Theory of Evolution

[Brother Adam]

Yet, when you deny the historical reality of the first two chapters of Genesis, which directly flow into the history of the rest of Genesis, you effectively deny the offspring of Adam and Eve, because you deny Adam and Eve themselves. If you deny the offspring of Adam and Eve, eventually you are denying the existance of Christ Himself. It was written as history, not as a fairy tale to tell us a moral.


Also - I am still looking for one thiestic evolutionist who would be interested in basically presenting the anti-thesis to historical creationism on the new CatholicsForCreation website. If you are interested I would like to get you in and looking around before it opens to the public, so please email me. It would require some time commitment to research and the development of articles.

[Laudate_Dominum]

It's not that black and white Adam. I qualified what I was saying by indicating that I recognize literal elements to Genesis I & II (certainly including the historical existence of Adam and Eve).

But the genre is nothing like modern history and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the symbolic and "mythical" stylistic elements, which I believe contain Theological depths not even possible in a more 'analytic' style.

[Brother Adam]

Also - yes the Bible is not a mathematical text nor is it a science text. We would not expect to learn Calculus reading the Bible. However, it does record historical events having to do with the physical. It records the great flood, it records the parting of the sea, it records the death and resurrection of Christ. All of these defy common scientific logic and seek extraordinary answers such as a higher power. God can, and does, work in the physical world in amazing ways. To believe otherwise is to lean towards gnosticism and the branch of Protestantism that believes the 'body' and the material are bad. Thus, as with the flood, the parting of the sea, and even the resurrection of Christ, God may have choosen to create the world in such a way that He was directly and personally involved and did not leave life to the develop on its own over hundreds of millions of years. If He cares enough for the lilies of the field I can't see how He wouldn't care enough to be directly involved in the creation of every living creature. Genesis does not tell us how He created it in 6 days, only that He did so.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 7 2005, 11:38 AM']It's not that black and white Adam. I qualified what I was saying by indicating that I recognize literal elements to Genesis I & II (certainly including the historical existence of Adam and Eve).

But the genre is nothing like modern history and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the symbolic and "mythical" stylistic elements, which I believe contain Theological depths not even possible in a more 'analytic' style.
[right][snapback]675887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Certianly, we can see symbolism in the realities of scripture. We see the Passover lamb of the Jewish faith as symbolic of salvation that is and is to come in the Messiah. However, because something has symbolic elements does not mean that there is not a historical reality also.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was mainly speaking of the creation account, which has a different style (and I believe intent) than the following chapters.
Genesis is really a complicated book in that it can be seperated into distinct divisions that have pretty different styles.

It gives the modernists enough play to assert wild theories about it's composition (which sound more and more ridiculous every time I read about them).

[Brother Adam]

Which is where we separate - I don't see it as meaning we are suppose to believe it is a myth. It will be interesting taking OT biblical studies this Fall as many of our professors are strict evolutionists (many, though not all). I've caused quite the rukus starting CFC, but that's what a university should be all about. Every view seen as permissible by the Catholic Church should have its chance.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Saying it's in the genre of 'myth' doesn't imply it's a bogus story. The technical use of this term does not imply that it is a fiction, just events related in a particular literary style.
Some parts of the Bible are poetry, some are narrative history, some are mythic, etc.. It's really nothing to be upset about. It's still the inspired Word of God and has literal meaning.

Even John Paul II refers to Genesis I & II as "myth", in the Theology of the Body for example. He isn't implying that it's bogus.

[Laudate_Dominum]

While I recognize that the word 'myth' carries negative connotations in common speech, as a technical term it is quite an appropriate descriptor.
There are pieces of ancient literature that match the style and themes of Genesis I & II (a common example is the Epic of Gilgamesh), these texts are considered myths and often anti-Christians will use this as an argument against the Bible.

This is an utterly stupid argument because any "scholar" making this claim reveals a total lack of understanding of Gen I & II, which is radically different, and in many ways diametrically opposed to the myths in question. And the argument is a fallacy because all they are really saying is that, because Gen I & II is of the same genre, it's automatically equal to the others of that genre and therefore false; mythical in the sense of purely fictional (though a great deal of myth is not 'purely' fictional).
This is like presenting a philosophy text to a guy and him saying, "man, that's bunk, it's just philosophy" and presenting several false philosophy books and claiming they are equal and therefore your book is false. Never mind that the texts might be diametrically opposed. It is an unthinkable blunder in my mind, and a radical embarrassment, that there are scholars out there who actually think they have a cogent argument.

The point I was originally trying to make is that, acknowledging that Gen I & II is in the mythic style or genre, implies nothing about the status of it's content, true of false, but rather provides the means for accurately reading and understanding the text on its own terms.

[Laudate_Dominum]

A very eye opening book is, "Primitive Man and His Symbols", by... I forget..
Anyway, it was an eye-opener for me in my youth (oh so long ago...).

What I've learned, the hard way:

To put what I'm trying to say in my own words, it is necessary to break out of the particularly modern obsession with the linear, analytic way of perceiving reality (and the pre-occupation with efficient causality and such things), and enter into a synthetic mode of perception, if one is to grasp the fuller meaning of ancient myth and symbolism.

I like to think of moderns as being intellectual, and the ancients as being wise. I do not think my approach diminishes the value of Gen I & II, but rather illuminates the depths of its wisdom.
A symbol that captures, in one stroke, the historical, the spiritual and the eternal, is vastly superior in my opinion, to merely analytic (and mundane) description of something.
The symbolism of the Bible reflects the mind of God, and includes simultaneously the primordial, the historical, and the transcendent spiritual counterpart. The beginning and the ultimate end.
One of the greatest tragedies of modern times (in my humble opinion), is that the Bible is so often perceived as little more than a Divinely inspired handbook; and the Christian religion is seen as a bunch of rules of conduct or something (this is not directed toward phatmass, but is general). The reality is that Christianity is a mystical religion, and the Bible is a mystical book; a means of encountering the Word of God in the Spirit. To drink of it as Living Water and be transformed.
Another of my opinions (I must sound opinionated), is that Biblical scholarship that ignores or minimizes the mystical dimension is not really studying the Word of God. They may be studying the black earthly letters and characters, but one must enter into the white of the page.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 7 2005, 11:01 AM']Every view seen as permissible by the Catholic Church should have its chance.
[right][snapback]675895[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hehe, I wish we'd have a class together some time.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='philothea' date='Aug 6 2005, 12:39 PM']
And while I haven't done any experiments myself (neither, it seems have they) I don't see how water brings large fossils to the top.  I believe in a viscous medium like water, lighter, smaller things are suspended longer.

Oh well.
[right][snapback]675009[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Although I have never conducted any scientific experiments either, it would seem logical that the aftermath of a global catastrophe, such as Noah's Flood, would cause a massive sorting of land, sea, and remains of organisms.

Even though we have different viewpoints, I am curious to know if any elements of the article did cause your mind to actually ponder the possibilty of what was suggested. You seem to be a "critical thinker," so of course, your mind would naturally consider other possibilities, even though you still maintained your initial conclusion in the end.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rock strata are formed at an angle or slope, not a horizontal plane.

Think of the beach. Beaches tend to slope down into the edge of the water. And ever notice how you will find only the finest sand close to the edge, but if you go higher up a sloping beach the particles become larger?
This demonstrates the behaviour involved in granular deposits sorting themselves.
Now suppose there are two shells, one is at the edge of the sea and another is up the slope. In the future that upper shell will appear in a higher tier in the rock strata, even though they are the same age.

[Brother Adam]

LD, I'm aware of the meaning of the term myth as Sr. Johanna taught us it was a myth and that if we believed God created the world in 6 literal days we were Fundamentalists and did not belong in the Catholic Church (see what I'm up against here at the university : ). While I certianly don't think the late great JPII was stupid, when he spoke on this topic it was and is his personal theological opinion, and we know that he and Cardinal Ratzinger as well as other cardinals throughout the world regularly disagree with each other on matters that have not been defined. The Catholic Churches acceptance evolution as a possibility is a Johnny come lately thought, and most early fathers and Pope's believed and taught in a literal creationism, at least those who chose to speak on the subject. St. Basil being a famous example. And we know he was no dummy.

I also don't believe that even a mysitical reading of Genesis proves that it did not happen any more than a mystical reading of the Passion.

I'm sure it would be interesting in a class together. I just hope I didn't end up in a one on one debate with you. At this point you would likely crush me

[edited typos]

Edited August 7, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Laudate_Dominum]

In theory one could accept Gen I & II as myth and still take the days of creation literally (but it may be hard to justify at that point). I mean, it's still Divine Revelation and the Word of God either way.
When I say it is myth, I mean little more than I do saying that the Song of Songs is poetry. It's just the genre. I realize it sounds bad because of the connotation of that word in normal parlance.
I just like it because for me (and I assume JP2), the word has a very rich meaning far beyond the common idea of myth.
And it's true, there is no Church teaching saying we have to call anything myth.. Too bad, cause I'd love to win this discussion with a juicy quote. hehe j/k

[Brother Adam]

you can't actually win the discussion if you are going to about the route of something we have to believe. To both of our positions it is good and detrimental that the Church will not ultimately define if '6 days' actually meant 24 hours or if God created with personal vested interest in His creation, or if He said "Bang" and left His creation alone.

The only thing I can grant evolutionists (that is, atheistic evolutionists, I just can't take theistic evolutionists seriously), is that more research has been done on the theory of evolution than the theory of creation. They have a larger base of studies, but scientifically both theories pose problems based on what knowledge we currently have as men.