Evolution according to the Catholic Church

[OurLadyofSorrows]

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t

Who thought that?
Why cant God describe the creation of evolution.
For what its worth I dont buy into the polarised argument either or . That is a fundamentalists interpretation.

 

[buffalo]

The issue is microevolution, aka adaptations and macroevolution (universal common descent). No one has an issue with micro. Macro is not empirically proven.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

OurLadyofSorrows:

Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on your approach to the text.

Well, it doesn’t describe evolution. I’m not aware of any other options.

 

[buffalo]

 

[Freddy]

There is no science to say how abiogenesis could happen, that is life from no life. Somehow life has to come into existence before it can evolve.

There’s a lot of science to say how it could happen. But not yet how it did happen. However it occurred, it won’t deny God’s existence.

 

[buffalo]

Nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution.

Eve formed from the rib of Adam?

 

[buffalo]

There’s a lot of science to say how it could happen. But not yet how it did happen. However it occurred, it won’t deny God’s existence.

God could have done it anyway He wanted. The issue is, what did He do.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t

Who thought that?
Why cant God describe the creation of evolution.
For what its worth I dont buy into the polarised argument either or . That is a fundamentalists interpretation.

He could have done so. But He didn’t. And again, I don’t know of any process other than creationism or evolution. I’m afraid it is either/or. And yet again…whichever you choose, it doesn’t deny God.

 

[QuietKarlos]

So what is this video actually saying? Is it saying that the earth was created in 6 days. I don’t really understand.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Freddy:

OurLadyofSorrows:

Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on your approach to the text.

Well, it doesn’t describe evolution. I’m not aware of any other options.

Well, we can choose an option that it’s not describing a literal method at all but rather God’s sovereignty over creation and perhaps some type of hierarchy.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Wesrock:

Freddy:

OurLadyofSorrows:

Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on your approach to the text.

Well, it doesn’t describe evolution. I’m not aware of any other options.

Well, we can choose an option that it’s not describing a literal method at all but rather God’s sovereignty over creation and perhaps some type of hierarchy.

Why not the correct process? The actual one. Because it does seem as if someone who didn’t know how it was done simply made it up. And if you put in a sequence it’s pretty hard to ignore that. And now we have people joining the thread who think it’s literally true.

Don’t you find that depressing?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Freddy:

Wesrock:

Freddy:

OurLadyofSorrows:

Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.

And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on your approach to the text.

Well, it doesn’t describe evolution. I’m not aware of any other options.

Well, we can choose an option that it’s not describing a literal method at all but rather God’s sovereignty over creation and perhaps some type of hierarchy.

Why not the correct process? The actual one.

Because its immaterial to the content and purpose.

Because it does seem as if someone who didn’t know how it was done simply made it up.

The person who wrote it of course didn’t know the most accurate scientific model for cosmology and the origin of species. That doesn’t mean the narrative is strictly made up or purposeless.

And now we have people joining the thread who think it’s literally true.

Don’t you find that depressing?

It doesn’t get to me like it did when I was younger.

 

[kapp19]

As usual, Thomas is very helpful… on the meaning of the days of creation. “Evolution!” is sort of missing the point… as if Moses was desperately trying to tell Israel about the wonders of the Mesozoic era rather than about how God actually has a plan for how the universe works.

Here: SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Prima Pars (Questions 65-74)

Also, for those who are really geeking out about this stuff (or are very distressed/confused), this is another excellent resource, which goes into all this stuff at length: https://www.thomisticevolution.org/

 

[kapp19]

that whales are mammals

For the sake of argument, I say a whale is a fish - it lives in the ocean and swims with fins. It could be called something else based on different criteria but… it need not be.

 

[buffalo]

So what is this video actually saying? Is it saying that the earth was created in 6 days. I don’t really understand.

He is saying that Genesis should be understood as history.

 

[mary77]

Devised by who?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Is it saying that the earth was created in 6 days.

If God lived in New York, his day would be 24 hours long.

Why would God measure his day by some almost insignificant star and planet that he has created? There could be a couple of hundred billion galaxies in our universe. There could be a billion trillion stars in the universe. How does God measure his day?

It is said that a day to God is like a thousand years to us. A thousand years to us is 365,000 days in round figures. Who knows?

 

[niceatheist]

The issue is microevolution, aka adaptations and macroevolution (universal common descent). No one has an issue with micro. Macro is not empirically proven.

Since we’ve actually witnessed speciation, this is simply not a true statement.

 

[niceatheist]

Eric_Hyom:

There is no science to say how abiogenesis could happen, that is life from no life. Somehow life has to come into existence before it can evolve.

There’s a lot of science to say how it could happen. But not yet how it did happen. However it occurred, it won’t deny God’s existence.

Nothing in science can deny God’s existence. That’s not even the purpose of science. Science is essentially agnostic. While I may have some philosophical problems with theistic evolution, it is not in any way incompatible with evolution itself.

The problem isn’t that evolution somehow disproves God, the problem is that it falsifies certain interpretations of Scripture, and when those insist on reading the Bible literally as an essential requirement of being a Christian, then that creates the dilemma (a false one, I think). You can’t blame Darwin or Dawkins for that, you have to put the blame firmly where it sits; with those that advocate for a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

Since we’ve actually witnessed speciation, this is simply not a true statement.

Speciation is lineage splitting with subsequent loss of genetic information and ability once had leading to extinction.