Roman Catholic writer John Farrell shares his thoughts on the challenge that evolution poses to traditional Catholic doctrine in Commonweal magazine.
âBut there remains the nagging question of the soulâs special creation. In 1996, Pope John Paul II expanded upon Piusâs earlier assertions on the soul, and he added his own view that the emergence of the human being, endowed with a soul directly created by God, amounted to an âontological leapâ in the history of evolution, one that could not be uncovered or located by science. Can the special creation of the soul be integrated into an evolutionary understanding of our emergence as a species?â
âAs it happens, perhaps the best answer to this question was provided by the man who would succeed John Paul II as pope. Back in 1973, Josef Ratzinger was pondering the question of the soul as it related to evolution, and his solution is as startling as it is simple. Ratzinger looked back to Teilhardâs observation that the history of matter is best understood as the prehistory of the spirit, a spirit that emerged when man spoke out for the first time to recognize the Thou beyond himself and beyond the world. âIf creation means dependence of being, then special creation is nothing other than special dependence of being,â Ratzinger wrote in his book Dogma and PreachingâŚâ
"From this vantage point, one can immediately see that an adam emerged in history at that moment when a human being was first capable of forming, however dimly, the thought âGod.â As Ratzinger writes, âThe first âthouâ thatâhowever stammeringâwas said by human lips to God marks the moment in which spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed.â If this is true, then the theory of evolution neither invalidates nor corroborates faith."
"But, as Ratzinger acknowledges, âit does challenge faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say âthouâ to God in eternity.â
2 Likes
I was pleased when Pope John Paul II proclaimed that evolution was backed by solid scientific evidence, and catholics were OK in relying on it, IF allowance were made for the special creation of the human soul. As Cardinal Ratzinger was âbeing groomedâ as JPâs successor, I tried to bull my way through some of his (to me) obscure writings to see how he would deal with the âsoul problemâ as Pope. I must have skimmed over some of the more pertinent paragraphs, because I concluded he, Ratzinger, was going to be much less progressive than JPII. later developments set me straight, and I am so glad you provided the link to John Farrellâs article, but Georgeâs âcondensationâ was also appreciated.
I replied on the website - it was a very good article âŚ
Saving Adam by John Farell is well researched and well written.
I believe I can demonstrate how an historic Adam, from whom we are descended, original sin and the theory of Evolution are not inconsistent. My short book Genesis and Evolution expands on the detail.
Evolution is a well established scientific theory, if there are aspects for which we have disconfirming evidence, this evidence should be published in peer reviewed scientific journals, such as Science or Nature.
Genesis is the Book of Generations. The genealogy or genealogies that do not lead to the Messiah are always given first throughout the book of Genesis and even continue in this manner in the books of Chroncles. One of the purposes of Chapter 1 of Genesis is to establish the line not leading to the Messiah (men and women created in Gen 1:27) prior to the creation of Adam in Chapter 2. I explain in my short book how this approach is actually more consistent with the rest of scripture than the creation of Adam, Eve and the Garden as being a retelling of the intial creation narrative:
This eliminates the conflicts that exist with the sequences of creation being very different in the first and second creation narratives.
This maintains an historical Adam, (Romans 5:17) "For if by one manâs offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christâ, if Adam was not an actual man, that would mean to me that Jesus would not need to be an actual man.
We are all descended from Adam through Noah, as detailed in Gen 6:
Gen 6:2 - That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
The sons of God are the descendants of Adam, and the daughters of man are the descendants of men and women from Gen 1:27
Gen 6:9 - Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations
Why would Noah need to be perfect in his generations other than to maintain the line leading to the Messiah from Adam?
I am presenting my book at the upcoming ASA Conference at Gordon College (27-30Jul18).
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Larkin
Genesis and Evolution
Am I the only one who really does not like the paintings attached to the article? They seem very Euro centric. Skin color is an evolutionary balance between vitamin D production and folic acid degradation, and the skin color in the paintings does not seem appropriate for the region where the Garden was created.
I lean toward the theory that Adam and Eve, before the fall, had âglorified bodiesâ as described in the New Testament during the transfiguration, where (Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2â3, Luke 9:28â36) Jesus âwas transfigured before them; his face shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.â
After the fall, they lost there glorified bodies and realized they were naked.
Off subject a bit, I feel the transfiguration and the confession of Peter (âthou art the ChristâŚâ) are a good counter argument to Bart Ehrmanâs (How Jesus became God) assertion that Jesus was only portrayed as God in the gospel of John, which was the last written gospel.
@TGLarkin,
For something as dramatic as TRANSFIGURED bodies⌠why isnât there any mention of this property?.. not even in Godâs curse against the expelled couple?
1 Like
But at the very beginning of Genesis 2, after God has done his creating for 6 days in Genesis 1,
It says:
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
So it seems that God was finished with creating, and didnât have to come in over the weekend.
Says who? Not the text. If you are right, the union should have produced more humans, but it produced giants.
And besides I donât like the idea of two unequal races of humans living side by side, which is getting to be far too common in Christianity or at least on this blog. Reminds me too much of the sordid story of the âKallikaksâ and the eugenicists.
But Noah wasnât perfectâhe got drunk, got naked, and passed out in a tent. That isnât perfect. And neither was anybody else.
And Jesus came for the sake of sinful people, anyway.
2 Likes
This is simple speculation on my part, I still do not like the depictions
Thank you for your feedback, I really respect your opinion. Sorry to take so long to respond.
I would argue that God continuing creating al throughout the Bible and continues this work today, just how large does a miracle need to be to be termed creation.
If you look at the use of the terms âsons of Godâ through the Bible (with the one exception of the Book of Job) , it refers to those who love God and are doing Godâs will. In Luke 3, the term directly refers to Adam. The term Nephilim is also used to describe the inhabitants of Canaan in the Book of Numbers, and I believe simply refers to large humans. There was no descriptions of giants during the Israeli occupation, I believe this was just in the eye of the beholder.
I did not say Noah was perfect, only that he was perfect in his generations which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve.
This entire discussion is trivial in light of your statement, only that a perceived conflict of the Bible with science presents a stumbling block to many who take it as reason not to believe. With the creation narratives being sequential, this eliminates the perceived conflict with science hopefully opening the door to many to accept the Bible , and more importantly, Jesusâ sacrifice.
I find you interpretations strained at best.
1 Like
In the Enuma Elish it says that the âgodsâ mixed their blood with the apes and created man. Sounds like even the ANE text agree in the divine evolutionary step of mankind.
There are two references in Genesis regarding a genetic shift. There was a different way to give birth. It would include pain. Then it says when Seth was born, it was in Adamâs likeness. Humans lost the (spiritual) image of God. One that would allow Adam to walk and talk with God, as in âstrollingâ through the park. Now the only other time God visited man in a fleshly body was the visits with Abraham. I think with Adam it was in a glorified body that could endure more of the Glory of God. With Abraham it was just human flesh.
With Adam it was death by separation from the glorified body. It was only in the last few years, that I was taught that the glorified part of humanity is still there, but for lack of a better term, in another dimension. One that is in direct communication with God. What we do is mirrored in this âsoulâ. The point of no return is when this soul dies. There is no separate will, but if we reject the Spirit enough, this part can no longer communicate with God. It could possibly even be where demons originate. It would also be the part that is the âghostâ when the physical body dies. A tradition of the Jews is that there is a three day time period during physical death and any chance of return where this spirit is still active, and where a physical body may still be able to be brought back to life.
I also think that our thoughts are connected through this soul, and not just stored in our physical brains. At the time of Noah, God said that there was weariness in the struggle between manâs soul and Godâs. Why destroy the human race if it was just human will against Godâs will. It seems that this glorified body state the majority of humans had, was going to come to an end. The only survivers would be the descendants of Adam in Adamâs image. I also think that it was the end of Satanâs dominion outside of earth, and that is when Satan was put in charge as Adamâs replacement. I think that Satan was given his first 1000 years to change his mind. I think that at the time of Abraham, Satan was not allowed direct access as in intermingle with humans at the end of this 1000 years. It could have been longer than a 1000 years, but not any shorter. I think that his story was recorded as Marduk in the Enuma Elish. I think that in Genesis, Nimrod was the alledged âstrong manâ.
I do not think that in completely destroying civilazation as implied in the Flood and the return of the Messiah with a new heaven and earth are just figurative stories of a slight evolutionary change in humans. It was a drastic change in the way humans are allowed to interact with God.
I think the problems come from insisting on identifying humanity with a biological species and a genetic inheritance. But if you primarily identify humanity with civilization and a memetic inheritance then the problems with evolution (which is only about genetics) just disappear. I am not saying that this makes all the problems with science vanish because you still have to deal with how archaeological evidence connects with characteristics we tend to associate with humanity and civilization. But as long as you are willing to adjust what the crucial difference you see coming to and through Adam and Eve to fit the evidence then some accommodation with Christian theology is workable.
Obviously, I have no interest in either the magical or genetics focused ideas proposed above.
2 Likes
Your use of the term magic seems synonymous with religion. Your dismissive use of the term magic and attributing it to God pointedly turning what I post into some psuedo religious package, without addressing the topic does not bother me. But why do you think God uses magic? Because that is the point you seem to just smoothly dismiss.
I said that I am not interested in magical or genetic approaches. Magic is derived from the experience of infancy where somebody with more knowledge and ability makes our discomfort go away. But in the case of God there is nobody with more knowledge and ability, so God has employ his own knowledge and abilities to accomplish things. The Bible uses metaphors that people understand like a king doing things by giving commands. But surely we must not think that God accomplished things in the beginning by giving commands, for who would He give such commands to? Once He created the angels, it would be natural to give them commands but surely they would be doing lesser more repetitive tasks. But when God created light, surely it wasnât the angels who decided what that would be in terms of electromagnetism and photons. Wouldnât God have been the one figuring out things like that so that it would accomplish what He planning to do?
Clearly you are the one categorizing your own posts as religious and magical and not me, so perhaps I should be asking you why you did so. As for me I was simply making it clear what does not interest me and not categorizing anyone. But as I look above now, I see you putting the difference down to a âgenetic shiftâ and thus it would come under the other category that does not interest me.
I was not catagorizing. I was trying to get to the bottom of why your post just below mine, and even some direct quotes of my post end up being dismissed as magic.
I have been posting on and off about this topic for over 7 years, and should be more clear and concise in what I post. I have yet to even find words for some of the thoughts that are frequently going through my mind.
God did not create light. The figurative quote in the Bible, âI am the Light of the Worldâ, is a spiritual truth from some actual fact. âLet there be lightâ was the command to whatever physical aspect the universe had after God just created it. The only thing God created in Genesis is the universe and it has everything in it neccessary for all God intended. Now it is not stated that new âxâ is being created all the time. The work at some point âendedâ and God rested. Genesis 1 does not say creation was finalized. God just took a break before God began again to manipulate the universe. Genesis 2 was about a single human, that God placed as a Representative. God called out the Hebrews as a Representative ethnic group. God called out the church to represent God on earth. The church is more than a concept. The Hebrews were actually a part of humanity. Adam was an actual human. Everything that God did in each account was clearly spelled out, before letting those involved go out and do their âownâ thing. So all three sets of commands were optional to all of humanity. The humans involved made it seem optional to them as well. There were some humans who did declare they would obey the commands (Word of God) indirectly, and in faith followed after God. Others had direct revelation from God, so Faith is not supposed to be blind, nor is it that we would ever figure things out on our own. We cannot unless God directly or indirectly gives us a command to follow. Telling people they just âgotta have faithâ is wrong. They have to âhearâ God first. Otherwise humans can make up anything and call anything god.
When Peter walked on the water, he did not ask for faith. He told Jesus to give him the command. He then obeyed, up until he took his eyes off of Jesus, and his own fears caused him to stop obeying, and started to sink. If it happened that way or not, can be argued and never settled, but the principle remains. It is also wise to not ask God to give you commands that you have no intention on doing. I think the gnostic version of Noah in the movie a few years back pointed out that Noah had considered the wickedness going on around him, maybe to the point he asked God to do something about it.
All of these points have very little to do with either magic or religion. It had everything to do with direct interaction between God and humankind. I am not saying it is wrong to view accounts as having a spiritual application for a human condition. I think if we remove God from the physical all together, nothing in the OT or NT will ever make sense, nor should it.
The first time a human being thought âGodâ and uttered âGodâ is equivalent to the first time God communed with man (Adam), as knowledge, understanding and communing with God is only possible when God Himself reveals this to a human being.
This does not depend on genetic makeup, but it does require that the human being is capable to receive revelation of God. This capability is created by God, so all of this requires an act (creation) by God, and evolution in what ever form it is presented, is simply irrelevant, nor can it in any way negate Adam and his communion with God in the garden.
1 Like
That captures the essence of the difference between I-Thou relationships and those which are I-It. I like to think of transcendence looked at this way.
But that points out a seeming puzzle inherent in this website. For science is above all else about elaborating all that can be known of the world in an I-It manner, something very useful in itself. But Iâm reminded of the passage from Mathew 16:26
*What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose or forfeit his very self?"
The I-It relationship is useful but the I-Thou relationship is essential, the salvation of our humanity. Completeness really requires both.
2 Likes
Iâm curious what the final outcome was of the controversy created when Joshua Swamidass pointed out that the human genome is consistent with two apperances of homo sapiens: one that had evolved from apes starting millions of years ago; and a second one that would have been an act of special creation of Adam and Eve about 10,000 years ago.
Did BioLogos decide that such a solution was incompatible with Evolutionary Creationism?
The incompatibility is with honest scientific inquiry an I think many at Biologos are committed to an acceptance of scientific inquiry and findings in Christianity because anything else makes Christianity ultimately irrational and irrelevant. I searched and searched and found no evidence of any such thing, certainly not from reading the paper by Swamidass which mostly seemed concerned with proving that genetic isolation did not absolutely disprove a geneological descent from a single male (Adam) from 10,000 years ago. It is absurd because science is not about absolute proofs anyway but about what it is reasonable to conclude given the evidence.
Personally I think the obsession with genetics in theology is not only irrational but with all kinds of negative philosophical/theological implications as well as being quite unnecessary. Cultural exchange is quite sufficient for any reasonable theological needs. Frankly the whole idea of a genetic transmission of sin is grotesque in the extreme.
1 Like
âFrankly the whole idea of a genetic transmission of sin is grotesque in the extreme.â
If we think of sin as inherited guilt, I agree. Itâs not only grotesque, but illogical.
However, if we think of sin as a disease, then it would make more sense.