Argument a with friend over creation

[buffalo]

Actually, it does not. Some scientists do, but that’s different.

True, scientific understanding can change, but it seems unlikely that this will, and Revelation does not actually say anything that must contradict the current understanding. This sort of thing is creating conflict where there need be none.

Let me reemphasize: the faith honestly does not care whether it was 7 days or 7 seconds or 7 eons. Science makes a pretty solid case that it wasn’t 7 days.

Furthermore, since the faith doesn’t care, and it really does not care - you may care, but the Church does not - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that a person who does not take the passages to mean 7 24 hour days must somehow treating them as less than they are and hence putting admittedly somewhat transitory (though not that transitory) science above faith.

Because if you could make that claim in any real way, then that would mean that you could make a claim with certainty that the 24 hour day interpretation is true.

And if you could do that, then the Church would have done so. And it hasn’t.

Again, there is no problem with arguing for either position, but we should argue based on things that we know to actually be true, not based on some misguided idea that the opinion that is not ours belittles faith. We aren’t belittling faith. There is not one of us here who thinks God could not have created absolutely everything that it is even possible to create in an instant if He so chose or that is claiming that anything the Church has declared true is false, we are only debating what He did in a context that is allowed and within which the Church leaders of today tend to agree with us. “More then a theory,” you know?

We are limited to reasoning our human observations. Because of this and the science establishments a priori bias of methodologial naturalism one should declare “science makes a case” with caution.

In any case here is a really interesting read - Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6fGBPFm16A2QU5RaEI3MV9ObnM/image?pagenumber=6&w=800

 

[johnnyjones]

I believe he means that some scientist disagree with the idea of Jesus rising from the dead. But not all do

Confusing verbiage. But to answer that question, many scientists embrace what academia has feed them for fear of ostracism.

 

[edwest2]

Hello! I’ve surfed this site for about a year and a half now, but I finally made an account today. Mostly so I can ask this question.

So I had an argument with a friend of mine (He’s non denominational) Over taking the Genesis story of creation literally. I gave him many standard reasons not to. But his claim (And, consequently,what his pastor told him) is that in Hebrew, having a number next to the word for “day” meant it was a literal day, and therefore god created the world in 7 literal days. Meaning our planet can not be millions or billions of years old.

Well something about that smelled fishy. But all I could get out of him after that was that his translation was what the bible literally says so he must be right. (wasn’t even going to touch on “what the bible literally says” But I digress) So I want to know if what he said about the Hebrew language was correct, and other arguments to use against him. Thank you all in advance for charitable responses!

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gorgias]

Much (virtual) ink has been spilled in this thread in the past day, regarding the question of whether the Genesis account is literal. (This is not an uncommon occurrence around here. ) These passionate debates tend to focus on whether the first creation account is literal, but seem to ignore the second creation account. It might be interesting to ask the Catholics who have participated in this thread how they approach the second creation account, given that they take the first creation account literally, and if the answer is anything but “completely literally historically true”, how they can reach that conclusion while simultaneously holding to the “100% historically literal” interpretation of the first creation account.

However, that tempest in a teapot isn’t the main item up for examination here. The real question that the OP is struggling with isn’t the notion of whether one particular story in the OT is true, but the hermeneutic that says that all stories in the OT are literal historical fact. Some will respond to this question by saying that leading figures in the Church, historically, believed in the absolute historicity of the Bible. Of course, they also lived in a time where people believed that the Bible taught science, so they believed in a geo-centric universe, and in “floodgates” in the skies, and all sorts of things that have since been demonstrated to be false. So, although we retain a great deal of respect for the Early Church Fathers, and for great figures of the Church throughout history, it’s difficult to say that, for example, since Augustine and Aquinas believed X to be scientifically true, then we should, too. (After all, we simply have to look at Aquinas’ assertions about biology vis-a-vis human reproduction to see that science then ain’t what it is now. )

Others will respond with a variety of objections. However, as Catholics, we look to Magisterial pronouncements to aid us. In Divino affluente spiritu, Pope Pius XII stated:

For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation”; which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,”[7] that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”[8]

In other words, Scripture doesn’t intend to teach science, nor strictly speaking is it a history book. Might a Catholic hold that a particular OT pericope is historically factual? Of course. Might he require that all Catholics similarly hold that view? In general, no, although there are stories in the OT that are generally held to be more or less historically factual.

So far, though, we’ve only addressed the question “is some of the OT literally historically factual?” We’ve still not really helped the OP answer his question: how do we refute the proposition that all of the Bible is literally, historically factual? Due to his friend’s worldview, this refutation would necessarily have to be supported by a Scriptural text itself…

(For the sake of completeness: the footnotes referenced in the quote above are as follows:

1. De Gen. ad litt. 2, 9, 20; PL 34, col. 270 s.; CSEL 28 (Sectio III, pars. 2), p. 46.

1. Leonis XIII acta XIII, p. 355; Ench. Bibl. n. 106; supra, p. 22.

1. Cf. Benedictus XV, Enc. Spiritus Paraclitus, Acta Ap. Sedis XII (1920), p. 396; Ench. Bibl. n. 471; supra p. 53.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

What does not? Do you mean to say the OPs friend is not entitled to believing in a literal Genesis? Science makes a pretty good case that a man who has layed dead in a tomb for three days is not capable of returning back to life with full health. God can operate outside of mans concept of science…and has.

No no. Of course his friend is entitled to hold whichever view he thinks makes more sense.

What I was saying was only that science does not claim that a Man cannot be God and perform miracles. Science only claims that these things will not happen by themselves purely according to natural laws. Science (as distinct from the various philosophical points of view held by some scientists that claim that there is nothing beyond what science predicts and discovers/can discover) has no opinion and can have no opinion on whether or not the natural laws can be superseded by God.

As I said, no one has claimed that God is incapable of working outside of the natural laws. This would be kind of silly, since He made the natural laws.

What some of us claim is that He made natural laws, and that these laws, to the best of our admittedly imperfect understanding, suggest a rather old Earth. We also claim that while our understanding is imperfect, that its predictive powers on this issue tend to work out pretty well.

We then say that the physical laws suggest an old Earth, and that while God can certainly set aside His laws if He so chooses, it seems odd to claim that He would do so purely to make something that does not need to be literal be literal given that it would make it so that the laws He made would suggest something that was false. We don’t say it is impossible. We say it appears to be out of character.

And of course disagreement is possible. Usually it is either with that last part, or with the claim that our dating science is pretty good. Either of which is possible of course, but I still agree with Augustine - given that as far as the faith goes, it doesn’t matter, pushing an interpretation that is contrary to what all reason based on observation (ie science) currently suggests is silly. But again, no one is bound to agree with me.

 

[buffalo]

No no. Of course his friend is entitled to hold whichever view he thinks makes more sense.

What I was saying was only that science does not claim that a Man cannot be God and perform miracles. Science only claims that these things will not happen by themselves purely according to natural laws. Science (as distinct from the various philosophical points of view held by some scientists that claim that there is nothing beyond what science predicts and discovers/can discover) has no opinion and can have no opinion on whether or not the natural laws can be superseded by God.

As I said, no one has claimed that God is incapable of working outside of the natural laws. This would be kind of silly, since He made the natural laws.

What some of us claim is that He made natural laws, and that these laws, to the best of our admittedly imperfect understanding, suggest a rather old Earth. We also claim that while our understanding is imperfect, that its predictive powers on this issue tend to work out pretty well.

We then say that the physical laws suggest an old Earth, and that while God can certainly set aside His laws if He so chooses, it seems odd to claim that He would do so purely to make something that does not need to be literal be literal given that it would make it so that the laws He made would suggest something that was false. We don’t say it is impossible. We say it appears to be out of character.

And of course disagreement is possible. Usually it is either with that last part, or with the claim that our dating science is pretty good. Either of which is possible of course, but I still agree with Augustine - given that as far as the faith goes, it doesn’t matter, pushing an interpretation that is contrary to what all reason based on observation (ie science) currently suggests is silly. But again, no one is bound to agree with me.

God is under no obligation to reveal all to His creatures. We are like babies to God. So much is over our heads. In addition, we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Even looking at the stars we cannot be totally sure what we are seeing. Like an iceberg much lies hidden underneath the sea.

St Augustine does not encourage us to be foolish. We also should not be so foolish is to make such loft declarations with so little knowledge.

The difference boils down to empirical evidence vs non-empirical. Per St Augustine it would be foolish to say that if we drop a ball it will not fall, as we observe it, test it and can predict it.

By this illustration it is easy to see human reasoning is the weak part.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[johnnyjones]

No no. Of course his friend is entitled to hold whichever view he thinks makes more sense.

What I was saying was only that science does not claim that a Man cannot be God and perform miracles. Science only claims that these things will not happen by themselves purely according to natural laws. Science (as distinct from the various philosophical points of view held by some scientists that claim that there is nothing beyond what science predicts and discovers/can discover) has no opinion and can have no opinion on whether or not the natural laws can be superseded by God.

As I said, no one has claimed that God is incapable of working outside of the natural laws. This would be kind of silly, since He made the natural laws.

What some of us claim is that He made natural laws, and that these laws, to the best of our admittedly imperfect understanding, suggest a rather old Earth. We also claim that while our understanding is imperfect, that its predictive powers on this issue tend to work out pretty well.

We then say that the physical laws suggest an old Earth, and that while God can certainly set aside His laws if He so chooses, it seems odd to claim that He would do so purely to make something that does not need to be literal be literal given that it would make it so that the laws He made would suggest something that was false. We don’t say it is impossible. We say it appears to be out of character.

And of course disagreement is possible. Usually it is either with that last part, or with the claim that our dating science is pretty good. Either of which is possible of course, but I still agree with Augustine - given that as far as the faith goes, it doesn’t matter, pushing an interpretation that is contrary to what all reason based on observation (ie science) currently suggests is silly. But again, no one is bound to agree with me.

God has demonstrated time and again that what man holds up as science can be shown as folly. What seems odd is to take the people (Adam and Eve) that are paramount to original sin , and that the church says we must accept as essential doctrine, then put them in a metaphorical environment. How many persons of scripture, that Jesus and the epistles identify as real, do we want to reconstruct based on what WE feel couldn’t be?

Always interesting to me is that God made a point of telling us THE hardest thing, that a man could be God, and went to many lengths to show it. At no time did God rearrange the Genesis account or bring it to our attention as a “parable”. THIS hard thing, how the world was made in six days and all that comes with it, becomes an obstacle because science has put it’s foot down.

 

[buffalo]

God has demonstrated time and again that what man holds up as science can be shown as folly. What seems odd is to take the people (Adam and Eve) that are paramount to original sin , and that the church says we must accept as essential doctrine, then put them in a metaphorical environment. How many persons of scripture, that Jesus and the epistles identify as real, do we want to reconstruct based on what WE feel couldn’t be?

Always interesting to me is that God made a point of telling us THE hardest thing, that a man could be God, and went to many lengths to show it. At no time did God rearrange the Genesis account or bring it to our attention as a “parable”. THIS hard thing, how the world was made in six days and all that comes with it, becomes an obstacle because science has put it’s foot down.

In addition, the evidence against Adam and Eve existing is unconvincing.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Of course, they also lived in a time where people believed that the Bible taught science, so they believed in a geo-centric universe, and in “floodgates” in the skies, and all sorts of things that have since been demonstrated to be false. So, although we retain a great deal of respect for the Early Church Fathers, and for great figures of the Church throughout history, it’s difficult to say that, for example, since Augustine and Aquinas believed X to be scientifically true, then we should, too . . .

i don’t think, at least initially, that they held it true simply because the Bible taught it; it is my impression that they (believers and non-believers) held that it was the description of the natural world, and the Bible addressed how God fit into it, how the transcendant was related to the transient

i have read and conceived myself, accounts of Genesis stated in terms of how we understand the unfolding of the universe today - in today’s language of science; God created the Big Bang etc
the problem is that science is always evolving and in one hundred years for sure these fromulationswill be superceded by others

Genesis is fine as it is: God created heaven and Hell; the creation of the world took place in days - one just has to read: from eternity came time, sequentially and with its cycles; it is a waste of time to go into whether it means 24 hours and whatever seconds

I see scripture as describing the spiritual structure of the universe, which isn’t a myth a story obviously - it is real; what scirpture talks about happened in time and in eternity
I believe that it is necessarily vague in certain respects so that the reader is not distracted from the essential message and is in fact obliged to delve further into it

 

[johnnyjones]

i don’t think, at least initially, that they held it true simply because the Bible taught it; it is my impression that they (believers and non-believers) held that it was the description of the natural world, and the Bible addressed how God fit into it, how the transcendant was related to the transient

i have read and conceived myself, accounts of Genesis stated in terms of how we understand the unfolding of the universe today - in today’s language of science; God created the Big Bang etc
the problem is that science is always evolving and in one hundred years for sure these fromulationswill be superceded by others

Genesis is fine as it is: God created heaven and Hell; the creation of the world took place in days - one just has to read: from eternity came time, sequentially and with its cycles; it is a waste of time to go into whether it means 24 hours and whatever seconds

I see scripture as describing the spiritual structure of the universe, which isn’t a myth a story obviously - it is real; what scirpture talks about happened in time and in eternity
I believe that it is necessarily vague in certain respects so that the reader is not distracted from the essential message and is in fact obliged to delve further into it

Well said. I would add that your words line up with the fact that the catholic church has no official position as to whether the earth was created in 6 days or not.

 

[HouseUponRock]

Old Earth is a lie. Earth is 7,500 years old. Young Earth was unanimous opinion of Church Fathers, Popes, theologians, and pretty much all of humanity for thousands of years since creation until about 1800s and the “scientists” that emerged from anti-Catholic “Enlightenment” rebellion. This is historic fact. For Catholics to side with atheists, who openly blaspheme God, over the inspired text of Scriptures on such a crucial topic as the origin of the world is truly amazing and shows that most Catholics are a complete fraud and don’t have faith. What else will you compromise with the atheists? Already most Catholics are compromised on religious liberty, which is another novelty of anti-Catholic “Enlightenment” period that ruined the power and prestige of the Church, and birth control via “Natural Family Planning”. What next?

 

[Neildown]

Taking Creation literally is a traditional Catholic view. But there are many levels to how literal you can go. As for me I do take it literally in the sense that I believe that the Creation account actually happened and that it is not just some allegorical story that has some deeper all-together different meaning. But I do believe that Moses used metaphors within the account to simplify the account so that all the generations of readers would be able to grasp the event. I personally don’t take the “days” as being literally 24 hour days but literally large intervals of time, I just feel that days is used metaphorically.

If you don’t believe that its a literal account then you would have a view that its not really a creation account that actually happened and that it has no value in understanding how the universe came about. I totally oppose that view myself. I belive that the creation account is a very simplified account of how God created the universe.

I must agree with this - with the addition that no one knows how exactly creation was “created.” The fact that it was is all we really need to be content with - at least until we get compelling evidence of how it happened. I doubt that will be within any of our lifetimes though, if at all.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

St Augustine does not encourage us to be foolish. We also should not be so foolish is to make such loft declarations with so little knowledge.

I disagree that we have little knowledge. If, however, someone comes up with the hypothesis that our dating science is completely and totally rubbish (whether motivated by his not-revealed interpretation of Genesis or not) and wishes to test this hypothesis via either the methods of science or something that actually is revealed and not just his opinion about what is revealed, fine. But given that it is specifically said that either position is ok for Catholics to hold, revelation will not settle the debate, and given that no one else is beholden to his interpretation of Genesis, if he fails on that front or if he’s dealing with a non-Christian, then he’s left with empirical methods. (And even if revelation did settle the debate, he should pursue the empirical methods without bias, because truth does not contradict truth and so he would eventually arise at evidence that the wider community would accept. That science cannot answer the question is ruled out by the fact that science already has a large body of evidence.) If he makes a sound empirical argument, then science will change.

And it actually will change, assuming he makes a sound scientific argument - the idea that “mainstream” science will just reject such advancements for ideological reasons is false. Sociology and psychology, and even ecology and various “macro” systems in general may be plagued by such things, but when you get to the level of basic physics on which things like dating based on half lives of various radioactive isotopes live, there isn’t much room for such rejections in the face of actual science. Witness Fr. Lemaitre and the (near) destruction of the steady state view of the universe.

To attempt to project Augustine a bit further into this situation: I would guess that his point of view would be that if you’re going to challenge a scientific point of view, especially among non-Christians, do it with science - and not by claiming that your own personal interpretation of scripture is above all of the reasoning that everyone else has done. Because it’s possible that your interpretation is wrong, that their logic is right, and that you’ve been making the writers of scripture look like fools.

If it were an infallible interpretation of Scripture, that would be a different matter. But it’s not. It’s your opinion. And preaching your opinion about Scripture as though it were set-in-stone, revealed-by-God fact to people who think your opinion is silly denigrates their perception of Scripture (and your religion in general) to no good purpose.

Someone said something about “but science has put its foot down.” Science never puts its foot down irrevocably, but it does require that the lifting of the foot be motivated. This is more of a case of the young-earther putting his foot down because of his own opinion about what Scripture means and then refusing to move it come Hell or high water.

Again, I am not here talking about those who think it likely that the days are literal 24-hour days and so hold to that view keeping in mind that it is not known with certainty to be true, I am talking about the person who ascribes a certainty to this view that paints all who disagree as not taking scripture seriously enough because they dare to disagree with his opinion about what scripture says, or as denying something that is certainly known to be true, or some similar nonsense.

(For the record, I would also say the something similar about people who say that they know with the certainty of faith that the 24-hour days are false, but we haven’t had any of those yet - or if we have, I haven’t read their posts.)

Believe what you want, by all means, but do not claim that the full authority of the word of God is certainly behind you because you do not have such certainty.

The difference boils down to empirical evidence vs non-empirical.

More correctly, it’s “empirical evidence” vs “something that some people think may be evidence, but need not be really.”

Again, if we knew that the Genesis passage were evidence for a young earth view, then we would know that it was to be interpreted in that manner, and if we knew that then it would be a known truth of the faith.

But. It. Is. Not.

Otherwise there would not be freedom to hold either opinion.

And there is.

 

[buffalo]

I disagree that we have little knowledge. If, however, someone comes up with the hypothesis that our dating science is completely and totally rubbish (whether motivated by his not-revealed interpretation of Genesis or not) and wishes to test this hypothesis via either the methods of science or something that actually is revealed and not just his opinion about what is revealed, fine. But given that it is specifically said that either position is ok for Catholics to hold, revelation will not settle the debate, and given that no one else is beholden to his interpretation of Genesis, if he fails on that front or if he’s dealing with a non-Christian, then he’s left with empirical methods. (And even if revelation did settle the debate, he should pursue the empirical methods without bias, because truth does not contradict truth and so he would eventually arise at evidence that the wider community would accept. That science cannot answer the question is ruled out by the fact that science already has a large body of evidence.) If he makes a sound empirical argument, then science will change.

And it actually will change, assuming he makes a sound scientific argument - the idea that “mainstream” science will just reject such advancements for ideological reasons is false. Sociology and psychology, and even ecology and various “macro” systems in general may be plagued by such things, but when you get to the level of basic physics on which things like dating based on half lives of various radioactive isotopes live, there isn’t much room for such rejections in the face of actual science. Witness Fr. Lemaitre and the (near) destruction of the steady state view of the universe.

To attempt to project Augustine a bit further into this situation: I would guess that his point of view would be that if you’re going to challenge a scientific point of view, especially among non-Christians, do it with science - and not by claiming that your own personal interpretation of scripture is above all of the reasoning that everyone else has done. Because it’s possible that your interpretation is wrong, that their logic is right, and that you’ve been making the writers of scripture look like fools.

If it were an infallible interpretation of Scripture, that would be a different matter. But it’s not. It’s your opinion. And preaching your opinion about Scripture as though it were set-in-stone, revealed-by-God fact to people who think your opinion is silly denigrates their perception of Scripture (and your religion in general) to no good purpose.

Someone said something about “but science has put its foot down.” Science never puts its foot down irrevocably, but it does require that the lifting of the foot be motivated. This is more of a case of the young-earther putting his foot down because of his own opinion about what Scripture means and then refusing to move it come Hell or high water.

Again, I am not here talking about those who think it likely that the days are literal 24-hour days and so hold to that view keeping in mind that it is not known with certainty to be true, I am talking about the person who ascribes a certainty to this view that paints all who disagree as not taking scripture seriously enough because they dare to disagree with his opinion about what scripture says, or as denying something that is certainly known to be true, or some similar nonsense.

(For the record, I would also say the something similar about people who say that they know with the certainty of faith that the 24-hour days are false, but we haven’t had any of those yet - or if we have, I haven’t read their posts.)

Believe what you want, by all means, but do not claim that the full authority of the word of God is certainly behind you because you do not have such certainty.

More correctly, it’s “empirical evidence” vs “something that some people think may be evidence, but need not be really.”

Again, if we knew that the Genesis passage were evidence for a young earth view, then we would know that it was to be interpreted in that manner, and if we knew that then it would be a known truth of the faith.

But. It. Is. Not.

Otherwise there would not be freedom to hold either opinion.

And there is.

To be fair we need to consider the constant understanding and teaching of the Church protected by the Holy Spirit. I am not personally interpreting Scripture. I use the constant teaching and understanding. If you can produce a Magisterial document that overturns this show it. Then we would need a real good explanation of how we got it wrong for so long considering the protection of the Holy Spirit (was he sleeping?).

Revelation is solid.

The science establishment is trying to put its foot down by controlling what is taught and disseminated. Dare to step outside and one will face certain belittlement.

 

[Gorgias]

If you can produce a Magisterial document that overturns this show it.

Umm… hello? I did, in this post! In Divino affluente spiritu, Pius XII affirms Augustine’s statement that the Bible isn’t meant to teach scientific fact. When we assert young earth creationism over against scientific cosmology (NB: not philosophical evolutionism, mind you!), then we’re saying that the Bible teaches science that trumps science itself. QED.

Then we would need a real good explanation of how we got it wrong for so long considering the protection of the Holy Spirit (was he sleeping?).

Do we have magisterial documents that teach it as science, or simply writings of ECFs? There’s a difference there, wouldn’t you say, between the two types of writings?

Revelation is solid.

True. Interpretation of revelation, on the other hand…

 

[buffalo]

Umm… hello? I did, in this post! In Divino affluente spiritu, Pius XII affirms Augustine’s statement that the Bible isn’t meant to teach scientific fact. When we assert young earth creationism over against scientific cosmology (NB: not philosophical evolutionism, mind you!), then we’re saying that the Bible teaches science that trumps science itself. QED.

Do we have magisterial documents that teach it as science, or simply writings of ECFs? There’s a difference there, wouldn’t you say, between the two types of writings?

True. Interpretation of revelation, on the other hand…

No argument that the Bible is not a science textbook. However there are areas of overlap.

For instance - the very first line of Genesis:

In the beginning - time - science recently agrees
God created the heavens - space - science recently agrees
and the earth -matter - science recently agrees.

Take a look, here is a possible resolution:

Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6fGBPFm16A2QU5RaEI3MV9ObnM/image?pagenumber=6&w=800

 

[Iron_Donkey]

To be fair we need to consider the constant understanding and teaching of the Church protected by the Holy Spirit. I am not personally interpreting Scripture. I use the constant teaching and understanding. If you can produce a Magisterial document that overturns this show it. Then we would need a real good explanation of how we got it wrong for so long considering the protection of the Holy Spirit (was he sleeping?).

Revelation is solid.

The science establishment is trying to put its foot down by controlling what is taught and disseminated. Dare to step outside and one will face certain belittlement.

It’s never been dogma of the Church that the 7 24 hour day thing is literal. Augustine thought it was not (though he seems to have thought it was instant). Clement of Alexandria thought it was. In the middle ages, many people thought it was. Now most people tend to think it is not. On the related issue of evolution, Pope John Paul II seemed to think that it was generally on the right track, while his predecessor tended to hope it would go away and did not like it at all -but nevertheless said that it was acceptable (so long as we recognize that the immaterial soul comes directly from God, and that there is design, whatever it looks like when it’s being brought to fruition).

Pope Benedict XVI seems to think it’s not really worth arguing about from a faith perspective, taking more or less the same view I do that either answer is fine from the perspective of the faith, and so to each his own and let the scientists duke it out (although he also seems to see the the less literal interpretation as the more likely one, obviously he has not said that the faith requires belief in current scientific theory, as that would be absurd.). nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.URQchXe2G3s

Just like the fact that limbo was a popular idea in the recent-ish past and is no longer popular now does not mean that the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the Job, neither does the fact that opinions of the time-frame of the creation vary imply such.

As for magisterial documents - the best I can do at the moment is to direct you to the (related) page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution. You’ll see several quotes from various encyclicals and the like, some of which say that the a non-24hr literal interpretation is acceptable.

Should you find any documents of higher authority that seem to lean one way or the other, I would be interested in checking them out.

For the record, I certainly believe (as all Catholics should) that everything about how the universe exists is known and determined by God, hence that it was designed, and that the design was intelligent. I think that science suggests this, though it does not prove this because the alternative hypothesis of random chance guided by physical laws (whose origins the random chance people don’t talk about) has the same characteristic that design is often accused of having - namely, just as you can always say and not be able to falsify that God created everything, so too are you unable to falsify (in the scientific setting) the claim that everything “just worked out that way because that’s how the dice happened to come up.”

I just don’t think that God’s design phase must necessarily have been carried out exclusively within a specific 7-day period of our time.

And again, I don’t begrudge anyone the ability to disagree with me, what annoys me (and I may have let this annoyance show more than I should have) is the idea that failure to hold the most literal view is somehow being a worse Catholic. There are plenty of issues where to be a good Catholic, one must believe a certain thing, but this is not one of them.

 

[johnnyjones]

Umm… hello? I did, in this post! In Divino affluente spiritu, Pius XII affirms Augustine’s statement that the Bible isn’t meant to teach scientific fact. When we assert young earth creationism over against scientific cosmology (NB: not philosophical evolutionism, mind you!), then we’re saying that the Bible teaches science that trumps science itself. QED.

Even the church does not want to get into giving an official position on a literal 6 day creation. Why? When and where do you pick what should be a metphor in sacred scripture and what we MUST take literally?

God is not required to work within the confines of what man can understand. It also bears repeating that Genesis is not a parable. The church does not say it is nor does Jesus in scripture. If one was reformulating the books of the bible only to fit with science, a good portion would be unaccepted. Genesis can therefore be looked at literally.

 

[johnnyjones]

It’s never been dogma of the Church that the 7 24 hour day thing is literal. Augustine thought it was not (though he seems to have thought it was instant). Clement of Alexandria thought it was. In the middle ages, many people thought it was. Now most people tend to think it is not. On the related issue of evolution, Pope John Paul II seemed to think that it was generally on the right track, while his predecessor tended to hope it would go away and did not like it at all -but nevertheless said that it was acceptable (so long as we recognize that the immaterial soul comes directly from God, and that there is design, whatever it looks like when it’s being brought to fruition).

Pope Benedict XVI seems to think it’s not really worth arguing about from a faith perspective, taking more or less the same view I do that either answer is fine from the perspective of the faith, and so to each his own and let the scientists duke it out (although he also seems to see the the less literal interpretation as the more likely one, obviously he has not said that the faith requires belief in current scientific theory, as that would be absurd.). nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.URQchXe2G3s

Just like the fact that limbo was a popular idea in the recent-ish past and is no longer popular now does not mean that the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the Job, neither does the fact that opinions of the time-frame of the creation vary imply such.

As for magisterial documents - the best I can do at the moment is to direct you to the (related) page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution. You’ll see several quotes from various encyclicals and the like, some of which say that the a non-24hr literal interpretation is acceptable.

Should you find any documents of higher authority that seem to lean one way or the other, I would be interested in checking them out.

For the record, I certainly believe (as all Catholics should) that everything about how the universe exists is known and determined by God, hence that it was designed, and that the design was intelligent. I think that science suggests this, though it does not prove this because the alternative hypothesis of random chance guided by physical laws (whose origins the random chance people don’t talk about) has the same characteristic that design is often accused of having - namely, just as you can always say and not be able to falsify that God created everything, so too are you unable to falsify (in the scientific setting) the claim that everything “just worked out that way because that’s how the dice happened to come up.”

I just don’t think that God’s design phase must necessarily have been carried out exclusively within a specific 7-day period of our time.

And again, I don’t begrudge anyone the ability to disagree with me, what annoys me (and I may have let this annoyance show more than I should have) is the idea that failure to hold the most literal view is somehow being a worse Catholic. There are plenty of issues where to be a good Catholic, one must believe a certain thing, but this is not one of them.

I have to stear clear of the “e” word. But if one is traveling down the theistic intervention road, there is no room for an ape in any way shape or form. And this is something I would suppose you suscribe to.

 

[buffalo]

It’s never been dogma of the Church that the 7 24 hour day thing is literal. Augustine thought it was not (though he seems to have thought it was instant). Clement of Alexandria thought it was. In the middle ages, many people thought it was. Now most people tend to think it is not. On the related issue of evolution, Pope John Paul II seemed to think that it was generally on the right track, while his predecessor tended to hope it would go away and did not like it at all -but nevertheless said that it was acceptable (so long as we recognize that the immaterial soul comes directly from God, and that there is design, whatever it looks like when it’s being brought to fruition).

Pope Benedict XVI seems to think it’s not really worth arguing about from a faith perspective, taking more or less the same view I do that either answer is fine from the perspective of the faith, and so to each his own and let the scientists duke it out (although he also seems to see the the less literal interpretation as the more likely one, obviously he has not said that the faith requires belief in current scientific theory, as that would be absurd.). nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.URQchXe2G3s

Just like the fact that limbo was a popular idea in the recent-ish past and is no longer popular now does not mean that the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the Job, neither does the fact that opinions of the time-frame of the creation vary imply such.

As for magisterial documents - the best I can do at the moment is to direct you to the (related) page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution. You’ll see several quotes from various encyclicals and the like, some of which say that the a non-24hr literal interpretation is acceptable.

Should you find any documents of higher authority that seem to lean one way or the other, I would be interested in checking them out.

For the record, I certainly believe (as all Catholics should) that everything about how the universe exists is known and determined by God, hence that it was designed, and that the design was intelligent. I think that science suggests this, though it does not prove this because the alternative hypothesis of random chance guided by physical laws (whose origins the random chance people don’t talk about) has the same characteristic that design is often accused of having - namely, just as you can always say and not be able to falsify that God created everything, so too are you unable to falsify (in the scientific setting) the claim that everything “just worked out that way because that’s how the dice happened to come up.”

I just don’t think that God’s design phase must necessarily have been carried out exclusively within a specific 7-day period of our time.

And again, I don’t begrudge anyone the ability to disagree with me, what annoys me (and I may have let this annoyance show more than I should have) is the idea that failure to hold the most literal view is somehow being a worse Catholic. There are plenty of issues where to be a good Catholic, one must believe a certain thing, but this is not one of them.

Right - it is not dogma.

Right - let science duke it out in the illumination of Revelation.

Limbo was theological speculation only.

We must hold the literal view as follows:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
   But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

Over the last several years I have seen Revelation being supported by modern science more and more.