I agree, that this is absolutely important.
Thinking that God would have become flesh, even if Adam had not sinned (as we are taught by the great Father Irenaeus) may help us to better understanding what the state of original holiness and justice was all about, and thus why Adam’s sin caused that all human beings coming into existence after this sin are not endowed with original holiness and justice.
Thanks for your interaction. I don’t see that spoken about in the scriptures and at the moment I dont see the importance to think about it.
What is important to me is that i was a slave to sin and Jesus united me with Him in His death and resurrection to save me from my slavery to sin and the god of this age. So that is what I am setting my thoughts and affections on.
Cody, what you claim “it is important to you”, it is certainly important to me as well.
However, I dare to ask:
Do you acknowledge that Adams’ sin had consequences that became transmitted to you and me?
This is question we are try to elucidating in this thread, in the light of Scripture and evolutionary science.
What actually is “evolutionary science”, Antoine? Are you making that term up or trying to imbue it with meaning that quite obviously would imbalance the Academy?
It seems you are expecting to promote a clear and ongoing exaggeration of “evolutionary biology” into a kind of ideological scientism, one that has not yet been properly bounded by theistic evolutionists.
We don’t speak of “gravitational science” or “electromagnetic science.” But you want to elevate “evolution” from a biological theory into it’s own independent field of study, into “a science”?
Well, I suppose you could try, even though you don’t appear to have the training necessary for it. Please know that there would be serious pushback, as you might expect, from non-physicists unlike yourself. This is b/c you are now speaking on behalf of “OTHER FIELDS” about which you likely would not wish to make any claims about “THEIR SCIENCE”. You are aware of this, right?
IOW, you’re not attempting to UNIVERSALIZE “evolutionary biology” into a “universal evolutionary science”, are you? Or is that really your aim by calling it “evolutionary science”, Antoine? Otherwise, why use that term?
Thanks for your clarification, as this is a fairly new duo used intentionally in the literature, almost entirely by atheists and agnostics. And you are one apparently who is promoting it together with them, while have made no clear identification of limit, boundary, or when “evolution” is over-used, and misused.
I find “evolutionary science” a highly misleading, and exaggerative term, and wish to make my position clear in contrast with yours. Universalization of terms can lead to dangerous results, and even fanaticism. I would like to be careful that you are not promoting ideological evolutionism, rather than just “evolutionary biology”.
You could clarify this easily and without any “argument” by simply identifying which fields of science currently are NOT part of “evolutionary science”. IOW, which fields are absolutely being reasonable, responsible and fully “within their rights” to REJECT EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES in those fields?
Please state which fields specifically, Antoine. If you can’t, then quite obviously, you’re pushing an ideological position called “evolutionism”, rather than a “scientific” position called “evolutionary biology”.
Please understand, Sy Garte is on my side here against your apparently intentional exaggeration of it, along with not a few others, asking for the term “evolution” to be restricted to biology. In my view he’s completely failed to explain away the uses of evolution in fields such as cultural studies, political science, economics, anthropology, even literature and “religious studies”. Should those fields all fall under the GIGANTIC umbrella of “evolutionary science” also? This is understandable because Sy hasn’t studied the social sciences and humanities and has no repertoire to actually make his “demonstration” of how and why “evolution” should be restricted to natural sciences. He wants the repertoire to be able to make his argument, but simply doesn’t have it, due to his educational background and focus.
Antoine, as a non-natural scientist, I’m here to offer you that “other way”, so you can stop your exaggerations of “evolutionary biology” into “evolutionary science”, or what is more troubling, into “evoluitonary theology” Roman Catholic monitum-style. Sorry, that’s headed for Teilhardian disgrace, not credible Christian witness. Please, rethink the premises of why you wish to exaggerate evolutionary biology and evolutionary geology into evolutionary ethics and evolutionary politics. That’s a really BAD idea.
Because if ALL FIELDS of study are simply inevitably “evolutionary fields” of study, as the presumptuous elevation of “evolutionary biology” into “evolutionary science” seems to suggest, then we really are seeing an example of fanaticism in the academy. David Sloan Wilson is the foremost example of this nowadays, but there’s a boat load of others too, who Antoine Suarez seems to be supporting with his “evolution for evolution” chorus alongside of Wilson. Sadly, this time its a Roman Catholic physicist-philosopher making claims about “science” that don’t seem possible to be backed up with evidence. Oh well, we’re back into Teilhard de Chardin territory, apparently. 
That may be extracting a huge inference that he did not intend, and trying to maybe force into it the entirety of your conversation with @Christy. Were I to use the term, and I have, it would certainly be excessive to presume all of that. A septuagenarian, I have just ca. two years ago come to accept ‘evolutionary science’. Implicit in that is biological evolution. If I had said merely “I have come to accept evolution”, it would not be so explicit and could leave the reader wondering some what I meant exactly. If I were a YEC (and decades ago I was), and said that I had recently come to accept cosmological science, as opposed to simply ‘cosmology’, would you still have the same degree of distress?
Sorry, Dale, but again, as before, it does not seem you have much familiarity with the topic.
If you think you have familiarity, then do us all a favour. Find ONE department or faculty of “evolutionary science” in the world. Just ONE. If you can’t, maybe you want to think carefully about why they don’t exist. Try “department of evolutionary science” and “faculty of evolutionary science”. Any hits?
“I have just ca. two years ago come to accept ‘evolutionary science’. Implicit in that is biological evolution.”
No, this is too loose. You came to accept evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory in other natural sciences. There is no such thing as “evolutionary science”. It’s just a bloated term that reveals ideology and lack of imagination for non-evolutionary change-over-time.
How about you, Dale, would you step up to the plate before Antoine returns to this thread?
Which fields of science currently are NOT part of “evolutionary science”? IOW, which fields are absolutely being reasonable, responsible and fully “within their rights” to REJECT EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES in those fields ?
Please state which fields specifically, Dale.
Thanks for showing us what limits you place on “evolutionary thinking”.
That wasn’t much of a “conversation”. Christy’s colloquial usage isn’t an interest of mine. I’m speaking about people who work in the fields in which evolutionary theories are being discussed.
Exactly. Being a scholar with esoterism seems to divorce you from general use of a term (such as Antoine’s, Christy’s and mine) and somehow permits you to be condescending.
Well, having surveyed the literature on this topic to a high degree, just makes me confident that people who say & write “evolutionary science” either 1) have an agenda (usually scientistic, oftentimes atheistic), 2) are making things up (across the theistic & atheistic spectrum), or 3) don’t really care about clarity and accurate terminology in the conversation.
“Evolutionary science” is not actually a “field of study” in English language usage in universities. About this, Dale, frankly I’m totally uninterested in your mere opinion. Instead I’m just interested in actual evidence and facts, like a “scientist” should be. Don’t you value doing good science?
In colloquial usage, evolution just means change, and who would ever take issue with that?
The problem is what to exclude from so-called “evolutionary science”. I’m quite patient to wait for a possible answer.
As for condescending, no, I’m just confident that there are no departments of “evolutionary science” and that the term is highly contestable, not stable or with any sort of even near “consensus” surrounding it. Basically I’m just pointing out conceptual over-reach & interdisciplinary mashup when it comes to some peoples’ uses of the term “evolution” (& I’m not a “creationist”). Otoh, you seem to be saying smth like: “Over-reach? With the term ‘evolution’?! Mashup? Impossible”.
Accusing someone of “esoterism” with the handle “evolutionary providentialist” is ironic. Thanks for the chuckle. 
That would be only your not so humble opinion. 
Whatever suits your “evolutionary science” fantasy, Dale.
Personally I’ve yet to see the verses that implies that the choices Adam made condemns me or anyone else to hell. I’ve yet to see anything that indicates a baby is born guilty of sin because of the choices Adam made. I also don’t see any reason to believe something like a angry baby being indicative of a little sinner. Sin is not anger. Sin is choosing to go against Gods teachings or additionally your conscience.
If somebody tells me she is taking a class on “evolutionary science”, she is probably studying theory and evidence pertaining to biological evolution. If from her statement, I understand her to be studying the theory and evidence concerning biological evolution, we have clearly and accurately communicated with all due care. We are good. No agenda other than studying evolutionary science. Should anybody else have a problem with that choice of language, that is no matter.
The intended usage is generally clear from context, and may just mean change, or biological evolution in the sense of common ancestry.
This is obviously incorrect as proponents in various fields outside biology use “evolution” as a basis for their speculation. While a recent development, some universities have added “evolution, ecology and environment” (at times also genetics) as a sub-branch of schools of life sciences. I cannot recall any promoting evolutionary science.
Your insistence that the phrase is meaningful may work within the context of this blog but that is it. 
I think there is a dead horse around here somewhere. 
I’ve always heard evolutionary science used synonymously with evolutionary biology. There has never been any confusion because everyone that says I just study biology, normally means studying living species and their lifestyles. It does not matter really in general conversation about how professional something is. Language is meant to convey meaning and I think almost everyone would instantly understand what it means if someone says they enjoy evolutionary science or evolutionary biology. I can’t see very many hearing either term and being at a complete loss on what’s being spoken. Layperson slang and expert jargon often intermingle.
It’s like with common names. You won’t find many colleges that say “common plant name class” or find journals that say “ study of “some common name plant” and often textbooks don’t contain very many common names either. But almost every botanist I know uses common names just as much as their binomial nomenclature.
Please either direct me to where I have said otherwise, or read more closely.
Evolution is just biology over time; from ecology to physiology, the biology we currently find is just a snapshot of evolution. Biology is a discipline of science. “Evolutionary science” merely places the study of evolution in the broader context, and may be loosely synonymous with “evolutionary biology”, or more deliberately and purposely contextual in emphasizing the consilience of evolution between biology, geology, chemistry, and physics. It is silliness to challenge that this is not legitimate, implying that “evolutionary science” is somehow a category error or an oxymoron. Where there is such strained objection to a common usage, that is where in fact I expect to find an underlying agenda.
I have the impression you are fighting against windmills.
In this post:
I have clearly formulated my view of the transmission of the state of original sin, “in the light of Scripture and evolutionary science”.
I challenge you to show which tenets in my proposal conflict with the Roman Catholic Faith, as formulated in the Council Declarations or the teaching of the Popes.
I have come accross an interesting paper which makes this point:
One further step remained, and this was taken by the Jesuit theologian, Franciscon Suarez (1548-1617). Starting from Molina’s idea of natural beatitude for a natural order, Suarez asked: … “Why should not the state of pure nature be prolonged in this way into a natural order, fitted to find its fulfilment in a natural end?”16 Suarez, then, proposed a theory of “pure nature” – a human nature that was completely devoid of any natural orientation to the grace of God, thus taking Cajetan’s speculations into the mainstream of theology. His account of “extrinsic grace” was developed into a systematic account in two books De ultimo fine hominis (1592) and De Gratia (published posthumously in 1619). The final shape given by Suarez to the Duplex Ordo thesis was to remain more or less constant for centuries.
and
Perhaps the most constant contemporary critic of the possibility of two separated orders of nature and grace has been David Schindler….
Whenever the relationship between nature and grace is severed…, then the whole of
worldly being falls under the domination of ‘knowledge,’ and the springs and forces of
love immanent in the world are overpowered and finally suffocated by science, technology and cybernetics. The result is … a world in which power and the profit margin are the sole criteria, where the disinterested, the useless, the purposeless is despised, persecuted and in the end exterminated – a world in which art itself is forced to wear the mask and features of technique.
Schindler believes that when nature and grace are held to be separate realities, the message of the Church is itself divided and gives needless credence to the ideology of Secularism….
from: Nature and Grace and the Appearance of Insincerity. Silencing the Catholic
Voice by Gerard A. O’Shea
Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics, Volume 2 Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 1
I get the impression that nowadays Catholics are closer to Orthodox belief in seeing Nature imbued with Grace, and this author appears to disagree with your outlook.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.