DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay, I would appreciate some clarification of terms as we may be operating from a different set of assumptions.

I was under the assumption that macro-evolution is the hypothesis that we evolved from lower species and that speciation has occurred over the past few billion years.

Although macro-evolution has scientific problems, I was under the impression that macro-evolution was not under debate and that the debate is about the mechanism by which macro-evolution takes place. Namely, random mutation or intelligent design.

As far as I know, Intelligent Design does not challenge the evidence for macro-evolution (though the evidence certainly could be challenged) and instead argues that God plays with loaded dice. I'm more than happy to have my definitions corrected in order to have meaningful communication.

Pax Tecum

What is the exact definition of MICRO-evolution? Im not too sure.

Macro evolution ISN'T true.

Jay:
What do you make of pope John Paul's comments that the theory of evolution is just as viable for the origins of the human race as the Genesis account in the Bible? I can understand micro-evolution to a point. However, no human genetic mutation has ever resulted in a benefit to that organism. All known human genetic mutations result in disease or some sort of abnormality. To say that a certain human mutation confers an advantage to the species and results in changes within the species doesn't make any sense. Macro-evolution just doesn't hold water. I agree with you that the issue is "a religious one at heart".
What are your thoughts?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie, not to put words into Jay's mouth but I suspect that the ideas of Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II are very much along the lines of "Intelligent Design" or what was once known as "theistic evolution". PJ2 and B16 have both repeatedly stated that although the first chapters of Genesis may have been allegorical rather than historical and that (macro) evolution may indeed have occurred, we must NOT embrace the notion that it took place without God's intervention. The "social Darwinianism" which asserts that we came about by accident rather than as a result of God's love has been repeatedly rejected as incompatible with the Christian faith.

Rather than challenge the notion that macro evolution has occurred (as Creation Scientists do), proponents of Intelligent Design, and theistic evolution instead point to macro evolution as use it as evidence that human life on earth indicates that an intelligence was responsible for our presence.

The three main points consist of: irreducible complexity (e.g. blood clotting which cannot provided incremental advantages), specified complexity (DNA sequences which are so unlikely to occur randomly that one would not expect it to occur in the lifetime of this universe), and the fine-tuned universe and solar system (the amazing co-incidences required to allow stars and planets and water and significant tides to occur). All suggest that a naturalistic explanation (null hypothesis) for macro evolution is scientifically unfeasible. Others note that this was Aquinas' fifth proof for the existence of God. The world is observably designed and therefore requires a designer.

The courts have repeatedly forbidden schools from challenging either the evidence in favor of macro evolution (as the young earth Creationists did) or the improbably naturalistic interpretation (as the proponents of Intelligent Design do).

That the courts refuse to respect the desires of parents in this matter is the second most reprehensible violation of human rights in North America. That parents are accountable to the state for the education of their children rather than the other way around makes a mockery of the idea of freedom and democracy. Of large organizations, only the Roman Catholic Church respects my right as a parent to decide what to teach my children. Of large organizations, only the Roman Catholic Church takes the time and effort to convince me that their teachings and ideas are a benefit to my family. Everyone else who thinks they know better than me just goes aheads and poisons my kids without first going through me.

Broken Record:
Thanks for your comments. Regarding "the evidence in favor of macroevolution" I just don't see it. I don't think this is a forum to list all the "evidence" (or lack thereof) but can you tell me what evidence there exists for macroevolution. There are many scientists who have said that macroevolution is a farce. However, it continues to be taught in school as if it were fact. Many people still believe that macroevolution occurred despite there not being any factual evidence for it because that is what they were taught in school. I don't disagree that macroevolution COULD have occurred with "God's intervention" if He so designed it, however, there is no evidence for it. To suggest that it "may indeed have ocurred" is a stretch and requires more faith than belief in God. I would venture to say that there is more "proof" for the existence of God than there is for macroevolution. Yet this is ignored by many.

Lastly, did/do the Jews believe that the Genesis account on creation was/is an allegory or did/do they believe that it was a historical synopsis on creation?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie, I think the thrust behind "Intelligent Design" is that IF macro-evolution has occurred (which the world at large already believes), then this would "prove" the existence of a designer because the universe is simply too young to give a reasonable chance of life evolving at all let alone to the point of sentience.

Rather than spend time challenging the belief that macro evolution has occurred, proponents of Intelligent Design have argued that macro evolution points to a "designer".

Both approaches (denying macro-evolution, showing how it points to God) are legimate ways for a Christian to interact with the scientific ideas of today.

Apparently, the scientists and courts of today want to treat both approaches with greater disdain than they accuse the Roman Catholic Church of having heaped upon Galileo.

Broken Record:
I understand what proponents of Intelligent Design believe. However, my question was this:
1)How can "the world at large" believe this theory without any significant proof and 2)acknowledging that it is a "possible" explanation of the existence of the world (as pope John Paul did) only gives it more credibility in the eyes of the world when there is little, if any, scientific proof that it has occurred in this fashion.
My other question was: Did/do the Jews believe that the Genesis account on creation was/is an allegory or did/do they believe that it was a historical synopsis on creation?

If anyone knows the answer to this last question please let me know.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

If I can throw out a quick answer to what the Jews thought about the Genesis account: I would first point out that the distinction between historical cause and "mythic" or allegorical cause was not so sharply divided, not only in the minds of the original Jews, but anywhere in the world, until long after the accounts had been established. I strongly suspect that for the Jews, the "day" referred to in Genesis was historically real, but that that didn't necessarily mean that it totally corresponded to what we now understand a day to be. The two were wedded together and inseparable, but not to be confused or divorced. To distinguish strongly between allegory and physics or history is already to capitulate, so to speak, to the scientific point of view that says that the link between the two is weak. Whereas, from the religious or metaphysical or philosophical point of view, the distinction is less divisive and the link between allegory and history is stronger. I think the final answer to your question, as stated, would have to be "yes": the Jews believed that the Genesis account was a synopsis of history, because for them (at least prior to, say, the onset of Greek philosophy), any synopsis of history was going to be at least somewhat allegorical; and it was allegorical, because any allegory is not going to be at odds with temporal reality, thus including actual history, while not being entirely subject to it. The question of whether a Genesian day was just 24 hours, or whether it was just a metaphor, probably wouldn't have made any sense to them. They would have almost certainly responded to such claims by pointing out that there is no such thing as an historical event that does not also happen in a transcendent plane (like heaven, or "in God"), just as there is nothing that happens in the transcendent planes that is not made manifest somehow in the temporal or historical plane. "What we do on earth echoes in eternity," just as what happens on earth is an echo of what happens in eternity. If the scales were tipped in any direction, it would almost be in the direction (again, for the ancient Jews) of saying that allegory was stronger or more real than history. Even Plato, who was relatively recent in sharply dividing reason (corresponding in our day to the historical-scientific view of things) from allegory, nonetheless used many allegories to prove his rational points, and seems to have believed in them to a certain extent. I believe that Eric Voegelin and Etienne Gilson have both written about this sort of thing. You might check out Gilson's excellent book, *God and Philosophy*. He takes on the modern distinctions between science and allegory as being largely alien to the ancient mind.

Tobias

I too often wonder how Jewish people interpret the first chapters of Genesis. I've known a small number of Jewish people (about ten?) and have yet to meet one who believes that Yahweh exists. They still celebrate passover though...

Tobias:
What???? Forgive my ignorance but I didn't understand anything you said. I mean no disrespect but can you please explain that in plain English? I must be dumb or something but you totally lost me on that one. I am not sure what to make of the Vatican's position on evolution and Intelligent Design. It seems that by acknowledging evolution as more than a theory it diminishes God's authority in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Broken Record:
No Jew that you have met believes that Yahweh exists? They must be secular Jews. How can a Jew not believe in God when they are His chosen people?

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Sure; I'll try.

You posited the question as to whether the Jews thought of it as either A or B. For the ancient Jews, there was no dichotomy between the two, and they probably wouldn't have understood what it meant for something to be *only* an allegory OR simply an *historical* synopsis. For them, to have spoken of one was automatically to have spoken of the other. History, as removed from allegory, just wasn't an option for them; and vice versa.

I apologize for being so long-winded about it earlier, but it's a tricky point to make, because it doesn't exactly tell us what they *did* think of Genesis. And it's actually very hard to tell. The only thing we seem to know about it is that their view of creation (of anything, really) somehow combined both our "horizontal" or purely scientific/empirical worldview, with a more "vertical" or allegorical worldview--but one in which allegories were ultimately real, not merely symbolic. They wouldn't have looked at a synopsis of creation and thought of it as purely historical, just as they wouldn't have looked at the same synopsis and though that it was somehow divorced from the empirical world. Does that make sense?

I think that the Vatican is trying to do the same thing; that is, it is trying to keep both the reality that the allegory points to, and the reality that the allegory occurs in, both simultaneously real and alive. You may be right that admitting evolutionary theories diminishes the Church's authority, in the eyes of everyone else, but that's because everyone else mistakenly believes that A) religious viewpoints necessarily drive a wedge between the allegorical truth and the "physical" or historical truth, and any tipping of the scales towards affirming "historical" truth means to walk away from allegorical truth (which isn't true), and B) they don't see that the Church is actually saying that, while it affirms evolutionary theory, it doesn't affirm the philosophy or worldview that evolutionary theory stands for. You can see it on a smaller scale: if someone I know insists that everything is flammable, and I don't believe him, he goes on setting more and more things on fire. Eventually, I come to agree with him. Then he says, "See, you agree that everything in the world *should* be put on fire." That's about the same sort of thing that the modern world is doing with the Church's concession to the scientific, rather than the philosophical, tenets of evolutionary theory. They try to take the Church's agreement with specific evolutionary theories as a confirmation that the Church wants everything "evolutionized," and thus the Church no longer has confidence in its own "allegorical" beliefs, if you want to call them that.

Tobias

Tobias

Nice note.

when we were one

When we were one:

Thanks.

Tobias

Post a comment