Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Tue Apr 29 2008 - 17:29:32 EDT

Is fair to say that most TE/EC positions are against the idea of, as George puts it, "circumventing the evolutionary process at a critical point"? In other words, everything is 'always already' contained withIN that evolutionary process itself, which is used by the SuperNature/Creator to continue (the) Creation in, through and beyond time.

  
David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
    George said: What we know of the process of evolution in general, & what we can infer from the behavior of our nearest surviving primate relatives, indicates that the first humans would have been prone to sinful behavior - even thought they would not have been compelled to sin. Thus the claim that the first human(s) was/were "morally perfect" is problematic.
   
  I respond: But isn't there a difference between being prone to sin and sin being inevitable? For example, if Christ truly was tempted in every way as we are, in some sense he must in his humanity have been prone to sin -- otherwise the temptation is meaningless. Yet for the "new Adam" sin was not inevitable, since he did not sin. Maybe moral "perfection" means making right choices even in the face of very real temptations and limitations?
   
  George, you mention traditional RC theology. I remain confused about exactly what the Catholic church's official teaching is here. I know JPII acknowledge that evolution is more than a theory, and I know the RC Church generally permits a range of views on the interpretation of Genesis. But, my understanding is that human evolution remains officially or at least semi-officially verboten, because of a strongly Augustinian view of how original sin is transmited (monogenism).
   
  

  On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:58 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
      If it were just a matter of God selecting a particular couple & communicating with them then evolution wouldn't pose any great threat to the traditional "fall" scenario. But the problem goes deeper than that - in particular, to Strimple's claim that there was "a first man specially created by God, morally perfect in knowledge, righteousness and holiness." What we know of the process of evolution in general, & what we can infer from the behavior of our nearest surviving primate relatives, indicates that the first humans would have been prone to sinful behavior - even thought they would not have been compelled to sin. Thus the claim that the first human(s) was/were "morally perfect" is problematic. This can be avoided if one postulates that God did something outside the ordinary course of natural processes to add some spiritual & moral capabilities to some hominid in order to create humkanity in the theological sense. This in fact is what traditional RC theology
 postulates - that what humanity lost in "the fall" was not any natural capacity but this added supernatural aspect, the donum superadditum. That is why Rome can accept human evolution up to a point. But adopting this approach means circumventing the evolutionary [process at a critical point.
     
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 29 17:32:43 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 29 2008 - 17:32:43 EDT