A
AJ85
Guest
compatible with the Bible? It would seem that there is no room for evolution.
- Status
R
redhen
Guest
Ken Miller a Roman Catholic, who used to teach biology at Harvard thinks there’s room.
youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The bible is a book about faith, not a science text. It is not meant to be read literally. Neither of the last two popes has had any major dispute about the reality of evolution. Many many things are not in the bible, and we accept them as true.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
How is solid state electronics compatible with the Bible? Because there is nothing in scripture that is incompatible with evolution, most Christians have no problem with it.
If you assume that Genesis is a literal history, it might be a problem, but since a literal reading involves a number of logical absurdities, few think that it is.
If you assume that Genesis is a literal history, it might be a problem, but since a literal reading involves a number of logical absurdities, few think that it is.
M
myredeemerlives
Guest
hmm without starting a debate… (I haven’t been to the other thread) there is plenty of evidence to suggest the earth is young so there is no need for Christians to try and align the creation story with evolution. The evidence is in the bible’s favour.
M
magisterfaust
Guest
How so???
T
thistle
Guest
Wrong thread so you should move to that one. However there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about the age of the Earth. Those people who simply add up the geneologies and say the Earth is a few thousand years old are one can short of a 6-pack. Its totally crazy.
R
Robbinson
Guest
I think Catholic doctrine on this is clear and tolerates both the old and young earth interpretations of Genesis as well as evolution (micro and macro - but doesn’t demand suscription to either). However, Catholic doctrine does require that we believe the story of Genesis to be literal, rather than allegorical or metephorical. So we all descended from a single man (Adam). Whether Adam was created by God 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago is not explicitly stated in the Bible (differing interpretations are possible on the meaning of each “day”).
As to evolution - whether God used this as His mode of creating other creatures, I don’t know. I personally believe in micro evolution (change within species/types) and not macro evolution - but either is possible, IMO, without running afoul of a fair “literal” interpretation of the Genesis account (and I think that is in fact Catholic teaching on this subject).
Blessings,
Brian
As to evolution - whether God used this as His mode of creating other creatures, I don’t know. I personally believe in micro evolution (change within species/types) and not macro evolution - but either is possible, IMO, without running afoul of a fair “literal” interpretation of the Genesis account (and I think that is in fact Catholic teaching on this subject).
Blessings,
Brian
R
richardeekw
Guest
Understand the richness of the Bible’s Religious message to us.
Leave the Scientific researches to Scientists
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.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 And the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it.
Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
M
mapleoak
Guest
What do you find about evolution to be incompatible with the Bible?
M
mapleoak
Guest
I would go one step further. It is impossible with current means available to us to state with any veracity, the actual age of the earth. Though I do not call those who believe the earth is a few thousand years old nor those who think it is billions of years old nor any age in between crazy. That is a sign of insecurity.
T
thistle
Guest
We do have the means to know the age of the Earth reasonably accurately, i.e. plus or minus a few million years.I would go one step further. It is impossible with current means available to us to state with any veracity, the actual age of the earth. Though I do not call those who believe the earth is a few thousand years old nor those who think it is billions of years old nor any age in between crazy. That is a sign of insecurity.
I am looking forward to you explaining how calling someone crazy is a sign of insecurity. It can be called rude, but a sign of insecurity?? What hat did you pull that from??
M
mapleoak
Guest
You are correct it is also rude.
Insecure because ideas doesn’t support themself on their own merit just ‘because thats that way it is’.
T
thistle
Guest
Okay let me see. The scientific community have a proven way (carbon dating) of fairly accurately measuring the age of the Earth and the Bible states nothing about the age of the earth. How is that insecure? That’s a fact. If you disagree then let me have your evidence to the contrary.
M
mapleoak
Guest
+/- a few million years is anything, but accurate. Further it brings into question its reliability to such a degree that it defies giving it much credence.
T
thistle
Guest
I said reasonably accurate and a few million years when talking about billions of years is pretty accurate and certainly not so inaccurate it can’t tell the difference between around 4.6 billion years and a few thousand years. No creditable scientist would agree with your position that carbon dating is so bad that its useless.
On the other hand the Bible says NOTHING about the age of the Earth nor hints on how it could be calculated. It is a total blank on this and anyone who tries to get something out of Holy Scripture about the age of the Earth has their head stuck in the sand and blinded to pretty accurate scientific means of measuring it.
M
mapleoak
Guest
But if you can’t reasonably be certain something is accurate to a million years, how much less so when talking billions of years. That gap gets bigger, not smaller when making assumptions about millions and billions of years. Since one cannot scientifically verify something which is carboned dated at a million years actually is a million years old (no control), carbon dating defies normal scientic method. It is no different than taking a scale to weigh an object that is 10 lbs. A control or standard is used to calibrate or verify the scale so that when the scale says an object is10 lbs, it indeed is 10 lbs. This same scale cannot be assumed to accurately weigh a thousand pound object without using a standard or known thousand pound weight, let alone a million or billion pound object.
O
Orogeny
Guest
No, you have it wrong. The techniques used to determine the age of the earth are the opposite of your example in that if you tried to use those methods on young rocks, you would be wildly inaccurate. However, on old rocks, the margin of error for the methods used is small enough that the results are very accurate.
One thing I want to correct is that carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the earth. The half-life of carbon-14 is way, way too short for that. That method is only good to about 50,000 years.
Peace
Tim
M
mapleoak
Guest
Agreed. I didn’t make that claim.
Not only is it the means unscientific and not accurate, but that in no way makes someone who attempts to see if he can reasonably ascertain the age of the Earth by looking in the Bible have their head stuck in the sand. It is an inappropriate statement and I still do not see why you insist it is called for.
- Status