Pope: Creationism, Evolution Not at Odds

[Guest]

THE WORLD AND THE WORD

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John 1:1-3

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Genesis 1:1

.... the problem with reconciling believing in God with believing in evolution as a natural law

Dear Sister

They Lie To You.

Evolution Is Neither A Law Nor Scientific.

God's Seal of His Creation - The Sabbath

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20:10-11

The Problem With The lie - Nature Is Not The Father Of Mankind - God Is

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Luke 3:38

The Problem With The Lie - There Was No Death Until By One Man Sin And Death Entered Into The World

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:12

The Problem With The Lie - By One Man Eternal Life Is Offered

That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord..

Romans 5:21

The Problem With The Lie - Belief In Jesus Is Life, Unbelief Insures The Wrath Of God

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:34-36

The Problem With The Lie - The Bible Is True

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Psalms 119:160

Dear Sister

Evolution Will Never Lead You To The Heavenly Father - Only Jesus Will.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

Look To Jesus Alone.

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[The Lorax]

Yet He did not give us any authority to 'update' Genesis.

No one's saying that we should "update" Genesis.

Also, why did you bring up fossils? Sure, early people dug them up. Fossils played a role in the musings of natural theology: some people perceived them as symbols left by God rather than as naturally petrified remains. But no one had any idea how old they were, or how old the Earth and the universe was.

Figurative language that endorses unbelievable myths is totally different from simple language that transmits eternal truth.

Will you admit there exists figurative language in the Bible?

Outside what I've addressed, your post amounts to the typical "I am right and you are wrong" assertion. Feel free to provide support for this assertion at any time. Until then there's nothing for me to rebut.

[CaritateDei]

Wouldn't Jesus have to use teminolgy that the people of the day would understand? I mean what was a fossil to them?

Very good point.

And what would 14 billion years (the scientific age of the universe) mean to them? They didn't even have numbers that big!

The Bible's first readers simply couldn't accept a plainly written Genesis. It wouldn't make sense to them. Luckily the exact age of the universe is not terribly important to our spiritual salvation. Jesus is. That's what matters, and that's why figurative language sufficed in Genesis.

Ancient civilizations came accross fossils all the time as rocks were quarried for their buildings. Fossils were even exposed in their temples on occasions. The term comes from Latin (fodere, fossus) and refers to an item that has been 'dug up.' Greek poet and philosopher Xenophanes (570BC) is credited to have been the first to acknowledge what they were. Some think that exposure to fossils was responsible for folklore themes (Titans, mythologic animals) and early naturalistic (evolutionary) theories about the origins of species in Ancient Greece.

Jesus, the Jewish carpenter, son of Mary and Joseph, did not have to know about them. But Jesus The Omniscient and Eternal Son of God certainly knew everything about them and everything His followers would have to endure while preaching His Word, from Paul's dealings with the Greeks through our modern debates at Worthy. Yet He did not give us any authority to 'update' Genesis.

Figurative language that endorses unbelievable myths is totally different from simple language that transmits eternal truth. That's why I wholly agree with Thomas Aquinas: Nothing false underlies the literal sense of Scripture.

"There are some things that are by their very nature the substance of faith, as to say of God that He is three and one. . . about which it is forbidden to think otherwise. . . . There are other things that relate to the faith only incidentally. . . and, with respect to these, Christian authors have different opinions, interpreting the Sacred Scripture in various ways. Thus with respect to the origin of the world, there is one point that is of the substance of faith, viz. , to know that it began by creation. . . . But the manner and the order according to which creation took place concerns the faith only incidentally."

Aquinas notes that the interpretation regarding successive creation, or what we might call "episodic creation," (evolution) is "more common, and seems superficially to be more in accord with the letter."

The Summa, by St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Literal Sense does not mean that St. Thomas does not buy into metaphors. When it says, "the right hand of the God," Aquinas recognizes that this can't be taken COMPLETELY literally, because the right hand is a metaphor for the Power of God. God has no right hand. Jesus, who is God the Son, does have a right hand, but God the father, by any Trinitarian understanding of God does not. Thomas comments on this. He also, when talking about Creation, opens the doors for evolution, just as the Pope did. Any second thoughts on your support of St. Thomas Aquinas?

[Jorge S]

Any second thoughts on your support of St. Thomas Aquinas?

Not at all. Here is some of what he said in the Summa about Creation:

On the contrary,

It is said (

Genesis 1:1

): "In the beginning

God

created heaven and earth"; by which are understood corporeal creatures. These, therefore, were produced immediately by

God

.

I answer that,

Some have maintained that creatures proceeded from

God

by degrees, in such a way that the first creature proceeded from Him immediately, and in its turn produced another, and so on until the production of corporeal creatures. But this position is untenable, since the first production of corporeal creatures is by creation, by which

matter

itself is produced: for in the act of coming into being the imperfect must be made before the perfect: and it is impossible that anything should be created, save by

God

alone.

...

But creation is the production of a thing in its entire

substance

, nothing being presupposed either uncreated or created. Hence it remains that nothing can create except

God

alone, Who is the first

cause

. Therefore, in order to show that all bodies were created immediately by

God

,

Moses

said: "In the beginning

God

created heaven and earth."

Reply to Objection 1.

In the production of things an order exists, but not such that one creature is created by another, for that is impossible; but rather such that by the Divine wisdom diverse grades are constituted in creatures.

Reply to Objection 2.

God

Himself, though one, has

knowledge

of many and different things without detriment to the simplicity of His

nature

, as has been shown above (15, 2); so that by His wisdom He is the

cause

of diverse things as

known

by Him, even as an artificer, by apprehending diverse forms, produces diverse works of art.

Reply to Objection 3.

The amount of the power of an agent is measured not only by the thing made, but also by the manner of making it; for one and the same thing is made in one way by a higher power, in another by a lower. But the production of finite things, where nothing is presupposed as existing, is the work of

infinite

power, and, as such, can belong to no creature.

[bold and links appear in the online version. Summa Theologica > First Part > Question 65: The Work of Creation of Corporeal Creatures > Article 3 > http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1065.htm]

Edited August 7, 2007 by Jorge S

[Kansasdad]

I think part of the problem is there are different understandings of evolution. One (simplified) version deals with the changing of species adapting through evolution to a stronger species. The other version tries to take evolution back to creation. This is the primeval soup theory, where non-living randomly creates life. This is the part of evolution that fails miserably, both scientifically and spiritually. Understanding Genesis in figurative language we see that indeed there was a process. God didn't just create it all at once. Why not. If you are going to create it in 6 days, why not just create it all at once. Because that is not what Genesis tells us. Creation was a process, God created the first step and then time passed, what is time to God, how absurd to try and measure it by our understanding. After some time, God created the nest step and then more time passed. It is a beautiful illustration showing how God created the universe. It was by his design, every little step. Science does not disprove God, Rather, Science continually reveals his glory.

God Bless,

k.D.

[RedNick261]

Jesus himself taught the Genesis account. If you toss out Genesis (Creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc.,) you may as well toss out the rest of the Bible.

First, I assume you mean that he taught the Genesis account as literal. Could you show me where?

Secondly, I do believe that the Genesis account is true - that is not to say that it is to be understood as an exact transcript of what happened. Many respected theologians and Christian thinkers tend to give some credibility to the genre, context and situation in which the Genesis account was written. Obviously, no one (certainly not Moses, the accredited writer of the account) was around to witness the exact happenings of the Creation. The ancient Hebrews were hardly scientific people, so explaining anything to them in scientific terms would have been useless. The ancient Hebrews, in fact, used lore to teach lessons about everything. In other words, most of their stories weren't literally true, but the lessons they taught were true and good. As a text that happened pre-recorded history and was accounted no less than 2000 years later, it would be more than understandable (especially considering the audience to whom the text was written) that allegory would be the genre of the text, rather than history.

Thirdly, it is incredibly dangerous to make such a bold claim as you did at the end of your post. You're suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's not only unsafe for the Bible, but it's unsafe for yourself. If you were to come to an understanding such as that I and many other Bible scholars have, you would very quickly recant that statement or "toss out the rest of the Bible".

I do not claim to be the ultimate authority on this matter. I do, however, claim that the logic and science that God has given us that we might understand Him more fully seems to contradict the idea that the first several books of Genesis were intended as literal transcriptions of history. Does this make them any less valid? No, it does not. It simply means that, in their original context, they were used to teach a lesson in God's power and man's depravity, not in literal history.

My point being, Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created by God as written in Genesis. And that sin and death only came into the world with the fall. You cannot reconcile Genesis with evolution.

Do you think Jesus would have spoken to people in language that they could understand? In Jesus' time, they were still the "ancient Hebrews". They still didn't have a scientific understanding of the world they lived in. Jesus had a point to get across. Would it make sense that He would use the same lore to teach such messages?

Edited August 7, 2007 by RedNick261

[RedNick261]

a history that is true as certified by Moses and Jesus Christ?

Can you answer my point with a statement of fact, rather than an attempt to redirect the question to me and, at best, a marginal defense of a concept in question? But hey, when in doubt, avoid the issue and make claims that you can't back up.

You are mistaken, of course - Jesus, the

[RedNick261]

I said both Moses and Jesus certified (as recorded in Holy Writ) that the Genesis account of creation is not myth but a true history of mankind

[RedNick261]

Of course, it is my *opinion* that Jesus and Moses

Edited August 8, 2007 by RedNick261

[RedNick261]

so man wasn't created from dirt and Eve was not created from Adam, right? just chuck that

is Exodus 20 allegory? how about the various Pslams which refer to the creation event? Acts 17? are the three days Christ was in the grave allegory? is the 1,000 year Kingdom allegory? how about the destruction of the present universe and re-creation?

I am Irish and German. That means that you, along with everyone else on this board, must be Irish and German. Your logic is flawed. You are attempting to assign qualities of one story to an assortment of others in different genre, contexts and situations. It fails, sorry.

where does that line of thinking end?

It's on a case by case basis.

Genesis 1 and 2 is historical narrative, there really isn't even a debate here...it's those who believe God at His Word and those who do not

If I were a little thinner-skinned, I would take offense to that. Who are you to question anyone's faith? Who are you to say that there isn't a debate? In fact, there is so much of a debate that there is an entire sub-forum dedicated to such things on WB, ongoing debates (within the church and from outside)... it's far from settled. God never said, nor did any other Biblical character, that Genesis 1 and 2 were historical narrative. On what do you base these claims?

speculative faith is a slippery slope that quickly leads to apostasy, I've seen it happen many times...human speculations don't trump God

Your final assertion would stand to reason. Of course what God does, God does and we have no control or authority over it. However, your reference to "speculative" faith, better termed "reflective", is horrendous. Why did Paul find it necessary to tell us to study that might find ourselves approved? Why was it so important that people study? Our questions do not damage our faith; rather, the questions strengthen our faith. That we are able to question our faith and remain in it is a testimony to the fact that our faith is strong... and that we are ever growing in knowledge of the Lord and His Creation!

A word of advice: It is hardly appropriate or effective to sling mud on valid debate in order to satisfy your own inadequacy. Please, do not take offense to that, but rather form arguments based on facts and not on dogmatic rehearsals of ignorance.