R
Rogerteder
Guest
Those who believe in evolution how do you interpret the creation accounts in Genesis?
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
I don’t “believe” in evolution, I accept the science.
Genesis tells us that God created everything. I believe that.
Peace
Tim
T
Trishie
Guest
I see the ‘days’ as periods of time. God creates in slow evolution. There came a point when God shared something of His Spirit with early humans
Q
quasimodo
Guest
I just posted something like this on a different thread, but I think it fits here too …
To acknowledge that scripture is free of errors is not the same as saying that EVERYTHING the bible says (or assumes) is true.
To Wit: The sky is not a beaten metal bowl with windows in it to let the rain in - which is what scripture “teaches”.
In scripture, we are NOT being taught a scientific understanding of creation and the existence of the different species. that is not what scripture is all about. That is not what the original authors were teaching; it is not what interested them; it is not the truth that they were conveying.
The problem we have today is we don’t read for the same understanding for which scripture was written. Today, we tend to read for modern “scientific-like” accuracy and expect things to be written that way. They weren’t written for literal “scientific” accuracy - they were written to convey deeper meaning and emotion. The significant amount of literal historical “scientific” accuracy is a bonus.
If we try to read the bible to determine modern scientific truth, we will be using the bible in a way utterly foreign to the intention of the authors - they couldn’t have cared less about scientific historical accuracy - they were conveying theological meaning and emotion and God’s will for us.
If you want to take scripture literally with a scientific understanding common (indeed, it is universal) today, you should be able to tell me what was created first … man or plants. Unfortunately, Scripture points in both directions.
To acknowledge that scripture is free of errors is not the same as saying that EVERYTHING the bible says (or assumes) is true.
To Wit: The sky is not a beaten metal bowl with windows in it to let the rain in - which is what scripture “teaches”.
In scripture, we are NOT being taught a scientific understanding of creation and the existence of the different species. that is not what scripture is all about. That is not what the original authors were teaching; it is not what interested them; it is not the truth that they were conveying.
The problem we have today is we don’t read for the same understanding for which scripture was written. Today, we tend to read for modern “scientific-like” accuracy and expect things to be written that way. They weren’t written for literal “scientific” accuracy - they were written to convey deeper meaning and emotion. The significant amount of literal historical “scientific” accuracy is a bonus.
If we try to read the bible to determine modern scientific truth, we will be using the bible in a way utterly foreign to the intention of the authors - they couldn’t have cared less about scientific historical accuracy - they were conveying theological meaning and emotion and God’s will for us.
If you want to take scripture literally with a scientific understanding common (indeed, it is universal) today, you should be able to tell me what was created first … man or plants. Unfortunately, Scripture points in both directions.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I try to see the CAs in Genesis (& and elsewhere in the Bible ?) as theologically-constructed tales which use mythological imagery to proclaim Israel’s own faith.
As for evolution, IMO Darwin was as truly a prophet as any of the Prophets: his gift lay in announcing & interpreting the signs of exceedingly ancient times. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that he was inspired, because one needs inspiration to “see” a creative idea like evolution.From another POV, Darwin’s idea fits into a pattern of 19th-century interest in the ancient past. From a third POV, it was just one of several ideas that were difficult to fit into the CAs. Even in 1859, not all Christians found it a problem for faith - but they are never mentioned: only the usual pair, Samuel Wilberforce versus T.H. Huxley, as though the question could be reduced to the spectacle of Punch thumping Judy
I don’t “believe in” evolution, but I do think that an evolutionary perspective is theologically far more interesting than what Darwinism replaced. A universe 13 thousand million years old does something for the imagination & for Biblical interpretation, & for theological vision, that one aged 6,000 does not. It makes Christ far more interesting.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is an intersect with regard to man.
Dogma - Eve came from Adam, Adam and Eve were our first parents, they had bodily immortality, had preternatural gifts and infused knowledge.
Evolution cannot explain these dogmas and because they are revealed truth we cannot throw them away. There must be a deeper answer. Polygenism is ruled out, dualism is ruled out.
Now God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and placed them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.
Dogma - Eve came from Adam, Adam and Eve were our first parents, they had bodily immortality, had preternatural gifts and infused knowledge.
Evolution cannot explain these dogmas and because they are revealed truth we cannot throw them away. There must be a deeper answer. Polygenism is ruled out, dualism is ruled out.
Now God could have created Adam and Eve supernaturally and placed them in the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not been happening in the universe at the time.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
The text doesnt seem to be denoting anything, but a literal interpretation. I mean there are some “symblic” things(language) yes, but the overall meaning seems literal Pius XII, Leo XIII, Benedict XV all have taught that the literal interpretation must be taken unless there is clear evidence (in the text) that it shouldnt. Its too late to go into ths right now (I was out eating crabs) so i am going to watch tv, pray then go to bed talk to you all tommoorow.
G
garysibio
Guest
Just curious. What is it in Gen 1 & 2 that points to a slow creation? While I realize that the Bible is not intended as a science book, why would the Holy Spirit speak of a 6-day creation if life actually evolved over a long period of time? He could have inspired the writers to use some other terminology yet He chose to inspire them to use language that implies a rapid creation.
IMO, Catholic evolutionists are hooking their wagon to a dying horse.
Gary
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Anyone care to answer this?
G
garysibio
Guest
In the interest of full disclosure I’ve asked it before in other threads and have yet to receive an answer.
Gary
I
Isaacsdad
Guest
First, I believe seventh day even as a day of rest counts as a day for creation. I believe that the days account for stages of time. To me the “facts” of creation are irrelevant. God is the creator and we probably couldn’t understand how he did it so he spares us the detail. That being said, I just avoid creation debates period. Evangelicals make themselves out to look silly when they engage in debates with scientists. Nobody can “prove” the faith in any way, shape, or form.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
The Catholic Church says that we must believe that
Adam and Eve were real humans, the first two humans created by God, they sinned (while no other human was on Earth), and we all came from them.
How God chose to bring the world into being and how God developed the world may very well be beyond our comprehension and therefore there is no contradiction between evolution and creation as described in Genesis because evolutionary theory may be the way the events of creation otherwise took place as recorded in Genesis.
Adam and Eve were real humans, the first two humans created by God, they sinned (while no other human was on Earth), and we all came from them.
How God chose to bring the world into being and how God developed the world may very well be beyond our comprehension and therefore there is no contradiction between evolution and creation as described in Genesis because evolutionary theory may be the way the events of creation otherwise took place as recorded in Genesis.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Since Pius XII and Benedict XVI (and John Paul II) have all acknowledged that evolution is consistent with our faith, there is obviously no conflict between Genesis and evolution.
The issue seems to be that some have presented evolution as both true and contrary to faith. This is an error. True yes, contrary to faith, no.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
Can you briefly outline the errors?
R
richardeekw
Guest
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
Adam, Eve, and Evolution
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
Pope Pius XII declared that "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 . . . 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—but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
Adam, Eve, and Evolution
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
Pope Pius XII declared that "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 . . . 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—but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
B
buffalo
Guest
Uh No! There is a conflict. Eve coming from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatrural gifts and infused knowledge that is in direct conflict with the origins of man evolution claims.
A
AnyoneAnybody
Guest
Those are great conflicts to keep in mind. Thank you!
G
garysibio
Guest
re: papal statements about evolution and Catholicism
The Church and the papacy are not going to make any statement regarding the accuracy of any theory of origins. Infallibility doesn’t cover such matters.
Pope Benedict XVI has made statements condemning materialism and Darwinism is a materialist belief. It not only does not require God, it makes no room for Him.
Even though it is essentially putting lipstick on a pig, it is possible that a Catholic can believe in evolution and not contradict any Catholic teaching if he interjects God into the process. However, that is not what is taught in the schools nor will you find God mentioned in texts which teach evolution. On the other hand, you can believe that little green men carved the face on Mars or that Elvis Presley is flipping burgers at a Hardees in Lansing, Michigan and not contradict any tenets of Catholicism. In other words, just because you can twist a theory around so that it doesn’t contradict Catholicism, doesn’t mean the theory is true.
By the way, I’m still waiting for someone who sees evolution in Gen 1-2 explain to me what about that text alludes to a lengthy process of evolution.
Gary
The Church and the papacy are not going to make any statement regarding the accuracy of any theory of origins. Infallibility doesn’t cover such matters.
Pope Benedict XVI has made statements condemning materialism and Darwinism is a materialist belief. It not only does not require God, it makes no room for Him.
Even though it is essentially putting lipstick on a pig, it is possible that a Catholic can believe in evolution and not contradict any Catholic teaching if he interjects God into the process. However, that is not what is taught in the schools nor will you find God mentioned in texts which teach evolution. On the other hand, you can believe that little green men carved the face on Mars or that Elvis Presley is flipping burgers at a Hardees in Lansing, Michigan and not contradict any tenets of Catholicism. In other words, just because you can twist a theory around so that it doesn’t contradict Catholicism, doesn’t mean the theory is true.
By the way, I’m still waiting for someone who sees evolution in Gen 1-2 explain to me what about that text alludes to a lengthy process of evolution.
Gary
R
Rogerteder
Guest
i agree I cant see anything that even suggest evolution.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Nothing that I see. But as you said, the Bible is not a science book.
Let me ask you this question - if the Holy Spirit didn’t indicate a slow creation, why would the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, allow Catholics to accept the idea that the earth/universe are old and that evolution happens?
That is truly your O.
Peace
Tim
- Status