Creation confusion

[Termin]

Hello All

I have always been interested in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I think I have a firm handle on the Catholic position on Creation. I know that we do not necessarily hold to the fundamentalist/creationist theory of a literal 7 day creation or the “young earth theory” (the earth is only 10,000 years old). One major argument given by some creationists, though, has always struck me. The argument is this:

1. Sin, death, and destruction were not created by God - All that God created was good.
2. Sin, death, and destruction entered creation through the sin of Adam and Eve.
3. The theory of evolution depends on death and destruction as the catalysts for evolution (survival of the fittest, mutation, catastrophic events that cause extinction)
4. If human beings are relatively young in the evolutionary process - that supposes millions of years of death and destruction before “The Fall.”
5. This makes the Theory of Evolution philosophically incompatible with Christianity

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

 

[Cajetan]

Just a thought.

We may view the “millions of years of death and destruction” as being committed by non-moral agents. Since evil (sin) is always a moral category, this makes these actions not evil (not sin). Perhaps sin/evil – the Fall – happened when there appeared for the first time an agent which was capable of morality: the rational animal, Man.

In a strictly moral sense, before the arrival of Man the earth really was a “Paradise,” insofar as there was no evil. But, again, this was only because no animal could be held morally responsible for its undoubtedly vicious actions.

 

[Wollie]

only animals with free will can sin and do evil. all other animals behave in accordance with G-d’s will. So animals killing and eating each other is not evil. Survival of the fittest is not evil or destructive. I’m not sure about the part of death entering the world with adam and eve’s sin. Is that true? does the Church teach that there was no death before adam and eve?

 

[peary]

Hello All

I have always been interested in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I think I have a firm handle on the Catholic position on Creation. I know that we do not necessarily hold to the fundamentalist/creationist theory of a literal 7 day creation or the “young earth theory” (the earth is only 10,000 years old). One major argument given by some creationists, though, has always struck me. The argument is this:

1. Sin, death, and destruction were not created by God - All that God created was good.
2. Sin, death, and destruction entered creation through the sin of Adam and Eve.
3. The theory of evolution depends on death and destruction as the catalysts for evolution (survival of the fittest, mutation, catastrophic events that cause extinction)
4. If human beings are relatively young in the evolutionary process - that supposes millions of years of death and destruction before “The Fall.”
5. This makes the Theory of Evolution philosophically incompatible with Christianity

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

**It’s just my personal opinion but I don’t think there should be any comparison between Creation theory and the scientific basis for evolution whatsoever. Genesis is NOT a science book, and it does not proclaim itself to be. Genesis presents an ancient cosmology on how the world was thought to be brought into being by an early culture.

A cosmology is a system of beliefs that seeks to describe or explain the origin and structure of the universe. It attempts to establish an ordered, harmonious framework that integrates time, space, and what can be observed in the realm of space (stars, planets, other celestial bodies, etc.).

In so-called primitive societies, cosmologies help explain the relationship of human beings to the rest of the universe and are therefore closely tied to religious beliefs and practices. One needs to approach Genesis in this way. It basically doesn’t change the fact for Christians that God created the universe out of nothing and is in control. How he did it is the property of science.**

So, what happens if Evolution IS the Divine Plan??

 

[Termin]

**It’s just my personal opinion but I don’t think there should be any comparison between Creation theory and the scientific basis for evolution whatsoever. Genesis is NOT a science book, and it does not proclaim itself to be. Genesis presents an ancient cosmology on how the world was thought to be brought into being by an early culture.

A cosmology is a system of beliefs that seeks to describe or explain the origin and structure of the universe. It attempts to establish an ordered, harmonious framework that integrates time, space, and what can be observed in the realm of space (stars, planets, other celestial bodies, etc.).

In so-called primitive societies, cosmologies help explain the relationship of human beings to the rest of the universe and are therefore closely tied to religious beliefs and practices. One needs to approach Genesis in this way. It basically doesn’t change the fact for Christians that God created the universe out of nothing and is in control. How he did it is the property of science.**

So, what happens if Evolution IS the Divine Plan??

I am not suggesting we read the Creation account as a science book. I am aware that the Catholic Church has said that God could have used evolution as His Divine Plan.

My question is more philisophical, and more directed at the Catholic teaching on Original Sin then it does the literal reading of Genesis or the science of evolution.

If the Catholic Church holds that evolution could be part of the divine plan; does this not contridict Her teaching of Original Sin and its effects. This is not a science question - it is a philosophy question about a fundemental truth found in the Creation account. We may believe that the creation story is myth, but we must belive in the Truth revealed by God through the myth; such as the goodness of creation, man created in God’s image, the sanctity of marriage and Original Sin.

CCC #400 states, "The harmony in which [Adam and Eve] had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed:…Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. (italics not my own)

Creation shares in the death, the decay, and the loss of harmony due to Original Sin. Evolution requires dis-harmony, death, and decay - way before humans enter the scene.

Is this not a contradiction?

 

[peary]

I am not suggesting we read the Creation account as a science book. I am aware that the Catholic Church has said that God could have used evolution as His Divine Plan.

My question is more philisophical, and more directed at the Catholic teaching on Original Sin then it does the literal reading of Genesis or the science of evolution.

If the Catholic Church holds that evolution could be part of the divine plan; does this not contridict Her teaching of Original Sin and its effects. This is not a science question - it is a philosophy question about a fundemental truth found in the Creation account. We may believe that the creation story is myth, but we must belive in the Truth revealed by God through the myth; such as the goodness of creation, man created in God’s image, the sanctity of marriage and Original Sin.

CCC #400 states, "The harmony in which [Adam and Eve] had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed:…Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. (italics not my own)

Creation shares in the death, the decay, and the loss of harmony due to Original Sin. Evolution requires dis-harmony, death, and decay - way before humans enter the scene.

Is this not a contradiction?

**Yes, it appears so to me. Perhaps we are leaving out the “battle in heaven” between Michael the Archangel and Lucifer. The “original sin” is “I will not serve” God, and, according to tradition and biblical accounts, might be what has affected creation and, it was the effect of the first Rebellion of the Angels which caused death, decay, and the loss of harmony which, by the way, was there at the Beginning.

But with the Resurrection of Christ, it becomes a moot point because the Christ event was the total opposite of death, decay, and loss of harmony. He showed us the original blessing that God afforded to the primal parents at the beginning of human history. Hence, as Paul says, death is overcome, and Christ is the firstborn of the ‘new’ or ‘renewed’ man.**

 

[Wollie]

I think succumbing to death and decay may be of a spiritual nature. It doesn’t say that death and decay were created by sin, it says that by their sin adam and eve were no longer in harmony with G-d and the world, and therefor made the subjects of sin, death and decay. This is the bondage that Christ frees us from, not the physical death of the body but of the soul.

 

[peary]

I think succumbing to death and decay may be of a spiritual nature. It doesn’t say that death and decay were created by sin, it says that by their sin adam and eve were no longer in harmony with G-d and the world, and therefor made the subjects of sin, death and decay. This is the bondage that Christ frees us from, not the physical death of the body but of the soul.

Great insight!

 

[AndyF]

**The “original sin” is “I will not serve”
**

Yes. According to a precept of this particular Diety and relation with his created beings. However this does not
prove this is usual, but only proves what “is”. Perhaps a consensus among a hypothetical universe of dieties and created beings would differ in view, in that aware created beings would have the option of existing, making this one the exception.

Such a scenerio allows the Deity the right to create, and allows the creatures the option of existing. What remains is a pool of created who have chosen to be tested, and thereby are willing to be tested for their just reward. At the instant of creation, and an awareness time that allows for making a single choice, he is told the odds of success of this particular reprobate and the cost for failure are admitted. Perhaps some would indeed desire the state of “not being born”, and voluntarily make the first choice in charity to this Diety by not offending him through original sin and being a potential blight on his world. He makes the sacrifice to give up all the positive as well as the negative aspects of being, and returns to his state of unaffected indifference. If he doesn’t exist, he can’t be stigmatized and offends no one.

It is a question of choices. One choice was made that can’t be imputed to the created, and that was to play the odds that this creature will glorify him. It is not a question of meanness of one creature to another, it is a question of self interest and what benefits him best, that very sense of self preservation that will plague him in this choice. A practical and sensible logical exercise of reasoning.

Incidentally. Original sin was assigned in spite of a species barrier persuasion/temptation that occurred between man and fallen angels, the very reason that prevented(?) God from assigning his angels with original sin.

The case of the fallen angels which played out was an example of the irrelevance of species or genus, but has everything to do with the ability to communicate and persuade between them. This can be easily proved a second time and did in the garden scenerio. The first was a sin involving cross genus, the second involving cross species, both only requiring successful communication which is the only pertinent factor.

AndyF

 

[peary]

Yes. According to a precept of this particular Diety and relation with his created beings. However this does not
prove this is usual, but only proves what “is”. Perhaps a consensus among a hypothetical universe of dieties and created beings would differ in view, in that aware created beings would have the option of existing, making this one the exception.

Such a scenerio allows the Deity the right to create, and allows the creatures the option of existing. What remains is a pool of created who have chosen to be tested, and thereby are willing to be tested for their just reward. At the instant of creation, and an awareness time that allows for making a single choice, he is told the odds of success of this particular reprobate and the cost for failure are admitted. Perhaps some would indeed desire the state of “not being born”, and voluntarily make the first choice in charity to this Diety by not offending him through original sin and being a potential blight on his world. He makes the sacrifice to give up all the positive as well as the negative aspects of being, and returns to his state of unaffected indifference. If he doesn’t exist, he can’t be stigmatized and offends no one.

It is a question of choices. One choice was made that can’t be imputed to the created, and that was to play the odds that this creature will glorify him. It is not a question of meanness of one creature to another, it is a question of self interest and what benefits him best, that very sense of self preservation that will plague him in this choice. A practical and sensible logical exercise of reasoning.

Incidentally. Original sin was assigned in spite of a species barrier persuasion/temptation that occurred between man and fallen angels, the very reason that prevented(?) God from assigning his angels with original sin.

The case of the fallen angels which played out was an example of the irrelevance of species or genus, but has everything to do with the ability to communicate and persuade between them. This can be easily proved a second time and did in the garden scenerio. The first was a sin involving cross genus, the second involving cross species, both only requiring successful communication which is the only pertinent factor.

AndyF

And how is one supposed to respond to all of this?

 

[Reepicheep]

Hello All

I have always been interested in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I think I have a firm handle on the Catholic position on Creation. I know that we do not necessarily hold to the fundamentalist/creationist theory of a literal 7 day creation or the “young earth theory” (the earth is only 10,000 years old). One major argument given by some creationists, though, has always struck me. The argument is this:

1. Sin, death, and destruction were not created by God - All that God created was good.
2. Sin, death, and destruction entered creation through the sin of Adam and Eve.
3. The theory of evolution depends on death and destruction as the catalysts for evolution (survival of the fittest, mutation, catastrophic events that cause extinction)
4. If human beings are relatively young in the evolutionary process - that supposes millions of years of death and destruction before “The Fall.”
5. This makes the Theory of Evolution philosophically incompatible with Christianity

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

The sin of the rebellious angels took place before the sin of Adam and Eve.
We don’t know how long before. It could easily have been millions, or even billions, of years.
The destruction that takes place before Adam and Eve were created may, it seems to me, be laid at the feet of the rebel angels.

 

[Cajetan]

I am not suggesting we read the Creation account as a science book.

True; Genesis is a spiritual book and it should not be approached as if it were not. This is what atheists and fundamentalists do, and it leads both camps to countless theological errors.

However, we should not shy away from reading the Creation narrative in light of our scientific achievements regarding creation and evolution. This data, if accurate, should help us reach newer and perhaps better interpretations of the spiritual text, insofar as they are reconcilable with the data of the Deposit of Faith. (As always, as Catholics, it is the latter which is our supreme guide. If what science supposedly tells us truly conflicts with the Magisterium, we are bound to find fault with the science.)

 

[rossum]

I have always been interested in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I think I have a firm handle on the Catholic position on Creation. I know that we do not necessarily hold to the fundamentalist/creationist theory of a literal 7 day creation or the “young earth theory” (the earth is only 10,000 years old). One major argument given by some creationists, though, has always struck me. The argument is this:

1. Sin, death, and destruction were not created by God - All that God created was good.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV) [Emphasis added.] Also notice that God said His creation was “good”, not “perfect”. Isaiah 65:20 “No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the child shall die a hundred years old” Shows that there will be human death in the New Jerusalem. Again good but not perfect.

1. Sin, death, and destruction entered creation through the sin of Adam and Eve.

You are assuming what you are seeking to prove. The argument hinges on whether or not sin, death and destruction were present before Adam and Eve or not. If a cat kills a bird, does that cat commit a sin? In the absence of death we would be knee deep in rabbits, metres deep in flies and miles deep in bacteria. The world that we live in cannot exist without death.

1. The theory of evolution depends on death and destruction as the catalysts for evolution (survival of the fittest, mutation, catastrophic events that cause extinction)

This part of the argument uses a creationist strawman of evolution. Catastrophes are part of the environment, not part of evolution. Any change in the environment, large or small, can be a trigger for evolution. Mutations are neither death nor destruction - on average every human has about 100 mutations. Natural selection is only tangentially connected to death; natural selection is about producing more offspring and hence more copies of your genes in subsequent generations. There are lots of ways to reduce or to increase the average number of offspring you have, dying early is just one of the ways of reducing the average number of offspring. A longer reproductive life would often be a way to increase the average number of your offspring.

1. If human beings are relatively young in the evolutionary process - that supposes millions of years of death and destruction before “The Fall.”

Destruction is nothing to do with evolution. Death is related and also required for anything new to be born. Without death all resources would have been taken up by the existing immortal organisms with nothing spare left over for new organisms. Rabbits, flies and bacteria as I said above.

1. This makes the Theory of Evolution philosophically incompatible with Christianity

This makes the creationist strawman of evolution incompatible with the young earth interpretation of Genesis. That is not exactly a surprising result.

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

No it is not a sound argument.

rossum

 

[Dan86]

I think that Adam and Eve’s sin only caused human death and destruction. Animals and plants would have died anyway. Plants, for example, are not created in God’s image, and they would have been eaten by Adam and Eve even if they hadn’t fallen.

 

[Dameedna]

Hello All

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

You can’t, unless you re-evaluate the concept of sin in the first place.

We evolved into this state, we did not fall from perfection. This is the reason that traditional religion put so much work into trying to “disprove” evolution. It shatters the foundation that many christian denominations are based around.

 

[Dameedna]

The story of adam and eve is not an actual event. It’s a myth, which as all good myths do…describes an element of human nature.

Why IS it called the tree of knowlege of good and evil? Why that name? Why not…“The tree of apples, or papays, or vine of grapes”?

It is the tree of knowlege of good and evil because it is a metaphor for self-awareness.

“Who told you, you are naked?” Asks God. If God knew all, he already knew the answer so why ask it? This line is in the story not to highlight Gods ignorance, but to make a very important point. They KNEW they were naked for the first time ever. They knew, that they existed. And with awareness comes choice…and hence sin.

At some point in human history mankind became self-aware. That is what this story is sharing with us. It is at THIS point, all our behaviour is called to question because it is no longer instinctual, it is a matter of choice. Our awareness of ourselves makes our choices moral.

When mankind became self-aware, sin entered into this world.

It’s a very clever story.

my 2c’s

 

[Eucharisted]

Hello All

I have always been interested in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I think I have a firm handle on the Catholic position on Creation. I know that we do not necessarily hold to the fundamentalist/creationist theory of a literal 7 day creation or the “young earth theory” (the earth is only 10,000 years old). One major argument given by some creationists, though, has always struck me. The argument is this:

1. Sin, death, and destruction were not created by God - All that God created was good.
2. Sin, death, and destruction entered creation through the sin of Adam and Eve.
3. The theory of evolution depends on death and destruction as the catalysts for evolution (survival of the fittest, mutation, catastrophic events that cause extinction)
4. If human beings are relatively young in the evolutionary process - that supposes millions of years of death and destruction before “The Fall.”
5. This makes the Theory of Evolution philosophically incompatible with Christianity

Is this a philisophically sound argument? If so, how can we continue to believe in both evololution and the Fall of Man?

The above argument is theologically incorrect. Death and destruction did not enter the world through man’s first sin. God created a finite world, so it could not have been immune to death or ruin. But God gave to man the gifts of immortal and free of suffering because man is the consummation of creation; immortality and freedom from suffering is, in man, the hope of all of creation.

When man sinned, he lost the gifts of immortality and freedom from suffering. We now suffer the consequences of Original Sin.

But this was a “happy tragety”, for God promised a Redeemer, and indeed, man has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. The Lord gave man immortality before the fall, but now, by the work of Christ, we have true immortality: eternal life.

Though by Baptism the soul is purified of Original Sin, it nevertheless still holds the consequences of it; not because man is by nature mortal (he was originallly created immortal and free from suffering, after all), but because he has a fallen nature. The disease is gone, but the effects of the disease is still around.