Creation or Evolution

[Orogeny]

We must have different editions.

Of your wife’s fanny?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist!

Peace

Tim

 

[Lief_Erikson]

1. Not really. The dating of the Babylonian and Sumerian source material for Genesis 1 & 2 is quite well documented.
2. You have convinced yourself of that because it suits your agenda and your mindset. I accept the research of experts, but I have no such mindset. I am more than willing to be shown that my experts are wrong and yours right, so please provide documentation, from scholarly, not apologist, sources.

Actually, this is my Dad’s currently unpublished theory. I can cite each of the facts I gave, and give you a lot more, but this hasn’t yet been reviewed by scholarship, so I can understand your not being ready to accept the argument. It doesn’t make the argument invalid either, of course, but it’s unconvincing in its present form.

Regarding the rest of your reply, one need only read Genesis 1 and 2 to see that both are clearly presented as serial accounts. Suggesting that the order of Genesis 2 has been somehow randomized for literary purposes is not supported by the context.

I agree that this story, taken all by itself without Genesis 1, would perhaps naturally be interpreted as saying that the birds were made after the creation of man (much as someone might assume Genesis 1 was intended to portray 7 literal days, if one didn’t think about the passage more carefully and consider the other possibilities). However, that’s an unnecessary interpretation, therefore it cannot prove a contradiction between the accounts. If one is to prove error in the Bible, one must prove a contradiction, not show a situation where a contradiction might exist if one interprets one of the passages in a specific way.

Catholics believe that God is the author of the Bible. Therefore, from that perspective, every part of the Bible can validly be read within the context of the larger text of the Sacred Scripture. It is all God’s Word. So Genesis 2 would be read in the context of Genesis 1, and all other the chapters and books of the Bible.

That is a different approach from that which many scholars take, because it has Christian assumptions rather than non-Christian assumptions. Many scholars interpret each book of the Bible for themselves, separately from all the other books and from God’s Church. This approach assumes that God is not the single author of all the books, for if God is the author, then one might come up with the wrong interpretation very easily if reading each book as a separate work with a possibly different theology from all the others. The fact that many scholars ignore this shows an inherently unChristian assumption in their work.

One can’t prove Catholics wrong in their belief that the books of the Bible are all true when your proof of error is based on the assumption that the books don’t have a single Author. Assuming what you’re supposed to prove is useless in discussion. Rather, you have to assume that they have the same Author and then show inconsistency that cannot be harmonized through different interpretations from the ones you feel are natural.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Or are you saying that the pagan myths and the Genesis accounts are identical?

Or something else???**

They are identical to the same extent, more or less, that Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story are identical. Without the former, the latter would never have existed.

Great explanation. “West Side Story” took the theme and applied it to a different reality. But it was still true, even if it was a parable of sorts.

 

[historyb]

No, I’ve never see that either. Ed has, though. He has a high school biology textbook that explicitly denies divine providence. He will be getting us the title of the book any time now.

Peace

Tim

Not only have I seen a textbook like that, which evolutionist love to deny exist, but I was among a dozen or more students who had their parents petition us out of the class and the school got us another science teacher who didn’t teach any type of evolution.

I have also see those type of textbooks in the College that I work at and the former professor made sure they didn’t mention anything about divine providence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

late edit: It also seems from the other thread that Dawkins believes that there actually are theories of evolution that deny divine providence.

Dawkins thinks everything denies divine providence, except evolutionary theory. (and I suspect that’s just to cheese off fundamentalists) He’s that rarest of beings, a hard atheist.

 

[beeliner]

1. I agree that this story, taken all by itself without Genesis 1, would perhaps naturally be interpreted as saying that the birds were made after the creation of man
2. One can’t prove Catholics wrong in their belief that the books of the Bible are all true when your proof of error is based on the assumption that the books don’t have a single Author.

1. No interpretation is necessary, it says quite clearly that man, male only, was created even before the Garden itself, leaving him simply hanging there, so to speak. Of course, the Garden could have been created a split-second later, no specific time interval is given, but the account, taken as a whole, is presented as a series of events in order.
2. Well, we are going off subject here. No intelligent person that I am aware of believes that everything in the Bible is literally true, there are many errors of fact which are simply that, no other interpretation is possible. Most Catholics, at least those of my ilk, believe that the Bible is ‘inerrant’ in the sense that everything therein leads us toward God rather than away from Him. As for the phrase ‘inspired by God’, that can mean pretty much whatever the user wants it to mean.

 

[ricmat]

…regarding certain pagan myths and Genesis…

They are identical to the same extent, more or less, that Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story are identical. Without the former, the latter would never have existed.

Great explanation. “West Side Story” took the theme and applied it to a different reality. But it was still true, even if it was a parable of sorts.

Well, I disagree that without Romeo and Juliet, there could not have been a West Side Story. After all, there are only a few really unique themes in literature.

There seems to be an attitude amongst some that all parables are created equal, all allegory is created equal, all “religious” writings are created equal, and all things said to be divinely inspired are created equal.

I’m not speaking of beeliner or barbarian specifically here (they may believe that or not, I don’t know). But the everything is just as good as the other thing attitude is not the teaching of the Church. The scriptures were divinely inspired to say what God wants them to say.

I started this sub-thread with this quote:

I was hoping you’d say that they are qualitatively different because the source material is divinely inspired, and they say what God wants them to say; whereas the pagan myths have only hints of an incomplete or corrupted truth.

Do you guys agree with that quote or not?

 

[beeliner]

1. Not only have I seen a textbook like that, which evolutionist love to deny exist, but I was among a dozen or more students who had their parents petition us out of the class and the school got us another science teacher who didn’t teach any type of evolution.
2. I have also see those type of textbooks in the College that I work at and the former professor made sure they didn’t mention anything about divine providence.

1. Please name it. Title, publisher, ISBN number. Provide a quote or two if possible. Here is your opportunity to prove those scoundrels wrong.
2. Ah, but now you are back-pedalling. No ordinary science book would mention DP, that is religion, not science, nor is it likely that any scientific publisher would publish such a book. Books for use in parochial schools may do so, but those would be characterized as amalgams of science and religion.

Not mentioning something non-scientific in a science text is hardly the same as denial. edwest2 and some others are claiming that some textbooks specifically deny God’s existence or His role in creation. If you truly know of such a textbook, please provide documentation. It should be easy enough to check by contacting the publisher.

 

[Orogeny]

Not only have I seen a textbook like that, which evolutionist love to deny exist, but I was among a dozen or more students who had their parents petition us out of the class and the school got us another science teacher who didn’t teach any type of evolution.

I have also see those type of textbooks in the College that I work at and the former professor made sure they didn’t mention anything about divine providence.

Good! Then you can bail out Ed and give us the name of the textbook. Mind you, I will join with you in protesting any biology textbook that explicitly denies the action of God in the creation of life. But I want to see that book first.

So, please provide the name of the book, the author(s), the publisher and date of publication.

Thanks in advance.

Peace

Tim

 

[historyb]

1. Please name it. Title, publisher, ISBN number. Provide a quote or two if possible. Here is your opportunity to prove those scoundrels wrong.
2. Ah, but now you are back-pedalling. No ordinary science book would mention DP, that is religion, not science, nor is it likely that any scientific publisher would publish such a book. Books for use in parochial schools may do so, but those would be characterized as amalgams of science and religion.

Not mentioning something non-scientific in a science text is hardly the same as denial. edwest2 and some others are claiming that some textbooks specifically deny God’s existence or His role in creation. If you truly know of such a textbook, please provide documentation. It should be easy enough to check by contacting the publisher.

Can’t and not interested to. I don’t waste my time with that and it was in 1998 it’s comon knowledge that public high schools have no mention of God. duh

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps, but based on his history, I don’t think so. Ed insists that biology must include God or it is atheistic. That is wrong and would never be required by the Church. Only Ed.

Peace

Tim

I think you are missing the point here. Since science is taught in school and in public school God is excluded it suggests to the student that science is more important than God. It also makes perfect sense because the student can feel and touch and prove true emperical science. They are not given the tools to properly understand the limits of this.

 

[buffalo]

We may have lost each other here. The pagan myths ARE the source material.

Nope - the pagan myths are distortions of Revelation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think you are missing the point here. Since science is taught in school and in public school God is excluded it suggests to the student that science is more important than God.

Hmmm… so in (whatever) class, when God isn’t mentioned, it suggests to kids that (whatever) is more important than God? I don’t think many kids are that dumb. In fact, I don’t know any that dumb.

It also makes perfect sense because the student can feel and touch and prove true emperical science. They are not given the tools to properly understand the limits of this.

Evolutionary theory was established by empirical science. So was geology. The fact that we don’t actually measure allele frequencies or create earthquakes in the classroom is hardly a problem.

In fact, evolution is often demonstrated in high school and college classes. Very easy to do, with short-lived organisms that have short generation times.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Not mentioning something non-scientific in a science text is hardly the same as denial. edwest2 and some others are claiming that some textbooks specifically deny God’s existence or His role in creation. If you truly know of such a textbook, please provide documentation. It should be easy enough to check by contacting the publisher.

Can’t

Of course not. That’s the point. The “atheistic science” thing is just a fantasy. No textbook is like that.

I don’t waste my time with that and it was in 1998 it’s comon knowledge that public high schools have no mention of God.

And, as you seem to now realize, your earlier claim is false; there aren’t any that explicitly deny God’s providence. So they are acceptable to the Church thereby.

 

[edwest2]

Some years ago, a group of scientists mutated fruit flies. They ended up with fruit flies. Really messed up fruit flies but fruit flies. No evolution, just some genetic rearrangement here and there. None of the fruit flies turned turned into bats, or cats or dogs.

Funny thing about breeding dogs, you always end up with a dog. No evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Not mentioning something non-scientific in a science text is hardly the same as denial. edwest2 and some others are claiming that some textbooks specifically deny God’s existence or His role in creation. If you truly know of such a textbook, please provide documentation. It should be easy enough to check by contacting the publisher.

Of course not. That’s the point. The “atheistic science” thing is just a fantasy. No textbook is like that.

And, as you seem to now realize, your earlier claim is false; there aren’t any that explicitly deny God’s providence. So they are acceptable to the Church thereby.

“acceptable to the Church thereby”? And what mysterious, little known theory of evolution does the Church warn Catholics about? It would appear to be one of neo-Darwinian provenance.

Please, give me a break.

From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 64:

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Hmmm… so in (whatever) class, when God isn’t mentioned, it suggests to kids that (whatever) is more important than God? I don’t think many kids are that dumb. In fact, I don’t know any that dumb.

Then why do they need college to be convinced of evolution?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Then why do they need college to be convinced of evolution?

Probably because most public schools don’t teach much about it. The evidence for it is often not mentioned at all. One reason I like the new textbooks is that they spend less time telling about evolution, and more time showing the actual evidence for it.

Hopefully, that will help.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“acceptable to the Church thereby”? And what mysterious, little known theory of evolution does the Church warn Catholics about?

Any that deny divine providence. Don’t know of any like that, but if there are any, they are not acceptable. Not acceptable to the Church, and not acceptable to science, since a scientific theory can’t say anything about the supernatural.

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Yep. Such “theories” aren’t acceptable to the Church or to science. I don’t actually know of any like that, but there must be some, somewhere.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

1. No interpretation is necessary, it says quite clearly that man, male only, was created even before the Garden itself, leaving him simply hanging there, so to speak. Of course, the Garden could have been created a split-second later, no specific time interval is given, but the account, taken as a whole, is presented as a series of events in order.

The chapter suggests that Adam was created in a barren place. It says God put him in the Garden. Perhaps picked him up and put him there, or perhaps led him there.

It doesn’t say that man was created before the Garden itself. And yes, while it says that man was initially alone, Genesis 1’s statement, “he created them,” does not contradict this.

It also is not specific about when the birds were made.

It takes a specific interpretation to find inconsistency between the accounts in any of these things.

1. Well, we are going off subject here. No intelligent person that I am aware of believes that everything in the Bible is literally true,

You need to meet more people .

there are many errors of fact which are simply that, no other interpretation is possible. Most Catholics, at least those of my ilk, believe that the Bible is ‘inerrant’ in the sense that everything therein leads us toward God rather than away from Him. As for the phrase ‘inspired by God’, that can mean pretty much whatever the user wants it to mean.

Vatican II created some confusion of this kind, when it said that the Bible was inerrant in “faith and morals,” and didn’t mention science or history. Prior to that council, which was pastoral and non-infallible, the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout its history was that the Bible was entirely accurate, in faith, morals, history, science, “in every part.”

I do not agree with you that “there are many errors of fact.” It may be that a few errors slipped into the texts due to the mistakes of copyists or translators, but I don’t buy that there are many, and I can get you quotes from scholars to confirm that.