Creation Or Evolution?

[connorj1994]

I recently heard that the catholic church adopted darwinian evolution. What about the the passages in genesis where it said everything was CREATED in 6 days? If you cold help with me question it would be most appreciated!

 

[kalt]

It’s not an either or question. What do you mean when you say “Darwinian evolution”?

 

[connorj1994]

Sorry, i didn’t word it right. I was wondering if that is true that The Church adopted Darwin’s theory of evolution?

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church has not adopted Darwinian Evolution.

See my signature.

 

[puzzleannie]

I recently heard that the catholic church adopted darwinian evolution. What about the the passages in genesis where it said everything was CREATED in 6 days? If you cold help with me question it would be most appreciated!

the Catholic Church did not “adopt” anything so you did not read that. You probably did read that the Church finds absolutely NO contradiction between anything valid science has to say on evolution, and the scriptural accounts of Creation, which are poetic metaphor for real events, not scientific treatise. As long as science sticks with science and does not try to make itself into religious dogma there is no problem and no conflict. Read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a fuller explanation of how both aspects of human intellect are required for maturity and truth.

You may also read Dei Verbum, the encyclical on Sacred Scripture and how we are to interpret it: with the mind of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it was written.

 

[Big_Ro]

the Catholic Church did not “adopt” anything so you did not read that. You probably did read that the Church finds absolutely NO contradiction between anything valid science has to say on evolution, and the scriptural accounts of Creation, which are poetic metaphor for real events, not scientific treatise. As long as science sticks with science and does not try to make itself into religious dogma there is no problem and no conflict. Read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a fuller explanation of how both aspects of human intellect are required for maturity and truth.

You may also read Dei Verbum, the encyclical on Sacred Scripture and how we are to interpret it: with the mind of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it was written.

Well said puzzleannie. We do not have to choose. As long as we accept as incontrovertible truth that God is the creator, we are free to consider science. Faith and reason. Right on!!

 

[OchsFam]

I have recently been considering this very debate and honestly cannot come to any other conclusion than the framework interpretation. Jimmy Akin has a blog about it here.

When I try to fit a literal six day creation into Genesis 1, I cannot resolve the issue with the creation of man. It seems like in Genesis 1, Adam was created on day six. In Genesis 2, Adam would have been created on day four. When I consider Genesis 1 in the framework concept, there is no contradiction between these passages because both are faith lessons and not historical proofs. I have been contemplating and praying on this and I just cannot come to a literal six day creation. Maybe a six day creationist can help me out here because I am truly trying to understand.

God Bless.

 

[buffalo]

I have recently been considering this very debate and honestly cannot come to any other conclusion than the framework interpretation. Jimmy Akin has a blog about it here.

When I try to fit a literal six day creation into Genesis 1, I cannot resolve the issue with the creation of man. It seems like in Genesis 1, Adam was created on day six. In Genesis 2, Adam would have been created on day four. When I consider Genesis 1 in the framework concept, there is no contradiction between these passages because both are faith lessons and not historical proofs. I have been contemplating and praying on this and I just cannot come to a literal six day creation. Maybe a six day creationist can help me out here because I am truly trying to understand.

God Bless.

The first account of creation is the order of creation. The second is the importance of man.

 

[OchsFam]

The first account of creation is the order of creation. The second is the importance of man.

So Genesis 1 is taken literally in its order, but Genesis 2 is not taken literally in its order? I am not trying to argue anything, but it seems strange to me that we should read one chapter literally and the next chapter figuratively. It is hard to argue both are to be taken literally, which would cause a contradiction, but I do not understand why we should transition our interpretation in a matter of verses.

God Bless.

 

[buffalo]

So Genesis 1 is taken literally in its order, but Genesis 2 is not taken literally in its order? I am not trying to argue anything, but it seems strange to me that we should read one chapter literally and the next chapter figuratively. It is hard to argue both are to be taken literally, which would cause a contradiction, but I do not understand why we should transition our interpretation in a matter of verses.

God Bless.

When Catholics read the Bible we understand it literally, that is what the author intended to convey.

Are There Contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2?

 

[edwest2]

the Catholic Church did not “adopt” anything so you did not read that. You probably did read that the Church finds absolutely NO contradiction between anything valid science has to say on evolution, and the scriptural accounts of Creation, which are poetic metaphor for real events, not scientific treatise. As long as science sticks with science and does not try to make itself into religious dogma there is no problem and no conflict. Read the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) for a fuller explanation of how both aspects of human intellect are required for maturity and truth.

You may also read Dei Verbum, the encyclical on Sacred Scripture and how we are to interpret it: with the mind of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it was written.

“the Church finds absolutely NO contradiction between anything valid science”? Where did you read that? See the encyclical Humani Generis. The Church does not recognize multiple parents for the human race, only Adam and Eve. The issue of pre-humans or hominids, has not been resolved. If the Bible is not a science book, and if science cannot study God or the supernatural, then Catholics need to know about divine revelation. Eve was formed miraculously by God from Adam’s side. Science cannot address this.

As far as “science sticks with science,” I would like to point out that there are those who post here that insist on applying science to the work of God even though science cannot do so.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[patg]

So Genesis 1 is taken literally in its order, but Genesis 2 is not taken literally in its order?

No, that is not church teaching. The only “order” you* have* to believe is that God is responsible for creation. You are free to believe more literalistically but you are not required to.

 

[OchsFam]

When Catholics read the Bible we understand it literally, that is what the author intended to convey.

Are There Contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2?

Correct. I am not questioning the literal interpretation of an order, but the literalistic interpretation of six days.

To clarify something, I see your point, but I am still curious how we can look at Genesis 1 literalistically to show us a literal six day creation. We take every word to be exactly what it is and end up with a literal six day creation. We then switch gears and stop looking at every word to mean exactly what is said so that we do not contradict the Genesis 1 account.

I believe that the order is important from Genesis 1 and that it could have occurred in six literal days, but that it is not the purpose of the narrative to say it was a literal six day creation.

 

[buffalo]

Correct. I am not questioning the literal interpretation of an order, but the literalistic interpretation of six days.

To clarify something, I see your point, but I am still curious how we can look at Genesis 1 literalistically to show us a literal six day creation. We take every word to be exactly what it is and end up with a literal six day creation. We then switch gears and stop looking at every word to mean exactly what is said so that we do not contradict the Genesis 1 account.

I believe that the order is important from Genesis 1 and that it could have occurred in six literal days, but that it is not the purpose of the narrative to say it was a literal six day creation.

The first account seems to be from God’s perspective.

 

[OchsFam]

No, that is not church teaching. The only “order” you* have* to believe is that God is responsible for creation. You are free to believe more literalistically but you are not required to.

Understood. I should have been more specific to say Genesis 1 is to be taken literalistically and Genesis 2 not.

I of course do believe that God created everything out of nothing, but I was questioning how a literal six day creationist, who is interpreting Genesis 1 literalistically, can then move to Genesis 2 without a contradiction.

I think I can see an argument being made by buffalo that could possibly respond to this apparent problem, but it still seems like one would have to change the way they read the book from verse to verse in order to not arrive at a contradiction.

 

[OchsFam]

The first account seems to be from God’s perspective.

I can understand this argument. I do not think it necessarily has a bearing on why we should read the words more literalistically than in Genesis 2. I suppose we would see this more clearly in the Hebrew text since the word for God changed.

One thing I do notice though is that in Genesis 1, we see that man is important because it is where we are told that we are made in His image. Genesis 2 seems to speak more to the role of the marriage covenant.

I believe that each serves to teach a different part of creation in general and our creation, but what I am failing to see is how reading a literal six day creation helps to understand the teaching. In particular, we have to read the text in a certain way to come to a literal six day creation. The way we must read the text is that every word means exactly what it says. There is no narrative aspect to the creation account in Genesis 1. Six days is six days and man was created on the sixth day. We are then to know to stop reading in this fashion when the word for God is changed. The problem is, the word used for God in Genesis 2 is the more literal word for God (Yahweh). It is also interesting that Genesis 2 is more detailed in the creation account from day four to six without using a timeline.

So in the end, my question is the same, how can we read Genesis 1 in a literalistic way that results in a literal six day creation and then read Genesis 2 in a literal way which results in a creation narrative. It makes more sense to me to read Genesis 1 in a way that shows the framework of creation and emphasized on creation from nothing and man created in God’s image, male and female. Genesis 2 then emphasizes the breath we receive and the purpose of woman in completing man. There is more to it than this on different levels, but the general concept is what I see. The problem lies in moving into a specific historical reckoning of creation in Genesis 1 moving into a creation narrative in Genesis 2.

I hope this clarifies my question. It is not that I feel nothing is accurate or that I can not see a literal six day creation, but I am curious how we would justify changing how we read Genesis 1 against Genesis 2. The argument that the perspective changes may answer this, but Genesis 2 seems more personal and detailed if we are looking to one or the other for when exactly man was created.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I recently heard that the catholic church adopted darwinian evolution. What about the the passages in genesis where it said everything was CREATED in 6 days? If you cold help with me question it would be most appreciated!

Though I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector, my views on creation are more in line with the Catholic Church.

Since God is the creator of all things, Science cannot contradict God. God will be in complete harmony with Science. If the two do contradict one another, then either there is a false assumption in Science, or we are misinterpreting Scripture.

Personally, I do not believe in the literal 6-day creation. Genesis reveals God as creator of man, the universe, and all things. Genesis also shows the relationship between man and God, man’s fall in sin, and the need for reconciliation, etc.

We do not have to choose between God and Science, though some of the Fundamentalist Christian groups attempt to impose such a decision upon their congregations and upon their children–which is disturbing on so many levels.

Anna

 

[buffalo]

I can understand this argument. I do not think it necessarily has a bearing on why we should read the words more literalistically than in Genesis 2. I suppose we would see this more clearly in the Hebrew text since the word for God changed.

One thing I do notice though is that in Genesis 1, we see that man is important because it is where we are told that we are made in His image. Genesis 2 seems to speak more to the role of the marriage covenant.

I believe that each serves to teach a different part of creation in general and our creation, but what I am failing to see is how reading a literal six day creation helps to understand the teaching. In particular, we have to read the text in a certain way to come to a literal six day creation. The way we must read the text is that every word means exactly what it says. There is no narrative aspect to the creation account in Genesis 1. Six days is six days and man was created on the sixth day. We are then to know to stop reading in this fashion when the word for God is changed. The problem is, the word used for God in Genesis 2 is the more literal word for God (Yahweh). It is also interesting that Genesis 2 is more detailed in the creation account from day four to six without using a timeline.

So in the end, my question is the same, how can we read Genesis 1 in a literalistic way that results in a literal six day creation and then read Genesis 2 in a literal way which results in a creation narrative. It makes more sense to me to read Genesis 1 in a way that shows the framework of creation and emphasized on creation from nothing and man created in God’s image, male and female. Genesis 2 then emphasizes the breath we receive and the purpose of woman in completing man. There is more to it than this on different levels, but the general concept is what I see. The problem lies in moving into a specific historical reckoning of creation in Genesis 1 moving into a creation narrative in Genesis 2.

I hope this clarifies my question. It is not that I feel nothing is accurate or that I can not see a literal six day creation, but I am curious how we would justify changing how we read Genesis 1 against Genesis 2. The argument that the perspective changes may answer this, but Genesis 2 seems more personal and detailed if we are looking to one or the other for when exactly man was created.

Yes the words addressing God changed with time as they grew in understanding and intimacy.