| Author | |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 1:35am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
One thing that should be read with regards to this debate is Humanis Generis which tells what is mandatory to believe in terms of the debate over creation.
Another interesting read is Is Evolution Fit to Survive? put out by the NPC Family Life Institute.
To give an idea of where I'm coming from:
I am not sure where I stand on this whole debate - evolution as a theory seems Ok in some places, and a real stretch in others. I have no qualms with believing the earth is very old - and could just as easily go with a young earth, but it seems from my limited knowledge of science that there is at least plausible evidence for an older earth. I wouldn't have much trouble believing in the evolving of canyons, etc, - we at least see evidence of rivers altering courses, erosion, etc. While that is not the same thing as carving out the whole grand canyon, it doesn't seem to be such a leap of sheer faith (but my comfort level with this may be due to my own ignorance). I have immense difficulty in believing in any evolution of species. I just don't see any real evidence for it yet, but I am not an expert or scientist so I take it all with a grain of salt and try to have an open mind to the raging debate.
Now, what I do know for sure is what the church has said:
God is the creator of all things, his providence watches over and sustains his creation, man was created immediately by God without ape parents (while the bodies could have evolved there is a direct intervention that precludes an ape mom and dad of human children) and we are all descendents of the first man and woman (Adam and Eve). For all else, unless and until the church clarifies the situation, we are free to decide based on the scientific evidence. Now, since I am not a scientist, I am a bit of a sceptic and a bit hesitant to declare with any great conviction one way or another beyond that - other than that there seems to be just as much blind faith on both sides of this debate and a tendency to skew the evidence. Is Neanderthal man simply modern man with rickets or some ape-like interim? I don't believe I'm qualified to answer and lean one way simply from what seems right to me - but would not be disturbed if evidence becomes strong one way or another. I will say there seems to have been a number of frauds in the various human/ape skeletens that have been supposedly found (or mistaken rendering of the bones, but I'm open minded enough to recognize that I could be duped by my limited science knowledge by someone who knew the right things to throw out. But at the moment I do the best I can which is all I can do.
As far as how I approach it with the dc - I let them know what the church has said so that we all know what must be believed. I also tell them that evolution is a theory that must be judged on both its scientific evidence and its compatibility with what the church has taught. I let them know my own opinions and why but leave them qualified. As they get older and gain more expertise in the realm of science, they may, in fact, come to different conclusions. Everyone in my household knows I am a science dunce, so I expect that one day my science minded 8 yo will be able to convince me one way or another, unless of course the church clarifies more before then, in which case we, of course, submit to the teaching of the church.
Some of this all came up recently as we are studying ancient history and most of the books dealing with archeology have a big discussion of Neanderthal man, etc. plus the ice age. Now my dc and I are trying to put everything in context - what evidence is there for an ice age or is this another theory that is convenient for explaining the spreading of people from one parent. Did the ice age occur before or after the flood? It seems that evidence surrounding the flood indicate that it was regional - but we do know that it must have wiped out all of mankind except Noah and his family. So if people spread before Noah, then you have to believe in a world wide flood. Anyways, I'm not sure how critical all this pondering is - but the same debates/concerns come up in history as well. How solid is evidence when you have so little to go on and a lot of hidden assumptions by those making/defending/refuting the theories.
I'd love to hear how others have come to historical conclusions. I know exact dates in early history are basic guesses - and so I am not real concerned with whether this was 15,000 BC or 5,000 BC. I am concerned somewhat with the sequence of events. I have fun pondering what memories the descendents of Adam and Eve had after the fall that helped them establish themselves. Could this be the impetus for moving to farming from the hunting/gathering. It certainly could explain how civilizations sometimes seem to spring up without any precurser - after all there is a family heritage.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 4:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
ALmom wrote:
| I am not sure where I stand on this whole debate - evolution as a theory seems Ok in some places, and a real stretch in others. I have no qualms with believing the earth is very old - and could just as easily go with a young earth, but it seems from my limited knowledge of science that there is at least plausible evidence for an older earth. I wouldn't have much trouble believing in the evolving of canyons, etc, - we at least see evidence of rivers altering courses, erosion, etc. While that is not the same thing as carving out the whole grand canyon, it doesn't seem to be such a leap of sheer faith (but my comfort level with this may be due to my own ignorance). |
|
|
Janet, here is some information from the Kolbe Center (a Catholic organization)that talks about canyon formation and other such things that a look at the fourth paragraph - here.
I would be interested as to how others teach on this subject - do you teach both, stating the Church is yet to clarify whether it is the creation version or evolution?
My concerns are: children have a radar for truth and the teaching of both knowing one is not truth and that it can't be both, do you find that they are confused by this double presentation?
My worry for evolution beyond my unhappiness at the science of it, is on a spiritual sphere, I have read and listened to many situations where children and adults when presented with evolution as if it were fact, lose their faith through this fact alone, it might not effect all people this way but there are those who definately are. (Have met numerous people personally who state this.)
Also the fruits of evolution in society have been horrendous since it's widespread belief - can it then be a truth that builds and supports the Church of Christ at the same time? These are my two main concerns from the spiritual side of things.
Obviously I do not teach Evolution but I am prepared to teach otherwise if the Church formally declared it but at present I teach the science of one side only, well that is not completely true, I do teach the other side but only to rebutt it. Does this seem strange to many? I am certainly interested to hear how others approach this and why.
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 5:04am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just found this on Kolbe's site: here
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 12:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aussieannie wrote:
I would be interested as to how others teach on this subject - do you teach both, stating the Church is yet to clarify whether it is the creation version or evolution?
My concerns are: children have a radar for truth and the teaching of both knowing one is not truth and that it can't be both, do you find that they are confused by this double presentation? |
|
|
The way I understand it, the Church teaches that what science discovers is essentially incidental, not essential, to salvation history. Anything that is materially true will not contradict spiritual truth; it will only affirm it.
So, to me, science's propensity to make "discoveries" which are later found to be incomplete or even false, makes for a wonderful opportunity to teach the difference between real eternal abiding truth, ie metaphysics and religious revelation, and man's apprehension of truth, ie scientific discovery. The proper attitude towards material scientific discovery is one of objective scrutiny, as I understand it. Remember when Pluto was a planet?  The Church has already spoken on the essential principle -- that God created it all and directly created and ensouled the original humans. The rest is basically details and procedural stuff, to me.
Kids get that from almost Day One, at least in my house. A small child sees a dog and calls it a kitty. It's a primitive classification system -- something furry and four-legged, not human. The child is "wrong" in his conceptualization and terminology but still progressing further than he was when he didn't have any idea of the differentiation at all. Every moment, we are making distinctions and classifications and then deepening them or changing them as our perceptions improve.
This is a parallel to scientific discovery to me.
It does not matter to the eternal verities whether the earth was created 5000 years ago or several billion. God the Creator exists outside of it all. Rather as it does not matter to the essence of our family whether we live in a trailer park or a mansion. These things are extrinsic to what our family actually IS.
Since I am a convert from Protestant Christianity, I remember listening to my parents discuss whether or not Genesis should be taken literally. One of my parents believed in an "old earth", for scientific reasons; the other believed that taking Genesis that loosely would set a dangerous precedent of "cafeteria scripturalism", picking and choosing interpretations, and consequently was a young Earth creationist. As a child, I agreed with that second parent. Better to close one's eyes to scientific evidence than to let it eat holes in one's faith, which is obviously more important in the scale of things. BUt it's a Pyrrhic choice.
So BOY, was I glad to find that within the Catholic Church one doesn't have to make that choice. Faith goes where reason can't venture. It was like going from sitting in one chair, as Chesterton said, to being able to freely walk around in the whole room.
It's not that I have decided that old Earth arguments are better than young Earth ones; I am a skeptic and amateur hobbyist there. I have my children read all the literature, as they are interested, and we talk about the underlying presumptions. But either would be just fine for me. I am just so relieved I don't have to hinge my Faith on either possibility, since it stands outside and beyond the material evidence.
So that's how I look at it for what it's worth.....I think that most people who lose their faith over evolution do so because they thought the way I did as a child -- that it was either/or -- and the seeming contradiction between Faith and Reason finally gets too be too much for them, so they land on the reason side and discard their faith.
That's where I want to make it REALLY clear to my kids that it's not an either/or. If God chose to take eons to create things, or if he used an evolutionary mechanism to develop some species of creature, how does that affect His power as Creator, Father, Omnipotent One? Whatever He did, I know with certainty it was with a marvellous ingenuity. I love to find out more about how He operated but just because that better helps me understand how marvellous He is in all His works.
I hope this does not sound opinionated. I get carried away with writing it out because of my personal experience but of course, I would be just as happy to find that somehow He DID use a 24 hour 7 day week 10,000 years ago; that would be wonderful too, and certainly He is capable of anything He chooses to do, and whatever He does will be beautiful and good and true beyond my comprehension.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kelly
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 21 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 3:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My ds is taking a Zoology course at a local university. This has been one of the hot topics. Our international student (who lives with us) is also taking Evolutionary Biology at the same school. Of late, there has been MUCH discussion on this subject in our household!  I have relied heavily on Mary Daly's "Creator and Creation" in our talks (and had ds and dis-that's Dear International Student-read the book), and appreciate all yall's comments on this thread. Great discussion!
I will say that although this university leans heavily towards the standard evolutionary theory as fact in their lecture, I *have* been pleased to note that the professor has more than once stated that this was his take on the information, and the students could believe what they will. He (and other geology profs I know)also say that while evolution is a theory, there is more info to support it than negate it---can there be some fuzzy area between theory and fact? I don't know quite how to respond to that one. Seems like it's akin to being "a little pregnant"-either you are, or you aren't, either it's a theory or it isn't. But at least there is *some* dialog going on within the classroom-a pleasant surprise. OTOH, the prof hasn't read "Darwin's Black Box" yet (probably for the same reason I haven't read it either, I found it pretty heavy going, too  )-so there doesn't seem to be a correspondent interest among scientists to look at both sides of the coin with equal scholarly thoroughness, which bugs me a bit.
Thanks for a thought-provoking thread, ladies.
Random, incoherent thoughts from Kelly in FL
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 4:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Willa,
Thanks for sharing that, it is not opinionated - my experience on the board is that when someone shares others benefit - it is not so much 'pushing' an idea on to others but to present your idea for others to think about, I think some of my greatest learning in life has come this way either written or oral.
I haven't time to discuss things further but I will get back at a later date!
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 11:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here is the preface written by Father Peter Damian Fehlner to the book, "Creation Rediscovered" by Gerard Keane. I would be interested in feedback on these ideas too. Preface
When I use Creation Science books, my conclusions that I come to on everything I read is probably in the same manner that a person who believes in or is open to Theistic Evolution uses a book explaining Evolution - I think we need not discard protestant based books (maybe Catholic CM mums could see this point more than others ) just because some conclusions are not as we would have it. In the same way others would read a book written about Evolution by an atheist for example and are generally happy with many of their evolutionary ideas.
An example of my train of thought would be this: Protestants who support creation science would say that the 7 days are literal days, no arguments to that fact accepted. I have not read enough about this particular point to say that I could give an intelligent answer to it in any way but I am quite happy to believe it is a literal 24hour day as we know it, but I would not be shocked beyond belief to think that each day was some other concept I have not thought of, if the Church so stated or revealed under Divine Inspiration. What I would say is this, if it is not a 24hour day I would not accredit it to evolution! (not in a million years! ) or not unless the Church stated that also but I HIGHLY doubt it ever will.
So I don't mind referring to Protestant books, particularly children's books as they do them so well. I can vet it as I go along if I need to, but the truth is the Kolbe Centre and other such Catholic organizations support a similar science that is within the heart of our Church for those who feel they lean towards these theories.
WJFR wrote:
| Better to close one's eyes to scientific evidence than to let it eat holes in one's faith, which is obviously more important in the scale of things. BUt it's a Pyrrhic choice. |
|
|
Willa, these were my thoughts I am getting back to~
Evolution as it is presented in society in general does indeed eat out the heart of our faith. Theistic Evolution is adjusted in an attempt to marry our faith to this theory (and in my opinion, there lies the true Pyrrhic's choice! )
Many people have been convinced of the young earth science first which has then brought them to faith rather than the other way round. Though I think it is fair to support the young earth science on the premise it also supports their particular Christian/Catholic belief system and the Preface above may explain some of these genuine reasonings that maybe we tend to overlook there subtle but important points but then there are atheists who endorse evolution because they feel it supports their natural desire not believe in a Creator.
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Jen L.
Forum All-Star
Joined: Oct 18 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2148
|
| Posted: Sept 03 2006 at 11:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
So that's how I look at it for what it's worth.....I think that most people who lose their faith over evolution do so because they thought the way I did as a child -- that it was either/or -- and the seeming contradiction between Faith and Reason finally gets too be too much for them, so they land on the reason side and discard their faith.
That's where I want to make it REALLY clear to my kids that it's not an either/or. If God chose to take eons to create things, or if he used an evolutionary mechanism to develop some species of creature, how does that affect His power as Creator, Father, Omnipotent One? Whatever He did, I know with certainty it was with a marvellous ingenuity. I love to find out more about how He operated but just because that better helps me understand how marvellous He is in all His works.
|
|
|
Willa, you have expressed what I feel so beautifully!!
Thank you!
__________________
Jen
dh Klete,ds (8/95),dd (12/97), dd (11/00), and ^2^ in heaven
"...the best state in which to glorify God is our actual state; the best grace is that of the moment..." St. Peter Eymard
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 10:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
aussieannie wrote:
| Evolution as it is presented in society in general does indeed eat out the heart of our faith. Theistic Evolution is adjusted in an attempt to marry our faith to this theory (and in my opinion, there lies the true Pyrrhic's choice! ) |
|
|
How does it do that? Not challenging you, of course; someone else I talked to said something similar, and it makes me curious. I thought the only problematic part was the part that I mentioned in my earlier post.... reconciling old creation with Biblical literalness. The CHurch provides a wonderful way around that.
You say "evolution as it is presented" and I can see that part of it, because science is sometimes mingled very inappropriately with metaphysics. In other words, sometimes atheistic scientists actually do use material science to make religious or metaphysical points. But that is inappropriately done, and I am teaching my kids to see that it is inappropriate.
Is there more to it than that?
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 04 2006 at 4:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Willa,
No, I don’t mind at all to answer this - discussion is good, it is always good! 
Can I first recommend a book well worth reading that covers this whole issue in depth? It is a book written for Catholics, Creation Rediscovered by Gerard Keane – this book is not popular amongst passionate supporters of Theistic Evolution but even if you read it with the mind to critique it if nothing else, I am confident you will find it very, very interesting! This book though, is solidly Catholic and not in any way like reading Protestant materials. In my opinion, it has done a masterful job in explaining this important subject in the light of Catholicism.
Has Evolution, (theistic or not) impacted negatively on the Catholic faith? (and as we know anything that seriously effects the faith will effect the culture.) Well our current Holy Father believes it has and that in itself is very significant! I have quoted Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) on the first page of this thread, you may have missed it, take a look at his words.
So our current Holy Father believes Evolution has impacted badly upon Catholicism. Evolution and modernism have gone hand in hand. I would say that the Holy Father’s quote suggests that too.
Evolution has been a catalyst for ‘liberal’ mind-set, where people believe the Bible is open to radical revision – if evolution radically revises Genesis where does it stop? The history of the Church in the States and Australia has shown it has not – this is one of my main reasons for homeschooling. At my Catholic highschool everything in the Bible was questioned – where did that questioning originate from?
I know there are many good, faithful Catholics who support Theistic Evolution, I have many good friends who do, whose lives put me to shame but I would like to meet a liberal Catholic that was not a supporter. The understanding of Original Sin is affected by evolution and it in turn, affects the whole understanding of salvation history.
Evolution has directly influenced society. We live in a world where we are the final arbiters of good and evil. Never has such a spiritual cancer been so prevalent throughout the whole world. We are really living in horrendous times. The rates of abortion are enough conviction of that – what is the ‘philosophy’ behind such behaviour? What is the spiritual root of it all and how did that spiritual root take such virulent hold? Could it be that they feel evolution has given them a reason to think there is no God to answer to?
In England where they have buried Darwin inside the Westminster Abbey like a beatified saint, the amount of people who do not believe in God is now greater than those who do (52% do not) - quite different statistics than the U.S. (16% do not) where Creation Science probably has it's biggest support base.
Testimony after testimony of people who have come to faith after being convinced of the myth of evolution have said this. My husband and I have a few different good friends who are atheists and this is what the discussions come back to – evolution - always evolution. This conclusion is so widespread it can’t really be blamed on the individuals for their mistaken or unusual conclusions. While it might not challenge the faith of all, the number of people it does effect is significant enough for us to ask why this is so.
So with this in mind I will quote Keane in regard to how God would have acted, “..Nor are we trying to determine what God could have done. Rather, we seek to understand what He actually chose to do in implementing Creation. One profound reason why God would not use a method of naturalistic Evolution is that it could convey the mistaken idea that matter is eternal and thus there is no need for God.”
It is so sad that we have Vatican astronomers and others openly attacking and scoffing anything other than the belief of Evolution. Especially since Pope Leo XIII formally directed that the literal and obvious view must hold pride of place until rigorously disproved, those who support an age of billions of years have the onus of proof upon them to prove their case.
Yet evolution’s crucial mechanism is still non existent. There is not one defining, missing link to corroborate their theories. As science has expanded-no, exploded in this modern age, scientific facts make evolution more and more fantastically impossible. A new horizon of science has been uncovered since Humani Generis.
The inner world of the human cell alone speaks volumes, so awesome that it is and each component reliant on the other, not functioning as a whole without its entirety. When you look at the odds of such an incredible number of parts coming together to make one type of cell function, it is mind boggling. I believe it is the continuing evidence of new science and discovery that will continue to bring down this dying philosophy that has masqueraded as science for so long. (sorry for such stark words, it is just how I feel personally about this.)
I am no expert on these matters Willa, I will say - but have done alot of reading on this issue that I believe to be so important and yet so overlooked!
That turned out very long, sorry about that, it is such a hugh topic of discussion it is hard to keep it short!
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 10:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aussieannie wrote:
| Especially since Pope Leo XIII formally directed that the literal and obvious view must hold pride of place until rigorously disproved, those who support an age of billions of years have the onus of proof upon them to prove their case. |
|
|
Just to expand on this a bit:
When Pope Leo XIII said that in Providentissimus Deus, he was speaking about scriptural exegesis, not about evolution. Nor was he advocating a strict literalism in Biblical interpretation, not in the least.
I don't think the way Gerald Keane talks about this (I googled it to find Leo's exact words) makes it altogether clear. The whole encyclical is about how to properly study and understand Holy Scripture, and physical science is mentioned only as it comes into conflict with that. "Evolution" as such is not mentioned at all.
Here's the bit in context:
Quote:
| 15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. |
|
|
Providentissimus Deus
Yes, Biblical interpretation is related a bit to the question of evolution, since this seems to be a hinge of a lot of the arguments against an older Earth.
Pope John Paul spoke on this:
Pope John Paul II on evolution and Genesis
I know that Pope Benedict was recently meeting with some sort of commission to figure out a clarification on the teachings of the Church, which do seem to be confusing for many as the case presently stands. So I hope they will make progress in making the teachings of the Church clearer to people, but the mind of the Church has been consistent on this subject throughout -- that Scripture is not a science manual (see further quote from Pope Leo XIII below; that faith and reason will never conflict, though of course faith and error always will. I know we are all agreed there)
The basic fact of the case is that we must believe that we are each individually and uniquely ensouled by God's intervention and that there were only two human parents. As you mentioned in your reference to Pope Benedict's statement, we are not free to believe that humans were evolved by chance or without purpose. That was the whole scope of his quote, and again, it is right in line with the long tradition of the church.
I like what Pope Leo XIII also says in Prov Deus; this part is long, but relates directly to the question at hand, as well:
Quote:
| 18. In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to. |
|
|
Augustine himself, from what I understand, speculated about a sort of evolutionary process where God planted biological "seeds" that grew and developed over time rather as an acorn grows into an oak. He saw this as something set in addition to God's "special Creation" at the beginning. He used the Scriptural passage saying that a thousand years is a day to God to comment that the 6-day creation didn't have to have taken 6 earthly days.
I love your enthuasiasm and kindness, Annie! I know God will bless your desire to find truth, and may He do the same with all of us. As you can see from the bit of the encyclical I quoted above, your concern for the faith of the young in our secular society is an echo of the Pope's very loving and fatherly concern for the faithful and for the other people in society who are confused by this issue and don't know WHAT to believe. One more quote from Pope Leo XIII:
Quote:
| God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. |
|
|
I guess all of us are doing our part to try to live out his charge here, even though we are laymen and not scientific or scriptural experts 
As a convert, I find it so remarkable that whenever I trace the Church's thinking on an issue, back through time, it is always unified and flowing from one insight to the next without contradiction, but with developments and new insights. It is just wonderful to me. What a treasure we have in our Faith!
Mine got long too! Sorry it is so densely packed with quotes; but they were enlightening to me, and I hope they will help the discussion.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Sept 05 2006 at 11:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thank you for all that Willa.
I have had a very quick read as I pack for our holiday I have a few things I'd like to ask and comment about but I'll wait until I have a really good read of those quotes from their original source that you have tracked down for me and others, (my brain ticks slow, it will take a bit of time! - holidays will give me pondering time. )
We are visiting my husband's sister who is good friends with Gerard, we might discuss it together.
Thank you for engaging me with this - very much apreciated - I very much respect your your insight and delicacy in this thoughtful discussion - good stuff is bound to come from it all. 
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Jan 07 2007 at 2:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
Just to expand on this a bit:
When Pope Leo XIII said that in Providentissimus Deus, he was speaking about scriptural exegesis, not about evolution. Nor was he advocating a strict literalism in Biblical interpretation, not in the least.
I don't think the way Gerald Keane talks about this (I googled it to find Leo's exact words) makes it altogether clear. The whole encyclical is about how to properly study and understand Holy Scripture, and physical science is mentioned only as it comes into conflict with that. "Evolution" as such is not mentioned at all.
Here's the bit in context:
Quote:
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. |
|
|
Willa, I have been so long in answering you, as I had always planned to, so it is a bit embarrassing that I am doing it now!  At the time I had collected information from Elizabeth’s current thread on ‘Benedict and Islam’ and had already been mulling over another encyclical of Pope Pius XII that I wanted to refer to – but quite truthfully, you write extremely well Willa and I really have to think about (and understand) what you have written before I reply (even now, my reply lacks the quality of thought and expression you have but I am working with the best I have! ) I was very tired when we came back from holidays (a busy holiday where I never got to discuss the subject in depth with my sister-in-law either.) I am on extended holidays in Australia at present, so my tired mind has a bit more time to wander and think......so here are my original thoughts completed:
Well I do think evolution is directly connected with the way we look at scripture and I feel that is why Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis, finally was compelled to mention it by name and set ‘boundaries’ on how Catholics could interpret scripture through the ‘eye glasses’ of evolution’s theories. This seemed important since the Church was choosing to remain ‘out’ on a complete clarification at this point (and still is.)
To me, this approach you often see, on not specifically ‘naming’ what is being condemned has been a very prudent Catholic and pontifical way of dealing with some things. Maybe because these encyclicals are timeless and are for all the faithful throughout time - our problems in history at present just seem so big whilst we live through them but the in full scale of things but I suppose they are not. In the sense, why name it now when the same errors crop up again, centuries later under a different name?
Here are some similarities that I believe, present my thoughts:
I read Elizabeth's posting about Benedict and Islam months ago and when I read Fr Fessio's commentary, I read something that indeed highlights my thoughts:
Fr Fessio wrote:
For example, in Deus Caritas Est, Benedict does not address directly the controversial issues of homosexual partners, promiscuity, or divorce. Instead he examines the "inner logic" of the love of eros, which is "love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined . . ." He shows that it has been understood historically to have a relationship with the divine ("love promises infinity, eternity") and to require "purification and growth in maturity ... through the path of renunciation". In love's "growth towards higher levels and inward purification ... it seeks to become definitive ... both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular person alone) and in the sense of being 'for ever'."
So starting from the "inner logic" of the fundamental reality of love, Benedict concludes to an exclusive and permanent relationship between a man and a woman. That is a fair description of the Catholic idea of marriage, and it excludes homosexual partners, promiscuity, and divorce. |
|
|
Another interesting example would be Summi Pontificatus - Pope Pius XII's wartime encyclical condemning Nazism. My husband has always held a great interest in the honourable defence of Pope Pius XII, a man who did more for the Jews than any other in his time and yet today he is smeared as the man who did the least with the influence he had.  We read the encyclical that has always been referred to as the one written by him, condemning Nazism. Upon reading it ourselves, we don’t actually find Pope Pius XII mentioning or using the word Nazism, national socialism etc. specifically but it was the evil threat of its time and no person could be left in doubt to whom he was referring to. The Holy Father talked in depth on things that contradicted the ideology of Hitler without mentioning his regime. I think the closest he gets is when he refers to Poland and the evils being inflicted upon it and this encyclical was written on the 20th of September 1939, Germany had invaded Poland the month before – 3rd September.
When we look at the era in which Providentissimus Deus was written (1893) we see that it was obviously a time where the world was shocked, excited, enthralled etc. over Charles Darwin’s theories which first hit the world stage in 1858. It built solidly from there and so it is not unreasonable to conclude that Darwin’s theories and their consequences are the only major thing that would challenge the scriptures in the way the Pope Leo XIII wrote about – but like Pope Pius XII - without directly mentioning what exactly was the threat to scriptural exegesis. Scriptural exegesis became an issue for many in that day (as it continues through to our time too) due to Darwin’s theories. I don’t believe that people had any strong, solid reason to question scripture to such a degree, before he came along.
Maybe my line of thinking is off the mark or not strong enough to support my feelings on Providentissimus Deus....I am open to hear whether they were reasonable comparisons, or not, and why.
This discussion with you Willa has made me realise I need to be very careful about my own 'blanket statements' - or at least that I can be sure to defend them correctly with a good understanding. You have also shown me that you would think very deeply on any church matter that you put your mind to and since this original discussion I have valued reading your postings and thoughts here on the forum.
Thank you so much for the time you have given me.
God Bless, Anne
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lamamaloca
Forum Newbie
Joined: Jan 04 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Jan 07 2007 at 11:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kelly wrote:
He (and other geology profs I know)also say that while evolution is a theory, there is more info to support it than negate it---can there be some fuzzy area between theory and fact? I don't know quite how to respond to that one. Seems like it's akin to being "a little pregnant"-either you are, or you aren't, either it's a theory or it isn't. But at least there is *some* dialog going on within the classroom-a pleasant surprise.
|
|
|
ALL science is theory. IE. Theory of Relativity. Quantum Physics. The ways in which Gravity works. Atomic structure. Embryonic development. All is theory. "Theory" in science means a hypothesis which has been tested or correlated with evidence and has substantial facts to back it up. It does NOT mean an untested, unproven hypothesis. Evolution is no more theory than any other scientific subject. Do you also emphasize to your children that physics concepts are only theories?
I highly recommend reading Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller (a Catholic). I think he's off on a point or two theologically, but most is quite sound, and he explains how God could intervene in the very process of evolution, through quantum theory, of all things.
Becky
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BrendaPeter
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 981
|
| Posted: Jan 14 2007 at 12:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth wrote:
| Just wanted to mention Mary Daly's excellent Creator and Creation as a resource for Catholics looking into the science of creation. |
|
|
Does anyone know why Mary Daly, in her book "Creator & Creation", didn't specifically address the major issue of the origin of man? Is it because her argument was more directed at new-earth creationist ideas? Personally I was hoping that as a supporter of some of the theories of evolution, she would speak to that specific topic which seems to be where some of the proponents of theistic evolution run into difficulty (re: Frances Collins).
Thank you!
__________________
Blessings,
Brenda (mom to 6)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MichelleM
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 12 2006
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Feb 09 2007 at 8:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna speaks on the decision of a Pennsylvania court decision that excludes Intelligent Design from being taught alongside Evolution. I found it interesting and thought it would add to the ongoing discussion.
Blessings!
__________________
~Michelle
Mommy to 5 Blessings
Visit my blog: House of Grace
Our nature blog: All of Creation
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Exploring God's Creation in Nature and Science
Topic: Intelligent Design/Creationism/Darwin
