tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post2494415574993190727..comments2023-11-02T00:53:50.815-07:00Comments on ACTS Apologist Blog: Adam, Eve, and AnthropologyACTS Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-38049135027118909882019-06-14T15:47:52.983-07:002019-06-14T15:47:52.983-07:00You should read the novel OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET...You should read the novel OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET by C.S. Lewis, which explores your last conjecture. (He also wrote a shorter essay on the same topic with the title, "Religion and Rocketry.")Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-11289269079193936262019-06-14T15:41:05.031-07:002019-06-14T15:41:05.031-07:00Hi-
This is the way I thought for some time: n The...Hi-<br />This is the way I thought for some time: n There were millions of hominids on the planet with several specific races (Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien etc.) God picked 2, a male and female. Gave them immortal souls, revealed Himself to them, and basically told them I am your God, your are my children. They disobeyed, and Original Sin entered the world.<br /><br /> On another topic, I also happen to believe in sentient life throughout the universe. Want to be WE were the only ones that fell?? A great reason for the distances of the stars, to keep US from contaminating THEM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-58117771052798835902019-06-12T11:58:13.695-07:002019-06-12T11:58:13.695-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-68609963100878244212019-06-11T19:16:18.022-07:002019-06-11T19:16:18.022-07:00Very helpful!Very helpful!Leo Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01385154385298582830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-50757195573351614582019-06-11T18:49:45.461-07:002019-06-11T18:49:45.461-07:00Putting forth of thoughts and theories are precise...Putting forth of thoughts and theories are precisely what public fora are for. But thanks for your input.ACTS Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-16013745233524264562019-06-11T17:18:16.990-07:002019-06-11T17:18:16.990-07:00At this point, it seems certain no one knows how t...At this point, it seems certain no one knows how to give the right answer, and very likely no one knows enough to even ask the right questions. In such a situation, it is usually better to stick with "I don't know" than to float a tentative speculation in a public forum. Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-63903617514901361112019-06-11T16:23:05.147-07:002019-06-11T16:23:05.147-07:00You are quite right that the Faith does not demand...You are quite right that the Faith does not demand anyone believe my idea. I am merely putting it forward as a possible solution to reconciling modern anthropology with Catholic dogma. If someone believes he/she has a better solution, then that is fine too. ACTS Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-6378616357590337312019-06-11T15:54:30.743-07:002019-06-11T15:54:30.743-07:00Your explanation needs to leave you with fewer or ...Your explanation needs to leave you with fewer or smaller problems than you started with. The Faith does not demand that anyone believe your idea; science can say nothing about it, since the soul cannot be directly observed; and you create a whole new class of problems by divorcing biological humanity from personhood. A lot of people have toyed with the same basic idea, which has some merits, but no one has been able to make it work yet. Seriously, the idea is actually presented in SCIENCE MADE STUPID: http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html.Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-83658244440327561712019-06-11T15:44:48.449-07:002019-06-11T15:44:48.449-07:00Not until today. They appear to be a Catholic ver...Not until today. They appear to be a Catholic version of Answers in Genesis. I have no problem with folks who want to believe in Youth Earth Creation. <br /><br />The problem these groups often fall into is claiming their view of the world is the official position of the Church and mandatory for believers. So I encourage folks to have caution.ACTS Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-60280965589681603272019-06-11T15:28:35.753-07:002019-06-11T15:28:35.753-07:00Well, we can't let possible misinterpretations...Well, we can't let possible misinterpretations and misapplications of an assert determine whether the assertion is true or false. In this case, it would be foolish to think any human alive to day is a NRBH. If you encounter a civilization and it has culture, language, and stories ... then you're looking at a rational creature who must be descended from Adam.<br /><br />ACTS Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-8768041634986125262019-06-11T15:23:54.080-07:002019-06-11T15:23:54.080-07:00From THE CONFESSIONS of St. Augustine, Book V, Cha...From THE CONFESSIONS of St. Augustine, Book V, Chapters 5 and 6: "... When, therefore, it was discovered that his teaching concerning the heavens and stars, and the motions of sun and moon, was false, though these things do not relate to the doctrine of religion, yet his sacrilegious arrogance would become sufficiently evident, seeing that not only did he affirm things of which he knew nothing, but also perverted them, and with such egregious vanity of pride as to seek to attribute them to himself as to a divine being. For when I hear a Christian brother ignorant of these things, or in error concerning them, I can bear with patience to see that man hold to his opinions; nor can I apprehend that any want of knowledge as to the situation or nature of this material creation can be injurious to him, so long as he does not entertain belief in anything unworthy of You, O Lord, the Creator of all. But if he conceives it to pertain to the form of the doctrine of piety, and presumes to affirm with great obstinacy that whereof he is ignorant, therein lies the injury."<br /><br />Augustine had adhered to the cult of the Manichees until he met Faustus, a "bishop" of the Manichees. Now astronomy had developed much more quickly than the other natural sciences, so that although its cosmology was very inaccurate, it still did a rather good job of predicting things like eclipses and the positions of planets; and Augustine was very well educated for his day. As a result, he was quickly able to determine that Faustus did not know what he was talking about when he pontificated on things that can be seen; how then could Faustus be trusted regarding things that cannot be seen? This was enough for Augustine to reject the Manichees.<br /><br />Whenever pseudoscience is bundled with Christianity as a package deal, its most important effect is to drive children away from the Faith if and when they learn real science.Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-50176312408885532042019-06-11T12:33:07.057-07:002019-06-11T12:33:07.057-07:00Have you ever looked at the research of the Kolbe ...Have you ever looked at the research of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation? http://kolbecenter.org/ Christopher Thelenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15204589250688771892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-81420404837688497552019-06-11T04:41:11.609-07:002019-06-11T04:41:11.609-07:00"... you could have a race of Non-Rational Bi..."... you could have a race of Non-Rational Biological Humans (NRBH) which wouldn't count as 'true' humans." Once you admit that possibility, it becomes much harder to insist that all biological humans today count as "true" humans. This was an issue, remember, when the Americas were first discovered, because there was doubt the natives could be accounted for in the list of nations descended from Noah -- and that's to say nothing of the more recent idea of "Untermenschen" and the denial that the unborn (or those with serious developmental defects, or those in comas, etc.) count as "true humans".Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04843514873861242426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-79042881350722093892019-06-10T21:49:34.196-07:002019-06-10T21:49:34.196-07:00I LOVE IT! I have been contemplating this for a lo...I LOVE IT! I have been contemplating this for a long time and I think this is the closest to an answer I have read. Great insights. Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18190869986805570842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-28675865503740070582019-06-10T14:22:44.318-07:002019-06-10T14:22:44.318-07:00Thanks for your article. Have you seen these Domin...Thanks for your article. Have you seen these Dominicans at all in your research? https://www.thomisticevolution.org/ They make an interpretation of HG I haven't heard before.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800695417207203053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-41773135612326506002019-06-10T12:10:25.645-07:002019-06-10T12:10:25.645-07:00The CCC sites this about the creation of Adam and ...The CCC sites this about the creation of Adam and Eve:<br />362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.<br />"Symbolic language" can also mean mythological in the sense that the author employed a mythological style of writing to express a truth, in this case that mankind was created as a special creation.<br />Biblical interpretation is hard enough for Bible scholars. The ordinary layperson need not bother about what this passage or that passage means or how it is to be interpreted in an effort to determine doctrine or dogma. The Church uses four methods to do this (see CCC: The senses of Scripture 115-119). We can trust that she knows what truths we are to glean from any particular passage or book. Among other considerations, the Church's Bible scholars take into account the intent of the author(s), the idioms of the original language, and what the Holy Spirit intended to convey to us through the author(s) words.<br />One of the reasons why Christ founded his Church was to give her the charism of teaching God's truths, in any form in which they are given, to assure believers that the whole deposit of the Faith is true and able to lead us to salvation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06046122249638727769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-72771317406913818562019-06-10T08:07:25.909-07:002019-06-10T08:07:25.909-07:00First, I’d note that polygenism ain’t what it used...First, I’d note that polygenism ain’t what it used to be. One narrative which is explored thoroughly at the beginning of Lone Survivors is the battle between the “Multiple Origins” theory and the “Recent African Origins” theory. The multiple origins theory is very likely what Humani Generis was written against back in the 50’s because that what “polygenism” meant in that period of scientific development. As the Pope said, it truly would be irreconcilable with the Christian faith to say that “true” humans came from multiple areas. But today the Recent African Origins theory has predominance and it’s just about working through the details. <br /><br />I think a good analogy can be made to the creation of the universe. At one point the leading theory was a kind of steady-state eternalism. This would have been incompatible with Christian revelation. But then evidence prevailed and we have the standard big-bang model. It isn’t a word-for-word recreation of Genesis 1, but it is certainly friendlier to the doctrine of creation. Perhaps you can see the similarity.<br /><br />In any event, onto the query itself. It’s a very good question. Of course, folks who seek to reconcile Biblical theism with scientific evolution don’t speak with one voice. I can only speak for myself.<br /><br />My modus operandi with Genesis 1-11 is to start with what we’re doctrinally compelled to believe. From there, I want to believe things as literally as possible until physical evidence makes it untenable. Then I look to the scientific narrative and adjust my reading of the text accordingly while preserving the fundamentals of Catholic dogma. This is not a particularly novel way of doing it. From what I understand, Cardinal Bellarman, who was responsible for trying Galileo, said that if Galileo could prove his thesis, he’d change his reading of Scripture accordingly. (But Galileo couldn’t prove his thesis). Nor would I describe this as arbitrary. Arbitrary would mean there is no guiding logic involved. But my guiding logic is: 1, dogma. 2, presumed literalness until overturned by 3. 3, Scientific findings. <br /><br />As for Noah, I’d say it I’m not sure if the Church requires us to believe that God made a real covenant with a historic Noah. I cited the encyclical which clarifies the mandatory nature of our first parents, but I don’t know of any similar magisterial statement on Noah. Beyond that, I don’t know of the Church requiring us to believe in a worldwide flood which reduced humanity down to a single family.<br />ACTS Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669163308476716439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256438234085155615.post-83079724578500834632019-06-10T05:09:29.233-07:002019-06-10T05:09:29.233-07:00I understand that this post assumes that God used ...I understand that this post assumes that God used evolution to bring about the natural order we see today, and so I will not comment on modern criticism of Darwin's model. With this in mind however, I do have a question: Since the Church requires that adherents believe in a literal Adam and Eve (against the accepted polygenism model of 'modern science') as well as believe that God made an actual covenant with Noah, how do theistic evolutionists determine which parts of Genesis 1-11 are to be taken as historical and which ones are to be taken allegorical? To pick and choose which parts are allegorical in order to get them to fit with certain interpretations of the past based on naturalistic assumptions seems incredibly arbitrary. Stone Robbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13358503343349486031noreply@blogger.com