/lit/ - Literature

>>22107669
evolution is fake and whites are astronauts, go ask the millions of years of Greek history about your magic negro theory

>>22107669
the official stance of the catholic church is that evolution was guided by god

>>22107679
ok chud.

>>22107684
That is it? How is original sin explained? God's perfect creation that was corrupted by our free will? Where is a line drawn between an animal and a human with a soul, since there is no clear moment where we can say that Homo Sapiens came to be (evolution is a continuous process, not discrete). What about the inherent evil and selfishness that are the mechanisms with which evolution is propelled (this can be seen as part of my question regarding god's perfect creation)?

>>22107701
original sin was racemixing, dumbfuck

the offspring become evil

>>22107710
Your bait reminds me of another inconsistency between Christian theology and evolution. It has been known for some time now that Homo Sapiens outside of Africa had sex and produced offspring with Neanderthals and Denisovans. We still to this day have around 2% of Neanderthal DNA. So the question is, are Neanderthals animals or humans?

>>22107723
go ask the evil masons who invented fake evolution theory why they thought they could get away with such an obvious lie

don't forget to mention how the creatures in africa definitely aren't homo erectus, because that would be racist!

>>22107729
I hoped there would be a serious discussion and not just your autistic trolling as here.

>>22107733
you deserve to be in jail

>>22107701
Giving text benefit of doubt means attempting to resolve apparent inconsistencies yourself.
Adversity like the process of evolution is a product of knowledge of good and evil.
Any kind of change is a product of adversity so that means the story is about the form of man in the mind of God before time.
If I try to explore a version of the story that's just about physical people 6k years ago then everything interesting about it breaks down, none of the symbols used make any sense and it would mean the world was obsessed with random stories about literal trees for thousands of years but despite this obsession they never even mention what type of tree it was.

>>22107701
adam and eve lived in harmony with nature and followed the non-aggression principle.

it was only after they gave birth to a la creatura demon baby that earth became satan's kingdom

All living beings came from another dimension and the sands of time started running along the lines of population shifts and adaptation

>>22107771
>Adversity like the process of evolution is a product of knowledge of good and evil.

What do you mean by this? Our prehistoric ancestors who were barely human had little regard for good and evil when killing other humans ("morality" was based on evolutionary principles of survival).

>Any kind of change is a product of adversity so that means the story is about the form of man in the mind of God before time.

So the perfect man only existed in God's mind? How can God experience adversity in his mind?

I mostly agree with your 3rd paragraph. But you are very vague.

>>22107823
>What do you mean by this?
Evil is a meme, we see all adversity to our will as "evil", in the Bible it's framed better as the adversary. A will with no adversity is omnipotent so the emergence of evil is the decision of that omnipotent will to experience the product of knowledge of adversity (fruit of the tree) which it can't do directly as an omnipotent will with nothing standing against it in any way. Adversity is experienced through creations that bear the "image of God".
>you are very vague.
It's inherently vague. We can't know the mind of God but something roughly similar had to happen. All potential is available but the world we know is made from limiting that potential and thus making everything hard for us poor mortal products of that fallen limited world.

Why is this garbage on /lit/? Take it to /sci/ or /his/, this has nothing to do with literature.

>>22107701
> What about the inherent evil and selfishness that are the mechanisms with which evolution is propelled

Cooperation and stable social structures are the reasons humanity made it on top

>>22107669
>Has Darwin really destroyed Christian theology?
Darwin destroyed/naturalized Plato's/Aristotle's teleology. Christianity is just "platonism for the poor."

>>22107729

>>22107669
>Has Darwin really destroyed Christian theology?
No, Christianity is grounded in a historical narrative, when this breaks down, so does Christianity, in that sense it wasn't Darwin that destroyed the narrative but more Charles Lyell (and dozens of others).

>>22107669
Read Douglas Dewar

>>22107669
Okay listen carefully now /his/faggot
Christians are not a hive mind like liberals
Some do belive in evolution along side with god

>Has Darwin really destroyed Christian theology
What about other religions like islam and judasim?
did he destroy these too? Because they have exactly the same explanation for the origin of the universe

>>22108595
Why do you feel so attacked as a Christian? I am speaking about Christianity here because it is the most important religion for the culture and civilization I and most of you live in.

>What about other religions like islam and judasim?
did he destroy these too?

Well, yes. Muslim scholars overwhelmingly deny evolution and believe in creationism. I am not very acquainted with Judaism's stance on evolution.

>>22108588
>Douglas Dewar
lol another denier. This is getting sad.. Is there no actual response, but only ignorance and coping?

>>22108465
Funny how it's always the illiterate retards that think they should regulate everyone else.

>>22108700
>As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God.
>1868, John Henry Newman
Gregor Mendel the monk gave an evolutionary explanation for speciation before Darwin figured out natural selection. Among scholars, Christian or not the idea was well established but not demonstrated with any degree of certainty. It's intuitively obvious to early naturalists.
Georges Lemaître who came up with the Big Bang was Catholic.
The Popes never suggested there was any conflict there, only the occasional retard bishop and Americans do.
In your video the first two guys don't demonstrate lack of knowledge of science, they try to point out that evolution only happens in the fallen world. If you dismiss that as "denying science and ridiculing the theory" you're not honest and you're the one showing your ignorance.

>>22107669
Orthodox academia doesn't exist, they either ignore issues altogether or cobble up some barely legible pseudo mystical gibberish and then claim you can't understand because you aren't spiritual like them

>>22108789
You can say that god "directed" evolution to play out, but there is no way to reconcile things like original sin, first humans, neanderthal-sapiens mixing, imperfect result of evolutionary processes etc.
The problem is very deep and is in huge conflict with Christian theology that is based on the narrative of human history from Adam and Eve to Jesus.
And we are not even getting to the problems of evolutionary psychology.

>evolution only happens in the fallen world

The problem is that there was no "perfect" world if evolution is correct.
Regarding the video, the first guy was pretty vague but Ignatius (2nd guy) talks of world before "the fall" which is antithetical to evolution and geology. Look into the description of the video and see the quotes.

>>22108828
>there is no way to reconcile things
..with illiterate interpretations that think the story is about a literal tree. You can't reconcile anything with those retards including the Bible itself. The guys in the video you posted answered this but you just flat out ignored them.
>The problem is very deep
No it's incredibly retarded. "The problem" assumes the only interpretations of the Bible that are valid are ones provided by illiterate retards. You keep adding layers of retardation to a useless retard cake instead of resolving anything.
>talks of world before "the fall" which is antithetical to evolution and geology
No it's not. Like they also try to point out you just refuse to think beyond the fallen physical world. You think you have the complete system of everything like the Bible predicted you would. You refuse to even consider anything beyond this "perfect" system you basically worship as a god.

>>22108860
>..with illiterate interpretations that think the story is about a literal tree.
This is the interpretation of the Church Fathers and the ancient rabbis going back to the rabbis who wrote Genesis.

>>22108562
Another such individual, albeit from a theological rather than historical perspective, would be either theoreticians like Nikolai Koltsov who posited how DNA works, or Watson and Crick who proved its existence. Either way they demonstrated that the traditional Christian view of humans lacking heredity and all being biologically equal was wrong.

>>22107729
Explain your issues with evolution

>>22108515
Evolution’s existence only bolsters Plato

>>22108901
>This is the interpretation of the Church Fathers and the ancient rabbis going back to the rabbis who wrote Genesis.
How would you know? You didn't understand the modern Orthodox guys when they speak so why do you assume you understand even older sources?
If I explore the story as if it's "literal" it says nothing, it makes any attempt incoherent before starting. None of the symbols used in the story mean anything anymore and nothing the guys in your video or any of the scholars in history say makes any sense.
So I have a way to interpret a text that brings more information into focus versus a way to interpret that makes all relevant information incoherent. It's exactly like focusing a telescope and you're sitting here telling me the out of focus image of the moon that obscured coherent information is the correct one, that the actual moon is out of focus.

>the traditional Christian view of humans lacking heredity and all being biologically equal was wrong
Nobody honest would say any Christians claimed heredity was not a thing or that all are biologically equal. Not even the dumbest burger sects have made those claims.
Why do you do this? Why do you undermine all thought like this? Do you like death and decay? Do you want hell on earth? Is it your actual goal?

>>22108860
I can't help but thing about the physical reality when the central point of Christianity that we humans sinned and this is the reason why we are "fallen". The truth is that we are made imperfect and evolved from animals. Also practically every Christian before Darwing (including the greatest of philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas) were creationist and believed we were initially made perfect in a perfect world, but we sinned willfully.

Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't talk about the original sin and Adam in some allegorical sense as you say.

>>22108964
think* and Darwin*

>>22108964
>practically every Christian before Darwing (including the greatest of philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas) were creationist
They didn't know about geological time but they weren't "creationists". It's like you can't think, just assign labels and associations.
>we were initially made perfect in a perfect world
And they knew the physical world is not perfect so you already have an apparent contradiction if you refuse to think in any terms other than physical. The world of Eden is an entirely separate world from the physical one. They did not need Darwin to make a distinction between the two. The Christian idea always was about the lower physical world reflecting higher principles of a higher, perfect world.
The ideal physical path to the promised land is a straight line but the fallen physical world creates bends in the path around adversity like mountains. The ideal exists in a higher plane which we reflect in flawed ways.

>>22108996
Why would Eden be separate from this world. Eden is just hedonism. There’s a reason they were in Eden, rather than in Heaven, and eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was a requirement for them to get into Heaven.

>>22108957
>How would you know?
Because they wrote extensively on this matter and were very clear that the book is meant to be taken literally.

>If I explore the story as if it's "literal" it says nothing, it makes any attempt incoherent before starting
And what do you think that says about the religion that demands that it be taken literally?

>Nobody honest would say any Christians claimed heredity was not a thing or that all are biologically equal.
The Church Fathers did.

>Not even the dumbest burger sects have made those claims.
Yes they do. Creationists are constantly prattling on about how "evolutionistism" leads to racism, Nazism, genocide, etc.

Perhaps you've concoted some galaxy-brained version of Christianity in your head, but it doesn't really matter because 99.9999999...9% of Christians think that "Christianity" is something radically different from what you think that it is.

>>22108996
>The world of Eden is an entirely separate world from the physical one.

What does this mean? Eden had to be physical if you believe Adam and Eve were humans.. How can they be humans if they didn't have physical bodies? But this discussion is irrelevant because you yourself said that Genesis wasn't literal.

>>22109007
>and were very clear that the book is meant to be taken literally.
Who are you talking about? Nothing is clear to you. You misrepresented the guys in the video completely and say shit like this:
>the traditional Christian view of humans lacking heredity and all being biologically equal
You can't learn anything about the subject from a perspective so deranged that it allows this level of dishonesty.
What are you misrepresenting now? How do early apologetics try explain the Bible to outsiders? Do they talk about the importance of the literal fucking physical tree? What type of tree is it?
>The Church Fathers did.
You're a completely deranged idiot. Basically pure evil incarnate, an enemy to all life. Why can't you just try to be fucking honest with yourself?
>Eden had to be physical if you believe Adam and Eve were humans.
The point has been shoved down your throat 20 times just by the guys in the video you posted and you still just say shit like this.
>How can they be humans if they didn't have physical bodies?
How can they be humans if there's no adversity? If there's no adversity to challenge you there's nothing stopping you from doing anything. There's no body shape limiting you.
Apologists relate the idea to Plato, both probably based their ideas on some older, similar ideas. We have heaven / eden which is the world of ideals, then physical manifestations of those ideals in the physical world and a conception of these things in our minds. That's three planes with God represented in different ways in each plane. The Father in heaven, the Son on earth and the Holy Spirit in the mind / text.

>>22109065
You are not talking to OP. I am OP.

>>22107669
Evolution has not been "proven". The only evidence capable of being adduced for it is indirect in nature. Homology, DNA similarities, "the fossil record". It has never been demonstrated that there are no limits to genetic mutation, which is precisely what is needed to prove evolution.

Darwinism is a metaphysic, a worldview. It has, like all other worldviews, some probabilistic evidence in favour of it. But what is important is not the evidence it boasts, but what it means, ie. how it conceives of man and his relation to the world.

Darwin said nothing new. He merely repeated an idea which goes back at least to Democritus. What is interesting is why this idea attained currency in the era that it did.

Darwin posited his theory of evolution in the exact same time as capitalism, liberalism, and secularism were becoming dominant. Just as the liberals conceived of a social order free from external imposition, in order to allow for maximum experimentation so that by a process of natural selection the best way of life could be discovered, Darwin merely transports this idea to the realm of biology. Life, now, has no Creator guiding it, just as the polity has no king, and discovers the best order through the process of competition (natural selection) and experimentation (mutation).

This is essentially liberal freemasonic (Darwin was likely a Freemason) ideology transferred to biology.

So we should be interested in Darwinism as a metaphysic, a worldview, a historical phenomenon, a religion, and not a "scientific theory".

>>22109099

The Darwinian metaphysic essentially does away with teleology in nature; the penis becomes no longer an organ built and designed for reproduction, but merely a mutated deformity which over the course of history man has found it evolutionarily advantageous to use for the purposes of reproduction, but which in itself has no inherent purpose. Hence the sexual faculty is abstracted from its telos and man becomes free to pursue pure pleasure in whatever deranged form his appetite inclines him to: homosexuality, cross-dressing, fornication.

>>22109099
Evolution can literally be demonstrated in a microbiology lab.
Heat up a petri dish full of bacteria until some of them die. The survivors go on to propagate the species. That's evolution.

>>22109122
Homosexuality, cross-dressing and worse undeniably exist. Darwin 1, God 0.

>>22109154
Nobody disputes this. It doesn’t establish the Darwinist metaphysic. I’m too tired to go into details, but rest assured that no opponent of Darwinism has ever doubted natural selection. In fact it is impossible to doubt, since it is just a tautology, which states that: “those things which will die, will die, and those which will not die, will not die”. An obvious tautology which nobody has ever doubted.

Protestants do the same thing