mark, I posted a link to his whole document, which is a huge and greatly detailed defense of Theistic Evolution. You can read it yourself, and I encourge everyone from reading it.
No it's not Papias. The purpose of the encyclical was like the many statements that Rome has made regarding TOE, the vast majority of it is theologically neutral. For someone who preaches scholarship you practice slanted rhetoric which is the main reason I consider TE to be disingenuous.
It's obvious from the text that it supports theistic evolution (without requiring it - there again is your equivocation using the word "endorse"), because it uses his own words, including phrases like "While there is little consensus among scientists" that make it clear it not just a description of evolution. I can see how you'd respond at a traffic hearing "no your honor, this ticket doesn't apply to me, it is just a description of speeding!".
The description of TOE is just that, a description not an endorsement and certainly not a defense. What happened here is that the Pope did not write a ticket, just issued a warning that there are limits to how permissible evolution (however you actually define it) can be tolerated.
Of course, and the Pope is clear that Genesis can be correctly interpreted as theistic evolution over billions of years. mark, do you see that all of us are taking God at his word? I have faith in the word of God, but I don't have faith in mark's interpretation of Genesis - I'll take the Pope's interpretation of Genesis over mark's.
There is nothing in that encyclical about theistic evolution, the RCC has never had a position on TE although it mentions 'creation' early and often:
The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God. (The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution)
That is not theistic evolution and issues are raised here that you are not even remotely aware of or you ignore them. There are only two issues for RCC theology, creation ex nihilo and the creation of man, why you don't know or care about this is a mystery to me. As a matter of fact, evolutionists have shown a gross disdain for anything theological and rarely plumb the depths except when cherry picking isolated quotes out of context.
So Adam, living well before 30,000 years ago, and perhaps as far back as 300,000 years ago, would of course be the direct ancestor of everyone alive today, even if he lived in a humanoid population of transitional apes, as the Pope describes.
So you want to use an Eqyptian records but I'm not chasing this conversation down that rabbit hole:
Continued desiccation forced the early ancestors of the Egyptians to settle around the Nile more permanently and forced them to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle. However, the period from 9000 to 6000 BC has left very little in the way of archaeological evidence... By about 6000 BC, organized agriculture and large building construction had appeared in the Nile Valley. (
History of ancient Egypt, Wikipedia)
The records from 6,000 years ago are sketchy at best while the rest have very little bearing on divine revelation. The lineages indicated in Genesis suggest a timeline that is roughly compatible with the Hebrew genealogical lists.
Now that we've seen how ancestry works, let's apply this to Adam.
He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God (original sin). The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution. Myself and others have posted this so many times that it is tiring to have to post it again.
The problem with your flawed scenario is first of all that Adam was created from dust while Adam was created from a rib. It makes no sense that Adam be the first one with a human anatomy while the community of apes would remain apes. There are a wide spectrum of problems with this and then there is the question of where Adam got his wife since she must be ape or human, you never really dealt with this.
I don't care how many time you post your empty rationalizations you have never came close to a reconciliation of Genesis and secular philosophies that reject God as a cause of anything, ever, going all the way back to the Big Bang and beyond. Again, I will tell you plainly from the Scriptures as compared to the secular philosophy you falsely call science (evolution), just what the problem is.
What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology. I have covered these Scriptures and issues over and over again, it seemed like it was time to put them all in one thread. Before the advent of Darwinism this simply was not an issue, other aspects of Genesis and the Pauline doctrine of original sin were but not our lineage.
He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)
Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
According to Paul:
Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
mark, you can see for yourself that he outright says that the evidence "makes a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population". What part of "makes a convincing case for" do you fail to understand? That's not describing, that's saying it convinces him. By stating that the case is convincing, he's showing that he wouldn't be convinced by the distortions of the genetic evidence by a non-geneticist, as you've previously posted.
He says they make a convincing case, that's not the same thing as saying he is convinced and I think you realize that Papias. In fact, the real theological issues are being addressed in this encyclical while the natural history issue hardly concern a theologian or RCC priest in that office. Do yourself a favor Papias, quit talking to me like I'm stupid because I am really getting tired of your condescending tone. I know the resident evolutionists have convinced you that you are somehow superior to creationists but you keep it up and I'm going to show you what you are trifling with.
As I described above (and have described to you over and over), Adam certainly can have ape ancestors and be the first human.
As you have been taught from RCC canon and the Scriptures your secular philosophy is opposed to the things of God before and exegesis or actual evidence is even considered. It's not that Genesis is hard to understand, especially in the light of New Testament revelation. The problem is that you either believe it or you don't.
Of course I accept (proclaim, in fact) that Adam was a single, real, historical, individual, the first human, the father of all humans, who incurred original sin. You know I've stated that over and over, right?
Chanting pedantic rhetorical mantras does nothing to resolve the issue you are faced with. I'm really not your problem, I accept that at it's core the RCC is Christian in it's doctrine. Often times they are even better grounded and certainly better trained the Protestants. The problem is that you are siding with a secular philosophy that only allows for the most superficial of theistic inferences.
You didn't answer several questions.
1. You remember, mark, that you, the Pope and I all agree that God is the creator of everything, right?
Of course I remember and I have answered your absurd rationalizations. The Pope identifies creation with the resurrection which is an obvious correlation for anyone who understands New Testament theology. The question becomes and you have successfully dodged, what exactly God is the direct and immediate cause for in creation.
2. Do you understand the position of Theistic Evolution, where God creates through evolution, even if you don't agree with it?
I'm well aware of the nebulous generalizations TEs use habitually without ever defining any of their core terms or principles. I find them pedantic and disingenuous in their presentations and fallacious in their defense of their persuasion. It's a compromise with the spirit of the age at best and a complete abandonment of Christian theism in it's modernist form, aka, Liberal Theology.
Unlike you, I know there is a poison pill here, just trying to warn you.
3. Even if you don't personally agree with it (and I'm not asking you to do so), you can certainly see that the transitional - ape Adam works just fine for millions of Christians, right?
If you honestly believe that I have no issue with you, go in peace. However, if you want to continually hammer Bible believing Christian for having the audacity to reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism then we have a problem. Theistic evolutionists are actively evangelizing professing Christians to these Darwinian fantasies and if they are honest in their convictions I see very few problems.
It's when you call creationists liars or assume they are ignorant that your fallacies betray you. Your not going to change my mind about the reliability of Scripture or the animosity of secular philosophies so save your rhetoric for those who are vulnerable to it.
There are only two issues, creation ex nihilo and the creation of man. I have explored both avenues to the extent of my abilities and resources available and found TOE to be an admixture of secular philosophy and grossly misrepresented fragmentary evidence.
You have never answered the real questions at issue while I've managed to untangle you nebulous rhetoric rather easily:
- What is your definition for 'evolution' with regards to historicity?
- Are those who deny the original sin doctrine to be considered 'anathema'?
- If Adam was not created from dust then how do you avoid the heresy of polygenism since he would have descended from a population of apes?
The first one you just simply said you think everyone know what I mean by evolution even though I've showed you the scientific definition many times. The second one, even though you claim to affirm the RCC prohibitions against a denial of original sin you happily align yourself with those who embrace it. It's either heresy or it's not Papias, you can't have it both ways and you do well to emphasis that point. It makes even more of an impact if you take the time to do an occasional exposition of the requisite texts.
Finally, you completely abandoned the prohibition of polygenism and one of the few TE sources you actually used rejected Adam as being a single ancestor. What is more you have never managed even a superficial explanation for Eve.
HUMANI GENERIS has never been an endorsement of theistic evolution but a warning of these dangers:
- Christian culture being attacked on all sides
- Men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
- Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
- Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
- There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
- Desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
- Some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ
- The removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
- Things (truths of the faith) may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow;
- For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.
- These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.
In other words, Humani Generis is warning against the dangers of theistic evolution.
