Catholic with Evolution Questions!

[Lutheran021342]

I agree that some parts of the Bible use allegory. I agree that the Bible is not intended as a scientific treatise. But to say that science is "foreign" to the Bible goes too far. It implies that things like the 6 days of creation were written because Moses didn't know any better ... because he was trapped in a Bronze Age mentality ... that God acquiesed.

I was told to think about this slightly differently. Think about how you would describe a brain to someone who has never seen one before and has no medical background from which to draw a conclusion. Consider the definition you would give; if you are like most people, it is going to have some problems getting the message across. After all, you have to take it from the terms of direct knowledge to terms your hearer can understand. Even though Biblical authors wrote the Word of God, they were still conveying a message to a people without the insight.

So, with respect to the account of creation in Genesis, I think an important question that one must ask is: Could God create the universe in 6 days? Even if our interpretation is wrong and he chose to create in 6 eons, do you believe God is powerful enough that he could have chosen to do it in 6 days?

I would generally assume that most people here believe that a God that can save our souls from sin is powerful to create the world and universe however he likes. Then again, such a powerful God could theoretically create a universe of such complex laws that they could produce his desired result without direct action after the foundation of creation. Just another perspective I have run across.

 

[swinkler]

I agree that some parts of the Bible use allegory. I agree that the Bible is not intended as a scientific treatise. But to say that science is "foreign" to the Bible goes too far.

Can you give one example of a NEW scientific principal that the Bible authors wrote about?

 

[bach90]

God certainly could have created the universe however he pleased. No one is disputing this.

It's naïve to think that the documents of the OT and NT are not intimately linked to the times they were written in. The authors thought in a certain way, things like "evolution", "three-tiered universe", and "historiography", were not used back then. People just did not think in those terms. Ask Paul what evolution meant and he wouldn't know what you were talking about. The same way if we asked Moses about "individual rights" in the Torah, they simply don't apply.

To put it in simpler terms, they had a different vocabulary. Granted a majority of these terms would overlap, but some of them won't. It's why I think of it as fallacious to argue that the authors of these documents were concerned with the same things we tend to be when we look at them. Two different sets of eyes. When Jesus quoted from Genesis, was he concerned with describing the natural processes by which God created Adam and Eve? Probably not. He was concerned with showing the implications of this.

It's not that they were stupider either. They were pretty brilliant actually, look at the architecture and literature produced from ancient times that are still standing and read today.

 

[DaRev]

God certainly could have created the universe however he pleased. No one is disputing this.

It's naïve to think that the documents of the OT and NT are not intimately linked to the times they were written in. The authors thought in a certain way, things like "evolution", "three-tiered universe", and "historiography", were not used back then. People just did not think in those terms. Ask Paul what evolution meant and he wouldn't know what you were talking about. The same way if we asked Moses about "individual rights" in the Torah, they simply don't apply.

To put it in simpler terms, they had a different vocabulary. Granted a majority of these terms would overlap, but some of them won't. It's why I think of it as fallacious to argue that the authors of these documents were concerned with the same things we tend to be when we look at them. Two different sets of eyes. When Jesus quoted from Genesis, was he concerned with describing the natural processes by which God created Adam and Eve? Probably not. He was concerned with showing the implications of this.

It's not that they were stupider either. They were pretty brilliant actually, look at the architecture and literature produced from ancient times that are still standing and read today.

You use the word "authors" - plural. There is only one Author of the Scriptures. There were many writers, but only one Author.

 

[Resha Caner]

Think about how you would describe a brain to someone who has never seen one before and has no medical background from which to draw a conclusion.

First of all, paraphrasing a truth does not mean changing it into a falsehood just so someone will understand. I realize others may not understand the math I use for vector mechanics, but I can use a simple version that is still true: velocity tells me how fast I am going and in what direction.

Second, I think this attitude sells short the intelligence of Moses and those to whom he gave God's message. I don't pretend to be fluent in Hebrew, but I know they had a word (olam) that means, among other interpretations, "a long time." So, I think Moses would have been capable of understanding the idea that God spent a long time creating the universe if that were how it had happened. If God wanted to divide that into 7 parts in order to be poetic, he could have told Moses he created the world in 6 olam (or something like that). But he didn't say that.

 

[Resha Caner]

Can you give one example of a NEW scientific principal that the Bible authors wrote about?

Why does that matter?

 

[Resha Caner]

It's naïve to think that the documents of the OT and NT are not intimately linked to the times they were written in.

Agreed. But it is also wrong to think God was unaware that we would still be reading the Bible now. He wrote it for them. He wrote it for us. As an example, that is one of the beauties of Hebrew poetry - that it (the Psalms) translates so well. See C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms.

It's not that they were stupider either. They were pretty brilliant actually, look at the architecture and literature produced from ancient times that are still standing and read today.

Exactly. So there is no reason to think God was talking down to Moses about the creation story whilst we have it all figured out.

The authors thought in a certain way, things like "evolution", "three-tiered universe", and "historiography", were not used back then. People just did not think in those terms. Ask Paul what evolution meant and he wouldn't know what you were talking about. The same way if we asked Moses about "individual rights" in the Torah, they simply don't apply.

Not true. The idea of evolution is quite old. Read Anaxiamander from the 6th century B.C. I've had this discussion before, though I don't remember the passages I had dug up that implied certain Biblical writers may have heard unbelievers proposing ideas similar to evolution. Excuses for dismissing what scripture says are quite old.

 

[swinkler]

...
As for time measurements often the scientists use fossil evidence. At this website:

....

Absolutely false... scientists do not use fossile evidence to determine the age of the earth. They use physics. Take a geology or astronomy class if you are really interested in this area of science.

 

[bach90]

You use the word "authors" - plural. There is only one Author of the Scriptures. There were many writers, but only one Author.

Absolutely correct. I misspoke.

Agreed. But it is also wrong to think God was unaware that we would still be reading the Bible now. He wrote it for them. He wrote it for us. As an example, that is one of the beauties of Hebrew poetry - that it (the Psalms) translates so well. See C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms.

I think it's implied in most of the letters that they were intended to be shared with the community, whether Israel in the OT or the church in the NT. Whether you look at how the Torah was to be copied, or that Paul's letters were circulated freely.

Exactly. So there is no reason to think God was talking down to Moses about the creation story whilst we have it all figured out.

It's not that God was "talking down" to Moses, rather, he was speaking to them in terms Moses would understand. If God had spoken to Moses in English, he would not have understood.

Not true. The idea of evolution is quite old. Read Anaxiamander from the 6th century B.C. I've had this discussion before, though I don't remember the passages I had dug up that implied certain Biblical writers may have heard unbelievers proposing ideas similar to evolution. Excuses for dismissing what scripture says are quite old.

Anaximander proposed an early idea of "evolution", but it wasn't scientific in our sense and it certainly was not based on natural selection. The two are very distant from each other. Even if Anaximander proposed evolution, it was well after the Pentateuch had been written.

Agreed...people have been dismissing Scripture for centuries. It's why it's important to examine the Scriptures just as the Bereans did in Acts 17. Reason apart from God is useless, but reason with God can be quite useful.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

I agree that some parts of the Bible use allegory. I agree that the Bible is not intended as a scientific treatise. But to say that science is "foreign" to the Bible goes too far.

Can you give one example of a NEW scientific principal that the Bible authors wrote about?

In Isaiah 55:10 it says, "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater." How did the author know about this process when evaporation was not even known? Also in Psalm 8, vs 8 it speaks of the paths of the sea.

Eccl. 12:3 says, "...when the grinders cease because they are few, and those looking through the windows grow dim." This speaks of teeth and eyes growing dim. It is using figures of speech but still speaking of real things. Read the Bible like you would interpret a friend's conversation. When a friend says that he received a "ton of mail", he is not lying. He is saying he did receive mail - alot of it.

God made the heavens and the earth. He made also made the lights of the heavens. In doing so God had to make a star and then produce an immediate beam of light from the star to the earth for a light for mankind. Is this utterly impossible? Just making a star is incredible. It would be nothing to also make the light from the star reach the earth in a day. It takes a million times (figure of speech but proving a point) to believe "chance" did this.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Absolutely false... scientists do not use fossile evidence to determine the age of the earth. They use physics. Take a geology or astronomy class if you are really interested in this area of science.

Good point but if you type in "According to fossil evidence" (use the quotation marks) in google at the moment, there are 34,100 hits (.27 seconds) showing that many who claim to be using scientific evidence are not.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not that God was "talking down" to Moses, rather, he was speaking to them in terms Moses would understand. If God had spoken to Moses in English, he would not have understood.

The analogy does not apply. As I stated to Lutheran021342, there is no reason to think it would be beyond Moses to comprehend that God took eons to create (if that is what He did). Neither is there any reason to think it would have been beyond Moses to comprehend an idea of the descent of species (had God chosen to do it that way).

When God mentioned the creation of light in Genesis 1:3, he didn't mention that it traveled at a speed of ~186,000 miles/second, but I think Moses got the idea of what God was trying to say. Likewise, God would not have needed to mention the mutation of the alleles, but could have told him the general idea of it. That is why I mentioned Anaxiamander. Truth be told, we don't know how old the idea of evolution is, but it seems to be quite old. Whether the details he might have known were "right" or "wrong" according to current theories, there is no justification for saying Moses wouldn't have understood the idea of evolution.

That God created birds on the 5th day - in one day - is not even close to the idea of evolution. If evolution is true, that is a flat out lie - a misrepresentation, not a mere accomodation. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the problems people have when they try to accomodate scripture and evolution/abiogenesis.

 

[Lutheran021342]

The analogy does not apply. As I stated to Lutheran021342, there is no reason to think it would be beyond Moses to comprehend that God took eons to create (if that is what He did). Neither is there any reason to think it would have been beyond Moses to comprehend an idea of the descent of species (had God chosen to do it that way).

When God mentioned the creation of light in Genesis 1:3, he didn't mention that it traveled at a speed of ~186,000 miles/second, but I think Moses got the idea of what God was trying to say. Likewise, God would not have needed to mention the mutation of the alleles, but could have told him the general idea of it. That is why I mentioned Anaxiamander. Truth be told, we don't know how old the idea of evolution is, but it seems to be quite old. Whether the details he might have known were "right" or "wrong" according to current theories, there is no justification for saying Moses wouldn't have understood the idea of evolution.

I am more playing devil's advocate than anything else in this conversation, but there are plenty of counter arguments. Velocity is a concept that also fails as an anology. The definition is two concepts that people readily recognize and use on a daily basis. Far from the complexity of the universe or even of a cell.
As for understanding, considering that the message of salvation is beyond many people to understand in this day and age, I do not think there would be any reason that God would not use descriptions that would be easily understandable to the people of Israel. Most of the target audience was fairly uneducated. The understood crops and their trades, but the Israelites were not epic craftsmen nor great philosophers. (Admittedly they generated the ultimate philosophy, but the people to which the OT was initially targeting were not a "great" civilization of their era). In the NT Jesus uses parables and analogies that are directly relatable to his listeners. He uses farming, bread, and weeds often. Why would God, whose will he is explaining, not have used a similar method?
Additionally, a God that creates the universe in 6 days is a powerful God (strong OT theme). God creating the world in eons is more the master craftsman (slightly less emphasized).

 

[Resha Caner]

I think you have misunderstood my point.

 

[bach90]

The analogy does not apply. As I stated to Lutheran021342, there is no reason to think it would be beyond Moses to comprehend that God took eons to create (if that is what He did). Neither is there any reason to think it would have been beyond Moses to comprehend an idea of the descent of species (had God chosen to do it that way).

When God mentioned the creation of light in Genesis 1:3, he didn't mention that it traveled at a speed of ~186,000 miles/second, but I think Moses got the idea of what God was trying to say. Likewise, God would not have needed to mention the mutation of the alleles, but could have told him the general idea of it. That is why I mentioned Anaxiamander. Truth be told, we don't know how old the idea of evolution is, but it seems to be quite old. Whether the details he might have known were "right" or "wrong" according to current theories, there is no justification for saying Moses wouldn't have understood the idea of evolution.

You've demonstrated that the idea of "evolution" (not even close to today's evolution, differing in natural selection which is absolutely essential to the modern theory) exists in 6th century BC Greece. Not in 10th Century BC Palestine. You really need to show that the ancient Israelites knew about evolution before you can link these two. And there is no record of anything like evolution before Anaxiamander.

That God created birds on the 5th day - in one day - is not even close to the idea of evolution. If evolution is true, that is a flat out lie - a misrepresentation, not a mere accomodation. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the problems people have when they try to accomodate scripture and evolution/abiogenesis.

In the Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 account? They differ on when birds were created. This is why I pointed out the examples of ancient historiography, even in the Bible (1 Samuel 16:18-20 David is introduced as a warrior, a man of valor, prudent in speech previously in 16:12 he was a man with beautiful eyes and handsome. David is introduced a third time in 17 as this lowly young shepherd, definitely not warrior or handsome). Ancient history worked differently, they didn't necessarily keep one account and cut the other, they would let both stand. You're oversimplifying the documents and trying to fit the writers into a prism that they would have rejected. You can't simply cover your ears and scream, we (Christians) need to acknowledge that while the Bible has the same divine author, God chose to use different writers with different voices. Personally, I think it's better...anybody with secret gold tablets in a weird language or an "angel" by their side can create a long heretical narrative.

I might as well say it again, no one here is arguing for the theory of evolution. I've already said twice that it's bologna.

.

 

[bach90]

FtcdatSAPoD[/URL];61322306]
It takes a million times (figure of speech but proving a point) to believe "chance" did this.

That's a very weak argument. Even if the chance is 1 in several million, that's still infinitely more than 0. Someone could simply claim yes it was 1 in millions, but it happened, and you wouldn't be able to logically refute them.

 

[Resha Caner]

FYI, I didn't say what is attributed to me in post #36.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

That's a very weak argument. Even if the chance is 1 in several million, that's still infinitely more than 0. Someone could simply claim yes it was 1 in millions, but it happened, and you wouldn't be able to logically refute them.

Sir Fred Hoyle said, "To give another example, the probability of the formation of a cell by chance is as unlikely as the chance printing of a book caused by an explosion in a printing-house." An amino acid coming together by chance is zero. It cannot happen because of the complexity of one amino acid.

An even greater act of faith is believing that "chance" even created anything in the first place. Like others have said in this thread, the issue is faith. If God can make the universe, then He can make it in six days.

Isn't the belief in evolution a desire to simply become the god of one's own life?

 

[Resha Caner]

I might as well say it again, no one here is arguing for the theory of evolution. I've already said twice that it's bologna.

I did miss this earlier, so I apologize. With that said, I struggle to understand what point you're trying to make and this only makes it harder. If I've missed it, please tell me again your position on how the universe came to be, it's age, and how that relates to current scientific theories.

In the Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 account? They differ on when birds were created.

They do? I've always thought the Genesis 1/2 thing is a phantom - something unbelievers pontificate about even though it has no substance. So you'll need to show me the alternate timeline laid out in Gen 2. I honestly don't see it. Consider the following 2 sentences:

John built a house in May and hired a painter in June. And the painter John hired was named Steve, and John brought Steve to the house he had made to paint it.

Maybe my grammar isn't perfect in this case, but is there a contradiction in those sentences?

Ancient history worked differently, they didn't necessarily keep one account and cut the other, they would let both stand.

I'm quite familiar with different styles for presenting history. I had to study them for my history degree. It is a common feature of the Bible to use a repetitive style. It shows up in the poetry of the Psalms (as I mentioned earlier), and it shows up in the history books: Genesis 1/2 as well as Kings vs. Chronicles.

But here is the point I have tried to repeat several times. Style does not mean one account is true and the other is false; it does not mean a simple version of creation can be false simply because the hearer will understand better that way; it does not mean God would speak something false to Moses. The most basic, fundamental rule of logic is that if two statements contradict, they cannot both be true. This is not a matter of culture where Greeks adopted this rule of logic and Hebrews didn't. To think that is a misunderstanding of the "zen" idea contained in some eastern cultures. Further, as far as I know, the Hebrews never had an idea like that anyway.

If (and I emphasize the "if") something like evolution or multi-billion year universe were true, God could simply say: I called the fish up out of the water and after a long time they became birds.

Wouldn't that be true to this "if" scenario? Are you saying Moses wouldn't have understood that?

This is why I pointed out the examples of ancient historiography, even in the Bible (1 Samuel 16:18-20 David is introduced as a warrior, a man of valor, prudent in speech previously in 16:12 he was a man with beautiful eyes and handsome. David is introduced a third time in 17 as this lowly young shepherd, definitely not warrior or handsome).

Again, I don't get it. A "lowly" (i.e. lacking in social status) person can't be handsome or brave? And Samuel had no prophetic ability to declare what David would be? Your example doesn't work for me.

This reminds me of the controversy when the movie Country came out and people criticized the choice of Jessica Lange as the lead because farm wives aren't supposed to be pretty. Seriously? I don't understand why everyone keeps selling the Israelites short.

You are correct that I can't prove Moses was familiar with an idea similar to evolution. But neither can you prove he didn't know it. So, "if" (highlighting that again) a evolutionary or geological theory is actually true, God would have found a way to say it that Moses could understand and that wouldn't be contradictory.

If you disagree with the bolded statements, please explain why. If you agree, and yet think current biology or geology is correct, please explain to me why Genesis is not contradicting this. And, FYI, I am rejecting the idea that it is merely a stylistic difference or a matter of simplification.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Second, in cases where the Bible uses allegory or story-telling, it is quite obvious, but for reasons other than that is sensational. As an example, Jesus' parables aren't about Medusa and Perseus. He doesn't use a centaur to draw his allegory. His parables, though likely fictional accounts, are things that actually could have happened.

This is so true. Read the Bible like one listens to conversation. The parts of a conversation that are using figures of speech are usually obvious. Same with the Bible. Genesis is not an allegory. It is facts reissued over and over again to form doctrine and give the beginnings of history. Nothing is left of the Bible if we say that Genesis and the creation story are not true. Luke 3 is a perfect example. Start with vs. 38 not being true and then simply rip out the whole chapter.

Someone may have said something about Gen. 1 and 2 being different. How are they different?