Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[GandalfTheWhite]

What about all the pain and suffering and death that must take place over millions of years for evolution to occur? How would that be justified even before sin entered the world? How does that speak of God’s supreme intelligence (and justice)?

Just curious,
Jeremy

Good question and you certainly caught me off-guard. I’m sure there is an answer to that but I don’t know it. Perhaps someone else may contribute…

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

please understand that just because someone believes in evolution (like myself) his believes doesn’t contradict any of this. Whether it took 1 second, 7 days or hundreds of millions of years, God is still the Creator and he is the mastermind behind all that we see. If you think about it, evolution is so perfect and so complex that a random chance can’t be behind it. I think evolution speaks about God’s supreme intelligence more than 7 day creation.

Pax Christi,
~T

The problem is that the Bible says God created man.

Evolution says that it happened by wholly explainable means.

One is a mystic event, the other is mundane.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

You conveniently skirted my post where I said,

“We imitate the saints for their wisdom and holy lives they lead, but their words are not infallible. When THE POPE infallibly tells me I must believe God created everything, including human beings, in 6 days, then I will believe it. Until then, personally, I believe that God created the universe, the earth and everything in it, and human beings, through the laws of physics and evolution.”

I repeat, among the early Church Fathers were great thinkers and saints, but we can not take their every word as Truth. Their writings are not the Bible and are certainly not infallible. When I hear the Pope infallibly teaching that God created everything in 6 days, then you can do the high five. Until then, we will agree to disagree.

I didn’t skip that at all. I noted NO church father supports evolution. All those Fathers who can make mistakes on this or that matter are in agreement - unless you can show a significant body of church thinkers who supported evolution.

The whole teaching of the church is infallible, and it has taught we were created. Even Jesus referred to God as creator.
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

Evolution leaves NO PLACE for God at all. I’ve yet to see any modern theory of evolution in which they say something along the lines of “We know species X evolved into species X-1 by means of God”

There’s two distinct explanations available. You can pretend to graft one onto the other, but you’ve no scientific reason for attributing God to any part of evolution, and you’ve no faith reason for attributing natural means onto creation.

 

[Montalban]

Genesis 2:7 describes a two stage process: “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” First God forms man from dust and second He breathes the breath of life.

Compare this with Genesis 2:19 “Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens”. This is a one stage process - God forms animals from “ground”.

In both cases God does not create ex nihilo, He starts with existing non-living materials, dust or ground. Since abiogenesis and evolution describe a process which starts with existing non-living materials and ends with living organisms the description in Genesis is compatible with evolution for the formation of physical bodies.

Evolutionary theory is not the same as abiogenesis. They are distinct theories. Although Darwin speculated on a primordial soup, that was not part of his work. Speciation was.

Evolution is about the rise of one species from another NOT FROM NON-LIVING MATERIAL. There is no theory of evolution that I’m aware of that speaks of man evolving from dust.

Evolution has nothing to say about the human soul, the “breath of life” which is specific to humans and not to animals. Souls do not fossilise and are not found in our DNA. Souls are theology, not science.

What’s this got to do with anything? When did a distinct ‘man’ evolve, to be conferred with a soul. Please cite any Church Father in this.

Church Fathers are not a scientific authority. Here is St Augustine on the possibility of the existence of people in Australia:“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.”

Augustine (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9)

rossum

ROFL. Augustine didn’t know about Australia! Many times people have speculated that there must be land ‘x’ on the other side. That’s a different thing from saying about knowing of Australia.
“It was introduced by Aristotle. His ideas were later expanded by Ptolemy in the first century AD, who believed that the Indian Ocean was enclosed on the south by land, and that the lands of the Northern hemisphere should be balanced by land in the south”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis

Australia itself derives its name from Terra Incognita Australis - (Great) unknown southern land. They simply called whatever it is that they didn’t know about this name. And Matthew Flinders was the first to confine it to just this continent - as opposed to a mythical super-southern land mass that included parts of South America, and Antarctica - and included land throughout the South Pacific and southern Indian Oceans. See map

Note his description about the sun rising. It rises here as it does in Japan at the same time. He’s wrong about the sun rise. His speculation about land is not unique. No where however would Augustine say one has to tie one’s faith to a belief in this land.

Note too, your own quote recognises one first man. Did you have a point, or are you just trying to amuse with a side-track?

 

[Montalban]

I agree with Pope Benedict XVI. I also believe that Evolution itself contain part of the truth about our origins.

I do believe that God created Adam from dust. In a literal sense, we are also made of dust particles from a dead star billions of years ago.

Evolution says man arose from other primates.

 

[Montalban]

Good question and you certainly caught me off-guard. I’m sure there is an answer to that but I don’t know it. Perhaps someone else may contribute…

That’s indeed a good point you were challenged on. We believe that death is a result of sin.

God created and saw that it was good. Adam introduced sin into the world.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The problem is that the Bible says God created man.

Evolution says that it happened by wholly explainable means.

One is a mystic event, the other is mundane.

But we were created. The fact that God created Adam doesn’t imply that he had to appear out of nowhere in a split of a second. Instead of ‘waving a wand’, God used the physical laws he himself created.

But if your objection is that creation must be a mystery (which it is even whichever way you go) then I don’t see it as a valid argument. Where do you get the idea that it MUST be a mystery?

I didn’t skip that at all. I noted NO church father supports evolution. All those Fathers who can make mistakes on this or that matter are in agreement - unless you can show a significant body of church thinkers who supported evolution.

But asking the Church Fathers to believe in evolution would be like asking them to believe that atom is made of out protons, electrons and neutrons or even better, that the Earth revolve around the Sun.

But they don’t deny either this or the evolution.

The whole teaching of the church is infallible, and it has taught we were created. Even Jesus referred to God as creator.
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

And he did create us.

Evolution leaves NO PLACE for God at all. I’ve yet to see any modern theory of evolution in which they say something along the lines of “We know species X evolved into species X-1 by means of God”

But evolution is a scientific theory and thus it by definition doesn’t concern itself with God. God belongs to theology but not science in the sense that science measures objective natural phenomena
(and God can neither be measured nor observed).

If science starts speaking about God it seizes being science by its very definition.

There’s two distinct explanations available. You can pretend to graft one onto the other, but you’ve no scientific reason for attributing God to any part of evolution, and you’ve no faith reason for attributing natural means onto creation.

Look, the point is that science are religion are perfectly compatible. Religion (or theology if you like) studies God and science studies the observable world around us, which was created by God. They thus must be compatible.

Of course you can claim that we were created in a day and that our planet is only few thousand years old. But then you have to explain why the scientists are wrong when they measure the age of the planet, study fossils and much much more. I’m yet to see someone answer this without sounding like a Protestant arguing for Sola Scriptura.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Evolution says man arose from other primates.

Not necessarily.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

That’s indeed a good point you were challenged on. We believe that death is a result of sin.

God created and saw that it was good. Adam introduced sin into the world.

I do think it’s a good objection and thus I will try to look a bit into it once more - possibly tomorrow.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The reason I asked the question about the Garden of Eden being present under the appearances of present day Iraq is this:

We know that according to Genesis God placed an angel with a sword to prevent anyone from entering the garden.

There are conflicts between the Garden of Eden and present day Earth and evolution if Genesis is taken literally.

Some of those conflicts would cease if the Garden of Eden and the Bible’s timescale up to the time of Abraham were adjusted.

What I’m saying is if the Garden of Eden is truely still here on Earth–but invisible to us just like Jesus is Substantially in the Eucharist but invisible to us

And if the number of years in the Genesis account is true on a timescale that would be accurate in the Garden of Eden that we don’t currently see but warped until at the time of Abraham that it did coincide with our present day timescale

Then it could be possible for BOTH evolution and the Earth being very Old and Genesis’ account of the Garden of Eden and present day man not to be very old–for BOTH of those things to be true!

It would be as if Adam and Eve through the great Flood of Noah up til Abraham was like a reality on a different plane that only became perfectly congruent with present day Earth at the time of Abraham.

Between Adam and Abraham both space and time were differnet than space and time that we currently know.

So the literal accounts of Genesis could be literally true for an Earth and an Eden on a different space and timescale but not literal for the present day Earth and timescale that is on the plane that we are currently on.

Don’t the scriptures say that 1,000 years to God is like a day?

That’s why I think it is silly to look for Noah’s Arek–not that there wasn’t a real literal ark and a great flood–there was–but it took place on another plane–a plane that is closer to our present plane than Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that was further out of sync with our present plane.

That’s why I think that the decreasing ages of the Patriarchs as they move from Methusaleh to Noah to Abraham are an indication that the plane of The Garden of Eden and the plne of the flood of Noah were gradually becoming congruent with our present plane.

I can’t prove any of this.

I just know this: God gave me the mind to understand the truth of science and God gave me the Catholic Church that teaches me the theological truths of God.

When I don’t know how to reconcile them I don’t worry about it.

I just say that I know I believe the Catholic Church and science seems to make sense and what I don’t know–I don’t know!

I can never fill in all the gaps on anything–it’s good to know that I have enough to keep me busy and that God will fill in the gaps for me if I make it to Heaven.

For now we know in part–then we will know in full!

 

[Bishopite]

The problem is that the Bible says God created man.

Evolution says that it happened by wholly explainable means.

One is a mystic event, the other is mundane.

Yes, God created man, however it is Darwinistic evolution that denies God as the creator of man; not all positions which use the word “evolution” say this. Darwinistic evolution says it happend by random chance without God which the Pope would condemn.
Theistic evolution still affirms God as the creator within the evolution of mankind, although I must admit that I personally don’t lean toward theistic evolution, but I recognize it is entirely possible as do some well known Protestant Christian leaders also recognize i.e., Billy Graham, B.B. Warfield.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

[Philthy]

OK, I realize now that your last sentence identifies the source of our misunderstanding. I completely agree that evolution can not cause the endowment of a human soul. But I believe that God at that point infused a soul. I believe God stepped in.

I believe God created all matter out of nothingness, voidness, and that includes the beginning of evolutionary life on earth. Stuff evolved. And I don’t think God got it going and then stepped away. I think he directed it. I think he worked through the laws of physics, biology, etc. And I think when it came “time” in the evolutionary line for the creature to become human, he stepped in, and in his normal God-like fashion (like what happens thousands of times every day now with human couples), a then pre-human couple conceived a child that was infused with a soul by God and therefore was made the first human. If you believe in evolution and at the same time you believe that only God can make a soul, then how else could it have happened that humans came along?

That is my line of thinking, anyway.

This sounds much better!

 

[Montalban]

Not necessarily.

Show me the evolutionary theory that says otherwise

 

[Montalban]

But we were created. The fact that God created Adam doesn’t imply that he had to appear out of nowhere in a split of a second. Instead of ‘waving a wand’, God used the physical laws he himself created.

He may have indeed. What this has to do with man evolving I don’t know.

But if your objection is that creation must be a mystery (which it is even whichever way you go) then I don’t see it as a valid argument. Where do you get the idea that it MUST be a mystery?

By the very nature of Genesis. The creation sequence is out of order from the evolutionary one.

But asking the Church Fathers to believe in evolution would be like asking them to believe that atom is made of out protons, electrons and neutrons or even better, that the Earth revolve around the Sun.

Then you admit the Church Fathers don’t back up evolution. Secondly the creation of man is central to our faith. The earth’s revolving is not. Man was created and sinned and then Jesus came to save us. Whether there’s a curving affect on light by gravity, or whether a hydrogen has a certain amount of shells or not has no bearing on our faith.
Thirdly the Church Fathers specifically said we were created. They thus have given their opinion on how we came into being.

But they don’t deny either this or the evolution.

They deny evolution by saying God created us. Evolution is about knowable causes

And he did create us.

Show me the peer-reviewed article that accounts for God in our ‘evolution’

But evolution is a scientific theory and thus it by definition doesn’t concern itself with God.

Then you’re in a case of trying to have it both ways

God belongs to theology but not science in the sense that science measures objective natural phenomena
(and God can neither be measured nor observed).

God has been observed. Bear witness to Jesus

If science starts speaking about God it seizes (ceases?) being science by its very definition.

That’s simply false. That’s based on a modern sense of what science is. Newton believed one could know God by knowing the universe.

Look, the point is that science are religion are perfectly compatible.

per se, I agree

Religion (or theology if you like) studies God and science studies the observable world around us, which was created by God. They thus must be compatible.

Religion also studies the observable around us and says God created it

Of course you can claim that we were created in a day and that our planet is only few thousand years old. But then you have to explain why the scientists are wrong when they measure the age of the planet, study fossils and much much more. I’m yet to see someone answer this without sounding like a Protestant arguing for Sola Scriptura.

Go to answersingenesis.org

 

[jemfinch]

Go to answersingenesis.org

And ignore the anti-Catholic rhetoric, hopefully

Jeremy

 

[Montalban]

And ignore the anti-Catholic rhetoric, hopefully

Jeremy

Nobody’s perfect

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Montalban,

He may have indeed. What this has to do with man evolving I don’t know.

Everything. By “using physical laws to create us” I refer to evolution. Instead appearing out of thin air, we evolved. God could have used physical laws to create us and when he was satisfied he could have given us an immortal soul. Therefore in a sense we were still created in a split of a second because the soul is what makes us humans.

By the very nature of Genesis. The creation sequence is out of order from the evolutionary one.

Why? Because it says that everything was created in 7 days?

We know that God is outside of time and that for him one year is like 1000 years. The number seven in the semitic culture was a very significant number which was used all over the OT and it symbolizes perfection. I see not problem for the creation story to be understood not as a literal account of what happened but rather a story that speaks about God sovereignty and that indeed God created everything. It also explains how sin entered the world.

Then you admit the Church Fathers don’t back up evolution.

Of course, but they never denied it either. They neither teach us that we must believe in the 7 day creation. Some of them perhaps believed in it, but that is their personal opinion as humans.

Think about it. Supposing that world really evolved, would they support the evolution? And if yes how? Would God reveal to them how to use various conduct scientific experiments with modern technology? Would they learn how to do carbon dating? How to dig up fossils and understand what they mean? Seriously, you are using the argument from silence about an information that they could never obtain in their age.

Secondly the creation of man is central to our faith. The earth’s revolving is not. Man was created and sinned and then Jesus came to save us. Whether there’s a curving affect on light by gravity, or whether a hydrogen has a certain amount of shells or not has no bearing on our faith.

Creation is indeed central to our faith but as it was said many times, evolution does not deny creation. Evolution simply suggest the manner in which we were created and the manner in which we were created is NOT central to our faith.

I don’t know but for some reason you seem to believe that we possibly could have been created in one way, that is being ‘conjured’ out of nowhere. As if all other ways meant that God didn’t create us. But this is simply not true - the time scale and the manner God used IS NOT significant on whether we were created by Him or not. Whether He said: “let there be man” and Adan appeared or whether He said: “let’s make a man” and He made first man evolve doesn’t effect the statement that God created us.

Thirdly the Church Fathers specifically said we were created. They thus have given their opinion on how we came into being.

…and I agree with them. We were indeed created. I believe it. I’m Catholic! We just disagree on the manner He created us.

Evolution is about knowable causes

No, no one know what caused evolution and in fact we know very little about it to say how it works. But to us Christians the cause is knowable - it is God. And it doesn’t matter whether we speak about one-day creationism, theistic evolution or intelligent design.

Show me the peer-reviewed article that accounts for God in our ‘evolution’

Well, how about we start with the old good and simply wiki?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Then you’re in a case of trying to have it both ways

No. I don’t understand why? I explained that evolution and God may go hand to hand. Faith and reason don’t contradict.

God has been observed. Bear witness to Jesus

True, but I didn’t mean that. I meant that you can’t measure God creating us, you can’t measure God giving us grace, you can’t observe God (I’m not referring to the incarnation that happened 2000 years ago).

(to be continued…)

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Montalban:

That’s simply false. That’s based on a modern sense of what science is. Newton believed one could know God by knowing the universe.

No, it isn’t. First what I said doesn’t deny what Newton meant. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with Newton. By conducting science we learn more about by knowing the truth. Since God created the universe, by discovering it’s laws we learn more about him.

But science is still not about God in the sense that it can’t take him into account. Science observes the material world and through scientific method attempts to discover the truth. Everything that can’t be studied by science has no place in science. Once you start speaking about God, personhood, love, souls or whatever else you seize doing science. But as I said above, this doesn’t mean that you can’t know God though science.

per se, I agree

Good, and that’s my point.

Religion also studies the observable around us and says God created it

Hmmm, does religion study anything?

Go to answersingenesis.org

Ye, I know this site (or a similar one but perhaps they changed the site design). It’s made by protestant fundamentalists and it’s pretty much what I was talking abut in the reply you quoted
Science tells us that earth is millions years old. They try to deny it and even try sounding like they are doing real science.

In Christ!
~G

 

[TheKingisaFink]

Why is it so difficult to believe that God created Natural Laws and set them into motion? The fossil record and modern science proves evolution exists within species. For example, the development of the horse from a small creature to what we know today is common knowledge. The elephant underwent many morphic changes to become the elephant we know today. However, there is no evidence that one animal became another. The dog did not become a crocodile, the pig did not become a giraffe. Neither did the ape become a human being. At some point, God stepped in and created man in His own image to be apart from the animals.

 

[jemfinch]

Why is it so difficult to believe that God created Natural Laws and set them into motion?

No one is questioning that. Have you read this whole thread? The issue, at least for many creationists, is not the idea of laws of nature and God working through them: it’s the idea that the creation that God called “good” was such that it could only make progress through pain, suffering, and death. Sin hadn’t entered into the world prior to Adam–how could millions of years of natural selection and the concomitant death have lead to Adam’s existence?

The fossil record and modern science proves evolution exists within species.

The fossil record proves no such thing: that’s just one possible interpretation of it. Science, on the other hand, has indeed demonstrated that many of the “tools” of evolution exist today, and creationists do not deny that: in fact, as a matter of example, most creationist theories rely on speciation in order to explain the diversity we see in the plant and animal world today, since the fall.

For example, the development of the horse from a small creature to what we know today is common knowledge.

Common knowledge? Were you there? Was anyone?

Jeremy