What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW:

I still don’t see how what I’m saying means God is the author of death. I could create a beautiful ice sculpture and a few hours later it would be melted away.

This analogy doesn’t work because an ice sculpture is not a living creature. God created living animals in Paradise. If God created these animals in such a way that it was inevitable that they would die even in Paradise, then God would be the author of their death.

I never said death of itself is good. I merely said that I think the animals and plants are hear for other animals to eat and sustain life.

In the fallen world animals eat animals, but you are making a mistake in equating the fallen world with Paradise. Before the Fall, animals did not kill other animals. Isaiah says “the lion shall eat straw like the ox”, an image that should clue you in that animals won’t eat animals in the restored creation. If animals won’t be eating animals in the restored creation, then if follows that animals weren’t eating animals before the Fall.

The idea that Paradise still exists is not some strange idea that I made up out of the clear blue sky. Scriptures testify that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by the Fall, and Catholic theology has always accepted this as a given. For example:*The Summa Theologica * of St. Thomas Aquinas

**Whether paradise was a place adapted to be the abode of man?

Reply to Objection 3.** Paradise did not become useless through being unoccupied by man after sin, just as immortality was not conferred on man in vain, though he was to lose it. For thereby we learn God’s kindness to man, and what man lost by sin. Moreover, some say that Enoch and Elias still dwell in that paradise.

So far, you are merely quoting verses and providing your interpretation to me. You are maintaining that what you say is Catholic doctrine.

It is Catholic doctrine that this world is passing away, and that creation will be restored at the end of time. If creation is being restored, then that means creation once had an original state that is different than it is in the fallen world. … the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment …the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
2Peter 3:7&10

---

The present world will be restored on the Last Day. (Sent. certa.)

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott

---

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1046** For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:19-23)
1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.​

 

[RobbyS]

JGC:

Editorial.
Editorial from the FAITH Magazine Sept-October 2004

Evolution And The Doctrine Of Creation

faith.org.uk/Publications/CurrentMag/edSeOc04.htm

The theory of evolution is not an article of faith, of course. We may accept it or not, while still remaining good Catholics, a fact which creationists too often seem to forget. You do not need to be a ïcreationistÍ in order to defend the truth that the world is created. In fact this position should more properly be called ïspecial-creationismÍ, for what it really teaches is that every life form is made by a discrete act of special creation. This actually undermines the original Judeo-Christian insight that formed the seedbed of modern science in the first place. That insight was that creation has an integrity, consistency and potency of its own under God. Far from this detracting from GodÍs glory, it manifests more powerfully than ever the power and majesty of his creative Mind.

Evolution, rightly understood, confirms this truth and deploys it in a depth and detail that St. Basil and St. Augustine could barely have imagined, and which they would have greeted with delight. Of course we must answer the likes of Dawkins and the Darwinists. And we can do so now without retreating into a pre-scientific huddle. Those who reject the basic truth of evolution, apart from anything else, are missing a beautiful opportunity to present God again to the world through the majesty of his Logos: transcendent, perfect intellect which decrees all creation in one Law of Wisdom and providential Love that leads ultimately to communion with himself incarnate in Christ Jesus.

Darwinists are not interested in advancing the cause of science but iin discrediting the idea that this is a created universe. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they attribute all change to chance. At the same time they reject the very notice of continguency. A very strange and certainly counterintuitive outlook.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

This analogy doesn’t work because an ice sculpture is not a living creature. God created living animals in Paradise. If God created these animals in such a way that it was inevitable that they would die even in Paradise, then God would be the author of their death.

Okay. I guess the question is whether or not the death of non-human life is a bad thing. The death of man is certainly bad because it is contrary to the will of God. The Bible and Catholic teaching are very clear on this point. Original Sin is called such because Adam and Eve’s action, and the resulting consequences are contrary to the plan of God for man.

The death of an animal would only be a bad thing* if* it is contrary to the will of God. So it seems to me, you need to demonstrate that God intended ALL of living creation to be immortal. In my opinion you have not demonstrated this.

Matt16_18:

Before the Fall, animals did not kill other animals. Isaiah says “the lion shall eat straw like the ox”, an image that should clue you in that animals won’t eat animals in the restored creation. If animals won’t be eating animals in the restored creation, then if follows that animals weren’t eating animals before the Fall.

I see your point, but I don’t think one must interpret it that way, nor have you demonstrated that the Church says we must interpret it that way. Many theologians and apologists think that we will not be related to each other in the “restored creation” as brother, sister, child, husband, wife, etc. But merely as children of God. Shall I conclude that these human relationships are the result of the Fall as well? I don’t think so. I don’t think we must believe that in the end, things will be exactly as they were in the beginning.

It is possible the lion eating straw is not indicating the way things were originally. It is also possible that this description is not literal, but indicating human relationships in the restored creation.

Matt16_18:

Scriptures testify that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by the Fall, and Catholic theology has always accepted this as a given…It is Catholic doctrine that this world is passing away, and that creation will be restored at the end of time. If creation is being restored, then that means creation once had an original state that is different than it is in the fallen world. The present world will be restored on the Last Day.

I am not disputing that the Garden of Eden still exists, nor that the present world will be resotored on the Last Day.

Matt16_18:

. . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

This is perhaps the most pursuasive of texts you’ve shown me thus far. But it still doesn’t demonstrate that the Catholic Church teaches “all death, not limited to the death of man, is the result of Original Sin.” (or something along those lines).

I am now questioning why I reject your theory. I guess I see implications to it. For example, plants called “annuals” that live only one year and die as result of change of seasons. Did God not create these flowers? Or did God not create the seasons that cause their death? Or maggots, which come from flies, and which exist only to feed on decay (I think).

You’ve got me thinking, but I am not convinced. Deep subject!

 

[Matt16_18]

Chris W:

Okay. I guess the question is whether or not the death of non-human life is a bad thing …

Why would the death of an animal be a good thing in a world where men are immortal? Death is the enemy of God, and you are redefining “good” to include the death of animals. By doing this, you render the quote from Isaiah meaningless.

Many theologians and apologists think that we will not be related to each other in the “restored creation” as brother, sister, child, husband, wife, etc. But merely as children of God. Shall I conclude that these human relationships are the result of the Fall as well? I don’t think so. I don’t think we must believe that in the end, things will be exactly as they were in the beginning.

Man will NOT revert to the state of original justice in the restored creation. Man will realize what the divinization that he was predestined to receive as the gratuitous gift of God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
398 …Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

This is perhaps the most pursuasive of texts you’ve shown me thus far. But it still doesn’t demonstrate that the Catholic Church teaches “all death, not limited to the death of man, is the result of Original Sin.” (or something along those lines).

You are just being obstinate. Of couse this quote is persuasive, it is from scriptures, and it is always quoted by the Church when she teaches about the restoration of creation. Romans 8:21 is clear enough, and the Catechism quotes that I gave are clear enough. I want YOU to show me where the Church has interpreted Romans 8:21 to mean that there was death in animal world before the Fall, and that in the restored creation animals will continue to die. It is your interpretation that is off the wall.

Pray about this, and I am sure that God will reveal to you that he is not the author of death.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

Why would the death of an animal be a good thing in a world where men are immortal?

I don’t see the logic that would result in the conclusion that the death of a plant, for example, is a bad thing, Matt…unless we can determine that the death of that plant is contrary to the will of God. You may be frustrated that I don’t see things your way, but you have yet to demonstrate that God intended the plants, for example, to live forever. You have a theory, and I understand how you arrived at that theory, but I continue to believe the Church has not taught what you are teaching.

Matt16_18:

Man will NOT revert to the state of original justice in the restored creation. Man will realize what the divinization that he was predestined to receive as the gratuitous gift of God.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
398 …Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

Okay. I don’t recall saying man would revert back. I said that in the end things may different that they were in the beginning, hence the reason I mentioned realtives. This was in response to your assertion that because the Bible says the lion will eat straw, therefore the lion must have eaten straw before the fall. It is not a logical argument, because we both seem to agree that what is to come will not be the same as what was.

Matt16_18:

You are just being obstinate. Of couse this quote is persuasive, it is from scriptures, and it is always quoted by the Church when she teaches about the restoration of creation. Romans 8:21 is clear enough, and the Catechism quotes that I gave are clear enough. I want YOU to show me where the Church has interpreted Romans 8:21 to mean that there was death in animal world before the Fall, and that in the restored creation animals will continue to die. It is your interpretation that is off the wall.

I am not being obstinate, Matt. You are trying to develop a theory about a parallel universe which I think you must admit is not widely taught. Part of your argument is to assert that there was no death of any kind prior to the fall. I then asked you to show me where the Church has taught such a thing, and your response it to give me verses and texts which could be interpreted to mean what you say. But they do not come right out and say what you are proposing.

Yet you have accused me of denying the doctrine of the Church! If I was accusing you of rejecting Church doctrine, I would feel obligated to point out where the Church taught the thing you are rejecting. So my point is don’t tell me I am contradicting the teaching of the Church, unless you can show that this is in fact the case. It appears you cannot do that, probably because the Church has never defined the “doctrine” you accuse me of rejecting.

 

[Joan1969]

Hi Phil,

…If you want the sophisticated “theist” Darwinist position you’ll want to get his book Finding Darwin’s God where he critiques the likes of Duane Gish, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, AND Richard Dawkins…

Thanks for the reference and I can check it out when I happen to be at a bookstore that sells the book (though Gish is hardly interesting to me). Meantime, since you should be familiar with his best arguments, so I’m hoping to get those insights here. Besides, it’s much more fun when there’s a back-and-forth!

I agree that [God’s role in life’s history] is a key issue philosophically or religiously, but not scientifically.

What, specifically, is the difference between a “religious” issue and a “scientific” one? Their primary focus may be on different areas, but the truth is the same whenever these areas overlap. No contradictions are permissible.

God’s detectable intervention in life’s history is an open possibility, so the if the scientific community wants to honestly address what really happened, it needs to be open to wherever the evidence happens to lead. Methodological naturalism begs the question, presupposing that God did not detectably intervene in any aspect of the history of the universe, even before we really have fully explored the evidence.

most scientists would separate their religion from their science. So you are saying to be a good Catholic Christian, one must believe as a scientist that God intervened to create (for example) the half-wolf, half-whale creature Ambulocetus Natans…

Religion and science simply focus on different aspects of the same truth, so they can’t contradict. My concern still stands: how can a Catholic hold that processes that are unintelligent at their core (this is what Darwinian theory teaches; otherwise it’s ID) are the creating force behind life? God, a supremely intelligent force, is behind the creation of life according to Catholic thought.

To repeat a question: assuming systems as sophisticated as living systems can engineer themselves with no divine (name removed by moderator)ut needed, what logical reason is there to believe in God at all?

[Behe] believes Darwinian (unintelligent) mechanisms got us from the ancient primates, to the hominids, to homo sapiens… His ID belief comes in mainly at the origin and “design” we see in the cell…

The examples Behe gave from biochemistry likely spring from his background as a biochemist. Again, I know he believes in common descent, and that is likely what he means when he says he doesn’t dispute “the evidence”. But the differences between chimps and humans are so large that to assign them to Darwinism is the same as to embrace Darwinism altogether, and Behe is not a Darwinist. At any rate, I don’t see much point in spending more time on the opinions of one individual.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW:

I don’t recall saying man would revert back. I said that in the end things may different that they were in the beginning, hence the reason I mentioned realtives. This was in response to your assertion that because the Bible says the lion will eat straw, therefore the lion must have eaten straw before the fall. It is not a logical argument, because we both seem to agree that what is to come will not be the same as what was.

Man is definitely not going to revert back to the state of original justice, because man is going to be fully divinized in the new creation. At the Resurrection of the Dead, the saints in the new creation will regain the preternatural gifts that were lost in the Fall . But the holy innocence and the state of sanctifying grace that the blessed will possess in the Heavenly Kingdom will be superior to what Adam and Eve possessed before they sinned.

What I am talking about is the state of the physical creation before the Fall. (So that you are clear about what I am saying, let me define the physical creation as the physical universe minus man. Creation would be the stars, the planets, the plants, the animals … everything physical except man. Angels are part of creation too, just not part of the physical creation).

Neither the Catholic Church nor the scriptures teach that animals and plants are going to be divinized at the Resurrection of the Dead. What both scriptures and the Catholic Church teach is that the physical creation is going to be restored – the physical creation is going to be set free from the slavery of corruption. If the lion is going to eat straw in the restored creation, then in necessarily follows that the lion was eating straw before the Fall. Isaiah is giving us an image of the restoration of the physical creation in the scriptures that I quoted, and your spin on scriptures makes that image meaningless.

You are trying to develop a theory about a parallel universe which I think you must admit is not widely taught.

Actually, it is widely taught. It is only the phrase “parallel universe” that is not widely used in Catholic circles. Genesis 3:24 states that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by Adam’s sin, and this is taken for granted by the saints and Fathers of the Church that comment on this matter. I have never seen any saint that would agree with your spin on scriptures, i.e. that the fallen world is Paradise. What I am saying is the same thing that Catholics have believed since the beginning, Paradise still exists, and the Fallen world that we dwell in is not Paradise! If the fallen world is Paradise, then what is the meaning of Roman 8:22 where is states that “the whole creation has been groaning in travail” as it suffers the bondage of decay?

Part of your argument is to assert that there was no death of any kind prior to the fall.

Death is the enemy of God - that is straight from scriptures. How much more explicit can scriptures be?

I don’t think that I can find an example where the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church has ever formally defined a dogma that death did not have dominion over creation before the Fall. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a doctrine of the Church. Doctrines often get formally defined only after heresy begins to spread. I am very surprised at the number of Catholics that are posting to this board that think that death and decay had dominion over creation before the Fall.

 

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW:

I don’t see the logic that would result in the conclusion that the death of a plant, for example, is a bad thing, Matt…unless we can determine that the death of that plant is contrary to the will of God.

Forget about plants for a second, and just concentrate on animals. Did you ever have a beloved animal as a pet when you were a child? Were you saddened and grieved when your pet died? I find it hard to imagine that you really believe that when creation is restored, that we will still have to see animals suffer death. What kind of Heavenly Kingdom is that?

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

Neither the Catholic Church nor the scriptures teach that animals and plants are going to be divinized at the Resurrection of the Dead. What both scriptures and the Catholic Church teach is that the physical creation is going to be restored – the physical creation is going to be set free from the slavery of corruption. If the lion is going to eat straw in the restored creation, then in necessarily follows that the lion was eating straw before the Fall. Isaiah is giving us an image of the restoration of the physical creation in the scriptures that I quoted, and your spin on scriptures makes that image meaningless.

Thank you for clarifying. So you are saying that as far as the physical creation goes, it will merely revert back to the way it was in the Garden of Eden. And as for man, man will be elevated above Adam and Eve’s state. if I have understood you correctly, then at the very least, I understand your position better. Thanks for the clarification.

Matt16_18:

Actually, it is widely taught. It is only the phrase “parallel universe” that is not widely used in Catholic circles. Genesis 3:24 states that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by Adam’s sin, and this is taken for granted by the saints and Fathers of the Church that comment on this matter. I have never seen any saint that would agree with your spin on scriptures, i.e. that the fallen world is Paradise. What I am saying is the same thing that Catholics have believed since the beginning, Paradise still exists, and the Fallen world that we dwell in is not Paradise! If the fallen world is Paradise, then what is the meaning of Roman 8:22 where is states that “the whole creation has been groaning in travail” as it suffers the bondage of decay?

I’m gonna contemplate that a bit more before I respond, k?

Matt16_18:

Death is the enemy of God - that is straight from scriptures. How much more explicit can scriptures be?

Agreed. The point of contention is, the death of what? You are arguing this would be all death, while I am convinced only that the enemy of God that which is contrary to God’s plan. The death of man is the only death which I am convinced, thus far, that contradicts God’s plan.

Matt16_18:

I don’t think that I can find an example where the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church has ever formally defined a dogma that death did not have dominion over creation before the Fall. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a doctrine of the Church. Doctrines often get formally defined only after heresy begins to spread. I am very surprised at the number of Catholics that are posting to this board that think that death and decay had dominion over creation before the Fall.

In all fairness, I do not think you can accuse your fellow Catholics of rejecting Church doctrine, when you cannot point to that doctrine as ever having been explained or defined by the Church. It seems to me you have developed a belief based on what has been discussed by saints, etc., but your belief may not in fact be Church doctrine (a required belief).

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

Forget about plants for a second, and just concentrate on animals. Did you ever have a beloved animal as a pet when you were a child? Were you saddened and grieved when your pet died? I find it hard to imagine that you really believe that when creation is restored, that we will still have to see animals suffer death. What kind of Heavenly Kingdom is that?

Why would animals have higher value than plants? I think the point is most clearly made when we are discussing a blade of grass. But to answer your questions, yes I have had pets, and while I know people create emotional bonds with physical things, they are just that (physical things), and I am pretty detached in that regard. So ultimately, no I do not generally have a negative reaction at the death of a cow so that I can eat meat, or at the death of a deer so a cougar has food…it seems quite natural to me, which is probably why I am not convinced these things are contrary to God’s plan of creation.

However, I am still open to changing my position on the matter if the Church does in fact teach otherwise. I am just not aware that it does.

 

[Matt16_18]

Chris W:

The point of contention is, the death of what?

Death is the issue. Can we accept that an all holy God is the author of death? That is the point of contention.

All Catholic doctrine comes from the deposit of faith, and most Catholic doctrine is NOT formally defined. The idea that creation fell because of Adam’s sin is not a strange and unheard of Catholic belief. That is why all the saints, and the Fathers of the Church that I am familiar with that comment on the fall of creation all say basically the same thing - that creation became subject to the “slavery of corruption” because of Adam’s sin. You are putting a spin on scriptures that I find very strange indeed, because you are arguing that before the Fall that death had dominion over creation, and that God is responsible for death being in the pre-Fall universe.

I would say that you are radically altering the Catholic understanding of the nature of death, the nature of good, and the nature of God by doing that. This is exactly why I find that the evolutionists that Phil Vaz seems to favor to be unacceptable in their doctrine.

I’m gonna contemplate that a bit more before I respond, k?

O.K.

Let me know what you find when you research how the saints, mystics, and the Doctors of the Church have understood Romans 8:21. I bet they will all back up what I am saying.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

Death is the issue. Can we accept that an all holy God is the author of death? That is the point of contention. .

Well, not really, at least from my perspective. What I am arguing is that death of all kinds (plants and animals) is not necessarily contrary to the will of God. You seem to be saying death of plants and animals is contrary to God’s plan of creation. It is not apparent to me that God is opposed to the death of animals:

God provided the Ram for Abraham to sacrifice instead of his son.

God instructed the Jews to kill animals in sacrifice, and even to offer burnt offerings, describing it as an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

God blessed certain people with large flocks, presumably for the purpose of man killing and eating the animals.

Mary, who was preserved from Original Sin, offered two turtle doves for sacrifice, at the presentation of Jesus in the temple (without any mention of her being uncomfortable with it).

Jesus helped the Apostles catch 153 fish one night, presumably for the purpose of human consumption.

It seems rather odd to me, for someone to assert that the death of animals is a bad thing (which can only mean it is contrary to the will of God), when God provided for and encouraged animal sacrifice, described the burnt offering as a pleasing aroma, the Mother of God offered animals for sacrifice, and God Himself (Jesus) helped the Apostles kill 153 fish for man to eat. The fact that God intructed the Jews to kill animals and participated in that practice is pretty convincing evidence that it is not a bad thing.

Now perhaps you would argue that this is because God knew man (and the rest of creation) is in a fallen state, but even this argument falls flat: Jesus told the Jews that divorce was previously permitted because of their fallen state (the stubbornness of their hearts). But Jesus then taught that this is not what God intended in the beginning, and that it was in fact not acceptable. Why would Jesus not have said the same for the killing (death) of plants and animals? Perhaps because the death of plants and animals is not contrary to the will of God.

Matt16_18:

All Catholic doctrine comes from the deposit of faith, and most Catholic doctrine is NOT formally defined…

I would say that you are radically altering the Catholic understanding of the nature of death, the nature of good, and the nature of God by doing that.

The Bible is full of animal death and it is not described as a bad thing, like you would have us believe. Things that are contrary to the will of God are bad. Things that are agreeable to the will of God are good. The death of animals is not contrary to the will of God and is therefore not a bad thing. Your accusation that I am rejecting or radically altering Catholic doctrine is completely unjustified.

When “death” is described as the result of sin, therefore indicating it is contrary to what God had planned, the logical conclusion is that the word “death” is referring to the death of man.

 

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW

… without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
Hebrews 9:22

 

[Chris_W]

ChrisW

… without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
Hebrews 9:22

Thanks for the verse, Matt. Is that intended to rebutt something I’ve said? Perhaps you mean this to refer to animal sacrifices? It does not address the idea that the burnt offering aroma is pleasing to God, or God blessing people with flocks of sheep, or Jesus helping the Apostles catch fish to eat…all of which include the death of living creatures and all of which indicate that the death of animals (for a reasonable purpose) is not contrary to the will of God.

 

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW

Although this is from a Protestant site, the scriptural exegisis is sound.**Did the Fall Affect the Animals and Plants? **

One of our readers has sent us a question about the fall and its effects on the so-called ‘brute creation.’ He asks: ‘In what way did the fall of the human race affect the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom?’ A very interesting question.

The question is answered first in Genesis 3. There we learn that God cursed the very ground for man’s sake. And Genesis 3 tells us, too, what that means. It is because of that curse that such things as thorns and thistles grow. Roses have thorns and we have to weed our gardens because of the fall!

We also learn from Genesis 3, though indirectly (vs. 21), that death came into the whole created order through man’s sin and not just upon man himself. Indeed, all the unpleasant things in the creation, all around us that can hurt or destroy, all that make life toilsome and troublesome, are the result of the fall (Gen. 3:17-19).

The reason the curse came not only upon man but upon the creation is that man was the king and head of the creation under God. So his sin affected all that was under his rule - the whole earthly creation - in the same way that any ruler’s sin affects those who are under him (II Sam. 24, Prov. 29:2, 4).

We see, then, what a grievous thing sin is and what evil it brings! It affects not only the sinner himself, but everything around him and everything that is part of his life. Our own sad experience should teach us that.

Romans 8:19-22 gives even more light on this matter. The earthly creation, according to Romans 8:20, is subject to vanity (emptiness, purposelessness), that is, it no longer, under man’s dominion, serves the purpose for which it was created as it should. So too, it is in bondage to corruption (vs. 21). Like man himself, death has a stranglehold on the creation, so that it is full of death everywhere.

Thus the creation, as it were, groans and travails in pain. Paul speaks as though the creation were a living creature to show us and how greatly it is affected by man’s sin. That groaning is heard in the earthquakes, floods and other catastrophes which we endure here. Can you not hear it?

The curse upon the creation is not, however, the fault of the creation. That is what verse 20 means when it says, ‘not willingly.’ Man as the king of the earthly creation is at fault. Yet even in that, God has His purpose, for He subjected the creation to vanity, but IN HOPE. So the hope of deliverance is heard clearly in the groaning of the creation. God causes it to be heard there as a testimony to His people.

Romans 8 makes it clear also that the curse was not (Gen. 8:21) and will not be fully removed from the creation until ‘the glorious liberty of the children of God’ comes. That, as we know, will only be in the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth. Until then the creation will continue to groan and travail in the bondage of corruption.

But when the glorious liberty of the children of God comes, then the creation shall be delivered and shall have a part in that glory! That is the message of Romans 8:19-22. There will be a new heavens and a NEW EARTH.

Only then will such promises as those of Isaiah 11 be fulfilled. Only then will the wolf lie down with the lamb and only then will they no longer hurt and destroy. Only then will the whole earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord. It cannot be otherwise until sin itself is destroyed.

Rev. Ronald Hanko

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Has man evolved from the apes? Not yet.

Evolution is a theory by monkeys for monkeys.

On a serious note, I think the Church teaches that physical evolution is believable but that God by his own act made us in His image at some point in the process.

Greg

 

[PhilVaz]

Joan << What, specifically, is the difference between a “religious” issue and a “scientific” one? Their primary focus may be on different areas, but the truth is the same whenever these areas overlap. No contradictions are permissible. >>

Religious / philosophical issue: “God created the universe.”
Scientific issue: “The universe is expanding from the point of the Big Bang.”

Religious / philosophical issue: “God created Adam and Eve with a soul, thus making the first human beings.”
Scientific issue: “Our species homo sapiens goes back 150,000 years or more, and we are genetically related to our closest cousins, the chimpanzee.”

Religious / philosophical issue: “God created Ambulocetus Natans, the walking whale that swims, from scratch.”
Scientific issue: “Ambulocetus Natans, the walking whale that swims, fits in a series of transitional forms in the fossil record, thus documenting the evolution of the whale from land mammals about 50 million years ago.”

Do you get the idea?

Joan << My concern still stands: how can a Catholic hold that processes that are unintelligent at their core (this is what Darwinian theory teaches; otherwise it’s ID) are the creating force behind life? God, a supremely intelligent force, is behind the creation of life according to Catholic thought. >>

Repeating my answer: Catholics can (and most Catholic scientists do) separate the scientific questions from the religious questions. God is “behind” the creation of life according to Catholic doctrine, but God did not necessarily create Ambulocetus Natans from scratch, he might have used evolution. From paleontology, the series of transitional forms in the land mammal-to-whale sequence is very good documentation of that evolution. God can use both “chance” and those “unintelligent” processes to “create” the whale.

God does not have to be directly involved (meaning special or direct creation) in the evolution of every species that has ever appeared on earth. He might have used evolution, and the evidence from science is quite strong that He did. Where he was involved directly (at a minimum according to Catholic doctrine) was the creation of the soul in that first man and woman, called “Adam” and “Eve” in Genesis.

Joan << assuming systems as sophisticated as living systems can engineer themselves with no divine (name removed by moderator)ut needed, what logical reason is there to believe in God at all? >>

Repeating my answer: There are atheist Darwinists and theist Darwinists. I agree some Darwinists conclude there is no logical reason to believe in God, but many Darwinists disagree. You complained earlier that I did not really give a clear definition of evolution. However, you seem to be equating “Darwinism” with “atheism.” I define “Darwinism” as simply “descent with modification” with “natural selection” being the major mechanism (which was Darwin’s mechanism). This says nothing for or against God’s existence. So “Darwinism” (or evolution) is neutral with regard to God’s existence, which is a philosophical or religious question. We seem to be repeating ourselves.

This Firing Line debate explains most of the differences

Phil P

 

[ISABUS]

Matt16_18:

Although this is from a Protestant site, the scriptural exegisis is sound. **Did the Fall Affect the Animals and Plants? ** [snip]

Matt,

Catholics who constantly quote out of the Catecism and the Holy Catholic Bible as you do shouldn’t be using Protestant websites to tell other Catholic’s that they are presenting a sound truth. By the way, how convenient for you that Theresa Martin chose to close the “Jesus DNA?” thread today after you both knew I was plaining to share with you some very enlightening news! Oh well, this thread works for me. By the way, I didn’t appreciate you calling me a heretic within that “Jesus DNA?” thread. I’ll make a phone call to Catholic.com tomorrow and resolve that issue with them.

As far as the “FALL” goes and Adam and EVE and least we forget EVOLUTION, George V. Coyne of the Vatican Observatory recently published an article called *Origins and Creation . *He wrote the following:

"The question of creation, and therefore of a God Creator, responds to the question of why is there anything in existence. Creation is not one of the ways whereby things originated as opposed to other ways that can be thought of, including quantum cosmology and evolutionary biology. The claim that all things are created is a religious claim that all that exists depends for its existence on God. It says nothing scientifically of how things came to be, although **beautiful stories are told in the Book of Genesis, to elaborate on the dependence of all things for their existence upon God. **

Having opened the Pandora’s box of the Bible, let us elaborate a bit upon it. The Bible is a collection of writings by various authors at various epochs using various literary genres. And so it best serves reason if one speaks of a specific book rather than of the Bible in general. It is clear that the overall intention of the authors of Genesis is to evoke religious faith, an adherence to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not to teach. There is simply no scientific teaching in Genesis. In the Judaic/Christian tradition, the roots of religious belief reach to 5,000 years before Christ with the prophet Abraham."

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/coyne02.php

You do know who George V. Coyne is don’t you? I mean every Catholic should know who he especially if they are talking about evolution.

(contiued)

---

---

 

[ISABUS]

(part 2 of 2)

Matt,

In another article,The God of the Extra-Terrestrials, Coyne writes:

"Human beings have bodies which came forth after about 11 billion years in an evolving universe. Those bodies are very complex totalities, but most of all the human brain is the most complex organism we know. As a consequence human beings are intelligent, they can know themselves knowing and so they have a soul, a spiritual reality, and as such they were made by God. Are there other such beings, made by God, on other planets? We come to our first hypothesis. Yes, by assumption, we will call them by their traditional name of ETs.

"At the very beginning human beings did something bad. They revolted against the God who had made them. Theologians call this “original sin”. Even if we do not accept the Scripture story of Adam and Eve as historically true, “original sin” is an essential element in the theologians view of the relationship of humans to God. Did our ETs sin in this way? We come to our second hypothesis and, in order to keep the discussion going, we, of course, answer “yes, they sinned”. Note that our second hypothesis is very different from the first. That we sinned is an historical fact and, therefore, quite contingent. It might not have happened. Whereas, ETs existing at all is not quite so contingent. In fact, many scientists maintain that, if life came to be at all, it MUST have come to be prolifically in this universe. There is a kind of necessity, although not absolute, about there being ETs.

"God freely chose to redeem human beings from their sin. Did he do this also for ETs? Now we are getting ever more hypothetical, since we are determining what God, who is absolutely free, would freely choose to do. In fact, there are serious theological implications here for our understanding of God. With Fermi’s farmer, who senses that God is good and passionate, the answer is “yes, God did save them”. How could he be God and leave ETs in their sin? After all he was good to us. Why should he not be good to them? With the farmer we are struggling to justify our hypothesis, but we accept it not realizing that matters are going to get more difficult as we proceed.

God chose a very specific way to redeem human beings. He sent his only Son, Jesus, to them and Jesus gave up his life so that human beings would be saved from their sin. Did God do this for ETs? Or did he chose another way to redeem ETs? The theological implications about God are getting ever more serious. Surely God is completely free to chose his methods. He certainly did not have to send his Son to us. But once he chose to do so, did he have to chose to redeem ETs in the same way. There is deeply embedded in Christian theology, throughout the Old and New Testament but especially in St. Paul and in St. John the Evangelist, the notion of the universality of God’s redemption and even the notion that all of creation, even the inanimate, participates in some way in his redemption. In his own way Fermi’s farmer realizes this and so he concludes that, if God is truly the God we know from how he revealed himself to us, then “yes, he sent his only Son to redeem ETs”."

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/coyne01.php

I’ll be back with more!

Isabus

 

[PhilVaz]

I’ll admit I haven’t read all the posts here as of late, but Matt16 says basically the paradise or “Garden of Eden” of Genesis was not and is not on this earth, and that it still exists today. I note also that Matt16 has no problems with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and rejects “creationist science.” And yeah, most of the Protestant sites out there attempting to resolve these difficulties present a young-earth interpretation of Genesis, that paradise or the Garden was on this earth in the recent past (c. < 10000 years ago). There’s where the conflict would enter with science.

I (personally) would have no problem with Matt16’s “parallel universe” idea since it would not seem to conflict with science in any way. It cannot be found, it cannot be tested or measured by science. The same with heaven or hell or purgatory, they would not and do not conflict with science. That is one way to resolve some of the difficulties.

Phil P