Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[fisherman_carl]

Even when I was a kid growing up reading the Bible this thought would nag me in the back of my mind that it seemed like the creation story was based on the Jewish week. Of course there was no way to be sure I thought. When I heard Jimmy Akin expound on the framework hypothesis I was intrigued that I was not the only one to consider this and that there was good reasons to think it true apart from speculation. Jimmy does a good job here explaining the view which is why I posted the link for those interested. It is also interesting that the way the 6 days are divided go back to Thomas Aquinas or earlier. So it is not something that is novel. Akin argues that the creation story was written in a way that even the original audience could recognize it as symbolic. For instance the light being created before the light sources like the sun and stars. Even ancient people knew the light came from the sun. Akin says the author is asserting that God created all these things but the author is writing in a literary framework dividing the first 3 days as the creation of the realms and the second 3 days as populating those realms. I think it is the best interpretation of Genesis that I have heard. And God rests on the 7th day. Do you think God literally rested? Of course this must be symbolic. It reinforced the Sabbath.

Thus, the author, under this view, never intended for anyone to be able to determine the age of the universe from his creation story. Because it is not meant to be read as a chronology, but as an assertion of certain theological truths like God created the universe from nothing. And that he made man and woman in his image.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

thankyou …,

 

[Glark]

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” - Mark 10:6. Here is someone called Jesus claiming that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation.

To this, evolutionists say “Nonsense! Humans didn’t exist until billions of years after the initial creation!” What sort of so-called Christians imply Christ talks nonsense? And why would these so-called Christians follow someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

As for me, I will believe Jesus - he ought to know - everything that exists was “created by him and through him”.

 

[Glark]

Lesson no.1 - Don’t confuse evolution with abiogenesis. They’re two separate spheres of science.

Abiogenesis concerns itself with how the first form of life arose from inanimate matter.

Evolution concerns itself with how all life on earth evolved from that first life-form.

If you want to learn about what the science of evolution teaches, you could try the BioLogos site, which is Catholic. What they don’t know about ToE is probably not worth knowing. There you have access to real scientists and lots of very knowledgeable posters. They welcome anyone who is interested in learning more about evolution.
Atheist online forums can also be very good places to learn. A lot of atheists study evolution like some Christians study the Bible, so they are very knowledgeable on the subject.

Another good creationist site is Creation Ministries International. In way of a caveat, most creationists sites endorse a young earth (as in about 6000 years old), but I am not convinced that the Scriptures say so.

Here are another two creation sites I recommend:

Institute of Creation Research

Evolution News.

On the evolution side, there’s also Talk Origins.

 

[Glark]

“Might refer”? A supposition as to meaning of that phrase seems a fragile basis on which to take such a strident position.

I can’t say it does refer to nested hierarchies.

 

[Rau]

You seem to believe that after the creation of the first life form(s), God just sat back and let it go it’s own way (a bit like blowing up a balloon and letting it go); there was no further intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut from God. His initial creation was left to mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly wander where it will.

No, I’m saying the process might be indistinguishable (by us) from a random process. I don’t presume to understand the specifics of God’s “intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut”. Do you?

 

[Rau]

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” - Mark 10:6. Here is someone called Jesus claiming that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation.

From the beginning of creation or of man? You’ve told us life started 5778 years ago, but that you are ok with a view that the earth could be far, far older. Are you recanting? Or was Jesus in error? Or are you misreading Jesus?

 

[rossum]

yes, that is true. Someone was able to get DNA from a tyrannosaurus rex and the result was a cross between an alligator and a chicken.

Not quite. Mary Schweizer found a complete T. rex bone with fragments of collagen molecules. The collagen sequences matched best with chickens and alligators. The comparison was with protein sequences, not DNA sequences. Collagen is a lot tougher than DNA. All three species are Archosaurs so the match was not unexpected.

rossum

 

[Rau]

The Church says evolution can be accommodated by the Scriptures. Is this an ex cathedra declaration?

Is there an ex cathedra statement declaring what a Catholic must believe (which is the usual context for church teaching) that requires a literal 6x24hour understanding of creation, and that first life on earth occurred 5778 years ago?

 

[rossum]

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” - Mark 10:6. Here is someone called Jesus claiming that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation.

They weren’t made at the “beginning”, the Bible says so. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” No mention of Adam and Eve there. Adam and Eve came later, between 120 and 144 hours after the beginning. The Bible shows that your interpretation is faulty here.

If you are going to use a woodenly literal Bible interpretation then you need to be consistent. Adam and Eve were days after the beginning.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, I’m saying the process might be indistinguishable (by us) from a random process.

True. God could make a cosmic ray zig rather than zag and we would not be able to detect that event. On its new path it could cause a specific mutation in a newly developing embryo/egg/whatever.

rossum

 

[stavros388]

Glark, the majority of scientists are non believers. If you will only read the writings of scientists who are biblical literalists, or even theists, you limit yourself. None of the books I’ve recommended have anything to do with belief in God, they have to do with the evidence for evolution and forming a basic understanding of how it works.

Edit: Also, what makes you think a scientist with a religious perspective will be more objective than one with no particular sacred worldview to uphold? It seems the scientists not confined to fitting the evidence to a particular creation story will be capable of the most objectivity and not the other way around.

 

[Gorgias]

I believe I said Answers in Genesis is a good place to learn creation science. I don’t endorse any anti-Catholic rhetoric.

So, let me get this straight: you’re advocating learning Scriptural exegesis from a source that does not accept the magisterium and its authority to interpret Scripture?

You recognize the inherent inconsistency in that stance, don’t you?

At least they make an attempt to respect the authority of Scripture, which is more than I can say for most evo-Catholics.

No… they reject the authority that interprets Scripture, taking for themselves and rejecting the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

A hippo has a tail like a cedar tree and a croc has fire and smoke coming out of its mouth? Like I said, read the text.

I would recommend that you re-read it. The text doesn’t say it has a tail like a cedar tree – it says he carries his tail like a cedar tree. (Ever see a hippo whip it’s tail around to and fro? Ever see the tip of the tail, which looks like a branch on a tree?)

Seriously, I find it difficult to believe you’ve read the text of Job 40. Would you mind pointing out where, in the text, we see “smoke coming out of [Leviathan’s] mouth”? Here’s the text, from the RSV-CE:

Or Leviathan, wilt thou find a hook that will draw him to land, a line that will hold his tongue fast? Canst thou ring him, or pierce his jaw with a clasp? Will he importune thee with entreaties, or cajole thee with blandishments, till thou makest a covenant that binds him to be thy servant for ever? Wilt thou make a plaything of him, as if he were a tame bird, chain him up to make sport for thy maid-servants? Is he to be divided up among fellow fishermen, sold piece-meal to the merchants? Is that skin a spoil for the net, that head for the fishermen’s cabins? Do but try conclusions with him, and see if the memory of the combat does not keep thee dumb! Fond hope, that must be dashed to the ground for all to see it!

 

[OneSmallFlower]

I’m not sure if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but while I have done only a small amount of studies in Biology, Evolution seems to me to be a matter of second causality.

From our physical point of view, a physical process is going to look natural, i.e., that it follows the laws of physics and biology. It shouldn’t surprise us if how the world and living beings were formed looks like a natural phenomenon, anymore than we should be surprised if our prayers for rain are answered by a near-infinite recess of causalities leading back to the formation of the first cloud and beyond.

Regarding the “Adam and Eve” discussion, it’s important to note that A.) Genesis is mythological in form; Adam and Eve are placeholder names for humankind’s first parents, and B.) the scientific jury is still very much out on whether humans arose in many places simultaneously or in one place and then spread. Unlike the physical evidence for evolution (fossils, etc.), the physical evidence for the exact start of humankind is difficult to find and what we do have gives us a several thousand-year range in which we just have to do our best guesswork.

My advice is not to get too worked up over it, since there’s no way we can really know for sure. The Church and science have a long and compatible history (with the exception of Galileo, who, let’s be honest, was pretty much a huge asshat just begging to get sucker-punched by medieval scientists and churchmen alike). You’re not going to do yourself any favors by trying to deny evolution; it might be “just a theory,” but it’s a theory with an overwhelming amount of evidence. And aside from that, it’s a really cool explanation.

 

[Techno2000]

it says he carries his tail like a cedar tree. (Ever see a hippo whip it’s tail around to and fro? Ever see the tip of the tail, which looks like a branch on a tree?)

A hippopotamus has a tiny little tail, maybe the bible meant to say… he carries his tail like a Twinkie ?

 

[Aloysium]

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” - Mark 10:6. Here is someone called Jesus claiming that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation.

To this, evolutionists say “Nonsense! Humans didn’t exist until billions of years after the initial creation!” What sort of so-called Christians imply Christ talks nonsense? And why would these so-called Christians follow someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

As for me, I will believe Jesus - he ought to know - everything that exists was “created by him and through him”.

Your post got me thinking:

God brings us into existence that we might learn to love and share in His glory. That’s the point of this world, with all its wonders, all the plants and animals. Our creation really could have happened any way God chose, but let’s take the most common evolutionary view. Let’s try to tease out what truth it may contain. Bear in mind that we are created. Who we are, perceiving, thinking, feeling and acting as one person in ourselves, a unity of body, mind and spirit didn’t just happen. And, we were made male and female at the beginning, not because it has any survival value but because it allows for deeper and fuller expressions of love. As participants in this world, what was once a heavenly garden, we were physically formed in time, in a manner not dissimilar from what we see in the single fertilized egg that goes on to produce both a human being and the placenta through which the unborn baby connects to its mother for nurtuance. We came into existence as part of this world. The laws of physics did not determine what we became. Rather it was they which were determined by the Word of God. Whatever else is His will, He has brought all this into being, the universe, the stars, this planet and all life, we included. Exploring the workings of the cosmos, but neglecting our personhood, neglecting our relationship with God, neglecting the Source of our very being, we are left with a materialistic illusion, which is nothing more than nonsense. It is His will and all else follows, be it the galaxies, atoms, time and space, whatever we understand to be out there and within everything.

Then we fell, and that’s another story, tragic and at the same time revealing the depth and awesome truth of His eternal Goodness

 

[Gorgias]

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” - Mark 10:6. Here is someone called Jesus claiming that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation.

Wait – didn’t you claim, upthread, that you were ok with an earth that was billions of years old, while humanity was less than 6000 years old? Now you’re claiming “Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of creation”? Self-contradict much, do ya?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

it says he carries his tail like a cedar tree. (Ever see a hippo whip it’s tail around to and fro? Ever see the tip of the tail, which looks like a branch on a tree?)

A hippopotamus has a tiny little tail, maybe the bible meant to say… he carries his tail like a Twinkie ?

If “one to two feet long” is your idea of “tiny”, I suppose…

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Gorgias:

it says he carries his tail like a cedar tree. (Ever see a hippo whip it’s tail around to and fro? Ever see the tip of the tail, which looks like a branch on a tree?)

A hippopotamus has a tiny little tail, maybe the bible meant to say… he carries his tail like a Twinkie ?

If “one to two feet long” is your idea of “tiny”, I suppose…

The point I’m trying make is compared the size the hippo it looks tiny.Nobody would ever associate it with a cedar tree.