In a recent thread, a discussion arose concerning whether the biblical account of creation was compatible with evolution. There was some interest in creating a separate thread so I have volunteered to do that here.

My perspective is that evolution is like any worldview in that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of man, amongst other things. To me, the heart of the argument in favor of evolution hinges upon the plausibility of macroevolution. Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species. There are only theories concerning this and not actual observed cases where an ape has evolved into a human. Much of the support for macroevolution stems from microevolution, which observes variations within species and how species can adapt to changing environments. But to make the case for macroevolution by using microevolution as supporting evidence is flawed because all microevolution proves is that there are built-in biological variances within a species.

It is an implausible to leap to observe a change within a species and assume that one kind of species can mutate to another kind of species... just because you can breed different kinds of dogs and see variations in the offspring doesn't mean that you can make a cat from a dog. This kind of evolution is a complete mythology in my opinion. Thus, the theory of evolution in my mind has failed to adequately answer the question of man's origin. I reject the theory of evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation which sets forth a straight-forward answer to the question of man's origin: "...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

There was, in the dark recesses of time, an ape-like creature who had a genetic anomaly. He was also a rapist and screwed anything that he could hold still long enough. He was finally caught and killed, cremated, so his genes never can be found, the one person who started mankind.

Therefore, we are an anomylous, rape creation. If you don't believe it, just be female and walk at night in most cities and you will see the defect along with the progress. It might rape you though.

That was a tongue-in-cheek-knee-jerk, not an argument to the OP.

Evolution means to change from one thing to another. You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?

Lets go beyond man, all living things trees, fish, bushes, birds and all animals would have had to develop from that first cell. Now there is a large leap.

jakester:

I'm a creationist. I believe God made all creation, whether it was in 7-days, or 7-millennia doesn't seem important to me. I also believe that there was an “original” Adam and Eve; and that their story is told in Genesis. Whether the Genesis is allegorical doesn't bother me either.

In my opinion evolutionist are working with a broken theory, and if not, it still doesn't explain first cause – that which is the root cause of all things but is not created.

For me any theory that maintains the dignity of man, separates humanity from lower forms and views God as the first Cause, I can entertain. Currently, Darwinism doesn't do this. In fact Darwinism does the opposite; it dehumanizes mankind, places man in the same category as animals ruled by instinct, and denies God's as first cause.

JoeT

I must agree with Jor and De Maria asked an interesting question,"You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?"
AND...
Fr Chuck's post dives home an important point.
I personally do believe in some form of evolution, but not Darwin's.
I believe that God created all things visible and invisable and the I question hiw it did that.
I think he did it over a period of billions of years.
I interpret the first 2 days of creation mentioned in the bible to be gays in God's time which is eternal, so those "days' could be billions of our years.
Thus the creation account in the bible is compatible for me.
So I do believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Finally a consensus except for Fred who still holds onto the evolution stuff. Sorry Fred, but there is no where using the bible that you can explain evolution.
I think that the evolutionists are flinging all sorts of feces against the wall and watching to see what sticks. People will believe anything they are told unless they have been given the truth using the word of God. Society, starting with Darwin and continuing to today find it far easier to believe in some big bang theory or that a couple of apes had sex and man, a genetic impossibility, can from them than to believe the inspired word of God. But that can be translated into many of the topics that have been discussed lately here.

Hello De Maria -

Yes, I understand what evolutions means. Yes, God can do anything he wants and the fact that he made man from dirt is proof that he is able to bring about one thing from another thing. But De Maria, I don't believe that is the issue being addressed in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not trying to answer the question of whether God is able to make man from dirt; it is attempting to answer the question of where man came from. You have to see this distinction or else you'll never see at least in principle how different the evolutionary theory really is from the biblical creation account.

Evolution is saying that man did not come from the dirt as the bible claims he did (by an act of God) but by means of an evolutionary process where man did not originate as man but as an ape-like creature. In the biblical account, you see man created and then having the intellectual capacity to interact with God and name creatures that God had made and ultimately reason well enough to disobey God. Evolution would say that man didn't come to be the way man is today (a fully intelligent, resourceful, rational, and capable being) until billions of years later, after having gone through several evolutionary stages, developing from an ape-like creature to modern man. Well, again, you see no evidence of that in the creation account. The account didn't say that God made an ape-like creature that he began to work on and shape into another creature, over a span of time. It's a complete myth because you cannot make the case for this from the biblical text—you can only make a case for this based upon human imagination.

I cannot see why there is any conflict between evolution and the creation account in Genesis. I honestly don't see any conflict here, unless one is committed to Biblical literalism across the board. Why suppose that the Bible is, or ought to be, the standard against which we measure the claims of science? The Bible says that the earth does not move, and yet I have no problem believing that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. I have no problem with astronomy. Do you? Because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of, e.g. Ps.104.5. (See also, Ps.93.1, 96.10, I Chronicles 16.30.) Galileo got in some trouble over this once upon a time. If a literal understanding of the Bible isn't the standard of scientific truth regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system, why should a literal understanding of the Bible be taken to be the standard regarding evolutionary biology? This strikes me as cherry-picking: If evolution is out, then so is astronomy. If if that's the case, then we're going to have to go back to Ptolemy--which is a real problem since then we are going to have a very difficult time explaining all those satellites in orbit.

My aim, then, isn't to defend evolution but to register real doubts about the use to which people often put the Bible in their rejection of evolution.

I think the original proposition presented here shows a conflict of thought between faith and evolution (or science). It presupposes that science should and can preempt faith. Many of us give sway to the mantra, “science shows evolution and therefore faith in God is wrong.” Science is little more than an analytical tool; if you please, a discipline of the intellect.

As I've written before, to be “scientific” or to approach a field of study “scientifically” has an indistinct meaning. Today, however we assign an explicit meaning few of the users can define; many of the tenets of which are arguable. The word science has Latin roots with the simple meaning of “methodical”. Today we assign the meaning of “scientific” to orderly, regular, systematic processes to obtain knowledge of intuitively empirical phenomenon, on which a hypothesis can be formed, an aphoristic postulate can made with derived perditions that receive objective rigor in systematically testing, and finally objectively analyzed for axiomatic attestation. The hypothesis is said to be proven only when an objective truth can be known and experimental results constantly and repeatedly match the predictions.

In the formulation of the meaning of “scientific,” the word “objective”, in a very general sense, is understood to mean a tangible knowledge. More specifically, when used in the definition of “science” or “scientific”, the meaning of “objective” becomes the intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book; or intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book or of; or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The true “scientific” method is an intellectual process supposedly dealing with objective reasoning. This presupposes that subjective human reasoning can be eliminated from the process, which of course it cannot do.

On the other hand, Catholics hold 'faith' in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith based on known attested revelations of God). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within our natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event, “to believe” is intellectual reasoning containing some element of faith. In the understanding of our faith “objective” is understood to mean an “absolute truth” as well as a tangible knowledge.

Science cannot prove faith to be wrong, it's impossible. The failure in the scientific approach is the failure to fully quantify the unknowable. Clearly, to presuppose that those things of faith can be scientifically studied is not only silly but could be dangerously foolish to the disposition of one's soul. How can we scientifically measure and test, and come to know an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God? How will the created measure the creator to ascertain Truth; especially when the creator is all of absolute Truth? At the same time, do not misconstrue my statements to mean that a scientific fact (truth) not borne out by faith is untrue. In fact, any truth, scientific or otherwise, is a revelation of God.

JoeT

Excellent! This is exactly what St. Augustine says in book three of his De Trinitate. You're in very good company, JoeT.

I agree with both Akoue and Joe T.
My belief is in God and SOME SORT of evolution planned and created by God.
Yes, that means I'm a believer in Intelligent Design.
I believe that God is the creator of all things seen and unseen and much of how He did it is a mystery.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Macroevolution has never been observed in nature. The theory is based upon a multitude of assumptions and has never been proven in accordance with the requirements of the scientific method. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but not macroevolution.

I used to be an evolutionist, and when I found that the evidence could not support evolution, in an effort to avoid turning away from evolution entirely, I became a theistic evolutionist - a belief that God used evolution as his means of creation. I found that to be the hardest position of all to defend, and very quickly followed where both the Biblical and scientific evidence clearly pointed - the Biblical account of creation. As either a man of science or a Christian, I can find no other position which is so easily defensible in the light of the facts.

Tj3,
So you believe as Cred would say.
I believe in both creation by God and some form of evolution via Intelligent Design.
I respect your belief for you.
Do you respect my belief for me?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No I don't believe as Cred says. I believe what the Bible says.

I don't know what the term "respect my belief for me" means. That does not seem to make grammatical sense. Please explain what you mean by this phrase.

I definitely believe in micro-evolution, and I don't believe in macroevolution although sometimes it is hard to deny the similarties between apes and humans back in the day. What do you think that Adam and Eve looked like? Do you think they looked like cave men? And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

Very Good, NY. And all this wisdom out of the mouth of a babe!

JoeT

Tj3,
NewYork123 understood what I said and answered your question for me quite well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I have stated many times on here that micr-evolution is clearly proven. It is not hard to tell the difference. Tall, short, black, white, fat thin, I have never yet mistaken a person for an animal.

I do not have to respect the beliefs of others. I do respect his right to hold those beliefs, but that does not mean that I must respect beliefs that I disagree with.

It is case that respect for the person is not dependent upon whether we agree or not.

And I just answered.