Theistic Evolution And The Fall Of Man?

[klaus54]

That makes sense. TE always seemed like an incorrect appellation to me, or at least that it's applied where it ought not be. Is it an actively guided process? Is it a largely passive process with occasional tweaks? Is it a set of rules set in place let to run while knowing the end result? These seem to be different things to me, but they all get lumped together. The real answer to Seer's question isn't going to rely on being a TE, but how one views Original Sin and Adam's potential existence as a representative of the human species. What does TE have to do with any of that?

Exactly. The real rub is explaining the Fall Myth.

It's a rich and inconclusive theological pursuit.

*The myth of a genetic curse on all descendants of the Man and Woman for biting a piece of fruit creates a theodicy at its wildest. The fact that conservative and fundamentalist Christians hold this view with such tenacity always bugged me since my childhood.

K54

* At least in the "literal" sense.

[whag]

It is humbling to realize we may get some or a lot of it wrong. Our law based mentality doesn't want to have to truly depend upon Christ's grace. Somehow we always want to add a little bit of what we can do to the mix, and we also tend to think that if we get some of it wrong along the way Christ's grace won't quite be enough. But that really is not how it is at all.

Paul emphasized the danger of compromised belief, however. Here's an example of how that taboo is typically expressed:

Can 'Small' Doctrinal Compromises Lead to Large-Scale Disaster?

From that essay:

"A church may take a compromise stand on the doctrine of creation, for example, and not realize that recent church history demonstrates that compromise on the first chapters of Genesis leads eventually to compromise of the Gospel itself, by planting the seeds of compromise on the authority of Scripture."

Thus the story of the Garden and the passage of Paul you quote are quite real. But also quite abstract and 'mythical'.

Indeed:

1 Tim. 2:14

"For it was Adam who was first created,and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Even in context, that's a bizarre thing for Timothy to say.

[Carrikature]

Exactly. The real rub is explaining the Fall Myth.

It's a rich and inconclusive theological pursuit.

*The myth of a genetic curse on all descendants of the Man and Woman for biting a piece of fruit creates a theodicy at its wildest. The fact that conservative and fundamentalist Christians hold this view with such tenacity always bugged me since my childhood.

K54

* At least in the "literal" sense.

I must admit, this is one of the things I was raised with that continues to baffle me. It makes sense in a world where one has limited knowledge of how traits are passed from generation to the next, but we're well beyond that point. For a time, I tried to reconcile it as learned behaviors rather than inherited. It works to a degree, but it still fails on a couple of counts. To begin with, it eliminates the need for a virgin birth. Even a virgin birth wouldn't be sufficient, since those behaviors would still be picked up from every human Jesus came into contact with. There might be answers to every new objection, but it very quickly starts to look like the proverbial finger in the dike (except a lot of them).

The other alternative is Adam as a legal representative. That holds a bit more water, I think, but it doesn't look like justice to me.

[shunyadragon]

That makes sense. TE always seemed like an incorrect appellation to me, or at least that it's applied where it ought not be. Is it an actively guided process? Is it a largely passive process with occasional tweaks? Is it a set of rules set in place let to run while knowing the end result? These seem to be different things to me, but they all get lumped together. The real answer to Seer's question isn't going to rely on being a TE, but how one views Original Sin and Adam's potential existence as a representative of the human species. What does TE have to do with any of that?

I believe it is best to simplify and try to shoe horn ancient paradigms into science. Many views like 'tweaking' try to try foolishly in incorporate an anthropomorphic hands on God into the process that appears too random to get the desired result. Theistic Evolution is ok, but cannot be expected to be descriptive of the problem of ancient religions accepting all of science including the age and history of the universe. My view is simple, Natural Law is simply the Divine Laws of Creation, and what we have today is the result. Speculation beyond that and trying to make things fit does not work well.

[seer]

Seer got his answer in Post #6, he just didn't like it. There's nothing in the OP that limits this thread to TEs only.

So now you know my motives Carrikature? And no the best answer came from Jim in post #21.

[klaus54]

Paul emphasized the danger of compromised belief, however. Here's an example of how that taboo is typically expressed:

Can 'Small' Doctrinal Compromises Lead to Large-Scale Disaster?

From that essay:

"A church may take a compromise stand on the doctrine of creation, for example, and not realize that recent church history demonstrates that compromise on the first chapters of Genesis leads eventually to compromise of the Gospel itself, by planting the seeds of compromise on the authority of Scripture."



Indeed:

1 Tim. 2:14

"For it was Adam who was first created,and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Even in context, that's a bizarre thing for Timothy to say.

Just an FYI, St. Paul said that in a letter to Tim.

Doesn't affect the content though. Remember Paul was speaking as a First Century A.D. yuman bean.

K54

[klaus54]

So now you know my motives Carrikature? And no the best answer came from Jim in post #21.

What ARE your motives then?

Please don't keep us in suspense.

My surmise is that your motive is to waste people's time dealing your repetitive idiotic questions.

K54

[shunyadragon]

This is probably why a number of people -- myself included -- prefer the term "evolutionary creationism".

My preference is Scientific Creationism (SC). There is too much emphasis on 'evolution' when the problem is a negative attitude to science on many fronts.

[KingsGambit]

I'd like to add a bit to oxmixmudd's earlier post regarding CS Lewis's view. I personally think his influence at times has extended further beyond where is justifiable; however, his true expertise was in classic literature, and he recognized Genesis 2 in terms of archetype, long before scientific findings "necessitated" any such readings. As he wrote elsewhere; it might have involved a literal fruit for all he knew.

I find this somewhat encouraging myself as it suggests there are literary reasons to look to such views beyond being simply backed into that corner by modern genetics.

[seer]

I find this somewhat encouraging myself as it suggests there are literary reasons to look to such views beyond being simply backed into that corner by modern genetics.

Right, good point. Like Augustine did not see the days in Genesis as literal 24 hour periods.

[Carrikature]

So now you know my motives Carrikature?

Do you know what 'motive' means? I've made no claim to know them. What I have claimed is to know your reaction, which is pretty obvious in your reply to Klaus. You don't like his answer. It's still an answer.

And no the best answer came from Jim in post #21.

You still received an answer in post #6. That it's not your favorite answer is not relevant to what I said. That you've received multiple answers is also not relevant to what I said. You got an answer that you didn't like. That's all I said.

[Carrikature]

I believe it is best to simplify and try to shoe horn ancient paradigms into science. Many views like 'tweaking' try to try foolishly in incorporate an anthropomorphic hands on God into the process that appears too random to get the desired result. Theistic Evolution is ok, but cannot be expected to be descriptive of the problem of ancient religions accepting all of science including the age and history of the universe. My view is simple, Natural Law is simply the Divine Laws of Creation, and what we have today is the result. Speculation beyond that and trying to make things fit does not work well.

I can't pretend to be surprised that you believe this. It's arrogant and ignorant to claim that ancient paradigms can or should be shoe-horned into science, as if you know best what they really meant. The ancients did the best they could with what they had, and they got an amazing amount of things right. Why not be satisfied with that? One does not preserve the ancients' integrity by sacrificing their beliefs on the altar of infallibility. Respect them for what they did, learn from what you can, and realize that we are just as wrong about many things for all that we get an amazing amount of things right.

As usual, though, you contradict yourself. Your first sentence claims that it is best to simplify and shoe horn, while your last sentence readily admits this doesn't work. It's madness.

[shunyadragon]

Historic Ada

I can't pretend to be surprised that you believe this. It's arrogant and ignorant to claim that ancient paradigms can or should be shoe-horned into science, as if you know best what they really meant. The ancients did the best they could with what they had, and they got an amazing amount of things right. Why not be satisfied with that? One does not preserve the ancients' integrity by sacrificing their beliefs on the altar of infallibility. Respect them for what they did, learn from what you can, and realize that we are just as wrong about many things for all that we get an amazing amount of things right.

As usual, though, you contradict yourself. Your first sentence claims that it is best to simplify and shoe horn, while your last sentence readily admits this doesn't work. It's madness.

No contradiction whatsoever. I do not criticize the ancients at all. It is the contemporary believers that I criticize for trying to shoe horn ancient myths and legends and worlds in some way fit science.

The ancients were great creative engineers, but no they did not get much right in their myths concerning the science of geology, cosmology or the biological sciences, and I do not pretend they did. Lucretius was probably the first to see the light as a philosopher.

It is common among contemporary theists to try and find a way to make 'Adam and Eve,' the 'Fall,' and the 'Flood' to some how fit modern science, Evolution, and Earth history. It is a meaningless futile effort. Historic Adam??? What a joke.

[seer]

You still received an answer in post #6. That it's not your favorite answer is not relevant to what I said. That you've received multiple answers is also not relevant to what I said. You got an answer that you didn't like. That's all I said.

Post #6 said this:

There's a pretty wide spectrum of views among TE's on how to view Adam. Some TE's hold to a literal Adam whose body evolved from other animals but whose spirit was miraculously implanted by God. Some TE's view Adam as an archetype or as "everyman". Some view Adam as pure myth.

For a detailed explanation of the various options, I recommend the recent book "Four Views on the Historical Adam".

Now why don't I like that?

[Carrikature]

I believe it is best to simplify and try to shoe horn ancient paradigms into science. Many views like 'tweaking' try to try foolishly in incorporate an anthropomorphic hands on God into the process that appears too random to get the desired result. Theistic Evolution is ok, but cannot be expected to be descriptive of the problem of ancient religions accepting all of science including the age and history of the universe. My view is simple, Natural Law is simply the Divine Laws of Creation, and what we have today is the result. Speculation beyond that and trying to make things fit does not work well.

No contradiction whatsoever. I do not criticize the ancients at all. It is the contemporary believers that I criticize for trying to shoe horn ancient myths and legends and worlds in some way fit science.

Then you criticize yourself. Seriously, do you read your own posts?

It is a meaningless futile effort.

And yet it's the essence of Baha'i to reconcile all beliefs into something tenable.