Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

[rbarcia]

Do catholics believe in a literal 6 day creation?

 

[dhgray]

Does it relly matter?

If believing the world was created in 6 days it helps you to believe, then so be it.

If believing the world was created from a big bang, and formed by an intelligent designer (God) helps you believe, then so be it.

Who is to say how long a day is to God?

 

[ralphinal]

We can if we choose to. Catholics can hold to the literal or the figurative view, or even combine them. As long as they do not hold to something that opposes scriptures, for example, there is no Creator, then it is ok.

When it comes to evolution, as long as we beleive that at some point God gave man a soul and began a relationship with him, we are ok. Most Catholics have issues with macro-evolution (one species becomes another), but we accept it along micro lines.

 

[geezerbob]

Why are you asking what Catholics believe in the Non-Catholic forum?

 

[rbarcia]

Does it relly matter?

If believing the world was created in 6 days it helps you to believe, then so be it.

If believing the world was created from a big bang, and formed by an intelligent designer (God) helps you believe, then so be it.

Who is to say how long a day is to God?

Well, if we believe that God inspired scripture, God defined a day as the passing of an evening, and then a morning.

“And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day”.

 

[rbarcia]

Why are you asking what Catholics believe in the Non-Catholic forum?

I am not catholic so I figured I post in a Non-catholic forum. I do not want to intrude on other forums.

 

[rbarcia]

We can if we choose to. Catholics can hold to the literal or the figurative view, or even combine them. As long as they do not hold to something that opposes scriptures, for example, there is no Creator, then it is ok.

When it comes to evolution, as long as we beleive that at some point God gave man a soul and began a relationship with him, we are ok. Most Catholics have issues with macro-evolution (one species becomes another), but we accept it along micro lines.

When you say Micro, you mean adaptation within a species, like a bird growing a longer beak?

 

[ralphinal]

When you say Micro, you mean adaptation?

Yes. There is no doubt that occures. THere are too many gaps for me to be forced to accept that man came from monkies.

 

[rbarcia]

Yes. There is no doubt that occures. THere are too many gaps for me to be forced to accept that man came from monkies.

Ok, so my question is really about macro evolution? Thanks for clarifying.

I agree on the gaps. There are suppose to be millions of transitional forms, and we have not found one conclusive gap (there have been hoaxes and guesses, but nothing conclusive). I would say it take more faith to believe in macro-evolution then direct creation.

Thanks

 

[rbarcia]

Will the new Heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21 also evolve?

 

[ralphinal]

Will the new Heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21 also evolve?

I am not sure of any CHurch teaching on this, so anyone’s guess is as good as any other.

My guess is that no, there will be no adaptation or evolution in the New Heaven or Earth, as it will be in union with God in a perfect way that this earth is not.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Do catholics believe in a literal 6 day creation?

My understanding is that with respect to the Genesis story (stories) of creation, we are at liberty to decide whether or not the stories are literal or figurative.

However, we must believe in a real Adam and a real Eve, who were the forebears of all humanity, and we must believe that these two were created by God, whether he used the process of evolution as part of that creation or not is a matter left open to scientific and theological debate.

At least, that’s my basic understanding of the issue.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Timothysis]

Evolution, as a biological process, does not contradict the Catholic faith.

To use evolution as a philosophical system to determine that man’s creation happened without divine guidance does contradict the Catholic faith.

Genesis is a story that relates religious truths; it is not a scientific treaty on the creation of man and the world. Faith and science, though intertwined at times, can exist separate from each other. Scientific investigation through empirical evidence is simply the study of God’s laws and universe.

 

[rbarcia]

Evolution, as a biological process, does not contradict the Catholic faith.

To use evolution as a philosophical system to determine that man’s creation happened without divine guidance does contradict the Catholic faith.

Genesis is a story that relates religious truths; it is not a scientific treaty on the creation of man and the world. Faith and science, though intertwined at times, can exist separate from each other. Scientific investigation through empirical evidence is simply the study of God’s laws and universe.

What is the difference between a religious truth and scientific truth.

Doesn’t truth mean true or not?

Isn’t truth it happened or it didn’t. How can I say that God made the world in 6 days with His spoken word as a religious truth, but not as a scientific fact.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

What is the difference between a religious truth and scientific truth.

Doesn’t truth mean true or not?

Isn’t truth it happened or it didn’t. How can I say that God made the world in 6 days with His spoken word as a religious truth, but not as a scientific fact.

Well, generally the idea presented is that the 6 days are metaphorical rather than literal. That is, that the universe was created over 6 periods of time, but each was not necessarily a single 24 hour period. The religious truth being that God is the Creator, he brought the everything into being and established the order we see now.

The scientific truth on the other hand, would be the explanation of how God used the laws of nature he established to produce creation. Such an explanation gives us a greater scientific understanding of some of the mechanics of the creation, but offers little insight into the meaning or significance of creation.

I think that explanation was a bit inelegant on my part, but that’s the general idea for those that use the terms as I understand it.

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

i always heard that we didn’t have to believe in a real adam and eve. i always heard that the main part of the creation story was to imply that God was responsible for the earth, animals, trees, etc…

 

[Timothysis]

What is the difference between a religious truth and scientific truth.

Doesn’t truth mean true or not?

Isn’t truth it happened or it didn’t. How can I say that God made the world in 6 days with His spoken word as a religious truth, but not as a scientific fact.

A religious truth conveys something that cannot be proved or disproved by science. An example would be that in Genesis, the point of the ancient author is not to describe the physical creation of the universe, but to convey the religious truth that there is a single God who, of his own accord, created the universe out of nothing; that mankind’s soul is a unique and deliberate creation of God; that mankind is deficient in ability to achieve salvation and that a redemmer is promised who will pay the price for mankind’s “fallen” state.

The six-day creation is a device of the ancient author to convey the importance of the seventh day, the “Lord’s day.” Once again, we must understand that the author is not giving us a scientific lecture in which the world and everything in it was created; he is conveying religious truths. Keep in mind that light was created on the first day but that the sun was not created until the third. How can earthly days pass without the sun to mark time? The answer is, it doesn’t matter, because the author was using the number 7 as a metaphor for “wholeness,” something that ancient readers would have understood. In other words, God made everything in 7 days, and everything is complete, signified by the number 7. You’ll find the use of numerology all through out the Bible; it was something very common in the ancient world. Have you ever wondered why the number 40 pops up so much?!?!?

As for science, the truths conveyed by empirical investigation simply testify to the working of God’s universe. The laws of motion existed long before Sir Issac Newton discovered them; they were there from the beginning! Newton was just the first wise enough to work them out. Science works without regard to religious faith. Faith, in turn does not rely on science to “prove” anything. There is no scientific truth that can support that Our Lord was conceived in the womb of His Blessed Mother, but it doesn’t have to, anymore than faith needs to confirm scientific theory. Faith is something that we can’t prove (scientifically), but we know exists or is true.

Finally, the Bible is a collection of books written in different literary styles by ancient people in foreign cultures and strange lands. It doesn’t read like a modern encyclopedia. It takes time and knowledge to understand it; luckily, we have the Magesterium of Christ’s Church to lead us! And that is a fact!

 

[rbarcia]

A religious truth conveys something that cannot be proved or disproved by science. An example would be that in Genesis, the point of the ancient author is not to describe the physical creation of the universe, but to convey the religious truth that there is a single God who, of his own accord, created the universe out of nothing; that mankind’s soul is a unique and deliberate creation of God; that mankind is deficient in ability to achieve salvation and that a redemmer is promised who will pay the price for mankind’s “fallen” state.

The six-day creation is a device of the ancient author to convey the importance of the seventh day, the “Lord’s day.” Once again, we must understand that the author is not giving us a scientific lecture in which the world and everything in it was created; he is conveying religious truths. Keep in mind that light was created on the first day but that the sun was not created until the third. How can earthly days pass without the sun to mark time? The answer is, it doesn’t matter, because the author was using the number 7 as a metaphor for “wholeness,” something that ancient readers would have understood. In other words, God made everything in 7 days, and everything is complete, signified by the number 7. You’ll find the use of numerology all through out the Bible; it was something very common in the ancient world. Have you ever wondered why the number 40 pops up so much?!?!?

So when the Lord told the Israelite:

“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”.

He was not telling a physical truth? He told him the reason you should observe the sabbath was because he rested on the seventh?

Did the Israelites understand this metaphorically?

As for science, the truths conveyed by empirical investigation simply testify to the working of God’s universe. The laws of motion existed long before Sir Issac Newton discovered them; they were there from the beginning! Newton was just the first wise enough to work them out. Science works without regard to religious faith. Faith, in turn does not rely on science to “prove” anything. There is no scientific truth that can support that Our Lord was conceived in the womb of His Blessed Mother, but it doesn’t have to, anymore than faith needs to confirm scientific theory. Faith is something that we can’t prove (scientifically), but we know exists or is true.

If the Lord can turn water to wine in an instance, why does he need to work in natural sense. Did the wedding feast wait for the fermentation process to complete?

Finally, the Bible is a collection of books written in different literary styles by ancient people in foreign cultures and strange lands. It doesn’t read like a modern encyclopedia. It takes time and knowledge to understand it; luckily, we have the Magesterium of Christ’s Church to lead us! And that is a fact!

But the Magesterium does not take a stand on the issue of creation.

 

[Timothysis]

So when the Lord told the Israelite:

“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”.

He was not telling a physical truth? He told him the reason you should observe the sabbath was because he rested on the seventh?

So, you believe that God had to literally rest?

Did the Israelites understand this metaphorically?

Yes, I believe they did; hence the Jewish observance of the sabbath.

If the Lord can turn water to wine in an instance, why does he need to work in natural sense. Did the wedding feast wait for the fermentation process to complete?

I have no idea what you are talking about.:hypno:

But the Magesterium does not take a stand on the issue of creation.

But, the Magesterium is what guides us in our faith, not science. Should we be like protestants and interpret scripture the way we like? How can there be any truth when ten people read the same passage and arrive at ten different interpretations?

 

[Timothysis]

Sorry, I just saw that you list yourself as “ex-catholic” in your profile…I ain’t lookin’ for no argument.