Catholicism, evolution and young earth creationism

Catholic Culture ^ | November 10, 2014 | Thomas Van

[Alex Murphy]

Pope Francis’s recent remarks that evolution and Catholicism are compatible caused great deal of excitement in the secular media. While this compatibility will come as no surprise to educated Catholics, it is not the same as saying that Catholics cannot be creationists. However, in an article posted today on Catholic Household, Kevin Edwards makes a strong case for “Why Catholics Should Prefer Evolution to Young Earth Creationism.” Aside from science and common sense, Edwards draws on St. Augustine’s book on the interpretation of Genesis, from which he quotes some fascinating passages.

Edwards’s article is thought-provoking enough to be worth reading in full, but his points can be summed up as follows:

1. “If young earth creationism is true, then there is little to ask about the world.” Many fields of scientific inquiry would have to be abandoned, including earth science, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Physics and biology would be seriously undermined.
2. Young earth creationism implies that God deliberately set out to deceive us, since all relevant scientific disciplines tell us that the earth is very old. “If the world is deliberately constructed by God as a sham, then what confidence can we have in any 'facts' we can determine about the physical world? …What confidence can we place in God if one of the main purposes of creation is deliberate deception?”
3. On the other hand, if evolution is true, it should put us in awe of God’s power. It means that God was able to create everything as He wished, simply by setting up the starting conditions from which the whole universe would develop. “Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller has likened this to a billiards player. If we saw someone go around the table making shot after shot, never missing, we would be impressed. How much more impressed would we be by a player who sinks every ball with a single shot?”
4. “There is no compelling reason to read Genesis literally, but there is a compelling reason not to read it literally.” For example, when we are told that God said “Let there be light,” a literal interpretation would mean that God spoke actual words, which, as St. Augustine points out, would presuppose the existence of sound, air, language and a sense of hearing with which to perceive it. Augustine also remarks that it makes no literal sense to say that days and nights existed for three days before the sun was created.
5. Even if the earth were young, that would not prove the existence of God, and there is no reason to believe that an atheist would convert after being convinced of a young earth. On the other hand, the idea that “faith mandates a young earth” does turn away reasonable nonbelievers. Again, Augustine warns Christians not to make Christianity look stupid by speaking ignorantly about the natural world:

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense 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. … 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?"

[Alex Murphy]

....in an article posted today on Catholic Household, Kevin Edwards makes a strong case for “Why Catholics Should Prefer Evolution to Young Earth Creationism.” Aside from science and common sense, Edwards draws on St. Augustine’s book on the interpretation of Genesis, from which he quotes some fascinating passages....“There is no compelling reason to read Genesis literally, but there is a compelling reason not to read it literally.” For example, when we are told that God said “Let there be light,” a literal interpretation would mean that God spoke actual words, which, as St. Augustine points out, would presuppose the existence of sound, air, language and a sense of hearing with which to perceive it. Augustine also remarks that it makes no literal sense to say that days and nights existed for three days before the sun was created.

[detective]

What is called evolution is a combination of the theories and speculations of Lamarck, Darwin and others in the 19th Century. They are dependent on the concept of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics or as Darwin put it “use and disuse inheritance".

Modern genetics has shown this is false. Modern science has shown many of the speculations and assumptions of Darwin and other evolutionists are false.

When defending evolution it is usually compared to the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

I don't know of any Catholics who believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

[left that other site]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In the Beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Does one need sound, air, language, and a sense of hearing in order for this to be a true statement?

[HiTech RedNeck]

There’s such a fine line here, and it applies to any denomination (there aren’t any sects in heaven).

Fundies would respectfully rejoinder here, that the scriptures speak of several eras, each having its own qualities and properties. To assume a uniform regime of physics from the moment of creation forward is not a foregone conclusion. Doing that requires such beliefs as dark matter, which nobody has put in a test tube yet, but which has to be figured as being scattered all over the place.

The most poisonous problem, however, is to treat God Himself as theory rather than as postulate.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ordinary language suggests metaphor here.

[ravenwolf]

The idea of literal interpretation is itself the biggest problem.

You may agree or disagree with what you think God literally said or did but is what you think God said or did really what he said or did?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I don't know of any Catholics who believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Robert Bellarmine. But he's dead. And he lived back before "literal interpretation of Genesis" meant "Protestant."

Actually, there are a very few Catholic young earth creationists, though they are far in the minority and often accused of "Protestantism" for that reason:

Kolbe Center
Daylight Origins Society
Scripture Catholic (John Salza).
Roman Theological Forum/Living Tradition.

Ah, shoot. Here!.

There are others: Robert Sungenis, Paula Haigh, Gary Metatics (sp?), Donal Anthony Foley; I'm not going to try to look up links to all of them. But at any rate, there aren't many and since the Protestant Reformation evolution has become practically a dogma for Catholics. These few Catholic creationists are atypical and despised by most of their co-religionists.

There are actually a very few Catholic creationists here on FR, but for whatever reason they choose to ignore the issue and not post on it. They remain silent when their co-religionists trumpet evolution and trying to get them to say something is for the most part a colossal waste of time. Even though they are creationists it just doesn't seem to bother them that the "mind of the church" at present is thoroughly committed to evolution. Ebbtide is an exception and always scolds me for claiming that "Catholics are evolutionists." I'll let him comment on this thread (and hopefully on the article at the head of it) if he will.

[Zionist Conspirator]

"If young earth creationism is true, then there is little to ask about the world.” Many fields of scientific inquiry would have to be abandoned, including earth science, geology, astronomy, and cosmology. Physics and biology would be seriously undermined.

If the "virgin birth" is true, then the sciences of gynecology and pediatrics will have to be abandoned.

[Buggman]

4.“There is no compelling reason to read Genesis literally, but there is a compelling reason not to read it literally.”

I'm going to argue with this one: There is every reason to read Genesis literally as it is written in the original Hebrew. YEC may be the only way to read the English translation literally, but the Hebrew is more ambiguous. "Day" (yom) can also mean any long but finite period of time. "Evening" (erev) comes from a word that means "a mixture" (arav and is probably the closest Biblical Hebrew term to our idea of entropy or chaos. "Morning" (boqer) on the other hand comes from a verb (baqar) which means to till a field, to tend a flock, to discern and sort--in other words, to put into order.

On the issue of the sun, moon, and stars being created on day four--no they weren't. The verb "let there be" is yihi, from hayah, "to exist," and means simply that the object becomes manifest in a certain context, not that it didn't exist before.

For example, when Naomi found out that Boaz had protected Ruth, she said, "May he be (yihi) blessed." Obviously, she's not saying that blessing never existed before, or even that Boaz had never been blessed before. She was simply asking that God's blessing be manifest upon Boaz in that particular situation, as a reward for his kindness.

When the fourth day goes on to say, "And God made" the lights of heaven, the verb "made" is ya'as, the imperfect form of asah. This has two significances. First, though the imperfect form is used throughout the narratives as a literary device, it's also how you would put a word in the past completed action. In other words, the verse can just as easily be read, "And God had made" the sun, moon, and stars.

Second, it's significant that the passage uses "made" instead of "created" (bara, or yivra in the imperfect tense). When the Bible says "created," it means the creation of something that has never existed before, whereas something that is "made" is manufactured in the form of something that has existed. That's why the animals are "created" on Day 5, and then "made" on Day 6. (This is Gleason Archer's interpretation, not mine, by the way.)

So take all that together: The heavenly bodies had already been made before Day 4, but were only then manifested to the surface of the earth as the atmosphere became more transparent. This is the interpretation of the rabbis of the Talmud, btw (b.Hagigah 12b if you want to look it up).

But more interestingly, the author of Genesis makes the prediction that the sun, moon, stars, planets, asteroids, and comets visible to his naked eye would not be the first heavenly bodies God ever created--a prediction that we can only now, thousands of years later, prove.

Finally, the problem I have with evolution is not religious, but scientific. Evolution predicts that we should see some original lifeform, then a split into two or more species, then the development of genera, families, and only after a long period of time, different phylums. The Cambrian Explosion shows just the opposite: Nearly all the phylums appeared all at the same time.

That's evidence of top-down design, not bottom-up evolution. Evolution may well have played a role, but there's distinct evidence of direct interference by the Creator in history.

Shalom

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ordinary language suggests metaphor here.

Ordinary language suggests metaphor in the matter of the "virgin birth."

[Zionist Conspirator]

The idea of literal interpretation is itself the biggest problem.

You may agree or disagree with what you think God literally said or did but is what you think God said or did really what he said or did?

I've noticed that even the most die-hard "theistic evolutionist" invokes the literal interpretation of parts of the Bible whenever it suits their purposes.

[MrB]

Yeah, the “thens” don’t follow the “ifs” very well, do they?

Especially the “God deceives us” part - the earth/rocks look “old”. How old was Adam when he was created from dust?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yeah, the “thens” don’t follow the “ifs” very well, do they?

Especially the “God deceives us” part - the earth/rocks look “old”. How old was Adam when he was created from dust?

You hit the nail on the head on both counts.

Catholics reject creationism because it is "Protestant." Otherwise they'd see that their stated reasons are nonsense and contradicted by every miracle they believe in. This is also why pre-Protestant Catholics were creationists . . . there was no "creationist" Protestantism to reject!

BTW, the Eastern Orthodox are even worse.

Some religion it is that re-writes its own beliefs in reaction to someone else.

[Zionist Conspirator]

but there's distinct evidence of direct interference by the Creator in history.

Ya think??? [/sarcasm]

[Alex Murphy]

If the "virgin birth" is true, then the sciences of gynecology and pediatrics will have to be abandoned.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You know that you are taunting and not paying attention at all to the New Testament. We disregard you though we have pity upon you.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You know that you are taunting and not paying attention at all to the New Testament. We disregard you though we have pity upon you.

Looking down in "pity" on creationists isn't much of a redneck thing to do.

If you interpret the "new testament" literally, you should interpret the "old testament" literally. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

[HiTech RedNeck]

We see your twists of words. We know you are a slave of the tradition of humans.

[MrB]

“Interpreted literally” is a trap.

“Interpreted in the style in which it is written” is more precise.

There are some parts of the Bible written as allegory.
Genesis, all parts of Genesis, are written as historical narrative.

[Zionist Conspirator]

We see your twists of words. We know you are a slave of the tradition of humans.

"We?" What country are you king of?