Creation or Evolution

[beeliner]

1. The events recorded in Genesis don’t have to be “literally” true in order to have actually happened as they are recorded. Historical reality is not limited to what is called the “literal”.
2. The stumbling-block of literalism only came about with the protestant reformation and the rise of modern scientific thinking.
3. But Catholic doctrine affirms that God created two actual people,called Adam and Eve,and that they are our first parents.
4. Scientists themselves do not stick with what can be shown to be literally true. When they write books about the story of evolution they can’t help but compress what is supposed to be millions of years worth of extremely complicated evolution into a few pages,filling in the wide gaps of evidential knowledge with speculation and fabricated links.

1. But the origins of the creation tales recorded in Genesis 1-2 are well known. Both are adaptations of pagan myths which are still extant in more-or-less their original forms.

While they are somewhat similar, they contain enough substantial differences that both cannot possibly be true - but then maybe that’s what you are saying - that they can describe actual events but not be correct in every detail. I don’t want to put words in your mouth or mischaracterize your assertions, so please explain.

Was man (male only) created very early in the process, before the animals, even before the garden itself, and woman last of all as in Gen 2:4b ff, or was the garden created, then both animals and man, male and female together as in Gen 1-2:4a?

Having established that both cannot be true, can one be true? If so, how are the million+ years of human history prior to the time frame of ‘Adam and Eve’ accounted for? And the billions of years of animal life?

1. It came about because of the latter. That the former occurred at about the same time is merely co-incidental. Many branches of Protestantism claim literal truth in scripture far more strongly than Catholicism does.
2. Current Catholic teaching, as I understand it, affirms that Catholics are welcome to believe that, or to believe that the Biblical creation tales as well as the later stories in Genesis, notably the flood story, are merely allegory. I’ll go with the allegory, you can, of course, believe as you wish.
3. Let me get this straight. You’re saying that descriptions of things are only valid if they take as long to write about as the actual event? I gotta admit, I’ve never heard that one before.

Scientists present conclusions based on empirical research and using rigid standards of validation. At some point the concensus of such conclusions becomes substantial enough to be regarded as fact. They start with the evidence and end with the conclusion.

Bible literalists do exactly the opposite. They start with the conclusion, for which there’s no evidence whatever, and ignore all of the evidence to the contrary.

Given those two alternatives, which is the more valid?

It’s a rhetorical question. No answer is required.

 

[beeliner]

1. It also says,“profitable for doctrine”.
2. It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that God created two persons,Adam and Eve,who were our first parents.

1. It certainly does.

Religions have doctrines. Science has facts and laws.

Where there is a dispute between the doctrines of religion and the laws of science, a real, substantial, completely irreconcilable dispute, mind you, not an imagined, contrived or tivial one, the choice MUST be science.

The laws of science originate with a higher power, over which man has no control.

The doctrines of religion are all man-made, and perpetually in dispute among religion’s various manifestations.

1. See the previous post, item 3.

 

[ricmat]

1. It certainly does.

Religions have doctrines. Science has facts and laws.

Where there is a dispute between the doctrines of religion and the laws of science, a real, substantial, completely irreconcilable dispute, mind you, not an imagined, contrived or tivial one, **the choice MUST be science.
**

:bigyikes:

The laws of science originate with a higher power, over which man has no control.

The doctrines of religion are all man-made, and perpetually in dispute among religion’s various manifestations.

:bigyikes:

 

[edwest2]

“The doctrines of religion are all man-made.”?

Why are you here?

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

1. But the origins of the creation tales recorded in Genesis 1-2 are well known. Both are adaptations of pagan myths which are still extant in more-or-less their original forms.

 

[beeliner]

Why are you here?

To pull your chain.

 

[beeliner]

1. The pagan myths portray the origins of the world as being from irrational natural forces. The gods and goddesses were personifications of natural elements and forces. But the God of Genesis is portrayed as being the creator of all nature and having authority over it. That is a wholly different and unique world-view.
2. It is not an adaptation of the pagan myths but a contradiction of them.
3. And the pagan gods and myths were culturally interchangeable. When one nation conquered another,or when two nations traded with each other,the gods and myths would often be grafted into one another,without much concern over the truth of the myths. For the pagans,the truth of the myths was relative,as the gods were interchangeable. The myths were products of culture,and they were accepted or rejected as cultural products,like Eastern religion and philosophy is accepted by some Westerners,who have given up on divinely revealed truth.
4. The pagan myths are fundamentally absurd because they portray the origins of the world as irrational natural elements,which are personified. The chaos theories and evolution theories also describe the origins of the world and life as being from the elements,so that nature is its own creator. This is scientific pantheism.
5. But nature has “laws”,and laws can only come into being if an intelligent being creates them.
6. I’ll try to answer your other points later.

1 & 2. I agree that there are differences, but also similarities. The fact remains, neither of the Genesis accounts is entirely original.

1. Precisely, and here is a good example of that: There was no ‘Satan’ prior to the Exile. He was acquired by the Hebrews from Persian Dualism (Zoroastrianism). By that time, Judaism, which originally had polytheistic elements, had become so monotheistic that a ‘God of Evil’ was not a possibility, so a ‘chief adversary’ was invented instead. The identification of the Genesis serpent with Satan is merely an afterthought - the Genesis account does not suggest that he is a supernatural being at all, merely ‘the most subtil beast in the garden’.
2. And the Genesis accounts as literal fact are equally absurd. God could not have created man before the beasties and also the beasties before man, nor male before female and both male and female together, any more than He could create a rock so big that He could not lift it.
3. As I have previously stated, I accept that as a matter of religious faith. But of course, then you are left with the dilemma (a large, horned animal) of who created the intelligent being, something that religion has never resolved, for if there can be an uncreated God, why can there not be an uncreated universe?
4. I will await your further contributions. I will be on the road for much of the weekend, but will rejoin the discussion next week. You can be sure of it.

 

[NoelFitz]

I have recently seen this discussion.

Is one of the key points the age of the universe?

Did it begin about 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang or, as the Irish archbishop Ussher deduced, was the first day of Creation at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC?

If anyone believes that the latter is more accurate our education systems may be wanting.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Of course it is precisely as much nonsense to say it begun about 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang, as to presume day of Creation was Sunday October 23, 4004 BC?
What, as there was nothing, would do a big bang and why?! To bang, something must be there and even two of them to celebrate a twosome bang plus creating out of this terribly laughable “BANG” all necessary to furthermore create an universe and fill it with all necessary to do “the little rest”. This “something” before that common snowberry was definitely not nothing. But what before that nothing existed?
**

 

[ricmat]

1. As I have previously stated, I accept that as a matter of religious faith. But of course, then you are left with the dilemma (a large, horned animal) of who created the intelligent being, something that religion has never resolved, for if there can be an uncreated God, why can there not be an uncreated universe?

There is no dilemma. Read up on Aquinas 5 proofs of God’s existence. Especially the arguments from motion, causation, and necessity.

 

[NoelFitz]

Bruno

Thank you for a provocative and thoughtful reply.

You wrote:
*But what before that nothing existed? *

Ex nihilo nihil fit

Philosophers (eg Parmenides) claim that something cannot come from nothing, so something must have been there before God created the earth or the big bang occurred.

Physicists talk of vacuum energy, exegetes about a formless void.

• In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void.
  The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Ge 1:1-2 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).*

However your point remains, as I understand it.

A formless void is not nothing.

Can one imagine the absence of matter and energy? If so that was what was there at the beginning.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

Can one imagine the absence of matter and energy?

No!
It simply would be a lot too much for us - as Jesus said in Joh 16:12, we wouldn’t be able to stand it.

Well, we actually can not. But then there is too much we can’t imagine. We ought to be aware of that truth, that there is so much, we, with our little understanding, just never will be able to understand.
But - do we have to? Not really.

Anyhow: A formless void, is speculation. Anything is speculation - unless we believe in the scientists theory, that before there was something, there was nothing. And nothing can result out of nothing - unless there is God who creates something, out of (of course) nothing, but the overwhelming lot of His will.

**

 

[edwest2]

I have recently seen this discussion.

Is one of the key points the age of the universe?

Did it begin about 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang or, as the Irish archbishop Ussher deduced, was the first day of Creation at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC?

If anyone believes that the latter is more accurate our education systems may be wanting.

Hello Noel,

One of the key points is not the age of the universe. Nor is it about the education system.

A bushman in Africa with no clue about the age of the universe or any formal eduction but who does know Jesus Christ and the meaning of his life, death and resurrection is far better off than any evolutionary biologist who “knows” the age of the universe and believes evolution precludes any causal role for God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

A bushman in Africa with no clue about the age of the universe or any formal eduction but who does know Jesus Christ and the meaning of his life, death and resurrection is far better off than any evolutionary biologist who “knows” the age of the universe and believes evolution precludes any causal role for God.

There’s a dangerous assumption that believes that the human mind is capable of understanding the mysteries of the universe, and that God wants us to imagine that we can understand such things. There is also the assumption that science and logic are fitting and accurate tools to use in understanding these mysteries.

 

[reggieM]

Can one imagine the absence of matter and energy? If so that was what was there at the beginning.

True. We are not capable of imagining such a thing. We are bound by time and matter and space. And we use these things to try to understand the beginning when there was no time, matter, space, etc.

We cannot understand what “infinite” is. Infinity cannot be compared with anything else. Nobody can circumscribe it to know it’s beginning or end.

 

[edwest2]

There’s a dangerous assumption that believes that the human mind is capable of understanding the mysteries of the universe, and that God wants us to imagine that we can understand such things. There is also the assumption that science and logic are fitting and accurate tools to use in understanding these mysteries.

Science and logic have their place, but as mentioned on Catholic Radio today, the more educated tend to dismiss God very easily.

That is my point and will always be my point. Too many here look at science and logic and say, “There’s no proof or evidence for God so there is no God.” Then science and logic, manipulated by human beings for selfish ends, is what is being promoted. That is the problem.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Deconi]

Scientific abilities enabled the ‘discovery’ of the background ‘noise’ that gave rise to the theory of the Big Bang.

This in turn,although not directly, gave support to the theory of Evolution.

In time, our intellect and technology will be able to not only record the background noise, but subject it to examination at varying speed; that is, play it like a record / cd at different speeds.

I believe that when we play the ‘noise’ of the Big Bang at an ultra-high frequency, it will sound like a "T"

When we can finally ‘play’ it at the speed of light, we will be able to enjoy the entire explosion from beginning to end of when our universe began.

At that speed, we should hear the entire phrase;
"LET THERE BE LIGHT"

 

[richardwy]

manipulated by human beings for selfish ends

7 words just about says it all.

I dig Genesis for what it’s worth.

 

[Orogeny]

Too many here look at science and logic and say, “There’s no proof or evidence for God so there is no God.” Then science and logic, manipulated by human beings for selfish ends, is what is being promoted. That is the problem.

Really? Who would that be, Ed?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The use of figurative language in Genesis does not mean that Adam and Eve,and the original sin,are allegorical. If they are allegorical,then they were not events.
You overlooked the significance of the words following following “figurative language”.

No, I didn’t. I don’t reject the idea that there was an original couple. In fact, I don’t doubt it.

Ed claimed that allegorical language cannot be inspired by God. Do you agree with him?

Peace

Tim