Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Estro Felino]

The Catholic Church allows for a belief in evolution, with a caveat: that humans may have evolved (the Church doesn't take a position either way) but that the soul did not evolve. The soul is created by God. However, there's a further sticking point: the Catechism insists on belief in an original Adam and Eve and Original Sin and ensuing Fall. This is where my ability to follow along is severely challenged.

No. My priest clearly told me that the Genesis tale (the Fall too) is an allegory.
It's not the historical truth.
Padre Pietro, I still remember his lesson of catechism about that.

 

[GardenLady]

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

It seems highly unlikely that most people accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the development of life do so on the basis of "faith to the people." Rather, it is based on the mountain of evidence that supports the ToE combined with the failure of alternatives (such as creationism and ID) to amass such evidence or to falsify evolution.

 

[Kevin Armstrong]

Because Biblical literalism -- indeed fundamentalism in any form -- is less a movement towards something than it is a movement against something. The world is a changing, uncertain place, and religious fundamentalism provides something eternal and unchanging to hang on to.





Certainly - to do otherwise is to take the emphasis off Jesus' message and put it all on Jesus the man... which, sadly, too many religious people do r

If I were you I wouldn't get hung up on little doctrinal points too much. You can get into a swamp of detail in which, however you phrase your understanding, someone will tell you have got it wrong. Trying to rationalise the Trinity in satisfactory language is a case in point. I've tried that several ways - and each time I've been told my view is heretical!

In former times, people did not insist, punctiliously, on acquiescence to every jot and tittle in the Catechism: you just turned up for mass. You would need to be a professional theologian, or perhaps a rather sad obsessional individual, to get it all in your head and get it all "right". I think it's inevitable to have some private reservations about aspects of doctrine. (The Assumption of Mary has always struck me as highly dodgy and unnecessary, for instance.)

Thanks for another clear and detailed reply. I like that approach. I think that is the way I will look at things from now on.

 

[metis]

Because Biblical literalism -- indeed fundamentalism in any form -- is less a movement towards something than it is a movement against something. The world is a changing, uncertain place, and religious fundamentalism provides something eternal and unchanging to hang on to.





Certainly - to do otherwise is to take the emphasis off Jesus' message and put it all on Jesus the man... which, sadly, too many religious people do regularly.

Amen to the above.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Science does not contradict the Bible, it helps to verify it.

In that I mean that the more science we learn the better our understanding of the Bible becomes.

So in this case we know that science has proven evolution meaning that the creation story of Adam and Eve was accomplished through evolution.

Adam was created from dust, as was all life according to evolution, dust means simply the earth. Eve was created from Adam's rib which is representative of cells dividing and creating new life.

God does not work outside of the rules he created for our universe. He simply uses these rules to accomplish His works.

 

[metis]

...kept feeling a pull back.

I went through much the same. I had converted to Judaism, which I still cherish, but something kept pulling me back to the Church, and it was a series of "premonitions", which I never used to believe in until it happened to me. And they lasted for 1 & 1/2 years with a "blockbuster" one almost a year later.

Through this, I kept getting another "premonition" to drive the 3 hours to go back to the parish you see my reference to at the bottom of the screen whereas I had dated a woman who changed my life, and I went to mass with her 3 times if my memory is correct back in the mid-60's. I had no idea what to expect. During the Lord's Prayer, I knew I had to return, but I waited a few months to make sure I was doing the right thing. I went to the priest, told him what happened, and he then told me I could resume the sacraments. My wife, who's a life-long Catholic from Italy, was surprised but very happy but VERY shocked as I went to partake in the Eucharist with no advance warning.

BTW, I taught the "Lunch & Learn" monthly luncheons at my synagogue and next slipped into teaching the RCIA program at our parish. IOW, no one can shut me up.

 

[1213]

It seems highly unlikely that most people accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the development of life do so on the basis of "faith to the people." Rather, it is based on the mountain of evidence that supports the ToE combined with the failure of alternatives (such as creationism and ID) to amass such evidence or to falsify evolution.

But, the evidence is evidence for evolution only if one has faith to those who claim it is so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, the evidence is evidence for evolution only if one has faith to those who claim it is so.

No. it has nothing to do with faith. If anything it has much more to do with being honest.

The definition of scientific evidence was crafted to avoid faith and other pitfalls. It also forces a person to put one's money where one's mouth it. If a person can be honest they will always admit to scientific evidence being evidence when it is presented to them.


Here is the definition. It is deceptively simple. In that it appears that almost anyone could have evidence, but that is not the case:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That is it. Do you have any problems or questions about that definition?

 

[Rival]

I am a Theology student, and I would like to try helping!

This Creationist belief system is a 19th century belief that caught on as a reactionary movement towards modernism. It begins in the US in Christian circles and by and large stays there, while Europeans are much less bothered by the changes taking place in the 19th and 20th centuries. Several things happened in the Victorian Era that made some Christians feel on edge,

- Biblical Criticism took off as a discipline. Whilst it had been happening broadly since the 17th. c. it came into its own in the 19th, along with the new fields of Archaeology and Egyptology. All of these things combined proved several points:

• That the Torah was most likely put together by many editors in different times and places.
• That archaeology did not match some of the stories in the Bible.
• That Egyptology couldn't find any evidence of an Exodus or of specifically Hebrew slaves in Egypt, murder of male babies etc.
• That linguistic evidence suggested other readings of the Bible that weren't what people were used to or comfortable with.

- The theory of evolution made some feel that humanity would go on a downward spiral. In the early 20th century the Protestant backlash really began once things started heating up on the political/war fronts, but one of the main problems some in the Christian world were having was this:
If we evolved from a common ancestor, it may happen that we start categorising humans like we do work animals and end up with programmes of euthanasia, eugenics and putting different groups of humans in different categories, thereby encouraging racism and nationalistic hatreds. The problem is that, as you know, this is exactly what happened, which is why the US Protestants became really fundamentalist when they saw what was going on in the States with such programmes, but mainly Germany was becoming a problem:

'However, in the 1920s Christian fundamentalists in the United States developed their literalist arguments against modernist theology into opposition to the teaching of evolution, with fears that Darwinism had led to German militarism and posed a threat to religion and morality. This opposition developed into the creation–evolution controversy, involving Christian literalists in the United States objecting to the teaching of evolution in public schools. '

Objections to evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.su

Most other groups save Catholics were alright with it, having little to no objections otherwise. Eventually most groups, on seeing the evidence, made peace with the theory, including Catholics, and that just left us with the above-mentioned group of Protestants:

Protestantism, especially in America, broke out in "acrid polemics" and argument about evolution from 1860 to the 1870s—with the turning point possibly marked by the death of Louis Agassiz in 1873—and by 1880 a form of "Christian evolution" was becoming the consensus. In Britain, while publication of The Descent of Man by Darwin in 1871 reinvigorated debate from the previous decade, Sir Henry Chadwick (1920–2008) notes a steady acceptance of evolution "among more educated Christians" between 1860 and 1885. As a result, evolutionary theory was "both permissible and respectable" by 1876. Frederick Temple's lectures on The Relations between Religion and Science (1884) on how evolution was not "antagonistic" to religion highlighted this trend. Temple's appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1896 demonstrated the broad acceptance of evolution within the church hierarchy.

So it can be seen that, in the main, Christians were not opposed to evolution, following their Mediaeval and Early Modern forebears' footsteps. In the Mediaeval era there were many scientific fads, as we'd see them today, that at the time were in clear conflict with what had thereto been Mediaeval thought, that did not agree with the Bible. For example, the Bible has a flat earth or dome earth narrative that Mediaevals knew was wrong and had no problem mapping the world, using Greek science and so on, to help them figure the earth's dimensions. The Church Fathers were not in agreement on the interpretation of Genesis,

Clement of Alexandria writes:

“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? [...] That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen:

“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis., 2:9).

“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 5:2).

What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis

Fundamentalists claim that—until recently— the only acceptable view of Genesis was that the earth was created in six days, but this was not always the case.

www.catholic.com

In sum, literalism is a modern phenomenon, and from an early date, as Augustine notes, the Bible was not seen as literally true, a science book, but only a book on salvation and theology. If it disagrees with what we know scientifically that's no problem, the Bible isn't trying to explain 20th century physics, even if its authors knew about it. It speaks, as the Jews say, 'the language of man' and the language of man at those times in which it was put to paper.

I hope this helps.

 

[exchemist]

But, the evidence is evidence for evolution only if one has faith to those who claim it is so.

No, the essence of science is that theories can be tested by reproducible observation: different people can test the theory in different places, often by different methods, and conclude their observations fit the theory. So it is not just a matter of faith: it is underpinned by objective evidence.

 

[10th gear]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus? The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the symbolic Adam, does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points; you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am, however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years, and the last 10 keeps finding it again but having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Everything is left up for interpretation by the reader. If both of us read the same book, the Epic of Gilgamesh, we would come up with a different meaning for the story. Some would see it as fact and that it was true. Some would see it as a colorful story. Others could see it as a coming-of-age story or the generational change many of us experience. Either way, our life experiences depict our interpretations of things we read. I see this time and again with people and the bible. Some agree, and others are ready to go to war over it. The person (or deity) that wrote down the story of Genesis is not around. One cannot possibly say why the story was told in that way. Many stories that we have today were spoken or sung and were later wrote down into their current forms. The story's reasoning may have initially could have been changed as it was passed down. Maybe Adam was the name of the tribe instead of a person, but due to retelling over and over, it evolved into a single individual.

 

[exchemist]

Everything is left up for interpretation by the reader. If both of us read the same book, the Epic of Gilgamesh, we would come up with a different meaning for the story. Some would see it as fact and that it was true. Some would see it as a colorful story. Others could see it as a coming-of-age story or the generational change many of us experience. Either way, our life experiences depict our interpretations of things we read. I see this time and again with people and the bible. Some agree, and others are ready to go to war over it. The person (or deity) that wrote down the story of Genesis is not around. One cannot possibly say why the story was told in that way. Many stories that we have today were spoken or sung and were later wrote down into their current forms. The story's reasoning may have initially could have been changed as it was passed down. Maybe Adam was the name of the tribe instead of a person, but due to retelling over and over, it evolved into a single individual.

According to MacCulloch, Origen, like the Jewish scholars of his time in Alexandria, read Genesis as they read the Homeric epics, as allegorical. And that was back in 200AD. He wrote:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[15]

It is thus a totally false c.19th invention to suppose that it was science that somehow shook a belief in Genesis as literal. It was obvious to many theologians from the dawn of Christianity that the story had to be figurative. I blame Andrew Dickson White and his notorious "Conflict Thesis" for the widespread misunderstanding about this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?

It is not the case.

The fall of Adam (which reflects our own) is a judgment against each and every one of us. How, then, can Abraham bless us all? Paul sets it up as a puzzle to solve. My comment is based on Romans chapter 7, which is one of Paul's talks about atonement of everyone. He does not explain things well, and he doesn't point out what he alludes to. I am interpolating.

To Paul, Adam falls but also does not fall. Apostle Paul recognizes both the good and the bad: the benefit of the fruit of knowledge and its cost. The fruit which ought to be good for food produces death. Adam's actions have a cost, but that doesn't mean he is wrong to take the fruit which makes him wise. Also it isn't Cain himself guilty of murder but the law of sin which rises up in him and kills his brother. There is a result: Abel is dead, and Cain is driven away. Adam is driven away for eating the fruit and gaining understanding, and death enters the world. Paul argues based upon this that a man who sins need not be thrown away entirely, since there can be good in him. Paul argues, but Paul knows that arguments alone do not win arguments.

There are two witnesses to clinch the argument. One is the death and resurrection of Jesus. Two is the new Jerusalem, the church, and its good behavior. These rest upon the faithfulness of future generations, and so it behooves each generation to pick up the mantle and wear it. Without this the death and resurrection would be pointless. It is not a matter of words.

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?

The church is a work in progress. Its #1 problem is that it struggles with unity, the prayer of Jesus in John chapter 17. The problem is that people aren't uniting. At the bottom people think they can control their children. They want to control what their children believe. The Amish want their children to be Amish. The baptists want theirs to be baptists. The excuse is that we don't know how to get along, but this is an excuse: knowledge follows after not before. You learn how to get along when you're together -- not before you're together. Therefore it is unfaithfulness to unite. This weakens everything Paul has argued for.

'Evolution' is not even an obstacle. It is actually irrelevant to the success or failure of the church. People are easily controlled when they are told that something is a threat to their children.

 

[10th gear]

It is not the case.

The fall of Adam (which reflects our own) is a judgment against each and every one of us. How, then, can Abraham bless us all? Paul sets it up as a puzzle to solve. My comment is based on Romans chapter 7, which is one of Paul's talks about atonement of everyone. He does not explain things well, and he doesn't point out what he alludes to. I am interpolating.

To Paul, Adam falls but also does not fall. Apostle Paul recognizes both the good and the bad: the benefit of the fruit of knowledge and its cost. The fruit which ought to be good for food produces death. Adam's actions have a cost, but that doesn't mean he is wrong to take the fruit which makes him wise. Also it isn't Cain himself guilty of murder but the law of sin which rises up in him and kills his brother. There is a result: Abel is dead, and Cain is driven away. Adam is driven away for eating the fruit and gaining understanding, and death enters the world. Paul argues based upon this that a man who sins need not be thrown away entirely, since there can be good in him. Paul argues, but Paul knows that arguments alone do not win arguments.

There are two witnesses to clinch the argument. One is the death and resurrection of Jesus. Two is the new Jerusalem, the church, and its good behavior. These rest upon the faithfulness of future generations, and so it behooves each generation to pick up the mantle and wear it. Without this the death and resurrection would be pointless. It is not a matter of words.


The church is a work in progress. Its #1 problem is that it struggles with unity, the prayer of Jesus in John chapter 17. The problem is that people aren't uniting. At the bottom people think they can control their children. They want to control what their children believe. The Amish want their children to be Amish. The baptists want theirs to be baptists. The excuse is that we don't know how to get along, but this is an excuse: knowledge follows after not before. You learn how to get along when you're together -- not before you're together. Therefore it is unfaithfulness to unite. This weakens everything Paul has argued for.

'Evolution' is not even an obstacle. It is actually irrelevant to the success or failure of the church. People are easily controlled when they are told that something is a threat to their children.

I like the point you made about unity. It seems we need more of that in today's society but, instead we are now inventing issues that cause us to be more divided it seems.

 

[TLK Valentine]

God does not work outside of the rules he created for our universe. He simply uses these rules to accomplish His works.

There are those who would claim that a "miracle" is, by definition, God working outside the rules.

 

[10th gear]

There are those who would claim that a "miracle" is, by definition, God working outside the rules.

Some could say miracles could be random chance and that God does not sweat the small stuff. Either way it is not evidence against or for the existence of God. From God's perspective it would be damned if you do damned if you don't. Which in hindsight would prove why earlier in the Bible God was more involved and as to why now he would take a more subtle or distant approach. It kind of reminds me of a parent and his children. In which you have to have a strong hand in the beginning to instill proper values and discipline. But, as they grow older you step back and let them make their own mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some could say miracles could be random chance and that God does not sweat the small stuff. Either way it is not evidence against or for the existence of God. From God's perspective it would be damned if you do damned if you don't. Which in hindsight would prove why earlier in the Bible God was more involved and as to why now he would take a more subtle or distant approach. It kind of reminds me of a parent and his children. In which you have to have a strong hand in the beginning to instill proper values and discipline. But, as they grow older you step back and let them make their own mistakes.

No that does not "prove" anything. It is not even supporting evidence. The good news for Christians is that the myths of Genesis never happened. That does not disprove God, It only disproves an overly literal "God".

 

[10th gear]

No that does not "prove" anything. It is not even supporting evidence. The good news for Christians is that the myths of Genesis never happened. That does not disprove God, It only disproves an overly literal "God".

I wasn't proving or disproving I was only using a summation of my interpretation. My using "would prove" statement was meant as a reasonable conjecture concerning an interpretation of the presented material and is solely in my opinion and is not fact.

 

[F1fan]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too.

That is the trap of literalism. If Jesus saves us from sin, when did sin begin? The Fall of man in the Garden. But that is clearly a myth, so at what point does the doctrine go from being myth to reality? I suggest all of it, including the Jesus bits, be interpreted symbolically and not literally at all. The only way any of it can make sense is by avoiding literalism. But, Christianity is a business, and they are in the business of getting believers do what they want, including giving money.

But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?

Literalism demands it. That is why the dogma is faulty and confuses most Christians.

Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian.

Reading your posts I was getting the sense you were sushi chef. I could be wrong about that.

I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Why do you want to go back there?

 

[1213]

No, the essence of science is that theories can be tested by reproducible observation: ...

That is the reason why I think evolution theory, or the idea of all species coming from single life form is pseudoscience and nothing more than modern mother earth cult.