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

[RGCheek]

Whoa…!! That is getting onto some dangerous territory!! It justifies anything in the name of any ideology! You must view ISIS with a certain amount of respect - they’re ‘eliminating threats’ to their ideology…shouting Allah Akbar!

No, what Jesus said is about how the rest of society would view converts to Christianity, leaving the culture of their birth and family. And it has been exactly like that in most places that converted. And it has generally been Christians on the receiving part of that violence.

Mohamed claimed to transcribe what God physically told him.
So he was inspired…

No, he was not inspired like the Old and New Testament writers who were mystics that felt Gods message to them in various ways and their texts are colored with their own time and culture. Mohamed took dictation from the eternal God, so what is the cultural framework for that? IT wasn’t the same kind of thing at all.

On no, the Wahabi version of Islam is a fairly new and very nasty version of Islam. Just because its followers view Christians and Jews like that, does not mean that the rest of Muslims believe that! They are still talking about being people of the book! It’s like someone picking out the Westboro baptists as the ‘new’ face of Christianity! If Wahabism hadn’t had the vast wealth of the Saudis behind it, it wouldn’t have made such a nasty mark on the world. Don’t taint the rest of Islam with the Wahabi madness!

No, its not like Westboro, as the Saudi royal family have been sponsoring new mosques under the control of Wahabi clergy for decades now.

Thank God Westboro doesn’t have such resources.

 

[triumphguy]

I doubt that. And why does a religious leader’s statements matter in this case? It’s the old argument of “If you need a plumber, call a plumber.” I know I would. I would not contact a working scientist to get definitive statements about the Bible.

Ed

Genesis 1: 26-27 and Genesis 3: 15. These two references oppose the Science of Human Evolution.

For the past 70 years the Popes in various encyclicals have stated that there is basically no opposition between science and scripture.

And the religious leaders’ statements matter because they are er… hold on a minute… the head of the Church.

Or do we agree but one of us has misread the other?

 

[Faith1960]

For the past 70 years the Popes in various encyclicals have stated that there is basically no opposition between science and scripture.

And the religious leaders’ statements matter because they are er… hold on a minute… the head of the Church.

Or do we agree but one of us has misread the other?

I find it amusing that when a Pope mentions something in an encyclical that posters agree with the posters insist they’re right because the Pope said so, but when he says something they dont agree with they just entirely dismiss it.

 

[Hans_W]

I would not contact a working scientist to get definitive statements about the Bible.

Ed

And I wouldn’t consult a Bible literalist to get statements about nature (nor any statements about the Bible either).

 

[Hans_W]

Except it goes against the inspired Word of God. Was the Pope, Darwin, or any other evolutionist there at Creation? No. Yet we do have an eyewitness, and He told us what happened. God always defines His terms, and the word ‘day’ (Yom in Hebrew) means a literal 24 hour day as described in Genesis. There are many who try to make biblical creation fit into some modern scientific or geologic timeframe model. It just doesn’t work. Old earth, Gap Theory, Evolution, Big Bang, etc., just don’t hold up to the truth of Scripture. Those who buy into these theories are also those who ‘pick and choose’ which verses they will accept as authoritive in their lives and it runs the gamut from creation to sexual orientation.
Thank You…Gailgirl

I think you stole that from Ken Ham, or is it Kent Hovind?

 

[Hans_W]

There is a lot of mudslinging going on here.

Can we just agree that science looks at nature and tries to understand what we find in nature. Since all of nature was and is created by God, I really can’t see what the problem is.

There are scientists and theologians who try to bridge our understanding of nature and our understanding of God.

But then there are people on this thread who try to put a spanner in the works. They “mistrust” people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, George Coyne and many, many others. They rather side with Richard Dawkins and his friends to declare that science contradicts religion.

 

[Saints_Alive]

…They rather side with Richard Dawkins and his friends to declare that science contradicts religion.

Scientists spend their lives proving that what scientists in the past proved was actually wrong.

 

[Hans_W]

Scientists spend their lives proving that what scientists in the past proved was actually wrong.

Put yourself 400 years back in time - that’s when modern science started - and tell me if anything has changed.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I think that the first three [creation] chapters of Genesis, especially human origin and human nature, need more emphasis. This is because major Catholic doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, find their source in the actions described in those chapters. Too often, we get caught in the branches of the forbidden tree and thus fail to notice the depth of Genesis 1: 26-27 and Genesis 3: 15. These two references oppose the Science of Human Evolution.

Well a few popes would disagree with you.

Citations, please.

Real citations, please.

Not out-of-context citations or citations coming from a personal opinion.
Note: Popes, like ourselves, do have free speech. Free speech is simply personal speech.

The research citations for the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, begins on page 689 – titled “Index of Citations”.

Perhaps, it would be easier if you would kindly name which Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin have been publically and properly overturned by an Ecumenical Church Council. Or maybe simply name a few Catholic doctrines in this area.

 

[grannymh]

Breaking News !!!

Not every verse of every chapter of every book of Holy Scripture automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. The protocol of the Catholic Church follows the wisdom of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (Information source. Chapter 14, Gospel of John which names the Holy Spirit as the Guide for the Catholic Church.)

So, how about getting real? Present the basic Catholic teachings regarding human origin, human nature, and the first human’s Original Sin. And then tell me which teaching has been duly and properly overturned by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in a major church ecumenical council.

Links to Catholic teaching

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

For example, check out CCC, 399. That talks about a population of two at the dawn of human history.

A population of two directly contradicts the cladistics system of classification which is the base for the Science of Human Evolution. The diagrams used for the Science of Human Evolution are based on populations evolving from populations such as those which diverged from the Homo/Pan common ancestor.

 

[grannymh]

Put yourself 400 years back in time - that’s when modern science started - and tell me if anything has changed.

The first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is still “observe without prejudice.”

Obviously, observing all the material/physical evidence going thousands of years backwards is a tad difficult. That is why assumptions and presumptions are allowed in the current scientific method used in the Science of Human Evolution. This same allowance for estimates etc. also allows the possibility that not every bit of observable evidence is obtainable from every acre of planet earth. That is why current interpretations of human history can only claim that Adam and Eve may not be probable. The interpretations cannot prove that Adam and Eve are impossible. This is because the presented evidence does not warrant an universal denial.

There is a whale of a difference between improbable and possible. There is plenty of possible room for a couple of “black swans”.
svswans.com/black.html

With that in mind, it is easy to see the possibility of two individual humans at the dawn of human history.

 

[Hans_W]

St. Augustine of Hippo writes in his work De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis):

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

He would turn in his grave if he listened to those Bible literalists 1,600 years later.

 

[grannymh]

St. Augustine of Hippo writes in his work De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis):
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
He would turn in his grave if he listened to those Bible literalists 1,600 years later.

Did I fail to mention that not every word of every great saint is automatically turned into a Catholic doctrine as if the Holy Spirit went on vacation? My apology.

Out of curiosity, where is the section in which St. Augustine specifically denies Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22? (Information source. CCC, 396-409; CCC, 389, last sentence.)

 

[Hans_W]

Did I fail to mention that not every word of every great saint is automatically turned into a Catholic doctrine as if the Holy Spirit went on vacation? My apology.

Out of curiosity, where is the section in which St. Augustine specifically denies Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22? (Information source. CCC, 396-409; CCC, 389, last sentence.)

In a nutshell, St Augustine said 16 centuries ago that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and therefore we should be willing to change our mind about it’s interpretation as new information comes up.

That is basically the same as every serious theologian will tell you today. Thankfully the Catholic Church has taken this fully on board. Perhaps triggered by the Galileo debacle 400 years ago, the Church has been very open to new scientific discoveries, without compromising our Christian faith.

I find it ridiculous and embarrassing that we have such a debate in the 21th century! As St Augustine stated 1,600 years ago, it portraits religion as ridiculous and foolish and plays into the hands of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc.

 

[grannymh]

In a nutshell, St Augustine said 16 centuries ago that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and therefore we should be willing to change our mind about it’s interpretation as new information comes up.

That is basically the same as every serious theologian will tell you today. Thankfully the Catholic Church has taken this fully on board. Perhaps triggered by the Galileo debacle 400 years ago, the Church has been very open to new scientific discoveries, without compromising our Christian faith.

I find it ridiculous and embarrassing that we have such a debate in the 21th century! As St Augustine stated 1,600 years ago, it portraits religion as ridiculous and foolish and plays into the hands of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc.

May I gently refer you to the specific question in post 1018?
“Out of curiosity, where is the section in which St. Augustine specifically denies Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22? (Information source. CCC, 396-409; CCC, 389, last sentence.)”

I would also suggest that there is a difference between the physical universe (See reference to Galileo) and the human person. St. Augustine should have known the difference. Therefore, I am interested in what St. Augustine specifically says about the human nature. That may be found in relationship to Original Sin which was committed by the original human. In any case, properly defined and duly declared doctrines have the last word. Thank you.

 

[Hans_W]

May I gently refer you to the specific question in post 1018?
“Out of curiosity, where is the section in which St. Augustine specifically denies Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22? (Information source. CCC, 396-409; CCC, 389, last sentence.)”

I would also suggest that there is a difference between the physical universe (See reference to Galileo) and the human person. St. Augustine should have known the difference. Therefore, I am interested in what St. Augustine specifically says about the human nature. That may be found in relationship to Original Sin which was committed by the original human. In any case, properly defined and duly declared doctrines have the last word. Thank you.

St Augustine has written a lot. You can look it up yourself. We are talking here about what he said on the literal interpretation of Genesis.

The Church doesn’t deny you the freedom of a literal interpretation of Genesis, if that makes you more comfortable. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has moved on and embraces the grandeur of God’s creation opened up to us through science.

 

[grannymh]

St Augustine has written a lot. You can look it up yourself. We are talking here about what he said on the literal interpretation of Genesis.

The Church doesn’t deny you the freedom of a literal interpretation of Genesis, if that makes you more comfortable. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has moved on and embraces the grandeur of God’s creation opened up to us through science.

And what I am addressing are the literal doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding the literal Original Sin.

The Catholic Church, despite numerous “theologians” who use the media to promote changing Divine Revelation, has not called an ecumenical council to deny Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

The Church doesn’t deny you the freedom of a literal interpretation of Genesis, if that makes you more comfortable.

The book of Genesis has 50 chapters!

Pardon me. But I prefer the relaxed atmosphere of actual Catholic doctrines, which are written in stone.

 

[Kelt]

No, what Jesus said is about how the rest of society would view converts to Christianity, leaving the culture of their birth and family. And it has been exactly like that in most places that converted. And it has generally been Christians on the receiving part of that violence.

No, he was not inspired like the Old and New Testament writers who were mystics that felt Gods message to them in various ways and their texts are colored with their own time and culture. Mohamed took dictation from the eternal God, so what is the cultural framework for that? IT wasn’t the same kind of thing at all.

No, its not like Westboro, as the Saudi royal family have been sponsoring new mosques under the control of Wahabi clergy for decades now.

Thank God Westboro doesn’t have such resources.

This is not physical violence you’re referring to her - this is more psychological. (Apart from localised punch-ups between families/social groups.) It sounded like you were justifying REAL physical violence…like you find in the OT. You know - Genocide etc! You were talking about the need to protect one’s ideology as justifying violence.

I’m not sure how you think you know how Mohammed felt he was ‘getting the message’ and how it was better or worse that the way the OT writers got it.

Just because the Saudi royal family have been sponsoring Wahabism doesn’t mean Islam has been changed, any more than Christianity would be changed if Westboro got similar backing! Surely you can see that?

 

[Kelt]

In a nutshell, St Augustine said 16 centuries ago that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and therefore we should be willing to change our mind about it’s interpretation as new information comes up.

That is basically the same as every serious theologian will tell you today. Thankfully the Catholic Church has taken this fully on board. Perhaps triggered by the Galileo debacle 400 years ago, the Church has been very open to new scientific discoveries, without compromising our Christian faith.

I find it ridiculous and embarrassing that we have such a debate in the 21th century! As St Augustine stated 1,600 years ago, it portraits religion as ridiculous and foolish and plays into the hands of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc.

It does seem strange that we can have this debate in 21st century. 40years ago I would never have thought it possible. I thought my elderly aunt was the last person on earth to have a literal understanding of Genesis.
However, now that I have gained more experience and been a keen observer of human nature, as well as trying to keep abreast of the sciences, including social evolution, I can see that there are a group of people who prefer certainty. They function better with strict rules, and feel more comfortable with life if those rules are set by someone else. They will say that it makes life hard for them to stick to strict rules, that it’s a constant struggle to be obedient…but really life is very simple and clear cut and manageable when you have rules that ‘cannot’ be questioned. Some people ‘panic’ is they have to think for themselves.
On the other hand, there are those who feel relaxed, even excited about exploring the world. Exploring science and their theology and in differing degrees; interpreting and thinking for themselves.
This applies to any area of life. Why do some people make better policemen than others? Why are some people better in creative arts? What makes a better leader? All personality differences.
The problem is, some people’s private wishes about reality they make public when they do not fully understand where science has moved on to - as they haven’t wished to find out. People with even a basic scientific understanding are bewildered and can only laugh…which is unfortunate for those with a much more sophisticated message to share.

 

[RGCheek]

Do you believe that to be literally true or not?

Why not?

It was a miraculous event.

I don’t think that anyone believes that there was once a species of snake that could speak.