The modernist lexicon doesn’t contain the word, “inspired”. One often comes across a “modern” theologian who claims that the ancient authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other cultures - the implication is, these ancient authors may not have been inspired - they just copied ideas from somewhere else.
Scientists can genetically modify certain organisms, but they’ll never be able to create life (or even an atom) from nothing. According to Thomistic philosophy, it is a far greater feat for God to create life from nothing than to modify an existing creature. From this perpective, a process of progressive creation (separate creations) demonstrates God’s power and glory far greater than a process of evolution ever could.
The confusion is stll going on, apparently - Thevo’s claim the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “symbolic” - if so, no one knows what all that “symbolism” means!
I agree - the history of the world before Adam, for example, presented figuratively as six days of creation. But post-Adam (“the story of God’s relationship with man”), the Genesis narrative switches to the literal.
The original post was flagged and consequently removed. Whoever that was, plus you (unless they are one and the same person and maybe you can confirm that) completely missed the the point of the post.Bradskii:
God, who created everything, could not do this?
He did say. Not in words, “Let the waters bring forth…” is compatible with many interpretations. He said so in His Works. The evidence of the world shows that God used evolution.
From a biological point of view, there is only one ‘kind’: the Life on Earth kind. That makes biology, including evolution, compatible with Genesis.
If I throw a stone straight up in the air, they whose fault is it if that stone comes down and hits me on the head? Karma works like gravity. There is no need for a god of gravity to seek out Wile E Coyote when he has run off the edge of a cliff and push him down.
Classic god of the gaps: “never”. Be very careful here. Thor once lived in the gap called “What causes thunder?” Science closed that gap and now Thor has to live in comic books, not Asgard.
I disagree, but then evolution is such a slippery word that I can’t say what you might mean by this.rossum:
If He intended to, sure. He did not say He did.
Except that it isn’t.William_Scott:
… (despite it’s incompatibility with the fossil record).
The Church does not make that distinction.LeafByNiggle:
I agree - the history of the world before Adam, for example, presented figuratively as six days of creation. But post-Adam (“the story of God’s relationship with man”), the Genesis narrative switches to the literal.
Of course it doesn’t.
It is absurd, and it is not implied by the wording.
There you have it. Sola scriptura. (Your private interpretation.)
Straw person argument.
No, I oppose non-human evolution on the basis of the verses in Genesis 1 which state that organisms were created “according to their kind”.
I don’t believe I’ve read anything you’ve posted in this thread that any Catholic in good standing could not have also posted.
To be philosophically correct, as God is eternal and not created, He did create the first life.
He may have created the first created life. He did not create the first life, because the first life is uncreated.
An alternate hypothesis to evolution (small errors in the beginning result in large errors at the ending) is to assume a large and fixed gene pool at the beginning. What evolutionists call “mutations” become simply “permutations” and no evolving occurs. God’s plan merely plays out over time.
The difference between created life and un-created life is not in degree but in kind.
The word “first” always modifies an event in time. Therefore, the use of the word as descriptive of beings in eternity is meaningless.
That is the first step in the scientific process. (Well done!) Now take the second step. Gather more data and try to confirm the hypothesis. Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms? What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve? Is the atrocity known as the modern English Bulldog part of God’s plan? What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteristics appear at the proper time? What is the cause and effect? This theory has more problems than evolution.Edgar:
An alternate hypothesis to evolution (small errors in the beginning result in large errors at the ending) is to assume a large and fixed gene pool at the beginning. What evolutionists call “mutations” become simply “permutations” and no evolving occurs. God’s plan merely plays out over time.
This is a much more reasonable explanation. I would add that God’s plan does not merely play out in time, but involves His active involvement as Creator of all time and place, Divine Artist and Father.Edgar:
An alternate hypothesis to evolution (small errors in the beginning result in large errors at the ending) is to assume a large and fixed gene pool at the beginning. What evolutionists call “mutations” become simply “permutations” and no evolving occurs. God’s plan merely plays out over time.