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

[IWantGod]

Both Genesis and the science are true

Except the scientific facts are true in a sense that genesis is not. The sense being that genesis as it refers to the process by which potential kinds have come to be is not a reflection of how things have actually happened. And i don’t think the author intended it to be a description of how things really happened.

Is God the creator of physical reality and the laws that govern it’s behavior? Yes.
Does genesis, or better yet did the author intend genesis to be a literal description of physical history, and more to the point biological history? Well, i accept that scripture is inspired by the holy-spirit and in that regard is the inerrant word of God, and i also accept and respect the body of scientific evidence that has been accumulated by scientists about physical reality. Therefore, for me, it cannot possibly be true that the author intended genesis to be a literal account of physical history and it’s development and much less is there any reason to think that God’s creative act as it is portrayed in genesis is how God actually created. So the answer is no.

There are core truths upon which our faith stands that has been embodied by the story of genesis, and as such the story of genesis is very much like a delivery system for those core truths, a literary device used to express our standing in relation to God the creator. But that is all.

To argue otherwise is to make genesis more than what it really is, and most comparisons between genesis and science either lead to ad-hoc interpretations that are not necessary, or they lead to a conflict between scripture and science. These are two things that i clearly oppose.

 

[edwest]

From Catholic Answers:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

 

[IWantGod]

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day”

Precisely. So he didn’t really create the world in seven days, since it is a symbolic representation of God’s creative act. But God did create the world, which no Catholic here is denying.

 

[IWantGod]

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend.

Nobody has. It is your interpretation that has been dismissed.

 

[IWantGod]

God did literally by fiat create all the different “kinds” of creatures directly over the course of six days, which we interpret in different ways. God did not create different kinds of things to naturally evolve over billions of years. Electrons and quarks did not bring themselves into existence and did not by their own inherent properties bring about the existence of the atom. Atoms did not arrange themselves into cells, and cells did not by chance originally develop individual properties to go on and organize themselves as tissues, brought together as organs operating together in a holistic manner, all thirteen trillion cells, to create the first person. I would suggest you truly consider that more importantly than being discredited by human beings, the idea of evolution is simply false, whether you like it or not.

In principle i accept the existence of secondary causes (natural causes) and that God has given them the power to produce effects according to their given nature. True, the power of God is required for the existence of physical reality and it is God that sustains physical reality in existence allowing the effects of physical causes to become actual things according to the the given nature of the physical cause. But nonetheless there is such a thing as a naturally caused order of physical events that have real effects. Given that this is in principle true, and that God’s telos works through the existence of secondary causes, I don’t see the problem that you do.

 

[edwest]

How is Genesis supposed to be interpreted? Which parts are incorrect?

 

[Techno2000]

Wozza:

I’m definitely outa here.

Bye, bye - another one bites the dust

Yeah…that lost is going to rock this forum to its foundation.

 

[IWantGod]

Which parts are incorrect?

It’s not that some parts are correct and others are not. It’s more a question of interpreting it within its proper context.

 

[edwest]

Could you provide some key points?

 

[guanophore]

But clearly i haven’t made any argument against the idea that genesis is a poetic description of God’s creative act.

This is what you are doing when you state that a 'strict reading" of the text cannot support billions of years of life on earth.

Again and again i have spoke of the figurative nature of genesis.

Indeed. Because you equate “literal” with “true”, you are unable to accept that the text can be “true”. Therefore, the text must be relegated to “story” or fable. It cannot be literally true.

I argued only against the idea that God’s creative act literally happened in the way that genesis portrays it.

Yes. You are unable to recognize or accept that the text may be literally true. This is a common error of fundamentalism. In your world view, symbolic language does not equal “true”.

And now you are arguing against a straw-man…

I am just observing what I see. I really don’t need to 'argue against" your fundamentalist approach. You have a right to it, and it may serve you well. Perhaps it makes it easier to discount data that does not fit into your scientism. In my experience, fundamentalists have some very basic needs met by their world view.

 

[IWantGod]

This is what you are doing when you state that a 'strict reading" of the text cannot support billions of years of life on earth.

No, i said a literal interpretation of genesis does not support billions of years of life on earth. Can you show evidence to the contrary.

 

[IWantGod]

you are unable to accept that the text can be “true”

I never said that any scripture is not true, but i have said that some interpretation or other is not consistent with the scientific facts. There is a difference.

 

[IWantGod]

In your world view, symbolic language does not equal “true”.

A truth that some symbolic expression represents can indeed be true, but it does not follow that the symbolic language that is used is suppose to be taken as literally true obviously.

 

[IWantGod]

I am just observing what I see.

And what you see is not true.

 

[guanophore]

your interpretation of genesis has been discredited whether you like it or not. .

I am glad you can acknowledge that the “strict reading” of Genesis you describe is, indeed, a fundamentalist view.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. For us, the account is “true”, even though you may not be able to square it with the available scientific facts.

Except the scientific facts are true in a sense that genesis is not. The sense being that genesis as it refers to the process by which potential kinds have come to be is not a reflection of how things have actually happened.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Of course the author intended for it to be a description of how things happened. It is a description from a theological point of view. In your mind, this is not a valid point of view, so the account must be relegated to “figurative” or “storytelling”.

Does genesis, or better yet did the author intend genesis to be a literal description of
physical history, and more to the point biological history?

This is something you are projecting into the text, or perhaps wanting from the text? I am not sure why you would expect this?

Therefore, for me, it cannot possibly be true that the author intended genesis to be a literal account of physical history and it’s development and much less is there any reason to think that God’s creative act as it is portrayed in genesis is how God actually created.

I think what you are saying is that you are reading Genesis through a lens which does not allow you to see theological truth that does not seem consistent with your scientism?

It boggles the mind why you would say you believe that the Scripture is inspired and inerrant, and yet, that text is not “true” (God could not have actually created in the manner that is portrayed).

I guess a “literary device” is better than no standing at all…

It seems that you already suffer from a conflict between Scripture and science, so perhaps the opposition is within yourself?

Nobody has. It is your interpretation that has been dismissed.

How would you explain the difference between a figurative story, and a legend?

 

[IWantGod]

I am glad you can acknowledge that the “strict reading” of Genesis you describe is, indeed, a fundamentalist view.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. For us, the account is “true”, even though you may not be able to square it with the available scientific facts.

You are being deceptive. I have explained my position and none of it is against church teaching. So saying that “for us” as if i am saying something contrary to church teaching is uncharitable and disrespectfull unless you can show for a fact that is what i am doing.

 

[IWantGod]

theological truth

I never said that genesis is not theologically true.

 

[IWantGod]

and yet, that text is not “true”

I never said the text is not true, i said that someones interpretation of that text is not true and is inconsistant with actual reality. There is a difference.

 

[IWantGod]

It is a description from a theological point of view.

And i never argued otherwise. Clearly when i say literally i mean how it went in actual reality. For example the catechism says that the world being created in 6 days followed by a day of rest is a symbolic representation of God creating the universe. A reasonable person can see that God didn’t actually create the world in seven days, but rather they was using that idea as a literary device to express a truth, that God created the world.

All i was saying is that you are not suppose to take the symbolism literally, because to do so would conflict with the scientific evidence within the context of this discussion. There is nothing wrong with what i said, and neither was i arguing against the bible or church teaching. So please, stop accusing me of things that are not true and just admit that you got it wrong.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

No, i said a literal interpretation of genesis does not support billions of years of life on earth. Can you show evidence to the contrary.

No, because for me, there are things that are real/true (literal) that can be expressed theologically and symbolically.

Your literal interpretation (fundamentalist) does not allow for this kind of flexibility, so I cannot show you any evidence “to the contrary”. Your world view is already contrary.

I never said that any scripture is not true, but i have said that some interpretation or other is not consistent with the scientific facts. There is a difference.

So, how is a “story” true? You have said that Genesis does not give an accurate account of exactly what historically happened.

I do agree with you, it is a matter of interpretation. If one’s world view cannot admit that a poetic/symbolic account is not an accurate reflection of the facts, then naturally the text will have to be in conflict with science. Science is all about the facts, right?

A truth that some symbolic expression represents can indeed be true, but it does not follow that the symbolic language that is used is suppose to be taken as literally true obviously .

This is a flaw in the understanding of how “literally true” is used. Something can be quite literally true and be expressed symbolically. Only a fundamentalist point of view has no room for this perspective.

And what you see is not true.

You clearly perceive things differently.

So saying that “for us” as if i am saying something contrary to church teaching is uncharitable and disrespectful unless you can show for a fact that is what i am doing.

Well, I don’t know that you claim any religion, and I don’t expect people that I meet here at CAF to be Catholic. Non-Catholics are perfectly welcome here, along with anyone who does not accept Catholic teaching. If everyone here accepted Catholic teaching, it would not be much of an Apologetics site, would it?

There is no appropriate circumstance for members of CAF to be uncharitable and disrespectful. Even if I could “prove” you are Catholic, and deliberately rebelling Church Teaching.

One has to wonder, though, why does rejecting what the Church teaches about creation upset you to the point that you feel disrespected?

I never said that genesis is not theologically true.

You have said it cannot be literally true. Ergo, theological truths are not literal? You have said it is a “story” and “figurative”.