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

[Glark]

The Church will not make this proclamation. She cannot

An exegesis that runs counter to reason is difficult to accept.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If you don’t like the Church’s interpretation, take it up with the Church.

Show me the magisterial document?

It is the absence of a magisterial document I am claiming. I cannot show you an absence. It would be up to you to show me the presence of a magisterial document saying that the creation happened in a “very short time” relative to human understanding of the passage of time, or whatever you think that means.

 

[Chris4]

It can mean, as in creation, God did not need time to create and we shouldn’t ‘box’ into seven days of the week as he is beyond and outside time. He doesn’t even have to rest.

 

[Glark]

It is rather fascinating to contemplate on that period on the eve of the recorded creation, that is before ‘day’ and ‘night’ were created when current recording of time began.

You make a fair point - the creation account is very mysterious. However, I can’t accept that a “day” can be symbolic of an very long period of time; rather, it is meant to represent a short period of time - a view which is supported by Exodus 20:9-11.

 

[Glark]

God did not need time to create and we shouldn’t ‘box’ into seven days of the week as he is beyond and outside time

It is God Hmself who suggests six literal days of creation - “Six days you shall labor and do all your work … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - Exodus 20:9-11

 

[Glark]

Show me a theologian who argues that a very short period of time - a “day” - is symbolic of an extremely long period of time - to wit: billions of years - and I will show you a theologian who has taken leave of his senses.

 

[buffalo]

It is God Hmself who suggests six literal days of creation - “Six days you shall labor and do all your work … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - Exodus 20:9-11

All this supports the Church’s longstanding teaching.

Let’s substitute and see if it makes sense?

14 Billion years you shall labor and do all your work… For in 14 billion years the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…

 

[Glark]

Let’s substitute and see if it makes sense? 14 Billion years you shall labor and do all your work… For in 14 billion years the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…

Oh, that’s a ripper, my friend! I wish I’d thought of that one!

 

[Chris4]

It is true that it is meant to represent a short time. But Christ tells us that “My father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working” John 5:17 a suggestion of continuity from the start.This is not what we are told in Exodus 20:9-11?

 

[buffalo]

It can mean, as in creation, God did not need time to create and we shouldn’t ‘box’ into seven days of the week as he is beyond and outside time. He doesn’t even have to rest.

Change is measured in units of time. God is outlining the changes He made in time. He rested - means - He finished and no new things are created.

A day to God is like a thousand years is an explanation how since God is timeless and forever, a day and a thousand years are virtually the same as compared to an infinite timeline.

 

[Chris4]

Yet according to Christ himself, God has never rested from his work. (John 5:17)

 

[buffalo]

Yet according to Christ himself, God has never rested from his work. (John 5:17)

Correct, He is now sustaining His creation.

 

[Gorgias]

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

OK, but you claimed:

The standard theory of evolution is incompatible with the Church’s teachings

How does the “standard theory” you just cited demonstrate a clash with Church doctrine?

Science, however, since it doesn’t truck in discussions about ‘souls’, would define ‘human’ differently.

I would say that this not a problem at all. Science deals in the physical, and theology in the spiritual. They meet in the human person, but that does not mean that either side gets to play in each other’s sandbox. Science, quite naturally, cannot discuss souls. Theology, quite naturally, doesn’t get to tell science how to interpret empirical data. That’s not a problem, it’s a natural distinction between two fields of study! And, in contradiction to the conventional wisdom of the age, these two are not in conflict with each other!

I don’t think you are justifying the comment you made that it is a sort of ontological change along the lines of what happens at baptism.

Perhaps ordination is the more relevant example, then?

Close to the beginning, when we had to spread throughout the earth, people lived abot ten times as long as they do now, presumably in good health. I’m sure some genetic loss occured when this changed.

If, again, you take the lifespan reports literally. If we’re still in the “pre-history” part of the book of Genesis – which we are! – we can take the ages as an indication that sin is affecting humanity. If sin is so prevalent, why do lifespan reports strangely stop decreasing at just about the same number that they’ve been at, in all other books of the Bible and even through to today?

Hominids remained hominids, but their purpose of producing the information necessary to then bring about human beings physically compatable with the earth’s environment done, they died off.

Well… hominins, yeah. The ‘Pan’ side of hominids remains.

 

[buffalo]

I would say that this not a problem at all. Science deals in the physical, and theology in the spiritual. They meet in the human person, but that does not mean that either side gets to play in each other’s sandbox. Science, quite naturally, cannot discuss souls. Theology, quite naturally, doesn’t get to tell science how to interpret empirical data. That’s not a problem , it’s a natural distinction between two fields of study! And, in contradiction to the conventional wisdom of the age, these two are not in conflict with each other!

I disagree. Modern science made its own definition limited. Science before did let the Divine Foot in the door.

Yes, theology, the queen of all sciences does get to tell science how to interpret empirical data (of which btw evolution has none), it must be true. There are areas where faith and reason overlap. Both must be true in this intersection.

 

[Chris4]

I agree with you, although Christ hardly infers to sustenance, but actually says work, the same one he uses when he says in Exodus he had finished it. Thank you

 

[Glark]

Yet according to Christ himself, God has never rested from his work. (John 5:17)

There is the work of creation and the work of maintaining the creation - and what other work God does.

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you, although Christ hardly infers to sustenance, but actually says work, the same one he uses when he says in Exodus he had finished it. Thank you

There are different types of work. One is creation, the other Providence. Jesus also speaks of this, when He tells us to have faith, He will provide.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Show me a theologian who argues that a very short period of time - a “day” - is symbolic of an extremely long period of time - to wit: billions of years - and I will show you a theologian who has taken leave of his senses.

Show me a theologian who argues that between “In the beginning” and “God created the heavens and the earth” - is symbolic of an extremely long period of time - to wit: billions of years - and I will show you a … Glarkian omniscient!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Show me a theologian who argues that a very short period of time - a “day” - is symbolic of an extremely long period of time - to wit: billions of years - and I will show you a theologian who has taken leave of his senses.

See the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[Gorgias]

What makes sense to me is that God can and did create the unity of the person at the beginning as He will at the end, with no need of primates to transform into humans.

And the only place we differ in opinion is how God created “the unity of the person.” I agree that this did happen with our first truly human parents; I just disagree that their physical bodies were created directly.

What we are obliged to do is to inform ourselves of the Church’s interpretations, as outlined in the Catechism, which seeks to make eternal truths, written in accordance with the worldviews of their time, relevant in the modern world.

Fair enough. The Catechism teaches six day creation, then?

It does allow us to believe whatever we want in terms of science as long as it doesn’t preclude the truth.

And hence the popes’ invitations to study. It’s a theory we’re working with, here…

At issue is the stated mechanism of evolution, which among other distortions, implies the primacy of the material, the diminution of mankind to animal status

Not sure how you get “primacy of the material”. Theistic evolution, at its core, says we were simply physical beings until God gave us souls, making us body-soul composites, and forming us “in his image and likeness.” That would seem to bring us to a point of primacy of the soul, if anything!

And “the dimunition of mankind to animal status” seems backward, doesn’t it? We’re not human until we are a body/soul composite – and therefore, mankind is elevated, not diminished!

Quite a lot of the evil we find in the world today is justified by the belief that we are animals, brought forth by the powers of the earth.

I do agree that the efforts to turn evolution into a quasi-religion have had deleterious effects on humanity. I do not assent to those worldviews. However, you can’t blame a scientific theory for the ways that some people warp it! (On the Christian side, I’m thinking of the Westboro Baptist Church debacle, and how it misrepresents Christianity.)

If one who believes otherwise were to treat “creationists” as less of a foil in intellectual combat

I think that’s going on in both directions, don’t you?