Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 1:14:50 AM5/23/07
to
So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?

I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). Macaddicted
tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
can explain them to me (go figure).

I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little synopsis
as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
theologists acknowledge).

I'll give a brief summary of my viewpoints.

The Catholic Church teaches

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418

Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
"taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
with the theory of evolution.

See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?

Bodega

unread,
May 23, 2007, 3:34:30 AM5/23/07
to
On May 22, 10:14 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

Original sin is non-existent. This is like debating whether Batman and
Wonder Woman ever had sex.

TomS

unread,
May 23, 2007, 7:47:44 AM5/23/07
to
"On 22 May 2007 22:14:50 -0700, in article
<1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."

I wonder whether your discussion applies to *evolution*,
rather than to some other scientific concept, such as genetics.

The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.

The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.


--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)

DougC

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:07:41 AM5/23/07
to
rappoccio wrote:

> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.

Is that bad?

Why do you zero in on "the original" sin? What about murder, theft,
insider trading, and all the other sins?

Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

Doug Chandler

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:26:54 AM5/23/07
to


Wasn't that exactly the point I was trying to make?

John Wilkins

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:34:17 AM5/23/07
to
Bodega <michael...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

And if they did, was the Boy Wonder their lovechild?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

chris.li...@gmail.com

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:36:29 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:07 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
> rappoccio wrote:
> > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> Is that bad?

rapoccio makes no judgement either way, but I get the impression he
thinks it's a good thing.

>
> Why do you zero in on "the original" sin? What about murder, theft,
> insider trading, and all the other sins?

Because those other crimes you mention are committed by an individual,
and that same individual pays the penalty for them. No one is
claiming that if your father was an inside trader, you're going to
hell.

>
> Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

It's actually quite a reasonable question, and it deserves an answer.
I'd like to see Tony Pagano's take on this also.

Chris

>
> Doug Chandler


Message has been deleted

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:45:26 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 3:34 am, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

That's the point. If it wasn't clear I apologize.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:50:20 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 7:47 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On 22 May 2007 22:14:50 -0700, in article
> <1179897290.537628.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."

Not at all, it uses evolution to show how a concept in a religion is
inconsistent.

> rather than to some other scientific concept, such as genetics.

I don't think so, the point I was making is that we know (from
evolution, not genetics) that there wasn't really a "first" person
living in a garden.

>
> The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
> relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
> some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.

That's my point.

> The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
> clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.

However the debunking of the myth comes from variation.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:54:39 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:07 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
> rappoccio wrote:
> > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> Is that bad?

Is what bad? That original sin isn't consistent with evolution because
it relies on a fairy tale? For me that's not bad (I'm glad we can
debunk this myth), for people that believe in this it seems to be a
bad thing.

>
> Why do you zero in on "the original" sin?

It's the one that's least sensible. By doing nothing, we did something
wrong.

<baffled>

> What about murder, theft,
> insider trading, and all the other sins?

They actually did something wrong. Punishment would actually be
deserved (eternal punishment is a different story).

>
> Your nonsense is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

It's not my nonsense, and yes, it is inconsistent with the theory of
evolution. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought
original sin was true. I was stating the position of the Church.

>
> Doug Chandler

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:56:44 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:36 am, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"

<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 9:07 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > rappoccio wrote:
> > > Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> > > didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > Is that bad?
>
> rapoccio makes no judgement either way, but I get the impression he
> thinks it's a good thing.

I'm not being too clear, I think it's a very good thing that we can
use an observable fact to debunk an unsatisfactory metaphysical idea
(sinning before we're actually capable of doing anything that could be
called "sin").

er...@swva.net

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:10:45 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 1:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the facts
> upon which the theology of original sin is based in the Catholic
> Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). Macaddicted
> tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some things" to
> find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should first
> understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are before he
> can explain them to me (go figure).
>
> I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little synopsis
> as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the Catholic
> Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't descend from
> Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other modern
> theologists acknowledge).
>

If one isn't a biblical literalist, and looks at the story of of Adam
and Eve and the concept of original sin as metaphors for an existence
in which we will often be our own worst enemies, then there is no way
the non-existence of a literal Adam and Eve could disprove it. In
fact, is the concept of disproving a metaphor even coherent? I
suppose at some point there might be some statistical instrument for
rating a metaphor, but I am pretty sure the value of a metaphor will
be one of degree.

(snip)

Eric Root

VoiceOfReason

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:23:25 AM5/23/07
to

Would you expect science and a religious belief to be consistent? If
so, why?

<...>


TomS

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:28:24 AM5/23/07
to
"On 23 May 2007 06:50:20 -0700, in article
<1179928220.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rappoccio stated..."

I fail to see how evolutionary biology has anything to say about
living in a garden. As far as there being a "first person", I don't
see how evolution presents any more difficulties than other
sciences, such as genetics.

>
>>
>> The idea of someone committing a sin, that doesn't seem at all
>> relevant to any science. But let's assume that sin represents
>> some physical trait of humans, for the purposes of discussion.
>
>That's my point.
>
>> The part about inheriting sin in the "blood", that is quite
>> clearly a matter of genetics, not about variation in a population.
>
>However the debunking of the myth comes from variation.

I agree that the present variation within Homo sapiens strongly
tells against there being a single "founding couple" for all of
us. But, again, that's a matter more appropriate to genetics, not
particularly evolution.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:31:33 AM5/23/07
to

When was the last time someone was theorized to be punished for
eternity in a lake of fire over a metaphor?

The point is, the Church places a huge amount of importance on the
"erasing of sin" in baptism (and goes so far as to argue that those
that aren't baptized with water are baptiized anyway, by being good
people to make the message more palatable). However the entire concept
is nonsense. No one can sin by the very nature of their existence
before they make any choices. It's simply a non-sequitor.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:35:43 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 1:14 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you expand upon this? How does science know that this specific
individual never existed?

> and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.

As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
*expect* the two to be consistent? For that matter, the concept of
God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
consistent with science.

(Feel free to insert jokes, as you see fit.) ;-)

Noelie S. Alito

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:49:40 AM5/23/07
to


(<riffle-riffle>...now where did I put those definitions...? Ah!)


non sequitur - an argument which does not follow from the line of reasoning
non sequiter - being more non sequit than something else
non sequitor - superhero fighting for truth and justice by changing the subject


Noelie

--
<my_first_name>2007@<capital_of_Texas>.rr.com

slothrop

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:18:58 AM5/23/07
to
> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Is one a biblical literalist if one believes Jesus literally lived,
died, rose from the dead and floated up into the sky? And in dying, He
atoned for all the sins of mankind, those sins placed upon mankind's
shoulders due to Original Sin? I'm not sure most Christians would
agree to the "metaphorical" nature of Salvation...

slothrop


slothrop

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:19:17 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:10 am, e...@swva.net wrote:

slothrop

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:19:44 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:10 am, e...@swva.net wrote:

jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:40:28 AM5/23/07
to
On May 22, 10:14 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

First of all, the bible doesn't actually say we're all descended from
Adam and Eve (popular myth). It says man was created on the sixth day,
male and female, in Chapter One and later, in Chapter Two, God created
Adam as a special project ("Let us make man in our own image"). Adam
represents an improvement in the basic design of man, which of course,
in time, becomes the Jewish people. After all, that's who the Old
Testament is about!

Original sin isn't something you inherit by genetics. There was
someone that originated the casting of bronze and others originated
the developement of iron, in the modern age, we have the production of
aluminum and petroleum products. These innovations catch on and
redefine the human condition, much more swiftly and extensively than
genetics. We have the Jewish people to thank for originating sin,
which has become an extremely popular innovation, ever since.

As with any advance in technology, sin is seen as making us weaker and
less human, more disconnected from reality (a.k.a. "wrong"). It's sort
of inescapable that certain popular mass innovations (Original Sin,
the Bronze Age, the Industrial Revolution, etc.) change how we
interact in our environment (most recently, global warming). We know
it's wrong, but there are advantages to the innovations that we are
unwilling to live without, until we absolutely have to.

Whether Adam actually existed or not, is something of a mute point.
The Jewish people do exist and they brought us this innovation of sin
and have been widely condemned and persecuted for it. The term "Jew"
is often a slander as a result. Our embrace of the innovation doesn't
seem to register with us. It's assumed since they originated it, they
have a greater mastery of it. However, at this point in time, it would
be hard to deny (as rappoccio does) that the innovation of sin isn't
widely mastered throughout the world.

Now, it is true that Catholic theologians have muddled the facts with
a bunch of theological nonsense, but then, that's what they're good
at. The fact that the Old Testament was written for the Jewish people,
as a means to give them a sense of identity and philosophy, is so
completely ignored that you'd think Abraham was a Christian. Things
need to be taken in context, but Catholics are like atheists, they
don't believe that people can discern the facts, so they make up a
worldview that suits them and try to shove it down everybody's throats
(typical human behavior).


JTG 5/23/07

slothrop

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:48:39 AM5/23/07
to
> <...>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


People consistently ignore the real issue here.

Is it not true that at one time people thought that Genesis should be
taken literally? Was it not the scientific world-view that gave a clue
to people that Genesis had to be metaphorical? If this is not the
case, I'd be curious to see references on just where it was in church
history that it was determined what parts of the Bible were to be
considered spiritually true (whatever that means in context of an
origins story) and which ones were to be considered historically true,
and on what basis this distinction was made.

If there are Christians who think the story of Jesus and the whole
Salvation thing is spiritually true (again, whatever that means, as it
deals with my eternal soul and the historical record of a guy who
physically affected people's lives), I don't think I've ever met any.
And yet most of those same Christians believe Genesis to be
spiritually true.

Which leaves the question that has been asked a bunch of times around
here and I've not yet seen an answer from Christian believers: If the
story of Genesis and original sin is spiritually true, and the story
of Jesus and the Resurrection is historically true, then why did Jesus
die?

Religion says, according to some people:

1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
2.) Jesus died to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, which
contaminated humanity to an eternity of not being with God (at best)
or an eternity of burning in Hell (at worst), depending on how liberal
your Christianity is.

So if you're one of these people who believe this, how do reconcile
the two? The mental gymnastics I've seen employed on this has over
time soured me to most people of religious persuasions. The reasoning
usually boils down to "I have to be saved, I have to live forever, so
therefore the Genesis account has to have some validity to it, I'll
let the more theologically-minded worry about how it all works..."


slothrop

slothrop

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:52:21 AM5/23/07
to
> slothrop- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

damn Google!!

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 12:12:59 PM5/23/07
to


People who can only argue with a misspelled word: useless.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 12:25:39 PM5/23/07
to

The very concept of a "first human" isn't even defined particularly
well. It depends on "species" being some sort of set-in-stone group of
individuals. This is a horrible way to look at ancestry. It's much
more fluid than that, with generations slowly merging from one
"species" to another over time (with no clear-cut "well, dad here is
an ape, but the baby is a human"). There would not be a "single" human
ancestor because there is no "single" gene that makes us human. Over
time, the genes that define "modern" humans would have evolved, one at
a time. Each new mutated individual would have been able to reproduce
with relatives from recent generations (his/her brothers/sisters/
cousins/parents). Over time, if those mutations are beneficial, they
will "migrate" to the general population, but no single "individual"
was a human and everyone he/she was related to was not. Thus, a better
concept than a "foundation person" is a "foundation group" that become
reproductively isolated from the rest of their species and evolve
independently, allowing a new species to form that is distinct from
the larger "parent" group.

It's better to look at "clades" (i.e. groups that descend from a
common ancestor). There are MANY common ancestors in a species.We
often single out the "most recent common ancestor", but this concept
is actually dependent on the living population, and is not by any
stretch of the imagination the "first" of the ancestors. The most
recent female common ancestor was 140,000 years ago, and the most
recent male common ancestor was 60,000 years ago, so clearly they
didn't actually know each other. They were not part of the first
generations of "humans".

>
> > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
> theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
> *expect* the two to be consistent?

The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
observable fact. Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
assertions have to get smaller).

> For that matter, the concept of
> God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
> consistent with science.

Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
(and by and large all have been falsified).

jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us

unread,
May 23, 2007, 2:13:53 PM5/23/07
to
> slothrop- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.
2.) Jesus died to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve..."

That's way too specific!

We are all born into the technology of our time, innovation, the
original innovation being "Sin" from which all other innovations are
in part based. These innovations and technologies make it impossible
to exist in our natural condition (altruistic, positive, contented,
communing with nature). Therefore, in a basic sense, they are
inherently wrong. To the extent that a couple named Adam and Eve
started us down the road of technology and innovation is lost to the
past and virtually irrelevent.

Innovation being a creation of the human mind and the noted "God"
being a Creator God and not particularly impressed with the inevitable
consequences of human innovation, there existed a long period of time
(The Old Testament) in which this God tried to convince the Jewish
people that innovation and technology were wrong. This eventually
proved to be futile. At which point to gain some perspective, God
entered into the world as a man to experience innovation and
technology from a human perspective. While Jesus found that his basic
objections were correct, he came to understand how perverse the human
perspective had become and decided to forgive man for his innovations
as long as they were willing to accept, in principle, that God
intended his best for them. The whole innovation of Roman Law and his
crucification serves to point out that human innovation doesn't
embrace the consequences of its use and Jesus rising from the dead
signifies that human innovation doesn't dictate the will of Nature
(a.k.a. "God). Atonement is a means of overlooking the rightness and
wrongness of humanity and just trying to get along.

The New Testament ends with "Revelations" which pointedly reasserts
the inevitable wrongness of technology and innovation (ultimate
wholesale destruction). In the modern age, it's a given that if we
don't destroy ourselves, our planet, squander our resources, cheat our
future, that we are destined for extinction, anyway. So, science and
religion are agreed on our eventual fate.


JTG later 5/23/07

jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us

unread,
May 23, 2007, 2:15:09 PM5/23/07
to
> slothrop- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.

jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us

unread,
May 23, 2007, 2:16:25 PM5/23/07
to
> slothrop- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

" 1.) We are born "in sin" because of Adam and Eve.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 2:29:41 PM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 2:15 pm, "jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us" <jgris...@scu.k12.ca.us>
wrote:


Let me know how evil you think technology and innovation are when you
go home tonight. If they're so evil, you should

1) Stop posting on that computer.
2) Turn off all the lights.
3) Never get another innoculation or take another pill.
4) Don't mend any of your broken bones.
5) Don't recusitate anyone who has a heart attack.
6) Don't vaccinate children from smallpox or other killers.
7) Don't give women cesarean sections to help them to not die in
childbirth.
8) Sell your house. Give all the money to charity (you won't be
needing it).
9) Go into the woods.
10) Live in caves (you can't build a lean-to, that's technology).
11) Eat only raw animals and vegetables (don't cook them, fire was
technology too).
12) Get back to me after you've experienced how "evil" technology and
innovation are.

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 23, 2007, 2:41:33 PM5/23/07
to

"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Could you expand on what you think the evidence is that he didn't exist?

> and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.
>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?

I think you are right about doctrine, but the conflict with biology is a
bit more uncertain. Here is where to find the doctrine. Especially
paragraph 36 & 37.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 4:38:38 PM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 2:41 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com > wrote in messagenews:1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>From a few posts up (I'll assume you missed it):

>


> > and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
> > "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> > is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> > with the theory of evolution.
>
> > See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> > carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
> I think you are right about doctrine, but the conflict with biology is a
> bit more uncertain. Here is where to find the doctrine. Especially
> paragraph 36 & 37.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

The one dated August 12, 1950, written by Pius XII, you mean? I've
read it, and also wikipedia has a nice little summary (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

I'll cut to the chase. Brief history:

1) In the Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII says evolution
might have occurred in the past, but doesn't occur now, but there was
ONE Adam and Eve, and they committed Original Sin.
2) Later (around 1996), Neuner and Dupius, along with Roberta Masi
state that it didn't have to be ONE person that was "Adam", but
possibly a foundation group (never mind Pius XII on this, we're sure
he wasn't listening to God just then). No official encyclicals backing
them up as far as I know.
3) The International Theological Commission (endorsed by then Cardinal
Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict) claims that Adam was symbolic of the
first hominids who God breathed a soul into, who were then capable of
sin (and their parents weren't), thus original sin was born. It also
claims that the definitive characteristic of human beings is a large
brain size which "culminated" in homo sapiens.
4) Benedict claims that evolution "isn't a complete, scientifically
proven theory" and it's still possible that intelligent design is
true. (Does the Pope have to go to confession if he lies to the world?
Does he just talk to himself or something?)
5) When this happened is answered by Fiorenzo Facchini in 2006: "The
spark of intelligence was lighted in one or more hominids when, where
and in the ways God willed it."

So let's get this summed up, shall we? So now, the idea (unofficially)
is that the following happened (but they're not really sure):

1) Hominid Group A exists, but isn't human. No "divine spark", no
soul, no possibility of getting into heaven/hell/etc, incapable of
sin, still living in the "perfect world" where members of group A can
be eaten by cats and crocodiles but that's okay, the world is still
free of sin because nothing disobeys God (no free will, I guess).
2) Hominid Group B is born to Hominid Group A (let's say they are the
first generation). Now they get the "divine spark", they receive a
soul as a gift from God, they're able to get into heaven or go to
hell, they are now capable of sin, know the difference between right
and wrong, and God tells them not to sin (eat apples, whatever). The
whole group sins anyway, and the world is taken out of the "perfect
state" and original sin is thrust upon the entirety of the genetic
lineage of this group of people (their parents are still not able to
sin, though, remember).

Here's the problem: This distinction is totally artificial. It's
completely arbitrary. There would be almost no biological difference
between them, no more than you have from your parents. The development
of intellect happened over thousands of generations, it wasn't as if
one hominid was born with a fully formed persona and intellectual
capabilities, but his/her parents were not. Did the soul evolve too?
Was there a "proto-soul"? Or did God just cut the line arbitrarily and
say "Before this line, you don't have a soul, and after it, you
do" (amidst moaning and groaning from the "old" generation, they were
certainly capable of understanding language as well as modern humans
are, and probably buried their dead and sang songs).

This is a totally incoherent scenario. There is no natural way to
explain this, aside from covering one's eyes and ears and saying "God
must have done it anyway, leave me alone and stop asking questions".
There is no way to place a specific location of where a species
"develops" a soul that isn't totally arbitrary. Therefore, there is no
place where one can place "original sin" squarely on the shoulders of
any individuals but not their parents, and therefore evolutionary
theory is still incompatible with the story of original sin.rappoccio

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 23, 2007, 6:59:06 PM5/23/07
to

"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Of course I missed it. I stopped reading through your postings on about
the fifth identical response to the question about Batman and Wonder Woman.
My newsreader (OE) shows all of your postings on this thread to be responses
to the OP. But I'm not sure Google can be blamed, because at least some
of your postings appear to have a valid In-Reply-To line.

You have a strange notion of what 'evidence' means. Those two paragraphs
contain nothing but a reiteration of your opinion that Adam didn't exist.
The also confuse the notion of the theological first human and the
biological first human. Since the latter concept makes little sense
when you look closely, you claim that the first makes no sense either.
You also seem to be making the assumption that there will be a monist
explanation for man's consciousness and personality, whereas I believe
that the RCC still holds to a dualist position. After all, it is the
non-physical portion of the mind which carries guilt and will ultimately
be rewarded or punished.

Thanks for the history, but Humani generis was 'ex cathedra' and all
the more recent stuff that you cite was not. I don't see how they can work
around that inconvenient fact.

What am I saying? Of course they can work around it! They can say
that 'Adam' consists of three or more persons in one ancestor. Or that
there is the appearance of polygenism, but the substance is monogenic.
They have done this kind of thing before.

I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.

rappoccio

unread,
May 23, 2007, 8:18:34 PM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 6:59 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Sorry, Google had an anurism today. I removed the dupes.

Because such a concept is not defined, as I've mentioned.

> The also confuse the notion of the theological first human and the
> biological first human.

As I've mentioned, unless God is arbitrary, there is no such concept
of either.

> Since the latter concept makes little sense
> when you look closely, you claim that the first makes no sense either.

I said either it is inconsistent, or it's totally and completely
arbitrary. Arbitrariness doesn't seem to be something God would be
interested in (if God exists), so I'm going with "doesn't exist".

> You also seem to be making the assumption that there will be a monist
> explanation for man's consciousness and personality, whereas I believe
> that the RCC still holds to a dualist position. After all, it is the
> non-physical portion of the mind which carries guilt and will ultimately
> be rewarded or punished.

The one that hasn't been shown to exist, you mean? Just realize your
assertions are totally metaphysical and unfalsifiable.

Fine with me. Easier to prove it's wrong.

> What am I saying? Of course they can work around it! They can say
> that 'Adam' consists of three or more persons in one ancestor. Or that
> there is the appearance of polygenism, but the substance is monogenic.
> They have done this kind of thing before.

They can say whatever they want, doesn't mean it makes any sense.

<snip>

>
> I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> absurd.

I think it's definitionally absurd. I have shown that a single
rational choice for an "ancestor of all humanity" isn't a defined
concept.

> It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story.

That I agree with.

> But I thought you were
> going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.

I think I have done that. I've shown that no "natural" distinction
could be placed to a single individual or group of individuals that
could be considered the "beginning" of humanity. If God (assuming God
exists) is comfortable with "You guys on my left, you're in, but on
the right, bugger off", then there's nothing I can do about that.

wf3h

unread,
May 23, 2007, 8:39:46 PM5/23/07
to

rappoccio wrote:
>>
> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin. Since Adam
> didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the

> "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
> is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
> with the theory of evolution.

sin is not a scientific concept so it's pointless to say adam did/
didn't sin from an evolutionary viewpoint.

as to adam being the first man, presumably god would know when our
ancestors had achieved sufficient self awareness to be considered
'human' and that/those people would have been 'adam and eve'.

>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain them
> carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?

when i was a catholic seminarian, not a single catholic theologian
supported your view. the 'original' parents of the human race were
understood to be defined by god.

unless, of course, you think you're god. most creationists do have
that tendency

Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 23, 2007, 8:50:46 PM5/23/07
to

"rappoccio" <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179965914.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Uh, yes. We are discussing theology, aren't we?

No. It was "You animals on the left are going to get a soul. The ones on
the right don't. And, since I know the future, I can say that it is really
the ones on the right that are the lucky ones today."

I have to say it again. You have demonstrated nothing other than that the
Catholic (and most common Protestant) worldview is incompatible with your
own worldview. But you knew that going in. So you are actually just wasting
everybody's time here.

Nic

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:09:23 PM5/23/07
to
On 23 May, 23:59, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "rappoccio" <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179952718....@x18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.

If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
be biologically heritable? What possible theological point would
there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
in the high street never entered by the fathers?


Perplexed in Peoria

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:29:07 PM5/23/07
to

"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> On 23 May, 23:59, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote [to rappaccio]:

> > I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> > operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> > you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> > absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> > strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> > the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> > forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
> > going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> > biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
>
> You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
> on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
> theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
> would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
>
> If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> be biologically heritable?

No more odd than that guilt should be heritable. Which is to say, it is
friggin' bonkers.

> What possible theological point would
> there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> in the high street never entered by the fathers?

The truly odd thing about the Judaeo-Christian notion of heritable guilt
is that it only makes sense in a materialist-evolutionist world-view.
Because if you really want to punish (and the Tit-for-tat analysis convinces
me that punishment is sometimes what you ought to want to do) then if
you can't apply enough punishment from the perpetrator himself, you
really ought to apply it to the offspring. After all, evolutionary theory
leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.

And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.

Nic

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:21:41 PM5/23/07
to
On 24 May, 02:29, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "Nic" <harrisonda...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179968963.2...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> > On 23 May, 23:59, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote [to rappaccio]:
> > > I agree that the concept of a literal Fall, necessitating a Redemption, and
> > > operating by means of Vicarious Atonement is absurd. Not physically absurd -
> > > you really haven't made that case as far as I can tell - but morally
> > > absurd. It is a Christology invented by one weird dude who saw nothing
> > > strange in the notion that the sins of the father should be visited upon
> > > the sons, nor that guilt creates a blood-debt which must be paid before
> > > forgiveness is possible. It is an insane story. But I thought you were
> > > going to say something to the effect that it contradicts what we know from
> > > biology. As far as I can tell, you haven't really done this.
>
> > You are right, but I note that you had to allow the church its dualism
> > on the mind body problem in order to disconnect the ideas of
> > theological and biological humanity. Still don't know if rappoccio
> > would go along with playing them by their own rules to that extent.
>
> > If you take this route, isn't it odd that theological humanness should
> > be biologically heritable?
>
> No more odd than that guilt should be heritable. Which is to say, it is
> friggin' bonkers.

Well, isn't that the biological case here? If you want to have a
'first guilt holder', then don't look to biology for a distinguishing
characteristic worthy of such a heavy burden. That's an answer on
behalf of biology, isn't it? I still don't see what more you could
expect rapproccio to have said.

> > What possible theological point would
> > there be for that? Can't the sins of the fathers be no less absurdly
> > visited on the uncle of a boy who stole a penknife from the only shop
> > in the high street never entered by the fathers?
>
> The truly odd thing about the Judaeo-Christian notion of heritable guilt
> is that it only makes sense in a materialist-evolutionist world-view.
> Because if you really want to punish (and the Tit-for-tat analysis convinces
> me that punishment is sometimes what you ought to want to do) then if
> you can't apply enough punishment from the perpetrator himself, you
> really ought to apply it to the offspring.

This is an entirely different matter - the biological basis for common
morality (as opposed to the RCC's rather desperate morality). It may
indeed be advantageous to visit the sins down the germ line, and it
may indeed be that there is nothing more to right and wrong than what
is most advantageous. However, it is part of the common usage of
moral language that right is not the same as advantageous, or at least
not the same as advantageous to the individual making the choice. It
is the biological basis of this more altruistic morality that needs
explaining.

So yes, it may in some sense be a public service/altruism if you
prosecute a family vendetta down the generations. Our natural
inclination is to hate the sinner and not the sin. The naturalistic
underpinning of that inclination is that there is no point in
intervening over a one-off offence (if it is too late to stop it), but
if we think such offences arise chronically from an individual's
'nature', then there is every point in intervening. So as you say,
our inclination to visit sanctions down the generations might be
caused by the heritability of certain behaviours. I question whether
we even have such an inclination in the first place, though. I never
feel it. I could quite believe you are just trying to rationalise
something that never existed outside the tortured meta-ethics of a
certain religious tradition.

> After all, evolutionary theory
> leads us to the conclusion that our real 'interests' lie in our offspring,
> so punishing the offspring really IS additional punishment to the perpetrator.
>
> And materialism claims that, since there is no immortality, there are no
> other interests. So, I suspect that the concept of heritable guilt is in
> our genes, however much we struggle to get it out of our heads.

I answered this above, but I will add that my attitude towards my
enemies' descendants is governed by my expectation of their attitude
towards me. So there is a game-theoretical instability here.

macaddicted

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:38:53 PM5/23/07
to
In article
<1179897290....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:


Hey, after all this time, a whole thread dedicated to little me.

> So macaddicted and I were having a little discussion here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5a634919a12d1189?
>
> I have the contention that the theory of evolution disproves the
> facts upon which the theology of original sin is based in the
> Catholic Church (the fable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).

Fable is a bit better than fairy tale.

> Macaddicted tells me I have it wrong, and tells me to "go read some
> things" to find the answer, because it's complicated, and I should
> first understand what the Catholic viewpoints on exogenesis are

> before hecan explain them to me (go figure).

No. Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp.
of scripture


>
> I think it might be instructive to have mac explain a little
> synopsis as to the reasoning behind this concept of exogenesis in the
> Catholic Church, and how the fact that we know human beings didn't
> descend from Adam and Eve doesn't disprove original sin (as other
> moderntheologists acknowledge).

Exogenesis is different from exegesis. There is little said about the
former and a lot about the latter.


>
> I'll give a brief summary of my viewpoints.
>
> The Catholic Church teaches
>
> "By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
> justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
> human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human
> nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original
> holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a
> result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
> subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and
> inclined to sin (this inclination is called
> "concupiscence")."Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
>
> Therefore the sins of Adam give rise to original sin.

The "sin" of Adam (singular) was the "Original Sin."

> Since Adam didn't actually exist and/or actually commit any actual


> sin, then the "taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent
> because he himself is non-existent, therefore the concept of original
> sin is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

Yes, and I already responded to this point. The Church doesn't read
Gen 1-11 as history as we understand history in the modern context of
the word. The Church does not read the Bible perspicaciously (having a
ready insight into and understanding of things). You need both to make
your point.


>
> See, Mac? Not so hard to bring up a few concepts and explain
> them carefully. Now your turn. Why is this wrong?
>
>

Well golly gee I'm sorry. Been having a few health problems lately
than restrict me to about 4-5 hours of usefulness a day. Wilkins is
still sitting around waiting for me to pull together the references he
requested and I haven't been able to get to them yet. My thesis
director called today to see if I had died, seeing as I haven't had
the time to respond to his emails either. Do a google groups search
for my sig in this group and you will see many posts where I discuss
some of the topics you have brought up, mostly in response to posts by
Pagano

--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

macaddicted

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:42:02 PM5/23/07
to
In article
<1hylase.1svfjck93oioaN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>j.wil...@uq.edu.au
(John Wilkins) wrote:

> Bodega <michael...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 10:14 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [snip]
>>
>> Original sin is non-existent. This is like debating whether Batman
>> and Wonder Woman ever had sex.

> And if they did, was the Boy Wonder their lovechild?
>

With a GREEN codpiece? No, I don't see it.

Nic

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:18:08 PM5/23/07