A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@AntoineSuarez

Scripturally, it seems there is a strong distinction between “wrongdoing” and “transgression,” which comes also from knowledge of God’s law in addition to wrongdoing.

I would be thankful for precise References to Scripture in order to understand well what you mean and answer fittingly.

E.g. Romans 5. Sin (transgression in this case) abounds when the law is given. Transgression appears to not just include doing wrong, but having knowledge of the law that is being broken. Also look at Romans 2.

Though there can be disagreement on this, I’m just referencing standard hamartiology. See for example: Presumptuous Sins and Sins of Ignorance There is a difference between doing wrong in ignorance, and knowledgeably breaking God’s law in rebellion.

That means that God’s work to reveal His law actually multiplies and increases transgresion, by placing us in view of the law we will then chose to break. Without the law, we would be less accountable, because our hamartia (sometimes used to mean “missing the mark”) would be due to will ignorance alone, not rebellion.

So why would God reveal the law then, if it multiplies transgression?

Romans tells us. So that we would know our sinfulness. The law does not make us righteous, but it makes clear that we fall short. It’s role is to make us aware of our hamartia, that we might be ready to receive righteousness by faith in Jesus.

@AntoineSuarez

Deleting Darwin, I agree with you.

Thanks for this Joshua.

As I know you, you have surely strong arguments for these claims.

I would be thankful if you could summarize them: This may help me to correct my picture.

I’ve written about this several times. Here is my response to @Relates from quite a while ago. That’s just the first example I found when I searched. This not to pick on him, as many people in the origins conversations make this same mistake.

@Swamidass

The other assumption is that one can explain MS, mainstream neoDarwinian model of evolution in light of the Love of Jesus, the Logos

This is anachronistic. Like talking about the difficulty of finding a place to put all your washing boards and telegraphs. Mainstream science, does not operate with a neoDarwinian model of evolution. The neoDarwinian model was falsified a long time ago in science.

In reading Dawkins and Dennett who are the most prominent spokespersons for mainstream evolutionary science, they say that evolution is based on conflict and chaos.

There are three different definitions of Darwinism, and you are confusing them as if they are the same.

1. The scientific model of positive selection dominated change, “neo Darwinism”, that was falsified by genetic data in the 1960s and 1970s.

2. The philosophy of atheism that uses evolution as a key tenet, and is promoted by people like Dennett and Dawkins. This, in no way at all, is science. It is not part of science. This precise view is not even common among scientists. Rather, it is anti-religious sentiment masquerading as science. When I talk about “mainstream science’s” understanding of evolution, it specifically rejects this view as non-scientific.

3. Some people imprecisely use Darwinism as a synonym for “modern evolutionary theory” or the “modern synthesis”. This is not a good use of the term for a wide range of reasons. Most importantly, in is often mistaken for the other two definitions, and it is ahistorical. Modern evolutionary theory mainly holds “common descent” in common with Darwin’s views (and some of its consequences). But positive selection dominated change (as Darwin conceived it) is not at all dominant as he thought. For example, ecology (and neutral drift) are important too, but that has been known for a long time (ecology was even recognized by Darwin himself) and is not at all denied by people who use Darwinism by this definition.

With those uses in hand, it becomes clear your error. You think Dawkins and Dennett are correctly representing the science. They are not. Period.

@benkirk

Could we pin this to the top of every thread?