Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue · Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

Can a Christian Believe in Evolution?
22nd Oct. 2018 | Breaking In The Habit

0:21 Did you notice, Pius XII in Humani Generis actually foresaw a controversy - with conditions:

* both pro-evolution (believing Adam had "parents" that weren't parents because they were animals) and anti-evolution (traditional stance) needed to be represented by experts who were doubly so, in Bible and in science;
* both sides needed to be prepared to submit to the decision of the Church.

Note, Pacelli was a jurist before becoming a Pope, and this means, one might do well to read the "fine print" - he didn't say the decision of the Church needed to be a future one.

This means, supposing such a decision falls within the powers of papacy (it's obviously in this part not a dogmatic one, and the conditions on a debate are wildly different from earlier times, when free debating wasn't banned) I can claim to abide by that through the fact of abiding by Council of Trent.

Session IV involves Biblical inerrancy as per patristic reading (it seems this lacks a canon with condemnation of opposite view, so could be disciplinary), but Session V involves individuality of Adam (as obviously explicitly upheld in Humani Generis too, that part worded as a dogmatic presupposition on both sides before the debate).

I would argue, accepting the full, up to date evolutionary scenario in its uniformitarian chronology (with things not available to Pius XII decades ago) would involve ultimately denying the individuality of Adam.

1:45 change in the gene pool over time is obviously accepted by both sides.

If I accept my blue eyes and Neil de Grasse Tyson's brown eyes are determined by some group of genes, and if I accept we both descend from both Adam and from Noah, this means, changes in the gene pool over time have happened.

As obviously, this is not all that some scientists mean when they say "evolution is a scientific fact" ... but I'll hope you come back to this, otherwise I will comment here under this one.

2:57 "over the course of millions and millions of years" ...

Pius XII could imagine this extension of Biblical time concerned only creation dayes prior to Adam.

The methods telling these existed are less good than C-14 which is actually used for useful things (if you think it is useful to detect a Rembrandt is really from 19th C. and therefore not by Rembrandt, for instance, or determine whether a house found with no clothed inhabitants or paintings was from Viking or Vendel period).

Now, in a Young Earth Creationist scenario, I can motivate C-14 being at 1.45 pmC at the Flood, but if the world had been standing for millions of years in 2957 BC, I would need to take the atmospheric level as c. 100 pmC and therefore the carbon date for 2957 BC as c. 3000 BC, and the carbon date 40 000 BP as being from 40 000 BP.

This will have some implications for human history.

3:05 "New features evolving" is one of the things about evolution never observed - only deduced by accepting millions of years and very extensive relations beyond the family level of taxonomy.

You know, like accepting cats and dogs had a common ancestor or things.

3:35 For the YEC scenario, the very radical founder effects after the Flood would leave no need for "hundreds and hundreds of generations".

I consider all 16 hedgehog species, perhaps also all 9 gymnure or moon rat species came from one couple of hedgehogs on the Ark.

I don't know how long a hedgehog generation is, but perhaps 3 or four years, meaning the 5000 years since the Flood would leave 1250 generations for divergence, in their case, but some beings have longer generations.

4:00 Ah, you are taking the innovative idea mentioned in Humani Generis for granted.

No, if we and monkeys shared a common ancestor, that common ancestor would either have been a man or some kind of monkey, and we would either have had men degenerate into monkeys or monkeys of some kind evolving into men.

But humanity is not a gradual difference from irrational beasts, it is a multiple but still sharp and clear cut one.

To make Adam with a human soul from parents lacking such would be as great a proof of God's omnipotence as what we read in Genesis 1, but not at all as great a proof of His infinite goodness.

Adam would either have shared much of non-human "parents'" life which would have warped his humanity, or he would have needed to become orphaned before God made him a man - meaning God did not make him as man as soon as He made him a living creature. Unlike what Genesis says.

And having grown up with no humanity and miraculously acquiring it would involve a humanity somewhat warped by memories from earlier on ... or amnesia.

In other words, the scenario you propose would make God an abusive Creator instead of a good one.

Moreover, Adam would have needed a human anatomy (Broca's area, human version of hyoid bone, human version of ears, human proportions between vertical and horizontal dimensions of the breath coming out of the mouth) while these would have been useless to a non-human being. Does this leave Adam as transformed as "Beast" in "The Beauty and the Beast" or his "parents" handicapped beasts or himself a handicapped man?

Some left of the video .... see: Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

No comments: