Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: Christ does seem to refer to [Adam] as a literal, historical person...

Hugh: Does he? Where?

For one, in Luke 23, Luke, one of the most important historians of the first century, gives a genealogy of key persons that link Jesus to Adam. Fictitious people are not included in genealogies. Jesus is also referred to in Scripture as the SECOND Adam. The Apostle Paul clearly believed Adam to be a real person. In Jude, another person (Enoch) is connected to Adam, by saying he is "the seventh from Adam." All of these assert that there was a real Adam. Not to mention, there is a LOT more in the New Testament relating to Adam than those - with every reference revealing an assertion of a real person:

http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary ... 0Testament

Hugh, many, many people have made the mistake of interpreting Scripture through current (and constantly changing, btw) understandings of science. Again, to do away with a real Adam & Eve, you must understand that you are dismissing a key and foundational teaching of Scripture, of sin entering the world, of our INHERITED sin nature (prolifically stated). You don't inherit something from a figurative literary technique! The entire explanation for our need for a savior is rooted in the understanding of the impact of sin, and where our sin natures came from. So, when Jesus confirms the entirety of the Old Testament as being true - well, that's a huge problem. Because if you believe what the New Testament says about Christ, then this must be believed as well - or, at least, it should logically be. Let's not forget that God made science possible - not the other way around.

God became a man, in Jesus. He physically died, and was miraculously brought back to life again. Jesus is the Creator of the universe - of which, in one moment, did not exist, and in the very next, it did, with incredible power, design, intricate functionality, and the immediate appearance of precisely the correct elements and functionality that made our universe possible and able to one day support life on earth. These are all unbelievably miraculous. Throughout the Bible, God's attributes are revealed. The Bible is full of miraculous things, as well as normal progressions of things. But make no mistake, an all-powerful God is also in control of what was written in Scripture. HE is the Author/Originator of what was recorded - man merely put down God's thoughts. And God redundantly explains in Scripture why He gave it and the importance of His word. He wants us to understand and apply it. So a God Whom would allow His word to become riddled with fairy tales and fabrications, easily misunderstood or perversely interpreted allegories - ESPECIALLY concerning KEY, foundational passages - what does that say about God's ability or His power? His love? Etc. So, rejecting so many plain-language meanings of Scripture renders it useless - even dangerous. This is the Thomas Jefferson approach of rationalism and asserting to know more than God. And why believe God created the universe, became man, resurrected from the dead, all these fantastical things, and we have so many passages that Jesus emphasizes truths form the Old Testament - many of them replete with warnings of punishment and dire consequences and damnation of the wicked - so, why reject the OT, but only have a highly selective understanding about Jesus? Why even believe the NT is true, if you want to cherry-pick such understandings?

Philip -- thanks for sharing that.

hugh wrote:
You didn't say what you meant by 'heresy'.

In this instance the heresy is a belief that we aren't sinners who need a savior, and that Christ isn't literally who he says he is.

And again, I'm not saying you don't believe that. If you're Catholic, you do. But, I'm asking why you'd believe that sin is literal, and Christ is literal, if Adam isn't.

And Philip answered the other question about where Jesus refers to Adam as a literal person.

1) Adam was the first sinner. Sin entered humanity through him, as well as death through sin.

2) in this way, death came to all people, because all have sinned.

3) Christ came to redeem us from sin, so that we may have everlasting life.


If one of those isn't literal, then how can any of them be?

Philip: "Christ does seem to refer to [Adam] as a literal, historical person..."
Hugh: "Where?"
Philip: "Luke says..."

Actually the Gospels do not record that Christ ever referred to Adam at all, do they?

Well, there was no harm in your trying, but the fact is that I do not accept your biblical exegesis. I was brought up in a Benedictine monastery school, where we were encouraged to read the bible as carefully as no doubt you do, to make up our minds as no doubt you have, and to compare our conclusions with those of the previous and present teachings of the fathers of the church. You see, in the Catholic tradition, following one's own interpretation without reference to the corpus of Catholic teaching could easily result in innocently false conclusions, and to claim that it couldn't is a prime example of the sin of pride. The Catholic church does not believe in the primacy of individual conscience (that is the easiest way to justify serious crime or grave sin, that one sincerely believed in what one was doing), but specifically requires that that conscience be 'informed', and by more than personal study. When Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst" he really was encouraging a collective understanding of his message. When you say "To do away with a real Adam & Eve, you must understand that you are dismissing a key and foundational teaching of Scripture, of sin entering the world, of our INHERITED sin nature (prolifically stated)", you are expressing a personal opinion. You may be right. But I disagree, and unless you can demonstrate by evidence other than your own interpretation that you are right, you are unlikely to persuade me towards your way of thinking. When you say that I "allow His word to become riddled with fairy tales" you ignore my specific and repeated denial that I think the bible contains fairy tales. You conclude with a series of heartfelt questions beginning with 'Why', which, although I could respond to, I won't, because there's no point. If you want to understand Catholic theology, talk to a Catholic priest.

RickD, you need to consult a dictionary about the meaning of 'heresy'. It certainly does not mean disagreeing with you or Philip.

You also make the same mistake as Philip, assuming that because I reject this or that (usually scientific or historical) as being literally true, that therefore I must reject everything else as well. The three statements you presented are qualitatively different, and can be interpreted qualitatively differently.

This thread began by inquiring how God could create through evolution, and I think I have responded in detail, both scientifically and theologically, although for a better theological explanation you would be better off consulting a theologian. You will find Pope Benedict XVI's sermons in "In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall" much better than mine.

hughfarey wrote:Philip: "Christ does seem to refer to [Adam] as a literal, historical person..."
Hugh: "Where?"
Philip: "Luke says..."

Actually the Gospels do not record that Christ ever referred to Adam at all, do they?

Well, there was no harm in your trying, but the fact is that I do not accept your biblical exegesis. I was brought up in a Benedictine monastery school, where we were encouraged to read the bible as carefully as no doubt you do, to make up our minds as no doubt you have, and to compare our conclusions with those of the previous and present teachings of the fathers of the church. You see, in the Catholic tradition, following one's own interpretation without reference to the corpus of Catholic teaching could easily result in innocently false conclusions, and to claim that it couldn't is a prime example of the sin of pride. The Catholic church does not believe in the primacy of individual conscience (that is the easiest way to justify serious crime or grave sin, that one sincerely believed in what one was doing), but specifically requires that that conscience be 'informed', and by more than personal study. When Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst" he really was encouraging a collective understanding of his message. When you say "To do away with a real Adam & Eve, you must understand that you are dismissing a key and foundational teaching of Scripture, of sin entering the world, of our INHERITED sin nature (prolifically stated)", you are expressing a personal opinion. You may be right. But I disagree, and unless you can demonstrate by evidence other than your own interpretation that you are right, you are unlikely to persuade me towards your way of thinking. When you say that I "allow His word to become riddled with fairy tales" you ignore my specific and repeated denial that I think the bible contains fairy tales. You conclude with a series of heartfelt questions beginning with 'Why', which, although I could respond to, I won't, because there's no point. If you want to understand Catholic theology, talk to a Catholic priest.

RickD, you need to consult a dictionary about the meaning of 'heresy'. It certainly does not mean disagreeing with you or Philip.

You also make the same mistake as Philip, assuming that because I reject this or that (usually scientific or historical) as being literally true, that therefore I must reject everything else as well. The three statements you presented are qualitatively different, and can be interpreted qualitatively differently.

This thread began by inquiring how God could create through evolution, and I think I have responded in detail, both scientifically and theologically, although for a better theological explanation you would be better off consulting a theologian. You will find Pope Benedict XVI's sermons in "In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall" much better than mine.

What would you say if oneday the theory of evolution was falsified and a new theory took its place?Like the Big Bang theory replacing the Steady State theory? Also how do you overlook that you can explain how evolution happens but cannot demonstrate it happens in a lab? How do you know life evolves enoug to where you would even entertain the idea to try to make evolution fit into your interpretation? You don't even know if life evolves for sure,you just belive it based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence that in no way demonstrates life evolves.

1) I would be perfectly content. Evolution is the best explanation for the development of life so far; if a better explanation emerges, then I would adopt that. Science is not about ultimate truth, but a ever-closer modelling of truth. Perhaps some of it is exactly correct, and some of it will turn out to be quite wrong, but we can only make the best we can of the evidence.

2) The Big Bang did not replace the Steady State theory. Both hypotheses vied for acceptance for a while, until the weight of evidence persuaded most people that the Big Bang provided the better explanation for the universe as we see it.

3) I do not overlook the fact that speciation is difficult to demonstrate in a laboratory. How I wish it was easier.

4) "How do you know life evolves enough to where you would even entertain the idea to try to make evolution fit into your interpretation? " I'm sorry; I've no idea what this means.

5) Of course I don't know for sure if live evolves. I never said I did. I said that evolution provides the best explanation so far derived for life as we see it on earth.

6) The bunch of circumstantial evidence provides a most clear and effective demonstration of evolution.

Now, what would you do if one day the Gospels were shown to have been entirely made up by a group of Greek theologians in the late 1st century, and that Christ had never existed at all? It's all right, I don't really want to know the answer, I just wondered whether you ever consider the point of all your questions.

hugh wrote:
RickD, you need to consult a dictionary about the meaning of 'heresy'. It certainly does not mean disagreeing with you or Philip.

I know what heresy is. It's a belief contrary to orthodox Christian doctrine. And the example I gave was certainly contrary to orthodox doctrine. I never said that if someone disagrees with me, they believe heresy.

You also make the same mistake as Philip, assuming that because I reject this or that (usually scientific or historical) as being literally true, that therefore I must reject everything else as well. The three statements you presented are qualitatively different, and can be interpreted qualitatively differently

You need to reread what I wrote. I never said nor assumed that because you don't believe in a literal Adam, that means you reject a literal Christ. I'm ASKING how you can believe in literal sin, and literal Christ, if you don't believe in a literal Adam. Asking means that I'm trying to find out why you can believe in one but not the other. What hermeneutic are you using? What basis do you have for calling Christ literal, but not Adam? I'm trying to understand your position, because to me, it's not consistent. And if you explain it, I may see that I'm missing something that I hadn't considered.

I'm not looking for you to interpret scripture as I do(literally). I'm just looking for something consistent, in the way you interpret. Understand?

hughfarey wrote:1) I would be perfectly content. Evolution is the best explanation for the development of life so far; if a better explanation emerges, then I would adopt that. Science is not about ultimate truth, but a ever-closer modelling of truth. Perhaps some of it is exactly correct, and some of it will turn out to be quite wrong, but we can only make the best we can of the evidence.

2) The Big Bang did not replace the Steady State theory. Both hypotheses vied for acceptance for a while, until the weight of evidence persuaded most people that the Big Bang provided the better explanation for the universe as we see it.

3) I do not overlook the fact that speciation is difficult to demonstrate in a laboratory. How I wish it was easier.

4) "How do you know life evolves enough to where you would even entertain the idea to try to make evolution fit into your interpretation? " I'm sorry; I've no idea what this means.

5) Of course I don't know for sure if live evolves. I never said I did. I said that evolution provides the best explanation so far derived for life as we see it on earth.

6) The bunch of circumstantial evidence provides a most clear and effective demonstration of evolution.

Now, what would you do if one day the Gospels were shown to have been entirely made up by a group of Greek theologians in the late 1st century, and that Christ had never existed at all? It's all right, I don't really want to know the answer, I just wondered whether you ever consider the point of all your questions.

Based on what you have said it is faith science to you,you just believe it.scientists have done many experiments trying to demonstrate life evolves. I brought up fruit flies earlier and yet no evolution,no new species emerged and it is the same with all other experiments scientists have done. The only thing scientists have demonstrated in a lab is that there is variation in reproduction and that life can adapt and from this evidence they must assume life evolves.The cart is before the horse. How can scientists continue on upholding the theory of evolution,piling up more circumstantial evidence around it when they don't even know if life evolves?
The scientific method requires a theory to do two things.
1.Give a plausible explanation of an important phenomenon.
2.Provide the basis for logical predictions,sometimes called "hypotheses",that can then be tested by experiment to find out if the theory is correct in its implications.

Scientific hypotheses normally concern the future suggesting that if the theory is correct and we were to do this,then that should happen as a result.Formulating a hypotheses makes it possible to design experiements that can be carried out to validate the theory.

This has been forgotten when it comes to the theory of evolution. I don't know if is government grants or what but science has lost its way when it comes to the theory of evolution.Such experiments could be devised for the theory of evolution,if only we had enough time to see them through and even after tinkering with time and coming up with punctuated equilibriam,it makes no difference we still don't have enough time. But yet,it is true,trust us. No pun intended.

RickD wrote:I know what heresy is. It's a belief contrary to orthodox Christian doctrine."

Orthodox. Another word to look up. Is it 'orthodox Christian doctrine' to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? Is it orthodox Christian doctrine to believe that man was created twice, independently? Is it orthodox Christian doctrine to believe in a literal global flood, or that angels mated with women? Let me answer my own questions. No, no, no and no. As it happens, my beliefs, all of them, are entirely in concord with the teaching of the Catholic church, and you can't get more orthodox than that (unless you mean Orthodox, which would be a whole new kettle of fish). So that's OK. See below.

I'm sorry you didn't pick up my reply as to how I can believe in a literal Jesus but not in a literal Adam. It's a few posts back, at Sat May 07, 2016 4:47 pm. It goes like this:

"There are those who think Christ is a fictional personification of a foundation for a set of beliefs rather than an actual person but I am not one of them. I think the Gospels' rapid appearance after his death and the concurrent spread of Christianity are sufficient evidence of a real person. On the other hand, the earliest people developed thousands of years before writing was invented, and, indeed, before any evidence of oral tradition, so the idea that anybody writing in 4000BC would know that a couple of them happened to be named after the Hebrew words Adam and Eve seems inherently unlikely. Even if those weren't their actual names (after all Jesus wasn't called Jesus either, was he?), 'Adam' is often taken to be a generic term for the 'first man', although Genesis 1 does not specify how many there were of 'man' when "male and female he created them". If Genesis 2 means that another, independently created man, called Adam, was placed in the Garden (not a paleolithic context, if I may say so), and that Eve was formed from one of his ribs, then I think we get into all sorts of difficulties about talking snakes, and the problem of what happened to all the other people made in Genesis 1. The emergence of modern 'man', as opposed to other hominids, included the emergence of self-consciousness, and the possibility of his deliberately doing something which he knew was wrong, or sin, which does not seem possible in creatures with less introspective capabilities. Of course, the possibility of doing something wrong does not, of itself, mean that sin was inevitable, but sure enough, along it came, along with all those feelings of responsibility, guilt, shame, and so on which appear to have blighted humanity since. I think Christ's doctrine of repentance should probably be seen in this light."

Incidentally, this view is contradictory to Pope Pius XII's encyclical 'Humani generis', which is often taken, by non-Catholics, to be the last word in Catholic doctrine. But that was in 1950. In 1996 Pope John Paul II accepted that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", and in 2004, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) endorsed the findings of the International Theological Commission, of which he was President, that Adam was the symbol of the original unity of the human race. This is orthodox Christianity, or I don't know what is.

Thanks Hugh.

That's what I was looking for. To find out about what you believe. Now we're moving along.

If "Adam' is often taken to be a generic term for the 'first man", then how does that fit with the genealogy as in Luke 3:23-38? That's what I'm saying about Adam being spoken of as a literal, historical person.


And again,

Please don't read into this anything more than me just trying to find out what you believe in regards to evolution, and how it makes sense in light of scripture. I'm not trying to argue against it. I'm trying to ask, to understand.

Orthodox Christian doctrine does not view the genealogies of either of the evangelists as literally true. Given an average age of paternity as fifty, which is generous, both Matthew and Luke would place the birth of Abraham between 2000BC and 3000BC, which is perhaps not irreconcilable with history, as modern scholarship puts the Abrahamic tradition dating back to the first or second millennium. However, Luke goes on to quote the Old Testament tradition, which no doubt he believed implicitly, that the first man was only created twenty generations before Abraham, which orthodox Christian doctrine no longer accepts as literally credible, even allowing for each generation being hundreds of years long, which, however, is also not orthodox Christian doctrine.

It is, however, a truism that everybody alive today is descended from the small group of people emerging from a speciation event say half a million years ago, quite possibly numbering fewer than a hundred or so. Any or all of them can be called the "man" of Genesis 1, or Adam, as the word appears in Hebrew, which is plural noun, specifically including males and females. In this light it is perfectly true that we are all descended from all these people, so whether you choose to call all of them, or only one particular one, Adam, makes no difference to the validity of the claim.

hughfarey wrote:

RickD wrote:I know what heresy is. It's a belief contrary to orthodox Christian doctrine."

Orthodox. Another word to look up. Is it 'orthodox Christian doctrine' to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? Is it orthodox Christian doctrine to believe that man was created twice, independently? Is it orthodox Christian doctrine to believe in a literal global flood, or that angels mated with women? Let me answer my own questions. No, no, no and no. As it happens, my beliefs, all of them, are entirely in concord with the teaching of the Catholic church, and you can't get more orthodox than that (unless you mean Orthodox, which would be a whole new kettle of fish). So that's OK. See below.

I'm sorry you didn't pick up my reply as to how I can believe in a literal Jesus but not in a literal Adam. It's a few posts back, at Sat May 07, 2016 4:47 pm. It goes like this:

"There are those who think Christ is a fictional personification of a foundation for a set of beliefs rather than an actual person but I am not one of them. I think the Gospels' rapid appearance after his death and the concurrent spread of Christianity are sufficient evidence of a real person. On the other hand, the earliest people developed thousands of years before writing was invented, and, indeed, before any evidence of oral tradition, so the idea that anybody writing in 4000BC would know that a couple of them happened to be named after the Hebrew words Adam and Eve seems inherently unlikely. Even if those weren't their actual names (after all Jesus wasn't called Jesus either, was he?), 'Adam' is often taken to be a generic term for the 'first man', although Genesis 1 does not specify how many there were of 'man' when "male and female he created them". If Genesis 2 means that another, independently created man, called Adam, was placed in the Garden (not a paleolithic context, if I may say so), and that Eve was formed from one of his ribs, then I think we get into all sorts of difficulties about talking snakes, and the problem of what happened to all the other people made in Genesis 1. The emergence of modern 'man', as opposed to other hominids, included the emergence of self-consciousness, and the possibility of his deliberately doing something which he knew was wrong, or sin, which does not seem possible in creatures with less introspective capabilities. Of course, the possibility of doing something wrong does not, of itself, mean that sin was inevitable, but sure enough, along it came, along with all those feelings of responsibility, guilt, shame, and so on which appear to have blighted humanity since. I think Christ's doctrine of repentance should probably be seen in this light."

Incidentally, this view is contradictory to Pope Pius XII's encyclical 'Humani generis', which is often taken, by non-Catholics, to be the last word in Catholic doctrine. But that was in 1950. In 1996 Pope John Paul II accepted that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", and in 2004, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) endorsed the findings of the International Theological Commission, of which he was President, that Adam was the symbol of the original unity of the human race. This is orthodox Christianity, or I don't know what is.

Hugh as one Catholic to another how do you explain the large amount of atheists on the pontifical Academy of Sciences .
Now I don't endorse everything that Robert sungenis says I do find this part interesting .

http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/u ... heists.pdf

The pope never spone ex cathedra when he endorsed evolution so I'm
It required to believe it .

hugh -- back tracking to May 7 th -- between you and Philip concerning book of Luke -- it's towards the end of the 3rd chapter.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has the task of ensuring that "Science, when it is real cognition, is never in contrast with the truth of the Christian faith". As such, the most eminent Scientists of the world are asked to contribute their findings and ideas to it. The Scientists can be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, or of any other religious persuasion; the Church wants to know about their science, not their personal convictions. Furthermore, the Church, like all good Scientists, does not hold that any current scientific explanation of the universe is "true". They are merely the best we have come up with so far. However, the Church is also not so arrogant as to declare that any scientific explanation is "false", except insofar as it is a religious rather than a scientific one.

Maciej Giertych and Robert Sungenis are fairly extreme creationists, and as such their proselytising falls well outside the realm of orthodox Catholic doctrine. As creationists, their principle arguments are almost entirely biblical, and their scientific objections to evolution have been (and are still being) thoroughly explored in mainstream science, the findings being published in mainstream science journals. I cannot judge the merits of Giertych's booklet, but I have little doubt that none of the Scientists or the Religious at the conference he attended could have given much credence to any of it. If anyone can provide an online link I'll be happy to attempt to justify this speculation.

It took me a while to work this out: "The pope never spone ex cathedra when he endorsed evolution so I'm
It required to believe it", but I think I've got it. You are not required to believe in evolution. Quite so. And I am not required to believe in the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the order or creation as listed in Genesis and so on. However, I wouldn't judge what you are required to believe wholly on what has been published ex cathedra. There have only been two ex cathedra proclamations in the history of the Church, both so obscurely theological as to admit of a variety of interpretations, literal and figurative. Neither of them are biblical, but confirmations of church tradition.

As to what you are required to believe, you will find it extremely difficult to track down specifically. Fortunately, simply and extremely conveniently, the Creed gives the best guidance. Of course, that needs to be interpreted as well...

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.