Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Audie]

An omnipotent Christian God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. God's proving ground for faith is perfect in it's creation of presenting the inquisitive mind the greatest amount of doubt. If God's test for faith were easy it would be a decision and not a choice. So evolution may appear to be true and our God created the Universe exactly according to Genesis.

This would do as a wiki entry on "rationalizing"

 

[metis]

Maybe, but evolution implies that there was no first human, and thus no original sin. Sure, you can still accept the teachings of Jesus and believe in evolution, but the core doctrine of Christianity is completely at odds with the implications of evolutionary theory.

But what makes you believe that there is such a thing as "original sin" since how can a newborn sin, plus should we execute you if your grandfather had committed murder?

Many believe that o.s. is symbolic for the fact that ultimately we will sin, plus we one can influence another to sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is for this reason that the Catholic Church is utterly comfortable with the idea of the human body evolving from antecedent biological forms, so long as one continues to uphold the special creation of the rational soul by God and its infusion into the corporeal form. Pope Pius XII thus declared in 1950 that "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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Why did you stop your quote there? The next two sections are the ones that deal with @Hubert Farnsworth 's point directly. Pay special attention to the parts I bolded:

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 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.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

 

[Vouthon]

Why did you stop your quote there? The next two sections are the ones that deal with @Hubert Farnsworth 's point directly. Pay special attention to the parts I bolded:


Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

If you look above, you will see that I directly addressed your point about polygenism in a subsequent post.

I am not going to repeat myself.

I linked you to overviews by actual committees of Catholic theologians with respect to how Humani Generis is to be properly interpreted.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL. How is my view illogical and irrational? Do you think I'm a creationist?

I am referring to the view presented in the opening post of this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you look above, you will see that I directly addressed your point about polygenism in a subsequent post.

You didn't, actually. You misrepresented Pius XII's position as flexible and open to other options, but the reality is that he was very firm. Do you see any flexibility in the parts I've bolded?

"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."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Again only if you find it necessary or consider as important or relevant that Christianity teaches a literal history. I think that this is many believers greatest mistake.

So you don't believe in original sin? Because without a first human, there can be no original sin.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

But what makes you believe that there is such a thing as "original sin" since how can a newborn sin, plus should we execute you if your grandfather had committed murder?

Many believe that o.s. is symbolic for the fact that ultimately we will sin, plus we one can influence another to sin.

The bible teaches inherited sin, and it's a core principle of Christianity that every human born is condemned, and thus needs a savior.

 

[Vouthon]

You didn't, actually. You misrepresented Pius XII's position as flexible and open to other options, but the reality is that he was very firm. Do you see any flexibility in the parts I've bolded?

"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."

And he also made the conditional, qualifying remark that his statements in respect of polygenism must be understood in the context of the fact that 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable to the pontiff. To later theologians, it very much has appeared to be so and the Vatican has not restricted their propagation of these theories in any way, indeed their works have been published with imprimaturs (i.e. "nothing contrary to faith and morals").

See:

How Do Adam and Eve Fit With Evolution?

Some people quote Humani Generis (37) on polygenism and leave it at that, but the document does not answer the question about how to figure Adam and Eve in the context of evolution. The encyclical was written in 1950 before genetics was understood. Pope Pius XII’s statement that it was “in no way apparent” how to reconcile evolution with divine revelation left a crack in a door that remains to be addressed.​

I will trust the interpretations of church approved theologians with decades worth' of research and qualifications, I'm afraid, over your own personal understanding of what Pius XII's magisterial statements mean in a doctrinal sense.

It is not a settled issue in the Catholic Church, so your attempt to claim that it was closed by Humani Generis is simply a mistake, and an old-hat one at that.

I would ask that you consider the lengthy interpretative remarks of the theologians whom I quoted, and of that 2004 Vatican document, which is deliberately inderministic on the issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see you added to your post after I replied.

I am not going to repeat myself.

I linked you to overviews by actual committees of Catholic theologians with respect to how Humani Generis is to be properly interpreted.

I think the sources you quoted are utterly incompatible with what Humani Generis actually says. Pius left no wiggle-room: he explicitly said that "the faithful cannot embrace this opinion [i.e. polygenism]." I think the only way he could condemn polygenism as heretical more strongly would be to say "this is heretical" in all caps.

I get that it's an anti-scientific position now and that it's probably embarrassing for the Church, but the text is what it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And he also made the conditional, qualifying remark that his statements in respect of polygenism must be understood in the context of the fact that 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable to the pontiff.

So your position is that because he used the word "appear" in the second half of the section, he didn't mean the first half?

Do you also think he didn't mean section 38, where he refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis as history?

 

[Vouthon]

I see you added to your post after I replied.


I think the sources you quoted are utterly incompatible with what Humani Generis actually says. Pius left no wiggle-room: he explicitly said that "the faithful cannot embrace this opinion [i.e. polygenism]." I think the only way he could condemn polygenism as heretical more strongly would be to say "this is heretical" in all caps.

I get that it's an anti-scientific position now and that it's probably embarrassing for the Church, but the text is what it is.

The fact is that the church has the right and prerogative, through its approved theologians and the official magisterium, to interpret our own documents.

He said that it could not "appear" to be reconciled. If someone then says, "it does appear and I can demonstrate with xyz perfectly sound theological principles", then the statement is moot because Pius was reliant upon fragmentary understanding and undeveloped theology at that point in time. Had he not left that window open, by admitting that he couldn't see how it could be reconciled, and simply said: "we understand this perfectly, it cannot be reconciled accordingly, it is diametrically opposed" then I would agree with you.

But he admitted that he couldn't see how it fitted, and thus proscribed it on that (flawed, provisional and imperfect) understanding.

I do consider 'appear' or its cognate in Latin to be operative wording here. It is not 'is'.

 

[sealchan]

So you don't believe in original sin? Because without a first human, there can be no original sin.

I believe that at best original sin is the notion that we are all apparently guilty of something before we know what we did was wrong and this gives us a sense that we are guilty by nature. This I think is something everyone can relate to on some level.

I don't believe that there was literally one person who sinned and that like some hereditary disease now we are all cursed. We all, believers and non-believers can relate to Adam's experience as our own personal experience IMO.

The idea of original sin is a later interpretation by Christians of a much earlier Jewish text which I believe is a problematic interpretation.

 

[Vouthon]

So your position is that because he used the word "appear" in the second half of the section, he didn't mean the first half?

Do you also think he didn't mean section 38, where he refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis as history?

Sacred 'history' is the story of salvation, according to the church. It must be understood according to genre. Even the Wisdom works are part of salvation history, since they are the inspired utterings of people in given historical contexts under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the real history is subliminal in the text and must be viewed as implied (because the genre is not explicitly about history).

The 'historical' points that church doctrine derives from the first chapter, for instance, of Genesis are that there was a point of creation (we reject the idea of an eternal universe as heretical) in time, in real cosmic history, and also a point of 'fall from grace' on the part of humanity. These are both viewed as historical facts. But the Church recognizes that the text, otherwise, is a near east creation myth and must be interpreted according to the motifs and themes of that genre.

There was never a worldwide 'flood' for instance. We recognize that this was a tale derived from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh but Genesis is still part of salvation history, because the inspired author(s) was/were writing the text in response to genuine historical issues (albeit in relation to neighbouring Babylonian polytheism).

 

[metis]

The bible teaches inherited sin, and it's a core principle of Christianity that every human born is condemned, and thus needs a savior.

That is an interpretation that many Christian theologians recognize cannot be taken literally as, not only doesn't it make one iota of sense, it actually turns God into some sort of genocidal maniac. Instead, it's what's called a "theological construct", which means it has a symbolic value that does make sense.

And exactly why would God condemn a newborn baby? Doesn't that strike you as being morally repugnant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fact is that the church has the right and prerogative, through its approved theologians and the official magisterium, to interpret our own documents.

There's a difference between interpreting and rejecting. When the "interpretation" ends up saying the opposite of what the text says, it's the latter, not the former.

He said that it could not "appear" to be reconciled. If someone then says, "it does appear and I can demonstrate with xyz perfectly sound theological principles", then the statement is moot because Pius was reliant upon fragmentary understanding and undeveloped theology at that point in time. Had he not left that window open, by admitting that he couldn't see how it could be reconciled, and simply said: "we understand this perfectly, it cannot be reconciled accordingly, it is diametrically opposed" then I would agree with you.

So you think that the first half of Section 37 is simply wrong?

But he admitted that he couldn't see how it fitted, and thus proscribed it on that (flawed, provisional and imperfect) understanding.

He drew a hard line on shaky ground. This seems unwise, but doesn't change what he said... which you're free to reject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There was never a worldwide 'flood' for instance. We recognize that this was a tale derived from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh.

"If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

Edit: I look forward to your justification for why we should interpret this to mean the opposite of what it says.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If Darwinian evolution is a fact
No it's not a fact it's a narrative and that is a fact. What actually is fact is life interconnected. That has always been. And long before writing that was the only thing understood. All Darwin did was create a narrative about what actually used to be self evident. So he is actually a result of culture issues . Somewhere between the dawn of humanity and Darwin we got kinda stupid In very literate Educated ways

One must split the science narrative from The actual experienced or observed life interconnected. If you can't do that.... Well that's very very Christian actually. Because they hold to narrative determines experience as well.

The theory of evolution can be used to predict genetic divergence and many other testable features of biology. It isn't simply a narrative.

 

[Vouthon]

There's a difference between interpreting and rejecting. When the "interpretation" ends up saying the opposite of what the text says, it's the latter, not the former.

Development of doctrinal understanding, not rejection.

If a 12th century pope, let's say, believed on the basis of Aristotelian science that the motion of heavens were moved by unmoved movers in the form of spiritual aether beings and derived theological proscriptions or prescriptions from that flawed understanding, are his thoughts binding? No, they aren't - because the principles are deduced from flawed and incomplete scientific premises subsequently found to be wrong, and those premises are not within the remit of divine revelation.

So you think that the first half of Section 37 is simply wrong?

If the premise of his understanding had been as developed as today and he left no doubt about that, I would have supported the conclusions he derived therefrom.

But as the premise has been overtaken by subsequent advancements in science (and theology), I do reject the prescriptions flowing from it. Yes.

The issue is now unsettled by the church on account of the advancements in scientific knowledge and theology that I've just mentioned.

You are treating Humani Generis like a fundamentalist Protestant treats the Bible, like an eternal fossil incapable of any progression, whereas it was actually a historically contingent document referring to a set of issues based upon the fragmentary knowledge of the era.

 

[Vouthon]

"If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

Edit: I look forward to your justification for why we should interpret this to mean the opposite of what it says.

It simply appears to be saying that if the Bible is dependent on pagan mythological sources (as it is), then the sacred authors had divine assurance that they would use those sources without being contaminated by an errors. Unless in context it says something else that I'm not seeing above?

If the genre in question was intended by the sacred author to be history, then we can be sure that God would keep them free from error in the pursuance of that end. But Genesis was not written to be factual history (though it is salvation history like all scripture) but in the genre of Near Eastern creation myths.

The immunity from error is conditional upon the genre in question and what the sacred author intended to communicate in context. That's, rather elementary.