Evolution-Creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CreosMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Nik,
The piont I was making was I was a male, in the past you had reffered to me as miss! …and…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm

Finally the Biblical Commission in a decree issued 30 June, 1909, denies the existence of any solid foundation for the various exegetical systems devised and defended with a show of science to exclude the literal, historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis; in particular, it forbids the teaching of the view that the said three chapters of Genesis contain, not accounts of things which have really happened, but either fables derived from mythologies and the cosmogonies of ancient peoples, and by the sacred author expurgated of all error of polytheism and adapted to monotheistic doctrine, or allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation of objective reality and proposed under the form of history to inculcate historical and philosophical truths, or legends partly historical and partly fictitious freely composed for the instruction and edification of minds. The commission bases its prohibition on the character and historical form of the Book of Genesis, the special nexus of the first three chapters with one another and with those that follow, the almost unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and the traditional sense which, transmitted by the people of Israel, the Church has ever held.

(4) Revelation

As no man witnessed the creation and formation of the universe, all human speculations concerning this subject present only conjectures and hypotheses. In this field we obtain certain knowledge only by Divine revelation. Whether God granted this revelation by way of language, or by vision, or by another more intellectual process, we do not know; all of these methods are possible, and as such they may enter into the exegesis of Gen., i. Again, though very plausible reasons may be advanced for the thesis that God granted such a revelation to the first man, Adam, they are not absolutely convincing; the full instruction as to the origin of the world may have been given at a later period, perhaps only to the inspired writer of the Hexaemeron. If the revelation in question was granted at an earlier time, perhaps immediately after man’s creation, its substance may have been preserved by the aid of a special providence among the ancestors of the Hebrews. While the primitive doctrine degenerated among the races into their respective cosmogonies, modified by their various natural surroundings, one race may have kept alive the spark of Divine truth as it had been received from God in the cradle of humanity. Or, if such a purity of doctrine among the Hebrew ancestors appears to be incompatible with the vagaries of other Semitic cosmogonies, it may be assumed that God partially or wholly repeated His primitive revelation, during the time of the Patriarchs, for instance, or of Moses. At any rate, the attitude of Christian tradition towards the Hexaemeron implies its revealed character; hence, whatever theories may be held as to its transmission, its ultimate source is Divine revelation.
 
Well I’m formally sticking with this conversation, espescially now that I know I’m talking to a monk 🙂

CreosMary:

When I said it’s the best we’ve got, I was refering specifically to science. I’m sorry if you think that’s insulting to scientists who are trying to prove Creationism, but the fact is they’ve got a LONG way to go to gain any serious scientific credibility, and I’m not talking about credibility with scientists, which is another issue entirely. I’m not going to tread lightly around this point just because it might insult some people, just like I don’t tread lightly around people who argue that life doesn’t begin at conception. The fine razor of truth cuts both ways. For the record, I do not believe that the exact, literal Creation of the universe described in Genesis is scientifically acceptable, but I never said it wasn’t a valid basis to work from. Those theories just have more holes than Seattle’s streets at this point.
You mention an "evolutionary force’ mmmmmmmmmm sounds a little like God, a creative force. “God keeps all things in being”
God’s hands are in all things, Brother; all things that are good are a result of God’s plan and touch. What on Earth lead you to believe I rejected that notion? God made me, my soul, at the very instant of my conception, just as He has done for every single human being that has ever lived, beginning with Adam and Eve, from whom we all claim descent. I would accept death before denying any of this. Just because I choose to accept a non-heretical explaination of our origins that fits neatly with the symbolic language of Genesis (and the Catechism does say Genesis uses symbolic language to describe the facts of our origins) does not mean I reject the Truth. I would abandon all scientific explainations in a heartbeat if the Church said they were heretical. As it stands, however, I’m very well centered in orthodoxy.

On a finishing note, although this wasn’t directed at me in particular, the fact that the Jews were, and are, very particular about the transcription of the Word doesn’t mean the Word was describing literal facts, but rather that the Jews take what is being said there very, very seriously. I for one agree with them, and like I said I would go to my death before rejecting the Word.

God bless 🙂
 
Dear Friend,
see my previous post. In 1909 the Biblical comission prohibited any teaching of Genesis that was not LITERAL.
I think the Church has spoken… 😛
God bless and Mary protect you always
Br CreosMary :tiphat:
PS: read carefully…Luv ya’s
 
but didn’t JP2 state that the teaching of evolution is not incompatible with church teaching?
 
Evolution is a religious philosphy. It existed before Darwin.

Evolution has been proven mathematically to be impossible. There just isn’t enough time for evolution to have occurred.

And genetically creatures don’t gain genetic material, they lose genetic material. In other words, creatures don’t become more advanced with each generation, they become less advanced. Viruses for example are genetically unstable. They change because they lose genetic material.

Evolution is a religious myth. It is propagated by those who don’t want to serve the God who created them.
 
Steve Andersen:
but didn’t JP2 state that the teaching of evolution is not incompatible with church teaching?
Dear Steve,
I can not find that statement anywhere, and if the Holy Father had said that I would have heard from my friends with more advanced brains than mine (and I have many).
Even if JP2 had suggested that somewhere, it would not have been ex-cathedra but a personal point of view.
Chris,
Thank you brother, yes I have been reading up on the degradation of the gene pool.
We would all agree that all dogs come from the wolf, however the genetic state of modern dogs is pretty poor, they have only lost information not gained it. I wont comment on cats as I hate the selfish, lazy smelly things.
God bless and Mary protect you always
Br CreosMary
 
Steve Andersen:
but didn’t JP2 state that the teaching of evolution is not incompatible with church teaching?
Dear Steve,
I can not find that statement anywhere,
We would all agree that all dogs come from the wolf, however the genetic state of modern dogs is pretty poor, they have only lost information not gained it.
Dear Brother creos, I don’t know if you’re familiar with this statement by JPII but I think it has alot of impact on the idea of evolution. I rarely hear it talked about in these types of conversations so maybe I’m wrong about it’s significance. He said, and I’m paraphrasing from memory, " in order for life to be raised to a higher state of existence, life that exists in a higher state must lift it up."
Like we are made complete in God, the animal kingdom of which we are a part is made complete in us. But not untill we are in God.
 
CreosMary: First off, the Biblical Commision does not speak infallibly, but it does speak authoritatively for its time. That the Biblical Commision issued such a decree in 1909 is not a matter of dispute. Of course, the article you cite was written in 1910, so there is a lot of catching up to do, most notably with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document more authoritative than a decree by a Commision 100 years ago. From the CCC:
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore *willed *by God.
Seems pretty clear to me, and that’s from 1997. As you know, the Pope signed off on the Catechism, so it’s pretty authoritative if not infallible. The Church has indeed spoken, unless you can show me a more recent document that reverses this teaching from the Catechism.
 
Chris Jacobsen:
Evolution is a religious philosphy. It existed before Darwin.

Evolution has been proven mathematically to be impossible. There just isn’t enough time for evolution to have occurred.

And genetically creatures don’t gain genetic material, they lose genetic material. In other words, creatures don’t become more advanced with each generation, they become less advanced. Viruses for example are genetically unstable. They change because they lose genetic material.

Evolution is a religious myth. It is propagated by those who don’t want to serve the God who created them.
Wha?!?!?!!?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Where are you getting this stuff from? :confused:

"Mathematically impossible”? Balderdash!

Mathematically improbable maybe but it is all a matter of time

And God has a LOT of time

If viruses lost material over time why/how are they still here?

they are destroying millions of fowl in Asia to stop the avian flu
pretty nice work for an organism that is “:genetically unstable”

Evolution shows the greatness, subtlety, and grandeur of Creation

Forgive them father, they know not what they say :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

PS Creatures don’t become more or less “advanced” with each generation……they become better adapted to their environment
 
Forgive them father, they know not what they say :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Funny, I have the same reaction in discussions like this. As a scientist and faithful Catholic, I LOVE evolution because of how beautiful it is. The human mind can’t even conceive of the full beauty of genetics, it truly boggles the mind. The more I learn about genetics and cellular activity, the more I praise God. I remember when I first learned about how mitochondria produce energy, and how they united with our “cellular ancestors” in a symbiotic relationship, and all I could do was smile in amazement and praise God. Only a truly incredible divine being could come up with this stuff, IMO. I stay away from “intelligent design” arguments simply because I think that they lack a certain scientific edge, but I absolutely believe in an intelligent designer, and studying genetics and evolution is one way I worship Him 😃
 
40.png
Ghosty:
CreosMary: First off, the Biblical Commision does not speak infallibly, but it does speak authoritatively for its time. That the Biblical Commision issued such a decree in 1909 is not a matter of dispute. Of course, the article you cite was written in 1910, so there is a lot of catching up to do, most notably with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document more authoritative than a decree by a Commision 100 years ago. From the CCC:
Quote:
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willedby God.
Seems pretty clear to me, and that’s from 1997. As you know, the Pope signed off on the Catechism, so it’s pretty authoritative if not infallible. The Church has indeed spoken, unless you can show me a more recent document that reverses this teaching from the Catechism.
It seems to me a matter of interpretation, I do not see how you come to the conclusion of ‘symbolic language’ to mean evolution. That would mean the magisterium has given evolution the Ok and that is NOT the case!
You can bang your head as often as you want too but you will not upset my Faith in the awesome power of God to create even in an Instant!
 
Yes, man whole and entire is willed by God, meaning that there is no part of man that is “random”. No one here is arguing against this. The creation account in Genesis is indeed symbolic, however, as affirmed by the CCC, which you denied. The Church hasn’t proclaimed evolution to be dogma, but neither has it discounted certain theories as being possible. In fact, Pope Pius XII stated in Humanae Generis:
  1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
According to the Pope, so long as we accept that the soul of man is immediately created by God, we can discuss and debate the origins of man’s body. The Pope did clearly state that certain theories, such as polygenism, are absolutely unacceptable, and he did so in no uncertain terms. If evolution in general were so abhorent, then he would have said as much.

And we’re not banging our heads because we want your faith in God’s power to be shaken, but because some people attack the use of reason even when it compliments faith. Seeing as reason is one of the gifts God bestowed upon humans that sets us apart from other animals, it strikes some of us as somewhat insulting to God’s generosity.
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Dear Friends,
I am a little dissapointed, when ever I suggest that Creation was as literal as the Book of Genesis says it is some of my Catholic friends jeer. As I recall, even Saint Augustine (no liberal) believed that the Creation as related by Genesis was allegorical in nature. As far as I can see it was Adams sin that bought death in to the world so there could be no death before him, therefore no Evolution. I have always wondered how people arrive at that conclusion from the Genesis account. If we were not subject to death before the Fall, why would God set a watch upon the Tree of Life (“shall man also eat of the Tree of Life and live forever?”)? It seems just as reasonable to assume that, absent the Fall, Adam and Eve would have lived their physical lives, then died, and attained Pardise immediately.
I believe in a literal creation by God. I’ve just no idea how He did it.
 
I’m sure glad I stepped out of this one. The problem with discussing evolution with close-minded people is that they assume to accept evolution is to deny God his creative and authoritative rights. This of course is stupidity and hogwash, but the association is so powerful in people’s minds that they will defend it with a fearful tenacity. I have a friend who is a “Bible Christian” and though he’s never read Origin of Species nor Descent of Man he still condemns them both, and Darwin along with them. Furthermore, he’s convinced himself that Darwin, on his deathbed (I don’t know where he got this) renounced evolution. Now, the point of this little digression is this: the association between atheism and evolution is so strong because of poor readers and bad teachers that all the sober reasoning in the world will not change people’s minds. I thank God for my ability to use my reason, and I wonder why others do not do the same, rather than wedge themselves into a literal-interpretation hole in the wall…

Seeing this board makes me sad though. I didn’t expect to find such latent narrowness among fellow Catholics. I don’t mind it when a person is a creationist, but they shouldn’t attack evolution. It is a dependable and wonderful theory, and as someone else on this board has said, even very beautiful. God gave animals and we humans, who have animal bodies, the wonderful ability to adapt. That’s probably one of the best gifts he’s ever given us. It gives us the ability to live where we wish and how we desire, within limits. Yet some people will deny these gifts and will addle their minds to find some sort of tiny ‘crack within the fortress of Darwinism’.

Ahh well. The world can’t be enlightened in a day…
 
I believe everything was created by God, but am not sure how. To me knowing that God did create everything is more important than exactly how he did.
 
I suggest a really good (Catholic) book ‘Creation Rediscovered; Evolution and the importance of the origins debate’ by Gerard J Keane.
In this he explains, amongst many other things, how Pius XII has been misrepresented. He refers to Leo XIII’s 1893 instruction that the literal view of creation must stand until science can prove otherwise, and I dont believe it has.
It is a pity that some (N) take this debate so personally as to refer to those that do not agree with him to be “narrow-minded”
 
I picked up two books, for my 12 & 13 year children, explaining the Biblical truth of Creation. The books are easy reading and geared to their age. Although my children attend Catholic School, much to my surprise, both are/were already developing views leaning towards evolution. These books can be found at the Conservative Book Club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top