genetic evidence does not point to a single set of parents. Rather, it points (as I understand it) to a small group of individuals as common ancestors.
The point about spiritual parents is that Adam and Eve were our spiritual parents, not our physical parents.
Peace
Tim
Sorry, I am having a hard time making my point clearly.
Genetic evidence does not point to a single set of parents. Rather, it points (as I understand it) to a small group of individuals as common ancestors.
The point about spiritual parents is that Adam and Eve were our spiritual parents, not our physical parents.
That is the point I have been trying to make. Thanks!!
The evidence obtained from genetic research does not support the idea of a single set of parents. The point I am (very poorly) trying to make is that God breathed life (gave a soul) to our parents, but they are our parents in a spiritual sense only, not in a physical sense.
I don’t know. Perhaps after the fall, God breathed life into all the others. After all, Cain’s wife had to come from somewhere.The only possibility that makes any sense (and I don’t know how this would fit into the evolutionary world) would be if God picked two people, from the many people who existed at the time, and then breathed a spiritual life into them. But this begs the question, what happened to all the others? Did they die out over time or are their soulless descendents still roaming the earth? (perhaps John Kerry supporters?..kidding
That’s fine by me. As I said before, your belief in a literal Genesis story or your acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with your salvation.
Peace
Tim
C
Chris_W
Guest
Not that anyone’s going to be waiting with baited breath for a response from Chris W, but I need to go now and I’ll be away from the computer for the next day and a half.
I’m thankful the dialogue has been cordial so far. I know I get kinda worked up about evolution but it is because it seems like an either / or decision (evolution or christianity) to me.
Peace,
Chris W
I’m thankful the dialogue has been cordial so far. I know I get kinda worked up about evolution but it is because it seems like an either / or decision (evolution or christianity) to me.
Peace,
Chris W
R
rossum
Guest
Chris W:
“It is completely logical for me to say that I believe first and foremost in Hinduism. And anything that contradicts that truth must therefore be false. It is therefore quite logical to conclude that if Hinduism and Christianity are not compatible, then Christianity is false.”
Hmmm, some problem with the logic of that don’t you think?
You appear to be jumping from what you believe to be true to what actually is true, and that jump is not logically correct. Different people hold incompatible beliefs: in many gods, in one God and in no gods. Sincere belief in something does not necessarily make that thing true. You can certainly say “I believe that evolution is false,” but you cannot go on from that to say “therefore evolution is false.”
rossum
One answer is that it does not need explaining. There are many people who do find Christianity and evolution to be compatible, for example Ken Miller, Theodosius Dobzhansky or Glenn Morton. Of course just because some people find the two to be compatible, does not mean that you will find the same. There are different interpretations of Christianity and there are different interpretations of evolution. I would doubt if Richard Dawkins’ interpretation of evolution would be compatible with any form of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.
I am afraid this is not quite as logical as you seem to think it is. Suppose there was a sincerely believing Hindu who said:
“It is completely logical for me to say that I believe first and foremost in Hinduism. And anything that contradicts that truth must therefore be false. It is therefore quite logical to conclude that if Hinduism and Christianity are not compatible, then Christianity is false.”
Hmmm, some problem with the logic of that don’t you think?
You appear to be jumping from what you believe to be true to what actually is true, and that jump is not logically correct. Different people hold incompatible beliefs: in many gods, in one God and in no gods. Sincere belief in something does not necessarily make that thing true. You can certainly say “I believe that evolution is false,” but you cannot go on from that to say “therefore evolution is false.”
rossum
C
carol_marie
Guest
Chris W:
P.S. And for those of you who say evolution and Christianity can go well together… I have a Christian fish on my vehicle. I’ve noticed other vehicles with a Darwin fish EATING a Christian fish. I guess I’m just not feeling the love.
But please do come back Chris W. You are doing a very good job speaking for the rest of us who believe the exact same thing !!
P.S. And for those of you who say evolution and Christianity can go well together… I have a Christian fish on my vehicle. I’ve noticed other vehicles with a Darwin fish EATING a Christian fish. I guess I’m just not feeling the love.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Can’t add much more and ChrisW does bring up great points and objections.
Besides Ken Miller (Catholic biologist) and the other folks above, I would mention Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), Denis Lamoureux (evangelical evolutionary creationist), Fr. Stanley Jaki (Catholic physicist, see his many books on Genesis and science, he is not a literalist or “concordist”) and Mike Behe (Catholic biochemist, leader in the Intelligent Design movement). All of these Christian scientists accept “common descent” as a fact (as does 99.99% of the scientific community of biologists, geologists, etc), including the common ancestry (macroevolution) of humans, chimps, and the great apes. Behe in a debate with Ken Miller on intelligent design, has admitted this as well (details in Finding Darwin’s God).
I don’t know (and haven’t asked) how all these folks reconcile evolution with Adam/Eve or how they interpret Genesis, although Glenn Morton does have a book on this whole subject which I have been reading…so I might get answers from his book.
The question “Is evolution true” is a question for science. It makes no difference whether someone thinks it contradicts Christian teaching or Catholic dogma or the Bible. It stands or falls on the scientific evidence, and therefore it stands quite well.
It is not logical to reject evolution because you have theological problems with it. Perhaps this just means you need to study the science a bit more, and dig deeper into the teaching of the Bible and the Church. The Church “permits” a literal interpretation of the Genesis account (6000 years ago, Adam/Eve literally created from dirt, a talking snake, the original sin was eating a fruit in the garden of Eden, etc). The Church would also “permit” a literal interpretation of the biblical view of the earth as the center of the universe (geocentrism), a very young, non-rotating, flat earth. We can hold those too, but are they reasonable in light of the evidence from modern science?
Someday I’ll have to write an article on the theological objections to evolution and interpretations of Genesis. I don’t have clear answers yet…we discussed this at length already here and other threads…keep going. I need to pick up a few Genesis commentaries.
Phil P
Besides Ken Miller (Catholic biologist) and the other folks above, I would mention Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), Denis Lamoureux (evangelical evolutionary creationist), Fr. Stanley Jaki (Catholic physicist, see his many books on Genesis and science, he is not a literalist or “concordist”) and Mike Behe (Catholic biochemist, leader in the Intelligent Design movement). All of these Christian scientists accept “common descent” as a fact (as does 99.99% of the scientific community of biologists, geologists, etc), including the common ancestry (macroevolution) of humans, chimps, and the great apes. Behe in a debate with Ken Miller on intelligent design, has admitted this as well (details in Finding Darwin’s God).
I don’t know (and haven’t asked) how all these folks reconcile evolution with Adam/Eve or how they interpret Genesis, although Glenn Morton does have a book on this whole subject which I have been reading…so I might get answers from his book.
The question “Is evolution true” is a question for science. It makes no difference whether someone thinks it contradicts Christian teaching or Catholic dogma or the Bible. It stands or falls on the scientific evidence, and therefore it stands quite well.
It is not logical to reject evolution because you have theological problems with it. Perhaps this just means you need to study the science a bit more, and dig deeper into the teaching of the Bible and the Church. The Church “permits” a literal interpretation of the Genesis account (6000 years ago, Adam/Eve literally created from dirt, a talking snake, the original sin was eating a fruit in the garden of Eden, etc). The Church would also “permit” a literal interpretation of the biblical view of the earth as the center of the universe (geocentrism), a very young, non-rotating, flat earth. We can hold those too, but are they reasonable in light of the evidence from modern science?
Someday I’ll have to write an article on the theological objections to evolution and interpretations of Genesis. I don’t have clear answers yet…we discussed this at length already here and other threads…keep going.
I need to pick up a few Genesis commentaries.Phil P
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Were Adam and Eve immortal beings when they received their souls?
Were Adam and Eve living in a world where death had dominion over all of creation except Adam and Eve?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Chris W:
Could you give an example of a persuasive scientific argument that you believe proves that the earth dating procedures accepted by most scientists are grossly erroneous?
So you believe it is possible to reconcile the truths of Christianity with an estimate for the age of the earth that most scientists would accept as reasonable. Why then do you lean towards a young earth theory that has such little scientific credibility? What is the point of doing that?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
That is the question that interests me as a Catholic. How does one reconcile a belief in evolution with Catholic doctrine, without also embracing the heresy of Modernism?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Matt16 << Were Adam and Eve immortal beings when they received their souls? Were Adam and Eve living in a world where death had dominion over all of creation except Adam and Eve? >>
Yeah I remember these questions from previous threads. If I am remembering right, you are one who believes Adam/Eve were not necessarily created on this earth, but that the Garden of Eden (or “Paradise”) of Genesis where they were created, lived and tempted was in another universe not touched by death. So you would say that Adam/Eve were “literal” but they didn’t “arrive” on earth until after having sinned in the “other” universe. Sorry if that misunderstands your position, or I am remembering wrong.
And one has to accept billions of years of death on earth if one accepts the ancient age of the earth at 4.5 - 4.6 billion. For example, the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years before mankind showed up. And if I remember, you accept the age of the earth. I would like to see how others answer. I guess the questions are
(1) Is the bodily immortality of Adam/Eve Catholic dogma, meaning it must be believed?
(2) And how is that reconciled with evolution as “God’s method of creation” ?
Evolution works by the death/birth/death process, there is no “immortality” possible. I admit its a good theological objection, but has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution.
Phil P
Yeah I remember these questions from previous threads. If I am remembering right, you are one who believes Adam/Eve were not necessarily created on this earth, but that the Garden of Eden (or “Paradise”) of Genesis where they were created, lived and tempted was in another universe not touched by death. So you would say that Adam/Eve were “literal” but they didn’t “arrive” on earth until after having sinned in the “other” universe. Sorry if that misunderstands your position, or I am remembering wrong.
And one has to accept billions of years of death on earth if one accepts the ancient age of the earth at 4.5 - 4.6 billion. For example, the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years before mankind showed up. And if I remember, you accept the age of the earth. I would like to see how others answer. I guess the questions are
(1) Is the bodily immortality of Adam/Eve Catholic dogma, meaning it must be believed?
(2) And how is that reconciled with evolution as “God’s method of creation” ?
Evolution works by the death/birth/death process, there is no “immortality” possible. I admit its a good theological objection, but has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Matt16 << Could you give an example of a persuasive scientific argument that you believe proves that the earth dating procedures accepted by most scientists are grossly erroneous? >>
I’ll let him answer, but there aren’t any. The young-earth creationist Woodmorappe points to a couple “bad dates” but his logic is very poor. His logic would be this: let’s say you have 50 clocks in your house. You wake up in the middle of the night, you don’t know what time it is, and 46 of your clocks read 2:30 AM, 1 of them read 2:29 AM, 1 of them reads 2:31 AM, 1 of them is flashing “12:00” repeatedly, and one reads 5:57 PM.
Most people would consider “the time is about 2:30 AM” to be well established. Not Woodmorappe. He looks at the clock flashing 12:00, or the one that reads 5:57 PM (which probably wasn’t reset right) and says “See, we do not know what time it is.” All the clocks are unreliable.
That’s a good analogy. The clocks are “radiometric” clocks and the 4.5 - 4.6 billion year old date has been well established since the 1950s. You know that but maybe others don’t.
See Henke on Woody and Schimmrich on Woody
Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective is outstanding also
Phil P
I’ll let him answer, but there aren’t any. The young-earth creationist Woodmorappe points to a couple “bad dates” but his logic is very poor. His logic would be this: let’s say you have 50 clocks in your house. You wake up in the middle of the night, you don’t know what time it is, and 46 of your clocks read 2:30 AM, 1 of them read 2:29 AM, 1 of them reads 2:31 AM, 1 of them is flashing “12:00” repeatedly, and one reads 5:57 PM.
Most people would consider “the time is about 2:30 AM” to be well established. Not Woodmorappe. He looks at the clock flashing 12:00, or the one that reads 5:57 PM (which probably wasn’t reset right) and says “See, we do not know what time it is.” All the clocks are unreliable.
That’s a good analogy. The clocks are “radiometric” clocks and the 4.5 - 4.6 billion year old date has been well established since the 1950s. You know that but maybe others don’t.
See Henke on Woody and Schimmrich on Woody
Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective is outstanding also
Phil P
M
Matt16_18
Guest
That is pretty close to what I believe.
Yes, I accept the normal scientific estimates for the age of the earth.
I believe that this is dogma, because it implicitly involves the nature of God, and the nature of Good. God cannot be the author of death, since death is the enemy of God (1Cor. 15:26). God is light and in him is no darkness at all
1John 1:5
Nowhere does scripture speak of God using death to create. Such a concept is alien and hostile to all of scriptures. Death is a consequence of sin, that is what scriptures teach.
Science can only speak about processes in the fallen world, a world where death has dominion over all creation. If science shows that death is active in our fallen world, what of it? How could science show anything else?
O
Orogeny
Guest
The only thing immortal about humans today is our souls, so Adam and Eve were no different.
There was physical death prior to Adam and Eve. I’m not sure that your wording of the question is logical. Obviously, all of creation includes mostly inanimate objects, so death is irrelevant in those cases.
Peace
Tim
M
marciadietrich
Guest
No, our physical death (a temporal thing) is a consequence of original sin. We believe in the bodily resurrection (the immortality of our body and soul together), that it will be this body that we live in for eternity. Christ’s rising is the first fruits of that. Mary’s bodily assumption points to that hope and belief. Saying just because we die now means Adam and Eve before the fall were meant to die physically doesn’t make sense in terms of Catholic thought. Unless you’re not Catholic, I have a hard time keeping the players here straight.
Other types of physical death, animals and plants, I’m less sure on if that is doctrinal. If we would be eating fruit, something would die. But many like to point out that the tree and the apple are figurative, so perhaps eating was also figurative of what we could or could not do without sinning.
Marcia
M
marciadietrich
Guest
1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.
1017 “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).
1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer “bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” (*GS *§ 18).
Before they sinned, Adam and Eve were immortal. I haven’t seen anything yet, that seems absolute about believing animal and plant death is a result of original sin.
This I think Matt16_18 may have quoted here or elsewhere (or the scripture it refers to):
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (*Wis *1:13; 2:24).
1017 “We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).
1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer “bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” (*GS *§ 18).
Before they sinned, Adam and Eve were immortal. I haven’t seen anything yet, that seems absolute about believing animal and plant death is a result of original sin.
This I think Matt16_18 may have quoted here or elsewhere (or the scripture it refers to):
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (*Wis *1:13; 2:24).
- Status