N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Part of the confusion may be that so many of the people who think Genesis is symbolic and accept evolution also think that the rest of the bible, including Jesus’ miracle stories are allegorical.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
That’s exactly right.There is a “miracle explanation industry” out there. My ‘favorite’: Jesus didn’t multiply the loaves and fishes, it was about the “miracle” of sharing. Anything to get you to think that God, the Bible, Christ’s death and resurrection, and everything else in the Bible is allegory, symbolic (another ‘favorite’ of mine) and a bunch of stories with a few good ideas here and there.
Strangely, some people can accept the miracles Christ did, but forget He was there at the creation of the world.
God bless,
Ed
Strangely, some people can accept the miracles Christ did, but forget He was there at the creation of the world.
God bless,
Ed
G
goofyjim
Guest
This reminds me of the sun goes around the earth dispute. Well, I chose the earth goes around the sun so I guess I am heretic twice because I have read an abbreviated City of God by St. Augustine. I remember him pointing out that if we were to take the creation story literally there would have to be some incestual relations going on to populate the species. I don’t think God would have approved of that.
M
manualman
Guest
Man, you can really tell many posters grew up in a protestant environment! Before reacting to quotes from somebody at the Vatican, you need to be sure you understand the defintions of the words being used.
“Creationism” as used in the context of the quote is the practice of starting with a belief in the creation as literally described in Genesis and THEN looking at the fossil record and trying to find ways to make it fit. THIS is the defintion dismissed as ‘superstition’ in the quote, not the idea that the universe has a Creator who happens to be omniscient and omnipotent.
This is one of the benefits of being catholic: learning from history and standing on the shoulders of giants. A long time ago, may christians believed that the scriptures taught that the world is flat (there are texts that speak of the ‘foundations of the earth’ and the sky being ‘stretched over the earth like a dome.’) Because they misunderstood scripture and used it to form a preconcieved notion, they refused to believe the scientific evidence that the world was round.
When the theory of evolution came around, the church wisely decided to help people avoid from making that mistake. People confuse the definition of science with the definition of REALITY. Science is often wrong, but its strength is that the scientific method requires one to consider the evidence, not preconception, and to construct theories based on what is observed.
The philosophy behind ‘Creationism’ or Intelligent Design, stifles further scientific inquiry by making a final, unknowable statement of supernatural intervention. This is the very kind of poor reasoning the Pope criticized the muslims for using to excess at Regensburg. We are created in the image and likeness of God, so to a certain extent we learn more about God the more we learn about HOW the universe was formed.
In other words, it is not a contradiction for a scientist to operate professionally from a set of factual assumptions no different from atheism, but retain a healthy personal faith. It is no contradiction to believe God created the universe, but to study the natural mechanics of how it took place!
“Creationism” as used in the context of the quote is the practice of starting with a belief in the creation as literally described in Genesis and THEN looking at the fossil record and trying to find ways to make it fit. THIS is the defintion dismissed as ‘superstition’ in the quote, not the idea that the universe has a Creator who happens to be omniscient and omnipotent.
This is one of the benefits of being catholic: learning from history and standing on the shoulders of giants. A long time ago, may christians believed that the scriptures taught that the world is flat (there are texts that speak of the ‘foundations of the earth’ and the sky being ‘stretched over the earth like a dome.’) Because they misunderstood scripture and used it to form a preconcieved notion, they refused to believe the scientific evidence that the world was round.
When the theory of evolution came around, the church wisely decided to help people avoid from making that mistake. People confuse the definition of science with the definition of REALITY. Science is often wrong, but its strength is that the scientific method requires one to consider the evidence, not preconception, and to construct theories based on what is observed.
The philosophy behind ‘Creationism’ or Intelligent Design, stifles further scientific inquiry by making a final, unknowable statement of supernatural intervention. This is the very kind of poor reasoning the Pope criticized the muslims for using to excess at Regensburg. We are created in the image and likeness of God, so to a certain extent we learn more about God the more we learn about HOW the universe was formed.
In other words, it is not a contradiction for a scientist to operate professionally from a set of factual assumptions no different from atheism, but retain a healthy personal faith. It is no contradiction to believe God created the universe, but to study the natural mechanics of how it took place!
G
goofyjim
Guest
Beautifully stated. I wish I could have done it.
N
NReily
Guest
I think the issue is not rejecting any scientific evidence in front of us, I think the issue is for some people is saying that because some scientific evidence suggests this, that means that can’t happen. I have no problem with believing that God could have created the earth exactly described in the Genesis account, and in the same manner through his Will, formed the Earth age outside of an evolutionary process. God is God, he can do whatever he wants as long as it is not outside of his Will. What I find as more of a problem is while the guy is open to his opinion, his language in the statement is detrimental to non-Catholics who harbor this view. And it is especially out of place to use the statement to belittle “fundamentalists” when these guys Church’s are filled with ex-Catholics, and are doing a lot better of a job at creating communities that edify these people to faith, compared with a lot of Catholic Churches in this country.
M
manualman
Guest
The quoted astronomer could certainly have been more pastoral since it is quite easy to misunderstand his choice of words. Although I have quite a bit of experience in evangelical christian circles, I am not quite as admiring of the faith that is being edified there. If the faith they are inspired to contains distortions like this take on ‘Creationism’ they are constructing a straw man faith that will be easy for the evil one to knock down in the future. And sure enough, the faith burn-out/drop-out rate among evangelicals is appalling (and I get that assertion from THEIR statistics, not catholic ones).
goofyjim, Thanks! I thought it came out a bit wordy myself.
E
edwest2
Guest
If you are here to promote science, fine. But remember, for the Christian, REALITY is combined with the Spiritual. The two are inseparable. Got it?
No, I’m not suggesting scientists start writing papers on God, what I am saying is that Christians believe in a living GOD that exists at this moment. I don’t care that science has nothing to say about God. However, when scientific information is taken out of the lab it is used to further various agendas.
God brought about creation from nothing. It does not matter that science cannot comment on this. It does matter that this is what God can, in fact do. You know, like raise the dead, turn water into wine, give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper…
I believe God formed an earth that was ready to live on in a short period of time. No problem for Him.
God bless,
Ed
No, I’m not suggesting scientists start writing papers on God, what I am saying is that Christians believe in a living GOD that exists at this moment. I don’t care that science has nothing to say about God. However, when scientific information is taken out of the lab it is used to further various agendas.
God brought about creation from nothing. It does not matter that science cannot comment on this. It does matter that this is what God can, in fact do. You know, like raise the dead, turn water into wine, give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper…
I believe God formed an earth that was ready to live on in a short period of time. No problem for Him.
God bless,
Ed
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Do note that that evidence relys on the assumption that the physical laws and constants that we observe today prevail throughout the universe and were the same throughout history. While I this is a reasonable assumption, and I accept it, I don’t know of any evidence for it. The main reason for accepting the assumption is that we have to assume something, and this is the simplest.
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
I <3 religion & science!
O
Orogeny
Guest
Are you at all interested in replying to what I actually wrote, Ed? Can you give ANY physical evidence supporting the creation story in Genesis?
Why do you even try to make such a ridiculous statement? Name me one person who accepts the miracles of the New Testament but has forgotten that God was present at the creation of the world.
Peace
Tim
M
Milliardo
Guest
Actually, I kind of agree to what he said. The only thing I don’t agree is where he said that creationism is a kind of paganism; I think we need to know what he’s actually saying there. The rest though is reasonable and logical.
H
heather_rose
Guest
I haven’t been around here long. In fact, this is the first place I’ve posted since I joined CA. BUT I would like to say that I found myself highly offended by this astronomer’s statement. However, before anyone writes me off as a superstitious believer in allegorical fairy tales, let me say this;
Evolution was a theory thought up by men who were NOT scientists, and it was seized by the scientific community, which set out to “prove it.” Now, I have seen theory after theory, and proof after proof fall flat on its face.
EQUALLY so… I have seen literal Creationists out there making monkeys of themselves and looking completely ridiculous. theories and proofs fall flat here, too.
Therefore, I put forth that both Creationism and Evolution as valid theories, as little as I like to call Evolution valid–I am forced to. NEITHER THEORY will ever by conclusively proven to be true or false, which is why they remain theories. My main objection to Evolution is simply that I have personally seen it used to justify anti-God doctrines and to insult the dignity of man. But I admit that just because it is a favorite of secular scholars who abuse it does not mean that it may not be true.
I guess, though, that what I really want to say is what is the point in arguing about it? We waste a lot of effort on both sides that could elsewhere be put to greater and more productive uses.
I’m sure that SOMEONE will attempt to tear me apart, and so be it. but I’d like to tell the Evolutionists here that I respect the theory as a theory, but object to it being taught as indisputable fact, because there is indeed another VALID theory. To the Creationists, I say that few here actually doubt that God had a personal hand in creation. The only heresy would be if others actually denied God’s all-important role in this world, form beginning to end. But let us love each other as we are called to do, and stop flinging mud, hmm?
Evolution was a theory thought up by men who were NOT scientists, and it was seized by the scientific community, which set out to “prove it.” Now, I have seen theory after theory, and proof after proof fall flat on its face.
EQUALLY so… I have seen literal Creationists out there making monkeys of themselves and looking completely ridiculous. theories and proofs fall flat here, too.
Therefore, I put forth that both Creationism and Evolution as valid theories, as little as I like to call Evolution valid–I am forced to. NEITHER THEORY will ever by conclusively proven to be true or false, which is why they remain theories. My main objection to Evolution is simply that I have personally seen it used to justify anti-God doctrines and to insult the dignity of man. But I admit that just because it is a favorite of secular scholars who abuse it does not mean that it may not be true.
I guess, though, that what I really want to say is what is the point in arguing about it? We waste a lot of effort on both sides that could elsewhere be put to greater and more productive uses.
I’m sure that SOMEONE will attempt to tear me apart, and so be it. but I’d like to tell the Evolutionists here that I respect the theory as a theory, but object to it being taught as indisputable fact, because there is indeed another VALID theory. To the Creationists, I say that few here actually doubt that God had a personal hand in creation. The only heresy would be if others actually denied God’s all-important role in this world, form beginning to end. But let us love each other as we are called to do, and stop flinging mud, hmm?
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Slight drift:
I was unaware that the Jesuit order had Brothers. I thought the Jesuits were unique in that they were all priests.
T
Titus
Guest
Drift: I believe they are all priests, but all I can suggest is that perhaps this one uses the informal title Brother? Who knows with the Jesuits…
Main Topic: I agree gwith Br Guy, though I wouldn’t have expressed it the way he did- literalistic creationism flies in the face of science and it would be gravely inappropriate for the Church to promote it. But the position of the Church is that evolution is fully possible as long as Divine Creation of the soul, and origination of the species with one pair of people is accepted. What’s wrong with what this astronomer has said?
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
With all the bickering going on it’s a shame they moved the article so I can’t read it to see what was said. 
I
inthecloud
Guest
The Jesuits have brothers not only priests.
Thrust me, I went to one of their schools.
Evoutionary Creation by God is a far better miracle that the YEC version. A evolutionary universe out of a quantic vacumm, a man out of primoridial organic mud. Now that is a miracle. Genesis read literaly sounds like a childrens tale. Read simbolicaly is a far deeper book. Teistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism is the way to go and both JPII and B16 are right in that.
The CC is the church of Teilhard de Cardin and Georges Lemaitre after all.
Thrust me, I went to one of their schools.
Remember him and John Henry Newman.
Evoutionary Creation by God is a far better miracle that the YEC version. A evolutionary universe out of a quantic vacumm, a man out of primoridial organic mud. Now that is a miracle. Genesis read literaly sounds like a childrens tale. Read simbolicaly is a far deeper book. Teistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism is the way to go and both JPII and B16 are right in that.
The CC is the church of Teilhard de Cardin and Georges Lemaitre after all.
S
surgei
Guest
Way to go Brother.
I am glad somone inside the Church is making good statements.
Hugh Ross does some great work, although he is protestant.
Does anyone know the day job ot the man who came up with the big bang? I’ll give you a clue, his name is Fr. Georges Lemaître. Wikipedia has a great article on Big bang. As of yet I have not found a young earth creationist that can show why Lemaitre was wrong. In order to do so you have to take on everything from huble’s law to spead of light, gravity to conversion of mass to energy.
What I find odd is that once gravity was considered against plain science and divine revelation. So was Keplingers great work on our solar system.
Yes, We attatch the name theory to evolution and big bang, however we also attatch it to gravity, acid base reaction, and an assundry of “proven” notions.
Just because Darwin was a theologain from Cambridge does not mean his science is bad. If it did we must also throw out Fr. Mendels work in genetics and Fr. Mendelovs work on the periodic table of elements, both of which are considered the best “theory” we have for their respective fields.
Gerald Schroder gives a great talk on “Genisis and the Big Bang” you can find it here: aishaudio.com/filelink.php?sid=9528451u6724o17&icontype=s&fid=10736&bw=high&lnk=s
He is not only an ethnic jew, like me hooah, he is also a practicing hassed. For him not just the ideas of Genisis are inspired but each letter and space were given to Moses by God. He draws off commentaries of the Torah over a thousand years old that show Big Bang like leanings of those great sages.
I am glad somone inside the Church is making good statements.
Hugh Ross does some great work, although he is protestant.
Does anyone know the day job ot the man who came up with the big bang? I’ll give you a clue, his name is Fr. Georges Lemaître. Wikipedia has a great article on Big bang. As of yet I have not found a young earth creationist that can show why Lemaitre was wrong. In order to do so you have to take on everything from huble’s law to spead of light, gravity to conversion of mass to energy.
What I find odd is that once gravity was considered against plain science and divine revelation. So was Keplingers great work on our solar system.
Yes, We attatch the name theory to evolution and big bang, however we also attatch it to gravity, acid base reaction, and an assundry of “proven” notions.
Just because Darwin was a theologain from Cambridge does not mean his science is bad. If it did we must also throw out Fr. Mendels work in genetics and Fr. Mendelovs work on the periodic table of elements, both of which are considered the best “theory” we have for their respective fields.
Gerald Schroder gives a great talk on “Genisis and the Big Bang” you can find it here: aishaudio.com/filelink.php?sid=9528451u6724o17&icontype=s&fid=10736&bw=high&lnk=s
He is not only an ethnic jew, like me hooah, he is also a practicing hassed. For him not just the ideas of Genisis are inspired but each letter and space were given to Moses by God. He draws off commentaries of the Torah over a thousand years old that show Big Bang like leanings of those great sages.
S
surgei
Guest
Note this whole debate puts the revelation of God in creation against the revelation of God in Scriptueres.
Neither can hold a trump card but both should be used to show you that you are not God, but God wants you to be. (God became man so that men might become God.)
Note also that Romans says that we can know God through science. *For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
*
In the end it should lead us to this.:bowdown:
Neither can hold a trump card but both should be used to show you that you are not God, but God wants you to be. (God became man so that men might become God.)
Note also that Romans says that we can know God through science. *For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
*
In the end it should lead us to this.:bowdown:
D
DWPC
Guest
I’ve heard him interviewed, and he’s a marvelous Catholic spokesman and representative. Its wonderful to *finally *see a Catholic cleric; a Jesuit no less, again challenging ignorance cloaked in religion.
Its way past time that a bright light be shined on the pervasive superstitions of Fundamentalism that many converts are bringing with them to Catholicism. Evolution has been accepted *and taught *by the Church **for generations, just as it has condemned simple-minded scriptural literalism for centuries. When I read these forums, I often wonder who’s converting who.
Its way past time that a bright light be shined on the pervasive superstitions of Fundamentalism that many converts are bringing with them to Catholicism. Evolution has been accepted *and taught *by the Church **for generations, just as it has condemned simple-minded scriptural literalism for centuries. When I read these forums, I often wonder who’s converting who.
- Status