St. Augustine is not in the slightest compatible with evolution.
...
[FONT="]On Genesis: The Refutation of the Manichees [/FONT][FONT="]2.3:[/FONT]
So then, this whole text must first be discussed in terms of history, and then in terms of prophecy. In terms of history deeds and events are being related, in terms of prophecy future events are being foretold. One should not look with a jaundiced eye, to be sure, on anyone who wants to take everything that is said here absolutely literally, and who can avoid blasphemy in doing so, and present everything as in accordance with Catholic faith; on the contrary one should hold up such a person as an outstanding and holy admirable understander of the text.
I am aware of what Augustine said on that specific issue and the quote you shared.
Nonetheless, we also know that Augustine said far more than that - multiple times. What Augustine noted was that there should not be bashing of others who seek to take all things within the text LITERALLY since they are doing so to the Lord and also have a heart to understand the text admirably - God smiles on that and they have room for their views. However, Augustine was not and has NEVER advocated a mindset claiming that only those taking the text of Genesis literally are the ones who qualify for understanding it - that'd be counter to his own previous stances BEFORE he said that and afterward. He was very open on certain things. Commitment to a literal interpretation does not solve all problems, nor does it lock the exegete into only one reading of the text. ..and Augustine was painfully aware of the difficulties of the text.
As he noted in
The Literal Meaning of Genesis:
I have worked out and presented the statements of the book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture, let him glorify " and fear for himself. (pp. 43-44)
He further observes that "It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days" (p. 103). That's RADICALLY different from his attitude than those who, disregarding the labors of many of the church's greatest minds over the past two millennia, have convinced themselves that the fundamental interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is perfectly obvious.
Thus, there's is NO conclusion whatsoever that Augustine was against the concept of evolution anymore than he'd be against God's ability to take dust in Exodus and turn it into gnats. We have to deal with the man fully in context and not based on our prior slants - and I don't intend on going into depth here on the matter since
here and
#277 already had that occur.
As noted before, according to him, all things were created on the first day. Subsequently God created pregnant ideas that Augustine called rationes seminales, which were imbedded in creation. Some only came to fruition afterwards, even, it might be argued, after the Fall. For Augustine , he thought that God could even have catered for the eventuality of the Fall of man into sin and the subsequent curse.
Excerpt from Augustine's "On Genesis" Book II "Question of the phase in which the moon was made" 15, 30
"God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its natural development through periods of time that are suited to it, it contained it beforehand as something hidden, if not in specific forms and bodily mass, at least by the force and reckoning of nature, unless of course a tree, void of fruit and stripped of its leaves throughout the winter, is then to be called imperfect, or unless again at its origins, when it had still not yet borne any fruit, its nature was also imperfect. It is not only about the tree, but about its seed also that this could not rightly be said; there everything that with the passage of time is somehow or other going to appear is already latent in invisible ways. Although, if God were to make anything imperfect, which he then would himself bring to perfection, what would be reprehensible about such an idea? But you would be quite within your rights to disapprove if what had been begun by him were said to be completed and perfected by another."
The philosophical underpinnings of evolution are present, with others long noting that it should be remembered that we are not talking about changes from one kind to another... but merely a perfection of an existing, undifferentiated type to a more differentiated one.
Augustine argues that the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be set alongside the second creation account (Genesis 2:4-25), as well as every other statement about the creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6-9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God’s creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation. Specifically, God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day. Consequently, this influenced Augustine to suggest that the six days of creation are not to be understood chronologically. Rather, they are a way of categorizing God’s work of creation and they provide a framework for the classification of the elements of the created world so that they might be better understood and appreciated.
And just as it is with evolutionists - or with those who are Old Earth Creationists - Augustine felt that things took place over a great amount of TIME. Augustine repeatedly stresses that the six days are not six successive ordinary days AND that They have nothing to do with time. For him, this is unequivocally the case for the first three days before the making of the sun, but he is equally inclined to say the same of the last three days. The days are repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic. For example, as he said in "
The Literal Meaning of Genesis" :
"These seven days of our time, although like the same days of creation in name and in numbering, follow one another in succession and mark off the division of time, but those first six days occurred in a form unfamiliar to us as intrinsic principles within things created" (p. 125)
.
For Augustine, the days of creation "are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earthbound men ... we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation but without in any way being really similar to them" (p. 135). Further, as Augustine noted
"we should not think of those days as solar days.... He made that which gave time its beginning, as He made all things together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of time but on causal connections" (p. 154)
.
Also,
"But in the beginning He created all things together and completed the whole in six days, when six times he brought the 'day' which he made before the things which He made, not in a succession of periods of time but in a plan made known according to causes" (pp. 175-176).
"The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot arrive at the meaning of Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step" (p. 142).
St. Augustine of Hippo, from his work
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written in about AD 415, noted the following specifically:
Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light” in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance.
On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion
Augustine, even though his work was entitled
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, does not read Genesis 1 in the same “literal” way that modern young-Earth creationists do. For Augustine believed that the creation was an instantaneous event rather than being spread out over six literal days, and that the six days of Genesis 1 were a literary structure rather than a statement of the order or timing of events. He was a deep thinker, who was in no way influenced by modern understandings of the age of the universe....and modern interpretations that understand Genesis as not requiring a 6000-year old Earth are not just forcing a modern interpretation on the text. For the idea that Genesis doesn’t tell us how old the Earth is could be something that flows out of the text.
Moreover, Augustine believed that non-Christians were perfectly capable of understanding the world, and he was convinced that whatever the Bible teaches, it won’t contradict the world as it really is.
It doesn't take rocket science to realize that neither Augustine nor his age believed in the evolution of species - with the main reason being that
there were no reasons at that time for anyone to believe in this notion. Nonetheless, Augustine developed a theological framework that could accommodate this later scientific development, though his theological commitments would prevent him from accepting any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason Augustine would have opposed the strict Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God’s providence is deeply involved throughout, directing a process in manners and ways that lie beyond full human comprehension. Again, Augustine affirmed that Creation has evolved and continues to evolve, though not driven by random natural processes, as affirmed by classical Darwinism.
