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

So, we agree that the whole process of Creation makes sense in view of the Incarnation of God to deify humanity.

On the other hand, as we have seen, Evolution makes sense in view of bringing about humanity by establishing a clear observable difference between humans and non-human animals.

So we are led to conclude that Evolution aims to produce the type of body God had in mind to take before He creates the world.

And we can note as well:

The way Incarnation happens confirms how intimately the distinction between “male and female” is related to the Image of God (Genesis 1:27): The man Jesus Christ is conceived in the womb of the woman Mary.

If God did not incarnate everything is permitted: It disappears what makes humanity and human motherhood precious and valuable.

We are in disagreement on the theory of evolution regarding true humans - the theory cannot be modified from what it is, and in its current form, it cannot account for the creation of true human species. Simply pointing out the great differentiation between humans and other species shows up the inadequacy of Darwinian thinking.

1 Like

This is a highly interesting remark! And I agree with you to some extent.

Nonetheless I would rather use the term “incompleteness” instead of “inadequacy”.

The idea of the “great differentiation between humans and other species” because of the disappearance of intermediate varieties, is hidden in On the Origin of Species but it is being developed only now.

This development is leading us to discover that it is biologically impossible to establish when the species Homo sapiens begins with anything other than arbitrary criteria. And this means that to define humanity we have to invoke ingredients coming from outside biology.

So the present development of the theory is supporting the Genesis’ definition of humanity as a community of people called to respect each other because they are in the Image of God.

And again, this amount to state that evolution aims to bring about the type of body God prepared for his Son.

I guess we as scientist need to better understand “incompleteness” within the context of scientific laws. To add some humour, if the theory of chemical bonds could not cope with the bond between hydrogen and oxygen, I would call it inadequate and fatally flawed, no matter how much can be argued for such a theory.

The human race is a big component of the planet and requiring something outside biology seems to make biology an odd area, to put it mildly.

The theory of chemical bonds relies on Quantum principles. And we know today that

the Quantum is more than Physics and Chemistry.

You cannot well-define the “human race” without invoking the principle:

Humans ought to live respecting each other but are allowed to kill animals for food.

Evolution laid the groundwork in order humans can live according to this principle, the Foundation of Law.

Evolution is more than Biology and Genetics.

You can see things from another perspective:

It is absolutely legitimate to ask:

At which precise time in history did God make humanity in his image and thereby proclaim that humans ought to respect each other but are allowed to kill non-human animals for food? (see Genesis 9:3-6)

On the basis of the available data from evolutionary biology we are led to conclude that this event happened not earlier than 12,000 BC and not later than 3,200 BC.

So biology helps us to complete the Genesis narrative.

I am not questioning your sincerity, but my position is clear; evolution as the current paradigm of biology is inadequate when we discuss how God has created, so I disagree with the notion promoted by biologos in that God has somehow created mankind through the current theory we term evolution.

I cannot see what more I can say.