Evolution

[the flutehonker]

I'm taking AP biology this year, and we recently concluded our unit on evolution. I've been getting into several conversations about evolution and how it corresponds with religion, and I'd like to hear you guys' take on it. Someone recently asked the question in the question and answers section, and this was the answer:

Yeah, the Church says that it is legitimate to understand "seven days" as "seven periods of time". I don't know if the connection between evolution has ever been drawn out, but the Church is clear that if by evolution one means "a species developing into another species, and ultimately man", one cannot accept evolution. However, if by evolution one means "development of physical/mental traits, often to a high degree", one is able to accept evolution. The former is commonly called "macroevolution," while the latter is referred to as "microevolution." Microevolution wouldn't be without a purpose, though, in Christian thinking; it was driven by Divine Providence. Thus, Catholics are able to accept "theistic microevolution." Hope this helps.

Yours,
Pio Nono



I studied both macro and microevolution, and I am more than happy to just completely discard the first. As I was studying microevolution, however, I found some interesting discoveries that actually correlates with the Creation Story quite well. For example, vestigal bones in snakes show that snakes once had the ability to walk. Any comments?

[CrossCuT]

[color=330000]The missing link is missing.

Evolution = Theory
[/color]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='the flutehonker' date='Mar 11 2006, 09:04 AM']I'm taking AP biology this year, and we recently concluded our unit on evolution. I've been getting into several conversations about evolution and how it corresponds with religion, and I'd like to hear you guys' take on it. Someone recently asked the question in the question and answers section, and this was the answer:

Yeah, the Church says that it is legitimate to understand "seven days" as "seven periods of time". I don't know if the connection between evolution has ever been drawn out, but the Church is clear that if by evolution one means "a species developing into another species, and ultimately man", one cannot accept evolution. However, if by evolution one means "development of physical/mental traits, often to a high degree", one is able to accept evolution. The former is commonly called "macroevolution," while the latter is referred to as "microevolution." Microevolution wouldn't be without a purpose, though, in Christian thinking; it was driven by Divine Providence. Thus, Catholics are able to accept "theistic microevolution." Hope this helps.

Yours,
Pio Nono
I studied both macro and microevolution, and I am more than happy to just completely discard the first. As I was studying microevolution, however, I found some interesting discoveries that actually correlates with the Creation Story quite well. For example, vestigal bones in snakes show that snakes once had the ability to walk. Any comments?
[right][snapback]908662[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Many Catholics, especially here embrace macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is a given, even creationists, such as myself, who believe the 7 days refer to 7 days, believe in 'micro-evolution'.

[uriel]

I think the beef we have to deal with in America is almost entirely due to the literalist protestant interpretation of the Bible. If you go to Europe they're incredulous that people would actually believe in a 7 day creation.

A fantastic learning point for this discussion is Galileo. Galileo made a scientific evaluation of the heavens and came to the conclusion that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Because in those times people had a simpler understanding of the nature of our world many people felt that this new scientific development somehow put a crack in their faith and there were many efforts to get Galileo to *hush* up.

Looking back on the Galileo incident we see that although the people of that time saw a non geo-centric universe (Galileo's theories) to be something that would destroy their faith. The theory of evolution is like that today, but is especially harmful to protestant faith. Protestants interpret the bible "literalistically" whereas Catholics interpret the bible "literally." If the Bible were to contain the phrase "it was raining cats and dogs" the Catholic interpretation would be to say that the authors had a specific background they were coming from and this was their way of describing really strong rains. Protestants would say that cats and dogs must have fallen from the sky.

The church recognizes that the Bible is not an authoritative scientific source, and the biblical account of creation doesn't necessarily dictate the way in which God created the universe. We are simple minded people who must express ourselves in terms we have developed ourselves and the biblical authors were limited in their speech and scientific understanding by human advancement.

This does not mean to say the earth WASN'T created in 7 days. God is pretty awesome and could have done that; the biblical accounts could indeed be the true scientific explanation for creation, but the Catholic interpretation and understanding of scripture does not require that belief.

Did I lose you

Edited March 12, 2006 by uriel

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='uriel' date='Mar 11 2006, 09:27 PM']I think the beef we have to deal with in America is almost entirely due to the literalist protestant interpretation of the Bible. If you go to Europe they're incredulous that people would actually believe in a 7 day creation.

A fantastic learning point for this discussion is Galileo. Galileo made a scientific evaluation of the heavens and came to the conclusion that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Because in those times people had a simpler understanding of the nature of our world many people felt that this new scientific development somehow put a crack in their faith and there were many efforts to get Galileo to *hush* up.

Looking back on the Galileo incident we see that although the people of that time saw a non geo-centric universe (Galileo's theories) to be something that would destroy their faith. The theory of evolution is like that today, but is especially harmful to protestant faith. Protestants interpret the bible "literalistically" whereas Catholics interpret the bible "literally." If the Bible were to contain the phrase "it was raining cats and dogs" the Catholic interpretation would be to say that the authors had a specific background they were coming from and this was their way of describing really strong rains. Protestants would say that cats and dogs must have fallen from the sky.

The church recognizes that the Bible is not an authoritative scientific source, and the biblical account of creation doesn't necessarily dictate the way in which God created the universe. We are simple minded people who must express ourselves in terms we have developed ourselves and the biblical authors were  limited in their speech and scientific understanding by human advancement.

This does not mean to say the earth WASN'T created in 7 days. God is pretty awesome and could have done that; the biblical accounts could indeed be the true scientific explanation for creation, but the Catholic interpretation and understanding of scripture does not require that belief.

Did I lose you 
[right][snapback]909223[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

isnt uriel the name of a demon?

[infinitelord1]

i really dont know what to call evolution from my perspective. But i know that there are 2 creation stories in the bible. The second one talks of god creating man from the mud. I interpret this as evolution. I dont really know how exactly it worked, but i believe that we were derived from another species, and i dont see anything wrong with that belief. The second creation story also mentions that god breathed the breath of life into man......and i interpret this as god giving the first modern day humans, souls. Hence, adam and eve were, at first, a more primitive form of modern day humans and god took these primitives and gave them souls.

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Mar 12 2006, 01:35 AM']isnt uriel the name of a demon?
[right][snapback]909326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. Uriel is an archangel who represents one of the cardinal points along with Rapael, Michael, and Gabriel. He isn't mentioned by name in scripture but I believe in apocryphal works he is generally regarded as one of the good guys.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Mar 12 2006, 03:39 AM']No.  Uriel is an archangel who represents one of the cardinal points along with Rapael, Michael, and Gabriel.  He isn't mentioned by name in scripture but I believe in apocryphal works he is generally regarded as one of the good guys.
[right][snapback]909334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Uriel is traditionally believed to be the interpreter of prophecy, the guardian of Jesus' tomb, and the angel who appeared in a dream to Ezra (Source: [u]Catholic Source Book[/u], Fr. Peter Klein).

[kdewolf2]

There are numerous explanations of the Church's teaching vis-a-vis evolution on the Internet. The short answer would seem to be, that Catholics don't have to believe or disbelieve in evolution, but those who do believe in evolution ought to keep in mind that (1) Adam is the first parent of the human race and original sin comes from his fall; (2) the spiritual soul is created directly by God; (3) the universe as a whole was created ex nihilo by God; (4) evolution would have to be seen as an expression of divine providence, rather than mere chance working in conjunction with natural law. This is also more or less what I believe: evolution is an expression of divine providence working in conjunction with natural laws laid down by the Creator.

Does the Bible support evolution?
I've noticed that the creation account in Genesis 1 seems to give the earth a role in producing living creatures: "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so. " (Gen 1:24) The earth brings forth living creatures in accordance with God's command. Also, God created Adam from the dust: "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 2:7) Furthermore: "By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:19).

It's just a "theory" of mine, but I believe such passages indicate that the earth does have an active role in producing living creatures, that Adam's body was produced by the earth, and that it was formed prior to the inception of a spiritual soul, signified by the "breath of life."

However, I do admit the exegesis would be somewhat anachronistic if one ascribed the full-blown theory of evolution to the pen of Moses.

What is a "day" in the Bible? St. Peter tells us, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." (2 Peter 3:8) Likewise, God told Adam, "But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Gen 2:17) However, "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." (Gen 5:3-5) So, apparently Adam lived for a long time and did not in fact die the very day he ate the fruit. What can we conclude? A day isn't always a day. St. Peter tells us a day can be a whole epoch, a millennium, and the very story of Adam's fall shows us that a day can be several hundred years, at least, because that's how long Adam was said to have lived before God's warning was fulfilled. It's like the saying, "back in the day." What day? Was it a Monday or a Tuesday? The question is nonsensical. The "day" is a shorthand expression to capture a whole period of time.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kdewolf2' date='Mar 12 2006, 12:38 PM']Likewise, God told Adam, "But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."  (Gen 2:17)  However, "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.  So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died."  (Gen 5:3-5)  So, apparently Adam lived for a long time and did not in fact die the very day he ate the fruit.  What can we conclude?  A day isn't always a day. 
[right][snapback]909425[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not sure I reach the same conclusion you do on this. Adam did indeed 'die' when he ate the apple, he brought original sin into the world that brings 'death' to us all.

The better conclusion that I see here is that the literal interpretation isn't always the best one. Especially with regards to Genesis.

[Brother Adam]

As rkwright said, original sin caused both spiritual and physical death to enter humanity. If they never sinned, we would have never died, spiritually, or physically. There are three different main interpretations that can be reached from reading scripture as the Catechism says. The question of the days in Genesis, as well as evolution is not one just for theology, but one first of all for philosophy. Evolved man indicates that we are not now, in our physical state, an image of God. There is precious little in theology and philosophy that can be demonstrated. The damage evolution does to philosophy and theology I'm am becoming, with time, almost certian of.

[the flutehonker]

thanks to everyone who responded! everything you all said helped me understand this better. i first became interested in the topic after talking to a friend of mine who said "i can't believe you think you can be a good christian and believe in all this evolution carp"

she goes to the Church of Christ, who take the bible VERY literalistically.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='the flutehonker' date='Mar 12 2006, 02:11 PM']thanks to everyone who responded! everything you all said helped me understand this better. i first became interested in the topic after talking to a friend of mine who said "i can't believe you think you can be a good christian and believe in all this evolution carp"

she goes to the Church of Christ, who take the bible VERY literalistically.
[right][snapback]909478[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Remember to tell her then that when a child rebells the elders are to take the child out to the city gates and stone them!

[kdewolf2]

[quote]I'm not sure I reach the same conclusion you do on this. Adam did indeed 'die' when he ate the apple, he brought original sin into the world that brings 'death' to us all.

The better conclusion that I see here is that the literal interpretation isn't always the best one. Especially with regards to Genesis.[/quote]

I'd say the literal interpretation of a "day" isn't always the best. I don't think the distinction between spiritual and natural death is very important. The Bible clearly teaches that death entered the world through sin; sin is regarded not only as a positive offense to God's honor and dignity, but it's also a state of separation from or enmity toward God, which is why sin can also be inherited. I'd say this is what we mean by "spiritual death." Natural death is the actual death of the body; but we learn from the Church that Adam would not have died a natural death apart from sin, mainly because God said, "In the day ye eat thereof, you will surely die," and also St. Paul's statement, "Death entered the world through sin." However, God did not distinguish between spiritual and natural death, and there is clearly a strong connection between them if the death of the body is merely a consequence of the soul's death through sin. In other words, death is an integral event, involving both body and soul, although both aspects are not simultaneous. Similarly, the resurrection is an integral event, involving both the resuscitation of the body together with the redemption of the soul (although the soul comes first, and the body only later). A man is not a mere body or mere soul but a conjunction and union of both. I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the God's warning did not pertain to spiritual death merely, but also involved natural death, so the warning wasn't actually accomplished the very day he ate the fruit; rather, the day represented a whole time frame. In other words, God said, "If you eat the fruit, you will die." It doesn't matter whether death comes within twenty-four hours or takes a thousand years. The "day" is inclusive of however long it was that Adam lived after he ate the fruit, because it wasn't a literal day.

[quote]The question of the days in Genesis, as well as evolution is not one just for theology, but one first of all for philosophy. Evolved man indicates that we are not now, in our physical state, an image of God. There is precious little in theology and philosophy that can be demonstrated. The damage evolution does to philosophy and theology I'm am becoming, with time, almost certian of.[/quote]

Okay, I'm sorry, but I have no clue what you're talking about. How does the proper interpretation of the "six days" mentioned in Genesis apply firstly to philosophy and only secondarily to theology? Apart from our faith in the Bible, God's Word, we wouldn't even have known that the cosmos had a beginning, as both St. Thomas Aquinas ("De Aeternitate Mundi") and Stephen Hawkings ("A Brief History of Time") show. So, it would appear to me that the interpretation of the days, since it is a part of faith which is only spoken of in Sacred Scripture, is eminently a theological rather than a philosophical issue. How does "evolved man" indicate that we are not made in the image and likeness of God? This is somewhat like saying evolution detracts from the creative power of God, which is absurd since the creative power of God is manifested precisely in and through the evolutionary development of the species. Keep in mind that evolution is not an expression of blind chance and random material forces, as in the dogma of certain Darwinists and Marxists, but an expression of God's providence over the natural order, and the natural laws which God Himself established at the very beginning of the universe. Furthermore, not only did God shape the evolution of the species by His own hand, He directly and supernaturally intervened to produce man's soul, which is chiefly what we mean by the image and likeness of God. It is not so much in our physical bodies, which are not unlike those of chimpanzees or other primates, but in our souls through which we have truly intellectual, spiritual, and moral faculties, making us akin to God and the holy angels, that we are made in the image and likeness of God. And I am not sure what damage evolution does or even could do to theology or philosophy. It seems to me that true faith and even philosophy (i.e. love of wisdom) reside more on a "spiritual" or "mystical" plane, the realm of transcendent and supernatural realities, rather than natural or empirical realities. Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It does not concern the natural world very much, other than to affirm its unseen or transcendent qualities, namely, it is God's creation and it is very good in accordance with God's own vision ("He saw that it was very good").

[quote]thanks to everyone who responded! everything you all said helped me understand this better. i first became interested in the topic after talking to a friend of mine who said "i can't believe you think you can be a good christian and believe in all this evolution carp"

she goes to the Church of Christ, who take the bible VERY literalistically.[/quote]

Do they also believe in a[url="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm"]flat earth[/url] or an [url="http://www.geocentricity.com/"]earth-centered universe[/url]?

[Brother Adam]

lol, ur funny. You separate the body and soul (spiritual and matter) when it is convenient for you, and then make them inseperable again when it serves your own biased purposes. You're conclusion of "his is somewhat like saying evolution detracts from the creative power of God, which is absurd since the creative power of God is manifested precisely in and through the evolutionary development of the species" is truly the 'absurd' conclusion. Rather I like to think that God is more involved than 'letting everything take its own spin' for billions of years and then jumping back in to throw a soul into man and taking off again. "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?"

Oh, and the only geocentrists I know of are traditional Catholics