Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

Because we do not read scripture in a vacuum.

No we do not. We read it in a world which God created and so the evidence of that world is as reliable, more so even, than scripture.

We still have to original of the world God created. We do not have the originals of the word of God, just copies of copies of copies, including various scribal errors. And for most of us we need translations of those copies to be able to understand them.

Scientists are looking directly at the original.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

scientific evidence reveals a very old world that develops according laws or rules

Knowledge of those rules and understanding them in the light of what Genesis reveals, they are found to best fit a creationist view of the world’s beginnings.

But how genesis presents that truth is not to be taken literally. It’s a story, almost like a parable or an allegory, about something that actually happened in history.

A story as is that of evolution, except that Gensis describes the truth, whereas the modern secular myth is a distortion of reality, an illusion based on false assumptions grounded in materialistic and utilitarian philosophies.

I can understand protestants reading genesis literalistically because they have broken away from the authority of the Catholic church, but i don’t understand why Catholics would be susceptible to that error.

I have no idea what you mean by evolution, although the OP suggests that you would explain why I should believe it to be true.

The Church explains that there is in principle no conflict between evolution and the christian faith. That’s important.,

Nor is there a conflict between a belief in flat earth and the Christian faith. That is, unless what is behind the label contradicts the dogma.

What does it matter.

That would be why it matters how one thinks actually happened.

What does “actually” mean. Adam and Eve actually were created in the Garden of Eden. They actually sinned against God and creation fell, bringing suffering into the world and leading to the revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ, who has saved us from death. This all actually happened. If one is at all interested in such things, it is very important what happened and how…

 

[Aloysium]

We still have to original of the world God created.

What we have is a universe in transition, on a journey, containing remnants of a past which no longer exists but we are able to imagine, based on what little we actually do know and understand.

 

[Aloysium]

we do not read scripture in a vacuum. We read in in light of the entire Tradition and long held understanding of it.

It is through the grace of the Holy Spirit that we individually and collectively have the capacity to make sense of it. Prayer and humility are a must for our part.

 

[mVitus]

If you believe in Evolution then Genesis account of Adam and Eve and original sin is lost. If there is no original sin then why would Jesus come down to die of humanity’s sin.

As someone who accepts evolution and God, I’m willing to proffer my position.

First, some definitions.

1. Natural: Things that can be explained via a process. In other words, rules by how the world works.
2. Literal: The intended meaning. The literal meaning of “It’s raining cats and dogs” is that it’s raining hard.
3. Literalistic: The surface meaning of the words. The literalistic meaning of “It’s raining cats and dogs” would be that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.
4. Myth: A story of explanation. It can use figurative langugae. This word is not being used in the sense of “false” or “untrue.”

Now that I’ve defined a couple terms, I will say it’s important to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. But a literalistic one isn’t necessary.

Now if we agree that Genesis isn’t literalistically true, we can look at some of the literal meaning in the light of reading it in contrast to other Near-East creation myths. Here are some things we can see.

1. There is only one god, God. Where other cultures had many gods, Genesis has one. An important truth for the Jewish and later Christian faith.
2. God is not an object. In Sumerian cultures the sun was a god, the moon was a good, the sea was a god. Ect. But in Genesis those aren’t gods. They’re things made by God. Quite radical for the time.
3. He creates effortlessly. Where other cultures’ stories had the gods wrestling to bring things into existence, He speaks and it is done.
4. He creates intentionally and with goodness. Other myths had the gods creating the world out of strife, or in some cases by accident. But God creates intentionally and sees that it is good.
5. Humans are not slaves. In other myths humans were created as slaves/servants for the gods. To tend the garden for them or other tasks. But in Genesis the first thing God does with man is rest. And He gives Eden to man. He doesn’t create slaves, He creates people He loves.

With this meaning to the first chapters of Genesis, we can see that to not take it literalistically doesn’t mean it’s reduced to nothing. In fact I find personally that to realize Genesis as using figurative language is to reveal a deeper meaning.

 

[mVitus]

Now in regards to evolution, I read through and saw a couple questions that I’ll address first.

1. Does evolution mean then that God didn’t create Adam & Eve? Because they just randomly evolved?

Not at all. God’s creative power goes beyond direct creation, or ex nihilio. If He sets up a natural process to work through, that’s still Him creating. Just because God uses secondary causes in something doesn’t negate His role. Take for example salvation. God’s role in our salvation is undeniable. But at the same time there are other people in our lives that have played a role in our salvation. People who told us about God, ect. Just because we don’t see a direct action from God doesn’t mean He isn’t involved.

1. Does evolution mean original sin doesn’t exist?

Again, no. The Fall is an important event in our history. But the exact details of it aren’t as important as knowing man sinned and that’s why we’re not in Eden anymore.

1. But Genesis is referred to elsewhere in the Bible.

My position is that it helped illustrate the point. For example, let’s take the phrase “bite the apple” which references The Fall. The fruit isn’t ever named in Genesis, but we’ve all kind of accepted it as an apple by tradition and it provides a common references. (Side note: There are people who claim it was a pomegranate.) Or take my previous point where I used Eden. In my opinion, Eden would be figurative for the pre-sin state, not a physical location. But when I used Eden you knew what I was saying. And I have no reason to believe people 2,000 years ago wouldn’t have used similar frames of references to get their points across.

As one last note for now, I do want to leave you with a link to thomisticevolution.org as I found it to be a fascinating read regarding faith and science. It has a series of essays written by a few Dominican priests that go through how evolution and faith can work together and really gave me some food for thought.

 

[IWantGod]

best fit a creationist view of the world’s beginnings.

IWantGod:

I’m a creationist. I believe that God created the world. So you need to make it clear what you mean.

 

[buffalo]

Scientists are looking directly at the original.

A very limited look and then reasoned by flawed humans. It is worse yet if you believe the brain evolved since it is an unreliable truth detector. Then we have the fact science is provisional.

 

[buffalo]

You keep saying this. To be consistent you must do violence to Scripture itself and the long held Church teaching on Adam and Eve.

 

[IWantGod]

A story as is that of evolution, except that Gensis describes the truth, whereas the modern secular myth is a distortion of reality, an illusion based on false assumptions grounded in materialistic and utilitarian philosophies.

So why don’t you just reject science entirely? Science is a methodological naturalism; it’s materialistic by it’s very method. Why do you pick and choose? Science either works or it doesn’t, you can’t just say chemistry is okay but evolution isn’t because evolution is materialistic in it’s explanation of biological organisms. That’s nonsense.

 

[IWantGod]

You can assert this all you want but the Catholic church disagrees.

 

[buffalo]

You have never produced a magisterial document that supports it.

 

[IWantGod]

https://www.ncbcenter.org/index.php/download_file/force/182/159/

 

[buffalo]

that we individually

as in Sola Scriptura?

 

[rossum]

A very limited look and then reasoned by flawed humans. It is worse yet if you believe the brain evolved since it is an unreliable truth detector.

The same applies to the Bible. As we have it today, it contains human copyists errors and is subject to the unreliable truth detector in human brains. There are many different Christian and Jewish denominations, and even within a single denomination ideas about the Bible have changes. Witness the treatment of Exodus 22:18 over the years.

Then we have the fact science is provisional.

So is theology, since it too can change. As with science, some parts do not change having been very well established. Other parts will change since they are less well established.

rossum

 

[edwest]

Your comment is not accurate. Science has no knowledge of Original Sin.

 

[edwest]

The science only answer is incomplete. It is very important that Christians know that.

 

[Aloysium]

So why don’t you just reject science entirely? Science is a methodological naturalism; it’s materialistic by it’s very method. Why do you pick and choose? Science either works or it doesn’t, you can’t just say chemistry is okay but evolution isn’t because evolution is materialistic in it’s explanation of biological organisms. That’s nonsense.

It’s a personal question, but why not. I don’t reject science because I know it better than anything else. It’s what I’ve always done and continue to do on a semi-retired basis. It’s made me lots of money.

Continuing on this personal theme, I have to say that we are both dealing with inconsitencies in our own vision of things. From your questions, it is clear to me that you don’t understand what I am talking about. It’s not your issue.

Let’s focus on chemistry. It is the study of that structure of reality that God brought into existence after He made the universe as an unformed plasma, which from that base brought into existence subatomic and atomic forms. The system of relationships that is that level within the hierarchy of being that is the universe was in turned utilized in the creation of living forms of being, each a unity existing in relation to its environment, each form an expression of the kind of thing it is.

Materialism reduces the complexity of what something is in itself, take yourself as an example of something 100% physical, to that level of existence.

If we go beyond the illusions, And you’d think Rossum would be on board with that, we can know reality as it is in itself, who you are being you, ultimately a configuration of energy in time-space, organized as atoms and molecules, these in turn being components of cells, specialized and brought together as tissues and parts of complex interacting organ systems, which constitute the bodily aspect of the unity that is the person. These cells in the brain are organized in accordance with the psychological structure, and all of this, which exists, is subsumed, taken up and made whole as a unity of being, that is the human spirit.

All this did not evolve; it was brought into existence through an act of creation, as we are each individually created in human form at conception from human parents.

I’m not sure this has been missed, having been stated and restated so many times; evolution is not science. It utilizes science to build a modern secular myth of our existence.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s a personal question, but why not. I don’t reject science because I know it better than anything else. It’s what I’ve always done and continue to do on a semi-retired basis. It’s made me lots of money.

Continuing on this personal theme, I have to say that we are both dealing with inconsitencies in our own vision of things. From your questions, it is clear to me that you don’t understand what I am talking about. It’s not your issue.

Let’s focus on chemistry. It is the study of that structure of reality that God brought into existence after He made the universe as an unformed plasma, which from that base brought into existence subatomic and atomic forms. The system of relationships that is that level within the hierarchy of being that is the universe was in turned utilized in the creation of living forms of being, each a unity existing in relation to its environment, each form an expression of the kind of thing it is.

Materialism reduces the complexity of what something is in itself, take yourself as an example of something 100% physical, to that level of existence.

If we go beyond the illusions, And you’d think Rossum would be on board with that, we can know reality as it is in itself, who you are being you, ultimately a configuration of energy in time-space, organized as atoms and molecules, these in turn being components of cells, specialized and brought together as tissues and parts of complex interacting organ systems, which constitute the bodily aspect of the unity that is the person. These cells in the brain are organized in accordance with the psychological structure, and all of this, which exists, is subsumed, taken up and made whole as a unity of being, that is the human spirit.

All this did not evolve; it was brought into existence through an act of creation, as we are each individually created in human form at conception from human parents.

I’m not sure this has been missed, having been stated and restated so many times; evolution is not science. It utilizes science to build a modern secular myth of our existence.

Feel free to answer my question when you are ready.

 

[edwest]

Please, leave me out of the we. Evolution happens? Really?