A Question for Catholic Creationist

[Hobgoblin]

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.

 

[JGD]

What type of evolution has the Church accepted??? Please provide an authoritative source. The Catechism uses the word “evolution” only once and that is in speaking of the “evolution of the liturgy”.

 

[TMC]

Seriously? Can you look at any one of the other hundred threads on the issue? Or maybe start with Communion and Stewardship, or refer to the statements on the issue by any of the last several Popes.

The Church’s position is clear. The burden is on anyone who claims the Church does not accept evolution or that the Church mandates any YEC theory.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

If it was true there would be millions of transitional fossils,but so far there are none, that’s why they have to come up with silly idea about punctuated equilibrium.

Why don’t you address the point I made?

Too tired, I have to deal with the coming apocalypse right now.

 

[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.

 

[JGD]

Catechism teachings that must be kept in mind in evaluating whether a particular theory of revelation is acceptable or not:

CCC 360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth.

CCC 365 … it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - …

So, a living material body without a human soul, is not human regardless of what it looks like. And, the human soul did not result from the evolution of an animal soul. It is created directly by God.

 

[NoelFitz]

So what do you think of Mere Christianity? And C.S. Lewis in general? Truth=Truth=Truth. It doesn’t matter who is saying it. If you can point out what part of Dr. Craig’s speech was incorrect/heretical and give a defense of why it is incorrect, then by all means do so. But you are simply engaging in an ad hominem if you dismiss his argument because he is not Catholic. Besides, what he was saying in that quote is exactly the Catholic Church’s position on the subject.

It is interesting to note that C.S. Lewis was never a Catholic.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If evolution is true, then the bible got it wrong.

Evolution
/ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n/

Noun. Change over time.

How does this contradict the bible?

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
Genesis 1:24, (KJV)

 

[JGD]

Interesting that it doesn’t include humans.
What would “after it’s kind” mean?

 

[Lion_IRC]

You have to keep reading to get to the good part.
…the bit where we come into the picture. LOL

 

[Lion_IRC]

…And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I completely accept that the Earth was created in six days.

Fun fact - a day on Jupiter is ~ 9 hours. A day on Mercury is ~ 1,400 hours.

I wonder how long a day is where God lives.

 

[Gorgias]

I completely accept that the Earth was created in six days.

Fun fact - a day on Jupiter is ~ 9 hours. A day on Mercury is ~ 1,400 hours.

Fun fact: these definitions of a “day” have everything to do with the length of time it takes for a planet to rotate on its axis and with respect to the star around which it revolves. (On which ‘day’ of the creation epic were stars created? )

I wonder how long a day is where God lives.

That reminds me of an old joke:

A man walked to the top of a hill to talk to God.

The man asked, “God, what’s a million years to you?”

And God said “A minute.”

Then the man asked:

“Well, what’s a million dollars to you?”

and God said: “A penny”

Then the man asked:

“God…can I have a penny?”

And God said:

“Sure…In a minute.”

 

[otjm]

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?

Issues like creationism come from an almost total lack of understanding that 5,000 years ago, give or take a thousand, People wandering around in the Middle East had absolutely no conception of science as we understand it today. That is coupled with a mindset that says that the Bible has to be understood literally, word for word. The Bible doesn’t say that, and personally I have no idea where the various Protestant churches developed liberalism.

The Catholic Church approaches Scripture differently; it is contextualist in its approach. It asks "What is God trying to tell us about Faith (not about science). As a result, we don’t go down the path of literalist preachers. I suspect that if one dug into what, say, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians and the Anglican/Episcopalians believe in terms of Scripture, that one might find some literalists; but not to the extent of the other 30,000 +/- churches do.

Faith tells Catholics that God created the world. It is not an exact sequential laying out of how we got from a Big Bang to today; it is poetic; but it conveys the truth that God created all that is, without trying to cram down, ignore or debate factual evidence provided by science; it allows scientists to be scientists (and as an aside, it has been noted that many many scientists are believers).

Your misunderstanding , and calling it an anti-God philosophy completely misunderstands that it is not anti-God in the least, and has next to nothing to do with philosophy; it has to do with theology.

It is not c;ear or harmful to understand evolution if one understands that is God driven. If one denies that God could cause evolutionary changes, one limits what God can do. That, in turn, wouold seem to indicate that miracles cannot occur, because they ar outside of “normal”, whatever that would mean to a literalist.

People who reject God do not do so because the literalist interpreters of the Bible deny science. They do so because of a multitude of reasons, one of the primary ones being they want to determine for themselves what is right or wrong, and deny natural law and morality - one that even non-Christians can understand and accept. And given that many literalist pastors are anything but ambiguous about moral law, it is an easy lie to say :I am leaving because of science" when what they may be living is an other than moral life.

 

[otjm]

I wonder how long a day is where God lives.

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

 

[nafatyuk]

Microevolution it ture, but Macroevolution has never been proven.

You see, I’ve never quite understood this argument. It’s like saying that it’s possible to walk across the room, but to walk to the store a mile away is simply unfathomable.

 

[Metis1]

There are many theologians who believe that the Creation accounts were mainly written to counter the much earlier (around a century) and widespread Babylonian accounts that were polytheistic in nature, thus not meant to be taken as literal history. Because of the strong emphasis on the art of storytelling back in these semi-literate societies, this makes much more sense to me.

 

[TMC]

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

 

[Metis1]

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

And I think this is a very important point because in so many cases people being are being told that they cannot believe both in evolution and the Bible/God. I taught and intro to anthro course for about 30 years, and I ran across this all the time. And, as a matter of fact, the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in taught this, and the first time I heard that the ToE really doesn’t negate Divine creation was from a Catholic priest that I ran across in a bowling alley when I was in high school.

 

[JGD]

Techno2000:

Microevolution it ture, but Macroevolution has never been proven.

You see, I’ve never quite understood this argument. It’s like saying that it’s possible to walk across the room, but to walk to the store a mile away is simply unfathomable.

Evolution within a species and evolution of one species into a totally new species are quite different. For one thing, within a person’s lifetime SOME examples of micro can be observed and documented as they occur. So we can know there is such a thing. Don’t think that’s ever the case with macro, since no one would live long enough to observe such a change taking place. Neither has any continuous record thru multi generations been observed and recorded, documenting a macro change. Please correct me if I’m wrong - and give an example.

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? Answers to those questions are beyond the scope of empirical science.

(That’s only the first step and doesn’t take into account the different levels of life - plant, animal, human. Genesis does of course. Beautifully.)