Shameless Ad

[Brother Adam]

Catholicsforcreation.com

HELP WANTED

FUS catechetics and theology students are putting together a ‘clearing house’ website for Catholic apologetic work dealing with creationism as opposed to evolutionism. We hope to open the website sometime late August. We need:

An Assistant Webmaster
A Spiritual Director
Staff Writers
Freelance writers
Researchers
Web Designers
Forum Moderators
Consultants

If you are interested email or PM me please.

[Brother Adam]

Thanks for pinning this!

St. Basil:

‘“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.” And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day”, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.’ (Homily II:8) 379 AD

[Good Friday]

Well, this is of course up to you, but evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with Catholic theology, in that the creation story of Genesis is not necessarily to be taken completely literally. Obviously, there are literal elements (such as that God created the universe), but the order in which the universe was created and the "days" in which it was created are not necessarily to be taken literally.

So I'm not sure that this is a worthy endeavor for Franciscan University students. Is creationism taught at Franciscan University?

[Aloysius]

while evolution isn't necessarily inconsistant, creationism is also definitely not inconsistant with Catholic theology.

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.catholicsforcreation.com/"]http://www.catholicsforcreation.com/[/url]

The Forum is now open, its a Free one since I don't have the $200 to shell out for another IPB message board, but if you would like to help in any way, please check into the Administrator forum.

Others may post there, in the "Free For All" forum, but it will be deleted when the website is published once we finish it.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aloysius']while evolution isn't necessarily inconsistant, creationism is also definitely not inconsistant with Catholic theology.[/quote]
Evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic theology. It's not "not necessarily inconsistent," it's just not inconsistent.

Meanwhile, you're correct that creationism is not inconsistent with Catholic theology, but it is inconsistent with sound science. There is absolutely no sound scientific evidence for creationism, and I don't think that university students -- Catholic or otherwise -- should be promoting it as an educational alternative to evolution. If anything, the promotion of creationism against evolution is characteristic of evangelical or -- yes, I'm going to say it -- fundamentalist Protestant Christians, not Catholics. To me, this seems about the same as when some rather ignorant Catholics proposed that the world was flat instead of round, and that this was to be definitively held by the faithful. So I think that the students and catechists at Franciscan University are placing themselves on the wrong side of science and history, and I'm disturbed by what appears to be a very evangelical/fundamentalist idea penetrating an orthodox Catholic university.

[Apotheoun]

It also depends on what is meant by the word "creationism." Clearly, Catholics must hold that all that exists is created [i]ex nihilo[/i] by God, and so if the word is used in connection with creation in the proper sense of the term, then all Catholics must subscribe to "creationism."

When dealing with human origins Catholics are free to hold any number of positions, as long as they remember that it is a dogma that God directly creates the soul of man, and that all men descend from a single original parent couple (monogenism).

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Apotheoun']It also depends on what is meant by the word "creationism." Clearly, Catholics must hold that all that exists is created ex nihilo by God, and so if the word is used in connection with creation in the proper sense of the term, then all Catholics must subscribe to "creationism."

When dealing with human origins Catholics are free to hold any number of positions, as long as they remember that it is a dogma that God directly creates the soul of man, and that all men descend from a single original parent couple (monogenism).[/quote]
I'm 100% in agreement with this. What I'm disputing is creationism in the true sense of the word, which is a scientific theory that attempts to counter the theory of evolution by disputing the age of the world, the age of the universe, and other elements of the evolution theory. This scientific creationism is rooted in unsound science and is working to [i]prove[/i] the Bible, which is just bad science altogether.

[Aloysius]

maybe you should just wait and see what Bro Adam's site comes up with.

I personally looked into evolution and have yet to be convinced by any sound science on that end. well, the kind of evolution that is merely adaptation is. but us coming from apes really isn't supported by sound science either.

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.catholicsforcreation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4"]Open Letter of Purpose[/url]

[Guest Eremite]

Here's a useful documentation of the Church's flexibility on this issue.

[quote]We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

---Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus", #18[/quote]

[quote]The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.

---Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus", #19[/quote]

[quote][It is an error] to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.

---Pope John Paul II, "1992 Address to the PAS"[/quote]

[quote]It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"

---St. Augustine, "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis"[/quote]

[quote]"In the interpretation of those passages in the chapters [i.e., Gen. 13] which the Fathers and doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful. . . to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to one?"

"In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?"

"Answer [to both]: Affirmative"

---1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis", #4, 8[/quote]

As we see, Catholics are at liberty to disagree on how God chose to create the world, whether in a quick or a long manner. Of course, charity should always temper such disagreements.

I agree with Good Friday that it's awkward trying to penterate science by fitting it into the Bible. In the citation above, St. Augustine calls this idiotic. It's best not to subscribe to one rigid understanding of Scripture, thereby preserving flexibility in concert with the findings of the natural sciences.

That said, if there is a [i]scientific[/i] case against evolution, it'll be interesting to see. While Fundamentalists try to fit science into their religion, secularists do the same. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is held up as dogma more often than not because it's a front for atheistic materialism.

[Good Friday]

My concerns about Catholics for Creation are now pretty much alleviated. Thanks!

[Brother Adam]

Augustine was also somewhat confused on the issue because he later said that the age of the earth cannot be more than 6 thousand years.

[Guest Eremite]

Here's an interesting article on the thought of St. Augustine vis a vis the "days" of Genesis:

[quote]In the opinion of St. Augustine, the account of the "six days" of creation presents the vision of the blessed angels as the creation of the world was revealed to them. Evening represents their vision of the limit of one created species and morning the appearance of another created species. Implied in the account are as many "days" of creation as there are kinds of created things, since the number six, as the first perfect number, merely symbolizes all of the parts making up the whole of creation. Evening of the first day is the limit of the angelic nature in itself, as seen by the blessed angels, and morning of the first day (the one day) is their vision of their nature in praise of God and in love for God in the Beatific Vision. Morning of this first day involves their knowing that they are not gods and in humbly embracing this fact.

The corporeal world, says Augustine, was fashioned by God in the presence of angelic knowledge, with regard to which, evening of the second day is their knowledge of the firmament in its own nature as such, while morning is their elevation of this item of knowledge in praise and love of God as they contemplate the eternal reasons for the creation of the firmament. And with regard to the thing created, evening of the second day represents the dark and unformed matter created at the first instant of time, while morning is the angelic understanding of the plan of God in impressing the form of the element air upon that part of the unformed matter which became the firmament.

...

But Augustine does not maintain that the various things described as made by God during the six days of creation appeared full-blown in the first instant of time. Rather, he says, when God made all things together, He made them "hiddenly" and in the secret recesses of nature, that is, potentially and causally, so as to become visible over the due course of time.  Augustine is here treating principally but not exclusively of living things, as he describes their existence in the first instant of creation: they were made in seed, not meaning the seed which they themselves produce, but in primordial packages, in the causal order as the seeds of future things. They are causal reasons (causales rationes) instilled by God into the things themselves. Thus was the earth given a certain power to produce (producendi virtus), an invisible inner potency to be unfolded over the ages, not without creative divine interventions and not without the guidance of God's providence.

        For Augustine, the third day represents as many days as there are natures covered by the angelic knowledge of the seas, the earth, and the vegetation of the earth. Evening is the knowledge of these natures in themselves, and morning is the elevation of that knowledge in praise of God and of the Wisdom of God's plan[/quote]

[url="http://rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html"]http://rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html[/url]

Here's an argument from Karl Keating that the Grand Canyon disproves the "young earth" theory. (I don't know how good the science is, so take it for what it's worth):

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea2.asp[/url]

[Brother Adam]

lol, Yes Eremite, I'm well aware that you don't believe in creationism. I don't need links to thiestic creation evidence.