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?"

[Boogieman]

“To those it’s not going to matter what “terminology” we use. They are going to find fault no matter what we do.”

I’m not concerned with them, I’m concerned with the fence-sitting spectators. If we let ourselves walk into traps, we look foolish and the undecided are more likely to be swayed by the arguments of such people.

[CynicalBear]

>>If we let ourselves walk into traps, we look foolish<<

What?? Staying with God's word from the original Hebrew and Greek will NEVER cause us to look foolish to those whose eyes are opened by God. Only to those who are left blind to His truth.

>>the undecided are more likely to be swayed by the arguments of such people.<<

It's not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to spread the true words of God and leave it to the Holy Spirit to enlighten those who God has called to be His.

[Boogieman]

“What?? Staying with God’s word from the original Hebrew and Greek will NEVER cause us to look foolish to those whose eyes are opened by God. Only to those who are left blind to His truth.”

No, that isn’t what I have been saying. What I have been saying is when someone says “I interpret the Bible literally”, they fall into their trap, as they have defined this imaginary “literal interpretation” of the Bible and then spread the myth that we use this interpretation (inconsistently at that).

“It’s not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to spread the true words of God and leave it to the Holy Spirit to enlighten those who God has called to be His.”

Well, I guess we’ll have to disagree there. Spreading the Gospel is not the only thing that Christians are called to do, even if it is the most important:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” 1 Peter 3:15-16

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:5

“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” Titus 1:9

[Hacksaw]

What is the matter with you people today? Evidently you are unaware of Catholics and others who insist on the totally unscientific "virgin birth" while having the brazen 'ovnayim to reject creationism because it's "unscientific."

So sorry but virgin birth occurs in nature all the time. If you want to be scientifically ignorant, go for it - it makes you look like even more of a lunatic. I think God is a bit smarter than the easily duped. Not sure why you included the scare quotes.

[Zionist Conspirator]

So sorry but virgin birth occurs in nature all the time. If you want to be scientifically ignorant, go for it - it makes you look like even more of a lunatic. I think God is a bit smarter than the easily duped. Not sure why you included the scare quotes.

Prior to modern science, the conception of a human child by a human mother without the participation of a human male was absolutely impossible. And even with the male not present, the male's semen is still necessary (unless one is cloning or something). Therefore scientifically, the "virgin birth" couldn't have happened without us having to throw out everything we know about gynecology and pediatrics.

So . . . what was the line about Genesis 1-11 again?

[Hacksaw]

What about it and do you really need help from that idiot? And no, not prior to modern science. I think God is a lot smarter that you give Him credit for.

[Alex Murphy]

What about it and do you really need help from that idiot? And no, not prior to modern science. I think God is a lot smarter that you give Him credit for

How can God be smarter than ZC gives him credit for, yet still be an idiot?

[Hacksaw]

How can God be smarter than ZC gives him credit for, yet still be an idiot?

Don't be coy about your prime talent. Everyone has a forte. Your talent is being a @sshole. Embrace it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

What about it and do you really need help from that idiot? And no, not prior to modern science. I think God is a lot smarter that you give Him credit for

How can God be smarter than ZC gives him credit for, yet still be an idiot?

Apparently Hacksaw is an evolutionist because it justified Southern slavery.

[Hacksaw]

??? That is a strange comment. No need to rip on American Southerners. But doesn’t the Talmud justify slavery?

[Alex Murphy]

No need to rip on American Southerners. But doesn’t the Talmud justify slavery?

Does the Catholic Magisterium?

Abp. Dolan: American Catholic Leadership against Abortion Redeems Laxity against Slavery
Black History: The Slave Coast
Statue of first Catholic Supreme Court justice may go [Chief Justice Taney/"Dred Scott" decision]
The Jesuits’ Slaves

[FourtySeven]

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

I'm not so sure that is true since there are many documented miracles that don't call into question various fields of medicine. For example there are documented cases of blindness being cured and cancers being cured but these don't cast doubt on the fields of ophthalmology or oncology.

[Hacksaw]

Argument by link again.

[Alex Murphy]

Argument by link again.

It's called "backing up an argument". You might want to try it some time.

[Hacksaw]

It's called "backing up an argument". You might want to try it some time.

Nope, it's called "debate the link".

[Alex Murphy]

Nope, it's called "debate the link".

When debating certain Catholics, it's better known as "debate the missing link".

[Hacksaw]

When debating certain Catholics, it's better known as "debate the missing link".

I thought you boys didn't accept evolution but I have to admit that was funny. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ping for your interest.