Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

[jdnation]

In regard to the type of creationism that advocates a literal only reading of Genesis 1, I would like to know what any of these creationists think about St. Thomas Aquinas’ statement that a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture. Any takers here?

Also, St. Augustine interpreted much of Genesis 1 allegorically. He taught basic evolutionary ideas from a theological perspective. One can see this in his doctrine of *rationis seminales. *There is a picture here of creation unfolding over time.

St. Gregory of Nyssa also taught some very basic evolutionary ideas. Are there any literalists here who care to comment on St. Augustine’s and St. Gregory Nyssa’s views about creation and evolution?

St. Thomas Aquinas is correct. A superficial reading does clearly state that God created the world in six days. What is relevant is what is wrong with reading it superficially if the author intended it to be read that way? After all a superficial reading of the Gospels clearly tell us that Christ was crucified. Is there any reason to read it otherwise?

And just like much of the Bible, many things that are both poetic and factual convey multi-layered allegorical things which is a testament to the richness of the Holy Scriptures and their divine inspiration and how God uses actual events to foreshadow future events, or reveal His nature, or to highlight prophecy and all the deeper, beautiful meanings from His actions and those of the faithful. Genesis can be read as both a historical account, and at the same time we can derive allegorical meanings from it that many Biblical commentators and Church scholars have written volumes about! Typology is also a very interesting subject, but for types to be true the event that allegorically foreshows it must also be historical fact. The Ark of the Covenant really existed for the purposes of the Israelites, and at the same time the Ark of the Convenant is an allegorical type to describe the Virgin Mary. It’s use of pure materials for its construction is a testament to the immaculate conception and sinless Mary. It’s contents of the Holy Scriptures, law and priestly items all foreshadow the Christ child in the womb who is the Incarnate Word and high priest.

To comment on any evolutionary views of St. Gregory and St. Augustine, I’d have to read about it first. But even if they did hold macro-evolutionary views, it doesn’t make them Church doctrine, they’re free to speculate and they can also be entirely wrong on the topic. If Pope Benedict believes in evolution and it turns out not to be true that doesn’t make him any less a pope. Neither do the faithful have any obligation to believe anything that is still wide open for debate and not established Church dogma simply because one in high esteem or a position of authority thought one way.

 

[Thekla]

Am I the only one then who maintains a balanced approach that God created the present world through an evolutionary process?

Of course not. I remember the Catholic Church being pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. But I think they’ve been scared by the fundamentalists.

 

[itinerant1]

St. Thomas Aquinas is correct. A superficial reading does clearly state that God created the world in six days. What is relevant is what is wrong with reading it superficially if the author intended it to be read that way? After all a superficial reading of the Gospels clearly tell us that Christ was crucified. Is there any reason to read it otherwise?

You may say that Aquinas is correct, but you are not actually agreeing with him because you have misinterpreted what he is saying. In effect, what you have done is to agree with your misreading and then attribute that meaning to Aquinas, who never held that position. Even here, the crux of the matter is what the author intended by his words.

But even “what the author intended” is not a rule of thumb for all functions of language. In poetic language their may be meanings that the poet was unaware of (did not consciously intend) when he composed the poem.

Aquinas is saying that to assert the world was directly created in six days is not the correct way to understand Genesis 1. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the fact that a single word in Scripture may have multiple senses. The literal sense is only the basis for other possible senses of a word. Consult the Summa Theologica’s article on this topic under Sacra Doctrina in the First Part.

An obvious example where we should not remain at the literal sense is in the parable of the Last Judgement. In that parable there are sheep on one side of Christ and goats on the other. No one maintains that as a matter of literal/historical fact God will judge farm animals at the Last Judgement. The language in the parable is figurative. Still, the literal sense is the basis for the figurative, which represents the saved and the lost.

Now don’t spring to the conclusion that I am saying the literary form of Genesis 1 is parabolic.

The issue comes down to what the author intended to teach. What is his message? In Scripture, what is intended to be taught is infallible. As in all language, what an author teaches is not every word that he writes. He may compose a story about an Athenian soldier’s courage that has a setting with many details about the surroundings. These details of the setting are not what the author is teaching. The details may even be in error, such as giving the wrong size of a nearby lake. Still, what the author is teaching is true. His message about the soldier is true.

Now, if you have any questions about what I am saying here, I can refer you to various sources, such as one of Pope Paul VI’s favorite books, The Inspired Word, by Alonso Shoekel, or to some approved commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, and so on.

Now, the author of Genesis 1 is not teaching science. The literal sense of his words are only the basis for his message. He is not teaching a direct creation of the world in six 24-hour periods. To think so is to remain at a superficial level without penetrating to his meaning about God and creation.

It is a logical and literary error when literalists as yourself compare events in the Gospel to Genesis 1. It does no good to imply that since the Crucifixion is literal and historical then Genesis 1 must have the same literal/historical sense.

Why then are you not consistent with your own opinions and continue on to say that this same Christ who was crucified will one day judge farm animals, i.e. sheep and goats? After all, to say so is to consistently maintain your literal/historical approach across diverse literary genres.

Either you must now come out of the closet and say that farm animals will be judged because the Bible says so, or, pause and re-examine just where your line of argument actually leads.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[edwest2]

It is valuable for Catholics to read the Catechism. Here is what the principle author of the Catechism, Cardinal Schoenborn, has to say:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

The word “fundamentalist” has taken fearful and inappropriate meanings here. Spreading fear or confusion should not be the goal of any Christian.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MinHC]

I think St Peter said it all when he said to God one day can be like a thousand years and a thousand years can be like a day.

So in creation, one day could be like 10 million years but to God one day was 10 million years - as an example.

I support evolutionary creationism - as in God is involved in the evolution of life to create new creatures, one could say like eve was created from the DNA of Adam’s rib and the fact is with all life forms we share a lot of similar DNA.

 

[edwest2]

One could not say Eve was created out of DNA. The Church teaches she was directly created by God out of Adam’s side. This is Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MinHC]

One could not say Eve was created out of DNA. The Church teaches she was directly created by God out of Adam’s side. This is Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

I should have explained further, I mean the rib of Adam obviously contained DNA as created by God and Eve was created by God from that rib, the first humans which we are all descended from.

DNA to me is like God’s fingerprint.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Except that Genesis doesn’t make any mention of a big man in the sky or his shape or any physical features, and your idea that ‘talking’ is strictly a pagan quality is mislead and inconsistent. So you’ll have to **demonstrate clearly what passages of Genesis are impoverished by a face-value reading **so as to render them incompatible with our faith.

It is an impoverishment to demand that the words “God said” are limited to their face value, that "God was ‘only talking’ ", because the author of truth himself has revealed a deeper meaning.:bible1: John 1:1-3[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God; [3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. See what happened? We humans thought, based on quality research, that “God said” meant one thing but he revealed that it meant something more. It demonstrates that God defines his own terms, and in the face of such a stark example “we have absolutely no hope of understanding the Scriptures” as AiG put it. The third option, one that breaks that false dichotomy, is that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and it does what he said it would.

Otherwise I still cannot see how you can come to such conclusions. AiG has commented on Brother Guy’s accusations here:
Creationists—the new pagans?
answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0509pagans.asp

I’ve seen that already. I suspected that’s where you got the idea that paganism = pantheism.

 

[jdnation]

You may say that Aquinas is correct, but you are not actually agreeing with him because you have misinterpreted what he is saying. In effect, what you have done is to agree with your misreading and then attribute that meaning to Aquinas, who never held that position. Even here, the crux of the matter is what the author intended by his words.

I’m only going by what the poster said as I haven’t read Aquinas on the matter, though I did understand the implication that Aquinas probably took a negative stance towards literal interpretation, so I was being cheeky in saying he was ‘correct.’ But I guess it doesn’t quite come out in a forum post

Aquinas is saying that to assert the world was directly created in six days is not the correct way to understand Genesis 1. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the fact that a single word in Scripture may have multiple senses. The literal sense is only the basis for other possible senses of a word. Consult the Summa Theologica’s article on this topic under Sacra Doctrina in the First Part.

I’d have to take an opposing stand against Aquinas in that case, but I fully understand the multiple senses contained in Scripture as my example of the ‘Ark of the Convenant’ shows, and of course alongside types, there are also teachings that we can glean from the passages. However there is nothing against understanding passages to be literal history alongside gaining a spiritual understanding of what that historical example teaches us in a figurative sense. A passage can be both historical truth and figurative truth simultaneously.

The issue comes down to what the author intended to teach. What is his message? In Scripture, what is intended to be taught is infallible. As in all language, what an author teaches is not every word that he writes. He may compose a story about an Athenian soldier’s courage that has a setting with many details about the surroundings. These details of the setting are not what the author is teaching. The details may even be in error, such as giving the wrong size of a nearby lake. Still, what the author is teaching is true. His message about the soldier is true.

I completely agree and I don’t at all dismiss your point but again we don’t have a problem with interpreting and understanding any Scripture passages in that way, I’d fully agree that all of Scripture has layer upon layer of deeper figurative meanings conatained within, as well as that portions of Scripture are intended by the author to be parabolic or poetic which don’t require accurate details on par with reality because it’s beside the point. The argument here is whether God literally created the world in 6 days. Genesis and the creation account are historical literature alongside Exodus. If there is a reason not to read the creation account literally this must be properly demonstrated as to why not. But for all purposes given all that is contained within Genesis, the geneologies, the history of the Hebrews, and the dogmatic truth that Adam and Eve were created by God as Genesis describes and are responsible for the Fall, on what grounds are we separating the initial chapters of Genesis as being specifically non-literal when the large majority of the book is clearly literal? Especially when you consider God’s deliverence of the Ten Commandments where He again specifies that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh and therefore we must observe the Sabbath. Also Jewish tradition has long maintained specifically that literal interpretation of Scriptures as they were intentionally written. Let us be frank… the only reason we feel pressured to interpret the opening Chapters of Genesis as being non-literal despite the internal evidence is because in our modern era the consensus of the scientific community believes in macro-evolution and has incorporated its ideology into all faucets of society despite that it is an unprovable assumption based on untestable extrapolations and interpretations of the fossil record and diversity of lifeforms, and without even a proper hypothesis on the mechanisms that supposedly drive it.

 

[jdnation]

Now, the author of Genesis 1 is not teaching science. The literal sense of his words are only the basis for his message. He is not teaching a direct creation of the world in six 24-hour periods. To think so is to remain at a superficial level without penetrating to his meaning about God and creation.

Genesis is not a science book, well none of the Biblical books are… However, that is not to say that they cannot say and mean things that cannot be scientifically sound and in accordance with observable operational science. One can still read Genesis superficially and also continue to find deeper meanings that rise above the superficial reading. They are not mutually exclusive…

It is a logical and literary error when literalists as yourself compare events in the Gospel to Genesis 1. It does no good to imply that since the Crucifixion is literal and historical then Genesis 1 must have the same literal/historical sense.

The comparisons are intended to show that if Genesis is literal historical literature and yet we choose to ignore that it is and only focus on figurative meaning… then on what grounds do we stop someone else from applying that same logic to the Gospels? After all they are literal history… but because the scientific consensus believes that a virgin cannot become pregnant, then he ought to read that portion figuratively. So as I’d been saying earlier… to undermine Genesis opens other avenues to undermine other articles of faith.

Why then are you not consistent with your own opinions and continue on to say that this same Christ who was crucified will one day judge farm animals, i.e. sheep and goats? After all, to say so is to consistently maintain your literal/historical approach across diverse literary genres.

As you yourself pointed out after that example, “Now don’t spring to the conclusion that I am saying the literary form of Genesis 1 is parabolic.” The story of the Last Judgment is parabolic specifically for figurative interpretation. Genesis 1 is not parabolic and I maintain that it is to be interpreted literally because it does not fit the structure of the Parable of the Last Judgment and is consistent with the rest of the chapters of Genesis that are literal.

See what happened? We humans thought, based on quality research, that “God said” meant one thing but he revealed that it meant something more. It demonstrates that God defines his own terms, and in the face of such a stark example “we have absolutely no hope of understanding the Scriptures” as AiG put it. The third option, one that breaks that false dichotomy, is that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and it does what he said it would.

Again, there is no issue with reading Genesis figuratively to find something more and no Creationists would deny this. We maintain that as well as figurative interpretation to gain more meaning, it can ALSO be read and understood literally. It is rather that opponents of literal interpretation are limiting the scope of Genesis’ interpretation by putting restrictions against taking God at His word when He even clearly establishes in Exodus what He has done in Genesis.

 

[jdnation]

I think St Peter said it all when he said to God one day can be like a thousand years and a thousand years can be like a day.

So in creation, one day could be like 10 million years but to God one day was 10 million years - as an example.

I support evolutionary creationism - as in God is involved in the evolution of life to create new creatures, one could say like eve was created from the DNA of Adam’s rib and the fact is with all life forms we share a lot of similar DNA.

As I’d said earlier using that passage from Peter is out of context with concerns to Genesis. See here:
answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/day_thousandyears.asp

Also I maintain that compromising macro-evolutionary philosophy with our faith introduces contradictions that undermine the character of God and the Salvation of the cross. You can read about my issues with this at the bottom of page 3 and the beginning of page 4 of this thread… (I suppose this depends on the settings you may have changed to display messages/page… mine are at the default of 15/page… but anyway, mine are at post counts #45-47)

 

[inthecloud]

especially ones like macro-evolution and Creationism that are more deeply rooted in philosophy and religious dogmas than either of them ever have to do with factual science. They are both simply philosophically biased interpretations of physical evidence and observed processes.

That is false, macroevolution is a fact, that has been proven by science over and over again. Is the light that makes biology work.
“Nothing in biology makes sense without the light of evolution”.
Deniying macroevolution is in biology like denying gravity in physics. The whole science will stop working.
Creationism is a mostly American Protestant phenomena, that comes out of belief in a literaly infallible Bible that can be interpreted without tradition, scholarship or science. Is one of the fruits of Sola Scriptura.

 

[itinerant1]

Let us be frank… the only reason we feel pressured to interpret the opening Chapters of Genesis as being non-literal despite the internal evidence is because in our modern era the consensus of the scientific community believes in macro-evolution and has incorporated its ideology into all faucets of society despite that it is an unprovable assumption based on untestable extrapolations and interpretations of the fossil record and diversity of lifeforms, and without even a proper hypothesis on the mechanisms that supposedly drive it.

You referred to “a proper hypothesis on the mechanisms that supposedly drive it.” I am not certain what you have in mind, but is sounds like you are making a reference to that which drives evolution. If so, that is *the *big question for evolutionists. Even those evolutionists who are philosophical materialists and put their faith in chance, randomness and the eternal beoming of the universe admit that there is something driving evolution, but that they do not know what it is.

As a supporter of scientific evolution, I believe the answer may be found in a particular philosophical analysis of material being. I will be posting my hypothesis on a blog. It may be too technical for this forum to be of any use. In any case, I will give it some thought. My point is, that for some things that we think there are no answers, we may already have the answers.

I disagree with what you have said about un-provable assumptions in regard to the fossil record. You are in fact making an assumption here. Your assumption seems to be that an evolutionary hypothesis, or what you have called an “assumption”, in regard to the fossil record is untestable. The counter-argument is that the scientist formulates an hypothesis and then collects data from the fossil data that either confirms or disconfirms his hypothesis. This is valid scientific procedure.

One can argue that evolutionary scientists have jumped to conclusions and have not followed rigourous scientific procedure, which does happen at times, but one needs to get down to the nuts and bolts of the matter and discuss the conclusions the scientist has based on the evidence and show how from such and such evidence, the conclusion does not follow. Then others can examine your argument and agree or disagree and say why they do. But to make sweeping generalizations as you have in the above quote just looks like a position based on prejudice rather than being the result of a serious and detailed consideration of evolutionary theory.

If you think you have a valid argument, then narrow down the points and unpack your argument. Otherwise, there is really nothing to discuss.

Another assumption you make pertains to why you think people reject a literal reading of Genesis, i.e. becaue of evolution. This is another sweeping generalization. Undoubtedly, it holds true for many people, but not for everyone. I would not stick to a literal reading even if I did not accept evolution as a good possibility. As I have pointed out in previous posts, allegorical interpretations have been common throughout Church history. St. Augustine even taught some basic evolutionary ideas from a pholosophical-theological perspective. I will post by itself a relevant quote from St. Augustine.

Your reference to what you think is the internal evidence for a literal reading is not backed up with any references or evidence in support. Hence, this too, sound like an assumption on your part.

Furthermore, I might counter your statement about why you think people reject a literal reading of Genesis 1 with the statement that the reason many people reject evolution is because they have boxed themselves in with an inapproriate literal reading of Genesis 1. So, where does that line of argument get us?

It looks like there is a need for a line-by-line discussion of Genesis 1 to see what the internal evidence actually suggests. I’m game for that one.

Peace,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

"For it is one thing to form and direct the creature from the most profound and ultimate pole of causation, and He Who does this is alone the Creator, God; but it is quite another thing to apply some operation from without in proportion to the power and faculties assigned by Him, so that at this time or that, and in this way or that, the thing created may emerge. All these things, indeed, have originally and primarily already been created in a kind of web of the elements; but they make their appearance when they get the opportunity. For just as mothers are pregnant with their young, so the world is pregnant with things that are to come into being, things which are not created in it, except from the highest essence, where nothing either springs up or dies, has a beginning or an end."

—St. Augustine: De Trinitate, 6, 10, II

 

[Steadfast_love]

[SIGN]I’m so sorry![/SIGN] I don’t mean to say that Fundimentalists are bad people. I do have issues with some of their doctrines, but it is not my place to judge their spiritual worth or the quality of their faith. Far be it from me to judge God’s servants!

For what it’s worth my grandparents abandoned their Shinto beliefs for a Fundimentalist christianity, my mother went to Bob Jones university and the spiritual gifts I value most were given to me through Fundimentalist christianity. Perhaps because I love Fundimentalist Christianity so much I’ve been too familiar. If we were meeting face to face, you couldn’t help but see my profound joy in talkin’ scripture Fundimentalist style, that is to say with fingers jabbing, voices raised and generaly on fire with the Holy Spirit. Here on the internet, do I come across as a jerk? Several posters on this thread have (tactfuly) suggested it is so.

Anyway, I’m sorry. I’m happy to battle over this one doctrinal point and liken it to the paganism my ancestors suffered through, but I don’t want to say that Fundimentalism is paganism. It has, as the Church puts it, “elements of truth.”

I also noticed that I kinda skipped this…

Keep in mind that in Exodus when God commanded the Israelites to obey the Sabbath:

*“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” *(Exodus 20:8-11)

…God directly tells us to obey this commandment in LITERAL days, that He then directly relates to the LITERAL days of the Creation week to follow His example. Or should we interpret this to mean that we work for 6 thousand years and rest for a thousand?

I agree that this is a paralell between God and man. But that paralell does not imply equivalance in my opinion. Let me explain how I see it piece by piece.

’the LORD v.s. 'you and your son, daughter, manservant, maidservant, animals or the alien within your gates’
Here we have ‘the LORD’ compared with a bunch of people (including gentiles) and animals. This paralell is not one of equivalence (God is equal to people and animals) but one of imitation (God is greater than people and animals. Therefore they should imitate him because he is greater than they.)

made the heavens and the earth v.s. labor and do all your work This again is a paralell of imitation. Who could say that our works are equivalant to those of God creating the heavens and the earth? On the contrary, this paralell exhorts us to imitate him because his works are infinately greater than our own.

For in six days the LORD v.s. Six days you shall… This specifies how much work the Lord did and how much work we did. I am inclined to believe that he did much more work than we ever could. If me and God were doing a day’s worth of work, I’d expect to get tired before God calls it a day.

The contrasting opinion, is that God is great because he could finish a big job in only 24 hours doesn’t resonate with me personaly. Looking at the grandure of the universe, or the sweep of history, or his choice to use people to spread the gospel (instead of just zapping everyone with miracles). It seems to me that for all his greatness, God is not very efficient. It’s not that he’s slow as we understand slowness, it’s just that there’s no constraint that forces him to use a 24 hour day where a thousand years will do.

 

[roymckenzie]

That is not now, nor has it ever been the notion that the Vatican questions.
The biblical story of creation is not capable of defense by any reason, science or logic. This does not preclude a Creator…which, I believe, is the Vatican’s position.
Other than that, the world was created 6,000 some years ago and dinosaurs existed with man. Welcome to fundamentalism.

John

What?

 

[roymckenzie]

I would agree with that.Well, I would disagree that there is no reason to interpret Genesis as allegory. There is a wealth of scientific evidence that clearly contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. As a fellow poster on this forum likes to (correctly) point out, truth cannot contradict truth. So either all of the science is wrong or we must look at the creation story in Genesis as an allegory.

Peace

Tim

What is this evidence and is it without flaw?

Is there nothing in this evidence that contradicts itself?

 

[roymckenzie]

I don’t need scientific proof that Genesis is not historical to see that the creation accounts are full of symbolism.

If you don’t interpret Genesis as allegory, are you saying that a literal serpent caused the fall of man, and that God condemned all future generations of men to suffering and death over 1 fruit from a tree?

How about, and I am only posing this as a theory, but how about this idea, it is not about a fruit but about man rejecting God. I don’t suppose that God minds us eating fruit but I do suppose that God minds very much us going against his Word.

 

[Orogeny]

What is this evidence and is it without flaw?

The evidence against a literal reading of Genesis? Geology, biology, anthropology, physics, astronomy, chemistry. Is the evidence without flaw? I don’t quite understand that question, but it (the evidence) is complementary and pretty air tight.

Is there nothing in this evidence that contradicts itself?

Not that I am aware of.

Peace

Tim

 

[roymckenzie]

The evidence against a literal reading of Genesis? Geology, biology, anthropology, physics, astronomy, chemistry. Is the evidence without flaw? I don’t quite understand that question, but it (the evidence) is complementary and pretty air tight.Not that I am aware of.

Peace

Tim

I am sorry I was not clear.

What is the evidence that God did not create the world as is described in Genesis?