EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[edwest2]

With all due respect, I must disagree with the Rabbi’s view. He makes some interesting observations, but it goes back to some fundamental questions:

1. Did someone just notice, say in the last 10 or 20 years, that the word for “day” in the Bible could be interpreted differently?
2. Why did many in the Catholic Church simply regard the days as six, 24 hour days?

For me, it is quite clear that the writer in Genesis added “and the morning and the evening was” to make clear that he was referring to normal 24 hour days. It did not matter that light from the sun was not yet in existence. It showed continuity in a sense we could understand. In the far north on earth, the sun disappears for months and there is only darkness. This does not change the length of a normal day.

The Rabbi did write something very important: “Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.” That is true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

With all due respect, I must disagree with the Rabbi’s view. He makes some interesting observations, but it goes back to some fundamental questions:

1. Did someone just notice, say in the last 10 or 20 years, that the word for “day” in the Bible could be interpreted differently?
2. Why did many in the Catholic Church simply regard the days as six, 24 hour days?

For me, it is quite clear that the writer in Genesis added “and the morning and the evening was” to make clear that he was referring to normal 24 hour days. It did not matter that light from the sun was not yet in existence. It showed continuity in a sense we could understand. In the far north on earth, the sun disappears for months and there is only darkness. This does not change the length of a normal day.

The Rabbi did write something very important: “Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.” That is true.

Peace,
Ed

I agree. We cannot just disregard constant Catholic teaching. However, our understanding can grow organically. Perhaps there is another layer here to be peeled back that can shed some light on it. I think this is a direction that we should explore to see if it all harmonizes.

 

[edwest2]

Then Genesis should not be looked at in isolation. God does speak to Job, in terms he could understand quite plainly. If you read Humani Generis, strict instructions are given about investigating Biblical claims in light of certain scientific ideas. Also mentioned was the idea that “modern” people of the time somehow assumed that their questions or observations had not been dealt with already and by people more knowledgeable. As someone who writes plausible sounding stories for a living, it is not that difficult to make something impossible seem possible if you know how to do it. Unfortunately, mixing a little truth with some fiction is the formula for propaganda as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Then Genesis should not be looked at in isolation. God does speak to Job, in terms he could understand quite plainly. If you read Humani Generis, strict instructions are given about investigating Biblical claims in light of certain scientific ideas. Also mentioned was the idea that “modern” people of the time somehow assumed that their questions or observations had not been dealt with already and by people more knowledgeable. As someone who writes plausible sounding stories for a living, it is not that difficult to make something impossible seem possible if you know how to do it. Unfortunately, mixing a little truth with some fiction is the formula for propaganda as well.

Peace,
Ed

Agreed. The Bible always has to be read in light of the whole.

 

[mpartyka]

I sometimes think how much easier things would be if God had just consulted me first. All this speculation has its value, of course, but ultimately it comes up against the unavoidable question: Who’s the Master – God or human intelligence? God had a little chat with Job about it.

Here’s the thing.

Say there’s a ball enclosed in a box, and your friend tells you, “The ball in the box is red.” You open the box, and the ball in the box is green. Now you’re faced with the following options:

1. Your friend lied to you.
2. Your friend doesn’t perceive colors properly.
3. You don’t perceive colors properly – but you know from all the times you’ve identified colors before that this cannot be the case.
4. Your friend told you the truth – the ball is red, but it’s red in a way other than the way you initially thought it would be red. So now the question is, “In what way is this green ball red?”

The simple picture presented by Scripture is that everything was created directly by God in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago, and that humanity is a direct creation whose physical and spiritual qualities were directly bestowed and not derived from any other creature. We know this is the simple picture because that’s the picture that keeps popping up again and again in the Fathers.

Well, archaeology and paleontology have opened the box, and guess what? The simple picture presented by Scripture is not how things actually happened! So, now we’re faced with options 1 through 4. 1 and 2 we’re supposed to rule out immediately because God neither lies nor perceives things improperly, so we’re left with options 3 and 4.

Option 3 says we’re not interpreting the evidence correctly. This is the option chosen by “Creation Scientists”. Everything happened exactly as Genesis tells us it did, and we’re just not looking at the evidence in the right way. Problem is, enough evidence has mounted such that we can’t claim option 3 anymore. The world is very, very old. The human race did evolve from earlier ancestor species.

Thus, we are left with option 4, and I would argue that every papal encyclical and theological tract dealing with the subject has been an attempt to make the green ball look red somehow, and most methods haven’t worked worth a darn because there are still some “oldies but goodies” like monogenism that the Church has been understandably shy about letting go of. But it’s time for people to start looking beyond the artificial boundaries that religion has placed upon science and start seeing if we can come up with something that actually works, because if nobody does, that’s the whole ball game right there. People will not accept a Christian paradigm that doesn’t fit all the geological, archaelogical, paleontological, and genetic data we have now. Our minds don’t work that way, nor should they, because therein lies intellectual dishonesty, and no one can or should believe in a religion whose integrity rests upon that.

So, what I’m basically saying here is, “Work with me, people!” because what the Church has given us so far just ain’t gonna hold water.

–Mike

P.S.: When we say, “That doesn’t hold water,” what is “that” supposed to be? Is it a pot, or a boat, or a dam, or something else? I’ve gone totally blank on this.

 

[mich2]

Here’s the thing.

The simple picture presented by Scripture is that everything was created directly by God in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago, and that humanity is a direct creation whose physical and spiritual qualities were directly bestowed and not derived from any other creature. We know this is the simple picture because that’s the picture that keeps popping up again and again in the Fathers.

Well, archaeology and paleontology have opened the box, and guess what? The simple picture presented by Scripture is not how things actually happened! So, now we’re faced with options 1 through 4. 1 and 2 we’re supposed to rule out immediately because God neither lies nor perceives things improperly, so we’re left with options 3 and 4.

Option 3 says we’re not interpreting the evidence correctly. This is the option chosen by “Creation Scientists”. Everything happened exactly as Genesis tells us it did, and we’re just not looking at the evidence in the right way. Problem is, enough evidence has mounted such that we can’t claim option 3 anymore. The world is very, very old. The human race did evolve from earlier ancestor species.

Thus, we are left with option 4, and I would argue that every papal encyclical and theological tract dealing with the subject has been an attempt to make the green ball look red somehow, and most methods haven’t worked worth a darn because there are still some “oldies but goodies” like monogenism that the Church has been understandably shy about letting go of. But it’s time for people to start looking beyond the artificial boundaries that religion has placed upon science and start seeing if we can come up with something that actually works, because if nobody does, that’s the whole ball game right there. People will not accept a Christian paradigm that doesn’t fit all the geological, archaelogical, paleontological, and genetic data we have now. Our minds don’t work that way, nor should they, because therein lies intellectual dishonesty, and no one can or should believe in a religion whose integrity rests upon that.

So, what I’m basically saying here is, “Work with me, people!” because what the Church has given us so far just ain’t gonna hold water.

–Mike

P.S.: When we say, “That doesn’t hold water,” what is “that” supposed to be? Is it a pot, or a boat, or a dam, or something else? I’ve gone totally blank on this.

We could use the scriptures to identify a 4.5 billion years old earth…would it be a correct interpretation is another question.
In Genesis, there are two different definitions for a Day.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The first definition is the time when light hits upon a place on the earth (God called the light “day,” ). This is the time when God
is actively creating, so we’ll call it a Lord’s Day. However a Genesis Day is twice as long as it involves the night time as well (And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.)

Now,if we take the words of Peter: A Day for the Lord (Lord’s Day) is as a thousand years.

The Jews take this also litterally, and so, I “personally” accept it…

chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400

“However, the Talmud states that there is a predestined time when Mashiach
will come. If we are meritorious he may come even before that predestined
time. This “end of time” remains a mystery, yet the Talmud states that it
will be before the Hebrew year 6000. (The Hebrew year at the date of this
publication is 5763.)”

And so 2 Peter 3:8-9 reads:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like
a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow
in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness…”

He is speaking to the chrisitans who are impatiently waiting for the coming
of Christ,having been told that they were living in the last Days…Here,
Peter seems to be claiming, the last Days, as meaning the next couple of
thousands of years, being in accordance with the Jewish Talmud. Therefore,
if 1 Day litterally can be 1,000 years, then if we continue his statement
“and a thousand years are like a day”. Either he is speaking of
timelessness, which is possible, or, if he takes a Day to be 1,000 years in
the litteral sense, then, 1,000 years equalling a Day could also be meant to
be taken litterally. If so, he
must be speaking of 2 separate and disntinct type of Days. The first mention
of Day is symbolically equal to 1,000 years. Now, he maybe saying that 1,000
years “of such a Day” is equal to the 2nd definition of Day, and let “this”
be a "Lord’s Day.
So, 1,000 years of a Day equalling 1,000 years =
364,000,000 years; and this would be equal to a Lord’s Day; and 364 million
years x 7 = 2.5 billion years.Now, if the Genesis Day speaks of
a Lord’s Day plus “morning till evening”, then, the 2.5
billion is to be doubled into 5 billion years.Even closer would be the belief that we are still within the 7th Day, reducing 5 billion by 364 million years (from evening till morning),for Genesis does not mention the evening to morning period in the 7th Day, which is equal to 4.636 billion years.

Certainly, I am speculating; however, it
matches one interpretation of scriptures with scientific data…

Andre

 

[ricmat]

With all due respect, I must disagree with the Rabbi’s view. He makes some interesting observations, but it goes back to some fundamental questions:

1. Did someone just notice, say in the last 10 or 20 years, that the word for “day” in the Bible could be interpreted differently?

I agree. We cannot just disregard constant Catholic teaching. However, our understanding can grow organically. Perhaps there is another layer here to be peeled back that can shed some light on it. I think this is a direction that we should explore to see if it all harmonizes.

Ed, Schroeder makes clear that it’s not just in the last 10 or 20 years that “day” had different meanings in Genesis. Of the many sources he quotes, the latest is 12th century AD.

I agree with Buffalo that we cannot disregard Catholic teaching, and that seeking harmony in this area is a good thing to do. Perhaps nothing will come of it. Perhaps something will come of it. Perhaps something will initially come of it, then later be found to be false. Whatever. God gave us the ability to reason to understand his creation better so that we can better stand in awe of our Creator.

I have read many of Schroeder’s books (a long time ago) and found them to be fascinating.

 

[rad314]

Let’s start with guesses as to “what might actually have happened” and then see if it could be wrangled to fit with Catholic doctrine, or even if Catholic doctrine could be wrangled to fit with it.

Isn’t that exactly what MarcoPolo did in citing the article by PhilVaz? But your objection was that his assumptions weren’t your assumptions.

If your assumptions can’t be reconciled with the Church’s teaching – and one of your assumptions is that you accurately understand the Church’s teaching – then either your assumptions are wrong or the Church’s teaching is wrong. For gain or loss, each of us will decide that for himself.

 

[rad314]

The simple picture presented by Scripture is that everything was created directly by God in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago, and that humanity is a direct creation whose physical and spiritual qualities were directly bestowed and not derived from any other creature. We know this is the simple picture because that’s the picture that keeps popping up again and again in the Fathers.

This is simply not what the Church – i.e. the Catholic Church, just so we both understand – teaches. If you’ve read the articles I cited and my comments following them in #11, there’s nothing to repeat. If you haven’t, . . .

 

[rad314]

The following “solution” to the evolution versus fundamentalist six days of creation debate originates with a rabbi from a consideration of Rosh Hashana as “the birthday of the world.”

If you understand the implications of relativity on the perception of time you’ll begin to appreciate how six days and fifteen billion years can be exactly the same thing (and all to the glory of God).

Try to stay with his argument, I’ve shown it to a few “scientists” (aka atheists) and none has tried to refute it.

This is not to say that God didn’t just do it in six of what we’re accustomed to calling days, and that we’ve got some endtime delusion that makes us believe the “evidence” of bones and stones instead of The Word. But for those who want it both ways or need billions and billions of years to get a handle on creation from nothing this is an appealing analysis:

geraldschroeder.com/age.html

Very impressive. Thanks for pointing it out. Does anyone know whether there are scientists who have either refuted or confirmed his statements concerning the timeline?

 

[edwest2]

Hello,

Has anyone been paying attention? Scientists commenting on a Biblical timeline? How are they supposed to do this? I mean, scientifically.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Hello,

Has anyone been paying attention? Scientists commenting on a Biblical timeline? How are they supposed to do this? I mean, scientifically.

Do you mean that if the Bible indicates that the Earth is >10,000 y/o how are scientists able to address that? Easy! And you know that as well as I do.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think science as it is currently practiced can do that. The assumption is that science is ready to answer questions like a definitive age of the earth. That is an assumption that is only provisional.

If as atheists say, the Bible is not a science book then why would science have anything to say about it? After all, science would only treat it as a book of myths.

The scientific presumption would have to be that nothing described as supernatural in the Bible actually happened, reducing it to a book. A collection of fanciful stories that teach a lesson.

If you are Catholic, the only purpose for “science” to become involved is to show Catholics that it is not literally true. This would only have value to atheists and demean the value of God’s Word. In case you don’t know, the Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth. Finally, all the attempts to deny parts of the Bible through some type of “scientific” explanation only represents an attempt by atheists to get the Church to follow men and not God.

If you are talking about a Bible that does not include the miracles of God, and the person of God, then you are just talking about a book, a secular book, not the Bible.

Some may claim to have evidence but without the deposit of faith held by the Church, human knowledge is missing critical pieces of information.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

Isn’t that exactly what MarcoPolo did in citing the article by PhilVaz? But your objection was that his assumptions weren’t your assumptions.

The assumption of Philvaz to which I object is that Adam and Eve’s kids mated with nonhumans. Surely I’m not the only person who has a problem with the second generation’s taking mates without souls!

–Mike

 

[Namesake]

If as atheists say, the Bible is not a science book then why would science have anything to say about it?

Oh come on Ed. The problem is when creationists and IDers try to get equal billing in science classes in public schools. Then scientists have a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of what is taught.

Otherwise whoever can just do whatever they think is right. When it affects the education of kids it’s everyone’s business. The scientists are required to present the science.

Do you regard the Bible as a science book?

 

[edwest2]

And who will be writing the peer reviewed paper and where will it be published? Nature? Physical Review?

Allow me to illustrate:

(All names and citations are fictional.)

A General Refutation Of Biblical Age of the Earth Information as Presented in the Bible

Authors: P. Merkison and R. Jablonski

In the interest of total disclosure, this study was funded by Keep God out of Public Schools LLC and Not With My Tax Dollars You Don’t, a privately held company.

This paper deals with a common belief that the Bible, in a book titled Genesis, gives 6 twenty-four hour days to create the earth and a man (Biggins, 2003; Harris, et. al, 2005). Since science cannot deal with claimed supernatural entities and supernatural events in particular, we can only deal with the data and the reason for its persistence. Since religion evolved in primitive man (Harper, 2008, Beckwith, 2007, Simms, 2007), certain artifacts have remained regardless of scientific information to the contrary. Clearly, in order to promote a-theistic thinking in line with current scientific models, public school students must be persuaded to abandon this idea.

I am not confident regarding rock dating methods and the general atheist bent of most leading scientists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The assumption of Philvaz to which I object is that Adam and Eve’s kids mated with nonhumans. Surely I’m not the only person who has a problem with the second generation’s taking mates without souls!

–Mike

Agreed. That is a definite problem.

Perhaps I only have 1/1000 of an immortal soul? How does that work?

 

[buffalo]

Oh come on Ed. The problem is when creationists and IDers try to get equal billing in science classes in public schools. Then scientists have a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of what is taught.

Otherwise whoever can just do whatever they think is right. When it affects the education of kids it’s everyone’s business. The scientists are required to present the science.

Do you regard the Bible as a science book?

Here is the solution - only teach empirical science in the classroom. The rest, including evolution in philosophy class.

 

[Namesake]

And who will be writing the peer reviewed paper and where will it be published? Nature? Physical Review?

Allow me to illustrate:

(All names and citations are fictional.)

A General Refutation Of Biblical Age of the Earth Information as Presented in the Bible

Authors: P. Merkison and R. Jablonski

In the interest of total disclosure, this study was funded by Keep God out of Public Schools LLC and Not With My Tax Dollars You Don’t, a privately held company.

This paper deals with a common belief that the Bible, in a book titled Genesis, gives 6 twenty-four hour days to create the earth and a man (Biggins, 2003; Harris, et. al, 2005). Since science cannot deal with claimed supernatural entities and supernatural events in particular, we can only deal with the data and the reason for its persistence. Since religion evolved in primitive man (Harper, 2008, Beckwith, 2007, Simms, 2007), certain artifacts have remained regardless of scientific information to the contrary. Clearly, in order to promote a-theistic thinking in line with current scientific models, public school students must be persuaded to abandon this idea.

I am not confident regarding rock dating methods and the general atheist bent of most leading scientists.

And the real story is much simpler. Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth is X years old. The evidence can be found here…(citing massive amounts of science)

No need for an attack on religion. Just the facts as they exist within science.

 

[reggieM]

The assumption of Philvaz to which I object is that Adam and Eve’s kids mated with nonhumans. Surely I’m not the only person who has a problem with the second generation’s taking mates without souls!

–Mike

You made the claim earlier, as if factual, that human beings *did *evolve from an earlier ancestor species. That proposal does not take into consideration the “ontological leap” that the Holy See rightly warned about. There is nothing in evolutionary evidence that can explain the radical and massive jump from animal mental functions to human consciousness.

So, I wouldn’t say that the evolution of mankind is as irrefutably certain as you’ve made it appear. The fact that you have a problem with the origin of the human soul (and how humans could mate with animals) is a good indicator that you also do not find the human evolutionary story as much of a dogmatic fact as some evolutionists make it appear.