Sacred Scripture and Evolutionary Processes

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

OK

After having gotten into a few of the evolutionary threads around here, I wondered if a thread dedicated to synthesizing the thought processes involved might be fruitful. Or degenerate into a free-for-all. Please people, PLEASE try and keep it Charitable - we are all here to learn.

Anyway - can anyone tell me how literal Creationists (those who say God created everything individually) get that position considering that Scripture says in Genesis:

1:11. And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
12. And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
20. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over earth under the firmament of heaven.
21. And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22. And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
23. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
24. And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and everything that creepeth on the earth, after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Chapter 2

1. And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.
2. But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth.
3. And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.b
4. And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.
5. And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Scripture most definately gives God the credit for creation, but it appears that the ''How" of things was through using the earth, and the waters - through an evolutionary process which we are discovering. Because it says ‘Brought Forth’ and ‘according to their kinds’.

Also - This Guy explains things a little better.

Peace

John

 

[Veritas41]

I don’t think that the “bringing forth” from something would necessarily require evolutionary process. I think it displays the unity of creation, which could be done “directly” and instantaneously by God or through a process.

 

[Liberian]

Veritas41:

I don’t think that the “bringing forth” from something would necessarily require evolutionary process. I think it displays the unity of creation, which could be done “directly” and instantaneously by God or through a process.

Joan,

Yes, “bring forth” could be interpreted in both ways. To get the correct interpretation we must look elsewhere.

I am quite interested in the reconciliation of Catholic doctrine and modern science. We know that Catholic doctrine is correct–although our understanding of it may be incorrect (witness the varying interpretations of “no salvation outside the Church”)–and modern science presents a moving target. Seventy years ago modern science taught that the universe had always existed and would continue to exist forever, and then it changed its mind. Something similar could easily happen with the evolutionary history of the human race.

On a historical note, I think Darwin and Huxley could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if they had presented evolution by saying “We know that God created us; we are just trying to fill in some details of how He did it.” Instead, they chose to present their theory as a way of replacing God, as if you could get logically from “this happened” to “this happened by itself.”

• Liberian

 

[Veritas41]

Liberian:

Joan,

Yes, “bring forth” could be interpreted in both ways. To get the correct interpretation we must look elsewhere.

I am quite interested in the reconciliation of Catholic doctrine and modern science. We know that Catholic doctrine is correct–although our understanding of it may be incorrect (witness the varying interpretations of “no salvation outside the Church”)–and modern science presents a moving target. Seventy years ago modern science taught that the universe had always existed and would continue to exist forever, and then it changed its mind. Something similar could easily happen with the evolutionary history of the human race.

On a historical note, I think Darwin and Huxley could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if they had presented evolution by saying “We know that God created us; we are just trying to fill in some details of how He did it.” Instead, they chose to present their theory as a way of replacing God, as if you could get logically from “this happened” to “this happened by itself.”

• Liberian

I agree with you – I think the problem is that people treat science as infallible and science tries to delve into areas that are beyond its knowledge (like whether or not God exists). From what I’ve been reading lately, it seems that even among materialistic evolutionists there are some who honestly admit the lack of evidence for their theory. It does seem to me that often evidence is forced to fit a preconceived theory rather than humbly following to see where the evidence leads, even if it contradicts previously held beliefs.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Veritas41:

I don’t think that the “bringing forth” from something would necessarily require evolutionary process. I think it displays the unity of creation, which could be done “directly” and instantaneously by God or through a process.

But it does not disallow it - which is basically my point. Literalistic interpretation people use Genesis as the jumping off point to say evolution is contradictory to scripture. What I am trying to ask here is ‘How’?

Also - Genesis does not say ‘evolution’ - that we get from observation of the physical remains we find here on the earth.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Liberian:

Joan,

Yes, “bring forth” could be interpreted in both ways. To get the correct interpretation we must look elsewhere.

Could you point to some references, as to ‘elsewhere’?

Liberian:

I am quite interested in the reconciliation of Catholic doctrine and modern science. We know that Catholic doctrine is correct–although our understanding of it may be incorrect (witness the varying interpretations of “no salvation outside the Church”)–and modern science presents a moving target. Seventy years ago modern science taught that the universe had always existed and would continue to exist forever, and then it changed its mind. Something similar could easily happen with the evolutionary history of the human race.

On a historical note, I think Darwin and Huxley could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if they had presented evolution by saying “We know that God created us; we are just trying to fill in some details of how He did it.” Instead, they chose to present their theory as a way of replacing God, as if you could get logically from “this happened” to “this happened by itself.”

• Liberian

Yes, I agree.

Peace

John

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Veritas41:

I agree with you – I think the problem is that people treat science as infallible and science tries to delve into areas that are beyond its knowledge (like whether or not God exists).

I can agree that some scientists do this, as the person themselves are separate from the institution. Much like the individual Catholic is separate from the Church in matters of authority. Catholics are free to express their own personal view on some issues, such as the one we are discussing - however the Church is not, the Church speaks for all.

Veritas41:

From what I’ve been reading lately, it seems that even among materialistic evolutionists there are some who honestly admit the lack of evidence for their theory. It does seem to me that often evidence is forced to fit a preconceived theory rather than humbly following to see where the evidence leads, even if it contradicts previously held beliefs.

I think (personally) the majority of the scientific establishment would disagree with that. Could you provide some evidence for that?

Which side of this discussion do you land on, if I may ask? My own personal belief is (As copied from another thread, found HERE ):

I do not see these things as an impediment to Creation/design because The ‘designer’ (Who I refer to as God) could have (It seems did) simply create the ingredients for what is observable in the universe today, as well as what is left to us for observation from the past - and define the outcome of said ingredients, leaving how that happened up to natural processes with an (apparently) given set of laws within the framework of the balance of creation.

Peace

John

 

[Veritas41]

PraRFLEsEkHm:

But it does not disallow it - which is basically my point. Literalistic interpretation people use Genesis as the jumping off point to say evolution is contradictory to scripture. What I am trying to ask here is ‘How’?

John

that’s what I said in my post – it doesn’t necessarily state things happened by evolutionary processes, but it doesn’t necessarily deny it, either. I think some of the literalistic approach occurs with the word “day,” with people reading that as a literal 24-hour day, which it could be, but the word *yom *can also refer to a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours.

 

[Veritas41]

I honestly can’t cite specific articles since I’ve read from a variety of sources over a period of years, but I can refer you to this website that has links to various articles and discussions on evolution, creationism and intelligent design. Some of these I have read.

Where do I fall on this issue? Well, I have to admit I am skeptical towards the science of today. I’m not an anti-science fundamentalist, but my problem is in not having alot of confidence in the objectivity of scientists today since many are staunchly materialistic and interpret everything they find in light of that world view. I’m not a scientific expert, but from what I remember from the science courses I took in high school and college (biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) it does seem science bases many things on mere assumptions, and I wonder if these assumptions are true? I can go either way. I believe it is certainly within God’s capabilities to create the entire universe instantaneously if He so chose, or He could taken His time by creating through processes.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Veritas41:

that’s what I said in my post – it doesn’t necessarily state things happened by evolutionary processes, but it doesn’t necessarily deny it, either. I think some of the literalistic approach occurs with the word “day,” with people reading that as a literal 24-hour day, which it could be, but the word *yom *can also refer to a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. My understanding of the ‘strictly creation’ POV (I need to find a short easy way to reference that method of undertanding ) is that God created everything, individually, out of nothing, (poof – there it is) in 144 hours (or less) and since then nothing has changed. More or less this seems to be the viewpoint, entirely from scripture. My question to them is - “How”? As in “How do you get that from scripture”?

Likewise - for Atheistic evolutionists - where did the ‘stuff’ that evolution works with come from?

Peace

John