Was the world created in 7 days?

[Malcolm_McLean]

The Church obviously in the past held to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

No. The very earliest Christians would almost certainly have been literalists on the creation story, but not in a considered way, nor was that type of speculation of much importance to them. One bit of exegeis offered, in St Paul’s letter to the Galatians, says of Hagar and Sarah “this is an allegory”.

As soon as the matter was discussed seriosuly, by St Augustine in the fifth century, a recognisably modern attitude developed. Since there was no theory of evolution it was assumed that God had placed the first animals on the Earth, but theories such as the existence waters above the vault of heaven were abandoned, as was the six days’ creation. The idea that the Church was dragged into the modern age by Darwin and other scientists is simply wrong.

 

[LJN21]

Well how can you have faith in a Church that rejects it’s traditions and leads all of its followers into false teaching? Evolution will never be proved, it will always be only a theory. Why would the Church get behind a science that not only contradicts sacred scripture and previous teachings but is still ONLY A THEORY? IT IS NOT PROVEN. The teachings on original sin and a literal interpretation of Genesis are infallible teachings that supposedly cannot be reversed, but we shall see. So far this will not keep me out of the Catholic Church as I believe everything else she teaches, but if they change it, I’m gone.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think evolution is utter cr*p. I am also disgusted how our schools can teach a Theory as fact.

If the leaders of the Church started making very positive statements about it I’d be a really mad person. But the people in the church can make all sorts of really bad mistakes and have through out history. Fortunately, I don’t think the Church can officially reject its traditions go against infallible teachings. The Holy Spirit won’t let it.

 

[SemperFidelis]

No. The very earliest Christians would almost certainly have been literalists on the creation story, but not in a considered way, nor was that type of speculation of much importance to them. One bit of exegeis offered, in St Paul’s letter to the Galatians, says of Hagar and Sarah “this is an allegory”.

As soon as the matter was discussed seriosuly, by St Augustine in the fifth century, a recognisably modern attitude developed. Since there was no theory of evolution it was assumed that God had placed the first animals on the Earth, but theories such as the existence waters above the vault of heaven were abandoned, as was the six days’ creation. The idea that the Church was dragged into the modern age by Darwin and other scientists is simply wrong.

You can find out here:

scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html

exactly what the early Church fathers and the Councils all the way up to Vatican I thought about the six-day creation. It seems they OVERWHELMINGLY believed in it as well as a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[CarlosG]

I really dont see how people can believe that the earth is 6-10000 years old. I REALLY dont want to belittle peoples beliefs because quite honestly theres people far smarter than me that hold this position so im not saying that im smarter so I dont believe the universe is young. But to dismiss 20+ different ways to date things that are all remarkably accurate in relation to each other with a wave of a hand seems rather pompous. Truth does no contradict truth. While its true that science always changes , but these techniques only seem to only get better and better. IIRC carbon dating used to only be good up to 10000 years old, but its now accurate all the way to 40000 I believe.

Not only that, but a young earth causes so many problems in other areas that the evidence for the position quickly diminishes. This has nothing to do with me or anyone else that believes the earth is old taking on a ‘modern secular’ mindset that science rules all, but an honest look at the evidence at hand, and I can honestly say ive done that.

And another thing people seem to be doing is automatically attaching an old universe with evolution. They are two separate issues and the fields that come to those conclusions are different, and while evolutionists certainly use geological data in their field, it doesn’t logically prove their conclusion.

Now at this point I must also say that there is plenty of evidence for and against evolution and it is far from what I would call a bonifide overarching theory of how we got here. Heck, we cant even put the species of our ‘ancestors’ in order and in the last few years its been shaken up even more with new species getting discovered and shifting all the others around. Now oddly enough we have found alot of fossils but still not the missing link and no likely candidates. To me it would seem logical that since they are closest to us there would be more of them around, but instead we find this divide between us and species like Neanderthals and homo-erectus in terms of culture.

I must restate that I dont want to come off as though I am so much better or smarter for what I believe, but in light of the overwhelming evidence, I don’t know how anyone who has who has looked at it can hold such a position.

 

[antimon]

my favourite question when it comes to this topic:
what’s wrong with being a “monkey with a soul” rather than a “heap of clay with a soul”?

and I don’t believe the world was created in 6x24=144 hours. there are many places in the Bible that cannot be taken literally.

 

[steveandersen]

Don’t misunderstand me. I think evolution is utter cr*p. I am also disgusted how our schools can teach a Theory as fact…

Because there is both the fact of evolution (i.e. the observable data) and the theory of evolution (i.e. the proposed mechanism to explain the observable data)

And the theory portion is one of the most rigorously demonstrated principles in science
It is far more thoroughly understood than say the theory of gravity. Do you have a problem with schools teaching physics? Don’t confuse theory with hypothesis.

Germ theory is “just” a theory after all. Do you have a problem with schools teaching our kids to wash their hands?

If the leaders of the Church started making very positive statements about it…

It is really not their place to comment one way or another

 

[TylerAlex]

I really dont see how people can believe that the earth is 6-10000 years old. I REALLY dont want to belittle peoples beliefs because quite honestly theres people far smarter than me that hold this position so im not saying that im smarter so I dont believe the universe is young. But to dismiss 20+ different ways to date things that are all remarkably accurate in relation to each other with a wave of a hand seems rather pompous. Truth does no contradict truth. While its true that science always changes , but these techniques only seem to only get better and better. IIRC carbon dating used to only be good up to 10000 years old, but its now accurate all the way to 40000 I believe.

Not only that, but a young earth causes so many problems in other areas that the evidence for the position quickly diminishes. This has nothing to do with me or anyone else that believes the earth is old taking on a ‘modern secular’ mindset that science rules all, but an honest look at the evidence at hand, and I can honestly say ive done that.

And another thing people seem to be doing is automatically attaching an old universe with evolution. They are two separate issues and the fields that come to those conclusions are different, and while evolutionists certainly use geological data in their field, it doesn’t logically prove their conclusion.

Now at this point I must also say that there is plenty of evidence for and against evolution and it is far from what I would call a bonifide overarching theory of how we got here. Heck, we cant even put the species of our ‘ancestors’ in order and in the last few years its been shaken up even more with new species getting discovered and shifting all the others around. Now oddly enough we have found alot of fossils but still not the missing link and no likely candidates. To me it would seem logical that since they are closest to us there would be more of them around, but instead we find this divide between us and species like Neanderthals and homo-erectus in terms of culture.

I must restate that I dont want to come off as though I am so much better or smarter for what I believe, but in light of the overwhelming evidence, I don’t know how anyone who has who has looked at it can hold such a position.

Where then do you draw your own line between what you believe because of faith… and what you believe because it can be proved (in your own eyes).

The mere fact that you try to contain God’s authority to what is possible, and not possible, according to what YOU believe seems contrary to what the Bible central message is- accepting God’s will and Providence above our own.

Since you seem to have such a grasp on the rhealm of scientific evidence… please take a moment to explain in scientific terms the concept of heaven and resurrection from the dead. Or, the concept of a soul.

I’m listening…

 

[Orogeny]

Since you seem to have such a grasp on the rhealm of scientific evidence… please take a moment to explain in scientific terms the concept of heaven and resurrection from the dead. Or, the concept of a soul.

I’m listening…

There is no scientific explanation for ANY supernatural activity or being. Science is strictly limited to nature.

Peace

Tim

 

[carol_marie]

There is no scientific explanation for ANY supernatural activity or being. Science is strictly limited to nature.

Peace

Tim

Do you think that “God created…” is supernatural?

 

[TylerAlex]

There is no scientific explanation for ANY supernatural activity or being. Science is strictly limited to nature.

Peace

Tim

That is a cop out… and it is a ridiculous assertion. According to your logic, anything you cannot expain then is supernatural… therefore outside of science and cannot be debated.

Increasingly, you are isolating God into your own box of what YOU believe is possible and not possible for him. You will NEVER be completely satisfied because, like science, there is always seems to be a better, more rational, interpretation just waiting around the corner.

 

[Orogeny]

Well how can you have faith in a Church that rejects it’s traditions and leads all of its followers into false teaching?

Who defines false teaching, you or the Church? It seems to me that there are quite a few people who for some reason feel that they have more knowledge or insight than does the church that God established and that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess in some people’s minds, personal interpretation of scripture and truth is more important than the teaching of the Chruch.

Evolution will never be proved, it will always be only a theory.

Neither will the theory of gravity. What is your point?

Why would the Church get behind a science that not only contradicts sacred scripture and previous teachings but is still ONLY A THEORY? IT IS NOT PROVEN.

The Church is not likely to ever “get behind a science” to the point that it becomes an official teaching of the Church. The Church isn’t about science, it is about faith and theology. The Church doesn’t have a problem with atomic theory or general relativity. Should the Church, therefore, make the acceptance of those theories a part of official Church teaching?

The teachings on original sin and a literal interpretation of Genesis are infallible teachings that supposedly cannot be reversed, but we shall see.

No, the literal interpretation is not an infallible teaching or Pope Benedict (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) could not have published this:bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope John Paul II could not have published this:newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

And Pope Pius could not have published this: newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

So far this will not keep me out of the Catholic Church as I believe everything else she teaches, but if they change it, I’m gone.

I’m sorry that you don’t seem to accept the teaching authority of the Church over your own personal interpretation. However, I believe that you are safe because I can’t see the Chruch ever making evolution (or any other science for that matter) a definitive teaching that all faithful must adhere to.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

That is a cop out… and it is a ridiculous assertion. According to your logic, anything you cannot expain then is supernatural… therefore outside of science and cannot be debated.

No, it is an accurate description of science and that is precisely why things like ID cannot be considered science.

Don’t put words into my mouth. There are many things that science cannot explain at the present time, but that doesn’t mean that the only explanation is supernatural.

Increasingly, you are isolating God into your own box of what YOU believe is possible and not possible for him.

I happen to accept exactly what God gives me. It is called intelligence. He gave us intelligence and expects us to use it. That is why the Vatican has no problem with the Big Bang. I suppose you are at odds with the Church on that one too, eh?

You will NEVER be completely satisfied because, like science, there is always seems to be a better, more rational, interpretation just waiting around the corner.

You know, your argument is a bit funny considering the constant quest to understand the unexplained is what got us things like computers and the internet and therefore gave us the forum to discuss this.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Do you think that “God created…” is supernatural?

Why do you assume that I don’t accept that God created everything, including us?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

So true. The Church obviously in the past held to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Do you believe that the sun orbits the earth? The Church used to hold that as true. If not, why not?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

So true. The Church obviously in the past held to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Technically it still does as their is no ex cathedra statement that says evolution is true and we must believe it, or even should believe it. Knowhere in the CCC does it state we must accept evolution, as a matter of fact it doesn’t even say we should accept or even think about evolution. The CCC regards Adam and Eve as the only original set of first humans, and they are where original sin comes from. Obviously with evolution you can’t have original sin if they are monkeys, and the doctrine of original sin is a huge part of not only Catholicism but Christianity in general. This is a major “T” with a capitol “T” Tradition, one of the infallible kind - how can so many Catholics reject the Church teachings of the past, and then claim to be the true “Church of tradition”? It makes me want to check out the Orthodox Church.

You might want to read this before you check out the Orthodox Church: faithstreams.com/me2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=5F4E345683D8492B9B56CBC49802F459&nm=Get+the+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&SiteID=19FCDEA4B9324DA3B6E3C1A2734E49ED&tier=3&nid=64192407289444F3B2D88EEE0A8DACEF

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

That is a cop out… and it is a ridiculous assertion. According to your logic, anything you cannot expain then is supernatural… therefore outside of science and cannot be debated…

actually it is the other way around
things that are supernatural cannot (by definition) be explained by natural means

that does not necessarily mean that things that are not (yet) explained or explainable are necessarily supernatural

nor does that preclude discussion of the supernatural, it just limits what the natural sciences can say about it.

That is after all why they call it faith. I certainly wouldn’t want to reduce God to a chemistry problem or a geometry proof.

 

[TylerAlex]

actually it is the other way around
things that are supernatural cannot (by definition) be explained by natural means

that does not necessarily mean that things that are not (yet) explained or explainable are necessarily supernatural

nor does that preclude discussion of the supernatural, it just limits what the natural sciences can say about it.

That is after all why they call it faith. I certainly wouldn’t want to reduce God to a chemistry problem or a geometry proof.

precisely… but my response was to Tim’s assertion where he stated that because the concept of heaven and resurrection were supernatural, they were outside of science and cannot be debated.

The argument made seems like a adolescent, playground game of “you cannot get me inside this square because”… (fill in the blanks with your own example).

If you want to take a scientific approach to refuting God’s word about Genesis, then take the same litmus test to it ALL.

 

[LJN21]

Because there is both the fact of evolution (i.e. the observable data) and the theory of evolution (i.e. the proposed mechanism to explain the observable data)

And the theory portion is one of the most rigorously demonstrated principles in science
It is far more thoroughly understood than say the theory of gravity. Do you have a problem with schools teaching physics? Don’t confuse theory with hypothesis.

Germ theory is “just” a theory after all. Do you have a problem with schools teaching our kids to wash their hands?

It is really not their place to comment one way or another

There is no observable data that Macro evolution has ever happened. That is simple conjecture made up by those that want to push God out of the question. School teach macro evolution as Fact and squelch any attempt to provide any alternate theory.

 

[VociMike]

There is no observable data that Macro evolution has ever happened. That is simple conjecture made up by those that want to push God out of the question. School teach macro evolution as Fact and squelch any attempt to provide any alternate theory.

Do you believe there is observable data indicating that the universe, and the earth, are billions of years old?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Who defines false teaching, you or the Church? It seems to me that there are quite a few people who for some reason feel that they have more knowledge or insight than does the church that God established and that is guided by the Holy Spirit. I guess in some people’s minds, personal interpretation of scripture and truth is more important than the teaching of the Chruch.

Uh this thing called tradition…you know the early Church fathers, the Magisterium up until recently."

Neither will the theory of gravity. What is your point?The Church is not likely to ever “get behind a science” to the point that it becomes an official teaching of the Church. The Church isn’t about science, it is about faith and theology. The Church doesn’t have a problem with atomic theory or general relativity. Should the Church, therefore, make the acceptance of those theories a part of official Church teaching?

Does the theory of gravity or relativity contradict any doctrine of the Church? No it doesn’t so it is umimportant. Does evolution contradict the doctrine of original sin (an infallible doctrine btw)? You bet.

No, the literal interpretation is not an infallible teaching or Pope Benedict (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) could not have published this:bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope John Paul II could not have published this:newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

And Pope Pius could not have published this: newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

Are any of these documents infallible? No, with the exception of Pius XII’s humani generis, and this goes along way of accepting evolution and in facts warns about it.

Check this out:

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

I’m sorry that you don’t seem to accept the teaching authority of the Church over your own personal interpretation. However, I believe that you are safe because I can’t see the Chruch ever making evolution (or any other science for that matter) a definitive teaching that all faithful must adhere to.

The teaching authority of the Church hasn’t declared one way or the other on evolution so I dont’ have to accept anything. Whatever happened to today’s Magisterium following the dogma of accepting the teaching authority of the past. Let me say this one more time nice and slow. THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE MAGISTERIUM UP UNTIL VATICAN II UNANIMISOULY INTERPRETED GENESIS LITERALLY. Apparently we can just throw that fact out the window in today’s world. I chalk this up to modernism.

Peace

Tim