Creationism vs. Theistic Evolution

[hapidawg]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

 

[agnes_therese]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

I don’t believe the Church “requires” us to accept any science. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, if you like. (but that won’t make it true)

 

[grannymh]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

Are you referring to Genesis 1: 1-25? These verses only refer to the material universe and to animals, etc., As such, the only Catholic doctrine involved would be Genesis 1:1, the existence of an almighty Creator God. The rest of the verses 2-25 can be read literally or figuratively.

As for theistic evolution. Catholic doctrines flowing from Genesis 1: 26 and following which pertain to God, spiritual soul, Original Adam, and Original Sin would not be considered part of any kind of evolution.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think one is free to believe in evolution and free to believe in direct creation. Personally, I like elegance. I think a universe that unfolds according to a built in plan is neater than one which requires many individual acts.

 

[TarkanAttila]

From what I gather, there’s nothing inhibiting you one way or the other.

This is the Church’s position, basically.

 

[Hans_W]

To answer the OP’s question: Yes, we can believe anything we want as long as we accept that God has given each of us an immortal soul.

Theistic evolution is undistinguishable from a “secular” definition of evolution, except that we believe that the process was and is guided by God. Science can say nothing about a supernatural guidance.

Any talk of Dawkins and his friends about evolution “proving” that there is no God is nonsense (otherwise Dawkins’s books are excellent, except for his “God Delusion”).

 

[edwest2]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

Hi Richard,

You certainly can, but you don’t need the creationist label. However, we must believe God was a direct causal factor, not just a bystander.

Ed

 

[Antegin]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

I was listening to a Native American story teller tell the Iroquois story of creation. He said that he wasn’t telling the story of big bangs and black holes, go to Steven Hawkins for that. He wasn’t telling the Holy Truths of how the Great Spirit created all, go to the Bible for that. (The Piscataway are Catholic) This story is about the Iroquois nation and the character that made them such a fierce people
Then he told the stories.
There are four different groups of writers involved in Genesis. The oldest material, Yahweist and Eloist, actually have oral roots even older than the scriptures themselves. When reading Genesis, it’s important to remember the audience was not going to understand physics and evolution. That was not even the writers’ purpose. The writer wanted you to know the God created everything, He did it not by building the way we make things but by willing it into being, He created man and woman and willed them to have intelligence and free will. The authors did not say that God guided some ape to consume fish and walk upright, thus developing intelligence and speech. The information was irrelevant to what they were trying to say.

God created the universe.

God created man and endowed them with really spectacular gifts that no other animal possesses.

 

[grannymh]

Theistic evolution does not work for humans, because the human anatomy has a spiritual principle.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

no there isn’t yet and probably will not be for a while.

yes, it is theologically okay ( humani generis - newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm ) am a semi-creationist myself because of the churches freedom on this idea.

hope helps
God bless

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think one is free to believe in evolution and free to believe in direct creation. Personally, I like elegance. I think a universe that unfolds according to a built in plan is neater than one which requires many individual acts.

So what, precisely, is inelegant about a musical piece played by Beethoven that requires thousands of “individual acts?”

 

[CalCatholic]

I was listening to a Native American story teller tell the Iroquois story of creation. He said that he wasn’t telling the story of big bangs and black holes, go to Steven Hawkins for that. He wasn’t telling the Holy Truths of how the Great Spirit created all, go to the Bible for that. (The Piscataway are Catholic) This story is about the Iroquois nation and the character that made them such a fierce people
Then he told the stories.
There are four different groups of writers involved in Genesis. The oldest material, Yahweist and Eloist, actually have oral roots even older than the scriptures themselves. When reading Genesis, it’s important to remember the audience was not going to understand physics and evolution. That was not even the writers’ purpose. The writer wanted you to know the God created everything, He did it not by building the way we make things but by willing it into being, He created man and woman and willed them to have intelligence and free will. The authors did not say that God guided some ape to consume fish and walk upright, thus developing intelligence and speech. The information was irrelevant to what they were trying to say.

God created the universe.

God created man and endowed them with really spectacular gifts that no other animal possesses.

 

[CalCatholic]

I have recently read that one can be a good Catholic without embracing a literal seven day interpretation of creation. Personally, I do not believe that God superintended the process of evolution, but that He spoke (exnilo) and it was. My question is: Can a person be a good Catholic and hold to a Creationist interpretation? Is this an area of theological liberty or is there one official position?

Thank you,
Richard

Here a commentary note on Genesis chapters 1-3 from The Didache Bible (which uses the CCC as the basis for its notes):

1-3 The story of creation presents eternal truths about God and humanity and about the nature and significance of creation. Creation takes on the powerful significance that man and woman are created in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, through the violation of God’s law, the first human beings, Adam and Eve, brought sin into the world. Hence, Genesis marks the beginning of salvation history; a history that will be completed at the end of time as related in the final chapters of Revelation. While the Church looks at the literal sense and meaning of the creation story, i.e., the meaning conveyed by the words, it does not require a literalistic approach as if the purpose of God’s Revelation were to provide a scientific explanation of the universe, nor is it opposed to various scientific theories as long as the divine origin of creation and God’s plan and providence are not denied. Faith and science, in the Genesis story, complement each other, and there is ample room for modern scientific inquiry and explanation that is compatible with God being the ultimate cause of the created world. (CCC 121-123, 128-130, 199, 280, 289, 337-354; CSDC 451)

 

[Bradski]

So what, precisely, is inelegant about a musical piece played by Beethoven that requires thousands of “individual acts?”

They don’t play all the notes at the same time. One naturally follows from the other, as the composer dictates.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They don’t play all the notes at the same time. One naturally follows from the other, as the composer dictates.

Naturally? In what sense?

Music compositions are not causally determined in a mechanistic sense, correct?

What reason is there for assuming nature must be mechanistic or built to specifications to be elegant, then?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Naturally? In what sense?

Music compositions are not causally determined in a mechanistic sense, correct?

What reason is there for assuming nature must be mechanistic or built to specifications to be elegant, then?

I see no reason for nature to do so. However, I think God likes beauty and elegance in His work. He is an artistic workman.

 

[grannymh]

Here a commentary note on Genesis chapters 1-3 from The Didache Bible (which uses the CCC as the basis for its notes):

1-3 The story of creation presents eternal truths about God and humanity and about the nature and significance of creation. Creation takes on the powerful significance that man and woman are created in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, through the violation of God’s law, the first human beings, Adam and Eve, brought sin into the world. Hence, Genesis marks the beginning of salvation history; a history that will be completed at the end of time as related in the final chapters of Revelation. While the Church looks at the literal sense and meaning of the creation story, i.e., the meaning conveyed by the words, it does not require a literalistic approach as if the purpose of God’s Revelation were to provide a scientific explanation of the universe, nor is it opposed to various scientific theories as long as the divine origin of creation and God’s plan and providence are not denied. Faith and science, in the Genesis story, complement each other, and there is ample room for modern scientific inquiry and explanation that is compatible with God being the ultimate cause of the created world. (CCC 121-123, 128-130, 199, 280, 289, 337-354; CSDC 451)

In addition, it is now valuably apparent, that the Catholic Church directly opposes the contemporary science theory which is that humankind owes its origin to a rather large random breeding population. Recall that the Catholic doctrine is that humankind descended from a population of two sole
fully-complete parents in a committed relationship.

Here are links to two articles on the credibility of Adam and Eve.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

This is a book on human origin.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=14124676 70&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+spe cies++Bonnette

This new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

 

[TarkanAttila]

So what, precisely, is inelegant about a musical piece played by Beethoven that requires thousands of “individual acts?”

What is inelegant about a chain of dominoes formed into a pattern, or a Rube Goldberg machine?

Actually, maybe the universe really is just a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine. Something akin to Peewee Herman’s Breakfast Machine - perhaps created by someone not entirely unlike Peewee.

 

[Hans_W]

Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

As I have gently pointed out to you many times before, the question of whether evolution is true or false is not determined by philosophy, but in biology.

Please do not point the reader to the opinions of a retired philosophy professor who supports Intelligent Design. He does NOT represent the view of the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

As I have gently pointed out to you many times before, the question of whether evolution is true or false is not determined by philosophy, but in biology.

Please do not point the reader to the opinions of a retired philosophy professor who supports Intelligent Design. He does NOT represent the view of the Catholic Church.

Your concern is appreciated. However, I sincerely respect the intelligence of our readers.

In the article “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist” crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

references include the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition; Humani **Generis; Summa *theologiae I, 75. In addition, scientists presented in the article have links to their work.

The article “Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?” hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

has 25 footnotes.

Both on line articles are relatively easy to read.