Convince Me The Biblical Version is Fact

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
angel12 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
So it is important to specify what exactly is acceptable about evolution and what is not.
Click to expand...
“Acceptable” isn’t an issue in science. Evidence is, not what “some” people may say.
You can deny the science all you want. Doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about only science. I’m talking about the theory of evolution, and what our Catholic faith accepts about it or does not.
 
rcwitness said:
You realize that some evolution theories do not recognize the Creator? And probably the most popular one.
Click to expand...
We’re on a Catholic forum. So when someone says evolution and faith are compatible, I take it for granted that God is the one behind it.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
To those who subscribe to the Biblical explanation, please convince me Evolution is false and Genesis is literal.
Click to expand...
I believe in Genesis because I believe that it was the inspired word of God. However, Genesis was written in the language of ordinary man, not in the language of science. It’s purpose was to reveal religious truth, not scientific truth. The principal religious truths revealed by Genesis are the following:
  1. God created the world in an orderly fashion.
  2. He created the first man and woman (Adam and Eve), who were put to the test, but failed miserably.
  3. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, also suffer the consequences of their Fall (Original Sin).
Do I believe in Evolution? In small-scale evolution, yes. But in large-scale evolution that led to the appearance of the first humans from simple life forms, no. Well, at least not in the way that evolution has been explained to me.

My personal theory is that God, the Author of Nature, allowed the development of various species of living organisms, not exclusively by minute genetic mutation and natural selection taking place over millions of years – which is what the current theory of evolution is, – but by providentially directing the sudden development of species by macro-mutations and preferential selection that led to the emergence of new species in relatively shorter periods of time.

I believe that the bodies of the first man and woman were also developed in a special way, and were endowed uniquely with souls capable of specifically performing human functions - understanding, thinking, loving, etc.

Of course, I understand why the theory of polygenism (or the theory that we descended from several pairs of human parents) is patronized by many geneticists, and that is because they use statistics to study changes in large populations, and they would rather not handle those that occur with just one or two individuals. Against this theory I believe that there was only one pair of human parents – Adam and Eve – from whom we all descended. I believe that they were God’s special creatures, made into “His image and likeness,” and that they were not formed in the same way that brute animals were formed.

This post is more a statement of my position, not a proof that evolution is true or false. And I am not challenging anyone for a debate on this either because I just don’t have the time to do that. I might be able to answer a few questions, but even that is not a promise.
 
Christ seemed to think that the Genesis account of creation was historical, particularly when discussing the establishment of marriage. That is proof enough for me.
 
We are required to have great faith regardless of intellectual prowess.

Have faith as a child has faith when it is promised a gift.

If you prefer the other church because it’s lively and you like the music then that is the issue not Genesis since you say that they reject evolution. Catholics are unsure and so some believe that Genesis is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore true and some prefer the idea of evolution. What you believe is therefore fine either way and you could stay within the Catholic Church.
 
Hope1960 said:
If I were to pray there, there would be no Crucifix, no Tabernacle, no Eucharist. I thought it would lack the comforting feeling of being in the presence of the Lord, and be just a shell of a building
Still, I’m thinking about maybe visiting.
Click to expand...
That is a valid concern. The big difference between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches is not the presence of the Statues and Crucifix in the Catholic Church, but the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. When you pray in the Catholic Church, the Blessed Sacrament is there.
 
rcwitness said:
40.png
OsculeturMeOsculo:
Evolution is an acceptable belief in Catholicism.
Click to expand...
This demands a better explanation.

I assume you mean “evolution and creationism can be compatible”… ???

You realize that some evolution theories do not recognize the Creator? And probably the most popular one.
Click to expand...
No scientific theories recognize the creator, because God is not provable by science. Scientists might come to theological conclusions about God as informed by scientific study. That’s what I do. I have faith in God’s providence and continual guidance of his creation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific proof or theorizing. I allow science to do what it is supposed to do: describe the world intelligibly.
And with that, I try to let God be God, and not cramp him into a tiny fundamentalist box.
The Church wants us to integrate everything that is revealed to us.

I have to say, as a scientist, I know of literally no other scientist…not one, who believes his science proves that God doesn’t exist. It’s merely a theological conclusion that some might arrive at. Some do some don’t, but any half baked scientist knows he will be laughed out of the universe if he tries to prove God doesn’t exist.
It’s a leap of faith, both ways.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Christ seemed to think that the Genesis account of creation was historical, particularly when discussing the establishment of marriage. That is proof enough for me.
Click to expand...
You might consider that the point of that whole exchange was that scripture and the law are not the full and final revelation.
Jesus is. And Jesus is asking his followers to consider that writ is not taken in fundamentalist fashion. He asks these experts in scripture and law to consider exactly the context it was written in.

And it’s also good to consider that Jesus does not address historical details as factoids in Genesis, he is addressing the theological truths about man and woman, and asserting those truths as fulfilling what is written elsewhere in Scripture, even if it seems to contradict.
 
Last edited:
Theories are not proof.

There are theories that we evolved naturally by chance into a basic life form, and evolved from water and eventually climbed out of the water, then changed into different species, and eventually into primates, and then into humans.

This is not proven science, right?

It’s a theory.

There are missing links to provide factual evidence.
 
First of all, I’m not disagreeing with you.

But my comment was because of this sentence:

“No scientific theories recognize the creator, because God is not provable by science.”

I agree God is not provable. Fr George Lemitre related this to the Pope.
 
goout said:
You might consider that the point of that whole exchange was that scripture and the law are not the full and final revelation.
Click to expand...
No, the point of that whole exchange was definitely not to denigrate the law or scripture. The law still stands. The law of Moses deals with the world as it is with sin in it, which causes us to be covenant breakers. Jesus doesn’t speak against the law, he speaks against the sin. He then goes back to the book of the law (Genesis was considered to be part of the book of the law) pointing us back to God’s will in creation.
goout said:
And it’s also good to consider that Jesus does not address historical details as factoids in Genesis, he is addressing the theological truths about man and woman, and asserting those truths as fulfilling what is written elsewhere in Scripture, even if it seems to contradict.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. When Jesus refers back to the creation account as his reference point for how men and women were originally created to be one flesh by God, he is making direct reference to the Genesis account. Jesus is upholding the authority of that passage based on the fact that it is true and historical. Paul does the same thing in his writings. You would have to provide something from the text to demonstrate that Jesus or Paul held a different understanding of the creation account than what is written in Genesis.
 
Hope1960 said:
To those who subscribe to the Biblical explanation, please convince me Evolution is false and Genesis is literal.
Click to expand...
Where does scripture claim genesis is scientifically literal?

Perhaps it is meant to be illustrative, but not teach astro physics to the uneducated. A day could be an era of billions of years rather than our present 24hrs.

Why do you imagine the OT has two conflicting versions of Genesis creation? That’s a dead giveaway that it’s not meant to be literal.
 
How did the first caterpillar evolve into a butterfly?
 
Last edited:
Why do you want to leave the Faith? I’m just curious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top