Let's address the fat elephant. Is Evolution commensurate with classical Theism? Whether it's christianity, islam or judaism. If yes, how can it substantiated based on scripture?
>>18656020To continue this point,Richard Dawkins, the funny science man, calls the term 'theistic evolution' an attempt to 'smuggle God in by the back door'. He has a point, in the sense that holding to this worldview as an instrument of God's creative power i.e a naturalistic explanation for our origin, would then not necessitate God's own existence in causal chain. He would merely be the creative finger at the end of the domino block.
>>186560201. No, the whole point of evolutionism is to remove God as creator 2. Evolutionism is strictly irreconcilable with Genesis 1
>>18656020In short? No.In truth? That doesn't matter. People are very capable of believing two contradictory things simultaneously, even when they are expressly aware that they are contradictory. Hell the actual official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that both evolution through Natural Selection and the creation account involving the Garden of Eden including Adam and Eve are BOTH literally true, non-metaphorical, and physically happened in the material world. How? "Divine Mystery".
It's entirely possible to believe in God and evolution, but evolution does go against basically every religious doctrine, which pretty much all state that God created man. Trying to harmonize Genesis, for example, with the earth's actual prehistory is a fool's errand.
>>18656062You have no idea what doctrine or dogma means to Catholics.The church does not teach that evolution is true.It does not teach that it's false either, their official position is that it is not incompatible with the faith.One thing it does teach is that materialism is false.
>>18656058>the whole point of evolutionism is to remove God as creatorThe theory of evolution didn't start as such, it was just a hypothesis to explain empirical observations, like, species changing, adapting and diversifying due to external stimuli.Like other sciences, it improves our epistimic understanding of the world, allowing for the possibility of alternative exegesis of scripture.It did lead a lot of people to conclude naturalistic explanations could explain our existence, in its entirety. However i believe that's short-sighted.>Evolutionism is strictly irreconcilable with Genesis 1But you'd need to substantiate this, because as the op pic shows, the existence of a 'theistic evolution' as theory which various religions use.
>>18656020Evolution isn’t strictly incompatible with classical Theism. A god that is all-powerful and all-knowing can choose any way to create the creatures of his world, and choosing to create a system to dynamically generate creatures over time versus making each and every creature directly is in principle not out of his power to do, as he can do whatever he wants. In fact, creating a *system* to generate creatures is a much more complex endeavor, because it requires the design of that system and its output to adhere to the end goals of all the creatures he wants output, and designing systems of global scale from the results down is an extremely difficult feat requiring an even greater mind than one-off creations.Of course the usual intent isn’t to ask whether the classical God *can* utilize evolution as a means, but if he *did* utilize it. That comes down to determining if the scriptures used to describe what God *did* either say, don’t say, or leave open the answer, to which you’ll get several conclusions depending on what religious sect you ask. From there it’d be a matter of weighing each’s claims against each other to see which is most plausible.
>>18656118>their official position is that it is not incompatible with the faithThat is literally saying that both are true. And no one even mentioned materialism.
>>18656150A belief of one possibility of two being “not incompatible” doesn’t mean both are true. It means people are free to choose to believe one or the other and still hold to a belief in the world’s origins in the classical God. It’s like if I said “you can believe that JFK was killed by a lone actor, but a multi-actor conspiracy is not incompatible.” That doesn’t mean both are true at once, but that you can choose which to believe because the exact process of how JFK died doesn’t change that he was killed in the first place. It’s a place where people can reasonably debate about it and postulate evidence for either possibility, not matter your own personal belief on the matter.
>>18656163If something is "not incompatible" it by definition is possible for both to be true. If they were "incompatible" it would definitionally be impossible for both to be true. By saying the two beliefs are compatible, the Church is by any accepted definition of the word, saying that it believes both can be true without contradicting each other. Now we can go into how that's a cop-out, or an obvious attempt to use weasel-words to avoid confronting an uncomfortable truth, or even just plain contradictory nonsense, but it is what it is.
>>18656020classical theism:>dark hell-spawned demons have no place with the light of God in Christ or in their heavenly kingdom established upon the earthevolution:>due to divergent evolutionary pressures over countless generations, the light and dark races have wildly different strengths and weaknesses, and the dark races didn't end up with what's necessary for civilization
>>18656020Well, "classical theism" is nonsense (something can't "exist" outside space and time since "existence" is a property of things in space and time), so it's incompatible with anything factual, like evolution.
>>18656183“Both *can be* true” and “Both *are* true” are fundamentally different statements.“Can be” means that there are options to choose from. At least for the Catholics, they regard both creationism and evolution as theories for the physical origins of the world separate from the question of God’s involvement, and determined that both options are compatible with the belief in the classical God, so it leaves belief in choosing one to the reason of the individual instead of dogmatically asserting one as required for everyone. It’s saying either belief is “not incompatible” with the *faith in God*, not that the both are “not incompatible” with *each other*. It’s just left to the individual’s judgement in this case.
>>18656020>classical theism>only names the Abrahamic cults
>>18656020Through the help of my friend Saint/SheikhGPT, i found most classical theists that are open to evolution broadly hold to 5 primary models.1. Theistic Evolution >Evolution is a real process, but guided by God’s will. Adam and Eve may be seen as special creations within this evolutionary history. 2. Ensoulment Model/Divine Selection Model>Evolution explains the biology, but God “ensouls” a chosen pair, giving them spiritual uniqueness. Adam and Eve are real beings, distinct from other hominids due to this divine ensoulment. 3. Allegorical / Symbolic Adam >Adam represents an archetype for humanity’s moral awakening, not an actual literal ancestor. 4. Dual Truth Framework >Science explains empirical processes; revelation explains metaphysical meaning and reality. A compartmentalized approach where both accounts are valid, but in different domains. And of course as this >>18656143 anon said,5. Guided Evolution/ Intelligent design>Evolutionary mechanisms exist but are evidence of divine programming. Adam is unique, but biology reveals God’s wisdom.Which of these would you say is the most compatible with your sensibilities?
>>18656020>classical TheismOnly those influenced by the Greeks maybe https://www.academia.edu/115368939/The_God_of_Aristotle_is_Not_the_God_of_Abraham>how can it substantiated based on scripture?It's more like it doesn't necessarily compete with it. Especially when talking about nonhuman animal life
>>18656236Sorry which of your favorite religions did I not mention?That one school of hinduism? Some modern neoplatonic ones? The sky father tengri? Atum?
>>18656260You seem to hold to the first view from here >>18656244. I find the model of 'ensoulment with a dual-truth' thesis more compelling than one that would entail "mating or hybridizing with theological (*) non-humans". In this view, the scriptural claim of Adam's creation can be more than an architype of humanity (which can lead to an infinite regress of allegories). Instead describing real human beings, but the story is represented as the metaphysical (*) truth of creation i.e being willed by God intentionally, with a divine-purpose in mind. Shaped and created uniquely by Him, then act is biologically (*) brought about through evolutionary mechanisms in-time, which eventually leads to the vessel of Adam. He distinctly breathes a soul into man, making the first theological and metaphysical human being, exceptional over creation. The "exile from heaven" or the "fall into sin" can be reframed as a metaphysical (*) truth about disobedience. Biologically (*) being about moral awareness. The ability to sin is man gaining the capacity for moral choices and disobedience towards God. In contrast, to other creatures who merely follow biological impulses seperated from abstract thoughts. Adam's "sin" is the theolgical (*) dawn of man's moral consciousness demarcating him from a simple-being.This view I think wouldn't necessitate Adam and Eve being the only humans on earth.What do you think?
>>18656020Evolution is perfectly compatible with Neoplatonic or Spinozist perspectives of metaphysical monism. But Christians need to accept those first.
>>18656379>Evolution is perfectly compatible with NeoplatonicHow exactly?
>>18656381Evolution can bee seen as essentially neoplatonism/spinozism applied to the material forms of life. A reflection of the evolution of metaphysical forms onto organic matter, so to say.There is one primordial substance from which every living creature evolves, each keeping the original building blocks/substance, but changing its accidental forms. Add the neoplatonic "Nous" as the immanent force of natural selection/intelligent design and there you have it: religious metaphysical evolutionism.
>>18656395Pure nonsense.
