Question for Evolution-believing Catholics

[Orionthehunter]

Mike_D30:

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.

They would be saying some alien being came down and gave the scientific answer to these simple people. Jesus came and raised people from the dead and people still doubted Him. Blessed are the people who believed and did not see (Doubting Thomas story).

If there is a God who is transendent over time and space, all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc., a God who created you and all of creation purely out of perfect love for us, do you think He owes you an explanation? The point of the 1st Commandment is to warn you not only about false gods but also about making yourself a god.

Faith my friend is necessary for wisdom and understanding. It is not the other way around.

 

[Mike_D30]

Orionthehunter:

They would be saying some alien being came down and gave the scientific answer to these simple people. Jesus came and raised people from the dead and people still doubted Him. Blessed are the people who believed and did not see (Doubting Thomas story).

If there is a God who is transendent over time and space, all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc., a God who created you and all of creation purely out of perfect love for us, do you think He owes you an explanation? The point of the 1st Commandment is to warn you not only about false gods but also about making yourself a god.

Faith my friend is necessary for wisdom and understanding. It is not the other way around.

So you assert that no matter the evidence to the contrary, we should simply continue to believe in the Genesis account, even if it’s proven false? That’s just too tough for me to swallow. I can believe simply by doubting the evidence for evolution, to look through the holes in it. However once those holes are filled, I could see no basis for belief. If I’m just a monkey, well then I’m just a monkey, and when I die, I’m nothing but a dead, rotting, carbon based life form.

I don’t think God owes his children an explanation, but maybe drop on in every century or so and let us know he’s there, and we’re grossly misguided in the areas of science. Right now everyday people believe less and less, because of the explanations science provides, in another 1000 years, God will be a thing of the past, as everything on Earth is explained away, tested and proven in a lab. Only a really vindictive God would give humans this intellect and consciousness, and punish us greatly for using it.

Why the guess work? Really it’s getting close to the point where people will have no choice but to disbelieve, due to the compelling evidence that contradicts every major account in the Bible.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Mike_D30:

So you assert that no matter the evidence to the contrary, we should simply continue to believe in the Genesis account, even if it’s proven false? That’s just too tough for me to swallow. I can believe simply by doubting the evidence for evolution, to look through the holes in it. However once those holes are filled, I could see no basis for belief. If I’m just a monkey, well then I’m just a monkey, and when I die, I’m nothing but a dead, rotting, carbon based life form.

I don’t think God owes his children an explanation, but maybe drop on in every century or so and let us know he’s there, and we’re grossly misguided in the areas of science. Right now everyday people believe less and less, because of the explanations science provides, in another 1000 years, God will be a thing of the past, as everything on Earth is explained away, tested and proven in a lab. Only a really vindictive God would give humans this intellect and consciousness, and punish us greatly for using it.

Why the guess work? Really it’s getting close to the point where people will have no choice but to disbelieve, due to the compelling evidence that contradicts every major account in the Bible.

Absolutely believe the Genesis account. The Bible is not a science textbook. It is God’s way of revealing that He is the great I AM. God said to us that He created us out of nothing in His image and that He made us very good. When I want to know the science (this too is how God reveals Himself), I’ll study science. If I want to know the math, I’ll study math. But if I want to know about God, I’ll turn to His Word.

And if we were to know everything, He’d have made us God. The knowledge we gain from science isn’t a threat to God.

 

[buffalo]

The Bible is not a scientific text per se, but because it contains observations it has science in it. Faith and reason cannot contradict as they come from the same God.

We know micro evolution (adpatation) is real. No one doubts that.

Macro evolution - that is the ongoing debate.

In any case it doesn’t have to be either or. It can be simply God inserted Adam and Eve fully formed anywhere in the timeline regardless of what may have been happening “evolution wise” at the time.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Don’t believe all you read in science textbooks either. There is just about as much evidence for Creation as there is for Evolution. Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, there is a lot that we don’t learn about in Biology classes that explain away the possibility of Creation.

Don’t ponder too much. We humans are not experts (contrary to the personal opinions of many scientists) by any means to figure out how it all started.

 

[Returnee]

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 tend to stay away from “crevo” debates, as (with no offense intended to anyone) they usually seem to stem from an ignorance of science. I’m a biologist, and some of the things claimed by those supporting a literal, 6 day creation make my head spin, from a scientific perspective.

To answer your question though, why I believe it’s ok to believe in evolution and still be Christian (Catholic), I simply refer to this article on catholic.com, notably this paragraph:
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.Source

Note the italicized word “body”, which also appears in the original. In no way is Catholic dogma comprimised by an “evolution of the body”. All that really matters is that, as Catholics, we believe that the soul is indeed God’s creation, and did not, indeed cannot, “evolve”.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Somewhat relevant to the thread…but I have always really liked this short story…
How it Happened:

**
How it Happened
**
My brother began to dictate in his best oratorical style, the one which has the tribes hanging on his words.

“In the beginning,” he said, “exactly fifteen point two billion years ago, there was a big bang and the Universe–”

But I had stopped writing. “Fifteen billion years ago?” I said incredulously.

“Absolutely,” he said. “I’m inspired.”

“I don’t question your inspiration,” I said. (I had better not. He’s three years younger than I am, but I don’t try questioning his inspiration. Neither does anyone else or there’s hell to pay.) “But are you going to tell the story of the Creation over a period of fifteen billion years?”

“I have to,” said my brother. “That’s how long it took. I have it all in here,” he tapped his forehead, “and it’s on the very highest authority.”

By now I had put down my stylus. “Do you know the price of papyrus?” I said.

“What?” (He may be inspired but I frequently noticed that the inspiration didn’t include such sordid matters as the price of papyrus.)

I said, “Suppose you describe one million years of events to each roll of papyrus. That means you’ll have to fill fifteen thousand rolls. You’ll have to talk long enough to fill them and you know that you begin to stammer after a while. I’ll have to write enough to fill them and my fingers will fall off. And even if we can afford all that papyrus and you have the voice and I have the strength, who’s going to copy it? We’ve got to have a guarantee of a hundred copies before we can publish and without that where will we get royalties from?”

My brother thought awhile. He said, “You think I ought to cut it down?”

“Way down,” I said, “if you expect to reach the public.”

“How about a hundred years?” he said.

“How about six days?” I said.

He said horrified, “You can’t squeeze Creation into six days.”

I said, “This is all the papyrus I have. What do you think?”

“Oh, well,” he said, and began to dictate again, “In the beginning-- Does it have to be six days, Aaron?”

I said, firmly, “Six days, Moses.”

I always thought that maybe, just maybe, Asimov had the right idea on this one…

 

[Chipper]

Mike_D30:

So you assert that no matter the evidence to the contrary, we should simply continue to believe in the Genesis account, even if it’s proven false? That’s just too tough for me to swallow. I can believe simply by doubting the evidence for evolution, to look through the holes in it. However once those holes are filled, I could see no basis for belief. If I’m just a monkey, well then I’m just a monkey, and when I die, I’m nothing but a dead, rotting, carbon based life form.

I don’t think God owes his children an explanation, but maybe drop on in every century or so and let us know he’s there, and we’re grossly misguided in the areas of science. Right now everyday people believe less and less, because of the explanations science provides, in another 1000 years, God will be a thing of the past, as everything on Earth is explained away, tested and proven in a lab. Only a really vindictive God would give humans this intellect and consciousness, and punish us greatly for using it.

Why the guess work? Really it’s getting close to the point where people will have no choice but to disbelieve, due to the compelling evidence that contradicts every major account in the Bible.

I really don’t see the problem. Did you read my post about God Stretching the heavens?

If he stretched the heavens on the 7th day after creation, then billions of years could have transpired. In other words Adam and Eve would scientifically be billions of years old, while the bible seems to state just a single generation of Adam and Eve. There should be no conflict between science and the bible under these circumstances. Other than the some scientists looking for the bones of Adam and Eve in the Pre-Cambrian strata. But they won’t find it in that strata. Because God changed Space and time while Adam and Eve were alive. And the bible also says in Genesis “Let the Earth bring forth all manner of creatures”. This is an evolutionary statement to me. However, this might be a reference to animal evolution, not necessarily human evolution. But, there really isn’t a conflict between scientific evidence and biblical evidence, after all. Only a conflict in interpretation. God changed space and time at various times.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Mike_D30]

Chipper:

I really don’t see the problem. Did you read my post about God Stretching the heavens?

If he stretched the heavens on the 7th day after creation, then billions of years could have transpired. In other words Adam and Eve would scientifically be billions of years old, while the bible seems to state just a single generation of Adam and Eve. There should be no conflict between science and the bible under these circumstances. Other than the some scientists looking for the bones of Adam and Eve in the Pre-Cambrian strata. But they won’t find it in that strata. Because God changed Space and time while Adam and Eve were alive. And the bible also says in Genesis “Let the Earth bring forth all manner of creatures”. This is an evolutionary statement to me. However, this might be a reference to animal evolution, not necessarily human evolution. But, there really isn’t a conflict between scientific evidence and biblical evidence, after all. Only a conflict in interpretation. God changed space and time at various times.

Regards,
Calvin

To me, that’s really tough to buy into. I’ve read Genesis several times. And no offense but this takes mental gymanstics to get your arms around your explanation. That’s ventruign into LDS apologetic territory. Typically the simplest explanation is probably the right one. If we came from monkeys, well then Genesis is just a tale, a made up story of old men, who tried their best to explain where they came from. It would be easier to not believe in anything, then we came from chimps as part of “God’s plan”. Then God’s plan was to tell us stories that were in no way true, to confuse us, and then using the intellect we have today, we discover all manner of things that contradict the stories he gave to us. If evolution from monkeys’ is how it was done, then really there’s nothing to believe in IMO.

 

[Orogeny]

Pjs2ejs:

There is just about as much evidence for Creation as there is for Evolution. Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, there is a lot that we don’t learn about in Biology classes that explain away the possibility of Creation.

That second sentence contradicts the first sentence. Which is it? Is there evidence for creationism or is there evidence we aren’t learning that exludes creationism?

If there is evidence for creationism that has been covered up, here is your chance to make it public. Why don’t you list the top, say, three pieces of scientific evidence for creationism.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Mike_D30:

If we came from monkeys, well then Genesis is just a tale, a made up story of old men, who tried their best to explain where they came from. It would be easier to not believe in anything, then we came from chimps as part of “God’s plan”. Then God’s plan was to tell us stories that were in no way true, to confuse us, and then using the intellect we have today, we discover all manner of things that contradict the stories he gave to us. If evolution from monkeys’ is how it was done, then really there’s nothing to believe in IMO.

The Church does not require that interpretation of Genesis. Then Cardinal Ratzinger released a document titled Communion and Stewardship:
**Human Persons Created in the Image of God The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution **which you can find here: bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

In that document, you find this statement (from paragraph 63):

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Evolution is not make believe and neither is Genesis. So, how do we reconcile the two? Read that document. It is wonderful!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orionthehunter]

Mike_D30:

To me, that’s really tough to buy into. I’ve read Genesis several times. And no offense but this takes mental gymanstics to get your arms around your explanation. That’s ventruign into LDS apologetic territory. Typically the simplest explanation is probably the right one. If we came from monkeys, well then Genesis is just a tale, a made up story of old men, who tried their best to explain where they came from. It would be easier to not believe in anything, then we came from chimps as part of “God’s plan”. Then God’s plan was to tell us stories that were in no way true, to confuse us, and then using the intellect we have today, we discover all manner of things that contradict the stories he gave to us. If evolution from monkeys’ is how it was done, then really there’s nothing to believe in IMO.

I think part of your trouble is related to the Transcendence of God. He is not limited by time or space or any of the “laws” or principals of science. To be so limited would essentially have God not be omnipotent and no longer God. A good read on this issue can be found in Augustine’s “Confessions” and Tozer’s “Knowledge of the Holy.”

In fact, I refer you to Tozer’s book as it is written so we think rightly about God before we start probing Him and His revelation. God is all-loving, all-knowing, all-good, all-loving, all-powerful and all the other “Alls and Omnis”. When we think of God from a human perspective, He can only become super-human when He is infinitely greater than that. If he were less than that, He wouldn’t be God.

Also, if God developed us from coconuts (much less monkeys), who am I to question God?

 

[Returnee]

Orogeny:

The Church does not require that interpretation of Genesis. Then Cardinal Ratzinger released a document titled Communion and Stewardship:
**Human Persons Created in the Image of God The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution **which you can find here: bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

In that document, you find this statement (from paragraph 63):

Evolution is not make believe and neither is Genesis. So, how do we reconcile the two? Read that document. It is wonderful!

Peace

Tim

That’s a good resource to have, thanks for posting it!

 

[Orogeny]

Returnee:

That’s a good resource to have, thanks for posting it!

You’re welcome!

Peace

Tim

 

[Chipper]

Mike_D30:

To me, that’s really tough to buy into. I’ve read Genesis several times. And no offense but this takes mental gymanstics to get your arms around your explanation. That’s ventruign into LDS apologetic territory. Typically the simplest explanation is probably the right one. If we came from monkeys, well then Genesis is just a tale, a made up story of old men, who tried their best to explain where they came from. It would be easier to not believe in anything, then we came from chimps as part of “God’s plan”. Then God’s plan was to tell us stories that were in no way true, to confuse us, and then using the intellect we have today, we discover all manner of things that contradict the stories he gave to us. If evolution from monkeys’ is how it was done, then really there’s nothing to believe in IMO.

Well, I don’t recall John Smith talking about the Time-Space continuum at all. So this is definately not LDS territory. If you’ll recall, Einstein developed the Time-Space continuum.

I don’t it think it takes mental gymnastics to understand what happens when Time and Space is Stretched. The bible very clearly states this “Stretching” in quite a number of places. The only thing left, is to meditate, on what happens, when the heavens are stretched.

And this theory does resolve all the crazy arguments taking place about the age of the earth, versus the age derived from the bible. In fact it is the only way I resolve it. I know a little about geology, and frankly without this theory, I just can’t resolve the age given by the bible.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Chipper]

Chipper:

Well, I don’t recall John Smith talking about the Time-Space continuum at all. So this is definately not LDS territory. If you’ll recall, Einstein developed the Time-Space continuum.

I don’t it think it takes mental gymnastics to understand what happens when Time and Space is Stretched. The bible very clearly states this “Stretching” in quite a number of places. The only thing left, is to meditate, on what happens, when the heavens are stretched.

And this theory does resolve all the crazy arguments taking place about the age of the earth, versus the age derived from the bible. In fact it is the only way I resolve it. I know a little about geology, and frankly without this theory, I just can’t resolve the age given by the bible.

Regards,
Calvin

ooops, I meant Joseph Smith

 

[Nullasalus]

I know I’m the one who asked the question (in this thread, anyway) but when it comes to the pure facts of the matter, I don’t view evolution as incompatible with the existence of God, or even God’s instrumentality in creation.

A long time ago, I remember reading a priest’s response to the question of ‘Could God create a rock so heavy that He Himself can’t lift it?’ His answer was that no, God can’t, because He does not create paradoxes like that. God’s creation is objectively perfect order - we live in a universe with physical rules that we can understand and depend on, even use and thrive alongside.

People have said, rightly I believe, that one point of Genesis was to make the point that what we have in creation is the result of God’s will. It isn’t something that God happened upon and copes with (which is more or less how the greek pantheon and others relate to creation; they are subject to it, just with greater strength than man.) Same with Man - we are not an accident that happened to occur, but the result of divine intention. Working within the rules He set for the universe and for us, that intention may have unfolded via evolution. I don’t think of this as looking behind a magician’s curtain and finding out that, oh, he’s not REALLY levitating. Evolution and the origin of life (still unknown, I believe) are awe-inspiring things all on their own even if they’re factual - a single living cell rises into existence under hazy conditions, and suddenly Manhattan appears. Just add time. That is still a miracle.

So is Man himself. With all of our scientific observation, we still reach the conclusion that the human race is very apart from every other bit of life we’ve ever seen. The runner up is the ape, and possibly the dolphin. Maybe someone can point out flaws here, but I’d say that the incredibly unique place man has in nature - that, in some ways, seems in defiance of the very evolution we apparently sprong from - is certain and obvious.

When it comes to Original Sin, the actual events become difficult to explain - it was a defining event for all of humanity. What we do know is…

• It was an event that occured far into our past - coinciding with the point at which we became ensouled.
• It was a transgression only man was capable of performing, as a result of our unique nature and endowments.
• This transgression affects us all, to this day.

None of this requires point-blank young-earth creation. If someone truly believes that, that’s fine - people who believe evolution and Catholicism may not believe the way I’m starting to seem things either, fairly enough. But after reading some responses, I just wanted to object to the idea that a Genesis that didn’t take place as described in the bible in and of itself is a religion-shattering event. I have questions remaining about what this does to the biblical lineages (twelve tribes, Abraham, Moses, etc), but that’s for another thread.

In sum, I just need better insight about the oldest of the OT tales. This is all very interesting, though.

 

[PhilVaz]

For those who would leave the Church if evolution were true, could someone tell me why John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn, and Cardinal Poupard didn’t leave the Church? They clearly accept evolution and modern biological science.

PLEASE people, Finding Darwin’s God, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Coming to Peace with Science, and new one by Lamoureux Evolutionary Creation. All your questions answered, well most of them.

The Bible clearly implies the earth is young, motionless, and flat. It is not a science text, was not intended to be, science is not satanic, stop reading AnswersInGenesis, and please don’t doubt your faith. Read a few modern commentaries on Genesis. Benedict XVI is good here too.

Phil P

 

[Chipper]

PhilVaz:

For those who would leave the Church if evolution were true, could someone tell me why John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn, and Cardinal Poupard didn’t leave the Church? They clearly accept evolution and modern biological science.

PLEASE people, Finding Darwin’s God, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Coming to Peace with Science, and new one by Lamoureux Evolutionary Creation. All your questions answered, well most of them.

The Bible clearly implies the earth is young, motionless, and flat. It is not a science text, was not intended to be, science is not satanic, stop reading AnswersInGenesis, and please don’t doubt your faith. Read a few modern commentaries on Genesis. Benedict XVI is good here too.

Phil P

Hi Phil,

You said stop reading “AnswersInGensis”. Actually I think that is a bad suggestion. As long as we read them in light of Catholic Teaching, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with it.

In all actuality I used to live next to this place. It’s just south of Ft. Worth. It is really quite an eye opening experience, to see the fossil tracks of humans, right next to the dinosaur tracks, embedded in the limestone rock. They also had fossilized fingers, and a lot more cool stuff on display there. They are/were doing scientific experiments, to attempt to verify some of the Pre-Flood theories about the earth.

This place used to be called the “Creationist Museum”. I haven’t been there in probably 10 years or so, but the last time I was there, it was definately eye opening.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Orogeny:

That second sentence contradicts the first sentence. Which is it? Is there evidence for creationism or is there evidence we aren’t learning that exludes creationism?

If there is evidence for creationism that has been covered up, here is your chance to make it public. Why don’t you list the top, say, three pieces of scientific evidence for creationism.

Peace

Tim

Yes, you are right, insert Evolution for Creation in this sentence. After I read it later, I smacked myself in the head.

“Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, there is a lot that we don’t learn about in Biology classes that explain away the possibility of Creation.”