Evolution? (interpreting The Bible)

[sem1357]

hey y'all. i need some help on this. what do y'all believe in, evolution or creation or something else? i know they teach evolution in school and all, but i'm not entierly clear on what the Church teaches. i have a Catholic Teen Bible, and it has little inserts and things to kinda comment on theoligy and things like that and in Genisis it says that the Bible was not written for every part of it to be taken literally. it says that Genisis was not written as a science article but as symbolic stories that convey great moral and spiritual truths. it says other stuff and i could give y'all more direct quoting if y'all want, but i just wanted to see what y'all thougt on that. i mean, the way i believe it is mostly the way my Bible tells it. so what do y'all think?

--sarah

[God Conquers]

The Church has no teaching on evolution. It maintains that it is the purview of science. So long as we know it was GOD who created the World. The stories in Genesis CAN be taken literally, but only how they were written to be. They are not a science manual, they are poetic/allegorical. The Story of Genesis has many layers, none of them are supposed to be instructioons on how exactly God put together the world, and how it's processes work today.

[ironmonk]

Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences

by Pope John Paul II

To the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences taking part in the Plenary Assembly:

With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about development in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986, L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22).

Science at the dawn of the third millennium

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origin of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation. And if at first sight there are apparent contradictions, in which direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus) Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and the 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session, you are undertaking a reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium, starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which effect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering your several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origins of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 [1993], pp. 764-772; Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23 April 1993, announcing the document on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 [1994], pp. 232-243).

Evolution and the Church's Magisterium

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research and the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; whenever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is 'the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake' (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect; for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ('anima enim a Deo immediate creati catholica fides nos retiners [...]' Encyclical Humani generis, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, we could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describes and measures the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the timeline. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral consciousness, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

We are called to enter eternal life

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided my in the Encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely Evangelium vitae.

It is significant that in St. John's gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.

To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quoted the great saying of Deuteronomy: 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God' (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4).

Even more, 'life' in one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

From the Vatican, 22 October 1996

-- John Paul II

[Cure of Ars]

Evolution does not explain away a need for a creator. This can be seen in the law of causality. You can’t get more out of less. You can’t get something out of nothing. This is just common sense. Would anyone claim that if they saw a computer that it just was made by matter coming together accidentally. No one would be silly enough to make this claim. Computers have designers and programmers. The thing is our minds are a lot more advanced than computers. They can love, will, and seek truth. Some try to have evolution take God’s place but it is as silly as my example above.

I personally think that the science of evolution has some truth to it. But they act like they have it figured out and this far from the truth. At this point it is just a theory. There is more that they don’t know than what they do know.

Edited July 5, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[Theologian in Training]

I personally think that the science of evolution has some truth to it.  But they act like they have it figured out and this far from the truth.  At this point it is just a theory. There is more that they don’t know than what they do know.

And therein lies the problem. I posted a couple of good books that I have been reading over in the Open Mic forum on this topic under "Am I." I would highly recommend those books. Specifically the two Johnson's books as they seem to put everything in perspective, and do far better justice than I could.

Essentially, it comes down to this, evolution is a philosophy, treated as a science by the scientific community. There is no hard evidence for Darwinian evolution and instead of admitting as thus, scientists become philsophers and speculate, as Darwin did, and call that evidence.

It is an interesting circular argument, one I would recommend getting better acquainted with.

God Bless

[Cure of Ars]

And therein lies the problem. I posted a couple of good books that I have been reading over in the Open Mic forum on this topic under "Am I." I would highly recommend those books. Specifically the two Johnson's books as they seem to put everything in perspective, and do far better justice than I could.

Essentially, it comes down to this, evolution is a philosophy, treated as a science by the scientific community. There is no hard evidence for Darwinian evolution and instead of admitting as thus, scientists become philsophers and speculate, as Darwin did, and call that evidence.

It is an interesting circular argument, one I would recommend getting better acquainted with.

God Bless

I agree with you. God bless

[Winchester]

There's evidence, it's just not coercive. Skull shapes cannot tell us whether a creature had a human soul or not, such is accidental to man.

[sem1357]

so then y'all agree with me that some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally? what about the Big Bang theory, i've heard of it, but who knows anything about it? is that a viable theory too?

[Theologian in Training]

There's evidence, it's just not coercive. Skull shapes cannot tell us whether a creature had a human soul or not, such is accidental to man.

However, the evidence, ie: something that fills in the gap when one species becomes another still has not been found. It is a theory based upon speculation that has become accepted as fact.

God Bless

[Chrysologus]

The Big Bang theory just states that the universe started from nothing, or a point or something, and in a huge BANG! expanded into the universe we know today at incredible speeds. Sounds pretty compatible with Christian theology to me. This was 15 billion years ago, give or take a billion years.

[Theologian in Training]

so then y'all agree with me that some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally? what about the Big Bang theory, i've heard of it, but who knows anything about it? is that a viable theory too?

Well, that depends on the parts you are referring to. If you are referring to Genesis, as the Church has stated, Genesis is not meant to be a scientific journal, rather, it is meant to explain, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our origins, and the beginning of creation. The methodology that is commonly used is a method called historical aetiology, which means that we try to discern "backwards" as to what happened during creation by the evidence we have. However, since I posted about this concept before on the older thread and poorly explained it, I will leave it at that, until I research it a bit more.

As to the Big Bang, you have to remember that some of those that ascribe to the Big Bang view it as a bunch of chaotic matter that exploded to form life...basically life arose out of chaos. However, the Pope spoke against this in the letter above, "Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person." The reason being that it presupposes matter from which God created. The problem with this is that God created ex nihilo, out of nothing, therefore, this presupposes that no matter, no thing existed before, out of which God created.

Hope I cleared some of the confusion up. I will try to come back to this thread in order to add a little more, when I can present it in a clearer fashion.

God Bless

[sem1357]

hey! thanks a lot for y'alls input, this kinda topic has always kinda bugged me! y'all are all so smart!

[dUSt]

If the story of creation is not literal, then what about Noah's ark, or the Tower of Babel?

[sem1357]

i dunno, what do y'all think?

[cmotherofpirl]

One of the best ways to teach something is to tell a story. Jesus's parables when in a long line of teaching stories as found in the OT. Genesis up to Abraham are considered teaching stories: ways to transmit universal truths. Adam and Eve teach us many important things, as do Noahs ark and the tower of Babel.

God made everything good, we messed up. God gave us a way to be saved.

God loves us in spite of our stupidities. Noahs teaches that God brought us into the world and He can take us out. ( to paraphrase Bill Cosby). the Tower of Babel teaches us the dangers of technology and overreaching ourselves.