Living in a fallen Darwinian world

[harvey1]

The universe is in a fallen state. The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3. Under natural selection plants evolve thorns and thistles as a protective mechanism. I don't want to debate Genesis, rather I'd like to see why people think "Adam" (call it biological consciousness) couldn't in principle be responsible for a fallen world when a true understanding of time and space are not fully understood. I have no problem with consciousness being a causal factor in answering why the world is in this Darwinian state.

[marco]

The universe is in a fallen state. The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3. Under natural selection plants evolve thorns and thistles as a protective mechanism. I don't want to debate Genesis, rather I'd like to see why people think "Adam" (call it biological consciousness) couldn't in principle be responsible for a fallen world when a true understanding of time and space are not fully understood. I have no problem with consciousness being a causal factor in answering why the world is in this Darwinian state.

If Adam is a metaphor for some transition state from perfection to impurity, then one wonders how this perfection came about and what circumstances caused perfection to be destroyed.

One naturally supposes that roughness gradually becomes smooth; that as centuries roll progress is made. One wonders in what way we have a "fallen state." Fallen from what?

[harvey1]

[Replying to marco]

We are fallen from a preceding state that lacked "thorns and thistles." After which, the universe became the Darwinian one in which we observe.

[Tcg]

[Replying to marco]

We are fallen from a preceding state that lacked "thorns and thistles." After which, the universe became the Darwinian one in which we observe.

In your OP you state that you don't want to debate Genesis. Given that, what can you present outside of it to support your assertion of this previously "thorns and thistles" free state?


Tcg

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

Thanks TCG for your response. What I mean is that I don't wish to discuss the details of the Genesis account. Rather, the issue is whether the fall (as recorded in Genesis and forming an important doctrine of original sin by early Christians including the Apostle Paul) could in principle be causally related to an "Adam" (i.e., some form of biological consciousness). I don't seek to justify the fall on purely epistemic grounds, but rather whether such a thing is possible in principle.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

Thanks TCG for your response. What I mean is that I don't wish to discuss the details of the Genesis account. Rather, the issue is whether the fall (as recorded in Genesis and forming an important doctrine of original sin by early Christians including the Apostle Paul) could in principle be causally related to an "Adam" (i.e., some form of biological consciousness). I don't seek to justify the fall on purely epistemic grounds, but rather whether such a thing is possible in principle.

Are you suggesting that for this discussion you simply want posters to assume your assertion concerning the pre-fall state is true?


Tcg

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 6 by Tcg]

Rather, I'd like to understand from their point of view as to why, in principle, it could not be true assuming our current scientific and philosophical perspectives. For example, maybe it leads to a vicious circle or time paradox, etc.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 7 by harvey1]

Or maybe if you want to quibble about the logistics of a mythical garden of immortals, you should take it to the Theology/Doctrine sub-forum. The scientific sub-forum is hardly the place to dismiss all counters to the obviously non-literal creation myth described in Genesis, and then go full steam ahead pretending that everyone's on board to talk about the creation myth as though it's even a remote possibility.

Rather, I should say that silencing all dissent against the creation myth at the start, and then hosting a limited-scope discussion about the logistics of that creation myth leads to a distorted and useless conversation that gives the wrong impression. We could argue until we're blue in the face over whether or not the USS Enterprise from Star Trek or an Imperial Star Destroyer from Star Wars would win in a dogfight, but that would have no bearing on any practical discussion.

This follows the structure of dialogue you seem to want to engage in:
"Nobody is allowed to point out the obviousness that Genesis is not literal history."
"Now that nobody is allowed to point that out, let's talk about the creation story as though it was real history."

It comes across as manipulative rhetoric.

[harvey1]

You're welcome to post the topic you're interested in that sub-forum. I'd like to understand why people have a scientific or philosophical issue with Darwinian evolution being the result of something very similar to the biblical fall.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 6 by Tcg]

Rather, I'd like to understand from their point of view as to why, in principle, it could not be true assuming our current scientific and philosophical perspectives. For example, maybe it leads to a vicious circle or time paradox, etc.

You have to address your opening claim:

• "The universe is in a fallen state."

Given that you don't expect posters to simply assume this is true, then you need to support it. Your argument is at a standstill until you attempt to do so.


Tcg