Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?

[ricmat]

I don’t usually had out long articles, but if there were a summary – sure! The biologists in the department like the article.

Well, the devil is in the details, isn’t it?

The problem with summaries is that they leave stuff out.

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, the devil is in the details, isn’t it? The problem with summaries is that they leave stuff out.

Yes – you have to summarize carefully.

 

[ricmat]

Yes – you have to summarize carefully.

How about a link to the entire article, in your powerpoint? Since we both agree that summaries are not ideal, and you stated that it supports your position, and you stated that your scientific colleagues think it’s great, that seems like a logical thing to do.

How about it?

 

[mary_bobo]

And does that mean that I who went to Catholic schools from 1956 - 1969 is suspect because I am an anthropologist? The burden of proof is upon you. Frankly, I am incredulous that I could have grown up before Vatican II…Please show me where I am wrong or that I was taught wrongly.

Excuse me. Show we where I have diverged from official church teachings?

Brotherhrolf, I went thru Catholic schools before you did. In high school, I had a wonderful priest who taught sociology. He told us that we could believe in evolution so long as we believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and the other things earlier stated on this topic. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It makes perfect sense to my that God deigned it to happen that way. I have no doubt who made Heaven and earth and me.

 

[Luke65]

Slandering the entire science community is probably not the most eirenic way to broach a discussion. I know a large number of scientists in many departments, and quite a few of them are Catholic priests. They don’t practice their scientific profession out of blind faith. Their faith is in God, and their science is part of their service of God.

StAnastasia

“Slandering the entire science community”? Geez, StA, why so sensitive? You would think she had said, “All scientists go to Hell.” I mean, that would be an interesting point to debate , but all she said was “blind faith”, and that is a fact. What mainstream scientist doesn’t believe in the Oort Cloud? However…

Carl Sagan: “There is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”

And there still isn’t. You could have blind faith that God occasionally tosses comets into orbit around the sun, or you can have blind faith that there’s a mysterious Oort Cloud out there that occasionally tosses comets into orbit around the sun. Or you can love the truth that the solar system is only some 6000 years old, which explains why the comets haven’t melted yet. Its your free will.

 

[palmas85]

Aramis, this is certainly how most theologians understand it the science-religion relationship. “Creation” is a theological concept, indicating the ontological dependence of the world upon God; it is not a scientific principle at all. “Evolution” on the other hand is a scientific theory, not a theological claim. It can in no way conflict with “creation” because it is not even in the same category of concept. The confusion arises when either a religious believer or a scientist confuses creation and evolution as trying to explain the same thing, and therefore as standing in conflict.

Where I differ from you is on your claim that “one of them sinned, and through that sin, the immortal soul of all was imperiled.” It makes no theological sense to assume either that (1) in an evolving population of hominids only one would sin, or (2) that if only one did sin, the immortal soul of all would be imperiled. This makes sense only on a literal reading of the Adam and Eve narrative, which most theologians do not regard as appropriate. It makes more theological sense to interpret sin as evolving along with the increasing neural capacity of *Homo sapiens *and the evolution of the species into self-consciousness 50,000-150,000 years ago. Sin appeared on the scene as soon as humans were self-conscious enough to experience free will and the capacity to do otherwise.

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

StAnastasia

I have read this entire thread with great interest. Now a question.

Under the explanation that you have provided us where exactly and how exactly does the concept of original sin fit in?

 

[StAnastasia]

How about a link to the entire article, in your powerpoint? Since we both agree that summaries are not ideal, and you stated that it supports your position, and you stated that your scientific colleagues think it’s great, that seems like a logical thing to do.How about it?

Good thinking; it would be appropriate for the “resources” page.

 

[StAnastasia]

“Slandering the entire science community”? Geez, StA, why so sensitive? You would think she had said, “All scientists go to Hell.” I mean, that would be an interesting point to debate , but all she said was “blind faith”, and that is a fact. What mainstream scientist doesn’t believe in the Oort Cloud? However…

Science doesn’t work on blind faith. Science works by developing hypotheses to explain evidence, and constructing theories out of tested hypotheses, and being willing to revise theories when the evidence indicates otherwise. There is no evidence that hte universe is only 6,000 years old – that’s why scientists reject that hypothesis.

 

[Luke65]

Science doesn’t work on blind faith. Science works by developing hypotheses to explain evidence, and constructing theories out of tested hypotheses, and being willing to revise theories when the evidence indicates otherwise. There is no evidence that hte universe is only 6,000 years old – that’s why scientists reject that hypothesis.

I just gave you an example of “science” working on blind faith. Its also evidence for a young earth, and it will remain evidence for that until you geniuses produce actual evidence that the Oort Cloud exists. And I imagine that will happen about the same time that Joe finds evidence for his Brain Cloud!

 

[VanDoodah]

The name Big Bang was coined as a mocking term to Father Lemaitre’s theory. The secular scientists would not admit to the universe having a beginning.

All scientists are secular scientists. They may believe in God e.g. Francis Collins, but when faced with a scientific problem, they don’t simply say “God did it” - they search for a naturalistic explanation. Also, the majority of scientists, atheistic or otherwise, believe that the Universe had a beginning, so to say that “seculat scientists” won’t admit that the Universe had a beginning is nonsense. Unfotunately for you, the Big Bang Theory lends no credence to the intellectually bankrupt cosmological argument.

 

[palmas85]

Aramis, this is certainly how most theologians understand it the science-religion relationship. “Creation” is a theological concept, indicating the ontological dependence of the world upon God; it is not a scientific principle at all. “Evolution” on the other hand is a scientific theory, not a theological claim. It can in no way conflict with “creation” because it is not even in the same category of concept. The confusion arises when either a religious believer or a scientist confuses creation and evolution as trying to explain the same thing, and therefore as standing in conflict.

Where I differ from you is on your claim that “one of them sinned, and through that sin, the immortal soul of all was imperiled.” It makes no theological sense to assume either that (1) in an evolving population of hominids only one would sin, or (2) that if only one did sin, the immortal soul of all would be imperiled. This makes sense only on a literal reading of the Adam and Eve narrative, which most theologians do not regard as appropriate. It makes more theological sense to interpret sin as evolving along with the increasing neural capacity of *Homo sapiens *and the evolution of the species into self-consciousness 50,000-150,000 years ago. Sin appeared on the scene as soon as humans were self-conscious enough to experience free will and the capacity to do otherwise.

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

StAnastasia

I ask again StAnastasia, how does the Catholic cocnept of original sin fit into the explanation that you have provided.

 

[buffalo]

Science doesn’t work on blind faith. Science works by developing hypotheses to explain evidence, and constructing theories out of tested hypotheses, and being willing to revise theories when the evidence indicates otherwise. There is no evidence that hte universe is only 6,000 years old – that’s why scientists reject that hypothesis.

One area where this is suspect is where a priori positions are taken because they cannot let the Divine foot in the door. Those WILL NOT go where the evidence leads.

 

[ricmat]

Where I differ from you is on your claim that “one of them sinned, and through that sin, the immortal soul of all was imperiled.” It makes no theological sense to assume either that (1) in an evolving population of hominids only one would sin, or (2) that if only one did sin, the immortal soul of all would be imperiled. This makes sense only on a literal reading of the Adam and Eve narrative, which most theologians do not regard as appropriate. It makes more theological sense to interpret sin as evolving along with the increasing neural capacity of *Homo sapiens *and the evolution of the species into self-consciousness 50,000-150,000 years ago. Sin appeared on the scene as soon as humans were self-conscious enough to experience free will and the capacity to do otherwise.

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

StAnastasia

I have read this entire thread with great interest. Now a question.

Under the explanation that you have provided us where exactly and how exactly does the concept of original sin fit in?

I ask again StAnastasia, how does the Catholic cocnept of original sin fit into the explanation that you have provided.

In addition to Palmas85’s question, I would also like to ask “How does actual (official) Catholic teaching fit in with your quote above?”

 

[StAnastasia]

I ask again StAnastasia, how does the Catholic cocnept of original sin fit into the explanation that you have provided.

As hominids evolved into self-consciousness, they became morally and spiritually aware. Moral awareness involves the understanding that we are all subject to sin by virtue of our “fallen” nature.

 

[Luke65]

As hominids evolved into self-consciousness, they became morally and spiritually aware. Moral awareness involves the understanding that we are all subject to sin by virtue of our “fallen” nature.

Of course, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. This is the Church’s dogma on Original Sin, it is infallible and binding on all:

The Council of Trent
The Fifth Session
DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Romans 5:12]

 

[Jon_Paul]

As hominids evolved into self-consciousness, they became morally and spiritually aware. Moral awareness involves the understanding that we are all subject to sin by virtue of our “fallen” nature.

How did we come by this “fallen nature” in your scenario?

 

[Aramis]

I just gave you an example of “science” working on blind faith. Its also evidence for a young earth, and it will remain evidence for that until you geniuses produce actual evidence that the Oort Cloud exists. And I imagine that will happen about the same time that Joe finds evidence for his Brain Cloud!

Given that the orbital trajectories of most long period comets (periods > 20 years) have patterns that imply strongly an initial point out in the “oort cloud zone,” there is plenty of evidence to support that hypothesis. It’s not conclusive, but it’s enough to disclaim the “blind faith” you assert incorrectly. (The methodology is to take the known orbit data, and run it backwards in a calculation with gravity of known bodies. Writing such a program is within the bounds of 1st year programming students; getting the details accurate is within the competence of most astronomy grad students.)

The age of the universe being greater than 6000 years is confirmed by the simple fact that triangulation establishes that some observed objects are beyond 6000 light years distance; these objects must be older in years than the distance in light years, since the distance travelled by light in one year is the definition of a light year. The observational process requires at least 1600’s telescopes, but otherwise is within the competence of classical greek mathematicians, since it’s simple triangulation.

 

[bloodofchrist]

young earth creationist chased me to catholic church i craved communion with the true church and relief from extremist.Dont get me wrong im no liberal im anti abortion anti gay marriage i just think some of old testiment is symblolic particulary genesis you know it was like a model not the exact proccess.Right now evolution is the best scenario but in future who knows a lot of the intelligent design folks have pretty good ideas and honestly leading atheist admit they cant prove no god. So hey creation scenario open to debate much of bible has been proven old and new testament and the history of christ is welled founded.

 

[TMC]

These links provide collections of statements by the Church and Popes on Theistic Evolution and how it fits into the Catholic faith:

The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

Theistic Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

The summary is that theologians are rethinking the issue of monogenism, and considering how original sin fits into the evolutionary model. We may not understand perfectly how everything fits together, but what do we really understand perfectly. As Pope Benedict says:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

In his book “In the Begging” then-Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say about Original Sin:

Every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.

But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved—that is, be free and true—when we stop wanting to be God and when we renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved—that is, become ourselves—when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that the damage lies. Since the relationship with creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God’s love can purify damaged human love and radically reestablish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation.

 

[StAnastasia]

How did we come by this “fallen nature” in your scenario?

Creation is by nature incomplete, and sin is related to incompleteness, need, desire, jealousy. It took millions of years from the Big Bang until the first generation of stars, and tens to hundreds of millions of years to the gravitational collection of galaxies. It took yet further billions of years until the first generation of stars–which had generated the heavier elements in their cores through the process of nucleosynthesis-- exploded these element into the interstellar medium, where they collected gravitationally into accretion discs that become second generation stars with rocky, potentially life-bearing planets.

On planets with suitable chemical, thermal, geological, and meteorological conditions, life was created. When life evolves under conditions of finite resources (as it must on any finite planet), there will always be predation and competition for resources and for ecological niches. Prior to the evolution of consciousness, under “premoral” conditions, predation and competition are not moral issues; a lion is not sinning by tearing apart a gazelle. However, when Homo sapiens evolved consciousness, they became aware of the possibility of acting otherwise. Actions which among non-self-conscious animals are morally neutral–such as killing, overconsumption of resources, deception–these become moral issues. An early human who kills or excludes a tribe member is committing sin, unlike a baboon who kills or exiles a competing male. A human who eats far more than his share of food in a lean year is committing the sin of greed against his starving tribes people. A human who in a drought year lies about where a water source is commits sin, unlike a bird who engages in deception to ensure the survival of its young.

Thus, evolution into moral consciousness entails evolution into the recognition of sin and the possibility of not sinning, and the recognition that we are all born into this condition, that it is original to our very nature in an incomplete, unfinished universe.

StAnastasia