Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[mark kennedy]

But also realize that a single, literal, Adam, who brought original sin, who is the literal ancestor of us all, is fully consistent with theistic evolution (ask if you'd like a description).

Got a better one I'll bet, still rejected it years ago.

Mark has claimed that a main reason for him to reject evolution is because he needs to keep a single, literal, ancestor Adam to keep the doctrine of original sin, but when it is (repeatedly) pointed out to him that he can keep that with theistic evolution as well, he still rejects that evolution occurred.

You still know nothing about me, I do not reject evolution. I affirm creationism for the reasons I have elaborated on at length and most of them are scientific in character. The only doctrinal issue at stake, as I have stated repeatedly is justification by faith, a topic I debated with a Catholic university student some time ago.

I reject that we descended from apes and at the same time affirm the testimony of Moses and Paul as being decisive with regards to redemptive history. Even Rome and the Early Church Fathers affirm a literal Adam who is our first parent. That is the doctrinal link, you guys will never get it. Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

It seems clear that Mark clings to creationism for some additional reason that he is not telling us.

Papias

So does Rome and the canonical reason given is 'original sin'.

 

[shernren]

Even Rome and the Early Church Fathers affirm a literal Adam who is our first parent. ... So does Rome and the canonical reason given is 'original sin'.

Indeed, and what do they think of human evolution?

... the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII (1960) link here
​

=====

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ...

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

... With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.

Message to the Pontifical Assembly of Sciences, Pope John Paul II (1996) link here

​

The Roman Catholic Church understands that human evolution does not necessarily conflict with a literal Adam, even one who is our "first parent".

But I suppose that goes to show that all those priests are actually evil adulterous boy-lovers in disguise. (Hey, don't look at me - that's essentially what your boss John MacArthur thinks.)

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

But also realize that a single, literal, Adam, who brought original sin, who is the literal ancestor of us all, is fully consistent with theistic evolution (ask if you'd like a description).

Got a better one I'll bet, still rejected it years ago.


​

So you rejected some other idea? Does that mean that you do realize that a single, literal Adam, the ancestor of all humanity, and start of original sin, is supported by evolution?

​

You still know nothing about me, I do not reject evolution. I affirm creationism.......

So you agree that we have good evidence that species after species has evolved from commen descent, but somehow you want to put humans in a separate little box, as if we were not another kind of animal? I hate to break it to you, but humans eat, excrete, have bodies made of cells, have sex, have offspring, are composed of the same proteins, etc........

I affirm creationism for the reasons I have elaborated on at length and most of them are scientific in character.

No, they aren't. Your reasons are usually misunderstandings or outright falsehoods, and what's more, we've shown them to be wrong again and again, yet you continue to post them again as if you had even seen the information we post. I've posted a list of these falsehoods, and can add your denial of the Popes affirmation of theistic evolution, include that of humans from apes, to it if you like.

The only doctrinal issue at stake, as I have stated repeatedly is justification by faith, a topic I debated with a Catholic university student some time ago.

Whoa, this is from the guy who says that the only doctrine at stake is whether or not Adam is the source of original sin? OK, if this is your new doctrine at stake because you now understand that a single, literal Adam, the ancestor of all humanity, and start of original sin, fits very well with Theistic Evolution, could you plainly state that, for clarity?

I reject that we descended from apes and at the same time affirm the testimony of Moses and Paul as being decisive with regards to redemptive history.

Why? Paul and Moses say nothing that contradicts the reality that we are descended from apes. Paul especially clafies Adam's role, which, as we saw above (and many other times on this thread and others) is consistent with theistic evolution.

Even Rome and the Early Church Fathers affirm a literal Adam who is our first parent.

Sure, and so do I, as a Theistic Evolution supporter. Mark, I've explained to you, over and over, that a literal Adam is fully consistent with theistic evolution, and that Rome and the Pope fully affirm that. In fact, on another thread you switched the goalposts to claim that this has never been decreed in an official edict, and I showed that it had been. You still haven't admitted you were wrong there. To jog your memory, it's posts #17 and 18 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7505537-2/

That's also the same thread where I pointed out that evolution has also been affirmed by at least the two most recent popes, and the most recent statement from Pope Benedict lays out the 4.6 billion years of the earth, universal common descent for all life on earth, and that there is converging evidence for evolution of all life on earth. Remember, it includes the statement that this is "Virtually Certain".

Mark, this is yet another example where you have posted falsehoods, been shown to be wrong, and not admitted your mistake. Worse, you have again gone on to repost your falsehood in another thread, hoping that no one would catch you. This made Shernern go through the effort fo finding that RCC information, in addition to what you had just seen on the thread I posted to above.

That is the doctrinal link, you guys will never get it. Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

And again, we are reminded that theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism is consistent with the Old and New Testaments, affirming that God created the world (by using evolution). Mark, I hope you agree now that the Pope and Rome affirm theistic evolution and that thesitic evolution supports Christian doctrine, including the fall, original sin, Adam, and so on.

Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed, and what do they think of human evolution?

...​

the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII (1960) link here
​

=====

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]​

Check out the link for the word 'polygenism' and we can talk about this statement in the context it was made in. Rome has made clear that alternatives for Adam being our first parent is conjecture at best and does not reconcile the doctrine of original sin to Church dogma.

So much for a figurative Adam.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ...

That would include a literal Adam being our first parent.

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.​

Still no issues here, of course evolution is a 'serious hypothesis'.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Just wish he had defined that term 'evolution' because I'm sure he is not using yours.

... With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.​

Metaphysics? The Creator's design according to this is well beyond the reach of natural science.

Message to the Pontifical Assembly of Sciences, Pope John Paul II (1996) link here

​

The Roman Catholic Church understands that human evolution does not necessarily conflict with a literal Adam, even one who is our "first parent".[/indent]

I notice your selective quote mining left this part out:

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.]​

But I suppose that goes to show that all those priests are actually evil adulterous boy-lovers in disguise. (Hey, don't look at me - that's essentially what your boss John MacArthur thinks.)

It is truly amazing how you can effectively ignore the Scriptures but you always turn out this sort of selective quote mining. John MacArthur is doing something that none of the Theistic Evolutionists on here do. He is a Bible teacher who actually does sound expositions of of the Scriptures. You in particular have shown virtually no interest.

Have a nice day
mark

 

[shernren]

It is truly amazing how you can effectively ignore the Scriptures but you always turn out this sort of selective quote mining.

I've quoted the Scriptures to you before only to have you ignore them. As for quote mining, I think you're much better at it than I am:

I notice your selective quote mining left this part out:

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
​

Did I? I said, and I quote:

The Roman Catholic Church understands that human evolution does not necessarily conflict with a literal Adam, even one who is our "first parent".

Show me even once where I have implied that the RCC does not consider a literal first parent Adam as the only acceptable option. I may not agree with them, of course, but surely I am at liberty to disagree with the Pope, as long as I represent his views fairly.

Representing his views fairly however appears to be something you can't do, as shown in your quote above, which on first sight seems to be about human evolution, but in fact is not:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. ...

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
​

See what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church is?

As to human evolution, the RCC considers the question of the material origin of the bodies of man (i.e. our evolution from apes) to be a scientific question, which the church does not attempt to theologically legislate;

As to polygenism, which is explicitly labeled "another conjectural opinion", the RCC does not consider it reconcilable with the Bible or its teaching traditions.

And a quick note:

Just wish he had defined that term 'evolution' because I'm sure he is not using yours.

Only your biases are blinding you to the obvious.

... In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ...

4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis.
​

Here Pope John Paul II makes it clear that he is referring back to Humani Generis: and what is its definition of evolution? This bears repeating:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.​

Now of course I'm sure you'll find some way of twisting this utterly clear definition into - well, into anything that does not require you to admit that the RCC has no theological problems with the scientific possibility that our bodies are directly descended from the bodies of hominids insofar as it does not veer into polygenism.

Is it any wonder that I have come to lose interest in discussing the words of God with you when you have shown yourself barely capable of handling the words of men with integrity?

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

So much for a figurative Adam.

Wow Mark, how many times have we said that a literal, single Adam fits with theistic evolution? A dozen? Why do keep insisting that we are saying something we are explicitly not saying?

Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

I'll ask again, just as I've asked you in many posts across many threads:

Mark, do you realize that a single, literal Adam, the ancestor of all humanity, and start of original sin, is consistent with theistic evolution?

polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Come on Mark - this is yet another example of a subject that you have been corrected on, yet still post about, as if it were new. Do you remember that both Gluadys and I explained to you that theistic evoluiton, as affirmed by the Catholic church, doesn't require polygenism, in posts #21 and #22 here?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7505537-3/

That's the same thread where it was shown that the Pope considers evolution (including the evolution of humans from apes) to be virtually certain.

Mark, since you ignore so much, can you at least agree that you read the quote from Pope Benedict XVI which said that evolution is virtually certain, even if you don't agree with it?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Mark wrote:



Wow Mark, how many times have we said that a literal, single Adam fits with theistic evolution? A dozen? Why do keep insisting that we are saying something we are explicitly not saying?

Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

I'll ask again, just as I've asked you in many posts across many threads:

Mark, do you realize that a single, literal Adam, the ancestor of all humanity, and start of original sin, is consistent with theistic evolution?



Come on Mark - this is yet another example of a subject that you have been corrected on, yet still post about, as if it were new. Do you remember that both Gluadys and I explained to you that theistic evoluiton, as affirmed by the Catholic church, doesn't require polygenism, in posts #21 and #22 here?

Original sin is the sin brought being by Adam. Not Adam brought into being by sin. In Darwinism, you do not trace sin back to Adam as the originator, but back to microbes. There is only original beastman, not original sin. As stated, Darwinism is rejected based on the evidence. Its inconsistency with, and mutilation of, text are only outlined.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow Mark, how many times have we said that a literal, single Adam fits with theistic evolution? A dozen? Why do keep insisting that we are saying something we are explicitly not saying?

How many times do you have to be shown that the RCC, the Early Church Fathers and the Apostle Paul do not teach that Adam had ancestors or contemporaries? The fact is that this 'hypothesis' or whatever you are calling it is contrary to Christian teaching regarding the origin of man. You can chant the mantra of their being no conflict but your animosity toward those who understand the Scriptures as they were written betrays you.

Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

God does not create with random mutations, no doubt they are part of the natural order but you don't get a human brain from that of an ape with a single random mutation. Moses didn't say from an ape, he said from the dust. Paul understood what Moses was saying and never uses Adam figuratively. Essential doctrinal issues are at stake here and you have chosen to side with a view of human history that is riddled with contempt for anything remotely supernatural or theistic.

You will either come to terms with that or continue to be used by the modernist to undermine Christian theism. That is exactly what is going on here and you may buy into the bill of goods that the two views are compatible but I know better.

You have no idea what the implications are, I'm sure of that. What is more you have no idea how strong the view you are opposing is but that's ok. Just do yourself a favor, don't expect me to buy into this worldly philosophy because I have studied the evidence and the Scriptures and I know better.

I'll ask again, just as I've asked you in many posts across many threads:

Mark, do you realize that a single, literal Adam, the ancestor of all humanity, and start of original sin, is consistent with theistic evolution?

Ask until you are blue in the face, the answer has not changed. No it's not, not given the transcendental, a priori, naturalistic assumptions you have made. I do not accept your ambitious rationalization of two views I know to be in conflict.

I could easily reconcile Theistic Evolution with the clear testimony with Scripture and Church Tradition and the requisite sciences. It would require very little compromise theologically and almost no intellectual vigor on my part. What I have a problem with is the unrelenting animosity this naturalistic ontology has for the things of God. The constant, unrelenting and universal contempt Theistic Evolutionists have for Bible believing Christians who have the audacity to remain skeptical of a theory that has failed the burden of proof.

Come on Mark - this is yet another example of a subject that you have been corrected on, yet still post about, as if it were new. Do you remember that both Gluadys and I explained to you that theistic evoluiton, as affirmed by the Catholic church, doesn't require polygenism,

Enough with the random links, if the argument had merit you would have summarized it. Besides that, she is not a Catholic and I have never had a serious problem with her theology. It does require polygenism and saying it doesn't is indefensible.

I'll tell you the closest I have seen is Francis Collins. He affirms the New Testament in no uncertain terms and still rejects Creationism and ID. I have no problem with that, I'm convinced it's his honest conclusion. I simply refuse to be corrected by someone who failed the burden of proof Scripturally and scientifically only to do a victory dance he has not earned.

That's the same thread where it was shown that the Pope considers evolution (including the evolution of humans from apes) to be virtually certain.

All except for the part where he didn't say the evolution of man from apes is virtually certain. Don't worry about browsing the previous discussions, it's not the position of Rome or any Pope.

Mark, since you ignore so much, can you at least agree that you read the quote from Pope Benedict XVI which said that evolution is virtually certain, even if you don't agree with it?

Papias

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (Humani Generis, 36-37).​

The Problem of Polygenism in Accepting the Theory of Evolution

According to Humani Generis, the Church does not enjoy the liberty of Adam having ancestors or contemporaries. There is a reason for that so quit throwing the word 'evolution' around like I don't know what the word means. I do not have to accept, nor has the RCC accepted the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Adam did not have ancestors, I did not make that statement up and views to the contrary contradict both the Scriptures and Church tradition.

Don't condescend to me dude, it's a waste of time. I reserve the right to remain unconvinced and if being a theistic evolutionists means treating Bible believing Christians with this kind of contempt I'm not buying it.

Don't tell me a Pope has said we evolved from apes, I know better. Sell your equivocation fallacy to someone who doesn't know what 'evolution' really means.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Coming soon, the Scriptures, Early Church Fathers and RCC dogma. I'll add the teachings of the Reformers soon after that but I have to get the facts established so far documented. Then you can rationalize the clear teaching of other expositors of Scripture and tradition.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Original sin is the sin brought being by Adam. Not Adam brought into being by sin. In Darwinism, you do not trace sin back to Adam as the originator, but back to microbes. There is only original beastman, not original sin. As stated, Darwinism is rejected based on the evidence. Its inconsistency with, and mutilation of, text are only outlined.

The case can be made decisively from the Scriptures, RCC dogma and the Early Church Fathers that Adam having ancestors is a modern view. This never occurred to the New Testament writers or the Church, Catholic or otherwise prior to the advent of Darwinism. Darwinism is a rejection of God and the supernatural in no uncertain terms, that is clear as well.

That means to accept evolution with the a priori assumption of universal common descent is to reject much of Scripture and Christian theism. It is by no means fatal spiritually but intellectually the two are mutually exclusive unless you can affirm God's supernatural intervention in human affairs as a matter of fact.

I have seen this from theistic evolutionists only on the rarest of occasions. I worry about these people but I don't believe them to be at fault, I think they have been deceived. Who's to say we all aren't being led down the primrose path by speaking of things too wonderful for us.

1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing,
and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?
Therefore have I uttered that I understood not;
things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak:
I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear;
but now mine eye seeth thee:
6 wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Besides that, she [gluadys] is not a Catholic and I have never had a serious problem with her theology.

Boy, why didn't you just say so! That would have made all our lives a lot easier.

Theologians from Catholic, Orthodox, mainline and evangelical Protestant schools of thought have affirmed that evolution is consistent with Christian theism---even with an historical Adam.

When I read a story with talking animals and mystical trees in it, I usually take that as clear internal evidence that the story is not intended to refer to real-world events--other than symbolically.

Well, I guess you're going to start having a problem with her theology soon. Heh!

All except for the part where he didn't say the evolution of man from apes is virtually certain. ... According to Humani Generis, the Church does not enjoy the liberty of Adam having ancestors or contemporaries. There is a reason for that so quit throwing the word 'evolution' around like I don't know what the word means.

So I suppose Cardinal Ratzinger believes unequivocally that Adam was literally formed from the dust, doesn't he?

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
​

But at least he surely sees that evolution is contrary to Christian theism!

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God." ... The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.​

(both quotes from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution)

And the definition of evolution which the RCC uses is clear-cut. The scope has been defined in Humani Generis, which you accept:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
​

It awaits mark to tell us just how the human body can originate from living matter without our brains having evolved from chimpanzee brains, how the RCC sees evolution and polygenism as independent questions, and how it is that he has practically no disagreement with the profoundly TE theologies of gluadys and Francis Collins.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

How many times do you have to be shown that the RCC, the Early Church Fathers and the Apostle Paul do not teach that Adam had ancestors or contemporaries? The fact is that this 'hypothesis' or whatever you are calling it is contrary to Christian teaching regarding the origin of man.

Hey look, Mark is still denying that the RCC allows for evolution, including that of apes to humans!

I hate to break it to you Mark, but Catholicism is a Christian religion, and Catholicism allows for humans evolving from apes. In addition to the clear official edicts that both Shernren and I have posted, perhaps you can comment on what the most recent Pope has said:

there is general agreement among (scientists)that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. .....it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

So, Mark, if you are unsure if the Pope has said that you evolved from earlier life, simply take your pulse. Are you alive? Then, the Pope says it is virtually certian you evolved from bacteria.

I'm wondering what part of "all living organisms" is unclear to Mark. Mark, maybe let us know what part of "all living organisms" you don't understand?


Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

don't get a human brain from that of an ape with a single random mutation.

Of course it is a slow process, but there has to be a first human, even if it is only barely more human than his parents, right? You understand that when warming a room from cold to warm, at some second you have to cross the line. Adam was the one transitional form that God considered human enough to give the first soul to. I'm sorry if you disagree with God's judgement.

Maybe reading it from a Catholic site will help you see it:
Therefore, it is possible that God evolved the early hominids to a state advanced enough to be endowed with a rational soul and then infused a human soul on two of them. If this is true then the first rational hominids were Adam and Eve: our first parents.

Common Questions about Bible Passages

***Edited to add **************************
Thanks for spurring me to think of this way to explain it. I think we agree that the human brain is well advanced compared to the chimp brain. How many mutations is that, in your estimation? Let's say it is 24,863 mutations. It may not be that many, but who knows - I'm not a biologist.

Now, imagine a chimp-like ancestor with none of those. He has a child with one of them. call him "00001". Is that Adam, a human, or is that child a chimp? We agree he's pretty much a chimp, right?

After many generations, his descendant has 49 of those mutations. Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

How about at 312 mutations? Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

You can see that at some point, say halfway, at 12,432 mutations, he'll now be closer to a human. So whatever line you pick, it has to be crossed sometime.

If we say that 12,431 is closer to a chimp, then 0012431 is not Adam, while his son, who is 0012432, IS Adam, and is human.

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human (they probably range from, say, 12,200 to 12,430 or so) and so we have a single person, from whom we all get orginal sin.

Remember that polygenism is the idea that there are other humans besides Adam and Eve around when Adam and Eve are first given souls and become human. Because none of the other members of the community are enough over the line to be human, there are no other humans, and polygenism is avoided.

I hope that that makes sense to you, Mark, and also hope that it makes sense to others here. I have to admit that my expectation in those hopes are not equal.

Essential doctrinal issues are at stake here and

Hold on, I thought you said you agreed with Guadys' theology. If you meant that then you wouldn't think any doctrine was at stake. So which is it?

you have chosen to side with a view of human history that is riddled with contempt for anything remotely supernatural or theistic.

The Catholic church has contempt for anything remotely theistic?

What I have a problem with is the unrelenting animosity this naturalistic ontology has for the things of God.

Um, theistic evoluion is by definition not a naturalistic ontology.

All except for the part where he didn't say the evolution of man from apes is virtually certain.

OK, you can post that if you like. Are you saying that men are not living organisms? Check your pulse.

Have a fun day -

Papias

P. S.

Greg wrote:

In Darwinism, you do not trace sin back to Adam as the originator, but back to microbes.

No, there is no original sin in Darwinism if by that you mean atheistic evolution. Original Sin in theistic evolution is often traced back to Adam, who brought original sin into the world by rebelling against God.

That's one of the many large differences between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution.

Theistic evoluiton supporters are as atheistic as those compromising, half-committed "round earth" Christians. You may know some of them.

 

[Greg1234]

Maybe reading it from a Catholic site will help you see it:
Therefore, it is possible that God evolved the early hominids to a state advanced enough to be endowed with a rational soul and then infused a human soul on two of them. If this is true then the first rational hominids were Adam and Eve: our first parents.

This is reversal of law itself as outlined. All flesh is not the same. This was given in Genesis and recapitulated in 1 Cor 15:39. The very reason they are not the same is because flesh is soul and spirit, materialized. Flesh is only the shadow made by what is real. You do not "infuse" man in beast. The same way you do not "infuse" a shadow. The beast makes his shadow, Man makes his own shadow ("and to each kind of seed he gives its own body"). No matter the frequency. This is also consistent with the data showing the limitations of adaptation.

No, there is no original sin in Darwinism if by that you mean atheistic evolution. Original Sin in theistic evolution is often traced back to Adam, who brought original sin into the world by rebelling against God.

It's the same thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Hey look, Mark is still denying that the RCC allows for evolution, including that of apes to humans!

Hey look? Papias is denying the canon of Scripture as well as the canon of the RCC and covering it up with equivocation and a third person exclamation to no one.

I hate to break it to you Mark, but Catholicism is a Christian religion, and Catholicism allows for humans evolving from apes.

Yes it is and no it doesn't.

In addition to the clear official edicts that both Shernren and I have posted, perhaps you can comment on what the most recent Pope has said:

there is general agreement among (scientists)that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. .....it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Your buddy doesn't care about Biblical exposition and the ITC also said:

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted.

there is general agreement among (scientists)that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. .....it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Your selective quote mining and equivocation makes poor arguments. Believing that evolution is a valid 'hypothesis' and that we evolved from apes are two very different things:

The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22)

The origins of man are to be found in Christ: for he is created "through him and in him" (Col 1:16), "the Word [who is] the life…and the light of every man who is coming into the world" (John 1:3-4, 9). While it is true that man is created ex nihilo, it can also be said that he is created from the fullness (ex plenitudine) of Christ himself who is at once the creator, the mediator and the end of man.

It follows that, where the central truth concerns a person acting freely, it is impossible to speak of a necessity or an imperative to create, and it is, in the end, inappropriate to speak of the Creator as a force, or energy, or ground. Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God​

But wait there's more:

Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of "haphazard mistakes." [5]

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion.excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)​

So, Mark, if you are unsure if the Pope has said that you evolved from earlier life, simply take your pulse. Are you alive? Then, the Pope says it is virtually certian you evolved from bacteria.

He said no such thing, you lack the convictions of your beliefs or you would have stood by them.

I'm wondering what part of "all living organisms" is unclear to Mark. Mark, maybe let us know what part of "all living organisms" you don't understand?

I'm wondering what part of polygenism you don't understand. That's the trouble with equivocation, discerning people realize you are using two very different definitions without telling anyone.

Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion (cited and linked above)​

Of course it is a slow process, but there has to be a first human, even if it is only barely more human than his parents, right? You understand that when warming a room from cold to warm, at some second you have to cross the line. Adam was the one transitional form that God considered human enough to give the first soul to. I'm sorry if you disagree with God's judgement.

I'm sorry you disagree with the clear testimony of Scripture and the canon of the RCC.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).​

Maybe reading it from a Catholic site will help you see it:
Therefore, it is possible that God evolved the early hominids to a state advanced enough to be endowed with a rational soul and then infused a human soul on two of them. If this is true then the first rational hominids were Adam and Eve: our first parents.

Common Questions about Bible Passages

From the same website:

The first man: Adam

In order to understand the doctrine of original sin, it is necessary to begin with the first created man, Adam. Scripture and Tradition tell us that "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). The first human, Adam, was created by God as the progenitor of the human race. From Adam’s ribs, God created his wife and companion, Eve. Together Adam and Eve, were given the loving gifts of free will, original justice and original holiness. God gave them the fruits, pleasures and duties of tending to the Garden of Eden where they lived in harmony with God, each other and God’s creations.

The Doctrine of Original Sin​

Thanks for spurring me to think of this way to explain it. I think we agree that the human brain is well advanced compared to the chimp brain. How many mutations is that, in your estimation? Let's say it is 24,863 mutations. It may not be that many, but who knows - I'm not a biologist.

That's an impossible number of mutations and it's more like 40,000 amino acid substitutions if memory serves but go ahead.

Now, imagine a chimp-like ancestor with none of those. He has a child with one of them. call him "00001". Is that Adam, a human, or is that child a chimp? We agree he's pretty much a chimp, right?

Right!

After many generations, his descendant has 49 of those mutations. Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

49 of the requisite 40,000 substitutions, ok.

How about at 312 mutations? Still pretty much a chimp, right? I think so.

Yes but now they are developing brain tumors and various other diseases and disorders.

You can see that at some point, say halfway, at 12,432 mutations, he'll now be closer to a human. So whatever line you pick, it has to be crossed sometime.

Yes but we are on the brink of extinction because the effects of mutations on brain related genes are always deleterious. Unless you know of an exception. Even if you could find one marginal beneficial effect I could show you dozens of deleterious ones that would be the overwhelming majority.

Did you think that fact would go away because you mocked it earlier?

If we say that 12,431 is closer to a chimp, then 0012431 is not Adam, while his son, who is 0012432, IS Adam, and is human.

Impossible but ok, I mean there is neither the time nor the means but lets see who far you go.

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human (they probably range from, say, 12,200 to 12,430 or so) and so we have a single person, from whom we all get orginal sin.

You forget that huge populations would be required as contemporary with Adam and they would only be a few mutations away. Polygenism cannot be avoided.

Remember that polygenism is the idea that there are other humans besides Adam and Eve around when Adam and Eve are first given souls and become human. Because none of the other members of the community are enough over the line to be human, there are no other humans, and polygenism is avoided.

That is certainly a lot better then affirming and defending the clear testimony of Scripture but leads to shabby theology. Or in your case, no theological premises what so ever.

I hope that that makes sense to you, Mark, and also hope that it makes sense to others here. I have to admit that my expectation in those hopes are not equal.

I hope you realize I can see through the thinly veiled abdication of Christian theism.

Hold on, I thought you said you agreed with Guadys' theology. If you meant that then you wouldn't think any doctrine was at stake. So which is it?

That's between me and glaudys and I have no issues with her theology. Her philosophy of historicity is flawed but she doesn't really need one if she understands and believes the Gospel.

Um, theistic evoluion is by definition not a naturalistic ontology.

Yes, if the definition of evolution is by exclusively naturalistic means and universal common descent without exception, that is a naturalistic assumption. It is a priori meaning because, it is before the evidence is empirically tested or even considered.

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. Prof. Robert Weinberg​

OK, you can post that if you like. Are you saying that men are not living organisms? Check your pulse.

Good luck with that philosophy because it is neither Catholic nor Scriptural.

Theistic evoluiton supporters are as atheistic as those compromising, half-committed "round earth" Christians. You may know some of them.

I know a bunch of them.

 

[shernren]

Wowzers, more quote-mining!

Your selective quote mining and equivocation makes poor arguments. Believing that evolution is a valid 'hypothesis' and that we evolved from apes are two very different things:

The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22)

The origins of man are to be found in Christ: for he is created "through him and in him" (Col 1:16), "the Word [who is] the life…and the light of every man who is coming into the world" (John 1:3-4, 9). While it is true that man is created ex nihilo, it can also be said that he is created from the fullness (ex plenitudine) of Christ himself who is at once the creator, the mediator and the end of man.

It follows that, where the central truth concerns a person acting freely, it is impossible to speak of a necessity or an imperative to create, and it is, in the end, inappropriate to speak of the Creator as a force, or energy, or ground. Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God​

And guess what the commission says after that?

69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.​

Oh my! The commission just decided that there is no theological reason to reject evolution!

... even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ... In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.
​

Note carefully that the Catholic church fully accepts that the evolutionary process can be fully contingent (a concept which, for all his ferocity, mark has never touched in five years of discussing creation). In other words, the neo-Darwinians are allowed to conclude that genetic variation is truly random and natural selection truly contingent (whether the data supports inferences of design or of chance "cannot be settled by theology").

And just what is created ex nihilo, anyway?

70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. ... it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.
​

Notice that the passage which finally declares the relevance of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (after three paragraphs declaring that the Big Bang theory, the creation of conditions suitable for life, and the evolution of life itself, are all compatible with Catholic teaching) is in fact a passage which deals primarily with the human soul and its place in theology.

But wait there's more:

Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of "haphazard mistakes." [5]

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion.excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)​

More indeed!

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.
​

Let's just repeat that part in blue for emphasis:

The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
​

Got that, mark? That is what the Pope of the Catholic church believes: that Genesis 1-2 does not explain the biology of human origins. Again, and again, and again, I have to plead with you: how on earth can you exegete Paul accurately when you cannot even exegete the Pope accurately?

 

[shernren]

This is so fascinating that it deserves a post all its own.

That's between me and glaudys and I have no issues with her theology. Her philosophy of historicity is flawed but she doesn't really need one if she understands and believes the Gospel.

Isn't that utterly fascinating. Here on this thread are two people (Papias and me) who believe that there actually was a literal Adam, from whom all people were most likely actually descended (which is what Papias was describing in his latest post).

For all our hard work believing in a literal Adam, see what a bouquet of praises we have gained:

Hey look: Papias is denying the canon of Scripture as well as the canon of the RCC and covering it up with equivocation and a third person exclamation to no one. ...

Your buddy doesn't care about Biblical exposition ...

... you lack the convictions of your beliefs or you would have stood by them.

I'm sorry you disagree with the clear testimony of Scripture and the canon of the RCC.

That is certainly a lot better then affirming and defending the clear testimony of Scripture but leads to shabby theology. Or in your case, no theological premises what so ever.

I hope you realize I can see through the thinly veiled abdication of Christian theism.

Good luck with that philosophy because it is neither Catholic nor Scriptural.

So we've basically rejected the RCC (no skin off my back, but poor Papias), thrown the Bible away, and all but abandoned Christian theism.

I wonder what gluadys must think for mark to be so impressed by her theology. Why, she must be a dyed-in-the-wool YEC who believes the Earth was created smack in 4004 BC!

I think Adam is a literary character who represents all of the human race all of the time--present and future as well as the past.

Right. Get this.

gluadys doesn't believe in a literal Adam.
She doesn't even believe in a group of distant ancestors represented by the name Adam.
She believes that Adam was and is Papias and mark kennedy and me and her and Margaret Thatcher and Hitler and Einstein and King David and Abraham, and every other living person in history.

Now, I can see how such a theology might work, and I'm not here to scold her for it. But I am deeply amused that mark has "no issues", and I quote, "no issues" with such a belief. Indeed, it is impossible that he was unaware of her beliefs as such, since his post comes right after hers on the very thread I have quoted.

Now there are two interpretations of this strange behaviour. The uncharitable one, of course, is that your actual doctrinal beliefs don't really matter to whether or not mark thinks you are a heretic. Sure, this is a thread about how an actual, personal Adam is essential to theology. But just you try to correct mark or pull off the blinkers on his thinking. You don't even have to actually try to present any evidence for evolution. (I didn't - check the thread. All I did was requote random Popes.) And suddenly what you believe couldn't matter less - you are now automatically a thinly-veiled atheist abetting the destruction of the Christian faith even if you actually agree in part with the OP.

On the other hand, believe what you will about Adam - that he is Everyman or Noman or Dust (and Hearth) - but as long as you don't butt in on mark's grand sermon (because you have the patience and the wisdom to know that nothing will change mark's mind, and changing mark's mind is pointless anyway), your theology is squeaky clean and you have just some minor flaws in your philosophy of historicity - "but you don't need one anyway, you believe in the gospel don't you?"

So in summary everyone who opposes mark is a heretic, while everyone who quietly watches his tantrums is just a slightly misguided Christian. But hey, that's a deeply uncharitable view of the man's character. mark's a notable character around here, a scholar with deep incision and a hunger for the word of God and for the blood of its enemies. Surely he could not be accused of such indiscretions as letting his personal biases get in the way of sound theology.

So I guess the second interpretation, and the simpler one, must be correct: somewhere between writing the last few paragraphs of #34, by the divine action of the Holy Spirit, mark has miraculously became a TE! I mean, he says so himself, and we should take his words at face value just as he takes the Bible at face value:

mark has no issues with gluadys' theology
gluadys' theology invokes a thoroughly figurative adam
therefore mark has no issues with invoking a thoroughly figurative adam.

QED. You are now a TE. We welcome you gladly into the fold, mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wowzers, more quote-mining!

Before you manage to bury it, this is a sweeping indictment against polygenism. Adam had neither contemporaries nor ancestors according to Scripture and the strict construction of RCC dogma.

The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22)​

And guess what the commission says after that?

Close encounters of the pedantic one liners.

69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.​

Oh my! The commission just decided that there is no theological reason to reject evolution!

They never said anything of the sort, what they said was, ' inferences of design or chance cannot be settled by theology'. Then you equivocate evolution with what they said creating an illusion of complimentary views. Nothing could be further from the truth. Theology does not decide between two conflicting inferences, that's really all that says.

... even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. ... In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.
​

Even divine providence is attributed to God as 'God's plan for creation' and I have always affirmed this while neodarwinism flatly denies it.

Note carefully that the Catholic church fully accepts that the evolutionary process can be fully contingent (a concept which, for all his ferocity, mark has never touched in five years of discussing creation).

I have always accepted adapted evolution as divine providence. So far you have misrepresented and conflated the teachings of the RCC, made a fallacious equivocation between 'evolution' and divine providence and now a flagrant mischaracterization of what I argued on here for 5 years.

In other words, the neo-Darwinians are allowed to conclude that genetic variation is truly random and natural selection truly contingent (whether the data supports inferences of design or of chance "cannot be settled by theology").

That in no way reflects on what the RCC teaches regarding the creation of Adam. A point you have shamelessly buried.

And just what is created ex nihilo, anyway?

The term in Genesis is 'bara' and it's use in the creation narratives is 'ex nihilo'. While it is seldom used in this since the few times it is it's exclusively attributed to God.

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen_1:1; Isa_40:26; Isa.42:5; Isa.45:18; Isa.65:17); man (Gen.1:27; Gen.5:2; Gen.6:7; Deu.4:32; Psa.89:47; Isa.43:7; Isa.45:12); Israel (Isa.43:1; Mal.2:10); a new thing (Jer.31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa.4:5); north and south (Psa.89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa.45:8); speech (Isa.57:19); darkness (Isa.45:7); wind (Amo.4:13); and a new heart (Psa.51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary)​

That is the ex nihilo (out of nothing) use of 'bara', now let's look at what our Catholic brethren have to say:

70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. ... it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.
​

The special creation of the soul, out of nothing. Am I to suppose this was done within the body of an ape when Moses clearly teaches that it was from the dust?

Notice that the passage which finally declares the relevance of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (after three paragraphs declaring that the Big Bang theory, the creation of conditions suitable for life, and the evolution of life itself, are all compatible with Catholic teaching) is in fact a passage which deals primarily with the human soul and its place in theology.

You left out this part:

the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.​

Of course an evolutionist would have no problem with the theological significance of the human soul since they care about neither theology nor believe there is a human soul. What the Vatican is trying to do here is to reject the duality of spirit and body, which is something they have struggled with for some time. Man cannot be separated from the physical frame the soul was created to be a part of, the most important and theologically significant part. Now you would have us believe that the soul was created in the image of God within the physical frame of a modified ape. This would defeat the purpose of the Vatican's statement.

The Vatican will add something you will never see from evolutionists, a sound exegesis of the requisite texts:

28. The view that bodiliness is essential to personal identity is fundamental, even if not explicitly thematized, in the witness of Christian revelation. Biblical anthropology excludes mind-body dualism. It speaks of man as a whole. Among the basic Hebrew terms for man used in the Old Testament, nèfèš means the life of a concrete person who is alive (Gen 9:4; Lev 24:17-18; Proverbs 8:35). But man does not have a nèfèš; he is a nèfèš (Gen 2:7; Lev 17:10). Basar refers to the flesh of animals and of men, and sometimes the body as a whole (Lev 4:11; 26:29). Again, one does not have a basar, but is a basar. The New Testament term sarx (flesh) can denote the material corporality of man (2 Cor 12:7), but on the other hand also the whole person (Rom 8:6). Another Greek term, soma (body) refers to the whole man with emphasis on his outward manifestation. Here too man does not have his body, but is his body. Biblical anthropology clearly presupposes the unity of man, and understands bodiliness to be essential to personal identity.​

This leads me to wonder, can we separate the creation of Adam's soul from the creation of his body. Sure the statement some of the current theories related to origins and does not reject them on a theological basis. That is not a ringing endorsement of TOE as 100% compatible with Christian theism, in fact, it warns against two serious errors. First of all it warns against neodarwinism described as, 'the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science'. It also warns against the duality of man saying 'Biblical anthropology clearly presupposes the unity of man'.

Now you want to reconcile TOE with regards to the origin of mankind to Christian theism by doing both.

More indeed!

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.
​

The genuine article of science and theology are always complimentary. They are only mutually exclusive when you add the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Something your definition of 'evolution' does without telling anyone.

Let's just repeat that part in blue for emphasis:

That will be much easier then doing an honest exposition of the subject material.

The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
​

It says explicitly 'how' we came to be just not how God did it. There is a fine theological point here but you will miss it, just like you missed what the Scriptures teach.

Got that, mark? That is what the Pope of the Catholic church believes: that Genesis 1-2 does not explain the biology of human origins. Again, and again, and again, I have to plead with you: how on earth can you exegete Paul accurately when you cannot even exegete the Pope accurately?

Now the inevitable ad hominem to add to the other fallacious arguments in the post. How can you ever be trusted to explain scientific evidence and how it is compatible with Scripture when you can't be trusted to honestly explain either?

the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. Human Persons Created in the Image of God*​

Pope John Paul was 'specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins'. The RCC is open minded with regards to the genuine article of science but critical of the ontological leap that is at the heart of Darwinism.

I have offered sound expositions of the requisite Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, RCC dogma and the clear teaching of at least two Popes. It is you who ignores the Scriptures, rationalizes and conflates substantive source material and resort to fallacious arguments.

All the desperate pleading will not change the fact that the clear intent of both Scripture and the RCC affirms the special creation of Adam. Something you are zealously and venomously opposed to in all your posts.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Absolutely. The first human was a transitional ape-human whom God gave a soul to. Like all of us, he was a living being. I'm glad we're agreeing.

Hey look? Papias is denying the canon of Scripture as well as the canon of the RCC and covering it up with equivocation and a third person exclamation to no one.

I'm not denying any scripture, and as the Pope has clearly stated, the evolution of humans is consistent with Cathlic doctrine. In fact, the Pope states that the evolution of all life from microbes is "virtually certain". We agree on that, right?

Yes it is and no it doesn't.

Mark, If I had a dime for every unsupported claim you make on this forum......

​

Your buddy doesn't care about Biblical exposition and the ITC also said:

A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted.

Of course it says that. The Catholic position is that evolution is not completely random (not completely contingent), and that God is behind it, doing things like providing beneficial mutations. I hope you noticed that nothing in that statement suggests that humans didn't evolve from apes.

Nothing in that or in any other living Catholic edict contradicts universal common descent, nor the evolution of humans from apes. If you really think that the Catholic church denies the God-guided evolution of humans from apes, it should be trivially easy for you to post one. Yet, after dozens of posts, you can't seem to do so. Maybe that's because there isn't one?
​

Mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

there is general agreement among (scientists)that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. .....it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

(Pope Benedict XVI, my add)
​

Your selective quote mining and equivocation makes poor arguments. Believing that evolution is a valid 'hypothesis' and that we evolved from apes are two very different things:

I only quoted a shorter part for brevity. Since you complained, I'll post the whole quote from Pope Benedict, which clearly shows that his holiness agrees that humans evolved from microbes, unless you are going to say that humans aren't alive. Mark, I've asked you several times, and you still refuse to explain whether or not you think humans are living organisms.

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. (Pope Benedict XVI)

Mark quoted:

Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth.

Again, that's all well and good - nothing there or in anything else you quoted contradicts humans evolving from microbes. Of course God creation was, originally, ex-nihilo. This can be most easily seen in the Big Bang, which his holiness the Pope affirmed in his quote where he states that all life has descended from a microbe. You'll note that the quote above explicitly excludes pantheism, thus making it clear that the Catholic affirmation of evolution explictly excludes atheistic evolution, because we of course believe in theistic evolution.

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it.

First and foremost, Mark, again you have quoted something that in no way contradicts the Pope's affirmation of theistic evolution of humans from microbes. Secondly, could you help me out a bit? I downloaded that document and did a search to find the words you quoted and couldn't find them. Maybe my search function isn't working. Which page is that on, of the 19?


​

So, Mark, if you are unsure if the Pope has said that you evolved from earlier life, simply take your pulse. Are you alive? Then, the Pope says it is virtually certian you evolved from bacteria.

He said no such thing, you lack the convictions of your beliefs or you would have stood by them.

Sure he did say that all life evolved from microbes. That would include humans, if we are alive. Here's the part of his quote that says that:

this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. (Pope Benedict XVI)

​

I'm wondering what part of "all living organisms" is unclear to Mark. Mark, maybe let us know what part of "all living organisms" you don't understand?

I'm wondering what part of polygenism you don't understand. That's the trouble with equivocation, discerning people realize you are using two very different definitions without telling anyone.

First, Mark, you didn't answer my question. I asked what part of "all living organisms" you didn't understand. Please answer that. As a show of goodwill, I'll answer your question even though you haven't answered mine.

I understand polygenism fully. Polygenism is the idea that there are multilple origins of humanity, and it has been rejected by both science and the RCC. It is avoided, as I explained in my last post, by realizing that God gave a soul to Adam (the transitional ape-human), making him fully human, and not to many people scattered across the globe. Praise God for our souls, which have descended from this divine intervention!!

​

Do you need me to again explain the idea of Adam as the first transitional ape-human to get a mutation pushing him over the line to being fully human, and hence getting a specially created soul from God, before rebelling to cause original sin, again?

But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion (cited and linked above)
​

Wow, what a non-sequiter! Of course the evolution I believe in is guided by God, that's why we call it "theistic evolution". What part of "theistic" do you fail to understand?

​

​

I'm sorry you disagree with the clear testimony of Scripture and the canon of the RCC.

I'm sorry you, Mark, disagree with the clear testimony of Scripture and the canon of the RCC.

" That's an impossible number of mutations and it's more like 40,000 amino acid substitutions if memory serves but go ahead.

OK, since the same description will work with 40,000. (which is well less than 1% of the genome).

Now, imagine a chimp-like ancestor with none of those. He has a child with one of them. call him "00001". Is that Adam, a human, or is that child a chimp? We agree he's pretty much a chimp, right?

Right!

​

OK.

Yes but now they are developing brain tumors and various other diseases and disorders.

Why? Natural selection removes these, as we've been through time and again. Mark, do you remember how both Gluadys and I described this, including with math,and you still refused to understand that an organism with a brain tumor is less likely to survive to have kids?

​

You can see that at some point, say halfway, at 12,432 mutations, he'll now be closer to a human. So whatever line you pick, it has to be crossed sometime.

Yes but we are on the brink of extinction because the effects of mutations on brain related genes are always deleterious. Unless you know of an exception. Even if you could find one marginal beneficial effect I could show you dozens of deleterious ones that would be the overwhelming majority.

No, they aren't. Do you care to cite a source that says these mutations are always deleterious, or is this another one of Mark's unsupported statements? As we've seen over and over, even if there are more harmful than beneficial mutations, they are removed by natural selection.

Did you think that fact would go away because you mocked it earlier?

I hoped that your error would have been corrected over time through your own learning, but apparenly I was too optimistic.
​

​

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human (they probably range from, say, 12,200 to 12,430 or so) and so we have a single person, from whom we all get orginal sin.

You forget that huge populations would be required as contemporary with Adam and they would only be a few mutations away. Polygenism cannot be avoided.


​

No, I didn't forget them. That's fine that they are a few mutations behind the line, because that means they aren't human, and so polygenism is avoided. Your non-human populations can be as large as you like.
​

​

I hope that that makes sense to you, Mark, and also hope that it makes sense to others here. I have to admit that my expectation in those hopes are not equal.

I hope you realize I can see through the thinly veiled abdication of Christian theism.

Again, in the term "theistic evolution", what part of "theistic" do you fail to understand?

Um, theistic evoluion is by definition not a naturalistic ontology.
​

Yes, if the definition of evolution is by exclusively naturalistic means and universal common descent without exception, that is a naturalistic assumption.

Except the definition of evolution is not exclusive. That's we Catholic (and non-catholic) theistic evolution supporters can see God acting by using evolution to accomplish God's plan.

OK, you can post that if you like. Are you saying that men are not living organisms? Check your pulse.

Good luck with that philosophy because it is neither Catholic nor Scriptural.

Being that it's based on the Pope's statement, which I've posted at least 5 times, it seems obvious that it is consistent with Catholicism (I mean, really, is the Pope Catholic?). Unless you think the Pope denies scripture, it seems clear it is scriptural too.

Theistic evoluiton supporters are as atheistic as those compromising, half-committed "round earth" Christians. You may know some of them.

I know a bunch of them.
​

I know a bunch of those "round earth" Christians too. What are we to say of them?
​

Papias

 

[Mallon]

mark's a notable character around here, a scholar with deep incision and a hunger for the word of God and for the blood of its enemies. Surely he could not be accused of such indiscretions as letting his personal biases get in the way of sound theology.

What could possibly make anyone even fathom such a thing???

 

[shernren]

They never said anything of the sort, what they said was, ' inferences of design or chance cannot be settled by theology'. Then you equivocate evolution with what they said creating an illusion of complimentary views.

Equivocation? Pray tell, what could "inferences of chance" possibly refer to if not evolution?

But I think the following exchange really reflects how little you are listening:

The RCC: With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures.

mark kennedy: The special creation of the soul, out of nothing. Am I to suppose this was done within the body of an ape when Moses clearly teaches that it was from the dust?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
​

All three excerpts come from the same post, and they show how little you are really listening to us, to the RCC, and even to yourself.

(By the way, mark, I am taking the effort not to reply wholesale to your long rambles but to specifically focus my replies on pertinent key points, and I would appreciate it if you tried to do the same. In a discussion revolving so much around quotations, wanton reposting would cause our posts to grow exponentially in length to unwieldy extremes.)

One last, small point:

This leads me to wonder, can we separate the creation of Adam's soul from the creation of his body.

Sure we can! In fact, the RCC says we can separate the creation of everybody's souls from the creation of their bodies:

... it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.
​

Who are these "human persons"? Are they just Adam and Eve? No - clearly you and I who believe in Jesus will also share the communion of trinitarian life! And yet we are not created ex nihilo - or are we?

The anthropology of the RCC seems to be intricately detailed concerning this matter, even in this letter alone. You are right in saying that they are trying to reject Cartesian dualism - but surely they are still dualistic:

30. In order to maintain the unity of body and soul clearly taught in revelation, the Magisterium adopted the definition of the human soul as forma substantialis (cf. Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council). Here the Magisterium relied on Thomistic anthropology which, drawing upon the philosophy of Aristotle, understands body and soul as the material and spiritual principles of a single human being.
​

In other words, body and soul are still distinct parts of the human being (one being material and the other spiritual), though they may not be separable, and they can be (and are) created via causally distinct processes, though they are not then yet part of a human, but rather parts of something that will be a human precisely when soul and body are joined in human unity. (In fact, reading the rest of the paragraph, it seems the RCC position would be accurately described as some kind of emergent dualism.)

(As a crude example, the wings of a bird and the legs of a bird are distinct parts of the bird, which are capable of being studied separately as different objects - and yet one cannot detach them from each other or from the bird without destroying the bird. Indeed, they develop at different places and paces - though in the process of their development they do not yet constitute parts of a bird, but rather parts of an embryo that will grow into a bird precisely when those parts are joined together in a bird-ly unity.)

That is a philosophically sound biblical anthropology. Consider myself. The material cause of my body is fully contained within my parents' gametes. Every molecule in my body is where it is due to an entirely material chain of causation (I am not aware of having underwent any miraculous healings), and every such chain passes through the point at which my father's sperm fertilized my mother's ovum.

But does my soul have a material cause? Surely not! Material causes are precisely what science studies, and if my soul has a material cause, then my soul has a cause which can be manipulated or even entirely removed by science. If it turned out that a soul was the expression of a particular gene, then we could make zombies by removing that gene (or its expression), or two or even three souls in the same body by over-expressing it. Therefore my soul does not have a material cause; which explains why the RCC considers it to be created ex nihilo by God - created from nothing, which is precisely what it means to not have a material cause.

But if my body has a material cause, and my soul does not have a material cause, then they must have been created separately. And I could say the same (using the same argument) of any other human. That does not devalue my bodiliness, any more than the recognition that tyres are made from a different material from engines should devalue the necessity of both tyres and engines to a car. Yet it means that I was created ex nihilo: I did not exist before my soul existed, and my soul existed only by being created ex nihilo.

(Indeed, the argument "I was not created ex nihilo because my material body was not created ex nihilo" is only valid if "I am my material body" is a valid premise - but equating myself to my material body is precisely what materialism says!)

And if the creation of my soul and the creation of my body can be so separated, why can't the creation of Adam's soul be similarly separated from the creation of his body?

I have offered sound expositions of the requisite Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, RCC dogma and the clear teaching of at least two Popes. It is you who ignores the Scriptures, rationalizes and conflates substantive source material and resort to fallacious arguments.

The guy who ignores the Scriptures and resorts to fallacious arguments actually believes in a literal Adam whom all humanity may have been descended from;

The guy who offered sound expositions of the requisite Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, RCC dogma, and the clear teaching of at least two Popes, has no issues with a theology in which Adam is a completely figurative referent to all humanity.

Are you serious, mark?