" There is a spiritual element in what Dawkins terms, ‘memes’, that follows up on Teilhard’s Noosphere (but Dawkins gives him no credit).
That is simply incorrect. Please provide some evidence of your claim from Dawkins’ work, rather than saying it “can be interpreted in a spiritual vein.” Show us please where Dawkins explicitly says there is a ‘spiritual element’ in ‘memes’.
For that matter, do you have any evidence that Dawkins’ ‘memes’ “follow up on Teilhard’s [or Vernadsky’s] noosphere”? It seems to me that you’re projecting onto writers what you want to read (in a kind of new age spiritualist way), rather than being faithful to what they actually wrote.
“in Teilhard’s terminology, by Noogenes (Ideas; memes).”
This is also incorrect, as ‘genesis’ and ‘gene’ are different terms and Teilhard, as far as I’ve found (just digitally searched 2 of his books and trying to recall from others) didn’t use the word ‘noogene.’
Al Leo, if you want to be taken seriously, please stop making things up like someone who would hire a witch at his radical anti-Catholic institute (i.e. Matthew Fox).
“I am surprised that Kemp made no mention of Teilhard or Mathew [sic] Fox.”
To me, it’s not a surprise at all that Kemp didn’t include those highly unorthodox figures (verging on heretical or in some ways already heretical) in his excellent paper on “Science, Theology and Monogenesis”.
Ken Kemp’s position reconciles (or at least, attempts to reconcile) genetic polygenism with theological monogenism, in keeping with the historical teachings of the Church about Adam and Eve. A significant philosopher like Edward Feser notes, “I have yet to see any plausible objections to the Flynn-Kemp scenario”, and that no one “has raised any serious difficulty for the Flynn-Kemp proposal.” If Al Leo is more interested in heterodoxy than orthodoxy, that’s not a conversation I’m willing to engage here. What I’m asking is for people to have a serious look at Kemp’s paper and respond to it here.
My basic question re: the OP - does Dennis Venema affirm theological monogenism or not? Secondly, is he in any way attempting to reconcile his polygenism with theological monogenism?
If this isn’t the thread for him to answers those questions, that’s ok. Since he raised a challenge to W.L. Craig, imo at some point he should follow-through on what it means.
“If Al Leo is more interested in heterodoxy than orthodoxy, that’s not a conversation I’m willing to engage here.”
Hi Greg:
To me the most attractive attribute of science is the encouragement to doubt orthodoxy. I admire Galileo for asking: “How did Aristotle know that the rate at which objects fall is proportional to their weight?” Answer: ‘Well, its intuitive, and everyone knows that it is so." But Galileo figured out a way to prove orthodoxy wrong. Perhaps its not fair to question theological orthodoxy in this manner, because its truth is harder to verify. But in wondering how the orthodox dogma of Original Sin became so entrenched in Christian theology, I decided to read a little about the Pelagian heresy debate ‘won’ by Augustine. If I researched it more thoroughly I might have reached a different conclusion, but as of now I believe Pelagius was correct in stating that babies are born into this world sinless. This was declared unorthodox and even heretical. But was it? Is it heretical to believe that every baby is born with a proclivity to sin, but only Jesus remained sinless. (Roman Catholic orthodoxy also includes Jesus’ mother in this category, and states that, upon her death, she was taken bodily into Heaven. Tomorrow honors that event as the Assumption.)
Yes, Greg, I am a black sheep amongst the Christian flock, and it may be wise not to engage me in conversation. Incidentally, Mathew Fox may have been justified initially in questioning church orthodoxy, but I do not approve of the path he eventually took. Luckily for him, burning at the stake has gone out of fashion.
Al Leo