Genesis v Evolution

[inthecloud]

BTW the idea of a first modern man is really scientific, there was a Adam.
Fundamentalists have not realized that the evolutive mutation that created the first modern man, the biological Adam appeared in some prehistoric man in Africa, and he was so sucessful that eventually his genes, (and his original sin if you are a believer) disseminated around all the human species. Every person alive today descend from that person who according to genetic and linguistic studies might have lived about 100,000 years ago.
There is a interestic theory that links the Paradise and the Deluge as memories not only of ancient Mesopotamia but also of Africa and and prehistoric Yemen and the Red Sea. And the chaos brought by the end of the last ice age.
Personally I found the Book of Genesis much more powerful and exciting when read in the light of modern science. Once you stop reading it literaly the similarities with modern scientific findings are so striking that even if I’m willing to think that the writters were having some extraodinary (GOD breathed if you believe) insights that were maybe too much for the minds of the ancient human writers to registrer. They did the best job posible. In my mind Genesis, the Alpha book is like Revelations the Omega book, a prophetic book, they were prophetizing a past they could not see in person, and only register through vague oral histories. And prophecies never are literal, they have to be interpreted.

 

[PhilVaz]

cloud << Personally I found the Book of Genesis much more powerful and exciting when read in the light of modern science. Once you stop reading it literaly the similarities with modern scientific findings are so striking that even if I’m willing to think that the writters were having some extraodinary (GOD breathed if you believe) insights that were maybe too much for the minds of the ancient human writers to registrer. >>

There are problems with reading Genesis in light of modern science, commonly called scientific “concordism” :

“If asked about his physical surroundings or about the physical world at large, the typical Israelite would have given a reply very irritating to the modern mind. It is irritating to say the least to hear that the earth is a flat disk, the sky an inverted hard bowl, and that the two form a vast tent-like structure. Of course, other inhabitants of the ancient Near-East would have given similar answers…To be sure, much the same would have been done by a typical ancient Egyptian and Babylonian…The hardness of the sky, but especially the immobility of the earth, had to appear all the more a divinely ordained physical fact as, according to the Bible, a mere man, Joshua, could be authorized by God to stop the sun and the moon in their tracks and, apparently, for a whole day…Obviously, to modern eyes dazzled by space rockets cruising along ‘world lines’ set by Einstein’s four-dimensional cosmology nothing could seem more jarring than the Bible’s physical world, which is little more than a glorified tent. To that tent the Bible assigns the sky as its cover and the earth as its floor, though hardly in a consistent way. In Genesis 1 the sky is a firmament, that is, a hard metal bowl, whereas in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 45:24 it is more like a canvas that can be stretched out…Herein lies one of the non-trivially unscientific aspects of the world as described in the Bible…Well before the advent of modern science, and indeed of heliocentrism, the contrast between that biblical world-tent and the world of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic geocentrism had to appear enormous.” (Fr. Stanley Jaki, O.S.B., a distinguished Hungarian physicist and Benedictine theologian, from his Bible and Science, pages 19-25)

But I am very interested in exploring (perhaps in another thread) this idea that “Haught and modern theologians have it right” and the traditional teaching on Adam/Eve and original sin is misguided, simplistic, error, wrong, or whatever.

My position on original sin is here, written in 1996 but maybe I was an ignorant fundy Catholic apologist back then. I simply quote the Catechism, Ludwig Ott (De Fide teaching), the main biblical texts, and the Church Fathers.

Phil P

 

[mangy_dog]

I can only reference matter as being perceptible, tangible, physical substance. Which is temporary. If energy is tied to or directly relates to matter, than it to is temporary. All that which is visible, tangible and physical - is temporary. What is eternal is the realm of our Lord, heaven…our souls. Can we apply physical sciences to our soul or to heaven? Gee, I don’t know but, my gut feeling is - no. Should we be applying “star trek” mentality to divine things? I don’t think it’s wise. There is nothing we can scientifically do to peer into the supernatural realm of our Lord.

 

[edwest2]

As I continue to study chemistry and electricity, which require no knowledge of evolution, I can see their actions. Touching a live 250 volt contact is painful and electrical arcs are observable. Chemistry is observable and verifiable. Gravity is observable and verifiable (electromagnetic effects are observable and verifiable). Evolution is not. No one has seen an animal develop a novel organ.

A scientist following Christ around would not have been able to explain anything he did, at least according to people here. Would he have stood next to Thomas as he doubted our risen Lord and examined his wounds? Would the scientist, at that point, also say, “My Lord and my God.”?

Miracles still happen. That’s why new saints are added by the Church. And a rigorous investigative process is included, not just hearsay.

Placing science before God is not the correct way to look at His life and death and why it had to happen.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Catechism is black and white. There is no wide interpretation. However, a few, who are caught up in idolizing science, forget that Jesus, God and man, lived and died for the sins of two literal people. To joke around about this is wrong.
**Saying something is black and white denotes an childish understanding of the world. There is very very little that is suseptible to such an analysis. And people who believe in evolution as a working model to define how live evolved on this planet has no “obvious” corollary to those who idolize science, whatever that may mean to you. I find it tells me wonderful things about my world, it takes me to the farthest reach of the universe in wonderful pictures, and the depths of the ocean. I am not sure how one would go about idolizing it. Its quite a useful tool for discovrering useful truths about how the world works. But you demonize it for your personal theology…Perhaps you should enlighten us on as being one who demonizes science. **
It is inconsistent with revelation and the identity of the literal Jesus Christ.
edwest2;2878312:

As I continue to study chemistry and electricity, which require no knowledge of evolution, I can see their actions. Touching a live 250 volt contact is painful and electrical arcs are observable. Chemistry is observable and verifiable. Gravity is observable and verifiable (electromagnetic effects are observable and verifiable). Evolution is not. No one has seen an animal develop a novel organ.

**That last sentence is just the kind of drivel that you copy directly from a pseudo-science site. How sad. This has been refuted again and again. You know evolution does not claim to work in that fashion. Yet you willfully misstate the truth again. **

A scientist following Christ around would not have been able to explain anything he did, at least according to people here. Would he have stood next to Thomas as he doubted our risen Lord and examined his wounds? Would the scientist, at that point, also say, “My Lord and my God.”?
**This of course has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the discussion.A miracle is by definition something not within the realm of scientific explanation or proof. **

Miracles still happen. That’s why new saints are added by the Church. And a rigorous investigative process is included, not just hearsay.

Placing science before God is not the correct way to look at His life and death and why it had to happen.
**Science of course is not being placed before God. It is a terrible statement to perpetrate. No one has said so, no one has suggested so. You continue to try to obfuscate this conversation with half truths and outright untruth in attempts to win the day. Such is the state of your pseudo-science apologists as well. Must as you desire, this you cannot frame the issue as science v. God. They are not in conflict. The only thing in conflict is your more conservative than the church view. **

 

[edwest2]

When I quote or reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that’s all I need. Evolution, as presented here, is not about science but about selling a worldview.

God is the only eyewitness I need. I reject atheistic naturalism.

God bless,
Ed

 

[inthecloud]

I do too, and remember, atheist do have a huge unspoken problem.
The laws that science can use to interpret the universe start with the moment of creation (as Einsten used the c word after hearing Abbé Lemaitre exposition on cosmogenesis to the griting of teeth by the more atheistic scientists) beyond that is the realm of methaphysics and religions as Stephen Hawkings has accepted.
God is beyond time and space, he created both of them, and the rules that manages them, rules that can be know to man because human inteligent mind where created on the images of God and shares some of their divine nature. Modern science does not came from the Greeks, came from western Catholic christianty as even a militant atheist like Dawkings have accepted. That happened for a reason.
Scientifc concordism is a mistake, even Mons Lemaitre warned the Church after the interest carried by his Big Bang theory. Science and Theology must be separated. They whole Galileo affair came from trying to defend scientific paradigms that were wrong but were seen as concordant to Scripture. Scientific paradigms change. But you can always smile when some scientific finds the fact that there was “a day without yesterday” to use Mons Lemaitre´s words, or that we are in fact made of dust, carbon dust from the stars. Or that one time the universe was dark and when matter become separated, gravity fired the thermonuclear reactions that fired up the stars “let there be light”, or the fact that even naturalist evolutionists think there was a real Adam and of course and a Eve, make you smile and make you think that of all ancient religions the Genesis relate was the most on the mark on how things came into existance. But for me Genesis in not a historic book, is more a prophetic book that morphed in the end into a historic book. Like a reverse Revelations that starts as a allegoric first century historic book and ends into a End of the World prophecy.
Trying to put Genesis into a box as a factual history as fundamentalists do is a misservice to the real greatness of that book.

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus, To hold fast to what we receive from the Church is to be loyal and faithful to the current modern day word of God. Our faith holds that what the church teaches today on faith and morality is without error. To be against this teaching is serious.

We are not trying to remain in an immature state of mind, ignoring the development of science and mankind. We see this development around us and still remain faithful by using science and technology for the betterment of mankind - where possible.
.

Rick, I never said anything about failing to hold what the church teaches on faith and morality. The church has nothing to say about science. Even when scientists who happen to be Roman Catholic speak professionally about gravity or biochemistry or evolution or quantum mechanics, they are speaking not as Catholics but as scientists.

 

[drpmjhess]

As I continue to study chemistry and electricity, which require no knowledge of evolution, I can see their actions. Touching a live 250 volt contact is painful and electrical arcs are observable. Chemistry is observable and verifiable. Gravity is observable and verifiable (electromagnetic effects are observable and verifiable). Evolution is not. No one has seen an animal develop a novel organ.God bless,Ed

Ed, you have never seen gravity. You’ve seen things fall, but you’ve never seen gravity. It is “merely” a theory. Scientists have observed descent with modification, and the fossil record demonstrates it amply. But they have not seen evolution, as it is “merely” a theory.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

I think that to take the Genesis as extremly literal would transform catholics into protestans. because they would base only on sacred scriptrues rather than in the magisterium of the church.
It is better to relly in the church, the church is maturing with time and achiving a deeper knowledge of everything.

The stance JP2 was that evolution dosent contradict the catholic religion at all.

My own opinion is that the bible is a spiritual book and not a book of sciences. Sciences and theology are not quite the same, theya re different.
One cannot try to find spirituality in a math book, because it is about math.
Neither can people try to find science in a spiritual book.

The Genesis wasent meant to be read as a scientific books, but as a spiritual book that was inspired by God , with a mythological language, influenciated by the jewish culture of the time.

Here is what the Magisterium has said:

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

 

[edwest2]

Thank you. This is what I was taught. It would appear that the desire is to separate God from His own Creation. That He lit a match and bang! everything flowed from that ‘naturally.’

We pray to the living God “and through Him, all things were made.” It would appear evolution is nothing more than an instrument of the unbeliever, a novelty.

May the name of Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Here is what the Magisterium has said:

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

This is not the magisterium – this is some character with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, not even a scientist!

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

" It would appear evolution is nothing more than an instrument, a novelty. Ed

An instrument used by hundreds of thousands of biologists and other scientists. In contrast, YECs and IDers have not a single instrument to offer. That’s why YEC and ID have never contributed even a shred of a contribution to science.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When I quote or reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that’s all I need. Evolution, as presented here, is not about science but about selling a worldview.

God is the only eyewitness I need. I reject atheistic naturalism.

**I reject atheistic naturalism as well. **

God bless,
Ed

Here is what the Magisterium has said:

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

This bears nothing suggesting it is issued by the Church in any form. You horridly mislead us. Who is this person? And where was this article published? By what authority is he speaking for the Magisterium?

Poor Ed…you grasph at straws…you cite to news corporations and unknown authors for authority. Why such desperate measures Ed?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you. This is what I was taught. It would appear that the desire is to separate God from His own Creation. That He lit a match and bang! everything flowed from that ‘naturally.’

We pray to the living God “and through Him, all things were made.” It would appear evolution is nothing more than an instrument of the unbeliever, a novelty.

May the name of Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

How long ago where you taught this? That might explain some of this. However, if its been 50 years ago or so, don’t you have a duty to investigate where the church is today, rather than try to defend what you think she teaches based on what you were taught, and from pre-vatican documents, and parsing them even then?

 

[drpmjhess]

This bears nothing suggesting it is issued by the Church in any form. You horridly mislead us. Who is this person? And where was this article published? By what authority is he speaking for the Magisterium? Poor Ed…you grasph at straws…you cite to news corporations and unknown authors for authority. Why such desperate measures Ed?

SpiritMeadow, the lifeboats have pulled away from the YEC Titanic. Would you begrudge poor Ed even a deck-chair cushion to float upon as he thrashes about in the frigid waters of biblical literalism?

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

May the name of Jesus Christ be praised,
Ed

Hi Ed

I don’t always agree with your viewpoint but I have to admit that I do agree with this that you have written. I love and do praise Jesus Christ. I love him more than mere mortal words can begin to express. So I will remember you kindly Ed. Thank you.

 

[drpmjhess]

I love and do praise Jesus Christ. I love him more than mere mortal words can begin to express.

Amen to that, Wildleafblower!

 

[rskempf]

All,

I would not conclude anyone has “pulled away” from the boat. It just becomes plain after a while that two sides have formed on this topic. Further attempts to reconcile the two are probably futile.

In short, please, how would you describe the two sides?

 

[PhilVaz]

<< In short, please, how would you describe the two sides? >>

My opinion, there are four sides amongst Catholics in here, and some Protestants or Orthodox also can put themselves in one of these categories (substitute “traditional Catholic dogma” for “the Bible” where appropriate for fundamentalists or evangelicals).

Side 1: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this conclusion; traditional Catholic dogma on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis and the Fall is true, but this dogma is difficult to reconcile with evolution. Much of Genesis 1-11 is probably “myth” but in a literary sense not a pejorative sense. My position, Orogeny, SteveAndersen, Zian, and I assume many others in here.

Side 2: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this; Genesis 1-11 is myth; traditional Catholic dogma must be re-interpreted (especially on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis, etc) along the lines that modern Catholic theologians (like John Haught) are doing so. In this category are GottleOfGeer, SpiritMeadow, drpmjhess, perhaps others. Correct me if I have you wrong!

Side 3: Evolution may or may not be true, but the scientific evidence is poor or incomplete; scientists disagree amongst themselves on the truth of evolution; traditional Catholic dogma contradicts most understandings of evolution of most biologists, even Catholic ones; Genesis 1-11 is true history, although granted some is figurative or symbolical; therefore we must reject evolution mainly on theological grounds, and could even on scientific grounds. And we are very sympathetic to ID style creationism. Buffalo and EdWest position! Correct me if I have you wrong!

Side 4: Evolution is definitely NOT true, ALL the scientific evidence points to creationism; traditional Catholic dogma contradicts any understandings of evolution, therefore we must reject evolution and affirm creationism on both theological and scientific grounds (mainly young-earth or geocentrism forms). Genesis is true history, and Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and even Kent Hovind got it right. Many folks in here in the past take this position. Don’t believe me? Several examples here!

Phil P