Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh no, you’re spot-on in the timeline, cpayne. Suger’s architecture and the Scholasticists were brilliant. I don’t know about attributing any of the reawakening to religion or secularity though, nor do I think it matters.

Back to the topic! Right ho.
 
Yes when Christ spoke He always spoke the Truth for our benefit

But he clearly often used metaphor and analogy
Or do you hold that the parables are literally true and that there really was once a man who had 3 servants etc?

Would it matter to your faith one iota if there were or weren’t?

To me it is the same with evolution; a vast complex process spanning unimaginable eons that to the Creator was as simple as molding clay.

Despite your protests to the contrary it heightens my faith does not detract from it.

Your mileage may vary and that is your right.
But please don’t tell fellow Christians (or worse yet unbelievers) that it is your way or nothing. I don’t think that is good apologetics.
:twocents:
Well, once again, unless I’m the Pope and someone forgot to tell me, I am not able to establish a “my way.” Once again, Evolution cannot be proven. The direct evidence of fire = hot can be proven by anybody. Evolution cannot and not because it’s complicated.

Next, I will not accept Bible interpretation by anyone named blxbiz - the 3rd or some other made up name. The Catholic Church has an established canon that I follow. I trust the Pope and the Church bodies that explore such issues as evolution will add clarity to the subject, but, so far, Pope Benedict has “been sending mixed signals” about evolution according to a published article.

Lastly, in studying science, the Holy Bible comes first. All scripture is inspired by God and He is the first cause and the eyewitness.

I should point out to my brothers and sisters in Christ that miracles happen all the time. Saints are not made saints by unanimous vote. There is a lengthy process of investigation and miracles must be attributed to that person. The evidence is examined and much like in a court trial, there is even a person who argues against the evidence. Once all the medical professionals and other witnesses are convinced that the miracle is beyond any natural cause, a final report and recommendation is sent to the Pope.

My surety is that the Church will have the final say in this matter.

God bless,
Ed
 
Dear Edwest2: First of all, let me say sincerely that I admire your patience and persistence. However, it’s taken me a while to figure out exactly where we keep disagreeing, and where I suspect we will continue to disagree.

You keep using phrases such as “I’ll stick with the Scripture,” “I’ll stay with what the Bible says,” and so on. I think it would be more charitable to your fellow Christians who are arguing with you—and also more accurate—if you inserted the words, “I’ll stick with MY INTERPRETATION OF the Scripture,” “I’ll stay with MY INTERPRETATION OF what the Bible says.”

Of course, once you do that, your arguments would tend to lose some of their authority, so I suspect you will not agree to do so. However, at least you would be extending to other Christians such as steveandersen and myself the benefit of the doubt—in other words, you would be saying, “I’m sticking with my interpretation, but at least I would admit that you others might also accept the authority of the Scriptures.”

If you were to do this, the argument would become, “This is my interpretation of the Scriptures as opposed to yours,” rather than what it is now: “It’s the Bible as opposed to you others and your faith in evolution.” The general tone, as steveandersen has pointed out, has become, “It’s my way or the highway”—and it doesn’t help if the response is, “That’s because my way is the [only] Bible way.”

In his commentary on Genesis, Augustine wrote very wise words on this matter:

“O my God, Light of my eyes in darkness, since I believe in these commandments and confess them to be true with all my heart, how can it harm me that it should be possible to interpret these words in several ways, all of which may yet be true? How can it harm me if I understand the writer’s meaning in a different sense from that in which another understands it?. . . . But the truths which those words contain appear to different inquirers in a different light, and of all the meanings that they can bear which of us can lay his finger upon one and say that it is what Moses had in mind and what he meant us to understand by his words? Can he say this with as much confidence as he would say that what Moses wrote is the truth, whether he had that particular meaning in mind or another? . . . . When so many meanings, all of them acceptable as true, can be extracted from the words that Moses wrote, do you not see how foolish it is to make a bold assertion that one in particular is the one he had in mind? Do you not see how foolish it is to enter into mischievous arguments which are an offense against that very charity for the sake of which he wrote every one of the words that we are trying to explain?”

I agree that discussing the proper interpretation of the Creation narrative is important. But it’s also important to remember that that’s what we’re discussing: INTERPRETATION—not “belief in the Bible” vs. “non-belief.”
 
It’s interesting how the Theory of Evolution is presented as such a “done deal” by some on these forums, even to the point of one writer saying: “we [Catholics] will just have to learn to live with it.” This does not sound like an impartial exchange but more of a chess game where: “Hey believers, the Pope says it’s OK so you’re stuck.”

As I just wrote, Pope Benedict has made published statements about evolution that have been summarized by the press as “mixed signals.” I am waiting for the Church to clarify.

I am not a Bible Scholar or Theologian so I don’t see how anything I write can have anymore weight than anyone else here. It puzzles me that anyone else would either. Just as I read everyone’s posts and agree or disagree as I see fit, doesn’t everyone else do the same?

What I do object to is the indoctrination going on here. The constant harping on the same points about evolution and the constant attempts to “evangelize” any who do not believe in it.

The silly analogies about setting your hair on fire can (but shouldn’t) be done by anyone. That is a non-sequiter comparison. If I can set my hair on fire that somehow validates evolution? How about: “He’s as honest as the day is long.”?

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the topic of evolution is not a friendly discussion and it is one sided. “Do you believe yet? How about now? Or now? You don’t believe yet? Well, I’m not leaving until everybody here believes in evolution.”

As far as I’m (me, as in, me) concerned, it’s gonna be a long wait.

God bless,
Ed

P.S.
The views expressed are my views. I have no power or authority over you.
 
As I just wrote, Pope Benedict has made published statements about evolution that have been summarized by the press as “mixed signals.” I am waiting for the Church to clarify.
As far as i can tell, the **Catholic Church **has made a rulling that evolution is not necessarily agains’t **Church teaching **, so long as we accept that the “soul” was created by God and that God created the Universe. This isn’t just an opinion; the Pope is making a very important and delicate statement about what is acceptable for us to believe as Catholics, and what is not. The Pope has absolute authority on this matter; not you. Plus the Pope is probably alot more knoledgeble of theology then all of us put together.

So there can only be two conculsions.

Your right; the Pope is a liar, and he has compromised our faith.

or

You’re wrong, and you are going agains’t Authoritive Church teaching, when you say that evolution goes agains’t the Catholic faith.

You are practicing the error of solo-scripture.
 
Here is the article. You can read the Pope’s words for yourself:

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

God bless,
Ed
I’m not 100% sold on what the Times Online presents to the public. A quote from the link provided by Ed states:

From Times Online
April 12, 2007
Pope stokes debate on Darwin and evolution


*". . .But last year, Benedict fired his chief astronomer, Father George Coyne, after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in The Tablet. The sacking was interpreted by commentators as a clear endorsement for intelligent design." *
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece


ANSA published an article 2006-08-25 where it stated:

*Coyne, who is undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer, has been forced to quit because of the pressures of work at a prestigious astronomy lab that has offshoots all over the world, including Arizona in the US .

"Shortly before filing his retirement request this month, the stargazer penned an article for the authoritative science monthly Newton in which he said “God isn’t a designer and life is the fruit of billions of attempts.”

“People who want to see designers…should go to Milan or, if they’re looking for engineers, to Dubai where they’re building a whole new city,” Coyne wrote.

The Vatican has denied a report in the London-based Daily Mail that the ailing prelate was “removed” because he had “irritated” the pope.*
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-08-25_1258007.html (This article is no longer available to the public)
Here is the website though…
ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/english.html
http://ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/english.html

I located this information a long time ago on this blog under the heading Coyne Undergoing Chemotherapy
redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/08/coyne-undergoing-chemotherapy.html
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/08/coyne-undergoing-chemotherapy.html
 
Here is the article. You can read the Pope’s words for yourself:

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

God bless,
Ed
This article only says that evolution cannot be proven scientifically.
It does not say, however, that “evolution” is incompatible with the Catholic faith; which is what you seem to have been implying .
What the Pope is saying, in relation of evolution being a provable theory, is his opinions about the provability of the evolutionary theory; it is not a “statement of faith”. He is not contradicting Pope Johns previous statements about the compatibilllity of evolution and the Catholic-faith.
 
You emphasize evolution but not the other realm of reason that falls outside of science. You also hold steadfastly to Pope John Paul II’s remark that “evolution is more than a hypothesis.”

What Pope Benedict is saying is that there is Creation and there is science. Evolution cannot remove God from the equation. Apparently, some evidence exists that something happened along with Creation.

You can believe what you wish.

God bless,
Ed
 
You also hold steadfastly to Pope John Paul II’s remark that “evolution is more than a hypothesis.”

What Pope Benedict is saying is that there is Creation and there is science. Evolution cannot remove God from the equation. .
You can believe what you wish.
God bless,
Ed
No Theistic Evolutionist on this thread has ever denied that God created the world. They have denied that there is no evidence for evolution; but they have mostly denied you interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not.

Pope John, said that it is okay to be a “Theistic evolutionist” as well as a believer in a literal 6 day creation; he also said that evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith. That is the most important part.

Your insistents that i must choose one or the other, is false.

Pope bennedict seems to say that we must be open minded, and that we must not just except evolution just because some scientists says so; and neither should i believe in a literal 6 day creation, just because you say that it is incompatible with my faith.

Peace.
 
Here is what Catholics are taught to acknowledge with the first three books of Genesis:
  1. the creation of all things out of nothing by God at the beginning of time…and including time
  2. the special creation of man.
  3. the creation of woman from man.
  4. that all of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings – Adam and Eve.
  5. that Adam and Eve were created in an original state of holiness, justice, and immortality.
  6. that a Divine Command was laid upon man to prove his obedience to God.
  7. the transgression of that Divine Command at the instigation of Satan.
  8. the loss of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our 1st parents, because of their disobedience – Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise.
  9. the promise of a future Redeemer, a Savior – Gen 3:15, the protoevangelium, the first “good news.”
Source: “The Sources of Catholic Dogma,” Denzinger: #2123

Corresponding references in the Catechism for the above nine teachings:
  1. CCC #’s 296-299
  2. CCC #’s 355-358
  3. CCC #’s 371
  4. CCC #’s 54-55, 359-360, 375, 390-392, 402-405, 407, 416-417, 419
  5. CCC #’s 374-379, 384, 398, 415-416
  6. CCC #’s 396-397, 399
  7. CCC #’s 379, 390-392, 394-395, 397-398, 413-415
  8. CCC #’s 379, 390, 399-400, 410
  9. CCC #’s 410-411
 
"Here is what Catholics are taught to acknowledge with the first three books of Genesis:
  1. the creation of all things out of nothing by God at the beginning of time…and including time
  2. the special creation of man.
  3. the creation of woman from man.
  4. that all of humanity is descended from an original pair of human beings – Adam and Eve.
  5. that Adam and Eve were created in an original state of holiness, justice, and immortality.
  6. that a Divine Command was laid upon man to prove his obedience to God.
  7. the transgression of that Divine Command at the instigation of Satan.
  8. the loss of the state of holiness, justice, and immortality of our 1st parents, because of their disobedience – Adam and Eve were kicked out of Paradise.
  9. the promise of a future Redeemer, a Savior – Gen 3:15, the protoevangelium, the first “good news.”
Source: “The Sources of Catholic Dogma,” Denzinger: #2123

Corresponding references in the Catechism for the above nine teachings:
  1. CCC #’s 296-299
  2. CCC #’s 355-358
  3. CCC #’s 371
  4. CCC #’s 54-55, 359-360, 375, 390-392, 402-405, 407, 416-417, 419
  5. CCC #’s 374-379, 384, 398, 415-416
  6. CCC #’s 396-397, 399
  7. CCC #’s 379, 390-392, 394-395, 397-398, 413-415
  8. CCC #’s 379, 390, 399-400, 410
  9. CCC #’s 410-411"
Now, will one of you evolutionists please explain how all of this fits in with the idea of the first ape-man being born into a family of apes. Was this ape-man born in a state holiness, justice and immortality? Is this paradise the jungle where animals are killing each other? How do we explain this apparent conflict?

As far as being kicked out of paradise, do evolutionists believe in that concept? It is my impression that evolutionists think that it was just business as usual: living, suffering and dying. Nothing changed.

There is a real conflict here. How can one adhere to the above articles of faith, and still believe that the first man was born into a family of simians? Where do evolutionists believe the first woman came from? How was she introduced to the first man? Do you believe that she evolved also? If so, she would have been half ape also, right?

People can believe what they wish. But the fact is, Genesis is in no way compatible with evolution. By evolution, I mean the idea of humans descending from apes, monkeys, or whatever you people believe. Maybe some of you are descended from apes, but I know that I’m not.
 
Dear Folks: Believing that evolution is a fact of nature, I have no problem with the above teachings of the CC except for the one word “immortality” in # 5. Anyone want to tackle that? In what way were our primal parents immortal?
 
Whatever the best answer is to these theological objections, this doesn’t deny the fact that the Popes since Pius XII state human evolution is compatible with Catholic faith. Cardinal Ratzinger:

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (In the Beginning: Commentary on Genesis 1-3)

How it all fits is basically up to you to figure out. Denying science is not an option since the Church upholds faith and reason together.

The book Origin of the Human Species by Catholic philosopher Dennis Bonnette explains “immortality” this way:

St. Augustine notes that the attendant “preternatural gift of immortality” should be understood as the possibility of not dying, rather than as being the impossibility of dying (Ott, 104). The gift of immortality does not contradict every physical substance’s potential corruptibility, its composition of matter and form. The possible immortality of our first parents in no way opposes the dictum, “every man is mortal.” This famed syllogistic axiom merely states the potentially corruptible character of human hylemorphic nature. Ott maintains that the associated gift of impassibility means “the possibility of remaining free from suffering” (Ott, 104). The preternatural gifts of integrity and immortality seem to violate early humans’ natural condition. We do not easily control our passions, nor do we possess bodily immortality. But the proper ordering of elements in human nature that constitutes the gift of integrity is nature’s perfection, not its contradiction. So too, immortality, the possibility of not dying, entails the possibility of continued life. Life is the first act and perfection of any living nature, not its contradiction.

From the standpoint of intrinsic finality, the proof that such gifts were praeter-natural is the dismal fact that they have been lost. If they were natural properties flowing from human nature, we could never have lost them. The preternatural gifts of integrity and immortality are beyond human nature. They represent simply the ultimate natural perfection of human nature, awaiting eschatological realization. Predictably, the fossil record gives no evidence of such gifts. Still, revelation presents no intellectual scandal if it maintains our first parents possessed them.

Further, evolutionary science sees the broad picture of human origins taking place over a time-frame measured in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. It cannot focus on events affecting a single pair of humans at a given point in time. Anthropological data and theories are so general that they cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve, unless even the broad trends of such data are shown to oppose such particulars’ possibilities. Speculation based upon present data can, at best, indicate the nature and activities of early humans, pointing to largely undefined populations and imprecise time periods. It cannot address with precision the conditions of existence of a single pair of humans at a particular, distant-past time. It cannot exclude, a priori, the possibility of miraculous divine intervention whose reality falls entirely outside the fossil record.

This is a summary from Bonnette’s book and Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Phil P
 
There was a quote I wanted to add in that was stated from one of the early church fathers, Athanasius I think it was… I don’t remember it exactly (I’ll try to search for the exact wording) so please be patient until I find it… but here’s the gist of what was stated:

the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” -** Athanasius** (summarized)

The Church has always taught this, and the sacred scripture itself teaches that the entirety of all things were created within a week and that the world does not move because it is the center of the universe and that the universe revolves around it…

It’s only these recent new-age philosophies within the last 500 years where we’ve deterred from the original teachings… the Church refuses to make official statements on this “new information” and She refuses to annul the original teachings of geocentrism and special creation.

The Church now seems solely concerned, officially, with simply teaching and doing what is necessary for salvation itself… not for the teachings of all truth. I can’t say this is a good thing, but I can say that salvation IS the ultimate goal and should always be put above the official teachings of simple truths such as the specifics of origin.

Catholics must not deny the judgement God placed on this world in the deluge in the time of Noah just as we must not deny the judgement placed on all mankind by being cast out from Paradise. Adam was created immortal, good and just; God took away the immortality when Adam tossed out his justness and goodness by denying the rules the Lord God laid out to him. These are PROOFS that God DOES make judgement for all mankind and must not be cast aside simply because they don’t fit in with the majority of our modern idiologies.

If we deny these judgements cast down from God, then we would be denying God himself. Genesis is not a fantasy and it is not simply allegorical or metaphorical. The Church has always taught this since the beginning with Peter and the Apostles and She refuses to annul these teachings because they are still what is believed.

The reason the Church won’t make an official statement on which side is to be taught, is because there ARE many faithful Catholics that believe so dearly in the scientific “interpretations” of the day that they simply would deny faith entirely if the Church denies evolution. This means there will be a loss of those “faithful” because of the declaration of truth and the issue is… the Church wants to save as many souls as possible. This is why all the recent popes haven’t made any “ex cathedra” teachings on which side is telling the absolute truth.
40.png
cpayne:
Dear Folks: Believing that evolution is a fact of nature, I have no problem with the above teachings of the CC except for the one word “immortality” in # 5. Anyone want to tackle that? In what way were our primal parents immortal?
I’d be glad to assist!

Through Original Sin, Adam’s act that separated mankind from God which also ended up getting booted out from the Garden of Eden, death was introduced into the world. God created Adam immortal, it is through Adam’s treason that he became mortal. This is simply the teaching of the Church and it is to be believed by all the faithful. Specifically stated in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Let me explain as it is stated in my Compendium for the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

"72. *What was the original condition of the human person according to the plan of God?

In creating man and woman God had given them a special participation in his own divine life in holiness and justice. In the plan of God they would not have had to suffer or die. Furthermore, a perfect harmony held sway within the human person, a harmony between creature and Creator, between man and woman, as well as between the first human couple and all of creation.*" - Compendium for the Cathechism of the Catholic Church page #25

I hope this helps!
 
Thanks. Thought-provoking quote. How’d you find it so fast?

(The question was directed to PhilV, but the comment also to Koru.)
 
Thanks. Thought-provoking quote. How’d you find it so fast?

(The question was directed to PhilV, but the comment also to Koru.)
I have the books and stuff right here beside me, and I know where to look 🙂

If you have any other thought-provoking queries, I’ll be glad to help in any way possible.
 
Koru << The Church has always taught this, and the sacred scripture itself teaches that the entirety of all things were created within a week and that the world does not move because it is the center of the universe and that the universe revolves around it… >>

And I quote Cardinal Schonborn again:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Let’s summarize, Cardinal Schonborn says:

– Six-day creationism or “the earth is 6000 years old” is “nonsense”
– Genesis is not making literal chronological and scientific statements
– attempting to use science for a young earth (or geocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of unbelievers, patently opposed to reason, and makes the faith look ridiculous

Your response to Schonborn was what again?

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top