Theistic Evolution?

[Deidre]

No it is unacceptable

The theory of evolution is the product of the sin nature's attempt to deny the existence of God. When a believer begins to accept evolution he is losing the spiritual war against the world.

There is a three front battle going on in spiritual warfare it's against the world, the flesh and Satan. On each front the fight is for the control of the mind. Evolution is the mind of this cosmos under satan's control.

Why would supporting evolution go against my spiritual beliefs? Are you of the belief that all Christians should believe Genesis to be literal?

 

[George-ananda]

Then you apparently believe that Brahman is actually the final cause, not the nature spirits.

I would say Brahman is the 'first cause' and 'final cause'. Nature spirits are finite beings playing their role in the great drama like us.

 

[Gambit]

That's not necessarily true. There is an absence of verifiable evidence for God, and God's existence is unfalsifiable. If those things changed, God could be invoked.

You, like many others here, have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. In fact, you are unwittingly arguing for the intelligent design movement.

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson).

(source: Wikipedia: Naturalism (philosophy))

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

(source: Judge John E. Jones, III Decision of the Court Expert witnesses were John F. Haught, Robert T. Pennock, and Kenneth R. Miller.)

 

[Gambit]

I would say Brahman is the 'first cause' and 'final cause'. Nature spirits are finite beings playing their role in the great drama like us.

Sounds like the definition of God according to classical theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're just making a straw man argument.

No, you just lost track of your own argument.

This is what you said:

However, the Church rejects polygenism.

This is what the Catholic Church rejects:

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.

The out-of-Africa hypothesis says that humans outside of Africa are the descendants of one sub-population of ancient humans who left the main population in Africa and migrated to Eurasia.

Do you really not understand how a sub-population is different from a lone pair?

If you misunderstood the Catholic Church's position, fair enough - we all make mistakes.

 

[George-ananda]

Sounds like the definition of God according to classical theism.

Classical Theism: In modern philosophy, classical theism is a theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, and Process Theism.

Classical Theism is a dualist position (God and creation are two).

Advaita is Pantheistic non-dual (God and creation are not-two)

 

[Deidre]

I don't believe that the RCC teaches that one must support/believe in creationism OVER evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe that the RCC teaches that one must support/believe in creationism OVER evolution.

The Catholic Church teaches that believers are free to follow the science when it comes to evolution... but not past the point where science conflicts with their teaching that all "true" human beings who ever lived descended from an original male/female pair.

This is absolutely required for their doctrine of Original Sin: if there are "true" human beings who didn't descend from Adam, then there are "true" human beings who are not affected by Original Sin.

 

[Jumi]

I don't think the Pope believes that evolution is the key to explain how this world came to being.

Cosmology isn't biology.

 

[Deidre]

The Catholic Church teaches that believers are free to follow the science when it comes to evolution... but not past the point where science conflicts with their teaching that all "true" human beings who ever lived descended from an original male/female pair.

This is absolutely required for their doctrine of Original Sin: if there are "true" human beings who didn't descend from Adam, then there are "true" human beings who are not affected by Original Sin.

But at what point does Genesis go from an allegory, to literal? Can't have it both ways. Can't believe in evolution and then also believe that the Adam and Eve story is a literal representation of the origin of mankind. To do so means that you have to toss out evolution, and to not do so, means that you believe it's literal, and therefore can lead to the original sin part of the story, as well. I believe that Genesis is a story relating to morality, and sort of a parable as to how human beings struggle with their own morality, and what God may expect of us.

 

[Gambit]

This is what you said:

I did say the Church rejects polygenism. This is a factually correct statement (as made evident below).

Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

(source: Wikipedia: Catholic Church and evolution)

The out-of-Africa hypothesis says that humans outside of Africa are the descendants of one sub-population of ancient humans who left the main population in Africa and migrated to Eurasia.

I argued that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism (which it most certainly does).

If you misunderstood the Catholic Church's position, fair enough - we all make mistakes.

I would ask you to stop misrepresenting my views by making "straw man" arguments.

 

[Gambit]

Cosmology isn't biology.

Agreed. That's why I posted: "I don't think the Pope believes that evolution is the key to explain how this world came to being." (Creation ex nihilo is a doctrine of the Church.)

That being said, some cosmologists have attempted to employ Darwinian principles to give an naturalistic explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the constants of nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did say the Church rejects polygenism. This is a factually correct statement (as made evident below).

It rejects any hypothesis that involves more than one "true" human as the original ancestors of humanity, and calls these hypotheses polygenism, ye.

I argued that the "Out-of-Africa" theory qualifies as a form of monogenism (which it most certainly does).

Not in the sense that the Catholic Church uses.

I would ask you to stop misrepresenting my views by making "straw man" arguments.

My mistake for assuming that you were trying to make sense, or accurately represent the Catholic Church's position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But at what point does Genesis go from an allegory, to literal? Can't have it both ways. Can't believe in evolution and then also believe that the Adam and Eve story is a literal representation of the origin of mankind. To do so means that you have to toss out evolution, and to not do so, means that you believe it's literal, and therefore can lead to the original sin part of the story, as well.

I don't disagree, but this isn't my problem to solve. All I know is what the Catholic Church says on the subject. They don't believe that the parents of humanity were a guy named "Adam" and a woman named "Eve" who lived in a literal garden, but they do hold as a point of doctrine that whatever humanity is descended from, there is a clear division between "true humans" and all other humanoids, and that all of the "true humans" who have ever lived are all descended from an original lone pair of "true humans".

I believe that Genesis is a story relating to morality, and sort of a parable as to how human beings struggle with their own morality, and what God may expect of us.

And I'm not going to say that your interpretation is wrong; I'm just saying that it isn't the Catholic Church's official interpretation. They teach that certain aspects of the story are literally true. The Catholic position on this is laid out in the Papal encyclical Humani Generis - I gave a quote and a link earlier.

Is the Catholic position less intellectually honest than a purely literal interpretation? I dunno. I'm more concerned with what their position is than what it ought to be.

 

[Gambit]

Classical Theism: In modern philosophy, classical theism is a theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, and Process Theism.

Classical Theism is a dualist position (God and creation are two).

Advaita is Pantheistic non-dual (God and creation are not-two)

It's true that the classical theism makes a distinction between God and the world. But Advaita makes a distinction between Brahman and maya. Only Brahman is real. Right?

 

[George-ananda]

It's true that the classical theism makes a distinction between God and the world. But Advaita makes a distinction between Brahman and maya. Only Brahman is real. Right?

Right. Maya is an illusion Brahman places on Himself.

 

[Deidre]

I'm also discussing this on a christian forum and someone is angry with me, it seems...questioning if I think the entire Bible is a 'lie?' Ugh. Allegory doesn't mean lie, sheesh.

 

[Gambit]

Right. Maya is an illusion Brahman places on Himself.

I actually have a problem with this, but I will refrain from elaborating because we are digressing from the subject matter of this thread.

 

[Deidre]

Someone who is Catholic posted in my thread there, and said the most perfectly poignant thing, at least IMO. He/she said ''it's not a matter of creation or evolution but rather creation and evolution.'' In other words, we don't have to sacrifice one 'belief' for another, simply because we identify as Christians. I like that.

 

[Gambit]

I'm also discussing this on a christian forum and someone is angry with me, it seems...questioning if I think the entire Bible is a 'lie?' Ugh. Allegory doesn't mean lie, sheesh.

Would you take issue with some 'Christian' who would argue that the virgin birth, crucifixion, ressurrection, and ascension of Christ are purely allegory (stories to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally)?