Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[RefCath]

On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.

They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence, and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.

As a Theistic Evolutionist I'd say that I am differentiating between different types of evidence for different events. Can scientists use the scientific method to support the taking place of historical events? No, because the type of knowledge is different, i.e. can we scientifically prove that Hanibal crossed the Alps?

 

[Anthony022071]

Sorry that I keep harping on parts of your post, I keep finding little bits that I can't help amplifying. Please do let me know if you think I am ever taking things out of context.



The last two clauses interest me greatly.

"I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient [to create the workings of the cell]"
and
"I have no reason to believe that [natural causes] have that power [to create the workings of the cell]".

Do you agree that these two clauses are logically equivalent?

Pretty much. I was being redundant. For me,sufficient causation means necessary power. So when scientific explanations for how cells originate and function portray amino acids and proteins as doing everything,the implication is that they have the necessary power. But if amino acids and proteins,and their chemical reactions,are considered in themselves,and compared with the purposeful activity of cells,there is no reason to believe that they have the potential to create cells.

 

[Anthony022071]

Um, news flash here: Pope Benedict was the president of that commission.

He does not seem to have written the document,and it does not say that either he or the ITC agrees with the scientific account of origins.

So the statement he crafted with them is certainly relevant as to his personal opinion.

How do you know he crafted it with them,or that he agrees with the scientific account of origins?

Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with?

The mere statement of the scientific account of origins would not be objectionable to him,even if he did disagree with what it said. Anyone can see that the document is not about justifying the scientific explanations,but about the doctrine of humans being created in the image of God.

Besides, as we saw before, the statement makes it clear that the agreement and the support for common descent aren't quotes of the scientific account, but are supported by the commision, headed by (now) Pope Benedict.

I don't see that. And Cardinal Schoenborn denied that the document endorses the theory of evolution in his New York Times article,probably at the request of the pope.

To the extent that one sees evolution as requiring naturalistic belief, then of course not - he's the Pope. He supports evolution as Theistic Evolution, not as Atheistic Evolution.

The theory is itself naturalistic in content,and it is intended to be read that way. The pope obviously does not accept all the claims evolution theory makes about the history of organisms.

 

[shernren]

Pretty much. I was being redundant. For me,sufficient causation means necessary power. So when scientific explanations for how cells originate and function portray amino acids and proteins as doing everything,the implication is that they have the necessary power. But if amino acids and proteins,and their chemical reactions,are considered in themselves,and compared with the purposeful activity of cells,there is no reason to believe that they have the potential to create cells.

Indeed you were being redundant, and you have been being redundant for the past two weeks or so. Whenever you are asked to back up a statement you have made, you simply repeat it with slightly different wording and expect us to respond as if your arguments suddenly have a force behind them that they didn't have before, almost as if you had actually supplied evidence. It is like the atheist who says, when asked why he doesn't believe in God, that:

"Well, it's obvious that God doesn't exist."
"Why? Because it's ridiculous for God to exist!"
"Why? Because for anything to have the kind of attributes attributed to God would be impossible."
"Why? Because it's obvious that God doesn't exist."

And so he might go on, all day long, restating his atheism with liberal use of the thesaurus but very little use of his mind.

Tell me something. How do you actually determine that a particular causal power is unable to cause a certain observed effect? For example, is it possible to know that the course of my life is not affected by the motions of the planets (as anyone who trusts in horoscopes must believe)?

How would I determine, in this case, that the causal powers of planets in motion cannot cause the effects of my having a better business or improved relationships?

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

He does not seem to have written the document

As the president of the commission, of course he was involved with, and approved of, what it says. Are you stating that his fingers were not the actual fingers that did the typing? How would you know, and why would we care?

and it does not say that either he or the ITC agrees with the scientific account of origins.

Even if it only quoted the scientists (which would require something like quote marks to delineate it), and didn't follow that with a reversal, like "this is what they state, but we disagree). Then even that would be sufficient to show that they agree.

While that would be sufficient to show that the Pope and the ITC support common descent, we have even more than that. You can see yourself that they didn't use quotemarks, and have plenty of statements from themselves in there in support of common descent, in agreement with all the other recents statements from the Pope. So that's 2 for 2 in favor of the ITC and the Pope supporting common descent.

How do you know he crafted it with them,or that he agrees with the scientific account of origins?

If he were just a member of the commission, that would be sufficient. But even more clearly, he's also president of the commission. So yes, he agrees with himself. It sounds like you are saying that even though he's president of the commission, he just hid in the back room whenever they met, and wasn't actually president of the commission.

Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with?
​

The mere statement of the scientific account of origins would not be objectionable to him,even if he did disagree with what it said.

Of course it would, and he (as president of the commision) of course wouldn't allow it. Even just including the scientific account, without clearly renouncing it, would of course be objectionable, and as president of the commission, of course it wouldn't be included. As before, we have even more than just the inclusion of the scientific account, we have it's inclusing without any disagreement, which the commission has put in it's own words (not quoted), and added plently of supporting statements.

Anyone can see that the document is not about justifying the scientific explanations,but about the doctrine of humans being created in the image of God.

Anyone can see that Pope Benedict has clearly stated that those two are not in opposition. The statement says that yes, humans are created in the image of God, who used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.

Cardinal Schoenborn denied that the document endorses the theory of evolution in his New York Times article,probably at the request of the pope.

The Cardinal clarified that any purely mechanistic, Godless, materialistic view of evolution is obviously not compatible with Catholicism - something that I've been saying all along, and that is also supported by all the Pope's statements.

Anthony, you do see the difference between atheistic evolution, and theistic evolution, right?

The Cardinal also explicitly said in that article that common descent was not a problem in Catholic belief - probably to make sure that no one used his words to argue against common descent, as you are doing.

The theory is itself naturalistic in content,and it is intended to be read that way.

"intended"? By whom? By Darwin, who said "by the Creator" in his book? (not that it would matter).

Evolution is naturalistic in the same way that Gravity, Algebra, and Atomic theory are naturalistic. All of them can be seen theistically, like myself and the Pope, or atheistically, like the New Atheists see them.

The pope obviously does not accept all the claims evolution theory makes about the history of organisms.

"obviously"? based on what? That's another unsupported statement, that in this case, goes directly against numerous clear statements, including the one by the commission headed by the Pope, that explicitly, in it's own words, says that all living things on earth are descended from bacteria.

Do you have any other information to base your ideas on? Because in addition to all of these clear statements, there are others too where the Pope supports common descent.

Papias

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Where did the world come from?
God.
When did he make it?
Billions of years ago.
The Bible says different.
Because it ain't a science textbook.
But it's God word.
You are taking it too literally.
What does it say about evolution?
That God made everything.

?
Yes, it's an oxymoron.
It's also FALSE. It forces the idea that God put into existence the universe and cause and effect carried us to our current states, therefore implying that we are not vessels with souls but of everything else, therefore contradicting the entire idea of a personal god and by extension, the entire Bible. It also allows for God to be malevolent, giving early humans no acknowledgement of Him while they die out and suffer through the generations.
Theistic evolution is an umbrella term, in which some religions can fall under but Christianity cannot.

 

[Anthony022071]

As the president of the commission, of course he was involved with, and approved of, what it says. Are you stating that his fingers were not the actual fingers that did the typing? How would you know, and why would we care?

I'm didn't say "involved",I said "written". There is no indication that he wrote or even helped to write the document,and there is no indication that he accepts the "scientific account" of origins as true. The footnote to the document says this:

< The theme of &#8220;man created in the image of God&#8221; was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication. >

Even if it only quoted the scientists (which would require something like quote marks to delineate it), and didn't follow that with a reversal, like "this is what they state, but we disagree). Then even that would be sufficient to show that they agree.

Sections 64 - 70 give the Catholic position on the question of biological origins,which are completely different in content from section 63. It wasn't the business of the commission to approve or disapprove the scientific account. But it does state that materialistic and reductionist and neo-Darwinian theories are incompatible with the faith. Now,I ask you,what scientific theory of evolution does not fit that description?

While that would be sufficient to show that the Pope and the ITC support common descent, we have even more than that.

It isn't sufficient to show that. Only evolutionists interpret section 63 that way.

You can see yourself that they didn't use quotemarks, and have plenty of statements from themselves in there in support of common descent, in agreement with all the other recents statements from the Pope. So that's 2 for 2 in favor of the ITC and the Pope supporting common descent.

You don't have to use quotation marks in order to state other people's positions. And there is no one scientist or institution who speaks for the whole scientific community anyway.

If he were just a member of the commission, that would be sufficient. But even more clearly, he's also president of the commission. So yes, he agrees with himself. It sounds like you are saying that even though he's president of the commission, he just hid in the back room whenever they met, and wasn't actually president of the commission.

I don't know how he was involved with drawing up the document,or if he was at all,and neither do you. Even if he did write section 63,as I used to think he did,I would not take it as an approval. I know from reading the pope's books that he often discusses bad philosophical and theological opinions in an open-minded manner,even though he disagrees with them. He does that in the spirit of dialogue. So I would not take his stating of the scientific account of origins as his own belief. An ITC document is not the place for the pope to state his merely personal opinions on scientific theories.

Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with?

I don't know that he helped craft it,and neither do you. And I don't equate the mention of the scientific account as an approval of it.

 

[Anthony022071]

Indeed you were being redundant, and you have been being redundant for the past two weeks or so. Whenever you are asked to back up a statement you have made, you simply repeat it with slightly different wording and expect us to respond as if your arguments suddenly have a force behind them that they didn't have before, almost as if you had actually supplied evidence.

Give me an example of what you mean. If I am redundant,it is unavoidable,because I am asked redundant questions,as if I had not answered them before. You should think about whether my statements are true or reasonable,rather than just criticize me for repeating them. There's a limit to which one can repeatedly answer the question "how do you know?" with more specific answers,because knowing is not based upon a reductionist way of thinking. Sooner or later you have to think for yourself and decide whether a statement is reasonable in itself.

It is like the atheist who says, when asked why he doesn't believe in God, that:

"Well, it's obvious that God doesn't exist."
"Why? Because it's ridiculous for God to exist!"
"Why? Because for anything to have the kind of attributes attributed to God would be impossible."
"Why? Because it's obvious that God doesn't exist."

And so he might go on, all day long, restating his atheism with liberal use of the thesaurus but very little use of his mind.

I don't go on naturalistic probability,I go on logical necessity and necessary power.

Tell me something. How do you actually determine that a particular causal power is unable to cause a certain observed effect?

Are you really interested in thinking this through or are you just going to object for the sake of objecting?

The same way we determine that any object or action cannot do something that is beyond it's power: by comparing the causal power with the effect. It is not reasonable to believe that chemical reactions create the continuously moving,purposeful order that we call a cell,because there is not a match between the former phenomenon and the latter phenomenon,which is an entirely different and higher level of reality. Accidents do not produce order.

For example, is it possible to know that the course of my life is not affected by the motions of the planets (as anyone who trusts in horoscopes must believe)?

Are you serious?

There does not seem to be much of a causal connection,unless
the motions of the planets have a gravitational effect upon earth.

How would I determine, in this case, that the causal powers of planets in motion cannot cause the effects of my having a better business or improved relationships?

Because there is no causal connection that can be reasonably assumed.

 

[Anthony022071]

<Anthony: Anyone can see that the document is not about justifying the scientific explanations,but about the doctrine of humans being created in the image of God. >

Papias:
Anyone can see that Pope Benedict has clearly stated that those two are not in opposition. The statement says that yes, humans are created in the image of God, who used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.

When the pope says that creation and evolution are not in opposition,he is talking about the concept of evolution,not the whole theory. The document does not say that God used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.

Papias:
The Cardinal clarified that any purely mechanistic, Godless, materialistic view of evolution is obviously not compatible with Catholicism - something that I've been saying all along, and that is also supported by all the Pope's statements.

So what scientific theory of evolution is not mechanistic,godless,and materialistic?

Anthony, you do see the difference between atheistic evolution, and theistic evolution, right?

If you accept the scientific narrative of evolution,there is no difference in content.
Your version of theistic evolution consists of belief in the narrative and saying "...and God did it".
But the theory does not allow God to be doing anything. It portrays natural processes as doing things they do not have the ability to do.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Mankind forming from cause and effect and God coming to us.,
It sounds like a child who finds a shell in the sand.
How can one possibly consider this? You may as well take the evo hat off and just accept what the Bible says.
God intimately made man and Earth.
The universe is billions of years old. Many YEC's believe that. I do.
But the truth of the matter is that life has not been around for anymore then 12000 years.

 

[Assyrian]

The universe is billions of years old. Many YEC's believe that. I do.
But the truth of the matter is that life has not been around for anymore then 12000 years.

I am afraid that would make you an OEC, and Old Earth Creationist.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I am afraid that would make you an OEC, and Old Earth Creationist.

Gap Creationism (one of the OEC theologies) almost hits the marker on which I believe, but my idea of the age of Earth is not symmetrical for what it establishes. ANd I definitely do not come close to any other form of OECism.
The literal context of which I believe would be a middle-aged Earth I guess, and since gap theory is YECism in every respect except one, I consider myself a YEC.

 

[Assyrian]

Gap Creationism (one of the OEC theologies) almost hits the marker on which I believe, but my idea of the age of Earth is not symmetrical for what it establishes. ANd I definitely do not come close to any other form of OECism.

I though Gap was closest, though you are also partial Day Age, with the first few days lasting ages while the days after at are 24 hours.

The literal context of which I believe would be a middle-aged Earth I guess, and since gap theory is YECism in every respect except one, I consider myself a YEC.

And it is that one respect that means Gap isn't YEC. Creationists certainly, but not young earth. Gap was an attempt to reconcile the interpretation of Genesis with the old age of the earth shown by the geology of the time. Which made them Old Earth Creationists. You've got your own interpretation of Genesis, which is a good thing, but it still falls in the OEC category. Remember, when Day Age and Gap were the main Fundamentalist interpretations at the end of the nineteenth century, these Old Earth Creationists thought, as science said, that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old. You are ok with billions of years. That is even older.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I though Gap was closest, though you are also partial Day Age, with the first few days lasting ages while the days after at are 24 hours.

And it is that one respect that means Gap isn't YEC. Creationists certainly, but not young earth. Gap was an attempt to reconcile the interpretation of Genesis with the old age of the earth shown by the geology of the time. Which made them Old Earth Creationists. You've got your own interpretation of Genesis, which is a good thing, but it still falls in the OEC category. Remember, when Day Age and Gap were the main Fundamentalist interpretations at the end of the nineteenth century, these Old Earth Creationists thought, as science said, that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old. You are ok with billions of years. That is even older.

Old Earth is not old universe. I believe the 1st day was an age, and that God made the Earth on the second day. I offer people different possibilities to open up their minds and steer away from TE (which is vain, really), which you may have seen me bust them out like a gattling gun in certain threads lol. But my actual theology is that when God made Earth, it was within a few days. Most OEC's believe that God 'simmered' the Earth slowly, or was originally of the universe, but I find the first verse of the Bible to state that the Earth was non-existent.
Adam was already in the Garden on day 4, so things were already in motion. However long it took Adam to name all the animals and the Adversary to tempt Eve is the gap form day 4 to their fall, so I believe in a young Earth.
I've mentioned before that plants and herbs were set to die out and produce fossil fuels, and many other things to tilt science-bent theists, but I personally believe a flood occurred.
I commonly try to avoid that idea with others because even though I have the rationale for it, people have become so fixated on the Deistic approach that it's just frustrating to debate.

Anyways, I don't understand why terminology as far as belief goes is laid out the way it is. The universe is quite irrelevant, I think some YEC's just simply do not want to abandon their standing for the sake of pride.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

I'm didn't say "involved",I said "written".

You're splitting hairs. He was likely involved in the process, could well have written sections and contributed to discussion, and I think we both agree it is irrelevant if he actually did the typing himself.

The bottom line is that as president of the commision, of course he agrees with himself, and presents the view he agrees with as leader of the commission.

This is like a President giving a speech. Sure, President Obama may not write every word of his speeches, but they do undoubtedly contain phrases and thoughts he has used, and more importantly of course he agrees with everything in them.

there is no indication that he accepts the "scientific account" of origins as true.

Sure there is. He has it in there when the subject comes up as to what is right (the whole purpose of the commission), and never indicates he disagrees with it, and even more clearly, he, as part of the commission, has put the scientific account into his own, theistically compatible words, clearly and unambiguously supporting theisitic evolution.

The footnote to the document says this:

....... submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication. >

Thank you. case closed. Obviously, Pope Benedict supports Theistic Evolution.

It wasn't the business of the commission to approve or disapprove the scientific account.

Well, it was the business of the commission to say what the correct view of origins was, and that requires one to discuss the scientific account, which was approved in it's bare facts, with the added clarification (especially in sections 64-70) that this is THEISTIC, not atheistic evolution.

But it does state that materialistic and reductionist and neo-Darwinian theories are incompatible with the faith. Now,I ask you,what scientific theory of evolution does not fit that description?

.. and...

So what scientific theory of evolution is not mechanistic,godless,and materialistic?

Theistic evolution, which is compatable with the scientific account in its bare facts, and specifies that evolution is guided by God. So of course materialistic approaches are incompatible with faith. Duh.

But the theory does not allow God to be doing anything.

Sure it does. God is doing everything, upholding the whole natural process (see Hebrews). To deny that is to deny scripture and to endorse a deistic God who doesn't do anything except through things like poofism. This kind of deism is very common among YECs, and greatly dimishes God.

It portrays natural processes as doing things they do not have the ability to do.

Natural processes don't have the ability to do anything without God, not even attract by gravity, or move by momentum. God empowers natural processes to work, and in some cases, to evolve.

​

It isn't sufficient to show that. Only evolutionists interpret section 63 that way.

Sounds like "no true Scotsman" to me. Maybe try a different fallacy next....

You can see yourself that they didn't use quotemarks, and have plenty of statements from themselves in there in support of common descent, in agreement with all the other recents statements from the Pope. So that's 2 for 2 in favor of the ITC and the Pope supporting common descent.
​

You don't have to use quotation marks in order to state other people's positions.

No, but you certainly do have to give an indication of where you disagee, and especially immediately follow the statement with "and this is why this is wrong" if you disagree. As we've seen, the bare scientific facts of evolution, a billions year old universe, and so on, are instead supported, and shown to be compatible with faith through theistic evolution.

An ITC document is not the place for the pope to state his merely personal opinions on scientific theories.

Sure it is. That's why he's the leader of the ITC, and why the whole commission was formed in the first place - to show the Catholic view of these scientific findings. If his views were different, I would hope any person, much less the Pope, would be honest about that.

​

It's also worth noting that you have again ignored the fact that the very source you wanted to use to disagree with the Pope's support of theistic evolution, common descent, and a universe billions of years old - Cardinal Schonborn, sees no problem with belief in common descent, and says so in the statement you referenced. So do you agree with common descent? That's theistic evolution.

Sections 64 - 70 give the Catholic position on the question of biological origins,which are completely different in content from section 63.

OK, so you are saying that 64-70 contradict 63, all in the same document? Um, no.

Here it is, you can read how 63 endorses the bare facts of the scientific account, followed by 64 -70, which clarify in no undercertain terms that God is behind it all, at every stage, in agreement with the bare facts shown by science. It all fits together as a well crafted document - the WHOLE THING gives the Catholic position on origins - that's why they wrote it, after all.

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

The document does not say that God used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.

Sure it does.

Section 63 gives the overview, reworded in their own words to ensure it being compatible with theistic evolution, including the recent human evolution from apes to humans,

Section 64 clarifies that this is theistic, not atheistic evolution.

Section 65 points out that a soul is divinely created for each person.

Section 66 emphasizes that souls are created ex nihilo and that only humans have souls.

Section 67 starts reviewing the process in more detail, starting at the Big Bang.

Section 68 reaffirms that God, through natural causes, caused the emergence of life:

Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.

Section 69 explains in detail that God creates through the process of evolution.

Section 70 reaffirms that at some point in human evolution, God divinely created the soul, going so far as to state:

Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called &#8220;an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.&#8221;

Thanks for drawing our attention to sections 64-70. Though not nearly as concise as section 63, they are an excellent overview of Theistic Evolution.


Papias
​

 

[Assyrian]

Old Earth is not old universe. I believe the 1st day was an age, and that God made the Earth on the second day.

I though you said the 24 hour days didn't come in until God created the sun on the fourth day? Anyway didn't God create the earth back on day one?

I offer people different possibilities to open up their minds and steer away from TE (which is vain, really),

If you realise there are different ways to interpret Genesis, how do you know TE isn't one of them?

which you may have seen me bust them out like a gattling gun in certain threads lol. But my actual theology is that when God made Earth, it was within a few days. Most OEC's believe that God 'simmered' the Earth slowly, or was originally of the universe, but I find the first verse of the Bible to state that the Earth was non-existent.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth doesn't that mean the earth was created in verse 1? Certainly the earth is already in existence in verse 2 The earth was without form and void.

Adam was already in the Garden on day 4, so things were already in motion. However long it took Adam to name all the animals and the Adversary to tempt Eve is the gap form day 4 to their fall, so I believe in a young Earth.

Interesting take on it, doesn't Genesis 1 say God created mankind and the animals on day 6?

I've mentioned before that plants and herbs were set to die out and produce fossil fuels, and many other things to tilt science-bent theists, but I personally believe a flood occurred.

And the animal fossils?

I commonly try to avoid that idea with others because even though I have the rationale for it, people have become so fixated on the Deistic approach that it's just frustrating to debate.

Anyways, I don't understand why terminology as far as belief goes is laid out the way it is. The universe is quite irrelevant, I think some YEC's just simply do not want to abandon their standing for the sake of pride.

It is actually quite important to have common terminology if we want to discuss these issues, otherwise people are simply going to talk at cross purposes.

 

[Anthony022071]

You're splitting hairs. He was likely involved in the process, could well have written sections and contributed to discussion, and I think we both agree it is irrelevant if he actually did the typing himself.

But you don't know if or how he was involved,except that he approved the final text.
And his approval of the text does not amount to an agreement with the scientific account of origins.
Communion and Stewardship is an document of the Church approved by the pope,and so
you are saying that the Church has endorsed the theory of evolution. No honest person would say that.

The bottom line is that as president of the commision, of course he agrees with himself, and presents the view he agrees with as leader of the commission.

He never claimed that he agrees with the scientific account of origins,or even that he wrote section 63. That is your own wishful thinking.

This is like a President giving a speech. Sure, President Obama may not write every word of his speeches, but they do undoubtedly contain phrases and thoughts he has used, and more importantly of course he agrees with everything in them.

If he spelled out the conservative philosophy on natural law,limited government,individual liberties
and free market enterprise,would you think he agreed with it?

< there is no indication that he accepts the "scientific account" of origins as true. >

Sure there is. He has it in there when the subject comes up as to what is right (the whole purpose of the commission), and never indicates he disagrees with it, and even more clearly, he, as part of the commission, has put the scientific account into his own, theistically compatible words, clearly and unambiguously supporting theisitic evolution.

What do you mean by "he has it right in there"? Where in the document does the pope speak his own opinion on the theory of evolution? How do you know if he contributed to the document or if he agrees with
the "scientific account"? Cardinal Schonborn denied your interpretation.

< The footnote to the document says this:

....... submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication. >

Thank you. case closed. Obviously, Pope Benedict supports Theistic Evolution.

His permission to publish the document means he supports the theory of evolution? Nice logic.
Does that mean he supports the use of methodological naturalism to explain how God works in the world?

< It wasn't the business of the commission to approve or disapprove the scientific account. >

Well, it was the business of the commission to say what the correct view of origins was, and that requires one to discuss the scientific account, which was approved in it's bare facts, with the added clarification (especially in sections 64-70) that this is THEISTIC, not atheistic evolution.

Section 53 says : The origins of man are to be found in Christ: for he is created "through him and in him" (Col 1:16), "the Word [who is] the life&#8230;and the light of every man who is coming into the world" (John 1:3-4, 9).

That is the correct view of origins.

Where does the commission approve the scientific account?

< But it does state that materialistic and reductionist and neo-Darwinian theories are incompatible with the faith. Now,I ask you,what scientific theory of evolution does not fit that description? >

< So what scientific theory of evolution is not mechanistic,godless,and materialistic? >

Theistic evolution, which is compatable with the scientific account in its bare facts, and specifies that evolution is guided by God. So of course materialistic approaches are incompatible with faith. Duh.

I said "scientific theory". Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,it is a theistic spin on a naturalistic history of organisms.

< But the theory does not allow God to be doing anything. >

Sure it does.

Then prove it. Show me how this naturalistic theory,which has natural processes alone producing organisms, allows for God to be working in nature?

God is doing everything, upholding the whole natural process (see Hebrews).

What natural process? The narrative of evolution theory? It can't be proven to have happened,so it is presumptuous to say that God made it happen. Stick with natural processes we do know happen,like conception and reproduction.

To deny that is to deny scripture and to endorse a deistic God who doesn't do anything except through things like poofism.

You mean like the idea that God called the universe into existence out of nothing? Or miracles? Or acts of conception?

This kind of deism is very common among YECs, and greatly dimishes God.

What diminishes God is to claim that he works according to a naturalistic theory of how nature works.

< It portrays natural processes as doing things they do not have the ability to do. >

Natural processes don't have the ability to do anything without God, not even attract by gravity, or move by momentum. God empowers natural processes to work, and in some cases, to evolve.

God does not empower natural selection and random mutations to produce species.
It just does not happen that way. It is not the proper means. Conception and reproduction are the proper means through which God creates species from prior species.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If you realise there are different ways to interpret Genesis, how do you know TE isn't one of them?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth doesn't that mean the earth was created in verse 1? Certainly the earth is already in existence in verse 2 The earth was without form and void.

One thing that must be realized is that the 1st day (as I mistakenly imply) isn't actually a day but rather the beginning. The term, whether age or 24 hours, had never come about. The universe was still nothing.

Genesis 1:5
God called the light &#8220;day,&#8221; and the darkness he called &#8220;night.&#8221; And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the first day.

So what some may see as day 2 is actually day 1, and so on. The ending context of each day completes this.

Verse one is the opening so to speak. Like saying 'this is how God created the Heavens and the Earth'.
Verse two is implying that the Earth and the Heavens wasn't even there- 'darkness was over the face of the deep'. God created light, which would be the Big Bang in my interpretation.

Interesting take on it, doesn't Genesis 1 say God created mankind and the animals on day 6?

Well, we see in Genesis 2:19 that God formed all the animals for Adam to name. So this must be day four of Creation when God made all the animals.

Day 5:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, &#8220;Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&#8221;

Genesis 3:5
&#8220;For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.&#8221;

But God shows little remorse when they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, as predetermination and free will wholly exist in unison.
This is God saying He is omniscient.

Day 6 is vague. We see that it is all summed up in one verse

Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

Day 7

Genesis 2:2
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

This day became the Sabbath. Now why would God have this for Adam and Eve if they were already living in grace?

So the Eden incident was already unfolding during the days of Creation. And as we can see, there simply is no room for what TE's believe, in my own opinion. God made all the Animals for Adam to name, which means that man was before creatures.

 

[Assyrian]

One thing that must be realized is that the 1st day (as I mistakenly imply) isn't actually a day but rather the beginning. The term, whether age or 24 hours, had never come about. The universe was still nothing.

Genesis 1:5
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So what some may see as day 2 is actually day 1, and so on. The ending context of each day completes this.

Surprisingly, I agree with you here In the OT, each new day began in the evening, so day one would not have begun until "and there was evening..."

Of course this leaves quite a lot of creating going on before day one began, which means your creation days don't line up with the "in six days the LORD God created the heavens and the earth", from Exodus 20. It also leads into an interesting variation of the Intermittent Day interpretation, that the numbered days simply mark the end of long periods of creation. Genesis doesn't actually say the days are consecutive.

Verse one is the opening so to speak. Like saying 'this is how God created the Heavens and the Earth'.

A title is certainly is one way to read the text, as is the translation "in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." which you find some bible give as an alternative translation in their notes. Though the implication of both of these is that Genesis doesn't begin with an act of ex nihilo creation, but like an Ancient Near East creation story begins off with God creating order from chaos. That is not to say the bible doesn't teach ex nihilo creation "All things were created through him..." just that it isn't in Genesis 1

Verse two is implying that the Earth and the Heavens wasn't even there- 'darkness was over the face of the deep'. God created light, which would be the Big Bang in my interpretation.

Doesn't God's formation of land by moving the water out of the way imply the land was there under the deep? It isn't "Let there be dry land" but "Let dry land appear".

Well, we see in Genesis 2:19 that God formed all the animals for Adam to name. So this must be day four of Creation when God made all the animals.

You are running into one of the contradiction between the literal interpretations of Genesis 1 & 2.

In Genesis 2 after God formed Adam he formed all the land animals and all the bird of the air. But in Genesis 1 the land animals and were created before man on sixth day (day 5 the way you count them) and birds were created back on the fifth day (or day 4).

Day 5:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 3:5
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

But God shows little remorse when they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, as predetermination and free will wholly exist in unison.
This is God saying He is omniscient.

Day 6 is vague. We see that it is all summed up in one verse

Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

Day 7

Genesis 2:2
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

This day became the Sabbath. Now why would God have this for Adam and Eve if they were already living in grace?

I agree. The Sabbath in Genesis was a promise of the Gospel. You can read about it in Hebrews 3&4.

So the Eden incident was already unfolding during the days of Creation. And as we can see, there simply is no room for what TE's believe, in my own opinion.

Actually what you see there is that there is no room for TE in your interpretation of Genesis, but you already seem to realise there is more than one way to understand the text.

God made all the Animals for Adam to name, which means that man was before creatures.

So why does Genesis 1 have God creating man after he created the birds and animals? This is one of the main reasons I don't think these chapters of Genesis were meant to be read literally, even though a Day Age or Intermittent Day can fit science quite well. They can't both be literal histories if they describe two completely different sequences of creation, however poetry, metaphor and parables don't need to line up chronologically, because that is simply not what they are telling us.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

(I currently have the KJV out right now, so that is what I am working with on this post)

In Genesis 2 after God formed Adam he formed all the land animals and all the bird of the air. But in Genesis 1 the land animals and were created before man on sixth day (day 5 the way you count them) and birds were created back on the fifth day (or day 4).

Genesis 2:5-7

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.



This was day 2 of Creation directly above. We can see that Adam was created on the day He put water on Earth (explained below), connecting how Adam was already there when God produced all animals for Adam to name.

Doesn't God's formation of land by moving the water out of the way imply the land was there under the deep? It isn't "Let there be dry land" but "Let dry land appear".

Genesis 1:6-10
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said,Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


This has to be followed very carefully. First, God made the firmament, which divided the waters from the waters. They were divided above and below it.
Then God let the waters below the firmament be gathered unto one place, and let dry land appear.

From this, we can see that water is taking on a entirely different meaning. It is being used to describe everything as a whole, besides the firmament itself, which makes a lot of sense when taking into account what the firmament actually is.

He is not explaining seas as oceans, but rather planets and stars as whole and separated.


We see this a lot in the Bible. For example, it is commonly believed that the Beast from the Sea in Revelations is actually the Anti-Christ, the beast from the sea of people.


Genesis 2:6

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground


There was no water on Earth during the 1st and second day.

I agree. The Sabbath in Genesis was a promise of the Gospel. You can read about it in Hebrews 3&4.

Well, what I was implying was that there is no need to bless a day when all is already in grace. This means that Adam and Eve had already fell when this day came.

See, what I have constructed in my theology is a direct 'double instance' between the last few days of Creation and the story of Adam & Eve in Eden.
I gained this through direct study of the context itself, which is a great personal triumph for me because it provides a direct basing for many other things.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This does not contradict the days of Creation, because as I stated, the beginning was not a day. You can also see that He made the heavens, earth, the sea, and all that is in them. As in, not the seas, but the sea, as in the universe. Heaven and firmament is a constant in my theology that never once is synonymous with stars and space (waters), but rather the mount of God. The firmament is wholly parallel to everything, in between everything else (waters above and below). Exactly how we picture Heaven as not being of this realm.