Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 premises subsequently found to be wrong, and those premises are not within the remit of divine revelation.

In 1950, the scientific community had already recognized that evolutionary theory implied polygenism. This wasn't unknown to Pius; in fact, the section is intended as a response to the scientific consensus, which on this point was largely the same as it is today.

The changes on this point haven't been a matter of science so much as matters of politics and culture. Anti-science views are now an embarrassing liability.

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.

But as the premise has been overtaken by subsequent advancements in science, 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.

Your 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.

I don't accept the idea that Pius was incapable of expressing what he meant. I also don't accept the revisionist idea that changes in Catholic thought since Pius wrote the encyclical had an influence on what Pius intended to express.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that he was sincere but mistaken and set his opinion aside.

 

[Vouthon]

In 1950, the scientific community had already recognized that evolutionary theory implied polygenism. This wasn't unknown to Pius; in fact, the section is intended as a response to the scientific consensus, which on this point was largely the same as it is today.

Advances in genomic science and studies of genetic diversity have come on massively since 1950.

Back then, it was far more defensible for Christians and others to hold to monogenism, but after recent scientific endeavours like the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), it has become much less so.

I mean, in 1950 there was still a competing theory to the big bang in cosmology - Hoyle's steady state. That wasn't discarded until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. Which is to say, we've moved on since then in a lot of fields.

I don't accept the idea that Pius was incapable of expressing what he meant.

Then why did he state that it 'appeared' to be irreconcilable? Why the element of doubt rather than just 'it is'?

He brought in the doubt not to his conclusions but to his premise for making the conclusions in question, which he obviously must have realized might be updated by subsequent scientific and theological inquiry. And many have argued that this is the case, and I see little reason to disagree with them.

Theologians have theorized about ways in which polygenism fits with our doctrines that were not yet available to Pius XII in 1950, because they hadn't yet been proposed.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that he was sincere but mistaken and set his opinion aside.

Indeed, I believe that he was mistaken in the premises he used and so his opinions can be respectfully set aside as an artifact of the cultural milieu in which he operated.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

Of course it's morally repugnant, but that's how the bible depicts God.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

So you don't take the bible literally then. Fair enough. Maybe it's just because of the evangelical circles that I was exposed to as a kid, but to me, a Christian is someone who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God.

 

[dfnj]

This would do as a wiki entry on "rationalizing"

Rationalizing has nothing to do with it. People choose to have faith in a particular type of God in spite of not having any rationale reason why. There is not a shred of evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent Christian God. This is why people have faith. The existence of a particular type of God is consider to be an axiom. And axiom is accepted as being true without any proof.

Now if you have faith in an omnipotent God, then by having a omnipotence means God has no limitations. So an omnipotent Christian God can create man from nothingness with any type of physical history intact.

Are you one of those nihilists who think God is subject to the laws of physics?

 

[Audie]

Rationalizing has nothing to do with it. People choose to have faith in a particular type of God in spite of not having any rationale reason why. There is not a shred of evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent Christian God. This is why people have faith. The existence of a particular type of God is consider to be an axiom. And axiom is accepted as being true without any proof.

Now if you have faith in an omnipotent God, then by having a omnipotence means God has no limitations. So an omnipotent Christian God can create man from nothingness with any type of physical history intact.

Are you one of those nihilists who think God is subject to the laws of physics?

It is precisely a case of rationalizing.

As for "choosing" to believe, that is for those
who are into self deception.

I do believe, or do not, but it has to have a reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rationalizing has nothing to do with it. People choose to have faith in a particular type of God in spite of not having any rationale reason why. There is not a shred of evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent Christian God. This is why people have faith. The existence of a particular type of God is consider to be an axiom. And axiom is accepted as being true without any proof.

Now if you have faith in an omnipotent God, then by having a omnipotence means God has no limitations. So an omnipotent Christian God can create man from nothingness with any type of physical history intact.

Are you one of those nihilists who think God is subject to the laws of physics?

Only some people rationalize. Some people's beliefs are evidence based. The problem with rationalization is that it is usually merely believing what one wants to believe. It, like faith, is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what matters to you. If a person wants to be comfortable in their own made up world rationalization may not be harmful all of the time.

And no, accepting the Christian God is not an axiom. It is an unjustified assumption.

 

[dfnj]

It is precisely a case of rationalizing.

As for "choosing" to believe, that is for those
who are into self deception.

I do believe, or do not, but it has to have a reason.

Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof. It's just some people are aware of ones they choose to accept. While some people just think they are "right" and certain other people are without a doubt "insane" because they do share the same axioms.

If you do not accept the existence of God as an axiom, then you will think theists are irrational and insane. Even further, some people believe in the old testament Jewish God as their axiom. Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane!

 

[dfnj]

Only some people rationalize. Some people's beliefs are evidence based. The problem with rationalization is that it is usually merely believing what one wants to believe. It, like faith, is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what matters to you. If a person wants to be comfortable in their own made up world rationalization may not be harmful all of the time.

And no, accepting the Christian God is not an axiom. It is an unjustified assumption.

People can choose any axiom they want. Who put you in charge?

 

[Audie]

Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof. It's just some people are aware of ones they choose to accept. While some people just think they are "right" and certain other people are without a doubt "insane" because they do share the same axioms.

If you do not accept the existence of God as an axiom, then you will think theists are irrational and insane. Even further, some people believe in the old testament Jewish God as their axiom. Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane!

Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof.

Not so. Not of me, and not of any scientist. You should avoid statements of facts not in evidence, or projecting your own faults onto others.

You are wandering far from the topic here. What I described as classic
rationalizing was exactly that.

"Choosing to believe" is choosing self deception. Even if you accidently
are correct.

Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane

The things you make up and state as fact!

 

[dfnj]

Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof.

Not so. Not of me, and not of any scientist. You should avoid statements of facts not in evidence, or projecting your own faults onto others.

You are wandering far from the topic here. What I described as classic
rationalizing was exactly that.

"Choosing to believe" is choosing self deception. Even if you accidently
are correct.

Most people think people who believe the old testament Jewish God are really insane

The things you make up and state as fact!

Nobody is stating having faith is an objective fact. That's your world. Axioms are considered to be true without any proof. Having faith in God is an axiom that is chosen.

You do have axioms. You just are not aware of the ones you have chosen because you think yours are absolute truths that cannot be questioned.

Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

I'm sure you have many other axioms. For example, the only ideas worth believing are ones supported by facts and evidence. This is a subjective judgment. All objectivity is subjectively determined. No matter how rationale you think you are and how insane you think I am doesn't change the fact that your judgments about what is "right" and what is "wrong" is nothing more than just an subjective opinion no better than the ones I have. You claim your opinions are better than mine. But you can't prove they are better.

If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man according to the Bible and include the physical history of evolution to boot.

 

[dfnj]

"Choosing to believe" is choosing self deception. Even if you accidently
are correct.

It's not self deception if you are aware that you are making a "choice" and not a "decision".

 

[Subduction Zone]

People can choose any axiom they want. Who put you in charge?

The people that defined "axiom".

 

[Audie]

It's not self deception if you are aware that you are making a "choice" and not a "decision".

Easiest person to fool is yourself, and you are
doing fine at it.

 

[Audie]

Nobody is stating having faith is an objective fact. That's your world. Axioms are considered to be true without any proof. Having faith in God is an axiom that is chosen.

You do have axioms. You just are not aware of the ones you have chosen because you think yours are absolute truths that cannot be questioned.

Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

I'm sure you have many other axioms. For example, the only ideas worth believing are ones supported by facts and evidence. This is a subjective judgment. All objectivity is subjectively determined. No matter how rationale you think you are and how insane you think I am doesn't change the fact that your judgments about what is "right" and what is "wrong" is nothing more than just an subjective opinion no better than the ones I have. You claim your opinions are better than mine. But you can't prove they are better.

If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man according to the Bible and include the physical history of evolution to boot.

Between your totally misreading what I say, and making things up, this is tiresome and pointless. forget it.

 

[Cassandra]

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."

These days RCC accepts both evolution and creationism as viable theories and leaves the choice up to the believers. I think RCC is often misunderstood as Protestantism. In the RCC it is the priesthood who study the scripture and they do not bore the common people with theology. They are the Salt of the Earth as Jesus calls them in the Sermon of the Mount. What the Popes says these days is more like guideline for the believer. But RCC explicitly leaves room for ordinary people to make up their own mind and follow their own conscience. I wish more churches did that.

These days for most Catholics it is the good Spirit that guides that is the important thing. They are not like protestants who heavily study the Bible. Also RCC sees new discoveries and insights as the works of the Spirit in progress. Sure there are Catholics too who take a very literal view, but that is their own personal choice. You will not find common Catholics discussing beliefs like protestants. Generally the knowledge of ordinary Catholics in theological matters is as low as their interest in them. It is more like Jesus gave us a good example to follow.

I think the Pope is doing a good job, It is ironical that there is so much hate against RCC on the Internet these days as it has become fairly moderate. I think it is orthodox Judaism, Evangelicals, Islamists and overbearing atheists that seek conflict, probably as part of their proselytizing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Call me old fashioned, but I think it is up to each Christian to decide if a scientific theory can be reconciled with their beliefs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So you don't take the bible literally then. Fair enough. Maybe it's just because of the evangelical circles that I was exposed to as a kid, but to me, a Christian is someone who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Inerrancy also seems to be a more modern view that started with The Fundamentals in 1910. If you were raised in evangelical circles in the US then you may have a skewed view of what Christianity is like elsewhere in the world.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nobody is stating having faith is an objective fact. That's your world. Axioms are considered to be true without any proof. Having faith in God is an axiom that is chosen.

"True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness."
Axiom

Having faith that something is true is not an axiom.

Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

The difference is that we can measure time.

I'm sure you have many other axioms. For example, the only ideas worth believing are ones supported by facts and evidence.

That would be an epistemology, not an axiom. Skepticism is an epistemology. The scientific method is an epistemology.

"Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid."
Epistemology

All objectivity is subjectively determined.

Objects can be empirically measured which is not the same as subjective.

No matter how rationale you think you are and how insane you think I am doesn't change the fact that your judgments about what is "right" and what is "wrong" is nothing more than just an subjective opinion no better than the ones I have. You claim your opinions are better than mine. But you can't prove they are better.

And there is the false equivalency that you were working so hard to reach. You want to pretend as if faith based beliefs are on the same level as empirically supported conclusions. Guess what? They aren't.

 

[David T]

It's neither proven fact, nor narrative. It's a scientific theory, or more correctly a set of connected theories.

Both fact and narrative are so commonly misused these days I'm surprised they retain any meaning at all.

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

wow at 5 my father was teaching me genetic traits l, and in fact origi ally Darwin based his entire theory of natural selection On dog breeding. We have been Involved in genetic manipulation for 10,000 years. How the heck do you think corn arose magic? We intuitively knew that traits could be selected and cross bred none of this is remotely new.