- Status
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
It hasn’t, and I do not think that any of the Catholics posted here who support evolution reject creation in the sense you mention.
G
Gorgias
Guest
For some definitions of “evolution”, yes, they’re mutually exclusive. (Those would be the ones that assert that there is no God, and that creation has no creator, and that there’s no meaning or goal-directedness to our lives.)
However, under certain carefully-stated conditions, Catholics may hold to certain tenets that are, as a whole, described as “evolutionary theory.” We cannot, however, hold to those claims which attempt to contradict Church doctrine.
If you had written, “how it contradicts one particular interpretation of Scripture”, then I’d agree with you. However, the way you wrote it, your statement is in error.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
They had Genesis, but they didn’t have the evidence and methodology of modern geology and biology.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
If people want evolution so badly, they need current evidence. For example, we’ve been raising millions of generations of plants and we’ve been selectively breeding them and hybridizing them. Yet, we have NOT created a new species. A rose is a rose and a turnip is a turnip.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
"Speciation by hybridization: For example, when Loren Rieseberg and coworkers reconstructed the phylogeny of several sunflower species, they found that several species had been formed by fertilizations between other species. Often the hybrid offspring of such fertilizations are sterile, but occasionally they are fertile and are reproductively isolated from their “parent” species. In the latter case, a new species is formed. "
“Speciation by ploidy changes: In terms of plant speciation, a ploidy change generally means multiplying the number of chromosomes the species has by some number. So a species that normally has 18 chromosomes might produce a lineage that has 36 or 54 chromosomes. Ploidy changes are common in plants and often produce a species that is reproductively isolated and distinct from the “parent” species. For example, speciation in these anemones involved a ploidy change.”
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationplants_01
D
Dan123
Guest
Evolution studies the genetic changes in populations of creatures over time, it doesn’t say anything about the existence of God. You’re mixing a lot of different ideas and trying to label it all as evolution.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
No choice for “of course, I accept science.”
C
Canvas
Guest
Pope Pius XII in 1950:
The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.
Pope John Paul II, 1996:
In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. … Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.
Pope John Paul II, 1996:
In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. … Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
M
misstherese
Guest
I would believe in all the tenets of evolution, but have found it to be a flawed and outdated theory where scientists who have no other conclusions for how the earth was created because of their distrust in the Bible, have continued to use this incorrect theory to indoctrinate others, even though they have constantly been met with contradicting evidence.
For instance, the discovery of stretchy, completely intact dinosaur tissue! I mentioned this recently no one commented on it. No possibility of this existing past even 10,000 years.
Or dinosaur and human cave paintings.
Or the way the Grand Canyon is laid out, where there is no sign of erosion between layers of different rock, signaling the fact that it can’t be millions of years old. It shows more evidence of how the Flood shifted things, as evidenced by the harsh dividing boundary line of the flat rock and the canyon walls, where water would have gushed through and created that boundary.
Or perhaps the usage of the Hebrew word, yom, used in the Bible, meaning literal days. Yom is used in other parts of the Bible where we have accepted to be a 24 hour period. The meaning would not suddenly change in this one instance of Genesis.
For instance, the discovery of stretchy, completely intact dinosaur tissue! I mentioned this recently no one commented on it. No possibility of this existing past even 10,000 years.
Or dinosaur and human cave paintings.
Or the way the Grand Canyon is laid out, where there is no sign of erosion between layers of different rock, signaling the fact that it can’t be millions of years old. It shows more evidence of how the Flood shifted things, as evidenced by the harsh dividing boundary line of the flat rock and the canyon walls, where water would have gushed through and created that boundary.
Or perhaps the usage of the Hebrew word, yom, used in the Bible, meaning literal days. Yom is used in other parts of the Bible where we have accepted to be a 24 hour period. The meaning would not suddenly change in this one instance of Genesis.
D
Dan123
Guest
A lot of the things you mention aren’t considered to refute evolution because they’re incorrect understandings of the science involved. I will focus on the first one, because I have this link handy from another evolution thread currently active. This is an interview done with Mary Schweitzer, she’s the devout Christian, raised Catholic, and one time young-earth creationist adherent, who made the discovery you’re speaking of. She doesn’t seem to appreciate people claiming she found young intact dinosaur tissue.
thewell.intervarsity.org
A few quotes I think are important:
When Christian students come in as young earth creationists and are questioning your work, how do you help them understand what you know?
I try to help them understand that an ancient earth doesn’t negate anything in the Bible. Not at all. God doesn’t tell us how long he views a “day.” And the word “day” in the Bible means all kinds of different things. “A day is as a thousand years. A thousand years is but a day.” God is not under any obligation to meet my expectations. I will not put God in a box.
And you are in a church where not everyone agrees with you.
My pastor doesn’t agree with me. He’s very much a young earth creationist. My small group leader has no problem with the old earth. He has a problem with evolution. The problem is that many scientists and others have said, “Evolution is random.” It is not random, not even remotely random. It is highly constrained by many things: natural selection, non-random gene changes, isolation — some of this is addressed by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God. But, in general, I think we as scientists do a lousy job of communicating because we’re afraid of communicating the limits of our science. We don’t want to be lumped in with creationists if we admit that we don’t know everything. And creationists and a lot of Christians are very, very fearful and suspicious of “godless” science. So there’s this chasm that exists between the two camps that is not necessary at all. If God made this beautiful creation, doesn’t it stand to reason that the God of logic would make it follow rules that he placed? And what is a miracle, except a suspension of those rules? How else would we recognize it if we didn’t have rules to begin with? To me, it’s all part and parcel of the same thing. I think the more I learn about biology and evolution, the bigger God gets.
And how fair would it be if God put us on a changing planet and didn’t build into us the ability to change? If you remember the character of God, I don’t think any of this is a problem. I just don’t. It took me a while to get here. I mean, it was very hard for me.
But very rarely do students ask me about it. Some do. A student came in my office one day and said, “Can I talk to you about something? I was raised a Christian. I was raised to believe in the Bible. But all that I’ve learned in my science classes…I can’t…I can’t do that anymore. But I heard you’re a Christian.” And now she’s getting her PhD! And she’s still a person of faith.
The Unlikely Paleontologist: An Interview with Mary Schweitzer (Part 1)
Mary Schweitzer tells the tale of her circuitous route into paleontology in this first installment of a two-part interview.
thewell.intervarsity.org
A few quotes I think are important:
When Christian students come in as young earth creationists and are questioning your work, how do you help them understand what you know?
I try to help them understand that an ancient earth doesn’t negate anything in the Bible. Not at all. God doesn’t tell us how long he views a “day.” And the word “day” in the Bible means all kinds of different things. “A day is as a thousand years. A thousand years is but a day.” God is not under any obligation to meet my expectations. I will not put God in a box.
And you are in a church where not everyone agrees with you.
My pastor doesn’t agree with me. He’s very much a young earth creationist. My small group leader has no problem with the old earth. He has a problem with evolution. The problem is that many scientists and others have said, “Evolution is random.” It is not random, not even remotely random. It is highly constrained by many things: natural selection, non-random gene changes, isolation — some of this is addressed by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God. But, in general, I think we as scientists do a lousy job of communicating because we’re afraid of communicating the limits of our science. We don’t want to be lumped in with creationists if we admit that we don’t know everything. And creationists and a lot of Christians are very, very fearful and suspicious of “godless” science. So there’s this chasm that exists between the two camps that is not necessary at all. If God made this beautiful creation, doesn’t it stand to reason that the God of logic would make it follow rules that he placed? And what is a miracle, except a suspension of those rules? How else would we recognize it if we didn’t have rules to begin with? To me, it’s all part and parcel of the same thing. I think the more I learn about biology and evolution, the bigger God gets.
And how fair would it be if God put us on a changing planet and didn’t build into us the ability to change? If you remember the character of God, I don’t think any of this is a problem. I just don’t. It took me a while to get here. I mean, it was very hard for me.
But very rarely do students ask me about it. Some do. A student came in my office one day and said, “Can I talk to you about something? I was raised a Christian. I was raised to believe in the Bible. But all that I’ve learned in my science classes…I can’t…I can’t do that anymore. But I heard you’re a Christian.” And now she’s getting her PhD! And she’s still a person of faith.
D
Dan123
Guest
The wikipedia page on this says otherwise and has plenty of credible references to back it up.
en.wikipedia.org
Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions:[1]
Yom - Wikipedia
Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions:[1]
Code:
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
General term for time
Point of time
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
Time period of unspecified length.
A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.
G
guanophore
Guest
The choices are too narrow.
What does “believe in a literal creation account” mean? We are to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. For me there is no conflict between a “literal creation” and evolution. God can create however He likes.
What does “believe in a literal creation account” mean? We are to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. For me there is no conflict between a “literal creation” and evolution. God can create however He likes.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I’m not sure what response 13 is.
But, my question is Do you ACCEPT evolution. If you neither Accept nor reject, you don’t have to participate in the thread.
But, my question is Do you ACCEPT evolution. If you neither Accept nor reject, you don’t have to participate in the thread.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
In comes from Catholicism insofar as it maintains a prior tradition.
But the reason for the pre-scientific (pre-Darwin) interpretation of Genesis (i.e., in the church fathers and Catholics before Darwin) is different from the one many creationists, both Catholic and Protestants, adhere to nowadays. And the latter indeed comes from Protestantism: A Fundamentalist notion of Scripture whereby the inerrancy of Scripture refers to the literal (literalistic) word-for-word interpretation.
In other words, the same church fathers who held to a literal Genesis in the past would probably readily accept evolution today because (1) of the evidence and their view of reason and (2) because of how they interpreted Scripture more generally (NOT Fundamentalistic literalism).
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
You are conflating ‘truth’ and ‘fact.’ We accept the truth about God, Creation, redemption, etc. as revealed in Scripture. We do not view every word of Scripture as historic or scientific fact. If we did, it would be impossible to reconcile things like the double accounts of Creation, the conflicting genealogies of Jesus, the differing times of day of the Crucifixion, the slight differences in the sequence of events at the Resurrection, etc.
Scripture was not written to be an eyewitness account of specific facts, but rather to express the truth of salvation history.
Scripture was not written to be an eyewitness account of specific facts, but rather to express the truth of salvation history.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I don’t think anyone is giving Creation a bad wrap. In the context of this thread/poll, we’re talking about evolution vs creationism, which means a rejection of evolution in favor of a literalistic creation account from Genesis.
M
misstherese
Guest
Show me how they are incorrect. I’m taking this information from geologists and those much smarter than I.
She did find dinosaur tissue…though she is basing assumptions on held beliefs on evolution. When you adhere strictly to that specific mode of thinking, you won’t allow wiggle room to base it off anything else.
She isn’t the only one who’s discovered dinosaur tissue. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.html
Though some will not like Answers in Genesis, I do think they comment well on it. Mary’s understanding is that “iron is the key to preserving dinosaur tissue” and if it can preserve it for two years, why not millions. This article by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, is intriguing to say the least.
Iron Key to Preserving Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Iron may be the key to the surprising preservation of dinosaur soft tissue.
answersingenesis.org
Context is key. In the Bible, the word “day” (in the literal meaning) is often used with a number before it, indicating a set time and end date. This one is no different.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Oh yes, and a lot more.
E
edwest211
Guest
Good points.
- Status