A Question for Catholic Creationist

[JGD]

In Genesis 1 it’s interesting to note that the word “create” is used for only 3 of God’s actions:

1. For the “stuff” of the universe - the heavens & earth: Genesis 1:1
2. For the first animal life - fish & birds: Genesis 1:21
3. For the first human life - man, male & female: Genesis 1:27

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

I wonder how long a day is where God lives.

God doesn’t “live”. God “IS” (His answer to Moses: “I AM”

OK. Fair enough.
Let me reword my (purely rhetorical) question.
How long is a day where God IS ?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Tolkien1096:

Given the stance taken in the CCC on creation evolution and the age of the earth. How can I go against what I think is harmful anti-God philosophy and become a Catholic?

When approaching this or any issue you should go back to the fundamental question: “Is the Catholic church THE Church established by Christ?” It’s a question that can be settled historically long before we get to Darwin. Once settled, you are bound to whatever it authoritatively teaches and questions like this take care of themselves.

I can’t accept any teaching unless I first understand it.
And too many disagreements regarding the word “evolution” happen because one side misunderstands what the other side is actually claiming.

If someone says…“evolution proves that the bible is wrong” I simply don’t understand what they mean. How does the claim that some event is spontaneous (uncaused) disprove ANYTHING? It’s just a claim. Moreover, it’s a highly unscientific claim because it cannot be falsified. And falsifiability is a fundamental tenet of science, scientist, and the scientific method in general.

 

[Hobgoblin]

That’s true, but I suspect defining evolution in a God-friendly way won’t get you out of the woods either. The OP’s premise is flawed. He’s asked how he can accept Catholicism given that it doesn’t align with his ideas. That’s the problem. He’s looking for a system that agrees with what he believes. Unless he’s willing to challenge those beliefs he’ll never make it. Coming from a fundamentalist background myself, I know how hard it is. He needs to rephrase the question.

 

[Hail]

I don’t think accepting evolution is the primary reason why people are leaving the church. Perhaps modernism in general, but I doubt evolution specifically is the reason.

 

[JGD]

JGD:

There are various theories of evolution. The Church does not accept all of them. That is why it’s important to identify what type of evolution is being referred to when one says the Church accepts evolution.
When people speak of evolution, more often than not they’re referring to a type not accepted by the Church.

I am sure there are various ways to look at evolution. The idea that what most people refer to as evolution has been rejected by the Church is not true. The Church rejects atheism, of course, so the Church also rejects any theory of origins that rejects any role for God.

It seems to me that most evolutionists do not hold that God intercepted at some point in the evolutionary process to create and infuse a spiritual rational soul. There are definitely some who do, but I don’t think they’re in the majority.
Also, I think most evolutionists do not accept that all humans stem from a single male-female pair. Again, I know some do, but I don’t think they are in the majority.
I’m unaware of a poll where evolutionists were questioned about their position on the above points. If you’re aware of one I’d be interested in reading it.

The scientific theory of evolution does not take a position on the existence of God, so there is no problem there.

Altho’ a theory may not directly address the existence of God, it can put forth a theory that excludes any involvement by God in bringing the universe into existence, and/or any necessary involvement by God for a human being to appear or “evolve”.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think accepting evolution is the primary reason why people are leaving the church. Perhaps modernism in general, but I doubt evolution specifically is the reason.

I don’t think that evolution or modernism is a significant factor in people leaving the Church.

 

[TMC]

It seems to me that most evolutionists do not hold that God intercepted at some point in the evolutionary process to create and infuse a spiritual rational soul.

What do you mean by “most evolutionists”? Seems to me that most people accept evolution. Its not like there is some small sect of people called “evolutionists”–belief in evolution is the norm among both religious and non-religious people.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tolkien1096 . . .

This question is for Catholics who hold to the traditional 6-day creation. I am a creationist . . .

This is fine Tolkien1096.

You can be a Catholic and a six-day creationist!

The Church just hasn’t defined much of this.

Tolkien1096 (here) . . .

But that is just it. It does lead people away from the faith, such as it did me when i was younger. If evolution is true the bible is wrong. Most see that.

Not really.

If they closed it off, what if a guy who thinks he is a big science guy gets scandalized because he isn’t allowed to assert theistic evolution?

Then it might chase HIM off. . . . BUT . . .

. . . The Church hasn’t defined things here.

If you are so convinced but THIS is the only thing holding you back from being a Catholic again, well allow me to invite you back in!

If God has put that much of a burden on your heart,
get in here, begin a movement, and see what you can do about influencing the Church to develop Her doctrine more in this area.

She is not going to define science. She does define faith and morals though.

If you see areas where this is necessary, I think you may have that for a ministry potentially.

You cited Answers in Genesis.

My suggestion?

Be careful with them. They do not take the Bible literally. They deny being born again is being born of water and Spirit.

They also deny that we must eat the Divine Glorified flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ because we are called to TOTAL COMMUNION with Him.

Not merely spiritually (although if THAT is all He gave us that would have been great), but PHYSICALLY too.

That’s WHY St. Paul in Ephesians 5, refers to Jesus as the Bridegroom, and the Church His bride.

Naturally the Bridegroom is expected to have real actual physical communion with His Bride.

My wife and I are in spritual communion all the time in a sense.

But we are called to be MORE than merely Spiritually communed at times.

With the Answers in Genesis paradigm of lack of literal belief in the Bible, they would of course DENY this truth.

So a mere earthly marriage is in a sense, is HIGHER than the Wedding of the Lamb with His Church to AIG although they wouldn’t put it that way.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[humbleseeker]

I think @Tolkien1096 has taken an unexpectant journey. Hasn’t responded in awhile.

 

[Cathoholic]

humbleseeker . . .

I think @Tolkien1096 has taken an unexpectant journey. Hasn’t responded in awhile.

Wasn’t aware of that. Thanks.

Well hopefully he will come back and respond or at least “lurk”.

Hopefully he’s OK.

At any rate, I’ll say a prayer for him.

 

[Nicene]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are also common genes in plants and humans. Does this mean we evolved from a fern?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[FiveLinden]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are also common genes in plants and humans. Does this mean we evolved from a fern?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

It means we and ferns had a common ancestor. Yes. That is what the science says.

 

[nafatyuk]

But when it comes to evolution, the major reality not dealt with by empirical science is LIFE. What IS it and where did it come from. How & what made some of the inanimate elements become animate?

Right, that would be the (separate) question of abiogenesis.

 

[FiveLinden]

But when it comes to evolution, the major reality not dealt with by empirical science is LIFE. What IS it and where did it come from. How & what made some of the inanimate elements become animate?

Um - not - that’s nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory is not about how life came to be. Just about what it did after it came to be.

 

[JGD]

JGD:

It seems to me that most evolutionists do not hold that God intercepted at some point in the evolutionary process to create and infuse a spiritual rational soul.

What do you mean by “most evolutionists”?

I thought it was clear that by “most evolutionists” I meant that among those who hold man came into existence through a process of material evolution, most reject or omit, one or both of the following:

1. that regardless of how God chose to form the first material human body, the creation and infusion of an immaterial/spiritual soul by God was necessary for the body to become a living HUMAN being;
2. that the whole human race is descended from a single pair - male and female.

Both of the above would have to be included in any theory to be in conformity with Catholic teaching.

Seems to me that most people accept evolution. Its not like there is some small sect of people called “evolutionists”–belief in evolution is the norm among both religious and non-religious people.

When you say “most people accept evolution”, what kind of evolution are you talking about?
This thread has been primarily about theories concerning the evolution of man - there’s more than one. A few that I’m aware of are atheistic theories, theistic, darwinian, neodarwinian, …

Whether it’s the “norm” or not makes no difference. Majority opinion does not determine objective truth.

I explained what I meant by “most evolutionists”; now it’s your turn. When you say “most people accept evolution”, what do you mean by “evolution” - what exactly do they accept/believe.

 

[TMC]

I thought it was clear that by “most evolutionists” I meant that among those who hold man came into existence through a process of material evolution , most reject or omit, one or both of the following:

1. that regardless of how God chose to form the first material human body, the creation and infusion of an immaterial/spiritual soul by God was necessary for the body to become a living HUMAN being;
2. that the whole human race is descended from a single pair - male and female.

Both of the above would have to be included in any theory to be in conformity with Catholic teaching.

I am not sure I agree with you on either point, but certainly your point one has nothing to do with evolution.

When you say “most people accept evolution”, what kind of evolution are you talking about?

Frankly, you are using two tactics that are common among fundamentalists. Neither makes sense outside of that echo chamber.

The first is this idea that there is some group of people known as “evolutionists” who share believe in evolution, as if this is some fringe thought. Again, this is like talking about “spherical earthers” or those that accept gravity as “gravitationlists.”

The second is this notion that there is “good” and “bad” evolution. This is also disingenuous. Like any scientific theory, the details of the theory of evolution have changed over time, and there is some disagreement on the margins among scientists as to the details of evolution. But there are not forms of evolution that are pro-God and anti-God. Evolution says nothing about the existence of God one way or the other.

The Church says that evolution is compatible with faith. Some Catholics apparently do not like that, and therefore try to convince other Catholics that the Church does not really accept evolution. That is simply untrue.

As to what I believe, to the extent it matters, I am happy to agree with the consensus of scientific thought. (Just like the Church)

 

[JGD]

JGD:

But when it comes to evolution, the major reality not dealt with by empirical science is LIFE. What IS it and where did it come from. How & what made some of the inanimate elements become animate?

Um - not - that’s nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory is not about how life came to be. Just about what it did after it came to be.

Um - yes
The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf (origin of the universe)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-life-begin1/

 

[JGD]

I wasn’t attacking you at all. I honestly want to know what your definition of “evolution” is as you use/mean it in your statement that “most people accept evolution”.

 

[KyPerson]

I don’t try to over think things. I believe God created the universe. HOW He created it is still being discovered. The Biblical account is how the Hebrews expressed it.