Theistic Evolution: The parents of Adam & Eve

Started by Mono no aware, August 23, 2014, 03:16:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

Quote from: Greg on September 23, 2020, 11:41:08 AM
What stopped you in the end?

What were the biggest contributing factors?

The three biggest problems for me in the end were theodicy, ecclesiology, and evolution.  Apropos of this thread, evolution was the least nuanced.  The dilemma seems almost perfectly binary: if evolution is true, then Christianity is false.  And vice versa.  I tried for a time to hold theistic evolution in my head, but it drove me mad.  I admire people who are able to somehow reconcile the two, but for me it was not possible.

There was also the nagging problem that I was my own pope.  I was fashioning my own little niche version of Catholicism, "Gallican and Jansenist."  In truth, Catholicism is neither of those things.  Nor is it really Hellenistic, despite the great efforts of the Church Fathers and the early Renaissance artists, and at some point one has to be honest with one's self.

Greg

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

The Theosist

Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 23, 2020, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: Greg on September 23, 2020, 11:41:08 AM
What stopped you in the end?

What were the biggest contributing factors?

The three biggest problems for me in the end were theodicy, ecclesiology, and evolution.  Apropos of this thread, evolution was the least nuanced.  The dilemma seems almost perfectly binary: if evolution is true, then Christianity is false.  And vice versa.  I tried for a time to hold theistic evolution in my head, but it drove me mad.  I admire people who are able to somehow reconcile the two, but for me it was not possible.

Yet Christianity and evolution can both be true without forcing Genesis into moral metaphor or holding to theistic evolution. It just requires giving up the notion that this world of Adam's exile is God's creation and that any intelligent designer is divine. You know my answer for theodicy, and the problem of the sensible meaning of omnipotence and foreknowledge that can be used to reject these concepts as commonly invoked and answer your objection to "gnosticism". As for ecclesiology, abandoning the Catholic version hardly entails having to abandon Christ.

Greg

#258
The problem is the Church taught them defide.  To require Catholics to believe something that is objectively false, even if you did not know that at the time, is an error.

This means the Church is not protected from error.  And that Science is superior to the Church.  Since science technically allows opposition of theories and does not call people sinners who contradict it.

But I don't believe in evolution.  I think it is a giant self justifying bullshit exercise like Coronavirus.  Humans are very adept at myths.  And most people are compliant sheep.  So false ideas get oxygen and grow like weeds.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Frank

Quote from: Greg on September 26, 2020, 09:32:52 PM
The problem is the Church taught them defide.  To require Catholics to believe something that is objectively false, even if you did not know that at the time, is an error.

This means the Church is not protected from error.  And that Science is superior to the Church.  Since science technically allows opposition of theories and does not call people sinners who contradict it.

But I don't believe in evolution.  I think it is a giant self justifying bullshit exercise like Coronavirus.  Humans are very adept at myths.  And most people are compliant sheep.  So falsd ideas get oxygen and grow like weeds.

It's only protected from error under certain specific circumstances.

Outside those it can and does make all kind of errors.
in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est

Greg

#260
Such specific circumstances, and so rarely, it is next to useless.  It makes zero difference to my life whether the BVM was immaculately conceived or not.

Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

If the Church punishes people for disagreeing with it, over something that turns out to be true, then it is a tyrant like all other tyrants. It has certainly thrown its political weight around with the confidence of an institution protected from error in more than just those limited circumstances.  Right now, for example, where the ONLY thing it insists on compliance with is Vatican II.  And the only schismatics in the world are those who reject Vatican II.

Marcel Lefebvre is bad.  Biden and Pelosi welcomed in the Vatican. 

A guarantee which guarantees an appliance only under specific or rare circumstances is worthless.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Frank

Quote from: Greg on September 27, 2020, 04:56:23 AM
Such specific circumstances and so rarely it is next to useless.  It makes zero difference to my life whether the BVM was immaculately conceived or not.

Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

If the Church punishes people for disagreeing with it over something that turns out to be true, then it is a tyrant like all other tyrants. It has certainly thrown its political weight around with the confidence of an institution protected from error in more than just those limited circumstances.  Right now, for examples where the ONLY thing it insists on compliance on is Vatican II.  And the only schismatics in the world are those who reject Vatican II.

Marcel Lefebvre is bad.  Biden and Pelosi welcome in the Vatican.

A guarantee which guarantees an appliance only under specific or rare circumstances is worthless.

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est

Daniel

#262
The answer is simple: "evolution" is bad science, "evolutionism" is a false counterreligion, and "theistic evolution" is syncretism.

Certain kinds of microevolution have been directly observed. But this is not incompatible with young earth creationism, and microevolution doesn't entail other kinds of evolution.

Macroevolution and cosmic evolution have never been directly observed. What we have is unclear, ambiguous data that could go either way. The only reason why so many people believe in evolution is because they are spiritually blind. They assume up front that young earth creationism is absurd (or at least wrong, not to be taken seriously), so they go with the only other option that they've ever been taught (or, the option that they judge to be more "likely" or "probable", the only option which they take to be worthy of belief).

There's no point trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity, unless you want to be a heretic and believe in absurdities. Evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable. The God of Christianity is simply not the same person as the "God" posited by theistic evolution, and Christians are definitely not free to reject the fall of man (a doctrine which entails that the world was not always imperfect).

Jayne

Quote from: Greg on September 27, 2020, 04:56:23 AM
Whether we had two, and only two, parents to the human race does make a difference.  Because all manner of conclusions flow from that.

I am not sure what point you are making. Are you claiming it is objectively false that there were two parents to the human race? Or are you claiming the Church changed position on this? The Church continues to teach that we had two parents to the human race. (Current science supports the idea the humanity arose in on place and that DNA can be traced to a common ancestor.) Theistic evolution could only be considered if it incorporated that teaching.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

Maximilian

Quote from: Daniel on September 27, 2020, 06:24:28 AM
The answer is simple: "evolution" is bad science, "evolutionism" is a false counterreligion, and "theistic evolution" is syncretism.

Certain kinds of microevolution have been directly observed. But this is not incompatible with young earth creationism, and microevolution doesn't entail other kinds of evolution.

Macroevolution and cosmic evolution have never been directly observed. What we have is unclear, ambiguous data that could go either way. The only reason why so many people believe in evolution is because they are spiritually blind. They assume up front that young earth creationism is absurd (or at least wrong, not to be taken seriously), so they go with the only other option that they've ever been taught (or, the option that they judge to be more "likely" or "probable", the only option which they take to be worthy of belief).

There's no point trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity, unless you want to be a heretic and believe in absurdities. Evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable. The God of Christianity is simply not the same person as the "God" posited by theistic evolution, and Christians are definitely not free to reject the fall of man (a doctrine which entails that the world was not always imperfect).

Well put.

With your intellect so solid on such a fundamental topic, I think it is only a matter of time before you begin to resolve some of your other quandries.

Buzzard

Quote from: Pon de Replay on August 23, 2014, 03:16:27 PM
Some traditional Catholics accept the theory of evolution.  But if evolution is true, then the Biblical account of the dawn of mankind appears far removed from reality.  Instead of being created by God, an Adam & Eve arrived at by evolution would've had parents.  The Bible does not mention these parents, but you would think that would be an important part of their story.  If Adam & Eve were given immortal souls, and their parents did not have immortal souls, then Adam & Eve stood in relation to their parents as humans do to other primates.  Their parents were essentially animals.  And animals, in Catholic theology, are divinely intended as subservient to humans. 

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "dumb animals are devoid of the life of reason," so Adam's father would've lacked both a soul and the ability to reason.  Imagine how strange this would've been for Adam growing up.  This would've been a strange family.  But there is nothing in Genesis to indicate this.  If evolution were true, it seems like the Bible would have passages that went something like: "and Adam was much saddened, seeing himself to be unlike his father and his mother.  And the Lord said unto Adam, 'you are emancipated from your father and your mother; their kind is not your kind; go ye therefore into the land of Eden, where another awaits for you.  Her name is Eve."  But there's nothing like this at all.  If evolution is true, why does the Bible give no explicit indication?  Why does the Word of God appear so contradictory to this theory?  Why did even Catholic bishops and theologians embrace creationism?

These are questions for theistic evolutionists.  This thread assumes, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true.  And if it is, then why did God, who is omnipotent and can see the future, inspire a creation account that causes so much confusion and division in the Body of Christ?
I can accept (albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism) the scientific evidence that suggests the history of life on earth goes back millions or even billions of years, but as for evolution explaining that history, nuh, I don't buy it.  And as for Adam and Eve having parents ... what baloney. 

For starters, it seems to me that the gist of Genesis 2:7 is that Adam was created directly from inanimate matter.   There was no life - "dust" - then there was life - Adam.  To squeeze evolution out of that verse is a bit too far-fetched for me to accept.

Furthermore, theistic evolutionists want us to believe that the offspring of Adam and Eve bred with "humans" outside that family ... ie, with evolved "humans" who were not made in the image of God ... beasts without souls, in effect.   At the very least, that would amount to bestiality.   Such a belief is as absurd as it is repugnant.

In short, I think evolution is basically a bedtime story for atheists, and it's not even good science, when examined closely.   Nevertheless, it's become cult dogma in the scientific community because atheists run that show. 

Evolution has "666" written all over it.  It's fooled a lot of people, however, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.


Justin Martyr

Quote from: Pon de Replay on September 23, 2020, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: Greg on September 23, 2020, 11:41:08 AM
What stopped you in the end?

What were the biggest contributing factors?

The three biggest problems for me in the end were theodicy, ecclesiology, and evolution.  Apropos of this thread, evolution was the least nuanced.  The dilemma seems almost perfectly binary: if evolution is true, then Christianity is false.  And vice versa.  I tried for a time to hold theistic evolution in my head, but it drove me mad.  I admire people who are able to somehow reconcile the two, but for me it was not possible.

There was also the nagging problem that I was my own pope.  I was fashioning my own little niche version of Catholicism, "Gallican and Jansenist."  In truth, Catholicism is neither of those things.  Nor is it really Hellenistic, despite the great efforts of the Church Fathers and the early Renaissance artists, and at some point one has to be honest with one's self.

If you don't mind me asking, Pon, what in the field of ecclesiology caused a problem for you? Ecclesiology is probably the one topic I've done the most reading on as a Catholic and is my favorite branch of theology, so I have a personal curiosity in the matter. I have a pretty decent idea based on your comments about being your own Pope, but I prefer not to make assumptions.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

bedtimeprayers

I don't think it's helpful to say Christian's DENY the evidence from the earlier stages of the world. We just interpret said evidence differently.
I don't quite see how believing that all life came from one small random particle formation is science at all. To me this is philosophy not science.
Consider what Stephen (if that's how it's spelled) Hawkins says about the universe: the universe exists because it must exist.
Is this really science?
Or is it naturalistic philosophy?
The fossil record supposedly shows evolution. But does it really?
The issue is the scientists assume natural law was always in place. The catholic knows it only came into place post creation. I genuinely do not see how it's possible for us to know how life came into being. If the world is a computer, humans are examining the code. But no matter how much we study the Code (how things work) we will never know how the computer was created (life/world).
So evolution isn't really about science, it is science combined with a naturalistic philosophical framework that makes a lot of assumptions.
How people don't see this is beyond me. As a Christian I admit I'm biased. But the evolutionist never does. They never see their naturalistic philosophy is a bias, to them, it is "default."
I say there is no such thing as a default or neutrality, we are all biased. Any evidence pointing against evolution or the earth not being a billion years old is ignored as an "error" or corruption of specimen because it doesn't fit the evolutionist framework.

Check this out: https://www.space.com/33374-odds-of-life-emerging-new-equation.html
This is a calculation of the odds of life emerging from non living matter.
They really have no idea, but some estimate 100 million years + for a single cell organism.

Given this information, can anyone really dare say Christianity is ignoring science or presenting falsehoods?
Why is it evolutionists have a 100 million+ years (and this is only an educated guess given current limited knowledge) in order for life to form, but somehow believing the genesis account is "denying science?"
Truly, evolution is a faith of its own. The truth is this isn't science, this is pure speculation. Scientists simply cannot know how the world formed by studying the world. The formation of the world (wether by creation or pure chance) is outside the realms of the contents of the world.
I believe genesis provides the blueprint of how the world was formed, that is, through God ordering it.
But how can the scientist possibly know how the world formed by studying the world? It's ridiculous.
We know how embryos form because we have seen the process, not because we studied fully formed humans.
The same is with the world and evolution. It is time to peel back the veneer of science and treat these theories for what they really are. Naturalistic interpretations of the current actual physical evidence we have, through a naturalistic philosophical framework.
Until the evolutionist admits he is biased, we will get no where.
I can tell you for sure though, I don't "fool" myself and pretend there evidence isn't there. The evidence is there, I just disagree with the interpretation.

After having the faith that 100+million years are needed to create life, I don't see how one can them turn around and say creationists, much less genesis, are silly tales?
Surely they both require faith, it's just Christian's are the only ones that admit they have a faith.

The evolutionist shrouds his philosophical beliefs as hard "science" and we are all supposed to be fooled by it.
Behold, the Handmaiden of the Lord, let it be done to me according to Thy Word.

Stanley

Quote from: bedtimeprayers on March 22, 2022, 11:44:45 PM
The truth is this isn't science, this is pure speculation. Scientists simply cannot know how the world formed by studying the world.

Except it's not "pure speculation".We can observe things and processes going on now and make inferences from those observations. Most of science is observation, prediction, and testing of predictions.

Popular science journalists are usually not scientists. In addition to factual mistakes, they often fail to convey how a scientific consensus was reached.

Justin Martyr

Quote from: Stanley on March 23, 2022, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: bedtimeprayers on March 22, 2022, 11:44:45 PM
The truth is this isn't science, this is pure speculation. Scientists simply cannot know how the world formed by studying the world.

Except it's not "pure speculation".We can observe things and processes going on now and make inferences from those observations. Most of science is observation, prediction, and testing of predictions.

Popular science journalists are usually not scientists. In addition to factual mistakes, they often fail to convey how a scientific consensus was reached.

Empirical observations about the origins of life and the universe in a fallen world are of necessity going to be skewed in relation to the historical reality. Only the Holy Scriptures can give us an untainted account of such things.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.