Is Evolution official?

[Donald45]

…continued from Post #79 above]

~ God’s creative activity is treated not literally, but anthropomorphically (using finite human imagery to describe the divine). God “speaks,” “sees,” “moves,” “breathes,” etc. These are clearly figurative descriptions, familiar features of ancient poetry. We know (as the ancient Hebrews did) that God doesn’t literally do these things, since he is a Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and these are the activities of a finite physical being. But literary license permits these colorful images.

~ The biblical writer uses numbers 3, 7, and 10 in a very specific and coherent way. The account starts with three elements to be formed----earth, darkness, and watery deep. These are dealt with within two sets of three days. Create is used at three points. The phrase “and it was so” appears seven times, as does “God saw that it was good.” The phrase “God said” appears 10 times, as does “make” and “according to its kind.” All of these numbers carry significant symbolic meaning within Hebrew literature, particularly in poetry.

~ These are particular places in the Genesis 1 account where the words rhyme, an obvious and well-known feature of poetry. As in the case of the alliterations and parallelisms mentioned above, this is completely lost in the traslation from Hebrew to English.

~ The elaborate internal structure of the Genesis 1 creation account is far more characteristic of poetry than of a straightforward historical narrative. No scientific literature or modern historiography ever uses these kinds of literary devices. If this account is contrasted with, say, the story of Abraham and Isaac, it immediately becomes clear that this is a very different type of literature.

~ Finally, when the creation story is discussed elsewhere in the Bible, it is absolutely evident that its literary form is poetry (see, for example, Job 10:8-11; 38:1. 4-9).

So, then, there are many reasons, evident within the very structure and mode of expression of the biblical text itself, why we should not require that modern science agree with the Genesis account of creation, nor that it be approached in a strictly literalistic manner. Genesis 1 is highly poetic in form, a fact that modern “creationism” simply must face and conform to if it is to be true to the ancient biblical text as it was composed.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[adrift]

I have no desire to rehash this for the fourth time or so here. So I will just say this:

1. The Church basically has admitted that evolution is a correct model for how life evolved on earth. God of course is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen. The Church has not been especially clear on this, but that seems to be the bottom line. It is lamentable that this is so. A very nice discussion of this can be found at my blog, yesterday’s post, look for the link to John Ferrell.

I do not know of any statement made by the Church only those made by people in the Church. There is an important difference. Of course, you may know of a document that I am of which I am unaware. I would be glad to know of it.

1. Most Catholics here who accept the evolutionary model do not care whether some Catholics wish to believe in YEC, concurrent dinosaurs with humans etc. We do object when they promote it as Church teaching. Why?

I object when evolution is promoted as Church teaching.

1. Because you place Catholics in the same boat with fundamentalists, who are just about the only other group of Christians who still argue literalness in reading Genesis. That has certain repercussions.

The Church does teach the literal truth of the bible not literalistic a distinction not made by fundamentalist.

1. I want my Church to have a strong voice in the world on important issues regarding poverty, war, fair wages, and a myriad of other things. When the world says that Catholics don’t even believe in evolution, they aren’t worth listening to, I have a problem…

The Church has a strong voice because it has the authority of God. Many leave because of hard sayings, no divorce no artificial birth control etc. They left Jesus too.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The funny thing is that Ed often ignores when I post official Vatican sources like a well know german Padre.

Ed has no intention of changing his mind because it upsets his personal beliefs and that’s too threatening to him. Ed has so far been backed into a corner on every argument and has finally admitted, that “even if evolution is partially true” …But and here it comes…as soon as he sees a new poster, he starts over from the beginning as if he’s not heard a thing. He’s posted that 1950 sui generis thing at least 6 times so far…He;s on a mission and it aint to seek the truth. It’s to promote what he believes as what the Church believes.

Aside from your emotional outbursts, aren’t Catholics allowed to believe in a literal, six 24 hour day Creation?

As a matter of fact, you were the one who brought up the infiltration of school boards and town councils by unidentified members of some group trying to get ID or stealth creationism into classrooms. Isn’t it possible that unidentified members of some group have infiltrated this forum to spread a belief (not saying you) in atheistic naturalism? It can work both ways.

**Oh my dear Ed, you’ve totally collapsed now…I kinda knew it when you lapsed into “emotional outburst” as argument, but of course we both know that sooner or later you would accuse me and others of being atheists. BTW there was nothing unidentified about the board members, both of them committed perjury attempting to cover up their agenda. And Your “God Bless” physically turns my stomach since it so very obviously not meant. I think you’re using God’s name in vain.Sorry you’ve turned hateful Ed. **

 

[edwest2]

Evolution as taught in public schhols is impossible. For Catholics, the correct answer is real science and that God had a direct hand in man’s origin. Both parts of the answer need to be there, not just “it all happened on its own.” This is what the Church has always taught.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Evolution as taught in public schools is impossible…

Because…? What is it, specifically, that renders biological evolution “impossible,” especially given the fact that such Catholic leaders as Cardinal Schonborn, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have stated in print that evolution is more than simply possible? What authority do you possess which they do not?

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Hi Don,

It’s interesting that when Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is more than a hypothesis or Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution, the rest of their statement is ignored? missed?

John Paul II made his statement conditional on previous Church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger clarified:

1. 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 provinence which explicitly deny to providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

A little further on, he writes:

An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist …"
From Part 69 of Human Persons Created in the Image of God, available online.

So, whether it’s intentional or not, people are missing the fact while the Church is taking science at face value, it must include God to get the full, complete answer to human origins, which science no longer allows itself to do.

God bless,
Ed

So, in continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching, you now have the rest of the story.

 

[adrift]

The funny thing is that Ed often ignores when I post official Vatican sources like a well know german Padre.

Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation.

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
Pope says evolution can’t be proven
“The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” the pope said…He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.

 

[adrift]

Pope Benedict and his ex-students holding seminar on evolution

This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer," he wrote. “Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic.”

After John Paul died in April 2005, Benedict signaled a similar concern in his homily at the Mass in which he was formally installed as pope.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution,” he said. “Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

But some students of the pope say his doubts go deeper into the science of evolutionary theory. In his writings he has echoed the questions of anti-Darwinians about how evolution can transform one species into another.

The pope “does not accept at face value the scientific theory,” said Dominique Tassot, director of the French group, the Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science. “He wants to make people reconsider the question.”

 

[edwest2]

Evolution can’t be proven? I agree with that 100%

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I finally realized that whether the earth was young or old, was of little importance. Conversely, “if you don’t eat my flesh or drink my blood, you have no life in you” is of great importance.

Very good point.

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]
So, whether it’s intentional or not, people are missing the fact while the Church is taking science at face value, it must include God to get the full, complete answer to human origins, which science no longer allows itself to do.
God bless,
Ed

So, in continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching, you now have the rest of the story.

Hello Ed You probably haven’t had a chance to read this from the Vatican.

JUBILEE FOR SCIENTISTS

ADDRESS OF PROF. NICOLA CABIBBO
TO THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
25 May 2000

Holy Father,

Coming from the land which gave birth to Nicolas Copernicus, You have engaged in a process of reconciliation between the world of Science and the world of Religion. Some of the many important contributions You have given to this process are:

• The conclusion, in Your solemn address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1988 of the Galilei controversy which for centuries had marred the relationship between the scientific world and the Church.
• As a fitting consequence of this, the opening-up of the secret archives to all interested scholars.
• **The recognition of the theory of evolution, and the acknowledgement that the recent discoveries in molecular biology represent an “impressive manifestation of the unity of nature” (Co-88). **

In re-establishing a discourse between the world of science and that of religion, Your aim goes beyond mere reconciliation, it delineates a process towards a new unity. In your letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, you clearly define the scope of this process:
“As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth towards mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion… Each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and of who we are becoming”.

As the focal point for the meeting of science and religion You thus pose the sapiential dimension, which in the Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” You define as “a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life”. To this You add: “This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values”. In the conclusion to the Encyclical You urge scientists “to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person”.

The science driven advancement of technical capabilities poses ethical problems, which can only be clarified through an intense and open dialogue between science and religion. This is certainly true of the new methods for the modification of living beings, with their promise of improved cures for many diseases, but which may in some cases endanger the integrity of the human person.

Other ethical problems are of a more global nature, threats to the well-being of entire populations and of humanity as a whole. Ethical problems of this scale, be it those arising from nuclear weapons or from possible alterations in the natural balance of the environment, require decisions at the level of national and international public policy, and on these themes You have generously offered your advice and the authority of Your voice.

The rapid advance of scientific knowledge and technical capabilities poses a problem of justice and equity. Most of the scientific knowledge is produced in the rich counties, and it is these counties which most enjoy the economic fruits of the new technologies. The gulf between rich and poor widens, and the poor become more and more dependent on the rich for their basic necessities. The problem is wider than science, and You have even recently raised Your voice against this injustice. The poor contries must become able to contribute the advancement of scientific knowledge and to partake equitably in the fruits of progress.

Holy Father,

We are deeply grateful for this great occasion to celebrate in Your presence the Jubilee for men and women from the world of learning. This ceremony and Your words will remain forever in our memory. For this and for your work and guidance we are grateful.

Thank you.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

I truly love Pope John Paul and JESUS! Thank you, God!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

They you make God the greatest deceiver of all time and a liar.

How does this make God the greatest deceiver of all time and a liar?

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your effort in providing this information. I see nothing that changes or modifies anything Pope Benedict, or Cardinal Ratzinger, has said in the past.

I believe Pope Benedict is a very intelligent man and a scholar in the true sense. He approaches issues vigorously and contemplatively. And his desire to engage in a dialogue with scientists is commendable.

Based on documents I’ve quoted previously, it is clear that the Pope accepts only a form of evolution that is guided by God, in stark contrast to the purely naturalistic or neo-Darwinian form of evolution commonly taught. It is my sincere belief that the Church contains the complete answer to the question of human origins and science only a part. This is true in that science as defined in the present, excludes actual occurrences that defy naturalistic explanations. It would be appropriate to point out that the the Congregation for Saint’s Causes reviews miraculous events today, and that these things are just as real and factual as other things scientists study.

Thanks again,
Ed

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

There is certainly no debate over the meaning of the word “day” (at least, not from me). Certainly, etymologically, the Hebrew word yom means “day.” No one’s disputing this. However, this is entirely irrelevant, given that it’s the literary and historical context of the word which determines how it’s being used. In the New Testament, for example, Jesus is referred to as a door, a vine, a light, etc. In each of these cases (and more), “door” means “door,” “vine” means “vine,” and “light” means “light.” It’s not the meaning of the word that’s in dispute, but rather how the author is using that term in its literary setting.

Your Partial Quote of me
**Originally Posted by Hebrews_4_12 **
What?!?! Do words have meaning in context? Please enlighten me on why I should not take the Hebrew word for day as a literal 24 hour earth day…

My Original Full Quote
**Originally Posted by Hebrews_4_12 **
What?!?! Do words have meaning in context? Please enlighten me on why I should not take the Hebrew word for day as a literal 24 hour earth day, when it is repeatedly used with a numeral, the words evening and morning, and the word next? Almost no Hebrew scholar would declare the writer of Genesis as attempting to convey anything other than an ordinary day. Every other instance of the word day used in the Old Testament with any one of those modifiers I listed above is considerd to be an ordinary day. Why not question those? Was Jonah in the belly of a large fish for 3 days or 3,000 years or was it 3 million years? I guess we just can’t know since God’s word can not clearly convey His meaning without the clarity of modern science.

Isn’t it convenient how you neglected to deal with my bringing up the contextual issue of the modifiers of the word day in Genesis 1 and then accuse me of not trying to read Genesis in context.

Should Genesis be taken literally?

~ the Scriptures contain virtually no additional references to any of the individual days of creation outside of Genesis 1. After the first chapter of Genesis, only the Sabbath receives any more specific attention. Thus, the modern creationist movement is giving the six days of creation far more emphasis than the Jews and the biblical writers ever did, even though the accounts were written by them and for them.

The writer of these exact words felt they were important enough to carve it in stone with his “finger” (Yes, I know its an anthromorphism)

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Later Moses records these words as well

Exodus 31:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

Jesus has this to say about the beginning quoting from those early chapters of Genesis
Matthew 19

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7"Why then," they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
a. Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27
b. Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24**

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed (msg. 92), your response doesn’t have anything to with what I stated to you earlier in this message:

Hello Ed You probably haven’t had a chance to read this from the Vatican.

JUBILEE FOR SCIENTISTS

ADDRESS OF PROF. NICOLA CABIBBO
TO THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
25 May 2000

Holy Father,

Coming from the land which gave birth to Nicolas Copernicus, You have engaged in a process of reconciliation between the world of Science and the world of Religion. Some of the many important contributions You have given to this process are:

• The conclusion, in Your solemn address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1988 of the Galilei controversy which for centuries had marred the relationship between the scientific world and the Church.
• As a fitting consequence of this, the opening-up of the secret archives to all interested scholars.
• The recognition of the theory of evolution, and the acknowledgement that the recent discoveries in molecular biology represent an “impressive manifestation of the unity of nature” (Co-88).

In re-establishing a discourse between the world of science and that of religion, Your aim goes beyond mere reconciliation, it delineates a process towards a new unity. In your letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, you clearly define the scope of this process:
“As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth towards mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion… Each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and of who we are becoming”.

As the focal point for the meeting of science and religion You thus pose the sapiential dimension, which in the Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” You define as “a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life”. To this You add: “This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values”. In the conclusion to the Encyclical You urge scientists “to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person”.

The science driven advancement of technical capabilities poses ethical problems, which can only be clarified through an intense and open dialogue between science and religion. This is certainly true of the new methods for the modification of living beings, with their promise of improved cures for many diseases, but which may in some cases endanger the integrity of the human person.

Other ethical problems are of a more global nature, threats to the well-being of entire populations and of humanity as a whole. Ethical problems of this scale, be it those arising from nuclear weapons or from possible alterations in the natural balance of the environment, require decisions at the level of national and international public policy, and on these themes You have generously offered your advice and the authority of Your voice.

The rapid advance of scientific knowledge and technical capabilities poses a problem of justice and equity. Most of the scientific knowledge is produced in the rich counties, and it is these counties which most enjoy the economic fruits of the new technologies. The gulf between rich and poor widens, and the poor become more and more dependent on the rich for their basic necessities. The problem is wider than science, and You have even recently raised Your voice against this injustice. The poor contries must become able to contribute the advancement of scientific knowledge and to partake equitably in the fruits of progress.

Holy Father,

We are deeply grateful for this great occasion to celebrate in Your presence the Jubilee for men and women from the world of learning. This ceremony and Your words will remain forever in our memory. For this and for your work and guidance we are grateful.

Thank you.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

I truly love Pope John Paul and JESUS! Thank you, God!

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed, have you read in its entirety this extremely important document from the Vatican?

PASTORAL VISIT
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO VERONA ON THE OCCASION
OF THE FOURTH NATIONAL ECCLESIAL CONVENTION

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONVENTION

Verona Exhibition Centre
Thursday, 19 October 2006

[snip]

As I wrote in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, at the origin of the Christian being - and therefore at the origin of our witness as believers - there is no ethical decision or great idea, but the encounter with the Person of Jesus Christ, “which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction” (n. 1).

The fruitfulness of this encounter is also manifest in a peculiar and creative manner in the actual human and cultural context, above all in relation to reason which has given life to modern science and to the related technologies. A fundamental characteristic of the latter is, in fact, the systematic employment of mathematical instruments to be able to work with nature to harness its immense energies for our service.

Mathematics, as such, is a creation of our intelligence: the correspondence between its structures and the real structures of the universe - which is the presupposition of all modern scientific and technological developments, already expressly formulated by Galileo Galilei with the famous affirmation that the book of nature is written in mathematical language - arouses our admiration and raises a big question.

It implies, in fact, that the universe itself is structured in an intelligent manner, such that a profound correspondence exists between our subjective reason and the objective reason in nature.
It then becomes inevitable to ask oneself if there might not be a single original intelligence that is the common font of them both.
Thus, precisely the reflection on the development of science brings us towards the creator Logos. The tendency to give irrationality, chance and necessity the primacy is overturned, also to lead our intelligence and our freedom back to it. Upon these bases it again becomes possible to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, to link theology, philosophy and science between them in full respect for the methods proper to them and of their reciprocal autonomy, but also in the awareness of the intrinsic unity that holds them together.

This is the task that is before us, a fascinating adventure that is worth our effort, to give a new thrust to the culture of our time and to restore the Christian faith to full citizenship in it.
The “cultural project” of the Church in Italy, with this object in view, is without doubt a happy intuition and can make a very important contribution.

The human person: reason, intelligence, love
The human person is not, on the other hand, only reason and intelligence, although they are constitutive elements. He bears within himself, written in the most profound depths of his being, the need for love, to be loved and in turn to love. Therefore, he questions himself and often feels lost before the harshness of life, the evil that exists in the world and that appears so strong and at the same time radically devoid of sense.

Particularly in our age, notwithstanding all the progress made, evil has certainly not been overcome. Indeed, its power seems reinforced and all the attempts to hide it are quickly unveiled, as both daily experience and great historical events demonstrate.
The recurring questions therefore return: can there be a safe space in our life for authentic love, and in the final analysis, whether the world is truly the work of God’s wisdom. Here, much more than any human reason, the upsetting novelty of Biblical revelation comes to our aid: the Creator of Heaven and earth, the one God who is the source of every being, the sole Creator Logos, this creative reason knows how to love man personally, or rather, loves him passionately and wants to be loved in his turn. This creative reason, who at the same time loves, therefore gives life to a history of love with Israel, his people, and in this affair, in the face of the betrayal of the people, his love shows itself rich in inexhaustible fidelity and mercy. It is a love that forgives beyond all limits.

In Jesus Christ such an attitude reaches an extreme, unheard-of and dramatic level: in him, in fact, God makes himself one of us, our brother in humanity, and what is more, sacrifices his life for us.
[snip]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061019_convegno-verona_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b..._ben-xvi_spe_20061019_convegno-verona_en.html

We discussed LOGOS before. Would you be so kind as to find it for me and post it here? Thank you.

 

[rossum]

So, taking Genesis literally, everything was put together in six 24 hour days and Adam was given a planet that was ready to live on. Period.

So, let us take Genesis literally. Genesis 1:6-8 says:And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
What is this firmament? What observations or evidence can you point to that show us what the firmament is?

What are the two waters, above and below, that the firmament separates? Again can we have details of the relevant observations and evidence please.

and Genesis 1:14-17 says:And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth
What observations and evidence are there to show how the firmament supports the sun, moon and stars?

According to a literal Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution; it would not be easy for evolution to explain a Devonian sheep.

Your literal interpretation of Genesis does not seem to me to have much support in the facts of the real world. You would do better to follow those Catholics who do not insist on such a literal interpretation.

“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica
Your insistence on a literal Genesis, in the face of all the evidence, is certainly an obstacle placed in the way of my believing.

rossum

 

[adrift]

I would like a little help here.

According to some here, evolution produces Adam and Eve and God at some point infused an immortal soul into them.

So that means Adam and Eve had parents. They would have had mortal souls. There would have had to be more than just one of these creatures. They could not have been men because Adam was the first man. What were they then? What happened to them? I see a conflict can it be resolved?

 

[Donald45]

It’s interesting that when Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is more than a hypothesis or Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution, the rest of their statement is ignored? missed?

Not at all. I simply think you’ve misunderstood and misapplied their statements. For example:

John Paul II made his statement conditional on previous Church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger clarified:

…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 provinence which explicitly deny to providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

This simply points out the obvious fact that for a scientist to claim, on the basis of science, that no providential God exists is to stray beyond the limits of science’s competency. Science cannot properly say whether there is a God or not, and so any statement that claims, for example, that “there is no causal role” for divine providence is an inherently non-scientific statement. This, I believe, is the Pope’s point. (Of course, this would also apply in the other direction: Any statement that claims that there is a divine providence behind natural phenomena would also be a non-scientific statement.)

And, here:

An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist …"

Absolutely true, though from a theological perspective, not a scientific one. The Holy Father (a theologian) is here making a theological statement, not a declaration of what science should affirm.

So, whether it’s intentional or not, people are missing the fact while the Church is taking science at face value, it must include God to get the full, complete answer to human origins, which science no longer allows itself to do.

Certainly, “the Church” must take this essentially theological position. Science, however, cannot, given that the proper object of scientific investigation is nature rather than supernature, the physical rather than the metaphysical.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How does this make God the greatest deceiver of all time and a liar?

When you posit that genesis is a true statement of how the earth and universe was created, you posit that God created deliberate falsehood with the intention to misdirect us and to deceive us. I’m old enough to remember when fundies said that dinosaur bones were there as a test to see if we would follow our senses or God’s word. They’ve gotten a bit more sophisticated but not much.

If God creates the earth there is no reason to make it appear billions of years old, containing fossils of long extinct creatures, and early forms of humanity. God doesnt’ need to “practice”. He would have no reason to create creatures and then destroy them as unsatisfactory. Omnipotence doesn’t allow for mistakes. Thus you are stuck admitting that God has some reason to make it look different that what you claim “HE” said in a book.

Given your posiition, God created humans, and apparently endowed them with certain capabilities since we can see them. We have minds that so far have enabled us to change the world quite significantly, we create airplanes and they fly, we create medicine and it works. So the mind is a legitimate thing we possess and you would agree it was given as designed directly from God. So now, we are not to use it? It is made a mockery of? It is useful in somethings but must be totally discarded when it comes to this book which we must read with total abandonment of our senses.

What kind of Image am I thus made in? Is God crazy? I find it highly more likely that it is the fundamentalist and his irrational need to define this book as some blueprint sent directly from God as the crazy one. I think God should he chose to write me a handbook would have written it clearly. You would I assume concede its not clear. Else why these 33,000 and counting sects of christianity all staking their claim on what it means?