Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[Kephart]

This is not true.
Biblical fundamentalism is a fairly recent development.

The Creationist idea that takes the creation story literally is also fairly recent.
Until the 20th century, nearly every denomination believed the earth was very, very old.

The Seventh Day Adventists actually promoted the idea and it was taken up by
Henry Morris and his followers.

I posted some links to documentation on this somewhere in the thread…

 

[Faith1960]

Exactly.
John Paul 2 is not proposing “the rib” as a definitive scientific explanation. He is exposing the theological Truth contained in Genesis.

I believe that God gave a soul to a man-like person and gave him a soul, making him human, but think someone said that Eve wasn’t created that way, so where did Eve come from? Or was she also from a man-like group, who was given a soul and became human, too?

 

[clem456]

I believe that God gave a soul to a man-like person and gave him a soul, making him human, but think someone said that Eve wasn’t created that way, so where did Eve come from? Or was she also from a man-like group, who was given a soul and became human, too?

I dunno.
I only know one thing for sure: God created all that exists, and gives our first two parents souls.
Science is working on the details. My mind is open to scientific discovery. I do not try and conform science to literalist interpretations of Genesis (and neither does the Church ).
And again, this is the beauty of JP2’s exposition of Genesis: it gets at the deep theological truth revealed in it without pretending it is a science textbook.

 

[Faith1960]

I dunno.
I only know one thing for sure: God created all that exists, and gives our first two parents souls.
Science is working on the details. My mind is open to scientific discovery. I do not try and conform science to literalist interpretations of Genesis (and neither does the Church ).
And again, this is the beauty of JP2’s exposition of Genesis: it gets at the deep theological truth revealed in it without pretending it is a science textbook.

Do you believe she could’ve come out of the same group as Adam, in the same way or do you believe, like someone said, that it couldn’t or didnt happen that way for Eve?

 

[RGCheek]

I just want to learn about this, but I have to have scientific support for what I believe.

OK, see it for yourself.

Go to the home page of this site.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom box entitled ‘What’s Going On?’
In the line below it I currently see: “Currently Active Users: 1844 (133 members and 1711 guests)”

The ratio of members to ‘guests’/lurkers is about 1 to 13, but on higher traffic times you will see numbers closer to the 1:20 ratio I spoke of.

 

[clem456]

Do you believe she could’ve come out of the same group as Adam, in the same way or do you believe, like someone said, that it couldn’t or didnt happen that way for Eve?

I know what you are asking, but let me say without any disrespect whatsoever, the question is a non-starter for me.
When you ask “do you believe” this or that scientific explanation, my reply must be, no I don’t believe any of it, I *accept the possibility *of it all, until that explanation violates God’s role in creation (prime example being the polygenism of the human soul). Some explanations are more reasonable than others. Fine. Any endeavor that uses God given reason with good will to uncover the mystery of life…I accept the possibility of it.
To close one’s mind off to possible scientific explanations is not faith at all, as Fr Barron says in the talks above. It’s insulting to reason and faith, as if faith is reducible to one’s favorite science.

As for JP2’s discussion of Genesis in Theology of the Body…I believe all of it with all my heart. It is not science. It asks for the assent of faith, not just the understanding or reason and evidence.

 

[clem456]

On the contrary, taking the Bible literally was quite common - until the fairly recent campaign regarding this topic. It’s all symbolic… allegory…

Not so.

Ed

'was quite common"

What is your time frame? 150 years?
Ok, agreed. If that is a long time, ok then.

If your time frame is a few thousand years, Wrong.
Not even the ancient Hebrews interpreted the Genesis passages literally.
The overwhelming tendency to see the bible as science textbook is a very modern phenomenon.

It’s easy to make an unassailable assertion by claiming posters are saying “it’s all symbolic, allegory”.

Who here in this thread claimed the bible is all allegory, or all symbolic?
Can you cite the posts please?
It seems only fair that you do that, since it implies a reading outside the mind of the Church. Give someone a chance to respond to your assertion.

 

[Monkey1976]

I know what you are asking, but let me say without any disrespect whatsoever, the question is a non-starter for me.
When you ask “do you believe” this or that scientific explanation, my reply must be, no I don’t believe any of it, I *accept the possibility *of it all, until that explanation violates God’s role in creation (prime example being the polygenism of the human soul). Some explanations are more reasonable than others. Fine. Any endeavor that uses God given reason with good will to uncover the mystery of life…I accept the possibility of it.
To close one’s mind off to possible scientific explanations is not faith at all, as Fr Barron says in the talks above. It’s insulting to reason and faith, as if faith is reducible to one’s favorite science.

As for JP2’s discussion of Genesis in Theology of the Body…I believe all of it with all my heart. It is not science. It asks for the assent of faith, not just the understanding or reason and evidence.

Thank you. This is what I’ve been trying to say throughout this thread, but haven’t been able to find the right words.

 

[Faith1960]

I know what you are asking, but let me say without any disrespect whatsoever, the question is a non-starter for me.
When you ask “do you believe” this or that scientific explanation, my reply must be, no I don’t believe any of it, I *accept the possibility *of it all, until that explanation violates God’s role in creation (prime example being the polygenism of the human soul). Some explanations are more reasonable than others. Fine. Any endeavor that uses God given reason with good will to uncover the mystery of life…I accept the possibility of it.
To close one’s mind off to possible scientific explanations is not faith at all, as Fr Barron says in the talks above. It’s insulting to reason and faith, as if faith is reducible to one’s favorite science.

As for JP2’s discussion of Genesis in Theology of the Body…I believe all of it with all my heart. It is not science. It asks for the assent of faith, not just the understanding or reason and evidence.

Sorry, I was trying to word it just right. So you do believe in the possibility that both Adam and Eve came from a group and were given souls, though?
Btw, thanks for your patience with me.

 

[clem456]

Sorry, I was trying to word it just right. So you do believe in the possibility that both Adam and Eve came from a group and were given souls, though?
Btw, thanks for your patience with me.

I accept it as a possible scientific explanation. I don’t believe in it.
Contrary to what some believe about science, the Church does not reject that possibility. This explanation is not exactly the polygenism Pius objected to.

No need to ask for patience, I enjoy your posts.

 

[Faith1960]

So

I accept it as a possible scientific explanation. I don’t believe in it.
Contrary to what some believe about science, the Church does not reject that possibility. This explanation is not exactly the polygenism Pius objected to.

No need to ask for patience, I enjoy your posts.

Ok i thought so. So why all the posts arguing this and whats with so many people having a problem with Pope Francis saying what he did, which was what started this thread?

 

[clem456]

So

Ok i thought so. So why all the posts arguing this and whats with so many people having a problem with Pope Francis saying what he did, which was what started this thread?

I’m not sure I follow your question.
I don’t have a problem with what Pope Francis said.
Others did.
Others rule out certain scientific explanations that seem substantial as biblically inconsistent.

 

[RGCheek]

So you do believe in the possibility that both Adam and Eve came from a group and were given souls, though?

I accept it as a possible scientific explanation. I don’t believe in it.

I believe that Adam was the first ensouled human being chosen from a small tribe in Africa.

Do I insist it is true? No, of course not. It just seems to me to be the best guess that accounts for all the scientific and Christian facts and factors as I know and understand them to mean.

In ten years I might believe something totally different.

 

[Faith1960]

I’m not sure I follow your question.
I don’t have a problem with what Pope Francis said.
Others did.
Others rule out certain scientific explanations that seem substantial as biblically inconsistent.

I didnt mean you. I meant the ones who seem to be disappointed in Pope Francis.

 

[Faith1960]

​

I believe that Adam was the first ensouled human being chosen from a small tribe in Africa.

Do I insist it is true? No, of course not. It just seems to me to be the best guess that accounts for all the scientific and Christian facts and factors as I know and understand them to mean.

In ten years I might believe something totally different.

What about Eve?

 

[RACJ]

Amazing, isn’t it, that we can send a prober to a comet 310 million miles away and land on it, but all the most brilliant scientists in the world cannot create a single living cell here on earth? But “science” says that nothingness CAN do it! Nor can they take living cells and create new organisms. But some blind process they call evolution HAS done it, through random mutations modifying organisms through descent. Give me a break… :whacky:
Now, I know that some Christians believe in naturalism, but this begs the question why you don’t insist that evolutionists accept the Creator of it all? Are you afraid of being called a “nut” or “extremist”?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, how do you reconcile the above with the fact theres never been a bottleneck of fewer than maybe a couple thousand people?

It’s simple. Nothing is proven in science. For example, birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, right? Then somebody realized they missed a little detail:

“It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology,” said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”

Source: sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

I trust science less and less as time passes regarding this topic.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Amazing, isn’t it, that we can send a prober to a comet 310 million miles away and land on it, but all the most brilliant scientists in the world cannot create a single living cell here on earth? But “science” says that nothingness CAN do it! Nor can they take living cells and create new organisms. But some blind process they call evolution HAS done it, through random mutations modifying organisms through descent. Give me a break… :whacky:
Now, I know that some Christians believe in naturalism, but this begs the question why you don’t insist that evolutionists accept the Creator of it all? Are you afraid of being called a “nut” or “extremist”?

I’ve posted that several times but the impenetrable barrier between science and God means some men prefer to believe they came from nothing and will die to nothing. The Creator cannot be scientifically proven, some say, so he doesn’t exist, which means right and wrong is whatever humans define as right and wrong. And rules from some mythical being? Hah!

Ed

 

[edwest2]

​

What about Eve?

Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side while he was cast in sleep.

Catechism:

"766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. "The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus."171 "For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’“172 As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.173”

Ed

 

[Hans_W]

No one worries. Possibility is a given in the scientific method. Please refer back to your excellent example of copper and electricity in your post 800. Thank you.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make. Science gives us only probable knowledge, yes, but it is silly to regard it as “just probable” in the every-day sense.

Copper conducts electricity. Everybody knows that, you don’t need to be a physicist. Is this “absolute” knowledge? Not in the philosophical sense of absolute Truth, simply because we haven’t tested every piece of copper in the entire universe, past, present and future.

In that sense only mathematics can give us absolute Truth.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything about the universe. You don’t go around teaching school kids that copper “probably” conducts electricity, or matter is probably made out of atoms, or that the universe is probably older than 10,000 years. It would be silly to say: The hydrogen atom, which probably exists, is made out of a proton and an electron, has such and such a mass and such and such a diameter, and absorbs light at such and such a wavelength.

We do know quite a lot for certain. Science is very good at that.