Creation Story Poll

[Fairwinds]

The Church as I have it is behind neither theory, but accepts both as a possibility provided that we accept that a human being does not exist until God infuses it with a human soul. The scientific evidence that human beings go back 50,000 to 200,000 years ago flies in the face of the Biblical account of some 6,000 years, so I have no problem dispensing with the notion of the Bible being historically accurate. But as to Evolution or Creationism, I find neither theory implausible.

I regard the creation stories as attempts explain what could not be explained by the means at hand at the time. without endless handwave arguments, creation could not have happened in the literal way Genesis posits. but how science and Faith are ultimately found not to contradict each other remains to be seen.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I regard the creation stories as attempts explain what could not be explained by the means at hand at the time. without endless handwave arguments, creation could not have happened in the literal way Genesis posits. but how science and Faith are ultimately found not to contradict each other remains to be seen.

I lean strongly toward evolution as well, but can you say that God could not have done it the way Genesis posits, despite with all the seeming evidence to the contrary?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I lean strongly toward evolution as well, but can you say that God could not have done it the way Genesis posits, despite with all the seeming evidence to the contrary?

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a manc] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I take Genesis to mean that Adam did not evolve from an ape, so I have a huge problem with evolution

 

[Fairwinds]

I lean strongly toward evolution as well, but can you say that God could not have done it the way Genesis posits, despite with all the seeming evidence to the contrary?

you could say that, if you believe God is playing parlor tricks with planted evidence. this makes no sense since He gave us inquiring minds and the tools to discover His creation. science shows that creation is much more fantastic than the folklore account in Genesis. why He’d want to fool us, I can’t imagine… since there’s no way to prove or disprove that kind of claim, however, so I regard it as not very useful.

 

[Fairwinds]

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a manc] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I take Genesis to mean that Adam did not evolve from an ape, so I have a huge problem with evolution

evolutionists have a huge problem with your strawman or misleading assertion than man evolved from apes.

your willingness to use strawmen or mislead more or less disqualifies you as someone who is willing to discuss this honestly.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

evolutionists have a huge problem with your strawman or misleading assertion than man evolved from apes.
.

Evolutionists assume life started from no life three and a half billion years ago single cell to fish to mammals to man with all the intermediate stages, and without God; I have problems with this

your willingness to use strawmen or mislead more or less disqualifies you as someone who is willing to discuss this honestly

Are you saying I should agree with evolution; in order not to mislead anyone, I do wish to discuss this honestly, this does not mean I have to agree with other conclusions.

Blessings

Eric

 

[JamesCaruso]

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a manc] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I take Genesis to mean that Adam did not evolve from an ape, so I have a huge problem with evolution

I see the same possibility. How do you explain that he took Eve from Adam? Were we asexual at one point in time? A friend and I were discussing that a few days ago. And why are there not parallel lines of evolution evident; ie, different stages of evolution to humans still happening and observable? And does that mean that God infused a human soul in just two of the evolved humanoids? Or many at the same time? And how are all charged with original sin? Was it Adam as “Mankind” not Adam as a single man? So many things to speculate.

 

[Fairwinds]

Evolutionists assume life started from no life three and a half billion years ago single cell to fish to mammals to man with all the intermediate stages, and without God; I have problems with this

cool. I don’t have problems with evolution.

Are you saying I should agree with evolution; in order not to mislead anyone, I do wish to discuss this honestly, this does not mean I have to agree with other conclusions.

Blessings

Eric

I’m saying, if you find someone to debate evolution with you, that you’d do better to understand what evolution states, not make false claims about you think it states.

the Church says you can believe either. I honestly don’t care what people believe – if you assert creationism as a matter of faith. if faith tells you that Ye Arke cruised around the world or the planet was created in 6 days, great. God can do anything. but if you think that creationism is a science, that’s a waste of time, dry well argument way beneath my pay grade. again, honestly, I’d rather stake myself out in the desert sun and cover myself with red ants than argue “creation science” with a creationist.

 

[Fairwinds]

I see the same possibility. How do you explain that he took Eve from Adam? Were we asexual at one point in time? A friend and I were discussing that a few days ago. And why are there not parallel lines of evolution evident; ie, different stages of evolution to humans still happening and observable? And does that mean that God infused a human soul in just two of the evolved humanoids? Or many at the same time? And how are all charged with original sin? Was it Adam as “Mankind” not Adam as a single man? So many things to speculate.

h. sapiens eliminated those parallel lines long ago. how and when God infused a hominid with a soul is something you’ll have to ask Him. the CCC doesn’t say, doesn’t bar a belief in evolution so long as that specific event in time is acknowledge.

oh… sorry… you have a cartoon view of evolution. can’t help you there.

 

[JamesCaruso]

h. sapiens eliminated those parallel lines long ago. how and when God infused a hominid with a soul is something you’ll have to ask Him. the CCC doesn’t say, doesn’t bar a belief in evolution so long as that specific event in time is acknowledge.

oh… sorry… you have a cartoon view of evolution. can’t help you there.

Cartoon view? Please enlighten me what a serious view of evolution would be and at what point God would put a human soul in the evolved creature, presumably not a single person, but already a population of such creatures, and how that squares up with the lessons of Genesis. I admit I am no scientist or anthropologist, but I don’t understand what is cartoon, and what is erudite in your view. If you don’t think you can make a simpleton like myself understand, do it for the rest, who I am sure are bright enough to understand enough to benefit by it.

 

[Fairwinds]

Cartoon view? Please enlighten me what a serious view of evolution would be and at what point God would put a human soul in the evolved creature, presumably not a single person, but already a population of such creatures, and how that squares up with the lessons of Genesis. I admit I am no scientist or anthropologist, but I don’t understand what is cartoon, and what is erudite in your view. If you don’t think you can make a simpleton like myself understand, do it for the rest, who I am sure are bright enough to understand enough to benefit by it.

(emphasis added)

I’m not really interested in bringing self-described simpletons up to speed, or in responding to argumentative questions. I don’t care what you believe, believe in either of the two genesis accounts literally as a matter of faith, or as bronze age stories conveying essential truths but not literal history lessors, or accept evolution, the CCC permits any or all. the CCC doesn’t require that I explain the particulars of how God infused a homind with a soul, so I don’t worry about it, except to note that you’re using this as bait for another creationist argument.

as I’ve said elsewhere, arguing with a creationist about how science and genesis work together to give a majestic picture of God’s work is a total waste of time and electrons. I’m certain every time I type the word “creationist” or “creation science” a part of my brain dies.

 

[JamesCaruso]

(emphasis added)

I’m not really interested in bringing self-described simpletons up to speed, or in responding to argumentative questions. I don’t care what you believe, believe in either of the two genesis accounts literally as a matter of faith, or as bronze age stories conveying essential truths but not literal history lessors, or accept evolution, the CCC permits any or all. the CCC doesn’t require that I explain the particulars of how God infused a homind with a soul, so I don’t worry about it, except to note that you’re using this as bait for another creationist argument.

as I’ve said elsewhere, arguing with a creationist about how science and genesis work together to give a majestic picture of God’s work is a total waste of time and electrons. I’m certain every time I type the word “creationist” or “creation science” a part of my brain dies.

Funny. I think of myself as the farthest thing from a creationist. I actually think evolution is the most plausible of all possibilities-- I just don’t have the background in science to understand how it would have come about and what it means in relation to the symbols used in Genesis. I actually am interested in being enlightened in how evolution may have worked in more detail, but for now I only have the most simple understanding of how it may have come to pass. I really am a simpleton in this area of inquiry, and rather than baiting you, I was probably reacting to your use of the term “cartoon” which I took as a form of slur, probably wrongly so. Anyway, my apology if I was offensive in any way in my response. I only wish I had more knowledge than I do about the mechanics of evolution. Unless one takes a course in it, biology courses and the like provide only a cursory look at what must be a well defined and detailed science.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

which one? I’m partial to the Navajo creation myth.

My absolute fave is that of the Iroquois. Turtles all the way down!

I lean strongly toward evolution as well, but can you say that God could not have done it the way Genesis posits, despite with all the seeming evidence to the contrary?

I wouldn’t dare posit it as a matter of what God could or could not do, rather what God would do. How literal ought we understand the creation account(s) in Genesis (assuming that there really is no discrepancy between the two)? In both cases we have Man showing up on the scene long before some necessary quality shows (such as plants, in Ch. 1, and an atmosphere in Ch. 2). Of course God could do this, but why would he leave so much evidence to the contrary if it actually didn’t occur as is explicitly stated in Genesis? Is God deceptive? Did he create humans to not breathe oxygen and not eat things?

Even if we answer yes to the two preceding questions, and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis, we’re left to deal with the fact that the chronologies of the two accounts are different, despite the protestations of those who say the two are complementary. In chapter 1 God makes man on day 6. In chapter 2 God makes man “in the day that the Lord God made the Earth and the Heavens”… in other words, on day 1!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I see the same possibility. How do you explain that he took Eve from Adam? Were we asexual at one point in time?

I think this question is a little bit superfluous. I, for example, do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal… in any way, shape, or form. For you to then ask “Well how do you explain that [God] took Eve from Adam?” I’d respond: "I do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal. I actually do not believe God fashioned Eve from Adam’s rib, literally, and there’s no hidden meaning to deduce from that. I believe that Adam and Eve came to being the same way that all human beings throughout history have come into being.

I’ll nevertheless answer the specifics of your question because I’m nerdy and enjoy it . It depends on what you mean by “we”. If we restrict our ancestry to simply hominids, then no. We were never asexual. Let’s not forget though, that the theory of evolution by natural selection posits that species arise from preexisting species. Animals (all of whom are sexual, including us) most likely arose from proto-Fungi, which in turn most likely arose from proto-Plantae, many of which are asexual. Let us not forget about asexual prokaryotes such as many bacteria and algae. It is generally accepted that life arose only once on Earth, and all modern life forms are in some way related.

A friend and I were discussing that a few days ago. And why are there not parallel lines of evolution evident; ie, different stages of evolution to humans still happening and observable?

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you please clarify a bit?

And does that mean that God infused a human soul in just two of the evolved humanoids? Or many at the same time? And how are all charged with original sin? Was it Adam as “Mankind” not Adam as a single man? So many things to speculate.

Now THIS is where it gets tricky. His Holiness Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis that:
Pope Pius XII:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

His Holiness’ opinion seems to echo your own. I’ll admit that this encyclical gave me a great deal of angst when I was converting to the Church as I had already earned a bachelor’s in molecular biology and was about to start graduate school. I had worked in genetics labs, and even had written papers on evolutionary genotyping patterns of modern humans. I was (and am) firmly of the belief that there is no such thing as a “first human”. This of course means that I don’t believe in a biological “first human”. I do believe in Adam and Eve, for the very reasons that you and the Holy Father mention: it renders the dogma of the Original Sin and the very need for a Savior null. I simply believe that they were born to natural human parents like we all were.

I’ll agree with His Holiness that there must’ve been some couple of humans, both of whom were endowed with a rational soul, and were named by Him “Adam” and “Eve”. Whether there ever “existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him”, this of course will depend on what we mean by “true men”. If His Holiness means that true men are those which possess rational souls, then I’d completely agree. If His Holiness means that true men are those who are H. sapiens, I’d have to disagree. Simple biological equivalence doesn’t mean the nature of the person is the same.

EDIT 1: I bolded the part of Pius XII’s encyclical to show the seeming ambiguity of his ultimate conclusion. “It is no way apparent” leads me to believe that His Holiness was not speaking infallibly, rather that current theological development (at his time in the 1940s - 1960s) couldn’t explain the apparent contradiction.

 

[Fairwinds]

My absolute fave is that of the Iroquois. Turtles all the way down!!

Terry Pratchett agrees.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I wouldn’t dare posit it as a matter of what God could or could not do, rather what God would do. How literal ought we understand the creation account(s) in Genesis (assuming that there really is no discrepancy between the two)? In both cases we have Man showing up on the scene long before some necessary quality shows (such as plants, in Ch. 1, and an atmosphere in Ch. 2). Of course God could do this, but why would he leave so much evidence to the contrary if it actually didn’t occur as is explicitly stated in Genesis? Is God deceptive? Did he create humans to not breathe oxygen and not eat things?

Even if we answer yes to the two preceding questions, and insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis, we’re left to deal with the fact that the chronologies of the two accounts are different, despite the protestations of those who say the two are complementary. In chapter 1 God makes man on day 6. In chapter 2 God makes man “in the day that the Lord God made the Earth and the Heavens”… in other words, on day 1!

xixxvmcm85,

I definitely lean toward the idea that the two stories are man’s attempt to explain his own beginning long after the occurrence and based solely on stories handed down from generation to generation and his own observances of and conjecture about the world around him. In much the same way we today try to explain our beginning using science as part of the way we observe and speculate on the world around us. Our explanation should be far closer to the reality-- after all, we’ve had 3,500 years to mull it over and great advances in science since the original storyline was put to paper (or parchment).

In this context, I do not get upset with such discrepancies as differing accounts as to the “day” man was created. I am only digging as I read for the kernels of truth the stories were meant by God to impart. The conjectures I make on the details of how man came about are merely an indulgence in fantasy, as I do not feel that Genesis has much to do with that at all. If it does, it is as to whether men in whatever year BC the Torah was written had any real insight into our beginnings, and not whether God meant to provide us with an historical document. Men is 1,200 BC plus or minus were simply trying to reverse engineer the origin of the world, much the same as we do today. Their genealogies also appear to be an attempt to explain what has transpired since the beginning and how we are linked to their understanding of our origin. Some call it a lie; I call it an attempt to bring a semblance of order out of the chaos that may best describe our “hand me down by word of mouth” knowledge of ancient times before man began to make written accounts.

As for what God “would” do, I’m not sure what that means. I could say that in most other ways God seems to “operate” in the natural world, such that a god-fearing man might say, “It’s a miracle” and an atheist might say, “It’s a coincidence.” Thereby, we always have the tension between belief and unbelief, and in some ways, between faith and science, although in the latter I’m persuaded that in the end the two must merge as they both have truth as their object.

But I am also cognizant of the fact (at least I believe it factual) that Jesus, God and man, performed miracles that suspended the natural law. He changed water into wine, cured diseases, removed blindness, raised the dead, fed the thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, walked on water, calmed the sea, and claimed to change bread and wine into his own body and blood. Lastly, he himself rose from the dead. So for this reason, I do not want to be too quick to dismiss Creationism as something that God would not likely do.

Thank you for your comments. They help me in advancing my own thoughts on the meaning of Genesis. Peace, James

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think this question is a little bit superfluous. I, for example, do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal… in any way, shape, or form. For you to then ask “Well how do you explain that [God] took Eve from Adam?” I’d respond: "I do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal. I actually do not believe God fashioned Eve from Adam’s rib, literally, and there’s no hidden meaning to deduce from that. I believe that Adam and Eve came to being the same way that all human beings throughout history have come into being.

I’ll nevertheless answer the specifics of your question because I’m nerdy and enjoy it . It depends on what you mean by “we”. If we restrict our ancestry to simply hominids, then no. We were never asexual. Let’s not forget though, that the theory of evolution by natural selection posits that species arise from preexisting species. Animals (all of whom are sexual, including us) most likely arose from proto-Fungi, which in turn most likely arose from proto-Plantae, many of which are asexual. Let us not forget about asexual prokaryotes such as many bacteria and algae. It is generally accepted that life arose only once on Earth, and all modern life forms are in some way related…
.

I idea that the writer went to the trouble to depict God as taking woman out of man puzzles me. Why would he say that? How does it make the story any more credible, assuming that was one of his purposes? I admit I know next to nothing about biology and evolution, so my conjecture on asexual reproduction was a totally uneducated guess. The thought did occur to me, “Why do men have the remnants of breasts?” since we have no use for them. That may be laughable to someone well acquainted with biology, but it is serious on my part, laughable as it may be. lol Someone enlighten me, please.

As for the rib, I only take it as a symbol of something, either as I said before, a common origin, or perhaps as a statement of the equality of men and women, and perhaps even a statement about the patriarchy of the times in which men were considered somehow higher than women, although in other ways equal. I probably botched that thought up, but I am hoping you can see through to what my meaning is. Peace. I have to run to get ready for church. James

 

[Harry1941]

The Holy Bible is about the Lord and His church in heaven and on earth., It is not about the making of the natural world. This earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. There were people here on earth when the book of Genesis was written. Adam and Eve, with their two sons, were not the first people on earth. After Cain kill Able, where did Cain’s wife come from?

The meaning of six days of creation ,which means regeneration.

The first state is that which precedes, including both the state from infancy, and that immediately before regeneration. This is called a “void” “emptiness” and “thick darkness.” And the first motion, which is the Lord’s mercy, is “the Spirit of God moving upon the faces of the waters.” Man is in this first state when he knows nothing about the Lord’s good and truth

The second state is when a distinction is made between those things which are of the Lord, and those which are proper to man. The things which are of the Lord are called in the word “remains” and here are especially knowledges of faith, which have been learned from infancy, and which are stored up, and are not manifested until the man comes into this state. At the present day this state seldom exists without temptation, misfortune, or sorrow, by which the things of the body and the world, that is, such as are proper to man, are brought into quiescence, and as it were die. Thus the things which belong to the external man are separated from those which belong to the internal man. In the internal man are the remains, stored up by the Lord unto this time, and for this use.

The third state is that of repentance, in which the man, from his internal man, speaks piously and devoutly, and brings forth goods, like works of charity, but which nevertheless are inanimate, because he thinks they are from himself. These goods are called the “tender grass” and also the “herb yielding seed” and afterwards the “tree bearing fruit.”

The fourth state is when the man becomes affected with love, and illuminated by faith. He indeed previously discoursed piously, and brought forth goods, but he did so in consequence of the temptation and straitness under which he labored, and not from faith and charity; wherefore faith and charity are now enkindled in his internal man, and are called two “luminaries.”

The fifth state is when the man discourses from faith, and thereby confirms himself in truth and good: the things then produced by him are animate, and are called the “fish of the sea” and the “birds of the heavens.”

The sixth state is when, from faith, and is from love, he speaks what is true, and does what is good: the things which he then brings forth are called the “living soul” and the “beast.” And as he then begins to act at once and together from both faith and love, he becomes a spiritual man, who is called an “image.” His spiritual life is delighted and sustained by such things as belong to the knowledges of faith, and to works of charity, which are called his “food;” and his natural life is delighted and sustained by those which belong to the body and the senses; whence a combat arises, until love gains the dominion, and he becomes a celestial man.

Those who are being regenerated do not all arrive at this state. The greatest part, at this day, attain only the first state; some only the second; others the third, fourth, or fifth; few the sixth; and scarcely anyone the seventh.

Harry:wave:

The “faces of the deep” are the cupidities of the unregenerate man, and the falsities thence originating, of which he wholly consists, and in which he is totally immersed. In this state, having no light, he is like a “deep” or something obscure and confused. Such persons are also called “deeps” and “depths of the sea” in many parts of the Word, which are “dried up” or “wasted” before man is regenerated. As in Isaiah: Awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art not thou it that drieth up the sea, the waters of the great deep, that maketh the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over? Therefore the redeemed of Jehovah shall return (Isaiah. 51:9-11). Such a man also, when seen from heaven, appears like a black mass, destitute of vitality. The same expressions likewise in general involve the vastation of man, frequently spoken of by the Prophets, which precedes regeneration; for before man can know what is true, and be affected with what is good, there must be a removal of such things as hinder and resist their admission; thus the old man must needs die, before the new man can be conceived.

Harry:wave:

 

[Ontheway]

Just out of curiosity
Do you:
1)Believe the Bible is the word of God and the whole account in Gesis part 1 is an exact description on how the world was made in exactly 6 days
2)I don’t believe the Genesis was intended to give us a factual account but was instead given to us in order to help us make sense of the world around us a factual account of creation.

CCC states as follows:

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

 

[Ontheway]

CCC

122 Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,” the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.”