Science & Religion

[SGWessells]

The Genesis account of Creation is not literal but allegorical.

Which Genesis account of creation? Or is it both? Are you familiar with the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which said in 1909 that the literal and historical truth of Genesis must be maintained along with any additional allegorical interpretation? Also, the early Fathers nearly all interpreted the Genesis 1 creation story literally as a six 24 hour day creation. Are you claiming that science can overrule the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”? Useful to know.

 

[grannymh]

Correct. My point was the before the Fall, God himself described at least one aspect of the then existing world as “not good”. Hence any claims that before the Fall the world was entirely “very good” or even perfect are incorrect.

rossum

What aspect please? And where was it described? Is it “It is not good for man to be alone”? * Genesis 2: 18.* To me, that is the prelude to marriage which is good because Adam is good. Practically speaking. Bachelors are not automatically not good.

 

[rossum]

What aspect please? And where was it described?

Genesis 2:18 - Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Man being alone, without a suitable companion, is “not good” in the pre-Fall world.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Genesis 2:18 - Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Man being alone, without a suitable companion, is “not good” in the pre-Fall world.

rossum

You are quicker than I can add to my post 102.

I added –
To me, that [Genesis 2:18] is the prelude to marriage which is good because Adam is good. Practically speaking. Bachelors are not automatically not good.

 

[tonyrey]

Which Genesis account of creation? Or is it both? Are you familiar with the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which said in 1909 that the literal and historical truth of Genesis must be maintained along with any additional allegorical interpretation? Also, the early Fathers nearly all interpreted the Genesis 1 creation story literally as a six 24 hour day creation. Are you claiming that science can overrule the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”? Useful to know.

CCC 283. “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…”

           "The Roman Catholic Church in 1950 under the leadership of ** Pope Pius         XII**, in the papal encyclical * Humani Generis*, stated  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, on the part of men experienced in both  fields, 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" with the stipulations that souls are  direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of  particular historical individuals, Adam and Eve. This doctrine is known  as "monogenism" versus         "polygenism."

"In October 1996, ** Pope John Paul II** stated that “new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis” and restated from * Humani Generis* that “if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.” However, as John Paul II recognized in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “In his Encyclical * Humani generis* [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.” Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

    In July 2004, the International Theological Commission published  a statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in  the Image of God" on creation, evolution, and God's providence. The  president of the commission was         **Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger**, then head of doctrine in the Catholic Church, who the following year became         ** Pope Benedict XVI**. The statement made explicit the  Church's support of the findings of modern science and biological  evolution, calling universal common descent         "*virtually certain*," and that "*even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for         creation*." (See especially paragraphs 62-70)."

philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

 

[francessmith]

Thank you for posting the 2004 findings and statement - Pope Benedict support of evolution - God’s natural continuous unfolding of his creation.

Why won’t and when will the catholic schools teach this? What is the church afraid of? I believe that so many questions regarding Adam and Eve could be put to rest and a better understanding of God and his purpose for his children would be easier to understand. If the Pope believes in evolution why is this not being spoken from the pulpits of all catholic churches. I understand the fear of shocking the flock who want to hold onto their childhood beliefs and not mature in their faith, yet they need to be educated.

The church would attract back to the fold and entice so many new believers if the church would speak to the present awareness of humanity and Gods plan that continues to evolve.

How foolish to continue to teach to our children that the allegories read in the bible are meant to be taken literally. If we continue to teach in the old way we will have less and less of the new generation of children stay with the church.

 

[SGWessells]

In October 1996, Pope John Paul II said: " my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points."

This is certainly progress, but science recognizes no indisputable points whatsoever. Some theories are better established than others, and evolution is as well established as it gets; however, recent advances in neuroscience make it clear that certain areas of the soul such as emotions and even beliefs, temperaments and inclinations, are all influenced by genetics; that is, by the material particles of DNA. Soul and body are not independent; our genes can influence areas of our psyches which were once more widely considered the domain of the soul, but DNA evolved along with the rest of our bodies. They are inseparable. So it is not the case, scientifically speaking, that our bodies evolved but our souls – will, emotion, intellect – were created by God directly, with no evolutionary (name removed by moderator)ut. The Church can set up whatever barriers to knowledge it wants, in the form of “indisputable points,” but nothing requires science to pay attention.

 

[grannymh]

In October 1996, Pope John Paul II said: " my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points."

And these indisputable points are…

This is certainly progress, but science recognizes no indisputable points whatsoever. Some theories are better established than others, and evolution is as well established as it gets; however, recent advances in neuroscience make it clear that certain areas of the soul such as emotions and even beliefs, temperaments and inclinations, are all influenced by genetics; that is, by the material particles of DNA. Soul and body are not independent; our genes can influence areas of our psyches which were once more widely considered the domain of the soul, but DNA evolved along with the rest of our bodies. They are inseparable. So it is not the case, scientifically speaking, that our bodies evolved but our souls – will, emotion, intellect – were created by God directly, with no evolutionary (name removed by moderator)ut. The Church can set up whatever barriers to knowledge it wants, in the form of “indisputable points,” but nothing requires science to pay attention.

And the soul is really…

 

[StAnastasia]

So it is not the case, scientifically speaking, that our bodies evolved but our souls – will, emotion, intellect – were created by God directly, with no evolutionary (name removed by moderator)ut. The Church can set up whatever barriers to knowledge it wants, in the form of “indisputable points,” but nothing requires science to pay attention.

I don’t see geneticists and neuroscientists waiting for Vatican permission before engaging in scientific exploration.

 

[rinnie]

Correct. My point was the before the Fall, God himself described at least one aspect of the then existing world as “not good”. Hence any claims that before the Fall the world was entirely “very good” or even perfect are incorrect.

rossum

You are taking not good out of context. If you look before Eve was created it stated God looked at all he created and he found it VERY GOOD. God stated IT is not good for man to be alone, not that the world was not good, or what he created was not good.

Again Gen. 1:31 contradicts you. God looked at EVERYTHNG he made and found it VERY GOOD.

You are saying that before the fall everything he made in the world was not very good or perfect, and that is a false statement.

 

[Ahimsa]

You are taking not good out of context. If you look before Eve was created it stated God looked at all he created and he found it VERY GOOD. God stated IT is not good for man to be alone, not that the world was not good, or what he created was not good.

Again Gen. 1:31 contradicts you. God looked at EVERYTHNG he made and found it VERY GOOD.

You are saying that before the fall everything he made in the world was not very good or perfect, and that is a false statement.

Genesis 1:31 refers to the first creation narrative, in which all is created “good”.

Adam and Eve belong to the second creation narrative, in which Adam’s aloneness is “not good”.

 

[rossum]

You are taking not good out of context. If you look before Eve was created it stated God looked at all he created and he found it VERY GOOD. God stated IT is not good for man to be alone, not that the world was not good, or what he created was not good.

So the “very good” world can contain things that are “not good”. That rather destroys that point of having a “very good” world doesn’t it.

Again Gen. 1:31 contradicts you. God looked at EVERYTHNG he made and found it VERY GOOD.

But during the process of making the world it was temporarily “not good”. We are talking about the time before Eve was made, so we are not talking about “everything”. The world before Eve was incomplete because it lacked Eve, and hence is not the complete world that God describes as “very good”. Gen 1:31 is not relevant before Eve.

You are saying that before the fall everything he made in the world was not very good or perfect, and that is a false statement.

I am not making that statement. What I am saying is much more limited. I am saying that there was a time before the Fall when at least part of the then incomplete world was “not good”. Do you deny that?

If part of the world was “not good” then it follows that at that time the world was not entirely “very good”. The time when this happened was before the Fall.

rossum

 

[rinnie]

So the “very good” world can contain things that are “not good”. That rather destroys that point of having a “very good” world doesn’t it.

But during the process of making the world it was temporarily “not good”. We are talking about the time before Eve was made, so we are not talking about “everything”. The world before Eve was incomplete because it lacked Eve, and hence is not the complete world that God describes as “very good”. Gen 1:31 is not relevant before Eve.

I am not making that statement. What I am saying is much more limited. I am saying that there was a time before the Fall when at least part of the then incomplete world was “not good”. Do you deny that?

If part of the world was “not good” then it follows that at that time the world was not entirely “very good”. The time when this happened was before the Fall.

rossum

But God was still creating the world. He never fully created it before Eve. God planted a garden in Eden, and then placed there man whom he had formed. Then he made various trees, etc.

Then he took the Man and settled him in the garden of EDEN, then God said IT is not GOOD for man to be alone, I will make a suitable partner for him.

You are jumping the gun here do you not agree, God is still creating before the time of Eve. Eve is the last that God created do you not agree??

The world was perfect until they are banished from Eden, If Eden was not previously perfect why then was the ground blessed previously then cursed??

In the first 2 chapters God is creating the heavens and earth. In chapter 2 God finished creating the earth.Then he began to make Man. God took man and settled him in Eden, then God said it was not GOOD for man to be alone. It was God who let MAN choose what was suitable for him.

You saying the world was not good before God completed it, would be like you bringing in an inspector to inspect plumbing in the bathroom before the house is even framed in.

Or you saying the house is not perfect because he has no rooms or roof, of course not, it is still being created.

 

[rossum]

Or you saying the house is not perfect because he has no rooms or roof, of course not, it is still being created.

That is precisely what I am saying. Arguments about what Creation did or did not look like before Eve must take into account the fact that up to then Creation was not complete and could contain things that were “not good”.

Arguing from the perfection, or near perfection, of all creation before Eve is a weak argument. Some arguments against evolution rely on such logic and so are weak arguments. Before Eve, Creation was still ongoing and, as you say, a house without a roof is “not good”.

rossu

 

[davidv]

That is precisely what I am saying. Arguments about what Creation did or did not look like before Eve must take into account the fact that up to then Creation was not complete and could contain things that were “not good”.

Is there any evidence that any of the existing creation was not good? Things that don’t exist (as in Eve, prior to her creation) are neither good nor bad.

Arguing from the perfection, or near perfection, of all creation before Eve is a weak argument. Some arguments against evolution rely on such logic and so are weak arguments. Before Eve, Creation was still ongoing and, as you say, a house without a roof is “not good”.

rossu

I don’t believe this is the argument in understanding the meaning of “not good”. That which does not have being, cannot have attributes.

 

[Ahimsa]

Is there any evidence that any of the existing creation was not good? Things that don’t exist (as in Eve, prior to her creation) are neither good nor bad.

Genesis 2:18:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone…

 

[rossum]

Is there any evidence that any of the existing creation was not good? Things that don’t exist (as in Eve, prior to her creation) are neither good nor bad.

But their absence can be “not good”, as was the absence of Eve while Adam was looking for a companion.

I don’t believe this is the argument in understanding the meaning of “not good”. That which does not have being, cannot have attributes.

It has the attribute of non-existence.

rossum

 

[davidv]

But their absence can be “not good”, as was the absence of Eve while Adam was looking for a companion.

It has the attribute of non-existence.

rossum

Non-existence is not a attritube. It is a state of non-being.

 

[StAnastasia]

In the first 2 chapters God is creating the heavens and earth. In chapter 2 God finished creating the earth.

Creation was and is still in process. Worlds are continually being formed our of stellar ejecta from supernovae, which coalesce over tends of millions of years into accretion discs and then stars and planets. Creation is indeed continuous.

 

[rinnie]

That is precisely what I am saying. Arguments about what Creation did or did not look like before Eve must take into account the fact that up to then Creation was not complete and could contain things that were “not good”.

Arguing from the perfection, or near perfection, of all creation before Eve is a weak argument. Some arguments against evolution rely on such logic and so are weak arguments. Before Eve, Creation was still ongoing and, as you say, a house without a roof is “not good”.

rossu

But the point I am trying to make is the world was good, Everything God created was good, and for the good of Man.

Man is who took good and created evil. It had nothing to do with God. You are saying if I am understanding you that there was some wrong or mistakes made in the world before Eve. This is what I am disagreeing with you on.

When God was finished all was not only good it was Paradise. Perfect. The way it will be in the next world. like it is in heaven now.

It was the fall of Man, Our mistake. It had nothing to do with God.

It is MAN who screwed up, not God.