Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[Fran65]

Hi Buffalo or edwest,

In case you missed my last post I’ll repeat it as I’m keen to read an answer.

If, as you say the second account illustrates the importance of man and is therefore not contradictory, then women are clearly stated as not part of ‘mankind’ and are less important than plants and animals.

How is this resolved?

Thanks

 

[buffalo]

It irrelevant; the point is he didn’t hold to a literal account, and this is fine.

I don’t expect a person to grasp the mind of God, but expect them to have an understanding of Gods nature and a more than adequate grasp of common sense. God obviously did not create the world in seven 24 hour days.

Catholics understand the Bible literally, that is what the author intended to convey.

I will use my tape measure analogy again. If we live on a tape measure and look back we can see the graduations all the way back. If we look at the tape measure from the outside all rolled up we see it all at the same time.

Common sense does not preclude a creation week. Modern scientific sense does.

 

[tjm190]

“Catholics understand the Bible literally, that is what the author intended to convey.”
These are different things

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo or edwest,

In case you missed my last post I’ll repeat it as I’m keen to read an answer.

If, as you say the second account illustrates the importance of man and is therefore not contradictory, then women are clearly stated as not part of ‘mankind’ and are less important than plants and animals.

How is this resolved?

Thanks

The women who is “bone of my bones” is finally shown to be important.

 

[Fran65]

“Finally shown to be important” - that is, after the plants and the animals.

If that statement is the order of importance of living things then we are less important than plants and animals. That is what a literal reading of that statement means.

Clealry that is not true, which casts doubt on this explanation of the apparently contradictory nature of those two accounts.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Buffalo or edwest,

In case you missed my last post I’ll repeat it as I’m keen to read an answer.

If, as you say the second account illustrates the importance of man and is therefore not contradictory, then women are clearly stated as not part of ‘mankind’ and are less important than plants and animals.

How is this resolved?

Thanks

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that women are less important than plants and animals. Only a feminist worldview would distort the relationship between men and women like this. Adam was given a help mate from God, “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Only a radical, divisive anti-family ideology seeks to make woman the eternal victim and the man the eternal enemy.

Man and woman were literally made for each other. Their complementary natures were given to them by God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

My question has been ignored again!

Perhaps I do not understand your question.

 

[donsnow]

Can you give some examples of scientists who “cling to Darwinism with religious fervor”? Or are you just making this up?

Hi, StAnastasia -

Good to hear from you; I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. Now, to answer your question.

Thank you for not asking for names, I don’t remember that. However, on the Bad Astronomer’s blog, several times I exchanged posts with people who seemed to have a religious fervor for Darwin’s teachings. Like, one time, a bunch of them went on a science pilgrimage to the Galagopos Archepalago, reported their activity there just like I did to my friends and family, after my faith pilgrimage to Jerusalem. They were awed and joyful in following in the steps of Darwin. However, that was at least last year, if not earlier, so you might find it difficult to find on his blog. On the left side of the home page is a link to the Bad Astronomy (BA) blog
You can read the postings of the people in his blog at:
badastronomy.com/index.html

I originally went there because I’m an amateur astronomer, and had heard about him on an all night talk show called, “Coast to Coast”. His blog allows more freedom of ideas, includes blogs on religion and politics, than does the “Bad Astronomy and Universe Today” (BAUT) forums, which prohibit posts on religion or politics. I now very seldom go to BAUT…I promised them some photos of my dogs; so when those are ready (they’ve been waiting since the beginning of this year) I’ll go and post them in my BAUT photo album and leave a post that the photos are then available.

You have no idea how happy I am to have found CAF and read the posts and post here, free of the skeptic idealogical atmosphere I endured in BAUT and BA. I joy in the Catholic mental atmosphere that I pick up on, here.

 

[StAnastasia]

If, as you say the second account illustrates the importance of man and is therefore not contradictory, then women are clearly stated as not part of ‘mankind’ and are less important than plants and animals. How is this resolved?Thanks

The inferiority of women is not inconsistent with a fundamentalist world view.

 

[buffalo]

The inferiority of women is not inconsistent with a fundamentalist world view.

Ahhh - may be now I understand better your issues with creation. Woman were made from men - that is your real issue isn’t it?

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi, StAnastasia - Good to hear from you; I enjoy your posts, even the ones I disagree with. Now, to answer your question.

Thank you for not asking for names, I don’t remember that. However, on the Bad Astronomer’s blog, several times I exchanged posts with people who seemed to have a religious fervor for Darwin’s teachings. Like, one time, a bunch of them went on a science pilgrimage to the Galagopos Archepalago, reported their activity there just like I did to my friends and family, after my faith pilgrimage to Jerusalem. They were awed and joyful in following in the steps of Darwin…

Thanks, Donsnow. I understand people’s enthusiasm for a “founding father” of a science (Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Darwin, Wegener), but I don’t 'see how that is akin to “religious” fervor. My family and I had a very enjoyable day in July at Down House where the Darwin’s lived; I had an equally enjoyable time at the Vatican last March. Both visits were inspiring, thought provoking, and educational.

Nor do I know any biologists today who “cling” to Darwin. The theory of evolution is 150 years old, and has been strengthened with every passing year by contributions from complementary sciences.

Fundamentalists like to call it “Darwinism” but that is no more convincing than the theory of gravity being called “Newtonism.”

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Ahhh - may be now I understand better your issues with creation. Woman were made from men - that is your real issue isn’t it?

Perhaps you don’t understand procreation, buffalo. Egg and sperm unite to form a blastocyst; it is an process that has been going on since the evolution of sex in the Precambrian, perhaps around 700 million years ago. You also don’t understand what theologians mean by “creation.” It is not tied to a particular event in time, but rather describes the ontological dependence of the world upon a source outside itself.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps you don’t understand procreation, buffalo. Egg and sperm unite to form a blastocyst; it is an process that has been going on since the evolution of sex in the Precambrian, perhaps around 700 million years ago. You also don’t understand what theologians mean by “creation.” It is not tied to a particular event in time, but rather describes the ontological dependence of the world upon a source outside itself.

StAnastasia

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps you don’t understand procreation, buffalo. Egg and sperm unite to form a blastocyst; it is an process that has been going on since the evolution of sex in the Precambrian, perhaps around 700 million years ago. You also don’t understand what theologians mean by “creation.” It is not tied to a particular event in time, but rather describes the ontological dependence of the world upon a source outside itself.

StAnastasia

Eve was created from Adam’s side by God. That’s what we Catholics know.

What is the difference between a Catholic who believes in Creation and a Catholic who believes in some form of evolution? None.

That said, it is obvious why the Biology textbook is inadequate to explain the ontological leap to man. The attempts to shoehorn science into the deposit of faith are ignoring truths contained therein.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps you don’t understand procreation, buffalo. Egg and sperm unite to form a blastocyst; it is an process that has been going on since the evolution of sex in the Precambrian, perhaps around 700 million years ago. You also don’t understand what theologians mean by “creation.” It is not tied to a particular event in time, but rather describes the ontological dependence of the world upon a source outside itself.

StAnastasia

I understand only too well and now much better. I never thought about it but the radical feminist cannot accept Eve coming from Adam, can she? Neither can you. So you will twist and turn to avoid it.

 

[StAnastasia]

You didn’t answer my question.

The answer is “no.”

 

[StAnastasia]

I understand only too well and now much better. I never thought about it but the radical feminist cannot accept Eve coming from Adam, can she? Neither can you. So you will twist and turn to avoid it.

It has nothing to do with my feminism. It has to do with hermeneutics and how we read symbolic stories. If you choose to read the Genesis cosmogonic myths literally, you will no doubt imagine a literal pulling of a literal “Eve” from a literal “Adam.s” side. I am not personally acquainted with any Catholics who think like this, but I know there are some.

StAnastasia

 

[simple_soul]

Hello everyone,

Just wanted to add my thoughts on this.
From the limited amount of what I do understand of evolution and the big bang theory. I have not found anything in the two theories to really convince me that it did not happen this way or that it did.
Keep in mind you are reading from someone who asked her midwife why we have to wait until the baby was at lease so many weeks old in order to determine of it was a boy or girl. I could not understand why we couldn’t just count the ribs.

What I finally came to terms with is why does it matter? We know we are all connected some how with each other and the rest of creation and that all creation revolves around and seem to be connected to something bigger than anyone can explain. But why do we need to know the whys and whens? OK, curiosity killed the cat and satisfaction brought him back but still why do we get so “hung up” on it? I heard a quote when I was younger and it still makes me smile “When science finally reaches the huge summit they are trying to climb they will realize God was there all the time.”

 

[donsnow]

Evolutionism is a theory whose fruit is death, destruction, statism, utopianism, eugenics, paganism, and destruction of Catholic faith. Our Blessed Lord said, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

All of B16’s equivocation with modernists cannot ever hope to approach the majesty of that Divinity which revealed to Moses the origins of mankind and his world and the dogmas of eternal truth which can never fail.

St. Pius X thunders from eternity against you modernists in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

and again:

and lastly, you modernists blaspheme against the sacred texts:

Merciful God, be pleased to grant us pius heroes such as Blessed Saint Pius X to defend us from this Babylonian syncretism!

Hi, Johnny -

I’m neither a Modernist nor a Postmodernist, but call myself a Traditionalist. And, I respectfully and gently disagree that some theories of evolution themselves are too dangerous and all of their fruit is not "…death, destruction, statism, utopianism, eugenics, paganism, and destruction of Catholic faith. Our Blessed Lord said, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

However…imho, your quote does accurately describe Darwinism.

I am learning to separate the teachings of Charles Darwin from contemporary theories of evolution. Johnny, evolution appears to me, as one of the tools which our Creator employed to effect His creation: if and only if, in fact, there are billions of years that things happened during. I believe the Holy Bible as the inspired word of God.

For example, I have taken the stand that Genesis 1, 1 could cover billions of years. That is,
“In the beginning,…” (before time and space)
“…God created…”(Big Bang? Fourteen billions of years ago?)
"…The heavens…"From 14 billion years (?) to present)
“…and the earth,…” anywhere from four to six billion (?) years ago.

Notice the qualifying question marks. To me, those times are theory. At length, I could state my opinion that Biblical days of creation are true, and the evidence to the contrary was planted by the Devil, like salting a mine to appear it has more than it does. And, God allows this as a test of faith.

So, in my mind, both a literal interpretation of the Creation account or the evolutionary account of development are unproven. And unprovable:shrug:. And, that acceptance of either concept becomes, therefore, an act of faith. I believe the Holy Bible and the Church’s teaching, not Charles Darwin. (I try to separate Darwin’s teachings from other theories of evolution).

I read the quote of Pope Benedict XVI’s answer to the priest. I see no equivocation in it. Now, Pope Pius X you quote, an excerpt which apparantly shows him in disagreement. Here, I exercise my freedom of choice in a way I learned to choose between disagreeing science authorities: Choose the one I agree with. I don’t agree with your choice but I do agree with both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, the latter imho the greatest Pope the church has ever had, since and not including St. Peter.

Nevertheless, I submit that we are not to follow this Pope nor that Pope, but rather recognize that all the Popes and we are in Christ Jesus. Let us not turn the Church against itself.

I hope the above makes sense, to you.

 

[buffalo]

It has nothing to do with my feminism. It has to do with hermeneutics and how we read symbolic stories. If you choose to read the Genesis cosmogonic myths literally, you will no doubt imagine a literal pulling of a literal “Eve” from a literal “Adam.s” side. I am not personally acquainted with any Catholics who think like this, but I know there are some.

StAnastasia

I am not convinced. The modernist and feminist reading of scripture are of recent vintage and not at all the constant teaching and understanding of the Church since the beginning.