Question for Evolution-believing Catholics

[Nullasalus]

I’ve been going through the (many, many) evolution debate threads on this forum - the historicity of the bible is a big question for me, as I’m exploring my faith and trying to weigh things out in my mind.

My question doesn’t involve the validity of evolution versus creationism, mind you - I personally believe evolution and an old earth to be correct, though I’m not an expert by any means. But, I’ve seen some very spirited, articulate defenses of evolution by people who consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

It’s a broad question, I know. But I would really appreciate hearing thoughts about this - like I said, I’ve been struggling with some concepts of God, faith, religion, afterlife… this is one of the weightier questions I have, and really look forward to responses.

Thank you.

 

[Orogeny]

Nullasalus:

What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

I believe God created everything. There is nothing about evolution that denies that. The theological questions, such as original sin or one set of parents are not as clear cut. The Church teaches that we must believe in an original set of parents. Were these two individuals specially created or were they the first two with immortal souls? I don’t know. Original sin came from those first parents and, since an animal without an immortal soul cannot sin, it would not be hard to argue that the first parents were the first ensouled animals. I am comfortable admitting that I don’t know all the answers and that, quite frankly, I don’t need all the answers.

Peace

Tim

 

[Crumpy]

Nullasalus:

. . .I would really appreciate hearing thoughts about this

Read the book “Path to Freedom” by Fr. Jean Corbon. It took me a while to penetrate his manner of expression (it’s so much above my normal way of thinking). But it’s worth reading in general as a very spiritually uplifing book.

But, in particular, he makes various comments throughout that bear your question indirectly – that is, he offers some insights on how the book of Genesis was written.

We (meaning me, in particular) have to overcome our American game-show mentality for having instant answers. I feel that when it comes to anything regarding the Bible, the best answer is one that you find after a lot of thought and study and prayer.

WRT your question, have you even thought about what might constitute a suitable answer? Some feel that you should have just as many questions about the theory (or more properly the “hypothesis” ) of evolution as about the Bible, to begin with.

Now, don’t just take my word for it, but Corbon brings out how the book of Genesis was written surely a long time after the events that it described. It was meant to be a book of explanations, not just a launchboard for inquiry. Applying a test of forensic science to the text is something that was never intended, and the meaning of the text may be overlooked simply because of the questions you apply to it.

 

[Tom]

Nullasalus:

I’ve been going through the (many, many) evolution debate threads on this forum - the historicity of the bible is a big question for me, as I’m exploring my faith and trying to weigh things out in my mind.

My question doesn’t involve the validity of evolution versus creationism, mind you - I personally believe evolution and an old earth to be correct, though I’m not an expert by any means. But, I’ve seen some very spirited, articulate defenses of evolution by people who consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

It’s a broad question, I know. But I would really appreciate hearing thoughts about this - like I said, I’ve been struggling with some concepts of God, faith, religion, afterlife… this is one of the weightier questions I have, and really look forward to responses.

Thank you.

I believe the answer is in how we are to understand the Word of God. The Church teaches that the Bible should be understood as being “literal” not “literalistic”. The difference? If I say it’s raining cats and dogs outside, you would understand that canines and felines are not descending from the sky (literalistic) but that in fact it’s raining hard (literal). Or in the case of the cats in litters??? Sorry. The fog was thicker than pea soup this morning, well you know what I mean? Read in this manner there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution, both can be correct. Did God create the heavens and earth in “7 days”? Well sure, but since He didn’t create the sun and moon until the 4th day (therefore a day was not 24 hours) it surely wasn’t seven 24 hour periods was it? Was the “day” or period of light 2 million (of our years) years long? Who knows? God.

P.S. God created the earth BANG!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nullasalus:

My question doesn’t involve the validity of evolution versus creationism, mind you - I personally believe evolution and an old earth to be correct, though I’m not an expert by any means. But, I’ve seen some very spirited, articulate defenses of evolution by people who consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

You would be better off asking how Catholics can view evolution as not compatible with Catholicism.

The Church is infallible in faith and morals – not in science or engineering or economics.

Genesis was composed orally thousands of years ago, to explain God’s creation of the universe to people who couldn’t explain or understand the science of fire. Think about that for a minute – imagine trying to explain creation to people who couldn’t visualize oxidation, let along sub-atomic physics!

The solution to that problem was to compose the story as an allegory that people of the time could understand.

The message of Genesis – that God created the universe, that man sinned, and that ultimately God chose a people through whom he would bring mankind to salvation is correct. The details were suitable for the people of the time of composition.

 

[Nullasalus]

Thank you both for your responses.

Crumpy:

Now, don’t just take my word for it, but Corbon brings out how the book of Genesis was written surely a long time after the events that it described. It was meant to be a book of explanations, not just a launchboard for inquiry. Applying a test of forensic science to the text is something that was never intended, and the meaning of the text may be overlooked simply because of the questions you apply to it.

The only reason I have a problem with the historicity of Genesis in particular is because, from my understanding, everything in the bible is ‘linked’. Adam and Eve begat (children) who begat, who begat, who begat… all the way down to Noah, then Abraham, etc, who in turn are important prophetical qualifiers for the divinity of Christ.

Let me add on another question. Is there a point at which the historicity of the bible becomes important? I’m going to assume you both are of the mind that the miracles of Christ (resurrection from the dead in particular) happened. How far back from that point (into David, Solomon, etc) do you go before you start saying ‘Alright, this person may not have really existed’ or ‘That probably did not happen’?

 

[I_A]

Nullasalus:

Let me add on another question. Is there a point at which the historicity of the bible becomes important?

That point is the beginning of the bible, when Adam (Man) sinned.
If Adam didn’t sin God would have no reason to become man and die.

Or perhaps that point is the beginning when God created man in his image. If God didn’t create man then man wouldn’t be here.

 

[Maranatha]

This may be a helpful article: One Text, Four Senses

 

[Thal59]

Why does it always have to be that either all humans evolved from primates, or Adam and Eve was the first humans period?

Why can’t there be a lesser psuedo-human creature evolving over millions of years and then… God “creates” a superior model, bridging evolution by endowing them with a soul, and calls them Adam and Eve?

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

Why does it always have to be that either all humans evolved from primates, or Adam and Eve was the first humans period?

Why can’t there be a lesser psuedo-human creature evolving over millions of years and then… God “creates” a superior model, bridging evolution by endowing them with a soul, and calls them Adam and Eve?

Thal59

That is, essentially the Church’s position – that Man evolved, but the soul did not. The first man and woman where the first to be ensouled.

 

[Thal59]

vern humphrey:

That is, essentially the Church’s position – that Man evolved, but the soul did not. The first man and woman where the first to be ensouled.

This goes back to the “intellective soul” discussion that went on in a different thread. I never got around to asking if there are Neanderthals in heaven.

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

This goes back to the “intellective soul” discussion that went on in a different thread. I never got around to asking if there are Neanderthals in heaven.

Thal59

That’s a question we don’t have a burning need to answer.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

I believe God created everything. There is nothing about evolution that denies that. The theological questions, such as original sin or one set of parents are not as clear cut. The Church teaches that we must believe in an original set of parents. Were these two individuals specially created or were they the first two with immortal souls? I don’t know. Original sin came from those first parents and, since an animal without an immortal soul cannot sin, it would not be hard to argue that the first parents were the first ensouled animals. I am comfortable admitting that I don’t know all the answers and that, quite frankly, I don’t need all the answers.

Peace

Tim

I’m glad you are comfortable in not having all the theological answers. Now if only we could get scientists comfortable in not having all the evolution answers as well.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

You would be better off asking how Catholics can view evolution as not compatible with Catholicism.

As a Catholic, I have more problems with some modern theories of evolution (i.e. Darwinism) based on science than Catholicism.

However, we can extend this problem theologically as well. Because Satan exists and he cannot create, he lives to deceive by slightly twisting truth and making it very appealing.

As a result, we have many concotions of evolutionary theory being taught today to impressionable young people that include the notion of either no creator or a creator that is not actively involved in ongoing creation. Evolutionary theory is a convenient scapegoat for those scientists and teachers that have deified their work to such a degree as to put the study of the natural above the study of the supernatural. Let me note that some of the most preeminent evolutionary scientists in the world are among this group.

This mode of popular teaching is incompatible with Catholicism.

A second methodology of teaching that is popular today is also incompatible with Catholicism. That would be for scientists and teachers to thwart any attempt for inconsistencies of some evolutionary models to be explained, thwart any mention that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact, and thwart any alternative teaching of intelligent design by screaming that it is not science while failing to adming that perhaps both ID and evolution should be taught in metaphysics or philosophy class.

This second methodology is incompatible with Catholicism because it halts reason and that is inconsistent with the freedom that God has granted us.

 

[Nullasalus]

I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time to reply to my questions. Every answer has helped me think about things more.

I missed a question directed at me before, asking what I’d consider to be a proper answer to my own first question. I’m hesitant to think about it in that way, because I’m not an expert in any sense of the word (theological or scientific). I don’t know if Catholic teaching insists that, no matter what happened in the course of creation, the events of Adam and Eve must have taken place as such.

Putting it another way… alright, I can accept that Genesis is not meant to be a literal retelling of natural history, yet within the words is the description of an important event that certainly did occur. I’m trying to figure out what the essentials are - just that in our ancestry man was both ensouled and original sin entered into humanity at one point? Or are the specifics of the universe’s creation open to interpretation, but the events described (eventually our primitive ancestors give birth to an Adam and an Eve in a garden of Eden, with all the conditions described in the bible) are accurate?

I’ve tried to be narrow with my questions, but my problem is wider in scope. When it comes to the Old Testament, I find myself at a loss of how to properly consider it all - what’s being communicated by these stories? How do I know what to consider literal fact, non-literal but communicating essential fact, or otherwise?

At heart, my problem may be that I’m finding it difficult to both be rational (live in a world based on reason, demonstrable proof, where there are no miracles - merely unknown laws of physics) and have faith (believe in a soul that people find difficult to even describe, in a conscious life even after death and decomposition, in an all-powerful yet effectively undetectable being that cares deeply about everything that is done).

I can’t help but feel that I have missed or forgotten something that makes all of this work together. Christ’s death and resurrection doesn’t need to have been ‘suitably magical’ for it to be of great importance, or for the promises of everlasting life to be valid. Maybe this universe works in ways that allow for what we hold theistically to be true while at the moment being indecipherable - that would be perfect creation, after all.

At the end of the day, I’m just trying to discover if there really is a promise of everlasting life as who I am - improved, even perfected - and for those I know and care for, and even those I don’t. I believe in a lot of what Catholicism teaches as is - it’s how to reconcile the more ‘unknown/questionable’ that is causing me trouble.

Ah well, sorry to ramble. I just wanted to explain where I was coming from with all these questions.

 

[Chipper]

Nullasalus:

Putting it another way… alright, I can accept that Genesis is not meant to be a literal retelling of natural history, yet within the words is the description of an important event that certainly did occur. I’m trying to figure out what the essentials are - just that in our ancestry man was both ensouled and original sin entered into humanity at one point? Or are the specifics of the universe’s creation open to interpretation, but the events described (eventually our primitive ancestors give birth to an Adam and an Eve in a garden of Eden, with all the conditions described in the bible) are accurate?

It seems to me that most of the scientists and the theologians seem to miss important biblical statements concerning the timeline of the bible. I’ll explain more below.

We have some scientists saying that the earth is billions of years old. We have some theologians saying that the earth is 6,000 years old, some say it’s 4,000 years old. How in the world can there be such a conflict of the timeline. This is evidence pointing to an overlooked theory. Evolution is a “Theory” not a law of science, since noone can prove it. The theory that the earth may be 6,000 years old is unprovable too.

In my mind they are both right, yes both right. Our scientific instrumentation records the earth as billions of years old, while the generations given in the bible say it’s around 6,000 years old. They are both right, and both are accurate. I.e. this is a problem of generations given in the bible, versus the recorded age of the earth and the universe. How can this be? The bible very clearly states that God has “Stretched the Heavens”, on more than one occasion. When God “Stretches the Heavens”, time and space are altered. So if the heavens are stretched during one generation of man, then guess what happens. You record one generation in the bible, but you may have a billion years of scientific evidence occruing during this same generation. The following is biblical evidence of this happening.

After God created the earth (6 days) and created Man (wresting on the 7th), he “STRETCHED THE HEAVENS”.

Isaiah 45:12
“It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it** I stretched out the heavens with My hands** And I ordained all their host…”

There is evidence the he also streched out the heavens(altered time and space) after Noah’s flood.

Job 9:8
“Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea;”​

Here are more references:
Job 26:7
"He stretches out the north over empty spaceAnd hangs the earth on nothing.

Psalm 104:2
Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.

Isaiah 45:12
"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host

Jeremiah 51:15
It is He who made the earth by His power,Who established the world by His wisdom,And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens.

---

Regards,
Chipper

 

[Mike_D30]

Personally I have a lot of problems with evolution and faith. In my opinion evolution has no basis in faith. To think an all powerful omnipotent God, would need to create monkeys and have us evolve into humans then be given a soul, doesn’t jive with what scripture says at all. If I can’t believe the account in Genesis of human creation, how do I look to Genesis to tell of the coming of Mary and Jesus? Or the rest of the Bible as nothing more than a tale? IMO to believe in evolution is to believe in nothing. If we are simply evolved apes, we are souless cosmic accidents with accidental evolved pre-frontal lobes that gave rise to consciousness and nothing more. And that is really really depressing.

To be honest I don’t know where I stand on the evolution issue, I’ve read the evidence and it is compelling that we evolved somewhere on the plains of Africa 150,000 years ago. What I do know is the day they prove evolution is the day I leave the Church, evolution and our faith are mutually exclusive IMO.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Nullasalus:

I’ve been going through the (many, many) evolution debate threads on this forum - the historicity of the bible is a big question for me, as I’m exploring my faith and trying to weigh things out in my mind.

My question doesn’t involve the validity of evolution versus creationism, mind you - I personally believe evolution and an old earth to be correct, though I’m not an expert by any means. But, I’ve seen some very spirited, articulate defenses of evolution by people who consider themselves to be faithful Catholics. What I’d really like is to hear them explain how/why they view evolution as compatible with Catholic belief - how they interpret or understand the relevant portions of the bible in a world where evolution is factual.

It’s a broad question, I know. But I would really appreciate hearing thoughts about this - like I said, I’ve been struggling with some concepts of God, faith, religion, afterlife… this is one of the weightier questions I have, and really look forward to responses.

Thank you.

While I’m in the boat w/ many on this thread that we really don’t need to understand the what and when so much as God’s message that He created us out of nothing, I do want to point out one disagreement w/ your original post: Evolution is not factual but a theory of which there is great evidence. At the same time, there are problems with evolution that leave it in the realm of “theory” and not fact. The interdependence of the eye for instance.

On a side note, I chuckle when people say that the Genesis account is so “technically” incorrect. I guess God could have said, "I took 32 amino acids and I combined them in a certain order which made life possible. I then used various environmental stimulus’ (lightning, heat, water, cold, radiation from the sun etc.) for mutations to develop including multi cell organanisms to develop. Then. . . . And, after ___ million years (this is like a blink of the eye compared to eternity), I breathed my life into this creature (before that it was just like any other animal) and named him Adam.

People 6,000 years ago would have gone. “Huh? He did what with 32 albino aphids? Why are they white? I’ve only seen green aphids. Did he start wtih the littlest aphid or the biggest? Is this were we got the tradition of chocolate covered grasshoppers?”

 

[Mike_D30]

Orionthehunter:

On a side note, I chuckle when people say that the Genesis account is so “technically” incorrect. I guess God could have said, "I took 32 amino acids and I combined them in a certain order which made life possible. I then used various environmental stimulus’ (lightning, heat, water, cold, radiation from the sun etc.) for mutations to develop including multi cell organanisms to develop. Then. . . . And, after ___ million years (this is like a blink of the eye compared to eternity), I breathed my life into this creature (before that it was just like any other animal) and named him Adam.

But think of what people today would be saying about the Bible? To me if evolution wins out, there is no ‘personal’ God, and merely an unfeeling power or entity that put everything into motion.

 

[carol_marie]

Mike_D30:

Personally I have a lot of problems with evolution and faith. In my opinion evolution has no basis in faith. To think an all powerful omnipotent God, would need to create monkeys and have us evolve into humans then be given a soul, doesn’t jive with what scripture says at all. If I can’t believe the account in Genesis of human creation, how do I look to Genesis to tell of the coming of Mary and Jesus? Or the rest of the Bible as nothing more than a tale? IMO to believe in evolution is to believe in nothing. If we are simply evolved apes, we are souless cosmic accidents with accidental evolved pre-frontal lobes that gave rise to consciousness and nothing more. And that is really really depressing.

To be honest I don’t know where I stand on the evolution issue, I’ve read the evidence and it is compelling that we evolved somewhere on the plains of Africa 150,000 years ago. What I do know is the day they prove evolution is the day I leave the Church, evolution and our faith are mutually exclusive IMO.

I’m with you.

I think evolution - more than anything else has pulled people away from believing in God. I once heard a Pastor say that if Satan can get people to accept that we evolved from apes & that the book of Genesis is just a “story” - the rest of the Bible is so easily dismissed as well. If the begining is made up - what makes the middle & the end true?

Some posters have said they believe in evolution plus God - but the vast majority of people who accept evolution reject God - Jesus - the Bible - in my opinion. Satan must be so pleased.