www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Evolution and Creation

Yes. There is no personal guilt taught by the Catholic Church.

And the "stain" of original sin is defined by the Catholic Church as the loss of original justice and the darkening of the will and the intellect.

Mary

Yes. They are comparable and healed by the waters of Baptism.

Two threads in one.

Mary

Another thing that the Church teaches in this regard is that God must necessarily create each human immortal soul (at the moment of conception). This is creation "ex nihilo", which some scientists really dislike.

Good thing I missed this or I'd have been too shy to post any more.

Mary

Excellent point to bring us back to topic!!

Mary

Andrew,



You have no idea! I love it, though...



Whether the Fathers would have or would have not accepted a six, 24 hour day creation account is really immaterial to the argument. (Your own evidence of Origen indicates that there was not unanimity on this one.) Again, the Hebrew word yom admits to longer spanses of time. The literal interpretation of the figure of Adam and Eve is far more critical to theology than the disputed timeframes of the "days".



Actually it is quite different. I may recount a certain event that occurred in my life for the purpose of teaching a lesson to my children. I may leave out certain ancillary details and frame the story (in terms of sequence or how I characterize the event) based on my pedagogical purpose. That is not the same as fictionalizing. If I say I crossed the street without looking both ways and was hit by a car, I may leave out important details such as the time of day, my purpose for being there, etc, but the event character of the story will be true. But IF I assert that I was hit by a flying dragon, that is altogether a deception. As a matter of faith I do not believe inspired texts can do this.



I neither ignore what is "known" in the scientific community (the quotations are deliberate), nor do I treat it infallibly. I do, however, recognize the limitations of science and the scientific method. I also know that certain schools of science have their own predispositions, presuppositions and "faith"-based ideologies. There is heterodoxy and orthodoxy in the scientific community. The shrill reaction we see to the intelligent design concept is proof positive that even science is not as dispassionate as some may claim it to be.



As indicated by the discussion on the somewhat flexible meaning of the word yom, I'm not necessarily sure that B follows A in this case. My faith in the veracity of the creation account is not based on any belief that I have relative to the age of the earth. I said I do not necessarily buy into 6, 24-hour periods of time. I think that this is a literary device - a way of framing the true history of creation to fit a pedagogical - and liturgical - purpose. Do I believe it to be possible? Of course! But even if we accept the conclusions of certain scientists (not all hold to that position), my faith is not shaken. I do not view the Scriptures as a science textbook, but rather as a liturgical-historical text.

I also try to approach the sacred texts sacramentally and with a posture of humility and prayerful openness, understanding the limitations of my own mind, especially as a modern. If I stumble upon a difficulty in reconciling the text with history or science, my first assumption is that I am in error in my understanding, not the text. I believe that this was the approach the Fathers took vis-a-vis the inspired, written Word of God. I also rely upon the interpretation of the Church to guide my understanding, since ultimately it is her text.

I will also say that the Church makes no pretense at being infallible in matters of natural science. But there are certain historical truths which the Church has received through revelation in the Scriptures which speak to our origins. Faith and science both have a complimentary place in what can be a fruitful dialogue, but science also has its limitations and I only place my faith in the Church. ("I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church").

I share this only to disclose my own approach here.




Where is the risk of undermining Christian claims by asserting that there really was an Adam or an Eve? If that one is tough, trying chewing on the sacramental reality of the Eucharist! Or the Incarnation for that matter!

Clearly St. Paul sees these figures in the Old Testament historical. Jesus' own reference to Jonah as a prophetic sign of his own ministry, death and resurrection would be greatly diminished if it was completely a fiction. Substitute Jonah and the Wale for Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, and you get a feel for how absurd such a reference would be especially when dealing with such a serious matter! Jesus is clear when is he teaching parables and when he is not.

Blessings,

Gordo

Andrew,

Some have said that Christ was a metaphor. What causes you to believe that He was an historical figure?

Is it not the witness of the Church?

Gordo

10 lashes for my miserable spelling error!

Gordo

I agree, but whether humanity stands at the head of creation is not.


I guess you have more confidence than me. I do believe Adam and Eve as I said are mythic, in the sense that the represent a strand of reality and point to something the church is trying to communicate. I am most troubled by things like the Book of Esther, which I believe is essentially completely fictional.


The community I believe is varied, though certainly the science community has its "orthodoxies". I still think there are solid conclusions that come from science though that we can't ignore, or shoo away. The fact that the earth is probably billions of years old I think is as on solid ground as anything.


Obviously not, I am however not really swayed by the arguments of the ID people either.


The risk is by claiming the dogma of redemption requires a literal Adam and Eve.


I never said Jonah didn't exist, I said the idea that he lived inside of a fish for three days is a myth. I do think that myth has a symbolic meaning though, which even if not literally true has a great deal of meaning.


Faith.
Reliable historical references.

Dear Gordon,

I think that there is a difference in whether or not we take Adam or Christ as metaphors, and the difference lies in the different types of literature in which we encounter Adam and Christ.

The Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Great literary talents such as C.S.Lewis and Ann Rice came to faith in Christ in part because they recognized the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, even if not always recorded in linear time.

On the other hand, the narrative in the Creation accounts seem to be speaking in the language of myth. In Genesis, the earth is created before the stars, a highly unlikely event scientifically. We would really need to reach back into a pre-Corpurnian cosmos to believe that the Earth was created before the galaxies and stars in the sky.

I believe God's Holy Word uses myth. Genesis is not giving us a scientific account of earthly origins, but rather, it is proclaiming God as Creator and our reliance on Him.



Blessings,

Lance

I must say that this has progressed since my post..of which I'd like to say that my focus on the catechism as a source was for the reasons that with all due reverence for Trent, evolution as a theory was not around at the time so it's ability to make a definitive statement about it is somewhat hampered...and all this focus on the business of definitive statements is to me somewhat bewildering as it is not seen bar among sola scriptura literalist Protestants in Australia.

However, two issues come to mind to me as extra contributions.

1. GORDO quote:

"Where is the risk of undermining Christian claims by asserting that there really was an Adam or an Eve? If that one is tough, trying chewing on the sacramental reality of the Eucharist! Or the Incarnation for that matter!"

The immediate response which comes to mind is: the same danger there was in the Church asserting the sun went around the earth, which didn't exactly enhance it's reputation as a purveyor of truth.

2. We've heard a lot about Genesis and Adam and Eve in this discussion and not as much about the sother creation account in the same book; to my mind one eminently evocative of both the Big Bang and evoloution, especially Gen. 1:20, I quote (KJV):

"And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..."

And future verses about the mastery of Man are somewhat prophetic concerning the way the world has developed of late.

Ned

Andrew and Lance,

Three things that are critical here:

1. The Doctrine of Inspiration

If you accept the traditional doctrine of the inspired nature of the sacred canon of Scripture (which means that God is its primary author with man as its intrumental author...not in the Muslim sense of dictation, of course) assigning a fictional view of the nature of the creation account along with Adam, Eve, the trees, the serpent, etc etc is a complete contradiction. Taken in the context of the whole canon, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve are treated as literal and historical figures as are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Ezra, etc etc. To undermine the historicity of these figures is to drive a wedge between the testaments, rendering the New Testament more inspired and more reliable than the Old. It also makes the spiritual interpretation of Torah and the Prophets a complete fiction. What does it matter if Christ was a historical figure if his life and words as recorded by the Gospel writers were really patterned after ancient fictional mythologies? What does that say about the integrity of His mission and the Church's proclamation? There is a subtle form of Marcionism at work here in the modernist view of the sacred text. And, of course, it is only a short hop, skip and a jump away from "spiritualizing" or "mythologizing" the Resurrection. (I hear it in homilies all the time from various well meaning priests. My view is that every theological crisis begins with the sources of revelation and how you view them.) I guess what I am saying is that your assertions are ultimately a slippery slope.

2. The Witness of Oral Tradition

Coupled with the doctrine of inspiration is the nation of the reliability of oral tradition. We hold to this faithfully as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, especially when these notions are attacked by Protestants. Why is it impossible to believe that such things were not important in ancient times? WHy is it impossible to believe that the same Holy Spirit could not have preserved a strain of oral tradition among all the variant mythologies that developed which was in fact true? THe fact that Genesis is a history of origins for the people of Israel assumes its historical value, when properly understood. Clearly oral traditions were used and then explained through various literary devices. Could not the inspired authors (I also hold to the traditional notion that Moses was the principle and inspired author of the Pentateuch, but that multple subordinate authors were also involved. This was the majority and traditional view for thousands of years.), while assembling the various traditions into the canon of Genesis have been graced to determine truth from falsehood? By faith I believe they were.

3. The Necessity of a Real Adam

Finally we come to the notion that somehow a literal historical figure like Adam (and Eve) is not necessary for our theology. Coupled with that (historical Adam) is the traditional understanding of Eve coming from his side, the temptation in paradise by Satan appearing in the form of a serpent, trees of life and the knowledge of good and evil, the disobedience and the curses which follow - and the promise of future redemption. If there is no Adam, then there is no true protoevangelion. The cross is not the tree of life. Mary is not the New Eve. John's important witness of the piercing of the side of Christ on the tree (a clear reference to the forming of Eve from the side of Adam since John wrote his entire Gospel with a view to the Pentateuch and most especially Genesis and Exodus) was just an account that has little typological value or was a wild attempt to link Christ to a myth. Do you not see the inherent problems with your position? I'm not sure why you seem convinced by modern (and modernist) exegesis and argumentation - even to the point of asserting that to take the traditional position that Adam was in fact a literal, historical figure risks actually undermining the faith (that was Andrew's contention). I will only point out that many of the higher critical theories that were at one in vogue in the German Protestant (and state run) schools are being repudiated by scholars today. It is time, as then Cardinal Ratzinger asserted, to apply higher criticism to the higher critics themselves, exposing their own political, social and philosophical biases, despite their assertions of scientific objectivity.

What's more, polygenism has not been established scientifically. Sure, once could envision it being the case, but such a view has not been the view of the Church. And there are scientists who believe in monogenism. Are we to see them somehow as less educated or less "scientific" than the enlightened polygenists?

Again, Genesis is the foundation (and the blueprint) of the entire Gospel (we see this especially with the Gospel of John). To fictionalize it, however many "strands of reality" you may tentatively acknowledge, logically undermines the mission and teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church since it drives a wedge between the unity and integrity of the testaments. One need only see the "fruit" of this mythologizing approach in mainstream liberal Protestantism and Catholicism.

God bless,

Gordo

The controversy around heliocentrism points to the limits of the Church's vocation as well as to the limitations of the sacred text as a "science manual" (which it never purports to be).

I go around referring to sunrises and sunsets but have yet to be accused of being blatantly unscientific! Clearly the sacred authors were alluding to what is observed in nature. We are not bound by their ancient scientific cosmologies. The controversy you refer to made that point quite clear.

The literal-historical value of what is revealed pertaining to our origins is another matter altogether.

Plus there is a growing movement of those in the sceintific community who question - even deny outright - the conclusions (and assumptions) of Darwinian scientific orthodoxy. Unanimity in the scientific community on these matters is the true mythology.

I think one should render unto the scientists that which is science, and to the Church that which is Revelation. Thus far, it is only the Church which has been told in matters of faith "he who hears you hears Me".

In ICXC,

Gordo

My apologies for my spelling errors...much of my posts here were written "BC" (before coffee!).

Have a good day fellas!

Gordo

The method of allegorical exegesis is well established in the history of the church. Not everybody agrees with it, but it exists, so I disagree with this statement. Witness the statement I posted earlier from Origen's On First Principles, which was later put in a collection of writings of Gregory the Theologian.


Well, again, I say it's not quite so clear. I think many things in the Bible are not clear, or if understood literally and viewed as historical facts would make no sense.

I will however say on the second point I do believe some parts of the Bible are more inspired, reliable and important than others.


Again I disagree, and would actually state that a literal view of many aspects of the OT would never work any way. Some things would fall apart given what we know of the natural world, but worse God himself would at times appear capricious or even evil.


It matters to me.


Perhaps they are, and perhaps that is what people have said all along about allegorical exegesis. You have to deal with the cards you're dealt however. I can't ignore what I know of the world. I can't look past contradictions, improbabilities. Honestly, some days it's hard enough to believe there's a personal God, much less all the rest.


Sure, just as I'm sure you can see the basic impossibility of believing in a literal Adam as understood in the Bible compared to what we know about the world. Even if one accepts there was a literal Adam, I think one has to make some major leaps in interpretation in regards to what the Bible says. Nobody can take it at face value. It may be a slippery slope, but it's not like I'm starting out with that position. I've read the Bible, I've had a basic level of education, and I can't accept the idea of a literal Adam as the Bible presents it. Slippery slope it is, but there's nothing I can do beyond either tossing it all out the window and giving up or simply ignoring it and not dealing with the issue.


I've read almost no modern higher criticism. I have read the church fathers. I think many of their views are mistaken on this subject. The quote I posted by Origen is the only one that makes sense to me (and he is certainly one of the oldest). All I can say is if literal interpretation of the Bible was a fixed part of Christianity, I couldn't be a Christian, or at least in a church.


It's a risk either way.


I'm not in the academy, don't follow their agendas and don't read their writings. I'm a guy in the pews.


I have no opinion one way or another. I am convinced the earth is billions of years old and that other life preceded the appearance of humans.


I can't ignore what's in front of me. There are many things that don't make sense or are at odds with each other. The only unity I can find is largely through allegorical understanding. I'm also not trying to win anybody to my position or say I even represent what the church teaches. I'm doing my best to maintain my faith in the face of things that are not logical and don't make sense. I would be nice to buy off on the idea of a literal Adam as described in Genesis, and overlook the difficulties of accepting that. I can't do it.