Theistic Evolution vs Creationism

[Edward64]

As a non-practicing Catholic, this blurb caught my interest.

Vatican: Guess what, Darwin? Evolution is OK - Science - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26747166/)

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science."

I had not heard the phrase "theistic evolution". I appreciate the Catholic church trying to resolve the conflict that so many of us have between what I would categorize as logic/science vs fundamentalism.

[Flasch186]

I wondered in conversation with more religious minded Christians why they were against evolution to begin with. It always made sense to me that, strategically, all the church had to do was claim that evolution was God's plan and the problem was solved. I guess were there now.

[CraigSca]

This was always a "duh" to me as well.

[chesapeake]

It always made sense to me that, strategically, all the church had to do was claim that evolution was God's plan and the problem was solved.

Truth isn't strategic. It is precisely what it is. At least from the point of view of a fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Christians have often criticized the Catholic church for being too malleable with the tenents of its faith. I imagine this would be pointed to by them as another example.

[Icy]

What i find weird is that if the church all the sudden decides that they are not against evolutionism anymore, all the believers must all the sudden believe on it too against what they have been told for centuries.

I thought exactly the same when the church decided all the sudden a few years ago that the place where kids that died before baptism went (don't know the name in English) did no longer exist and that kids that die before baptism now go to heaven too. What about all the kids that were supposedly there for over 20 centuries?

It has been always the same with the catholic church (the only one i know as i have been part of it). If you read their history, a big amount of the strong believes they have, have just been decided by a group of bishops in a Vatican meeting some centuries ago, like which evangelist were the good ones or if Maria was virgin or the date where Christ was born (like if any of that was really important for a true believer).

Stuff like that is what made me to stop to believe in the catholic church and to see them as just another fundamentalist religion. I was told to believe everything as it was told to me without asking and to have faith... until they decided that i had to believe the opposite thing again not asking about it and having blind faith until they change their mind again.

[Celeval]

What i find weird is that if the church all the sudden decides that they are not against evolutionism anymore, all the believers must all the sudden believe on it too against what they have been told for centuries.

Not necessarily.

One of the things about the Catholic faith is that not everything the pope says goes. There's a very specific way, and very specific things that make certain things infalliable in the Catholic doctrine, and this isn't one of them. Yes, it's what the faith teaches, but it doesn't mean you can't disagree.

FWIW, as a practicing Catholic, I'm unsure as to why this would ever be a question. :) But I've never had a literal interpretation of any part of the Bible, so that's probably a difference.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The problem with a lot of the views of the Catholic church (and other churches/religions) is that they are not particularly that well exmanied. Like Icy said, a lot of beliefs were just proclamations from some group in the church that were passed down from up on high and then blindly followed because that's sort of how religion works.

When folks to start really examining some of these beliefs, like what happens to all the kids who die before getting baptized, or when science begins to show cracks in these beliefs, the Church is put in a position to either back peddle a bit and adapt or stick feverntly to their guns and fight against the tide of reality and common sense.

I can see how either option could alienate certain followers.

Religions serve many purposes, one of which has always been to explain the unexplainable. As science renders fewer and fewer things unexplainable, that aspect of religion has begun to fade. "Theistic Evolution" is just the latest example of that.

[chesapeake]

I thought exactly the same when the church decided all the sudden a few years ago that the place where kids that died before baptism went (don't know the name in English) did no longer exist and that kids that die before baptism now go to heaven too.

It is called Limbo in English.

If the Catholic Church didn't change its position from time to time, the heavens would still revolve around a flat earth. To stand the test of time, a religion has to be flexible. Catholicism is certainly that.

[Surtt]

I had not heard the phrase "theistic evolution". I appreciate the Catholic church trying to resolve the conflict that so many of us have between what I would categorize as logic/science vs fundamentalism.


Isn't this the same "intelligent design" that the religious right has been pushing for awhile?

[JediKooter]

Isn't this the same "intelligent design" that the religious right has been pushing for awhile?

It's probably creationism 3.0.

Now if we can just get the pope/catholic church to say the earth is billions of years old...

[molson]

It is called Limbo in English.

If the Catholic Church didn't change its position from time to time, the heavens would still revolve around a flat earth. To stand the test of time, a religion has to be flexible. Catholicism is certainly that.

Maybe they're flexible, but when they take stands on science, it just assures that they'll be perpetually behind everyone else.

[chesapeake]

Maybe they're flexible, but when they take stands on science, it just assures that they'll be perpetually behind everyone else.

It depends on what you mean by "everyone." The Catholics are ahead of some Christian sects and behind others as far as embracing progress and science go.

Odd that I would be defending Catholicism in any way, shape or form.

[JediKooter]

I stole this from some other message board, so I have no idea if it is at all legit, but I was trying to wrap my brain around the differences as well, so here's some food for thought.


http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=108&m=1

It is definitely from a 'creationist' point of view. I'm sure it's legit in their minds.

[Celeval]

It's probably creationism 3.0.

Now if we can just get the pope/catholic church to say the earth is billions of years old...

Oh, you mean like this?

(spoilered for length)

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

67. With respect to the creatio ex nihilo, theologians can note that the Big Bang theory does not contradict this doctrine insofar as it can be said that the supposition of an absolute beginning is not scientifically inadmissible. Since the Big Bang theory does not in fact exclude the possibility of an antecedent stage of matter, it can be noted that the theory appears to provide merely indirect support for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo which as such can only be known by faith.

That's off the Vatican website, from a committee headed up by the former cardinal / current pope. Don't confuse the Catholic church with farthest of the religious right - many of them can't stand Catholics, either. :)

[Edward64]

Isn't this the same "intelligent design" that the religious right has been pushing for awhile?

From what I understand, ID does not concede to the concept of macro evolution. Anyone well versed in ID?

[Edward64]

of some Christian sects
What sects are you referring to?

[Tekneek]

Just another way that 'the truth' has evolved over time. I never knew 'the truth' could change so much, while dealing with the same subject matter and same religious text.

[cartman]

It is called Limbo in English.


In the Catholic church, it is referred to as 'purgatory'. I think in both Spanish and Italian is it 'purgatorio'.

[JediKooter]

Oh, you mean like this?

(spoilered for length)



That's off the Vatican website, from a committee headed up by the former cardinal / current pope. Don't confuse the Catholic church with farthest of the religious right - many of them can't stand Catholics, either. :)

Good link. Too bad more people don't read that.

[Celeval]

In the Catholic church, it is referred to as 'purgatory'. I think in both Spanish and Italian is it 'purgatorio'.

Nope... Purgatory is the "in-between" place where people who die with sins on the soul go before being allowed into Heaven. Limbo is the (no-longer-taught) place that the unbaptized, etc, went.

[EagleFan]

This topic kind of came up in the Beliefs thread but I do believe it is abot time to consider this possibility. I grew up in a Christian family and went to a christian school from K-12 and you could not believe the stir it caused when I asked that question in class when we were being taught how evil evolution was.

[chesapeake]

What sects are you referring to?

In my opinion, you could take any Christian group that preaches intelligent design. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that.

[GrantDawg]

From what I understand, ID does not concede to the concept of macro evolution. Anyone well versed in ID?


No, they would not.

[Schmidty]

It's simple. God created matter and everything in the universe, and did stuff with it. Since we aren't God and can't even fathom God's mind, it's silly to totally box God in by saying evolution isn't true. Genesis says that God created things, not how it was specifically done.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

For example, if I tell someone who doesn't know anything about cooking, "Jason made lasagna", they know that I made it, but they don't know how I went through the process of getting specific ingredients, assembling them in a certain way, and then cooking them until they are a lasagna.

I think that science is basically figuring out God's recipe book.

[JediKooter]

Dola.

For example, if I tell someone who doesn't know anything about cooking, "Jason made lasagna", they know that I made it, but they don't know how I went through the process of getting specific ingredients, assembling them in a certain way, and then cooking them until they are a lasagna.

I think that science is basically figuring out God's recipe book.

Proof that it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Schmidty]

Proof that it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

:banghead:

:D

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's simple. God created matter and everything in the universe, and did stuff with it. Since we aren't God and can't even fathom God's mind, it's silly to totally box God in by saying evolution isn't true. Genesis says that God created things, not how it was specifically done.

The versions of Genesis I've read give some specifics as to how the world, man, animals, etc. were created and it doesn't jive with evolution. At all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

For example, if I tell someone who doesn't know anything about cooking, "Jason made lasagna", they know that I made it, but they don't know how I went through the process of getting specific ingredients, assembling them in a certain way, and then cooking them until they are a lasagna.

I think that science is basically figuring out God's recipe book.

I think a better way of saying this is that science is basically de-bunking everything that was once attributed to "God". It happened to those old timey Roman/Greek/Norse myths after all.

[Edward64]

It's simple. God created matter and everything in the universe, and did stuff with it. Since we aren't God and can't even fathom God's mind, it's silly to totally box God in by saying evolution isn't true. Genesis says that God created things, not how it was specifically done.
It boils down to whether you interpret the Bible literally (ex. Southern Baptist fundamentalists) or not.

From the Baptist fundamentalist point of view, Genesis said God created Adam and Eve. There was not a elaborate drawn out process of billions of years.

[Schmidty]

The versions of Genesis I've read give some specifics as to how the world, man, animals, etc. were created and it doesn't jive with evolution. At all.

It all boils down to whether you take everything literally, or if you realize that God was giving the message to people that had no idea about........anything, so the message was given in a way they could understand. I still think the Bible is "God-breathed" as they say, but I also know that there is much more to the physical world than what is contained there.

I think science and man's progress in it, is God revealing more details to us. Of course I could be wrong.

I'm a Christian (or Follower of Christ), but I am very comfortable with science. It actually comforts me to know that there are so many things out there that we don't know, because it makes God's greatness seem even greater.

Regardless, if someone is an atheist, there's no sense arguing as far as I'm concerned. Not because of stubborness or being evil or whatever, but because a person can't get it unless it's in their heart. Now proceed to make fun of me. :)

[JediKooter]

It all boils down to whether you take everything literally, or if you realize that God was giving the message to people that had no idea about........anything, so the message was given in a way they could understand. I still think the Bible is "God-breathed" as they say, but I also know that there is much more to the physical world than what is contained there.

I think science and man's progress in it, is God revealing more details to us. Of course I could be wrong.

I'm a Christian (or Follower of Christ), but I am very comfortable with science. It actually comforts me to know that there are so many things out there that we don't know, because it makes God's greatness seem even greater.

Regardless, if someone is an atheist, there's no sense arguing as far as I'm concerned. Not because of stubborness or being evil or whatever, but because a person can't get it unless it's in their heart. Now proceed to make fun of me. :)

Schmidty, the only problem that I have with what you just wrote, is it sounds like you think atheists are evil. If that's not what you meant, then all I can say is, you are definitely intitled to your thinking no matter how much I disagree with it.

May His Noodley Appendage Touch You.

[Schmidty]

Schmidty, the only problem that I have with what you just wrote, is it sounds like you think atheists are evil. If that's not what you meant, then all I can say is, you are definitely intitled to your thinking no matter how much I disagree with it.

May His Noodley Appendage Touch You.

I don't even remotely think atheists are any more evil than anyone else, they just aren't Christians. I have a relationship with 'my' God (who I happen to believe created the universe, sent Jesus, etc.), and anyone else's belief or non-belief isn't my business. I never force anything down anyone's throat. If there's a discussion that I can add my personal opinion on, then I do. That's all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It all boils down to whether you take everything literally, or if you realize that God was giving the message to people that had no idea about........anything, so the message was given in a way they could understand. I still think the Bible is "God-breathed" as they say, but I also know that there is much more to the physical world than what is contained there.

I think science and man's progress in it, is God revealing more details to us. Of course I could be wrong.

I'm a Christian (or Follower of Christ), but I am very comfortable with science. It actually comforts me to know that there are so many things out there that we don't know, because it makes God's greatness seem even greater.

Regardless, if someone is an atheist, there's no sense arguing as far as I'm concerned. Not because of stubborness or being evil or whatever, but because a person can't get it unless it's in their heart. Now proceed to make fun of me. :)

It's almost certain that, at some point, I will make fun of you for something, but not for this.

I totally see your point and agree from the flipside of things. As an athiest, I don't see the sense in arguing whether or not evolution was just "God's plan" all along or not. There's nothing that anyone (other than God Himself) could say to convince me and there's nothing I could say to convince someone who believed it otherwise.

I've never mocked or made fun of anyone for believing in any god. It's a personal thing. The only time I'll get after folks is when they try to justify certain behaviors or beliefs (which I strenously disagree with) because "God said so."

[JediKooter]

I don't even remotely think atheists are any more evil than anyone else, they just aren't Christians. I have a relationship with 'my' God (who I happen to believe created the universe, sent Jesus, etc.), and anyone else's belief or non-belief isn't my business. I never force anything down anyone's throat. If there's a discussion that I can add my personal opinion on, then I do. That's all.

Cool. Just asking and didn't want to make any assumptions.

[Buccaneer]

Without reading this thread, I am glad to see this distinction (if a distinction is being made). Whenever we have "creationism" discussion, I always bring up that many Christians growing up in the 70s believed in theistic evolution. But come to find out, that somehow got confused with ID or perhaps ID hijacked it and turned it into creationism-lite. I very much still stick by the original definition of theistic evolution and have not changed my views as I learned more over the decades.

[Matthean]

The versions of Genesis I've read give some specifics as to how the world, man, animals, etc. were created and it doesn't jive with evolution. At all.

I'm a born and raised Christian, etc...Something sort of unrelated. Been going through reading the Bible and I have wondered about Noah and the arc. The arc itself was big, but it wasn't big enough to contain what we consider all of the animals in the world. Granted, we've have had more time to populate. Maybe when the flood came there was only a small number of animals and after the flood we see where God lets evolution happen on a much grander scale. I'm not saying evolution is 100% wrong, but I do agree that there simply isn't any way to say evolution is 100% right either. God can go into a credible amount of detail when he wants to considering what's written in the Bible about stuff. It seems odd that he would say how he created man and woman and then for it to not be exactly like that and more of evolution's version.

[Edward64]

I'm a born and raised Christian, etc...Something sort of unrelated. Been going through reading the Bible and I have wondered about Noah and the arc. The arc itself was big, but it wasn't big enough to contain what we consider all of the animals in the world. Granted, we've have had more time to populate. Maybe when the flood came there was only a small number of animals and after the flood we see where God lets evolution happen on a much grander scale. I'm not saying evolution is 100% wrong, but I do agree that there simply isn't any way to say evolution is 100% right either. God can go into a credible amount of detail when he wants to considering what's written in the Bible about stuff. It seems odd that he would say how he created man and woman and then for it to not be exactly like that and more of evolution's version.
I assume you take the bible literally (or almost?). There is substantial evidence that the Flood story (or a very similar Flood story) was written centuries prior and I think the secular consensus is that the Old Testament Flood story was borrowed from the earlier version.

[Celeval]

Honestly, that applies to pretty much everything. Everything in the Bible with the possible/probable exceptions of the epistles was oral tradition for long before it was written down. The story of the Flood and the Ark is so common, that it's hard to argue it's not based in some factual occurance, even if something local to the Eastern Meditteranean rather than world-wide.

[Mac Howard]

I think it's true that all societies have flood myths. One explanation I've seen is that approximately 10,000 years ago, as the world came out of the ice age, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea were separated by a strip of land where Istanbul is today. The Black Sea in fact was a very large fresh water lake at this time with many settlements on its banks.

Because of evapouration the level of the Black Sea lake was several tens of metres below that of the Mediterranean. As the ice melted and the Mediteranean rose there came a point when the land mass was breached and the water cut a path through to the Black Sea. In a period thought to be around 3 months the Black Sea lake rose 20 metres or more covering all the settlements on the shores and drowning most of the inhabitants. These inhabitants, totally unaware of why, just watched the water rise and envelope up their towns, homes and communities.

It's thought that this event is the source of the flood myths.