Genesis not to be taken literal

[RobbyS]

No offense, but I’ll trust the academic facts versus the unacademic folly.

Origin of Species*–the book–is a masterpiece of observation. But years ago when I tried to read it as a “new work”, forgetting as much as I could about “darwinism”, I could not find–really–any overarching theory in it. If it implied anything, it was how marvelous was the diversity of things and constant change but also --all in all–was a depiction of a definite fixity beneath the constant change and within the variety a great deal of sameness. Think of a great artist like Picasso whose ingenious brush produces a million different images, some so different from one another that it is hard to accept that they came from the same hand.

 

[MarianD]

*] God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

“Matter can neither be created nor destroyed” - Law of Conservation of Matter

So, this is basically a rewording of that scientific law. Does not disqualify theistic evolution.

*] Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

“Myth” being a story without a spiritual truth behind it (as Pope Pius XII defined it). Genesis uses figurative language, and the quoted statement doesn’t contradict that.

*] Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

Through a literal re-telling, or through figurative language and poetic symbolism? The Pope never said it tells history through literal re-telling.

*] Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

Belief in theistic evolution doesn’t contradict this belief.

*] Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

Belief in theistic evolution doesn’t contradict this belief.

*] The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

Not the beginning of the world. Christ says “At the beginning of creation”

Taken here to mean at the beginning of man’s spiritual journey (when God breathed the soul into the evolved-enough man, Adam). Even if we were to take Genesis as 100% literal, we’d still come to the conclusion that Christ meant “When God breathed the soul into man” when He said “At the beginning of creation”, or else He’d contradict Himself when the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write how God created everything else before man.

*] The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Figurative language. (CCC 390)

*] Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Reason does dictate here, and necessity does require it here since science has proven evolution, thus we’re allowed to interpret figuratively.

*] Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

How does this relate to evolution?

*] After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
*] Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
*] The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

How does this relate to evolution?

*] We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
*] All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

“On matters of faith and morals.” How the world was created is science, and thus they can be fallible. But the fact that the world was created by God is a matter of faith and morals, and that is something they (obviously) unanimously agreed on.

*] The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

“Matter cannot be created nor destroyed”. Agrees again with science, and does not contradict theistic evolution.

*] St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
*] The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

#1: Noah’s Flood has nothing to do with evolution

#2: Clearly, when the Jews said “the entire world”, they meant the world as they knew it. And a flood that happened in the Middle East is not unbelievable at all. Jesus wasn’t going to say “The flood was said to cover the whole world, but there’s actually a couple of other continents you don’t know about across 7 large oceans”. For simplicity’s sake, He stuck to matters of faith and not to science and geology.

*] Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
*] Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

Does not contradict the belief in theistic evolution.

Pope Piux XII took a neutral view on evolution mainly because of the lack of evidence it had at the time (it was still a newborn theory). By the time of Pope John Paul II, as can be seen in the link provided earlier, evolution is now accepted as fact because there is evidence for it.

 

[edwest2]

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

Good day to you.

You are incorrect:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

From the document Communion and Stewardship.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Cruxis117]

You are incorrect:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

From the document Communion and Stewardship.

God bless,
Ed

Interesting, yet I find others who are supportive or at least find no qualms with Evolution. For example:

“Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. . . . I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design. It is accidental to us, not to God.”

— Cardinal John Henry Newman, 1868

 

[Cruxis117]

You are incorrect:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

From the document Communion and Stewardship.

God bless,
Ed

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Good day.

 

[edwest2]

“Evolution has not been scientifically proven” - Pope Benedict

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Calling it a fact is not only premature but it is not possible to verify or disprove the the theory.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Cruxis117]

“Evolution has not been scientifically proven” - Pope Benedict

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Calling it a fact is not only premature but it is not possible to verify or disprove the the theory.

God bless,
Ed

Good sir, what do you think the word “theory” means?

 

[edwest2]

Well, whenver I see the statement: Evolution is a fact, I consider that statement to be incorrect. Further, I see no reason to use the statements of any religious authority to prove or disprove any scientific claim. However, the Pope, well aware of attempts to reduce man to some cosmic accident, has seen fit to make clear and unambiguous remarks about scientific claims to ensure that the faithful are not led away from true facts held by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Cruxis117]

Well, whenver I see the statement: Evolution is a fact, I consider that statement to be incorrect.

God bless,
Ed

Alright, now tell me why. As well as what the word “theory” in scientific terminology means.

 

[MarianD]

Calling it a fact is not only premature but it is not possible to verify or disprove the the theory.

A Scientific theory can rarely be proven because it cannot be observed. Evolution can not be observed unless someone can go back in time, so it will always be a theory.

In the same sense, gravity is a theory. So I guess calling it a fact is premature since we can’t verify or disprove this theory.

 

[jmcrae]

How does this relate to evolution?

Have you considered the implications of the idea that there was no death, for how ever many billions of years before the coming of mankind, and the Original Sin?

The lizards (which simply keep on growing until they die) would have been gigantic!

(Oh, wait … )

 

[Cruxis117]

A Scientific theory can rarely be proven because it cannot be observed. Evolution can not be observed unless someone can go back in time, so it will always be a theory.

In the same sense, gravity is a theory. So I guess calling it a fact is premature since we can’t verify or disprove this theory.

I’m sorry, but that’s a false statement. Evolution has been observed and documented quite extensively. And in scientific terms, the word theory means: “the fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.: music theory, theory of equations.” This can be compared to what most people believe the word theory means: “a speculative or conjectural view of something”.

 

[Nec5]

I don’t see how it would be possible to be a creationist, when so much evidence has been produced, and it’s also quite conclusive. I guess I would consider myself a creation evolutionist, if that makes any sense. Many creationist never come to fathom the immense wonder which our universe contains, because they only acknowledge 6,000 of the 5,000,000,000 years it has existed. In this way I appreciate God’s magnificent creation.

And my original point remains unaddressed. How are we to decide that creation in 6 days is fantasy/metaphor but the raising of the dead, casting out of demons, turning water into wine, and magic healing were literal fact? All of these actions are contrary to modern “scientific” knowledge, yet as Christians we are called to believe them. What’s the deal? It seems to me you’re either in for a penny, in for a pound or you’re out.

 

[rcjones]

I’m sorry rcjones, but frankly you do not have a clear understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is I believe. Evolution is not about proving origins.

The evolution Bible is called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Hello? I think any child can identify the word ‘origin’ in the title. It takes someone really educated to obfuscate it as you are attempting.

The fact that you call it “**the **Theory of Evolution” is evidence enough that you are unfamiliar with the many variations created each time evidence disproves it.

In the explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium, created because there is no evidence of transitional forms, the author makes this brilliant statement:

from memory, so you’ll have to look up the precise words…:

**If the first generation isn’t viable, the next will be. **

Duh… If the first generation isn’t viable, there is no second generation.

 

[Cruxis117]

The evolution Bible is called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Firstly,The Origin of SPECIES, my friend. Not the Origin of Life. You’re stretching the imagination to a rather fine degree. Furthermore, it is not the “Evolution Bible”, considering that while he is often credited with the first proper Evolution Theory, he still got many things wrong. If we only used the Origin of Species, then trust me, we wouldn’t have modern evolution, which also uses work from Mendel. I’m sorry, but you have not an iota of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution entails.

 

[jmcrae]

**If the first generation isn’t viable, the next will be. **

Duh… If the first generation isn’t viable, there is no second generation.

That’s an extremely good point.

 

[RobbyS]

And my original point remains unaddressed. How are we to decide that creation in 6 days is fantasy/metaphor but the raising of the dead, casting out of demons, turning water into wine, and magic healing were literal fact? All of these actions are contrary to modern “scientific” knowledge, yet as Christians we are called to believe them. What’s the deal? It seems to me you’re either in for a penny, in for a pound or you’re out.

We need not think that Genesis was a fantasy/metaphor, even without knowing what the author–whoever that was–intended. Genesis presents a creation “myth” that is more like a theological dissertation. A lot of people think that it was written in the 6th century B.C. because it is so monotheistic. But what is most interesting to me is the nature of the creator God, who unlike the gods of Mesopotamia or Greece, has a paternal or at least patronly relationship with Adam, who is his gardener. Unlike the gods of Gilagamesh he has an affection for mankind. He does not disown mankind after Adam’s disobedience, but leaves us “free” to suffer the consequences of disobedience. Genesis thus reads more like history than myth. Personally I dodge around the numbers because --well, what did the author mean by them? Maybe a fact concealed by them was that early men did live, or were reputed to live longer lives than "modern"men–the facts being obscured by the mists of time. But of course, we have the task of reconciling Genesis with the competing creation myth of the Darwinists, which comes as much from Aristotle as from modern biology, and which assumes something like an eternity of matter. In any case, the first part of Genesis is largely a prologue to the Flood, and I have no doubts about the historicity of that event. Thereafter we are in the theatre of Abraham’s encounter with God, which is the real beginning of the story, with the author brushing aside the whole mythology of Mesopotamia to get to yet another New Beginning.

 

[Kontrak]

Have you considered the implications of the idea that there was no death, for how ever many billions of years before the coming of mankind, and the Original Sin?

I had thought for a long time that Catholics were free to believe in evolution until the above idea popped up. Dinosaurs must have died before man’s fall. Right? And what about Adam and Eve? If they had evolved from a lower animal then those died as well. This is way to high brow for me. Personally, though the idea that 7 days was symbolic language and was not literal is at least one point that is easier for me to reconcile considering there is a lot of that in the Bible. 40 days and 40 nights meaning a long time for one thing.

 

[MarianD]

Have you considered the implications of the idea that there was no death, for how ever many billions of years before the coming of mankind, and the Original Sin?

This can be explained by two possible things.

#1: When God said “you will surely die” if Adam and Eve ate from the tree, it was figurative language for Spiritual death (the death of our relationship with God, AKA sin) just like the tree and the apple are symbols of something else and aren’t literally a tree and an apple.

#2: Once humans got their unique souls after they were fit enough to receive it (once the first man and woman became Homo Sapiens), they were not meant to die. But then they sinned and so they died just like the rest of the creatures on Earth.

I personally believe it’s #1.

 

[rcjones]

Firstly,The Origin of SPECIES, my friend. Not the Origin of Life. You’re stretching the imagination to a rather fine degree. Furthermore, it is not the “Evolution Bible”, considering that while he is often credited with the first proper Evolution Theory, he still got many things wrong. If we only used the Origin of Species, then trust me, we wouldn’t have modern evolution, which also uses work from Mendel. I’m sorry, but you have not an iota of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution entails.

Haha… Modern evolution denies that it speaks of speciation. Today’s definition is that it is a change in the allele densities within a population. Simply defined, when you have more black cats than white cats and later you have more white cats than black cats…THAT’s evolution. I fully understand your double speak. There is no evidence for speciation.

It is this change in allele densities that is claimed as proof of evolution, not that any species has changed into another species by any means at all.

As I said in my first post, evolutionists keep splitting out parts of the theory like trimming the burnt parts off a roast. The definition is so narrow that all it means is change… and change is a fact. But there is nothing left of the roast. No more a-bio-genesis, no more speciation. I was in school when it started to be taught. And then there was a film that showed a single cell spring forth from mud, then changing eventually into man.

You cannot tell me that the definition hasn’t changed in all those years. Back then it included both speciation and a-bio-genesis. Not enough people with memories have died for you to be able to brush it under the rug.

So the plan was to call it a theory, treat it as fact, and marginalize anyone who disagrees. Hmm, wonder where else this has been applied. Ever heard of global warming?