Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s my belief that you are clinging to evolutionary theory for reasons other than what the science actually says.
I would appreciate you keeping your completely baseless opinions on how my mind works to yourself. I certainly have my opinions on your motivations and mental processes, but I have been polite enough to keep them to myself and focus on the topic.
The idea that evolution should be opposed is seen as “anti-science”.
This you have sort of right. Going against science is pretty much the definition of “anti-science.” The Catholic Church is not “anti-science.”
 
I would appreciate you keeping your completely baseless opinions on how my mind works to yourself.
I didn’t intend to speak about how your mind works, but just analyze something about your argument. I think I explained why many Catholics defend evolution and gave the reasons for that. As I said, its not necessarily for the science, but for other reasons - and I merely said that it’s my belief that you were giving that approach.
I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with wanting to distance oneself from fundamentalism, or also for having an opinion on evolution without investigating the science. We can’t all study every topic and we have to trust people who know more.
So, I wasn’t trying to insult or belittle you, and I apologize if it came across that way.
 
Often I ask this question.

Did God know what Adam would look like? The answer is a resounding yes

No one want to touch the next one with a ten foot pole.

Did Adam look as God planned?
 
Last edited:
why many Catholics defend evolution and gave the reasons for that. As I said, its not necessarily for the science, but for other reasons - and I merely said that it’s my belief that you were giving that approach.
Here is the rub. The top evo’s now understand it cannot explain what they observe. The complexity of living organisms is astounding. I post an exchange at the Royal Society meeting that moved into natural selection being an intelligent agent. They couldn’t deal and broke for tea. It was hilarious. Further along, they were discussing these issues and Jablonka stated (paraphrasing) - we just have to make sure the answer is not God.

They are nearing the summit of the mountain and know who has beaten them to it - the theologians who got it from Revelation.
 
Last edited:
So, I wasn’t trying to insult or belittle you, and I apologize if it came across that way.
I might be a little testy today. No offence taken. Edit - by which I also mean that I realize you meant no offence. Your point has some validity, but I get annoyed when other people try to say what they think I really mean, or to divine my motivations. I’m working on that.
 
Last edited:
Catholics should challenge science, as it has to be correct.
Catholics do this, which is one of the reasons we no longer believe in things like geocentrism and do believe in things like evolution.
 
Catholics do this, which is one of the reasons we no longer believe in things like geocentrism and do believe in things like evolution.
I don’t know about that. I saw Godzilla on TV the other day and he was hanging out with a lot of humans. Are you telling me that’s not true? After all it was on TV.
 
That’s what I said. Standard evolutionary theory is incompatible with the truth.
You gotta laugh when you read this thread. No scientific theory ever references God, but this only causes consternation when the theory is evolution… This theory alone therefore is called “atheistic”.
 
Standard evolutionary theory claims that human beings are the product of blind, material elements alone. Atheism or not, that’s what it says. There is no mainstream evolutionary theory that says that God did something in the process.
Not seeing where this is a problem. There’s no mainstream scientific theory about anything that claims that God originated physical phenomena… but I don’t see you claiming that, therefore, these theories assert atheism.

Science talks about empirical processes and entities. It’s what it does. That doesn’t make it “atheistic.”

(Edited to add: I just saw that @TMC likewise made the same point. 👍)
 
Last edited:
The Catechism does not teach a fundamentalist or literalist view of Genesis.
[The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teachings of Pope John Paul II in the great encyclical Fides et Ratio explain that one of the great questions of life is “What is my origin?”

The answer to this question, in turn, strongly determines one’s view of “Where am I going? and “How should I behave?” Pope John Paul II further explained that all people seek to answer these questions, for all of us are, in a certain sense, philosophers who seek to understand the meaning of life and our destiny, which is closely linked to our origin.]
 
Catholics do this, which is one of the reasons we no longer believe in things like geocentrism and do believe in things like evolution.
What’s your documentation of these claims? Views that may be asserted by some Catholics are not the official position of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Doctors and many Early Church Fathers taught the immediate Creation of Adam’s body, by God, from the dust of the Earth, plus the immediate Creation of Eve’s body, by God, from Adam’s side.

The contemporary Church continues its work upon a foundation of Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture.
 
Last edited:
St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Doctors and many Early Church Fathers taught the immediate Creation of Adam’s body, by God, from the dust of the Earth, plus the immediate Creation of Eve’s body, by God, from Adam’s side.
They were great philosophers and theologians but they didn’t have the science we have now.
 
Space rockets, cell phones, longer life spans, cars, air travel, instant pizza :crazy_face:, etc…

SCIENCE IS REAL folks.
 
So after reading this entire thread, which was a doozy, I have a few comments that no one probably cares about but here goes:
Evolutionary theory per se is not incompatible with the Genesis account. Many early Christian writers, such as St. Justin Martyr, believed that the days spoken of in the creation account were 1000 years, according to the Psalmist who wrote that a day for God was a thousand years. Therefore, Adam died at 930 which was before 1000 years had passed, fulfilling the word of God that he would die the day he ate of the Tree. There are good reasons why the apparent age as we observe it might be disparate from the age as God reckons time and which was revealed in Genesis, and these need not contradict each other in actual fact. If God said it took him six days and on the seventh day he rested according to his reckoning, and to us it looks like it took hundreds of thousands of years or even millions of years, then we only have to trust that God was not mistaken when He told us how long it took Him. Perhaps He will enlighten us in Heaven so we can understand how it can both be true that the Earth is so old and took the majority of its existence form into a habitable environment and yet to God it was only six days from the void.
Now people might respond with the classic, “it specifically says the sun went down and came up,” and while this is true, that kind of repetition is very common in semitic poetry and the literal sense of the text is only that the author was communicating a passage of time that he understood to be one day. It must also be understood that the author was prevented from error when he wrote down the account of creation. Therefore to understand them as literal 24-hour days must not be an error, at least not to God. But neither is it an error to understand them as longer periods of time, because the passage seems to employ literary devices.
However, if evolutionary theory begins to say that Man was accidentally created, or that other creatures like Man can exist in other places without the intervention of God, then that form of evolution cannot be accepted. In the Theology of the Body by Saint Pope JPII he talks about how being created in the image of God is a special gift that is given to humans and to no other creature, which is why Adam did not have a helper fit for him until the creation of woman, who coming from his side was also made in God’s image. The problem that many Christians find with evolution is that it seems to say that there is nothing exceptional about Man at all, but only that he is further along the evolutionary path than other creatures, and therefore Man can be treated just like another animal, or other animals elevated to be treated like Man. These things cannot be true and undermine the truth of Revelation, which emphatically states that Man was created by God in God’s own image.
1/3
 
I think that in many ways the fixation on the Genesis account by fundamentalists who are attempting to interpret it as though its chief purpose was as a historical account of creation are, in fact, missing the fundamental (wink-wink) point of Genesis, which is about the theology of Nature, the theology of original sin, and the theology of the need for Christ. Because these points are the essential and fundamental message of Genesis, the specifics about the passage of time and even of the existence of dinosaurs are not clear. I think that you can hold a variety of opinions.

However, there can be no deviation from the central facts of Genesis, which is that Adam and Eve existed, that they sinned and were cast out of the Garden, that their offspring covered the Earth, that there was a time of terrible sin and wickedness, and that Noah was chosen to build an ark, prefiguring the wonderful balm of Baptism, in order to save Mankind from total annihilation. We can agree or disagree about whether or not this took thousands of years or millions of years to accomplish, but the fact that they did happen cannot be set aside without compromising salvation history.
2/3
 
This is why I am more worried about people that seek to limit the account of the flood to only a single region or to make it a mythological tale completely. Firstly the flood does not share the same textual elements that the creation account has which establishes the latter as poetical. The account of the flood is presented in a narrative fashion, which is the method that people of that time used to record their histories, and therefore the literal meaning of the text is that the events it describes actually happened. Secondly, the flood is one of the most important events in the history of the world after Creation and the Incarnation, because it demonstrates the significant and terrible offence of sin in the eyes of God, it marked the occasion of an everlasting covenant with the Almighty God, and it prefigured the ark by which we who live in these present times can be saved by the help of God. Because of these things the actual occurrence of the flood is, in my opinion, just as important as the actual existence of Moses and Abraham.

I also find in this thread a worrying elevation of science, which has certainly helped many people as they lived on Earth, but which I fear has not helped many to find eternal life with God. It is more important to perhaps have incomplete scientific understanding and to be saved than it is to fully grasp the workings of physics and biology yet to have your soul cast into eternal fire. This is why my personal view is to accept the Bible as it stands and to let others huff and puff about how primitive my thinking is and how “anti-science” I might be when it comes to the Big Bang or biogenesis and macro-evolution of species from protozoa. I am completely comfortable with the realization that no matter how wise men and women who study Creation might be, they can never understand it as well as the one who made it, and for that matter neither can I! Wherever it appears that science contradicts Revelation, either I am misunderstanding Revelation or the science is in error. In this way I avoid having my faith called into question every time I watch a documentary about nature.

Anyway, I do appreciate the discussion that was had but I’ve been reading this thread all day and its time for me to go to bed. Peace! 3/3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top