Evolution? (interpreting The Bible)

[Chrysologus]

*frowns*

[cmotherofpirl]

This is a quote from the commentary on Genesis 2 verses 5-6 from the Navarre Bible, page 46. THe whole commentary on the book of Genesis is 200 pages long, going line by line with English and Latin.

"Giving due weight to the data of faith and to scientific discoveries about the evolution of the species, Catholic theology is not opposed to the idea that God could have infused a soul into an already existing being, having previously prepared a body to suit it, thereby making it a "man". This way of explaining things is called "moderate evolutionism". In this connexion, John Paul II, in his 22 Oct 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, after recalling the teachings of Pius XII's Humani Generis, pointed out that the recent advances in scholarship "lead one no longer to regard the theory of evolution as a mere hypothesis". But at the same time he said that there is not one theory of evolution, but a number of such theories, ands he indicated which ones are contrary to the faith: "THe theories of evolution which, in line with ther philospohies which inspire them, regard the spirit as something that emerges from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible witrh the truth about man".

[Brother Adam]

I urge you to consider how old the theory of evolution is, the thoughts of its creator, Darwin, on his theory being true, and how the theory of evolution, in its original prose is contrary to Christians who have tried to hi-jack the theory and say "yeah, God did that".

I was forced to study the issue long and hard to refute, publically in college a biology teacher on the theory. Please, before deciding to say that there is nothing wrong with the theory, study it in depth. Start with many of the excellent articles on the BB's closed debate forum. I'm sorry, but the more you learn about the theory the more I will hope you will realize how wrong it is to condone it as Christians.

[cmotherofpirl]

Notice the quote from the Pope said theories, not theory. There is not unified theory of evolution out there.

He did not say to specifically accept Darwinian theory. He merely pointed out the criteria for which ones to reject.

You do not throw out a theory simply because you disagree with the philosophy of the person who came up with it. Even idiots, heretics and lunitics can make a valid point or legitimate discovery sometime.

[VeraMaria]

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

Edited August 14, 2003 by VeraMaria

[cmotherofpirl]

Evolution is a scientific theory that can be treated as a philosophy.

Species change. THat is a fact. THe cause of the change is what is up for debate.

AS long as we understand God is ultimately in charge, we will stay on the right track.

That is what the Pope points out.

[cmotherofpirl]

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

THe first five books of the Bible are called the Pentateuch, meaning five books. Genesis is structured the same way, it can be divided in sections of five.

Structure and Content of Genesis.

The opening words of the narrative signal the purpose and even the content of the first book of the Bible - namely to show how God acted in the early days of the world and of peoples and in particular the people of Isreal. THe author is not attempting to provide a sceintific account of reality or history.

THe book is divided into sections with an intro line:These are the generations...

part one : creation and the first stage of the life of man.(Gen 1:1 to 11:26)

THis part contains the creation account and what we might call "pre-history". It includes five of the sections which start with the words" THese are the generation of".

Genesis 2:4 the point when the first account of the creation of the world and man finishes, and a new account begins - that of the creation of Adam and Eve and their first offspring.

Genesis 5:1 where we are introduced to Adam's descendants down to Noah.

Genesis 6:9 where we are told about Noahs descendants at the time of the flood that God sent as punishment, leaving only a remnant alive.

Genesis 10 where is the point where the descendants of the sons of Noah begin to be introduced; all the nations are descended from these people. Starting with the sons of Noah, the earth will be populated once more, however, human pride is stilll alive, as we can see from the attempt to build the Tower of Babel; as a punishment for this the Lord scatters amnkind over the face of the earth.

part two: the origin and development of the chosen people.(Gen 11:27 to 50:26)

THis part covers the history of the patriarchs, that is, the history of the remote origins of Isreal, linked to the first part of the book. We are told, in passing, something of the origins of the neighboring peoples. The sacred writer also introduces stages in this history by repeating (five times again) the words "These are the generations of"

Genesis 11:27 where the descendants o0f Terah begin to be introduced - Abraham, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 25:12 giving the name of the descendants of Ismael the son of Abraham and Hagar his slave.

Genesis 25:19 where the narrative moves on to give the descendants of Issac.

Genesis 36:1 which deals with the line of Esau

Genesis 37:2 Here begins the account of sons of Jacob.

The first part is concerned with dealing religious truths; to do this the sacred writer uses symbolic language in general in use in ancient times. THe first eleven chapters provide teaching about the origin of the world and of man, while also explaining present reality.

THe second part has a quite different tone.The account of the story of the patriarchs provide definite geogographical and historical information. Archeology confirms the socio-cultural context of the account. THe time -frame starts in the 18th century BC(which seems to be exactly when Abraham arrives in Canaan), but it is not possible to say exactly when the sons of Jacob went down to Egypt. The Genesis accounts certainly covers events which occured before the 13th century BC, the presumed time of the Exodus.

Composition.

In order to make revelations about himself, God lead the chosen people to reflect profoundly on the origin of man and the world. Many of Isreal's neighbors had done the same, and, to explain things which were beyound the scope of ordinary language, they devised all sorts of myths about the origin of the world and man and about the earliest times of man. The sacred writers of Genesis sifted through these myths and selected certain literary elements suited to the mentality of their contemporaries in order to convey the message of faith that they wanted to pass on, through their writings, to the people of Israel, and, through Israel's religious experience, to all mankind.

In this "account of origins" we can fairlt easily distinguish passages whose literary features can be identified as belonging to the "yahwistic" and "priestly" traditions. In addition to the symbolic language typical of the middle East, we can find in this account of the origins other literary elements that derive from ancient local traditions. We can also find genealogical lists designed to show that the human race was populating the entire world. All this material is used to fill in the period of time from the creation of the world to the age of Abraham. Positioned as they are now, at the start of the Bible, the first eleven chapters of Genesis act as a general introduction bringing us up as far as Abraham; with this man, according to the book, history takes a new turn when God calls and man obeys.

[Chrysologus]

Brother Adam, you recommend studying evolution, but then you point to some articles from a Baptist website! That is not studying evolution. Studying evolution is signing up for anthropology classes at a public university. So, then, being an anth. minor I actually have studied evolution. For the record:

Evolution is not

• Far-fetched
  
• Statistically impossible
  
• Lacking evidence
  
• Necessarily atheistic
  

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is not the same theory that Charles Darwin came up with. His work is very much out of date. It isn't founded on atheism any more than other scientific theories are. All scientific theories pre-suppose the natural working of things. Whether or not you believe things work naturally because God created them that way is irrelevant. Evolution is only destructive to Christianity when it is treated as a philosophy or religious system, which is taking science beyond the realms of science and foolishly applying it to the unseen.

[Brother Adam]

Evolution is a scientific theory that can be treated as a philosophy."

And a foolish one at that.

"Species change. THat is a fact. THe cause of the change is what is up for debate."

Micro evolution is a natural fact. Small changes can be seen within one species. There has yet to be any truly solid evidence to show any kind of macro-evolution whatsoever.

"AS long as we understand God is ultimately in charge, we will stay on the right track."

Ahh, but you don't believe that anyone that doesn't believe like you do is on the right track.

[Brother Adam]

Brother Adam, you recommend studying evolution, but then you point to some articles from a Baptist website! That is not studying evolution. Studying evolution is signing up for anthropology classes at a public university. So, then, being an anth. minor I actually have studied evolution. For the record:

Evolution is not

• Far-fetched
  
  
• Statistically impossible
  
  
• Lacking evidence
  
  
• Necessarily atheistic
  

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is not the same theory that Charles Darwin came up with. His work is very much out of date. It isn't founded on atheism any more than other scientific theories are. All scientific theories pre-suppose the natural working of things. Whether or not you believe things work naturally because God created them that way is irrelevant. Evolution is only destructive to Christianity when it is treated as a philosophy or religious system, which is taking science beyond the realms of science and foolishly applying it to the unseen.

"Brother Adam, you recommend studying evolution, but then you point to some articles from a Baptist website! That is not studying evolution."

It absolutely is. Most "threads" are well researched and many come from scientists, some holding terminal degrees in their areas of study.

It's a great place to start studing for one who can't afford either the time or money to take anthropology classes.

And yes, it is far-fetched, stastically impossilbe, lacks any truly credible evidence (which is why it is mere theory at best), and is logically atheistic.

What kind of God would create the world in such an impassive manner as to leave good reason not to believe in Him.

[cmotherofpirl]

WEll brother there is only one track.

CS Lewis said you can go one of two ways. Pslam one says the same thing.

[cmotherofpirl]

Many small changes over millions of years can substantially change anything. Look at the Appalachian mountains, they once rivaled the Rockies and were also the bottom of the ocean.