Can Darwin and Eden coexist?

I went to a local Catholic church on Sunday evening for a presentation on Catholic doctrine and evolution. The speaker stated that the Catholic church neither actively opposes nor actively favors creationism (officially). He said that upwards of 95% of all Catholic scientists accept the scientific theory of evolution.

His two main points for the evening were that in Catholic Doctrine:

1. God created everything, in some manner that science can investigate and discover.

2. Adam and Eve were historical individuals and the ancestors of all of us.

That's as close as I can remember to exactly what he said. Point #1 is unremarkable. Point #2 contains scientific implications that only became obvious in the last couple of decades. His source for #2 was a Papal Encyclical from Pope Pius in 1950.

The speaker certainly allowed that Adam and Eve were products of biological evolution from pre-existing hominids - he did not have any problem with that. He also did not mind that there were other hominids around at the time of the Garden of Eden. #2 does not strictly require a DNA genetic bottleneck, merely that after N generations A&E's ancestry has to spread out through the entire population.

The discussion time did not get around to the difficulties with #2. I think the implication was that Adam & Eve are the biological ancestors of all living humans. That specification has to put them before roughly 50,000 BC in order for them to be ancestors of the Australian Aborigines. I wonder if Pope Pius thought of that?

By the way, a friend of mine is very proud and happy that Brian Eisenback was hired, and considers the complaining about him by Ken Ham to be a favorable recommendation.

Catholic doctrine doesn't just require Adam and Eve to be among the ancestors of all living people. They have to be the exclusive ancestors. In other words, yes, it does require a bottleneck.

Well, there is an alternative: Adam and Eve's genes could gradually replace all other genes in the population until none of the other people around at that time have any remaining contribution. But that would look just like a bottleneck as far as any genetic data could show, so it's just as impossible to fit to reality. The genetic data show that at no time was there a population in the human lineage below 10,000 that contributed genetic material to the current population.

A fallback position is that there is something like an "original sin" or "soul" allele, and this is all that is required to become fixed, with other parts of the genome irrelevant. But there are difficulties with that notion too, as you can probably figure on your own.

And the DI isn't protesting that they should teach the controversy at Bryan College?

Well, at least they'll always care about teaching "both sides" as long as only science is being taught.

Glen Davidson

What President "Deep Throat" Lovelace noted was that words that he doesn't understand tumble frequently out of his pie hole.

Having not suffered any flack in a few days let me ask the question about Bryan College: who cares?

This college is a roadside stop for homeschooled Bible thumpers on their way to careers in the service industry. The entire enterprise could fold up and nobody would notice. Even for those of us who are fond of creationist entertainment there's not much to this story. I hate to admit it but it's stories like this that make me miss old FL!

Floyd, come back, Floyd!

Doc Bill said: Floyd, come back, Floyd!

The speaker certainly allowed that Adam and Eve were products of biological evolution from pre-existing hominids - he did not have any problem with that.

Doc Bill said: What President "Deep Throat" Lovelace noted was that words that he doesn't understand tumble frequently out of his pie hole. Having not suffered any flack in a few days let me ask the question about Bryan College: who cares? This college is a roadside stop for homeschooled Bible thumpers on their way to careers in the service industry. The entire enterprise could fold up and nobody would notice. Even for those of us who are fond of creationist entertainment there's not much to this story. I hate to admit it but it's stories like this that make me miss old FL! Floyd, come back, Floyd!

Um, there's a missing "be" in there. Oh well.

Glen Davidson

Does the Catholic Church need Adam and Eve to be genealogical ancestors of us all? Or must we also all have genes from them? If so, which loci? We have an awful lot of ancestors who are in our genealogy but who we inherited no genes from.

Would it be sufficient to have inherited one locus, say the Malate dehydrogenase enzyme (EC 1.1.1.37) (MDH), from Adam and Eve? Must one of our two copies come from Adam and the other from Eve?

This is really leading to all sorts of interesting scientific questions! But first we need the theologians to provide the detailed requirements.

As a private college I suppose they can hold whatever doctrines they want. However, if they try teaching biology without evolution they are going to be in a world of hurt. They can ignore reality and science if they choose, but there will be consequences and repercussions. How is their program accredited? Who is going to be reviewing the program? What if their degree is not recognized by graduate schools and other institutions?

Congratulations to Brian for standing up for science in the face of religious ignorance and bigotry.

Apparently the speaker at the presentation, did not. Nobody can.

FL said:

The speaker certainly allowed that Adam and Eve were products of biological evolution from pre-existing hominids - he did not have any problem with that.

So if I may ask, did the speaker explain specifically how he reconciled his stated belief with...

Joe Felsenstein said: Does the Catholic Church need Adam and Eve to be genealogical ancestors of us all?

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 either that 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]

But first we need the theologians to provide the detailed requirements.

Joe Felsenstein said: Does the Catholic Church need Adam and Eve to be genealogical ancestors of us all? Or must we also all have genes from them? If so, which loci? We have an awful lot of ancestors who are in our genealogy but who we inherited no genes from. Would it be sufficient to have inherited one locus, say the Malate dehydrogenase enzyme (EC 1.1.1.37) (MDH), from Adam and Eve? Must one of our two copies come from Adam and the other from Eve? This is really leading to all sorts of interesting scientific questions! But first we need the theologians to provide the detailed requirements.

eric said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Does the Catholic Church need Adam and Eve to be genealogical ancestors of us all?

Evidently yes. Don't ask me why they need it to be this way, I don't know, but apparently they do. Here's the relevant section from Pius' Humani Generis, with bold added by me:

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 either that 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]

Back to Joe:

But first we need the theologians to provide the detailed requirements.

Well, at least for the RCC, they've given pretty detailed requirements. Nobody after Adam and Eve could be descended from anyone else, and "Adam and Eve" do not represent a group of people.

eric said: Here's the relevant section from Pius' Humani Generis, with bold added by me:

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 either that 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]

DS said: Well then their hypothesis is falsified. That was easy. Next.

I'm not a biologist like some of the assembled Pandati, but I did see the Adam and Eve point come up on the screen last Sunday night and I immediately knew it was going to be trouble. The audience was more concerned about being tagged as creationists just because they are Catholic, and how to correct that impression.

John Harshman said: Catholic doctrine doesn't just require Adam and Eve to be among the ancestors of all living people. They have to be the exclusive ancestors. In other words, yes, it does require a bottleneck. Well, there is an alternative: Adam and Eve's genes could gradually replace all other genes in the population until none of the other people around at that time have any remaining contribution. But that would look just like a bottleneck as far as any genetic data could show, so it's just as impossible to fit to reality. The genetic data show that at no time was there a population in the human lineage below 10,000 that contributed genetic material to the current population. A fallback position is that there is something like an "original sin" or "soul" allele, and this is all that is required to become fixed, with other parts of the genome irrelevant. But there are difficulties with that notion too, as you can probably figure on your own.

Doc Bill said: What President "Deep Throat" Lovelace noted was that words that he doesn't understand tumble frequently out of his pie hole. Having not suffered any flack in a few days let me ask the question about Bryan College: who cares? This college is a roadside stop for homeschooled Bible thumpers on their way to careers in the service industry. The entire enterprise could fold up and nobody would notice. Even for those of us who are fond of creationist entertainment there's not much to this story. I hate to admit it but it's stories like this that make me miss old FL! Floyd, come back, Floyd!

More like the disservice industry.

Daddy sang bass,

Mama sang tenor.

...

One of these days and it won't be long,

I'll rejoin them in a song.

I'm gonna join the family circle at the Throne.

Carl Drews said: ... Okay, forget the genes for a moment and look at exactly what Pius said. "True manity" descends from Adam & Eve. ... The RCC is stuck with "true manity" being conferred by mating with certain geneaologies, which is kind of weird to say the least. "True manity" is a cone of descent through time. Cain's wife is not a "true (wo)man", but their children are. I'm not Catholic, by the way.

I actually think that Humani Generis was intended to convey the bottleneck scenario. But never mind. The important question is what part of the genome is linked to the soul. Souls presumably are highly advantageous, as they became fixed rather quickly in the population.

How does one distinguish a human without a soul from a true human with one? Would a person with a soul actually want to marry one without one? Would it be like marrying a zombie, except for the smell and the brain-eating?

There really are a lot of scientific questions to discuss with the church.

John Harshman said: I actually think that Humani Generis was intended to convey the bottleneck scenario. But never mind. The important question is what part of the genome is linked to the soul. Souls presumably are highly advantageous, as they became fixed rather quickly in the population. How does one distinguish a human without a soul from a true human with one? Would a person with a soul actually want to marry one without one? Would it be like marrying a zombie, except for the smell and the brain-eating? There really are a lot of scientific questions to discuss with the church.

Keelyn said: ... Homo sapiens is just the latest (but hopefully not the last) in a long line of evolutionary progression.

I trust that I am not the only one who finds that allusion ("it's in our DNA") uproariously funny.

— Matt Young

If that isn't enough irony already, I should acknowledge that I borrowed the phrase "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" from Pope John Paul II, who used it to describe the evidence for evolution, and in particular, how he was impressed with it, and apparently aware that "creationism" does nothing but "seek and fabricate" and still cannot manage anything but comically divergent accounts, much less anything resembling a theory.

prongs said:

Keelyn said: ... Homo sapiens is just the latest (but hopefully not the last) in a long line of evolutionary progression.

Keelyn, I have this wonderful analogy. I know, I know, analogy never convinced anyone. But for those who already perceive the truth, an analogy is like a sweet dessert. Consider the present-day Romance languages - Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Romanian, and all their local varieties and dialects. All of them, yes all, are the direct genetic descendants of Latin, the language of the Roman civilization (roughly 500BC - 500AD). Now granted, in its day Latin was not one monolithic language, but it was the language of Rome. A few genes crossbred in, here and there contributing to divergence, but the common ancestor is Latin. If I didn't know this, and if you told me these very different modern day languages all had a common ancestor, I'd say you were crazy. No way! Not possible! It's against all reason, all common sense, and all religion. Fifteen hundred years isn't enough time for a common ancestor to produce these different offspring. (You'd need 'deep time', but the Earth is only 6,000 years old!) Same with the various and sundry modern day species that inhabit planet Earth. They are so different, just like the different Romance languages, that I just can't believe they all have a common ancestor. It's against all reason, all common sense, and all religion. And that's how it will stay, as long as a mind refuses to think and reason.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink. (But did you know that already?)

OMG! I can summon The Floyd?

Bar the doors, Ma, the exorcists are a-commin'!

Most exalted Floyd, granter of the impossible, numbest of skulls, please hear my petition for a 2014 Corvette Stingray C7, blue. Automatic is fine. Deliver to BR-549.

Thank you and praise be to the Floyd!

Glen D said: Um, there's a missing "be" in there. Oh well.

Doc Bill said: OMG! I can summon The Floyd? Bar the doors, Ma, the exorcists are a-commin'!

Gee, Floyd, I don't seem to making any friends over on your blog. The heartache is just "killing" me.

Keelyn, I have this wonderful analogy. I know, I know, analogy never convinced anyone. But for those who already perceive the truth, an analogy is like a sweet dessert.

— prongs

Except if you are Adam and Eve. Their biological parents did not have a soul it seems.

"In plain language, (according to Pope John Paul II), there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage.” "When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Between ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?"

"You Can't Have It Both Ways."

"Consequently, theories of evolution which ... consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

FL said: Muttabuttasaurus said,

Except if you are Adam and Eve. Their biological parents did not have a soul it seems.

And just that quickly, just by a simple rational statement from an anonymous Panda, the evolutionary answer to the thread-topic question "Can Darwin and Eden co-exist?" is demonstated, is in fact proven, to be a big, inescapable "No." In fact, Panda evolutionists say that (according to evolution) there was no original Adam and Eve at all in actual history, is that right? That alone would be sufficient to answer the thread-topic question with a full, all-out, no-exceptions No.

Isn't it true that you Pandas say that the immaterial human mind is simply an "emergent" evolutionary property of the material brain? Yes? Well, THAT would create a direct clash with what Pope John Paul II said when he supposedly endorsed evolution:

"Consequently, theories of evolution which ... consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

Evolutionist Gert Korthof points out in the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" that you MUST accept that humans specifically originated via naturalistic evolution (the ToE). If you do not accept that, you ARE actually rejecting the Theory of Evolution itself.

david points out the cackhanded idiocy of the FL argument: And, hilariously, you accept Gert Korthof’s authority on this philosophical point because it agrees with your prejudices, but reject his expertise in biology. Even though he’s a biologist and not a philosopher.

david.starling.macmillan said: Because just as there's no way God could use thermodynamics and energy to create the diversity of life, there's also clearly no way God could use emergent properties of a material brain to create consciousness.

FL said: Also, evolutionist Gert Korthof points out in the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" that you MUST accept that humans specifically originated via naturalistic evolution (the ToE). If you do not accept that, you ARE actually rejecting the Theory of Evolution itself.

Joe Felsenstein said: So one doesn't, in their view, need any particular part of the genome passed on to be adequately descended from Adam and Eve. Strange, and too bad. I was looking forward to careful genetic studies leading us to discover what part(s) of the genome were the bearers of the Original Sin.

45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt. 50 Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph. Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore them to him. 51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house.” 52 The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

Why the big problem with evolution?

From when it was first announced with convincing evidence, even though Darwin made a point of not dwelling on the evolutionary origins of the human species, people equated evolution with "we are descended from monkeys". And they didn't like that.

I suggest that all of the other arguments against evolution - whether manufacturing Bible proof-texts, or denying the (non-existent account) of the evolutionary origins of first life on Earth, or bringing up bacteria flagella - are dog-whistle language for "my ancestors didn't hang by their tails from trees". (BTW, among the Primates, only New World monkeys have prehensile tails, so you don't to worry about that.)

John Harshman said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Because just as there's no way God could use thermodynamics and energy to create the diversity of life, there's also clearly no way God could use emergent properties of a material brain to create consciousness.

Yes, he could do that in exactly the same way I use clouds to create rain, or plants in my garden to make flowers. Or how I make any process happen in exactly the way it would if I didn't exist, by doing nothing whatsoever. Is that what you mean?

phhht said: And it cannot be the fact that the ToE contradicts your book of fairy stories. The bible is contradicted in a million ways by reality: not only are Adam and Eve fictional, but so is Noah's flood, so is immaculate conception, so is your activist corpse god, so it the age of the earth, etc. ad nauseam.

Carl Drews said: There are other interesting parts of the Bible besides Genesis 1-11. Genesis 41 reports that Joseph married an Egyptian woman and had two children by her:

45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt. 50 Before the year of famine came, two sons were born to Joseph. Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, bore them to him. 51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house.” 52 The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

Those two sons became the Israelite tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. Those tribes are genetically half Egyptian from that point onward (marrying mostly within the tribe and clan). Let's say this all happened in about 1500 BC. At 25 years per generation, there would be 140 generations since then. Hypothesis: That account really happened, pretty much as described. Test: Is there a way to identify modern people of Jewish descent from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim? Do those tribes have some Egyptian genetic marker that the other tribes (Judah, Benjamin, etc.) do not have? If Vanessa Williams has ancestry from Finland, why not Manesseh and Ephraim from Egypt?

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: And it cannot be the fact that the ToE contradicts your book of fairy stories. The bible is contradicted in a million ways by reality: not only are Adam and Eve fictional, but so is Noah's flood, so is immaculate conception, so is your activist corpse god, so it the age of the earth, etc. ad nauseam.

Apart from pointing out that the historicity of Adam and of the Flood and a young age of the Earth are fundamentalist readings of the Bible, not the Bible itself...immaculate conception isn't contradicted by science. Immaculate conception is a theological notion dealing with Mary's parents and has nothing to do with the virgin birth.

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

...which means that theology is as realistic as arguments about whether Jonathan and Martha Kent were secret agents of the Topeka mole men.

Why is the ToE such a big problem for you, FL? Is it because it requires no gods to work?

FL said: How can "Darwin and Eden co-exist" when the ToE specifically claims that no gods are required at any point of the evolutionary process, but the Bible, the 1950 Catholic Encyclical, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict all say that the Bible's God IS required at one point of the process, the highest point, viz., the origin of the first humans?

FL said: Phhht says,

Why is the ToE such a big problem for you, FL? Is it because it requires no gods to work?

Plus, it is university-textbook-taught that there is No Teleology No Conscious Forethought at ANY point of the evolutionary process on Earth. No exceptions. Including the point where humans first originated. NT-NCF at all points.

How can "Darwin and Eden co-exist" when the ToE specifically claims that no gods are required at any point of the evolutionary process....

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

So am I to presume you subscribe to the Jesus-myth hypothesis?

...which means that theology is as realistic as arguments about whether Jonathan and Martha Kent were secret agents of the Topeka mole men.

Be that as it may (or not), it's still a mistake (albeit a common and forgivable one) to think that "Immaculate Conception" has anything to do one way or the other with claims about physical reality.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

So am I to presume you subscribe to the Jesus-myth hypothesis?

I don't know what you mean. That the bible tells of a man named Jesus is of no more importance than that The Philosopher's Stone tells of a boy named Harry.

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

So am I to presume you subscribe to the Jesus-myth hypothesis?

I don't know what you mean. That the bible tells of a man named Jesus is of no more importance than that The Philosopher's Stone tells of a boy named Harry.

Surely you must recognize the clear challengeability of such a statement. The historicity of Jesus is by no means without ample scholarly support, let alone an impossibility. You can suggest that Jesus-myth is possible, and even argue that it is probable, but it's far from established fact.

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

So am I to presume you subscribe to the Jesus-myth hypothesis?

I don't know what you mean. That the bible tells of a man named Jesus is of no more importance than that The Philosopher's Stone tells of a boy named Harry.

Surely you must recognize the clear challengeability of such a statement. The historicity of Jesus is by no means without ample scholarly support, let alone an impossibility. You can suggest that Jesus-myth is possible, and even argue that it is probable, but it's far from established fact.

Could you clarify exactly what you think I am saying? I am at a loss to reply without knowing that.

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: The only reading of the bible which does not contradict reality is as mythical fiction...

So am I to presume you subscribe to the Jesus-myth hypothesis?

I don't know what you mean. That the bible tells of a man named Jesus is of no more importance than that The Philosopher's Stone tells of a boy named Harry.

Surely you must recognize the clear challengeability of such a statement. The historicity of Jesus is by no means without ample scholarly support, let alone an impossibility. You can suggest that Jesus-myth is possible, and even argue that it is probable, but it's far from established fact.

Could you clarify exactly what you think I am saying? I am at a loss to reply without knowing that.

It seemed (though if I am wrong, I sincerely apologize) you were saying that none of the narratives in the Bible were anything more than fictive myth.

phhht said: No, I am quite prepared to accept that the bible appropriates aspects of reality in telling its fictional story. So does virtually all fiction, including mythical fiction. But such use has no probative bearing on the reality of the claims of the myth. For example, the fact that there were men named Jesus lends no weight to a tale of miraculous corpse reanimation. But surely I have misunderstood you. I doubt that that is the point you are making.

david.starling.macmillan said:

phhht said: No, I am quite prepared to accept that the bible appropriates aspects of reality in telling its fictional story. So does virtually all fiction, including mythical fiction. But such use has no probative bearing on the reality of the claims of the myth. For example, the fact that there were men named Jesus lends no weight to a tale of miraculous corpse reanimation. But surely I have misunderstood you. I doubt that that is the point you are making.

I suppose I'm asking whether you think the Gospels are primarily fictive -- wholly invented myth with no resemblance or basis in historical events beyond, say, The Sorcerer's Stone -- or edited-and-dramatized syntheses of remembered events with myth and fiction mixed in. Precise lines may vary, but I'm sure you could come down broadly on one side or the other. I personally think both are possible, though I obviously find the latter much more probable.

And here, at it's most simple basic form, we see an actual "discussion", a give and take of ideas. "Did you mean this?" "Maybe I misunderstood. Could you clarify?" "Let's first try to agree on our terminology."

Few, if any, such discussions occur with Creationists. They simply cannot elaborate on their own talking points, except to repeat themselves, dd nauseam.

Despite years here, I don't recall ever seeing any interaction between our resident trolls, even when they obviously disagree with each other.

"Ad nauseum".

I believe that David's distinction is between:

1) There really was a radical Jewish teacher named Jesus, who had some followers, and probably annoyed the rabbinical hierarchy of his day. His followers later embellished their stories surrounding his "ministry".

versus

2) There really was never an actual person named Jesus. Paul just made it all up out of whole cloth (or shroud).

Scenario 2) obviously applies to a boy-wizard named Harry. Scenario 1) is more likely to apply to a desert shepherd and merchant named Mohammed, for example.

Scott F said: I believe that David's distinction is between: 1) There really was a radical Jewish teacher named Jesus, who had some followers, and probably annoyed the rabbinical hierarchy of his day. His followers later embellished their stories surrounding his "ministry". versus 2) There really was never an actual person named Jesus. Paul just made it all up out of whole cloth (or shroud). Scenario 2) obviously applies to a boy-wizard named Harry. Scenario 1) is more likely to apply to a desert shepherd and merchant named Mohammed, for example.

phhht said: I cannot think of any fiction I have ever read which was not a mixture of invention and memory, including the bible, The Sorcerer's Stone and Altered Carbon.

phhht said:

Scott F said: I believe that David's distinction is between: 1) There really was a radical Jewish teacher named Jesus, who had some followers, and probably annoyed the rabbinical hierarchy of his day. His followers later embellished their stories surrounding his "ministry". versus 2) There really was never an actual person named Jesus. Paul just made it all up out of whole cloth (or shroud). Scenario 2) obviously applies to a boy-wizard named Harry. Scenario 1) is more likely to apply to a desert shepherd and merchant named Mohammed, for example.

I have to say I just don't know. After all, Harry Potter is chock full of depictions of reality. He is NOT just made up out of whole cloth. We know this because he is so recognizably boy-like. I see no reason to believe that he is any more or any less fictional than the putative shepherd of the bible. And I'm pretty sure there were lots of guys named Jesus. What I do know - or conclude, more accurately - is that no guy named Jesus rose from the dead and became a god. I reach that conclusion in the same way that I conclude nobody named Harry flies on a broom.

phhht said:

Scott F said: I believe that David's distinction is between: 1) There really was a radical Jewish teacher named Jesus, who had some followers, and probably annoyed the rabbinical hierarchy of his day. His followers later embellished their stories surrounding his "ministry". versus 2) There really was never an actual person named Jesus. Paul just made it all up out of whole cloth (or shroud). Scenario 2) obviously applies to a boy-wizard named Harry. Scenario 1) is more likely to apply to a desert shepherd and merchant named Mohammed, for example.

I have to say I just don't know. After all, Harry Potter is chock full of depictions of reality. He is NOT just made up out of whole cloth. We know this because he is so recognizably boy-like. I see no reason to believe that he is any more or any less fictional than the putative shepherd of the bible. And I'm pretty sure there were lots of guys named Jesus.

phhht said: I have to say I just don't know. After all, Harry Potter is chock full of depictions of reality. He is NOT just made up out of whole cloth. We know this because he is so recognizably boy-like. I see no reason to believe that he is any more or any less fictional than the putative shepherd of the bible. And I'm pretty sure there were lots of guys named Jesus. What I do know - or conclude, more accurately - is that no guy named Jesus rose from the dead and became a god. I reach that conclusion in the same way that I conclude nobody named Harry flies on a broom.

david.starling.macmillan said: Or are you claiming that even the non-supernatural elements of the Gospels narrative -- that a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua taught in Judea between ~20 and ~40 CE, that he was crucified by the Romans, and that his followers wrote down some of his teachings (which later made it, in whole or in part, into the Gospels) and founded Christianity -- is completely fictive and wholly invented?

The myth (Christians call it a "parable") of the Good Samaritan is a story that Jesus made up out of whole cloth. The Good Samaritan is invented fiction. Everyone can agree that the story of the Good Samaritan is fiction.

But you'll notice that Jesus included realistic elements in the story to make it familiar to His listeners. There really were cities called Jerusalem and Jericho. There really were merchants who used donkeys in first century Canaan. There really was a despised foreign class called "Samaritans." The story contains historical truth.

When some bright grad student comes up with the truth-or-fiction battery of tests, she needs to test it out on the Good Samaritan. Then apply it to Job, Pliny's letter about Vesuvius, some of Julius Caesar's reports, the Gospels, and so on.

Since we are on the third page of comments, I guess it's time to answer the question posed by the blog title: Yes

However, both Bryan College and the Roman Catholic Church have eliminated their participation in a solution by imposing additional constraints. Adam and Eve did come from previously existing life forms, and there was no genetic bottleneck smaller than 10,000 Homo sapiens (some estimates say 2,000). The RCC still can exercise their option for non-exclusive ancestors (the cone of descent through a larger population), but I agree with John Harshman that that option is probably not what Pius meant and not very good anyway.

I think Glen Morton proposed this in about 2000. My explanation: Adam and Eve were historical individuals and the federal head couple of all modern humans. The Garden of Eden is along the Shatt al Arab waterway, those Arab marshes in southern Iraq that Saddam Hussein tried to ruin. It doesn't rain very much there, but the Tigris and Euphrates rivers water the marshes just like Genesis 2 says.

God chose Adam as His own adopted son, and set him apart with Eve in a special and protected place to incubate the human race. Adam and Eve became the biological ancestors of many Middle Eastern peoples, but not the exclusive ancestors. God gave Adam and Eve souls, which are not a genetic construct.

At the same time, God ensouled all Homo sapiens world-wide. The Australian Aborigines and Native Americans woke up feeling, well - soulful, looked up into the sky, and started to wonder where they came from. Cain's wife had a soul.

Original Sin fell upon all humanity not by genetics. If the American president makes a mistake, we all suffer. President Obama is our Federal Head whether we voted for him or not. If he does well for the country, we all benefit.

That's the solution. I favor and advocate this view, but I'm not going to die at the bridge for it. The stupidest thing Ken Ham ever said was that the Christian Gospel depends on a historical Adam and Eve, and he has provided a lot of competition in that category. Human sin is rampant all over the Bible, even if Genesis 1-3 were to disappear tomorrow without a trace. The atheists here can agree that humans are really rotten to each other from time to time. We are sinful.

The Historical Adam viewpoint is not so popular among Theistic Evolutionists. Dennis Venema calls me a "creeping accomodationist" in one of his ASA papers; not me personally, the position that seeks historicity for Adam and Eve while science whittles it away. (I don't mind; there are lots of worse things to be called by lots of worse people. :-) ) I suspect that TEs are reluctant to go out on a limb like Pope Pius did, and that's wise. You never know what someone like Joe Felsenstein might find in the human genome.

Why the historical Adam? Not because of the Genesis text, which sounds metaphorical to me; maybe satan is just out to get us! Historical because:

1. Paul is rather insistent on Adam the historical individual in Romans 5:12-21.

2. God does things with individuals: Abraham, Joseph, David, Mary. That's His pattern.

So the answer is Yes, Darwin and Eden can coexist, but the Truth of the Christian Gospel does not depend on a historical Adam and Eve.

eric said: Here's the relevant section from Pius' Humani Generis, with bold added by me:

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 either that 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]

How can “Darwin and Eden co-exist” when the ToE specifically claims that no gods are required at any point of the evolutionary process, but the Bible, the 1950 Catholic Encyclical, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict all say that the Bible’s God IS required at one point of the process, the highest point, viz., the origin of the first humans?

There never was a Harry Potter, no sane person thinks there was, and the author doesn’t claim there was or want you to believe that there was. Harry Potter is not even based on a real person or events.

Doc Bill said:

There never was a Harry Potter, no sane person thinks there was, and the author doesn’t claim there was or want you to believe that there was. Harry Potter is not even based on a real person or events.

Two things. First, FL, where's my Corvette? I summoned you after all. You're not going to let me down ... again, are you? Second, Harry Potter not real? What? I lived in London and I've been to Privet Drive, well, pretty sure I've been there. And I saw some Very Strange Goings On in London. Very strange, indeed. It all seems so real to me. I've read all the books and they read like a true, historical narrative. I simply could not be mistaken. I believe in Harry Potter because the book says so!

I'm no historian, but I often like historical fiction. Bernard Cornwell is one such author. His main characters are clearly fictional. No individual could do all that they do, nor always be at the exact right spot that they stood. These characters stand right next to Duke Wellington and Admiral Lord Nelson.

Yet at the same time, the daily events and lives of the people portrayed seem very real. It's the little things that make it real: the rig and kit worn by the soldiers, the things they ate, the boots that they wore, and the leaves and twigs that they walked on. It's what makes the story come alive. It's always an interesting tension: how much of the "story" is "real", and how much is fiction? My general assumption is that it's the little things of daily activities and the broad strokes of history which are "real" (or depictions of how life was actually lived), while most of the things in between, the individual characters and specific actions are "fiction".

Surely the fact that a particular character caught, cooked, and ate a rabbit doesn't mean that character was ever "real", in any sense, simply because rabbits are "real", cooking is "real", and people are known to have eaten rabbits.

By your definition, just being "boy-like" makes a character in a story "real", indistinguishable from a real person. By that definition, it would suggest that the only character you would consider to be truly "made up out of whole cloth" would be an alien, non-human character doing nothing that a human could have ever done.

Surely the fact that a particular character caught, cooked, and ate a rabbit doesn’t mean that character was ever “real”, in any sense, simply because rabbits are “real”, cooking is “real”, and people are known to have eaten rabbits.

There are really just three questions you need to ask.

1. Did the author of this work intend for its readers to take the specific, individual events described therein as historical?

2. If so, was this author honest?

3. If so, was this author knowledgeable?

Of course all three questions are on a sliding scale. But that's the starting point, anyhow.

Henry J said:

Surely the fact that a particular character caught, cooked, and ate a rabbit doesn’t mean that character was ever “real”, in any sense, simply because rabbits are “real”, cooking is “real”, and people are known to have eaten rabbits.

Even Elmer Fudd?

david.starling.macmillan said: Well, poor old Elmer never did manage to catch Bugs, much less cook and eat him, so I guess he isn't real.

stevaroni said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Well, poor old Elmer never did manage to catch Bugs, much less cook and eat him, so I guess he isn't real.

How do you know? Have you seen a new Bugs Bunny cartoon recently? I know I haven't.

Let us not split hares.

Come to think of it, why would it matter whether Darwin could coexist with Eden, anyway?

Eden was 6000 or so years ago.

Darwin was century before last.

So of course they didn't coexist.

:D

Henry J reminds us of what traps await those who confuse metaphor and literality.

david.starling.macmillan said: Well, poor old Elmer never did manage to catch Bugs, much less cook and eat him, so I guess he isn't real.

So the deal is sealed, on all sides. Evolution is clearly incompatible with the Bible, we’ve all proven that one, but it only takes a few more minutes to prove that Evolution is ALSO incompatible with the Catholic Papal and Encyclical Doctrines about the origin of humans.

That's an interesting approach. I hadn't really ever thought of linking the whole nakedness thing into the "knowledge of good and evil" business; obviously the fundies have their whole separate narrative about nakedness which seems awfully arbitrary and doesn't really work out on its own anyway. I'm definitely with you on the concept of humankind's "knowledge of good and evil" representing our desire to judge for ourselves which parts of nature are good and which parts are evil. The whole constant stream of Old Testament polemics against idolatry fits as closely to this as one could want; what is idolatry anyway, if not the judgment of good and evil using an image we construct ourselves?

The statement that God makes at the pivotal point of the fable -- "Who told you that you were naked" -- is a bit of a mystery. Obviously, the fundie notion that nakedness suddenly becomes shameful as soon as you gain the quality of sinfulness is just pure rubbish. But how else does it fit in? Sexuality really isn't an issue here in any reasonable reading I've ever heard, so what else? Is this just a bit of "why we wear clothing" mythos mixed into the rest of the good/evil bit?

david.starling.macmillan said: The statement that God makes at the pivotal point of the fable -- "Who told you that you were naked" -- is a bit of a mystery.

david.starling.macmillan said: Is this just a bit of "why we wear clothing" mythos mixed into the rest of the good/evil bit?

stevaroni said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The statement that God makes at the pivotal point of the fable -- "Who told you that you were naked" -- is a bit of a mystery.

Why does God (at least the God of the Old testament) have to ask any questions? After all he's omniscient. But even if he wasn't, how many sentient beings were there in the Garden who could have told Adam & Eve anything in the first place? Assuming God's attention was somehow somewhere else, and he somehow didn't foresee the consequences of letting two children alone with a malevolent actor and dangerous object, his expected reaction shouldn't be "Who told you you were naked?", it should be "%#$^@ snake!".

Just Bob said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Is this just a bit of "why we wear clothing" mythos mixed into the rest of the good/evil bit?

Yes, and maybe a little gratuitous condemnation thrown in of some nearby tribe or religion that did allow nakedness, perhaps as a ritual, temple prostitution, or some such.

One question this brings to mind, is did the habit of wearing clothes start before or after humans began to have less fur than chimpanzees?

Henry

Henry J said: One question this brings to mind, is did the habit of wearing clothes start before or after humans began to have less fur than chimpanzees? Henry

Saw this at Wonkette.com:
Needless to say, young-earthers in the blogosphere have weighed in; one strict literalist, David Coppedge — who made news for unsuccessfully suing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for religious discrimination after they fired him — said the school didn’t need heretics on the staff anyway:

If the Bible-compromising profs want to go, let them go. Good riddance. They applied knowing what the college believes…. If the professors love the world more than the Lord, let them go to the disgraced halls of secularism where terrorists are praised, where sexual orgies are promoted, and where conservatives are shouted down in the name of “free speech.”

Charley Horse said: Saw this at Wonkette.com: Needless to say, young-earthers in the blogosphere have weighed in; one strict literalist, David Coppedge — who made news for unsuccessfully suing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for religious discrimination after they fired him — said the school didn’t need heretics on the staff anyway: If the Bible-compromising profs want to go, let them go. Good riddance. They applied knowing what the college believes…. If the professors love the world more than the Lord, let them go to the disgraced halls of secularism where terrorists are praised, where sexual orgies are promoted, and where conservatives are shouted down in the name of “free speech.”

Charley Horse said: Saw this at Wonkette.com: Needless to say, young-earthers in the blogosphere have weighed in; one strict literalist, David Coppedge — who made news for unsuccessfully suing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for religious discrimination after they fired him — said the school didn’t need heretics on the staff anyway: If the Bible-compromising profs want to go, let them go. Good riddance. They applied knowing what the college believes…. If the professors love the world more than the Lord, let them go to the disgraced halls of secularism where terrorists are praised, where sexual orgies are promoted, and where conservatives are shouted down in the name of “free speech.”

Charley Horse said: Saw this at Wonkette.com: Needless to say, young-earthers in the blogosphere have weighed in; one strict literalist, David Coppedge — who made news for unsuccessfully suing NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab for religious discrimination after they fired him — said the school didn’t need heretics on the staff anyway: If the Bible-compromising profs want to go, let them go. Good riddance. They applied knowing what the college believes…. If the professors love the world more than the Lord, let them go to the disgraced halls of secularism where terrorists are praised, where sexual orgies are promoted, and where conservatives are shouted down in the name of “free speech.”

Just in case the connection of Coppedge and the DI has been forgotten...the DI heavily defended Coppedge who most knew all along
was a YEC. But I don't think Coppedge ever really told that to his exfellow employees. It was, I think, an expensive loss for
the DI not just a failure to have a win in the "religious/ ID/ Creationist discrimination" column.

That's why I posted that Coppedge comment...his desire to force those professors to accept and promote YECism...almost the
opposite of what his lawsuit was about.

Precisely. It's the pot calling the kettle a pot! What a hypocrite.

How did he find out about the secret orgies anyway? Did someone blab? Of course he once again got it backwards. It's the founding fathers who used to have all the orgies. Likewise, it's mostly the religious folks who are the terrorists. Man, that guy was ten kinds of wrong.

Gosh. Still can't answer like I want to. Did get a chance to read everybody's post, some were interesting (and long).

Not a lot of Panda unity this time I notice. Drews effectively answers the thread topic question "Yes", but Luckett effectively answers it "No". Both specific answers cannot be rationally true at the same time.

But not much I can do right now, other than notice the divergence of opinions. Interesting.

FL

FL said: Gosh. Still can't answer like I want to. Did get a chance to read everybody's post, some were interesting (and long). Not a lot of Panda unity this time I notice.

Any mythology can coexist with reality, that's the point of myths. The real question is, can Floyd coexist with reality. And we all know the answer to that one.

david.starling.macmillan said:

FL said: Gosh. Still can't answer like I want to. Did get a chance to read everybody's post, some were interesting (and long). Not a lot of Panda unity this time I notice.

I love how this is the first thing FL jumps on. "Lack of unity." In fundamentalism, truth is absolute and context-independent (the modernist fallacy, which is ironic because fundies love to hate on modernism), and so must be accompanied by unity. Unity is the key. They can't question, they can't disagree, they can't question; they must eschew all forms of rational inquiry in the elusive pursuit of magical truth-unity. Free exchange of ideas with rational, respectful disagreements and complementary lines of reasoning? Oh the horror! Surely there could never be any truth worth knowing in such a divergent, unity-lacking jumble!! And of course the log in their own eye condemns them. Fundamentalism is always the least unified branch of religion.

DS said: The real question is, can Floyd coexist with reality. And we all know the answer to that one.

Drews effectively answers the thread topic question “Yes”, but Luckett effectively answers it “No”. Both specific answers cannot be rationally true at the same time.

FL said: Please address this part:

Drews effectively answers the thread topic question “Yes”, but Luckett effectively answers it “No”. Both specific answers cannot be rationally true at the same time.

FL

Carl Drews effectively answers the thread topic question “Yes”, but Dave Luckett FL effectively answers it “No”.

Sure Floyd, just as soon as you explain why IBIGOT is wrong about vegasaurs. He does read the same bible as you do, right? How could he possibly come to such a different opinion? Unless of course you made the whole thing up. Now that is good to know.

Well, at least for the RCC, they’ve given pretty detailed requirements. Nobody after Adam and Eve could be descended from anyone else, and “Adam and Eve” do not represent a group of people.

Well then their hypothesis is falsified. That was easy. Next.

There is a 3rd alternative - there was no “Adam & Eve” as portrayed in Genesis, or any other religious mythology, and Homo sapiens is just the latest (but hopefully not the last) in a long line of evolutionary progression. There. From any perspective of reality, that solves the entire freaking “argument.”

If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.

But FL, it's not just the ToE. All of modern STEM civilization has no use for gods. There are no gods in the theory of relativity, no
gods in quantum theory, no gods in electromagnetic field theory. There are no demons in the germ theory of disease, no devils in genetically modified agricultural organisms, no ghosts in the ducts of our HVAC systems. No gods are to be found anywhere in
reality, not just the theory of evolution.

So why the ToE? What makes it such a special focus of outrage? After all, there aren't gods anywhere else in reality, either.

Floyd doesn't know the score around here. He DOESN'T KNOW that you can have both Darwin and Eden on the same Planet Earth. All you have to do is to interpret the myth of Eden properly. Floyd refuses to do this. Therefore, he is forced to ignore all of reality in order to maintain his delusions. If Eden must be interpreted literally, then obviously it is simply false. Floyd simply cannot admit this. He has no explanation at all for any of the evidence, so he is forced to simply ignore it. For him, the "big clash" just must be true. He can't imagine how anyone else would ever reconcile the two. He must somehow vilify those who have done exactly that. What he cannot bring himself to do is to admit that he is wrong and they are right. Fortunately that doesn't matter, everyone can clearly see it. Reality is the arbitrator, whether he wants to admit it or not.

Clearly the Pope's Eden cannot coexist with Darwin very well.

Mine can, though. As can the Eden of most Christians.

I differ from Carl's explanation insofar as I find it unnecessary. It also has the disadvantage of being separately unattested by evidence, including scriptural evidence, even if you want to call that evidence. As such, it is likely to please nobody; but it is internally consistent, and also consistent with the massive body of evidence for common descent of all the species. It is one method of reconciling the obvious inconsistencies between the Genesis stories and observed real fact.

But I believe that it is unnecessary. Occam's Razor should be applied. I favour a lesser explanation: Genesis 1-11 should be read as what it clearly is - fictive narrative, myth, allegory, legend, fable. These are stories told for thematic purposes, from which to draw a moral conclusion. They are like the parables of Jesus himself in that regard. (Of course, since their ultimate authors were multiple, possibly collegiate, and different people from Jesus, they're not of exactly the same style. Why would anyone think that they should be?)

In ordinary Christian theology, original sin is a real condition and one shared by all humanity; but it consists of the universal depravity of all mankind, not of the story that our ultimate parents ate forbidden fruit, except in the metaphorical sense of a fable. "In Adam's fall, we share all" - that is, we all share exactly the same sins of disobedience, imperfection, and oblivious disregard of the consequences of our acts and failure to act, as do all human beings. The sovereign grace of God, won through the redemption of Jesus Christ, and not through any merit of our own, is the only mending of this.

So regarding the stories of the Garden of Eden as fables told for moral purposes is not a denial of the doctrine of the redemption, as FL falsely claims. Jesus does not, as he puts it, go to the unemployment line. On the contrary, Jesus died and was resurrected for the several and individual burden of sin that we all bear because we all commit it, and do so because we are human. It is true that we inherit our humanity from our ancestors; but original sin is not some intangible taint derived from them, and thus visited on us vicariously. Original sin is part of being human; being human, we share in it. (The idea of merely vicarious guilt actually denies the justice of God, and thus is blasphemous.)

The observed history of the Earth, of life, and of the descent of all species including our own, is perfectly consistent with this reading of the scriptures and also with the doctrines of Christianity.

The false, fraudulent and heretical doctrine that certain of the scriptures must be read literally rather than metaphorically is the view only of some late and schismatic sects on the Protestant fringe. It acts as a barrier to the acceptance of the Faith in the minds of many who imagine it to be Christian doctrine, and for that reason alone is a grievous sin in itself. This is especially so insofar as the cause of its adoption in those sects is plainly nothing more than their adherents' pride in their own understanding - false pride, for they do not understand either scripture or the observed evidence.

What this boils down to is that the answer to the head question is in fact "yes". Darwin and Eden can co-exist. FL misrepresents me as saying "no".

What I say "no" to - what Carl Drews also says "no" to - is the denial of real evidence in favour of a false interpretation of the scriptures.

FL said: Additional commentary from Pandas. They are indeed interesting. (I'm not ignoring Eric's most recent post -- it is a rare example of commendable Panda honesty and reflection. His post is food for thought vis-a-vis the thread topic question, so for now I simply leave it as it is.) So here's a previous statement by Eric instead:

Well, at least for the RCC, they’ve given pretty detailed requirements. Nobody after Adam and Eve could be descended from anyone else, and “Adam and Eve” do not represent a group of people.

Obviously that statement clashes with the "evolutionary bottleneck" scenario. IOW, Darwin is clearly clashing with Eden. And no less a Panda than DS gives his stamp of approval to that very clash:

Well then their hypothesis is falsified. That was easy. Next.

See, DS knows the score around here. He KNOWS you can't have both Darwin and Eden on the same Planet Earth. One of those items gotta be historically false period. DS says it's Eden that's false. So again the big clash is proven to be true. This is important because RCC theology, (while some Catholics strongly agree with it and others less so), DOES at least officially agree with and accept the encyclical snippet that Eric quoted. That encyclical is quoted all the time when human origins comes up, and you can easily see a non-negotiable affirmation or echo of it in John Paul II's "acceptance" of evolution. So what I'm simply saying is simply that Eric's posts in fact give a considered and yes, clearly ~conditional~ response that nevertheless still falls mostly into the "No" column (regarding the thread topic question), at least as far as the "official" RCC theology is concerned. **** But I've left out somebody else: Keelyn. She also has food for thought, and hers aligns strongly with Luckett's. (And of course, hers is an AUTOMATIC clash, an automatic incompatibility between Darwin and Eden.) Let's put it on the table:

There is a 3rd alternative - there was no “Adam & Eve” as portrayed in Genesis, or any other religious mythology, and Homo sapiens is just the latest (but hopefully not the last) in a long line of evolutionary progression. There. From any perspective of reality, that solves the entire freaking “argument.”

**** Keelyn's words also fits very good with Mike Aus:

If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.

**** So now add it all up. Indeed Darwin necessarily clashes with Eden whether you're Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. This is an Equal Qpportunity Clash. In fact, Mike Aus shows pointedly that the huge clash actually involves the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. For if the evolutionary "bottleneck" is historically true, then there never was a real Adam and Eve, and then there was never any Fall, and you know what Zindler said -- no Fall means Jesus gotta go to the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE. So the answer to the thread topic question HAS to be a big "No", when you add it all up. FL

The real reason why Floyd has to keep the "clash" going is so that he will have an excuse not to study nay science. All he has to do is study the myths, even though he hasn't got a clue what they mean and still misses the point entirely. When asked, what if it isn't true, what if it's a myth, what lessons does it teach, Floyd replied basically: "Well if it is true then it must be true." You can find my response to that little bit of hell on the BW. Long story short, Floyd is just too stupid to understand science, but he still needs to be the authority with all the answers, so what's a mediocre false prophet to do?

FL said: So what I'm simply saying is simply that Eric's posts in fact give a considered and yes, clearly ~conditional~ response that nevertheless still falls mostly into the "No" column (regarding the thread topic question), at least as far as the "official" RCC theology is concerned.

So now add it all up. Indeed Darwin necessarily clashes with Eden whether you're Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. This is an Equal Qpportunity Clash.

So the answer to the thread topic question HAS to be a big "No", when you add it all up.

According to adherents.com (referencing Encyclopedia Britannica) there are three major traditional branches of Christianity: Catholic, Protestant, "Other Christians", Orthodox, and Anglicans.

Dave Luckett said: The sovereign grace of God, won through the redemption of Jesus Christ, and not through any merit of our own, is the only mending of this.

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America said: In Jesus Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself. Jesus Christ is God with humanity. He is the eternal Son of the Father, who became human and lived among us to fulfill the work of reconciliation. He is present in the church by the power of the Holy Spirit to continue and complete his mission. This work of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the foundation of all confessional statements about God, humanity, and the world. Therefore, the church calls humanity to be reconciled to God and to one another.

Dave Luckett said: The false, fraudulent and heretical doctrine that certain of the scriptures must be read literally rather than metaphorically is the view only of some late and schismatic sects on the Protestant fringe. It acts as a barrier to the acceptance of the Faith in the minds of many who imagine it to be Christian doctrine, and for that reason alone is a grievous sin in itself. This is especially so insofar as the cause of its adoption in those sects is plainly nothing more than their adherents' pride in their own understanding - false pride, for they do not understand either scripture or the observed evidence.

Carl Drews said: But you'll notice that Jesus included realistic elements in the story to make it familiar to His listeners. There really were cities called Jerusalem and Jericho. There really were merchants who used donkeys in first century Canaan. There really was a despised foreign class called "Samaritans." The story contains historical truth.

SWT said: Fundamentalists are certainly free to adopt a literal interpretation, even though plain objective observation of the physical universe show that this literal interpretation is in error.

TomS said: For example: The acceptance of modern science concerning heliocentrism as over-ruling the plain text of the Bible. But refusal to accept modern science concerning evolution, which is much less so against the plain text of the Bible.

eric said: In my opinion Carl Drews' answer here is inconsistent with Pius' encyclical as quoted here. To be specific, the idea that Adam is the "federal" head of humanity and that God put souls in people not descended from Adam is inconsistent with Pius' statement that there cannot be any "true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him [Adam]." To give Carl credit where it's due, he appears to recognize this inconsistency because in a later post he points out that Francis' position on baptizing (hypothetical) martians is also somewhat inconsistent with Pius' encyclical. They, after all, would not be naturally generated from Adam either...so why would they need redemption? Francis' position could be taken as a tacit acknowledgement that a "real person" does not have to originate from Adam.

Dave Luckett said: I differ from Carl's explanation insofar as I find it unnecessary. It also has the disadvantage of being separately unattested by evidence, including scriptural evidence, even if you want to call that evidence. As such, it is likely to please nobody; but it is internally consistent, and also consistent with the massive body of evidence for common descent of all the species. It is one method of reconciling the obvious inconsistencies between the Genesis stories and observed real fact.

Carl Drews said:How does one test hominid fossils for the presence of souls? Look for some kind of worshipful behavior in their campfire remains?

To check fossils for souls, you'd need fossilize feet (i.e., the skulls wouldn't do it!)...