Surely evolution and Christianity are fundamentally opposed?

[Immanuel Can]

Given the ambiguity of the word "day" in Genesis (which Biblically is sometimes used for "era," as in "Day of God's Favour, rather than for strict 24 hour periods) and given that nothing is said about mechanistic cause (only about Agent cause) there isn't much to argue over regarding animals, plants and the Earth itself. But it is true that human beings must have a separate, distinct creation rather than a gradual origin. And their relationship with the Supreme Being must be utterly unique relative to the other furnishings of the general Creation, just as mankind's history must be of a definite kind.

But historically, both the Evolutionists' narrative and the Creation begin with a single mating pair -- an Adam and Eve, if you will. For even assuming the Evolutionary narrative, evolution would not take place simultaneously for all members of the photo-species, but rather all non-fit members of it would die out, through survival-of-the-fittest, and a lone original mating pair with the Evolutionarily-privileged mutation would become the parents of the species.

But I make nothing of this. For the whole Evolutionary narrative is far too silly and scientifically unsupported with respect to the human species. When I was a child, every high school textbook had monkey-to-man charts in it, and every museum seemed to have a diorama of the supposed stages of human evolution. Nowadays, through genetics and through the debacle of things like the Piltdown fraud and the Java man failure we know for certain the monkey-to-man charts were a fake...at best a random wrong guess as to where humans may have originated. However, I am yet to see any of those textbooks print a retraction, and the monkey-to-man chart remains a powerful myth in the popular psyche, unchallenged by the embarrassed scientists who used to insist on its truth.

In regard to human evolution we don't have "a missing link": we have a missing theory.

So when we look at specifically human evolution, which is the only element that would matter Biblically, we needn't trouble ourselves much with the current pseudo-scientific fads on that question. We can take God's word that the human creation was unique, or we can wait for better science, depending on whether we're Christian/Jewish or secular. What we've got right now isn't a threat either way.

[ReliStuPhD]

Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish, it is understandable and expected if you take the bible literally.

Certainly it is foolish not to believe in the general concept of evolution; of things evolving. It might not be foolish to hold that evolution does not have sufficient explanatory scope to explain how we've gotten to this point. Some biologists (and not creationists) are of this opinion, no? And I doubt we'd call them foolish. After all, the science floor is littered with failed theories. Who's to say evolution will still hold strong in 100 years?

This is a pretty typical creationist response. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity - the only difference is that gravity doesn't contradict a pre-existing belief of yours. And before someone starts going off on the 'evolution is only a theory' rollercoaster, let me just make something clear. 'Theory' in a scientific sense is not the same as how you and i might use the term. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. In this sense, gravity is still only a theory, the only reason we don't talk about the 'theory of gravity' is because no-one objects to it since it doesn't contradict fundamentalist beliefs.

Certainly this is true, but as a response to my post, it is irrelevant (your other post follows a similar rabbit hole). You'll notice I said "Some biologists (and not creationists)...," so you're barking up the wrong tree. You'll want to look to the work of actual scientists who challenge the prevailing consensus concerning evolution. They could, of course, be mistaken, but they are most certainly not fools.

PS I assume when you say "pre-existing belief of yours," you mean "yours" in a general sense, insofar as you really have no idea what my pre-existing beliefs are. For you to assume such based on a few blogs posts would be foolish indeed.

There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity

This quote shares many of the same characteristics of religious belief. It is also demonstrably false.

[jackles]

I think it was better first time in italian david.

[David Handeye]

I think it was better first time in italian david.

Hahahaha yes, you are certainly right

[ReliStuPhD]

But it is true that human beings must have a separate, distinct creation rather than a gradual origin.

How so? I don't see this as a "must."

[Immanuel Can]

How so? I don't see this as a "must."

Well, you won't get Christian theology or anthropology off the ground without it, if that's what you want to do.

Think about it: gradualism (Evolutionism) means no unique, human and voluntary act of severance from God, no account of evil, no sin, no state of alienation, and thus no need for redemption. No need for redemption, no Redeemer, no salvation, no future Judgment, no Eternal hope...

It's possible to posit a world like that; but it's not possible to posit it as the world described by Christianity. Nor is it possible to explain the spiritually-alienated condition of the human race in terms of gradualism.

[ReliStuPhD]

How so? I don't see this as a "must."

Well, you won't get Christian theology or anthropology off the ground without it, if that's what you want to do.

Think about it: gradualism (Evolutionism) means no unique, human and voluntary act of severance from God, no account of evil, no sin, no state of alienation, and thus no need for redemption. No need for redemption, no Redeemer, no salvation, no future Judgment, no Eternal hope...

It's possible to posit a world like that; but it's not possible to posit it as the world described by Christianity. Nor is it possible to explain the spiritually-alienated condition of the human race in terms of gradualism.

Hmmm. I can't say I'm convinced, but I either don't have a good argument to counter with, or I have it and it's not coming to mind. As such, for the being, I'll just assent.

[David Handeye]

I think it was better first time in italian david.

I'll try once more jack As this post is about Christianity and evolution.
What evolves is the matter, nothing else. But the specific differentiation according to Scholastic thought is not produced by the different structure of the material, as for the presence of various "essentials" and these can not undergo evolution, being by definition other by matter.
Accepting evolution, then, means to accept the absolute materialism: Matter is nothing but matter. This was the purpose of evolution.
In a perspective of theist evolution God would force to make a continue "transubstantiation" to get the desired effect, however, never reached. On the transformation of matter, according to the Aristotelian and Thomist distinction between potency and act and again with Saint Thomas, what becomes is not, while what is does not become. This because of the immateriality and then immutability of the forms. It is impossible and scientifically undemonstrable a "progressive refinement of the form", because the specific difference between the entities can only happen with a change of form and this is impossible without a divine intervention.
Different is to say - with St. Augustine - that various "forms" are already contained in the material (logoi spermatikoi). But this is not evolution. Surely with St. Thomas denying the becoming understood as a mutation of the essences and without falling into Platonism, we could ask, what Jesus Christ would redeem assuming human nature? The Australopithecus, Homo sapiens, sapiens sapiens ... or what it will become in the future. You understand that the same "take on human nature" no longer has any meaning. The "state of way" is not becoming: the history of salvation concerns the "power of obedience." We are in the field of supernatural grace that adds to nature, but not the suit. We stay in theme: admit evolution means change the ontological status of the entities, which is impossible to physical laws. Do not just say that mutates DNA to admit the emergence of new species.That the foundation of immutable essences of things is a given in Scholastic philosophy, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/essenza/ The essences are the synolon of raw material and substantial form and pose as power relative existence. The essences are existing substance with the accidents that form the concrete individual.

0) Esiste il divenire, che attesta il venire all'essere di un ente o il tramontare di un ente (fosse anche nello spazio della coscienza, ossia il venire all'apparenza e lo scomparire dall'apparenza). In ogni caso attesa il venire-da e l'andare-a dell'ente
0.1) da dove viene l'ente che diviene?

1) Due alternative possibili, tertium non datur: o
1.1) viene da sé, (o va a sè) o
1.2)non viene da sè (la contraddizione A non A compre l'intero delle possibilità).

1.2.) Il non venire da sé presenta altre due interne alternative che coprono l'intero ambito delineato:
1.2.1) il non venire affatto, la stasi..ma allora non ci sarebbe il problema del divenire, dunque va esclusa questa possibilità.
1.2.2) oppure il venire da altro, che deve essere accolta per negazione dell'alternativa

1.2.3) a sua volta questo altro...o :
1.2.3.1)è qualcosa , oppure
1.2.3.2)è nulla.

2) Analisi delle tre posizioni 1.1); 12.3.1) ; 1.2.3.2)

a) ipotesi: Tutto viene da sé oppure va a sé, (1.1): dunque deve esistere prima di essere prodotto, deve esistere e non esistere..contraddizione logica.
b) Tutto viene dal nulla o va al nulla (1.2.3.2): ma il nulla non esiste, dunque dal nulla non viene nulla, non viene ciò che diviene, nulla diviene..ma questo contraddice il fatto del divenire (0); al nulla non va nulla, perché non è, dunque sarebbe ancora una negazione del nulla dell'andare-a attestato dal divenire.
c) Tutto viene da altro da sé (1.2.3.2), da altro da sé come diveniente, ossia da un non diveniente, da un Immutabile Indiveniente.

3) Argomento:

3.1) Le prime due alternative si escludono, la terza resta l'unica possibile.
3.2) Ma il non-diveniente è differente (=trascendente) da ogni ente diveniente (il non diveniente non può essere diveniente, pena la contraddizione logica).
3.4) Nominiamo “Dio” l'immutabile Indiveniente da cui ogni diveniente diviene, da cui è creato e posto l'essere di ogni ente diveniente
3.5) Allora Dio – creatore degli enti divenienti, di tutto gli enti divenienti- esiste

Come intuisci queste non sono prove apodittiche, ma razionali, nel senso di ragionevoli.
La razionalità è l'ideale cui tende l'argomentare che resta ermeneutico, "debole" e problematico- per questo autenticamente razionale- ossia detto in termini teologici e da catechismo "per convergenza di indizi"..in questo caso si converge alla prova filosofica. Una prova infatti o è un giudizio analitico, ossia non dimostra nulla (del tipo A=A), ossia è una tautologia; oppure se è incrementale del conoscere, ossia è sintetico, allora è problematico il rapporto tra i termini, ossia è sostenibile con argomenti di plausibilità, ma non di apoditticità. L'errore che spesso si fa è nella presupporre una idolatrica e fantasiosa idea di prova: si critica la prova di Dio in base ad una idea di prova che non esiste.

Si crede - come per la scienza (che è un credere ragionevole, un ritenere per vero, ma non un sapere vero, altrimenti non sarebbe un conoscere falsificabile...l'apodittico è infalisficabile), fino a confutazione. Se qualcuno confuta in modo ragionevole (non credo sia possibile apoditticamente, per le ragioni suesposte) la prova, allora non ha valore; se però non la confuta, si deve credere alla prova presentata fino ulteriore confutazione (come avviene per ogni conoscere, come avviene appunto per la conoscenza scientifica). Molti atei sostengono di conoscere le confutazioni...ma non le dimostrano, ossia non mostrano nemmeno di sapere le prove positive, ergo non possono certo avere le confutazioni. Ma questo è altro problema.
Per me una prova è una cosa del tutto diversa, tipo: abbiamo osservato in laboratorio un embrione di lucertola che si è trasformato da solo in un embrione di topo. Quella sarebbe una vera prova.
Quelle che gli evoluzionisti chiamano prove sono solo lavoro di fantasia.

[thedoc]

How so? I don't see this as a "must."

Well, you won't get Christian theology or anthropology off the ground without it, if that's what you want to do.

Think about it: gradualism (Evolutionism) means no unique, human and voluntary act of severance from God, no account of evil, no sin, no state of alienation, and thus no need for redemption. No need for redemption, no Redeemer, no salvation, no future Judgment, no Eternal hope...

It's possible to posit a world like that; but it's not possible to posit it as the world described by Christianity. Nor is it possible to explain the spiritually-alienated condition of the human race in terms of gradualism.

Hmmm. I can't say I'm convinced, but I either don't have a good argument to counter with, or I have it and it's not coming to mind. As such, for the being, I'll just assent.

That could be accommodated in an evolutionary model by accepting when man became self aware, as the time of the fall and separation. Prior to that was a time of innocence when man lived as an animal, but after that man became aware of life and death and his place in the world.

[ReliStuPhD]

That could be accommodated in an evolutionary model by accepting when man became self aware, as the time of the fall and separation. Prior to that was a time of innocence when man lived as an animal, but after that man became aware of life and death and his place in the world.

Yes, that would work (for me at least). I.C., what's your take?

[Immanuel Can]

You would still need a distinct moment of decision when mankind chose what mankind chose: i.e. to distrust the intentions of God, and to separate himself from fellowship with the Supreme Being. And whatever else happened, this moment could not be gradualistic in its actualization...it would have to be a real decision made by the progenitor pair. But beyond that, the origin of mankind is spoken of in the Bible not as merely one story among many in animal evolution, but as a unique undertaking by God, a deliberate privileging of the human species above the animals, which are definitely marked as already existing when this last creative movement was undertaken. The theological point seems to be the isolation of the human species as unique and as responsible in stewardship for all creation: and this has very important theological implications.

The timing's a bit elastic: I think the facts are harder to stretch.

[ReliStuPhD]

You would still need a distinct moment of decision when mankind chose what mankind chose: i.e. to distrust the intentions of God, and to separate himself from fellowship with the Supreme Being. And whatever else happened, this moment could not be gradualistic in its actualization...it would have to be a real decision made by the progenitor pair. But beyond that, the origin of mankind is spoken of in the Bible not as merely one story among many in animal evolution, but as a unique undertaking by God, a deliberate privileging of the human species above the animals, which are definitely marked as already existing when this last creative movement was undertaken. The theological point seems to be the isolation of the human species as unique and as responsible in stewardship for all creation: and this has very important theological implications.

The timing's a bit elastic: I think the facts are harder to stretch.

With this clarification, I think I can nail down my position not his a bit better. What strikes me as "objectionable" (used loosely) was the 'must' of a distinct creation as opposed to a distinct moment, if you will. Admittedly, my bible's a bit rusty (I'll never buy an iron one again ), but I don't see where it's necessary for humans to have come to exist in some method other than that of animals. Sure, Genesis has a creation narrative, but I don't see where an allegorical treatment of such undermines the faith, so to speak. It seems to me that the Biblical narrative is at least compatible with a scientific narrative that has humans evolving, with the "Tree of Knowledge" moment being chalked up to the moment when the animals that was "Man" achieved a certain rationality wherein he/she could disobey their Creator. Even if that moment is obscured to us given our limited ability to work this whole evolutionary out to our own satisfaction, I don't see any logical or metaphysical problems.

nb This is not to defend evolution (though it's the model I hold to), but to work out whether it is truly incompatible with the various creation narratives, understood allegorically.

[Melchior]

Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish

Not for Christians. Christian theology rejects evolution. Christianity becoming far more accepting evolution is not Christianity.

You are wrong!
The Catholic church accepts evolution.

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD wrote:

nb This is not to defend evolution (though it's the model I hold to), but to work out whether it is truly incompatible with the various creation narratives, understood allegorically.

Oh, I understand. That's fine: I get your intent. No problem. Let me respond, then, in the same spirit.

Whatever else we think might be the metaphorical and theological implication of the Creation, it does seem apparent to me that a significant theological point is made out of the unique, subsequent event of the creation and commission of mankind. And it's important because where we come from, and why and how we were created, are taken therein to show something very significant about our relative importance and the roles for which mankind was created.

We can fudge that, I think; but it will be hard to recover the full theological weight of the incident if we do. Gradualism would not per se amount to a denial of the theology -- so long as the priority and order of creation plus the real events of commissioning and Fall were taken literally still: but to do so would surely require us to fashion an alternate, gradualist creation narrative. The motives for doing so, and the degree to which we'd be able to guard against our own wild imaginings would be uninsured by revelation if we did that, so it looks to me like a perilous project at best, and at worst a mere attempt to reconcile revelation with popular fashion.

So I'm going to stick to the Biblical narrative on the creation of mankind, in all it specifies, and leave what it does not specify to a future date.

You?

[David Handeye]

Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish

Not for Christians. Christian theology rejects evolution. Christianity becoming far more accepting evolution is not Christianity.

You are wrong!
The Catholic church accepts evolution.

No, the Catholic church does not.