Creation

[Churchman25]

Does the church teach that earth was created in seven days,or is it open for seculation? For example I think that some people believe that the earth was created in more like seven time periods. When the book of genesis was being written. For example may be 1million years was interpreted as one day.

 

[TheDoctor]

The Church has no official teaching that I know of as to how long it took the Earth to be created so as long as you believe that it was God that created it you can believe that he did it in a millisecond, in 7 calendar days or in 4 billion years.

 

[Chatter163]

I don’t believe that any group has ever taught that the world was created in seven days. Genesis says that it was done in six days.

 

[womanatwell]

Does the church teach that earth was created in seven days,or is it open for seculation? For example I think that some people believe that the earth was created in more like seven time periods. When the book of genesis was being written. For example may be 1million years was interpreted as one day.

There’s an explanation of the Catholic view(s) on the subject on our Catholic Answers website. It discusses how Church Fathers varied in their thinking. You can read it here:

catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis .

Also in the book, Denzinger: the Sources of Catholic Dogma, there is a list of findings of a Biblical Commission concerning the “Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis.” This came out in 1909 during the time of Pius X. It is a little hard to read from the* Denzinger *book, but the gist of it as I see it is that the Commission rejected any claim that the first three chapters in Genesis are a myth and therefore held to the literal meaning.

If you are interested in more information, the Kolbe Center is a Catholic organization that has a website with doctrine pertaining to Young Earth Creationism. The link is here:

kolbecenter.org/ .

 

[dmar198]

Does the church teach that earth was created in seven days,or is it open for seculation? For example I think that some people believe that the earth was created in more like seven time periods. When the book of genesis was being written. For example may be 1million years was interpreted as one day.

There are many ways to interpret Genesis in accord with science and Catholic doctrine. Here are a few verses from Genesis that show its compatibility with modern science:

1. Genesis 1:24 - “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.” This text allows room for a process of development in the creation of animals. It also shows us that animal development started with the material elements of the ground and proceeded by natural reproduction “according to their kinds.” Under this interpretation it is possible to accommodate the gradual advancements proposed by evolution within the formation of every beast by God.
2. “Let there be light.” According to Genesis this is how God started creating the things of this world. This is absolutely compatible with the image of a Big Bang. Dinesh D’Souza comments on this in his book, “What’s So Great About Christianity,” (pages 116, 118; quoting Steven Weinberg, “The First Three Minutes,” pages 6, 30): In a stunning confirmation of the Book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. …*n a single cosmic explosion–the Big Bang–the universe we now inhabit came into existence. “The universe was filled with light,” Steven Weinberg writes. In fact, “it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe.” The temperature was about a hundred trillion degrees Centigrade. Then, in a process vividly described by Weinberg in The First Three Minutes, the first protons and neutrons began to form into atoms. Once matter was formed, gravitational forces began to draw it into galaxies and then into stars. Eventually heavier elements like oxygen and iron were formed and, over billions of years, gave birth to our solar system and our planet. Crazy though it may seem, our terrestrial existence, indeed the very matter of which we are made, owes itself to a “creation event” that occurred around fifteen billion years ago. 3) “The framework interpretation.” It is perfectly fine to interpret the six days of creation as a symbolic way of expressing the doctrine that God created all things and gave them order and beauty. Under this interpretation, the author of Genesis used the first three days to show that God created three “domains” and the fourth, fifth, and sixth days to show that God created inhabitants for each of these domains.

[table=“head”]First Triad | *| *| Second Triad
Day 1 | Day and night (1:3-5). | Sun for the day, moon and stars for the night (1:14). | Day 4
Day 2 | The sky and the sea (1:7-8). | Birds for the sky and fish for the sea (1:20). | Day 5
Day 3 | Dry land (1:9) and vegetation (1:11) | Beasts and men to walk on the land (1:25-26) and eat the vegetation (1:29-30) | Day 6
[/table]

From this perspective, the “days” aren’t the focus but the arrangement of the domains to their inhabitants, and the days only serve as an image to help us see order in this. It’s not the daily sequence that we should focus on so much as the part of creation spoken of under each day, so that we see that they are made to complement and complete each other. If the author intended the days and the sequence to be symbolic, to serve the purpose of pointing to the orderliness in each thing being created for its respective domain, then there is nothing in this text that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.

1. “The day-age hypothesis.” Under this interpretation, the “days” of Genesis 1 are meant to refer to “ages” of indefinite lengths, and they include each other with significant overlap. Its supporters note that Genesis 1:14-18 says that the stars, sun and moon were created on day four, “to separate the light from the darkness,” yet it was on day one that God “separated the light from the darkness” – Genesis 1:4-5. Thus the “day-ages” overlapped each other significantly, they say. If Genesis 1 allows for long ages of formation and overlap in the sequence of formation, then there is nothing in it that is incompatible with modern cosmology or the theory of evolution.
2. “Advanced-earth creationism.” Advanced-earth creationists see the creation of the world and interpret it literally, but say that it included a built-in degree of advancement, so that it appears to be older than it is. Geological strata, fossils of prehistoric animals, and starlight that is billions of years old all came as part of the package, they say, so that man could investigate the earth and make discoveries that would prove beneficial in the scientific age. Advanced-earth creationists note that the plants created in Gen. 1:11-12 were already advanced in form, with the seeds of the next generation already prepared for planting. The rest of the world, they say, was like that: it came with age built-in, and that is what science discovers in its experiments.

Although evolution is not incompatible with the Book of Genesis, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe in evolution. A Catholic who is a young-earth creationist should be prepared to explain why he believes the scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by those who believe in billions of years, and thus he should have a finely-developed understanding of the issues. But for those who do not see the wisdom of challenging the scientists on the issues of cosmology and biology, it is perfectly fine to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that leaves room in the doctrine of creation for modern scientific discoveries.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!*

 

[womanatwell]

I’m not quite sure what you mean, and I want to add that I edited my post to distinguish the first three books of Genesis. Denzinger quotes the questions put to the Commission about the first three books of Genesis and uses terms such as “literal historical sense,” “objective reality,” “historical truth” on one hand in contrast to “accounts celebrated in fables drawn from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples” and “legends in part and fictitious in part” on the other hand. These phrases seem to set up an either/or choice: did the events described by the first three chapters of Genesis really happen or were they made up (under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit somehow) by human imagination of what might have happened?

 

[womanatwell]

There are many ways to interpret Genesis in accord with science and Catholic doctrine. Here are a few verses from Genesis that show its compatibility with modern science:

Although evolution is not incompatible with the Book of Genesis, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe in evolution. A Catholic who is a young-earth creationist should be prepared to explain why he believes the scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by those who believe in billions of years, and thus he should have a finely-developed understanding of the issues. But for those who do not see the wisdom of challenging the scientists on the issues of cosmology and biology, it is perfectly fine to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that leaves room in the doctrine of creation for modern scientific discoveries.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

Hello dmar, Very nice post. I have to say I’m open-minded about the age of the Earth. The Young Earth Creationist Christians (affectionately known to me as YECCies) believe the fossils come from the great flood. What I don’t believe is that the neo-Darwinian view of biology explains the complexity of biological origins. There is more coming out about that, with the Intelligent Design people making the biology clearer every day. A new book (called Undeniable) will be coming out in July by Dr. Douglas Axe who has done a great deal of research into the complexity of biological proteins. They are made of sub-units called amino acids, and of 150-unit proteins, only 1 in 10^70 are functional. That is 1 in 1 with 70 zeroes after it. Our galaxy only has about 10^65 particles (or maybe that is atoms) in it, so that is an amazingly small number. That said, our Creator is amazing and he could make the Earth and its wonders directly or He could have done it through the Big Bang. But I do believe He made humans directly, without being born through the neo-Darwinian evolution process.

 

[grannymh]

Note: A primeval event is literal history.

**CCC 390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

[womanatwell]

Thanks for the edification.

 

[dmar198]

Hello dmar, Very nice post. I have to say I’m open-minded about the age of the Earth. The Young Earth Creationist Christians (affectionately known to me as YECCies) believe the fossils come from the great flood. What I don’t believe is that the neo-Darwinian view of biology explains the complexity of biological origins. There is more coming out about that, with the Intelligent Design people making the biology clearer every day. A new book (called Undeniable) will be coming out in July by Dr. Douglas Axe who has done a great deal of research into the complexity of biological proteins. They are made of sub-units called amino acids, and of 150-unit proteins, only 1 in 10^70 are functional. That is 1 in 1 with 70 zeroes after it. Our galaxy only has about 10^65 particles (or maybe that is atoms) in it, so that is an amazingly small number. That said, our Creator is amazing and he could make the Earth and its wonders directly or He could have done it through the Big Bang. But I do believe He made humans directly, without being born through the neo-Darwinian evolution process.

In a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Protestant Dr. William Lane Craig, the latter points out a startling fact about evolution: non-Christian physicists have shown that, if you use natural selection alone, it would take more time to develop the human genome from a microbe than there are years in the entire estimated lifetime of the earth. In order to get a human genome in only a few billion years, you would need a guiding hand. In the debate, Dr. Craig cites a book that goes into greater length on this, and this article gives more details about halfway down – look for the words “John Barrow and Frank Tipler”.

 

[twf]

Note: A primeval event is literal history.

**CCC 390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Yes, in the sense that there truly was an Adam and Eve, they were given eternal souls by God, and they rebelled against Him. The specifics are unknown to us: when, where, and exactly how each of these events “went down”. These primordial events are expressed under the veil of poetical imagery.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not quite sure what you mean, and I want to add that I edited my post to distinguish the first three books of Genesis. Denzinger quotes the questions put to the Commission about the first three books of Genesis and uses terms such as “literal historical sense,” “objective reality,” “historical truth” on one hand in contrast to “accounts celebrated in fables drawn from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples” and “legends in part and fictitious in part” on the other hand. These phrases seem to set up an either/or choice: did the events described by the first three chapters of Genesis really happen or were they made up (under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit somehow) by human imagination of what might have happened?

One has to go verse by verse, studying each in its context. Then, there is the very important step to check actual Catholic teachings.

Regarding “accounts celebrated in fables drawn from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples” – Please remember that the length of female fertility produced many children, some of which left their family homes. Some of the original rebels developed their own legend history. It is the promised Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John) Who guided the major Ecumenical Church Councils in determining what was Divine Revelation from the first three chapters.

 

[grannymh]

Suggestion for our gentle readers.

Please read the underlined definition for primeval event in post 13. CCC 390 is addressing the event, not to be confused with figurative language.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, in the sense that there truly was an Adam and Eve, they were given eternal souls by God, and they rebelled against Him. The specifics are unknown to us: when, where, and exactly how each of these events “went down”. These primordial events are expressed under the veil of poetical imagery.

Some yes, some no. I would have a hard time finding the veil of poetical imagery of Adam scorning his Creator; therefore, shattering humanity’s original friendship relationship with Divinity. Genesis 3: 9-12 does not sound poetic in my humble opinion. Adam’s choice of mortal sin sounds specific to me.

 

[womanatwell]

In a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Protestant Dr. William Lane Craig, the latter points out a startling fact about evolution: non-Christian physicists have shown that, if you use natural selection alone, it would take more time to develop the human genome from a microbe than there are years in the entire estimated lifetime of the earth. In order to get a human genome in only a few billion years, you would need a guiding hand. In the debate, Dr. Craig cites a book that goes into greater length on this, and this article gives more details about halfway down – look for the words “John Barrow and Frank Tipler”.

Thanks for your reference. I’ve got to go now but will read it when I get back online.

 

[edwest2]

From Catholic Answers:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Ed

 

[womanatwell]

In a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Protestant Dr. William Lane Craig, the latter points out a startling fact about evolution: non-Christian physicists have shown that, if you use natural selection alone, it would take more time to develop the human genome from a microbe than there are years in the entire estimated lifetime of the earth. In order to get a human genome in only a few billion years, you would need a guiding hand. In the debate, Dr. Craig cites a book that goes into greater length on this, and this article gives more details about halfway down – look for the words “John Barrow and Frank Tipler”.

Yes, this was a good article–I read the whole thing. Many people just don’t realize what it would take for functional genetic material to become useful by chance and then combine with other genetic material. And it would have to be by chance before selection could take place. So non-believing scientists and others have to resort to multi-universe or many world theories to explain the vast improbabilities if we were formed without a Creator.

Not only do you have those extremely low probabilities for humans, but also for other organisms. As geneticists are finding out what whole genomes consist of for everything from bacteria to mammals, they are discovering that different species each have about 2-20% genes that are completely different from other species and would be extremely improbable for them to form by chance from DNA completely unrelated to them. These are called unique,* de novo*, or orphan genes. There was a paper out as recently as December 2015 that discussed *de novo *human genes. There is a link to the paper and further information in a post I wrote here:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2016/01/orphan-genes.html .

It is exciting to see all these unique genes. That still doesn’t exactly answer over what time period God would have taken to create man, but He would have known exactly what He was going to do. If He created directly, I don’t think He would have formed an arm one day and the next day formed a leg, etc.

 

[Churchman25]

Does the church teach that earth was created in seven days,or is it open for seculation? For example I think that some people believe that the earth was created in more like seven time periods. When the book of genesis was being written. For example may be 1million years was interpreted as one day. On the seventh day God rested. The Bible says.

 

[Churchman25]

I personally think that the six days are six elapsed peiods of time whether each one is a thousand years or 1million years I dont know.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

People in Denzinger’s time probably had a somewhat Frazerian misapprehension of “myth” which always has something concrete at bottom.

Stephen Oppenheimer has interesting views, drawn from various branches of knowledge and supporting as true an interpretation of Scriptures - if not truer - than any.

Doctrine is hung from the aide-memoire of Scriptures, and the interpretation of Gen 1:2 to end of ch 1 has been called a creation account by Jews since before Christ, probably due to its proximity with v 1 and ch 2.

Adam and Eve represent the furthest back that humanity could remember in the circumstances.

There are rather a lot of alternatives to “neo-darwinism” and “young earth”, several of them mentioned in this thread, thanks all.