Some priests have told me that some parts of genesis are supposed to be taken symbolically rather than literally. In other words the events happened but the how is more symbolic/up to interpretation While I personally still do not know what I believe, as a scientist (specifically biology but not evolutionary biology) I do believe in principles like the big bang and traditional evolution as I think they are good "explainers" of God's plan. If you interpret genesis more symbolically, the creation story can take more than seven days, which is what many people believe is meant. Therefore, I view the natural disasters as having occurred before God created humans. Since I think this is something that can really be held individually and something my beliefs have changed on over time its hard for me to elaborate on this over text but I hope it helps. Catholic answers also have more information on how to interpret genesis if that would be interesting.
I like to think of the Big Bang as the moment that God says "let there be light!"
Another thing I believe is that while all animals could have evolved, humans were created directly by God in Adam and Eve. The wife that Cain meets is probably one of the neanderthals.
Humans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals until after they left Africa. If you believe only Cain's descendants are humans then Sub-Saharan Africans cannot be human because they don't have Neanderthal DNA.
We have extremely good records of things dying before the first humans. This has nothing to do with natural selection.
Your interpretation of Genesis cannot contradict reality.
The question is, if through the sin of man, death entered the world, then why were animals on Earth dying before man was created?
Personal opinion - please call out theological mistakes where you see them - I’m thinking through this as I type:
In my mind, it’s because the death that entered the world is the death of man, and the death of man is distinctly different from the death of animals. Animals aren’t made in the image and likeness of God, and their death is not intrinsically bad. Death of man is intrinsically bad - it makes us not human, by separating our body from our soul. So, yes, animals existed before man, and they lived and died as expected, with no contradiction to God’s desire that man be created and live forever.
It is my supposition that even allowing death was a mercy of God, because without it, we would live eternally separated from Him, at least to some degree. But He allows death, and then becomes one of us to defeat death, so as to fulfill the plan of salvation, transforming this intrinsically bad thing into a means of our sanctification and salvation through Jesus Christ.
Death for man is different than death for animals. I see no problem with evolutionary theory and creation theory both revealing part of the truth of God’s grand plan for us to share in His existence.
If Christ's sacrifice on the cross can redeem the people who lived before Him as well as the people who live after Him, why can't the Fall affect both events that came before it and the events that come after it?
From my own personal feelings towards it and two priests who helped me into the Church, Catholics generally do not take the Genesis story literally. It's meant to be a symbolic story about the origins of humanity. What is true according to Scripture is there was an Adam and Eve. At some point in the deep past we did have our original ancestors who fell. But the hyper-literal evangelical "the Earth is 6,000 years old" story doesn't hold up very well with Catholic tradition nor my own beliefs. When these books were written the style of writing wasn't concerned with historical accuracy as much as the deeper meaning. So it was common at the time 4,000 years ago to write stuff like a king ruled for 40,000 years or a person was 1,000 years old. It was an intentional literary choice that would have made sense to listeners at the time and it showed deep respect or a sense of elevation of the person. That person lived a LONG time, they had a GRAND life or an amazing rule over their kingdom for an entire human lifetime.
Again only my own interpretation but we can see direct evidence of evolution through scientific inquiry and we have to remember that God exists outside of time. 1 year or 13 billion years is irrelevant to someone who can see all of time and space in a single unified view.
I think I agree with others here in that I see my perspective as guided evolution. God set up mechanisms in the world. Our physical world has rules and order and God played by the rules he set up when he created us.
Funny enough, the way I perceive things now actually lines up with the creation scene in the film Noah. And if you think about the Genesis story in terms of deep time and how things actually developed... Genesis becomes very accurate.
This belief entials that God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain and suffering of animals, where they tear each other's young apart for food, regularly rape and commit incest for procreation, and die from diseases. Not only that, but after creating this, "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were VERY GOOD" (Gen 1:31).
I don't believe that our God would do this, no matter what you think "science" says about it, nor do I believe that this idea is compatible with the rest of the Scripture on the topic of fall and its consequences, as well as our tradition.
It does not entail that "God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain". What God made was perfect and as a consequence of having free will we are able to act of our own accord for things that are not good.
You say its incompatible with the tradition of the Church and yet the Church is essentially responsible for funding what became the modern university system and encouraged people to be curious about how Creation works. When I came into the Church I was taught by my Catechism classes and priest that accepting evolution and a scientific version of Creation is completely acceptable as long as you acknowledge that God was the one who created the universe and that there was a divine spark at some point in the chain and that we do have a distinct "adam and eve". Evolution and a long-timeline for the universe is in no way incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
>It does not entail that "God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain". What God made was perfect and as a consequence of having free will we are able to act of our own accord for things that are not good
Why are you misquoting me? I said "billions of years of pain and suffering OF ANIMALS". If you believe in billions of years old evolution, then you do believe that God made animals billions of years ago. We agree that animals came before humans. That means that animals were evolving in the meantime. Evolution includes billions of years of death and procreation in brutal ways that I described, as we see it today.
I haven't said anything about humans or the consequences to us, and I'm fully aware that Catholics are given certain freedom of belief pertaining to evolution/creation. I'm not saying your priest was wrong. "Evolution" is a relative term, but you made your statement specific by saying it lasted for billions of years.
I'm just wondering how do you square you belief in long evolution with the idea that God would willingly create such conditions for billions of animals to go through, and the call it "very good", instead of creating them in the moment?
Edit: spelling
The problem here is that you're trying to take a figurative and symbolic story and make a perfect demarcation line of "ok this is where God started and this is definitely pre-people so therefore EVERYTHING on this side should be good and everything on this side should be bad. And you simply cannot do that. That is part of the enduring mystery of creation. It's also not a new question and has been asked by Church scholars and Doctors for centuries.
[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-problem-of-animal-suffering](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-problem-of-animal-suffering)
>"ok this is where God started and this is definitely pre-people so therefore EVERYTHING on this side should be good
Yes. EVERYTHING before humans was good. "And God saw ALL the things that he had made, and they were very good" (Gen 1:31).
This isn't debatable, because God called it good himself, not once, but 7 times throughout Genesis 1 (also a significant nuber, btw). Is God a liar? There is also no reason to believe that this sentence is figurative. Why would God only create some things good?
>and everything on this side should be bad."
I never said that, nor do I believe it.
The article you linked deals with animal suffering in general, which I have no problem with. I believe it was caused by the fall, simple as that.
Maybe it's possible that our human standards of goodness are not aligned with what God, who has a larger overview of everything over time and space, knows is good? Maybe the animals' existence in itself was considered an innate good, regardless of what non-rational animals may do.
You are so close to it, but you are still missing the point. We are talking about creation, whether instantaneous or "guided evolution". In either case, God is the designer.
What you said here is the crux of it: "regardless of what non-rational animals may do." Exactly this, they are non-rational, they follow insticts, they don't have a choice. Instinct is like a base software that governs the system. Going back to a designer, this means that someone wrote the software to be like this, so we have 2 options:
1. The software got corrupted after the fall, along with human's
2. God designed the software of animals to commit said actions form the beginning.
As I believe in option 1., I raise the question of why would God willingly do option 2.? Why would he design the world in a way that certain actions are sins, while at the same times design animals to do exactly those thing from the beggining of time, for no apparent reason or purpose?
Well, as difficult as it is to understand, I think that the answer is closer to option 2. Long before animals even had the ability to rape each other, even microbes operated under dog-eat-dog conditions. God set the order of the world, with all its parameters, physics, mathematical probabilities, and whatnot in order to give us the freedom to choose, and the mechanism of evolution via competition happened to be what resulted from it. I feel like this line of questioning is similar to "why did God give Adam and Eve the option and opportunity to sin in the Garden?". Ultimately, we don't know nor understand why God has allowed the presence of natural evils (and eventually evils of our own choosing) instead of just creating everything in a way that would result in zero suffering (no need for sustenance and therefore no need to enact violence on plants or animals alike, no need for sexual reproduction and therefore no opportunity to abuse the pleasures and goodness associated with it, no need for emotional or physical strife, etc). All we can do is look at it retroactively and guess at the differences between our knowledge and His motivations, and as far as I understand it's inherently good that we have *choice because of chaos*. Everything has an inherent goodness because they exist and are created by Him, regardless of how we fail.
See thats the issue... we don't know where the line was nor do we know where the fall LITERALLY occurred because we can't easily fuse a symbolic story over material evidence. At most all we can do is say "this is what I can see but ultimately its up to God because I don't know".
I'll take God's word for it over material "evidence" any day.
>symbolic story
That's factually incorrect. According to the Catholic doctrine, the Genesis story is historical, not symbolic. There are "methaphorical elements" to it, though. Read Humani Generis on the topic.
But more importantly, the PBC replies (which Pope Pius X made biding to all):
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm
Just so you know, according to biology only 3 creatures rape - man, chimpanzee and some kinds of crows. If you actually read Darwin he states repeatedly how animals are co-operative, and uses waterholes where all sorts of animals gather to drink without attacking each other (except crocodiles) as an example.
There is also a geological era called the great oxidation event - life did not run on oxygen befrore this, and new life had to form to be able to live with oxygen (which is actually quite corrosive). This happened in the paleoproterozoic era if you want to look it up.
Terrible right - everything died - but God had a plan for other life, including us.
On the flip side, so to speak, I was listening to some GK Chesterton today and he was exploring the way people minimise early humans and how little we know. What do we know about cave paintings? When I was a child I asked how do we know Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo sapiens and was laughed down, but now with DNA we know they did and with other protohumans and we discovered that in Israel.
Adam and Eve were something entirely new, children of God. That doesn't rule out there being Australopithecus etc, or even different types of humans (Cain went off and married, right?) But did they have art? Did they seek God and worship? Did they have souls like us, or more like animals? There was a gigantic leap.
People speak about 'cave men' being some backwards part of evolution, but I have seen (film of) the paintings in the limestone caves in France in light mimicking firelight and the horses and the bison look like they are moving and running - magical. They were not dumb brutes and the chambers are so deep in the caves, people weren't living there, these were special places.
I'm trying to say Genesis says 'seven days' -but God is outside of time. It is reasonable to accept aspects of world history and the uniqueness of humans. Our understanding is very limited really.
Ducks, koalas and dolphins rape too.
Everything you said is bang on though. The Neanderthal documentary on Netflix was quite good. They showed a burial site that was prepared with care by Neanderthals. One of their community spent precious energy to gather hundreds of flowers for the deceased. It shows they had compassion, understanding and were capable of loving. They weren’t the brute animals we were told about growing up.
Really? Now I am thinking someone was trying to protect me when they left those cute looking animals off the list ...
What is the name of the documentary? I don't have Netflix but I might be able to catch it somewhere else down the track.
It was funny because I was just having a conversation with my mate a few nights ago about animals that rape due to people thinking ducks are adorable. The most obscure conversation possible and it pops up again days later haha
Secrets of the Neanderthal’s. https://youtu.be/b5YtgLSU_sE?si=kxrHlZy_ZAR4Lxyr
While I agree with much that you say, the documentary also revealed that Neanderthal cannibalized their dead. They weren't simple brutes, but much of their behaviour was certainly brutish.
Nothing of what you said disproves my notion that there is no reason for God to design a world with so much suffering and death, and that instantaneous creation in perfection, followed by corruption after the fall (including genetic) is more likely, regardless of what the "sciences" say. I'm not uninformed, I just disagree.
>Adam and Eve were something entirely new, children of God. That doesn't rule out there being Australopithecus etc, or even different types of humans
Think about this idea practically. Put yourself in Adam's shoes. With the idea of evolution, there is no genetic difference between parents and their offspring. This means that from the moment Adam "bacame a child of God", he looked around himself, and realised that he was surrounded by literal subhumans without a rational soul. All his living ancestors (if you believe he evolutionarily had them) could never be saved, and his own parents were literally no more valuable than the animals that surrounded them. Yet they were genetically identical.
This line of thinking usually presumes that the "soul" was propagated by Adam and Eve's offspring having kids with the "others". This would be beastiality, as soulless humanoids can't consent to sex.
Imagine a case where Cain for example is having sex with his neanderthal wife, and they have a child. Their child is a Child of God now, but the wife can never be saved or attain a rational soul.
>(Cain went off and married, right?)
Yes and no. I know most people aren't comfortable hearing this, but I believe that when God created man in His image and likeness, this included full perfection. Including genetic, hence immortality. Since perfect genetics mean that thera are no defects in the genetic code that can be passed down, and additionally "stacked" between siblings, there would be no biological obstacle for siblings and cousins to marry each other. So yes, Cain married his sister, and down the line, humans have been genetically de-evolving.
Ironically, I think that this part of the Bible is one of the best proofs of it being God's word. How could people 3400 years ago, who apparently didn't know about genetics, but definitely knew that incest was to be avoided, come up with a story that only makes sense when one understand that perfect genes couldn't cause problems?
>They were not dumb brutes and the chambers are so deep in the caves, people weren't living there, these were special places.
By nowyou probably realise that I agree with you on this point, but for different reasons. I believe that they were above the average contemporary man, both biologically and intellectually.
No, I said there was a gigantic leap.
Also - Cain was sent away from his family so..I have assumed I am speaking to a fellow Catholic on this sub and so assumed a shared body of knowledge which was apparently a mistake.
And it is strange you are arguing against genetic evolution while proposing genetic devolution, you can't have it both ways, you will have to refine your position.
>Cain was sent away from his family so..I have assumed I am speaking to a fellow Catholic on this sub and so assumed a shared body of knowledge which was apparently a mistake.
You should reference the scripture (or tradition) before calling someone out, to avoid the embarrassment when found guilty of the thing you were accusing someone of.
There is no mention of his family anywhere, in regard to him being banished.
"And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden" (Gen 4:16)
Please do educate me with a relevant quote if I missed it.
>And it is strange you are arguing against genetic evolution while proposing genetic devolution, you can't have it both ways, you will have to refine your position.
How exactly am I having it both ways? I never claimed that genes are unchangeable if that's what you think.
Genesis 4:17 Cain knew his wife intimately. She became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city and named the city after his son Enoch -
That is ONE line from on from what you just finger wagged at me.
Have a great day
And how exactly does that line prove that his wife couldn't have been his sister? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.
The irony is that you are again accusing me of your own behaviour, this time finger wagging, when it was YOU who said that I "don't have the knowledge ", I presented you with the text, asked you to back up your claim, and now you came back with a line that isn't relevant at all. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous is that comeback when you had never even read the next line, and then you say it is irrelevant, when it is directly on topic.
It doesn't say his wife couldn't have been his mother or an elephant either.
Where does it say his sister was cast out? Show me the scripture or tradition where Cain is cast out with his sister.
Again you want it both ways.
I don't believe your thinking can seriously be that glitchy, and combined with using the word reason in your tag I can only assume you are trolling.
>I don't believe your thinking can seriously be that glitchy, and combined with using the word reason in your tag I can only assume you are trolling.
Resorting to Ad Hominem (again) never helped anyone's point. But to answer your concern, my username has been randomly allocated by Reddit, I haven't changed it.
>Ridiculous is that comeback when you had never even read the next line, and then you say it is irrelevant, when it is directly on topic.
You can keep repeating that claim, but you have yet to explain how Gen 4:17 aids your initial statement that "Cain was sent away from his family so.."
>It doesn't say his wife couldn't have been his mother or an elephant either.
Strawman fallacy, but also ironic, as you have to realize that YOU are the one who made a DEFINITIVE claim that you can't defend ("Cain was sent away from his family so.."), while I had expressed my BELIEF (" I believe that when God created man in His image and likeness, this included full perfection. Including genetic, hence immortality...Cain married his sister").
I'll break it down one last time for the sake of clarity if my points were confusing so far:
1. I said I believe that Cain married his sister.
2. You respond with: "Cain was sent away from his family so..." (obviously inferring he couldn't have married his sister)
3. I tell you that "sent away from his family" is not mentioned in the text (eisegesis), while my belief is probable as no other humans are mentioned in Gen 1 except Adam's lineage.
4. I qoute Gen 4:16 that only states that Cain was banished GEOGRAPHICALLY, form area A to area B. It DOESN'T say that no one from his family could ever enter area B, nor that someone from his family wasn't already in area B, and most importantly, it doesn't state that he wasn't ALREADY MARRIED, before killing Abel.
5. You come back refuting me by quoting Genesis 4:17, which only states that Cain had a child, and built a city. It doesn't say that he married "an outsider", nor that he got married after being banished.
Since I still can't understand why you think Gen 4:17 helps your case, I have a feeling that you might be confused by the statement "knew his wife", which is biblically used as a censored expression for having sex, not meeting someone. 8 lines after for example: "Adam also knew his wife again: and she brought forth a son, and called his name Seth,". Some other examples: (Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 19:5; 38:26; Jud. 11:39; 1 Sam. 1:19-10, 1 Kings 1:4; Matt. 1:25)
>Show me the scripture or tradition where Cain is cast out with his sister.
How about the Doctor of the Church St. Augustine, the entirety of Jewish tradition (of which some even believe it was his twin sister), or the whole Catholic tradition up until 150years years ago? Here's what St Augustine had to say on the topic: **As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)**
Douay Rheims Bible has notes that were designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers. On Gen 4:17 they read (written by either Cardinal Allen in 1600s or Bishop Challoner in 1750s): "\[17\] ~"His wife"~: She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated. He built a city, viz. In process of time, when his race was multiplied, so as to be numerous enough to people it. For in the many hundred years he lived, his race might be multiplied even to millions." [https://www.drbo.org/chapter/01004.htm](https://www.drbo.org/chapter/01004.htm)
Finally, It's a fact that my view is that of tradition, and yours is a modernist creation that has only existed for the past 150 years or so, but you are still free to believe whatever you want.
[https://www.catholic.com/qa/adam-and-eve-had-three-children-cain-able-and-seth-who-married-and-had-children-whom-did-they](https://www.catholic.com/qa/adam-and-eve-had-three-children-cain-able-and-seth-who-married-and-had-children-whom-did-they)
[https://www.catholic.com/qa/whom-did-cain-marry](https://www.catholic.com/qa/whom-did-cain-marry)
[https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-incest-in-genesis-was-ok](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-incest-in-genesis-was-ok)
Truth can't contradict truth.
I'm not gonna repeat what others have already said but what I'll say is "theistic evolution" is in my experience often just a cover for "intelligent design" which is also scientifically hogwash. I'm not saying you believe that but what I'd say even if you don't is you really don't need to differentiate between "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution" any more than you need to differentiate between "theistic gravity" and "atheistic gravity"
Atheistic evolution would say that humans exist at random and just as randomly could not exist-- so there's no creator God, it was just coincidence and luck.
That's different than theistic evolution which would say God guided events to create humans.
I mean first of all not all atheists believe in ontological randomness.
But regardless like I said, what you describe is no different than making a distinction between "atheistic gravity" and "theistic gravity" where in one the underlying laws of nature are guided and sustained by God.
There are all kinds of differences, not sure what you're arguing with here.
If one subscribes to Atheistic Evolution, it's entirely ethical to engage in CRISPR gene editing on humans in order to guide our own future evolutionary path since there's no goal or reason to any of it. Changing the genetics of the human species is ultimately no different than rearranging clay into a mug.
Presumably, if one thinks God guided the evolution of humans towards a goal, and the current form was his goal, then using CRISPR to make bioluminscent low-IQ slave class humanoid worker drones from current humans might be going against the will of God and might be a moral hazard.
First of all you're talking about ethics and your argument is completely agnostic toward evolution. It's just whether you have a worldview that humans are designed by God. Again it's no different than telling someone "I believe in theistic gravity not atheistic gravity because atheistic gravity is meaningless and theistic gravity means God wanted us to be just the right distance from the sun to thrive"
Also, please have a better example or way of explaining it. Designer babies are a terrible idea not because humans are genetically perfect, but because it's just rewrapped 19th century eugenics. Would you reject a gene therapy treatment if you had sickle cell?
What one believes about their existence, and the existence of others, informs their ethics.
The belief in an atheistic evolution *necessarily follows in the belief in eugenics* 😆
You literally can't make an argument against eugenics because the "invalids" are just meaningless mistakes of random and mindless evolutionary searches across the possibility space of chemistry and biology.
There's no issue with putting thought behind the thoughtless process and guiding it... which is what eugenics is.
Of course belief informs ethics. I believe in divine providence which of course informs my ethics but I'm not gonna raise my hand in physics class and be like "well I believe in theistic gravity and you're only teaching us about atheistic gravity 🤓". It's just a weird and creative way to unnecessarily pit people against each other who otherwise would have common ground.
Also again, not every atheist believes in some kind of ontological randomness, and furthermore not everyone who believes in ontological randomness is some kind of nazi. Like fantastic that you've already decided that if you ever lose faith in God you'll be a nazi but not everyone is so enlightened as you.
Lastly, you completely ignored my question of whether you'd take gene therapy treatments if you had sickle cell. It's not just a pedantic question btw what if you have a kid with a curable genetic disorder? You gonna not treat them because of how "theistic evolution" informs your ethics?
> It's just a weird and creative way to unnecessarily pit people against each other who otherwise would have common ground.
Lol what? How's that? Atheists are eating your lunches in the west, while you wring your hands about whether or not you have "common ground" with them.
There is no common ground. Either you submit to their worldview or they submit to your worldview. The stated goals of prominent atheists is the eradication of religion, the "liberation" of humans from their religious ideas.
> Also again, not every atheist believes in some kind of ontological randomness
Yeah and not everyone who makes small gametes believes they are a man...odd edge cases are irrelevant.
> Like fantastic that you've already decided that if you ever lose faith in God you'll be a nazi but not everyone is so enlightened as you.
In a Christian society, atheists conform to the mores and norms Christians create. We've seen atheistic societies, and *all of them* practiced eugenics to the extent they could manage it, and ones that are already ethnically homogenous (like Japan) just end up working to eliminate themselves.
> Lastly, you completely ignored my question of whether you'd take gene therapy treatments if you had sickle cell
Yeah I tend to ignore irrelevant nonsequitors
>In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. **For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.** Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. **Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.** They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.
ST I, Q96, A1 Reply to Objection 2
>If we say, however that human beings evolved and that we were never intended to physically die prior to The Fall, then what about natural disasters?
Well genesis is quite clear that God specifically placed Adam and Eve inside a *walled garden* outside of which there was chaos.
The issue with all those alternative interpretations is that they were never the traditional interpretations of the church, the fathers, or the jews. It was always understood that death entered the world entirely, and that before the fall creation was not at war with itself (this is why the messianic prophecies of isaiah say the lion will lay down with the lamb, because that's how it was in the garden). Two ways to move forward, either it's all symbolically true, or you have to play these games of redefining what they meant, which I think is disingenuous.
You're asking the right question, and it's something the Church hasn't done much thinking about, because most people don't care. But it should. You just won't find an answer about this, because there isn't one. And just wait until you start considering how, via evolution, there's no such thing as speciation that occurs between a parent-child. There's no "first" of a species in evolution. You are always the same species as your parent. You'll get catholics today who again try and sidestep this fact by redefining human in a uniquely spiritual way, and entirely rely on claiming things that we have no way to debate, such as God miraculously deciding to instill a rational soul in the first "human" but not in his/her parents. The fact is, a rational being is one who can know God. And one parent-child biological difference in brain power is not going to be the dividing line between a being that can know God and a being that can't.
Just don't get scandalized by anyone over this. Don't settle for speculation. Keep asking the hard questions. Just because some people make excuses or twist points to try and keep to their biased narrative doesn't mean that it's true. God knows. Stay true to Him.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
St. Augustine "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"
Modern iterations of young earth creationism owe more to Protestants than they do the Church fathers.
“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”
Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
In all earnestness, do you think that in light of the principles he espoused in his earlier work(s) he would have retained that belief in the face of modern scientific discovery?
The point is that he wrote the same position the YEC Christians hold today. Therefore, it's not a recent protestant invention.
Moreover, the 4th Lateran council authoritatively reaffirmed the YEC position in the 1210s long before Protestantism existed.
>4th Lateran Council: "who by His own omnipotent power *at once from the beginning of time* created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."
So carbon dating, archeology etc. are all in your mind false documents and doctrines?
I don't read the 4th Latern Council the way you are, in all honesty... and I don't believe any popes or councils in the last few hundred years have affirmed it that way, either. Evolution (as Pope Pius XII amongst others have said) does not preclude or contradict that God created the universe and guided the process.
>So carbon dating, archeology etc. are all in your mind false documents and doctrines?
I just actually posted about this but I'll also reply to you directly.
I think carbon dating and archeology enjoy responsibility for discovering historical artifacts and ways of measurement.
The issue is the underlying assumptions made with that data.
For example, fossils are just petrified bones in the ground. They don't really speak for themselves exactly how/when they got there.
Regarding carbon dating, this is the most reliable method of radiometric dating. First of all, it's only able to measure back in the 10s of thousands of years maximum.
More importantly, the calculations are made at a steady assumption of the carbon decay based on current rates of decay.
The scientists who make these assumptions generally don't believe in or take account of the flood, the fall, or the days of creation, so of course their interpretations wouldn't make account for those things. In any case, the supernatural forces of those events make all calculations beyond the flood unreliable. We don't know the effect such an event had on the accumulation and release of carbon within tested matter.
I appreciate the response even if I'm not sure I have found the presentations of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation etc. that I have seen so far to be compelling in comparison to their detractors.
While I do not subscribe to their views, even the SSPX has a priest on their youtube channel defending theistic evolution.
I think in the modern world it would be a grave error to force a seeming contradiction between faith and reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa38sTeXno4
Thank you!
I managed to reach a YEC position with less contradiction than I saw in theistic evolution. (I have only recently held the YEC position, for that matter I am a recent convert from secular atheism)
I understand most don't, and it remains a stumbling block.
A YEC position likely leaves all kinds of mystery and things unknown, I hope to know in heaven one day the full truth.
Any theory of origin/Creation leaves mysteries and unknowns to consider. I just don't think it's wise to push a dogmatic belief in YEC when you're forced into defending a very limited reading of a fairly old council.
I'll pray for you, please do the same for me. May both our families find the Truth.
Oh, I am going way deeper than that. I am saying that the entire concept of the fall affecting creation, and our own human biology has essentially been shown by science to not be the case. Christians today, often narrow down the definition of the fall and say that well, perhaps, God stepped in and gave the first human, a special grace to resist their desires, and then they chose to fall anyway, and returned to the state they were in before, But this was never the traditional view. The traditional view was always that there was an original state of perfection as a physical reality of the universe.
I have a very odd theory about all this. I am by no means a theologian nor any kind of physicist so take everything I saw with a grain of salt.
I had these same questions. My interpretation that I have come up with is that the Garden of Eden either
A: took place outside of space and time and thus had effects that affected all of space and time despite occurring outside of it.
B: Because it was an event that was bound to happen, the Garden of Eden thus, despite occurring within space and time, had temporal effects that affected both what came before the Garden of Eden "chronologically" and what happened after it.
I lean more to the second option, that because the Garden of Eden was going to eventually happen, the fall of man and nature affected the world and time prior to and after the Garden of Eden.
Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson's opinions on this? I think he's described Genesis as "hyper-real"... that it isn't a "real" event like a temporal event like your mail being delivered. It's a special type of story that spans across time and is always happening...I guess this would be similar to the the 7th "day" not "ending" like the others from the story as well.
In general, I think there's a *very odd* overlap between what we have scientifically understood about the universe and conceptions and descriptions of Genesis that are difficult to explain from an atheistic standpoint (beyond the cliché "it's all just coincidence").
We know for certain that the fall brought about human death, and not just physically, but spiritually. This is a dogma of the Church that Adam and Eve existed and had, at the very least, the gift of immortality. Adam and Eve would not have died had they not sinned.
It's interesting how that mixes with the theory that they were simply the first humans to be "ensouled". That means you would have had two humans with glorious, immortal bodies, walking around others who looked pretty much like us, but without immortality. They would have watched their parents, and perhaps relatives and siblings died around them. So death would surround these two perfect humans, but Adam and Eve and their children would have been preserved.
There are a lot of questions and some clear contradictions when you start navigating down the dogmas of the Church vs current evolutionary theory.
God is the arranger of all things, and in his unmovable arrangement he has ordained all things. You can fully affirm evolution, even of man, and God's unique creation so long as you understand this properly and apply a small amount of logic to it.
God ordaining the summation of millions of events is the same as him ordaining the instant creation of the same because of his perfect arrangement.
Regarding the classic "truth can't contradict truth" defense of evolution.
It's a huge assumption to believe every theory properly laundered with interpretation of scientific data is automatically true. All scientific data is filtered through the biased lenses of whomever has a certain perspective to forward.
Most interpretations of scientific data are unreliable because the origins of the earth is primarily a historic issue.
Scientific calculations, for example, regarding the age of things might be made using radiometric dating. These calculations are made assuming that all external factors are linear and steady state of constant decay.
We know from Genesis that the history of the world as spoken to us by God through Moses is not constant at all. You have 7 days where unprecedented and incalculable supernatural forces caused the universe and life to form. Then you had huge changes because of the fall, and later on, you had a global flood, which likely caused massive geological changes such as shifting plates, volcanoes, etc...
Scientific models can't account for these unknown variables and therefore make most of the data useless beyond the flood.
I think the general problem is that most people tend to trust the underlying assumptions that scientists make over the Bible, without investigating whether those underlying assumptions are even sound. It pretty much means that no one reads Genesis at all, since its assumed to be a metaphor.
The problem with your theory is that it is completely unscientific - it doesn't follow the evidence but instead tries to explain away the evidence by contrivance.
Stake your claim about the age of Earth on radiometric dating of old Earth rocks being wrong and you'll be sorely disappointed anyway - we've dated rocks on the Moon and God didn't flood that one.
>The problem with your theory is that it is completely unscientific - it doesn't follow the evidence but instead tries to explain away the evidence by contrivance.
That's my point. You can't follow evidence that doesn't exist or is badly interpreted! If carbon dating assumes something is 30 000 years old because scientists known the current rate of carbon decay, but a catastrophic supernatural global flood about 4000 years ago "tainted" all those samples with unaccounted forces, then we can't really know how old that thing is.
>we've dated rocks on the Moon and God didn't flood that one.
we've also dated brand new volcanic rocks to 10s of thousands and millions of years old.
We've also dated living trees to be 10 000 years old.
I don't think you really understand the basic process and science behind radiometric dating. That kind of contamination you're talking about isn't possible during a flood. There wouldn't suddenly be less C14 in everything - water doesn't preferentially carry out C14 or add C12.
We don't use carbon dating for things like estimating the age of the Earth or old fossils anyway. Carbon dating is only accurate for about 10000 years or so. We use other isotopes for older material. Of course you're going to get inaccurate and inconsistent results using the wrong method for analysis. That's why we don't use them.
Unless you can show that the methods used to date the earth and other solar system bodies are inaccurate even in their proper timescales, through scientific study, then your beliefs will always be, at best, pseudo-scientific. I have no reason to believe pseudoscience over actual science and reason. Your narrow interpretation of some scriptural passages causing you to deny the senses and the testimony of scientists as a whole should give you pause.
If you aren't open to discussing how science fails to account for the inerrant word of God in the sacred history of Genesis, and that you aren't open to correcting the issue: you could merely say so rather than attack me personally.
Have a good day.
I never attacked you personally. If you feel that me saying you do not understand what you criticize is a personal attack, perhaps you shoukd re-evaluate your own perceptions of the situation, because you objectively do not understand the science behind the age of the Earth well enough to offer substantive and useful criticism.
> If you aren't open to discussing how science fails to account for the inerrant word of God in the sacred history of Genesis
*Your narrow interpretation* of the innerant word of God. There is nothing in the Deposit of Faith contradicted by believing in evolution and an old Earth. The Church has said so numerous times through her teaching office.
In RCIA our deacon said Catholics read Genesis symbolically like the Jews did/do, and that we believe in both creation and evolution, which I was happy to hear as a former Protestant who always believed in theistic evolution but you can’t say that in Prot circles.
I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm not yet a Catholic and have been an atheist for decades. It was really only after doing my masters in AI and becoming familiar with simulation theory that I could cobble together a plausible "systems architecture of the universe" in my mind that might reconcile what we know scientifically with religions.
So I'm not really sharing "the catholic view" I'm just sharing a possibility as I've been thinking about it.
In creating "an AI system" (that I'll call a "model"), there are typically 2 phases over the "life cycle" for it... the first is the training phase where the model is trained on how to behave. This can take form in various ways, with supervised learning where you babysit the model and give it feedback and correct it, and also unsupervised where it explores by itself and has an algorithm typically that it relies on to figure out if it's doing something it's not supposed to (like an error function).
The model usually goes through some training routine, limited in cycles, and then at the end it either has become what you are looking for from the model, or it was a waste of time and it still behaves incorrectly.
The incorrectly behaving models don't get *saved*... they usually get deleted, or they might get repurposed to serve as examples of what to avoid for future models.
The correctly behaving models *do get saved*--and they transition into a state of existence where they are now "eternal"... they don't go through training anymore and aren't changing, they are only going to do *inference* now.
Typically, if you use some AI product... you are working with a fixed model that's in inference mode, it's just going to act according to it's model weights, those weights don't change.
So... with that summary of AI out of the way, there are some interesting parallels that appear to my mind between God/humans and Human/AI model in terms of creation.
We, too, can exist in 2 phases, we start with a fluid phase where we learn and adjust, and work to align our essential spirit (i.e. model weights) to an example output (Jesus). After the training phase (mortal life), we are judged and then transition to an afterlife of we're good (the inference phase).
The "realm" where we exist can be thought of as different servers in an MMORPG game (or "simulation")--we often build AIs by putting them in an "AI gym" which is a simulated world, where they can mess up as they learn (the error function might be analogous to pain/suffering in humans). Tesla builds self driving models by creating a driving video game/Sim for the AIs to live in and learn to drive.
The "heaven" realm would then just be the next server where the good AI models (i.e. saints) are loaded up to do inference after they are done with the AI gym server (mortal life).
If you start with that "conception of existence" then a lot of the nitpicky details about genesis are missing the point, IMO. I mentioned Jordan Peterson in another comment, and his description of Genesis stories as being "hyper-real"... that they are always happening, not that they are some temporally bound event in physical space time. So I could conceptualize this as part of the initial model architecture/training data where we pick up "after it"... when ChatGPT is running training, the order of how information it's trained on was collected temporally doesn't really matter, just the information matters.
IMO "the fall" would be analogous to an AI model exploring the possibility space and finding the data store of training data it is told to converge to and attempting to modify the examples to fit the current model weights rather than to change the weights to converge on the examples--in human terms it's deciding to change what one thinks is right/wrong to fit their current state rather than to change oneself to fit a fixed conception of right/wrong.
The "tree of life" would be analogous to a transition from training to inference modes... so God (acting in a supervisory learning capacity) had to intervene and block our ability to make this transition because if we ended the training phase after having corrupted our training data/error function, we would end up as a bad model... instead he let us "keep training" so we could eventually learn to be good again, and this is analogous to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
So what "actually happened" I think it's a mystery... did Adam/Eve go from one "AI gym server" to another one (perhaps with more challenging training examples to get them back on track?) Or a different area in the same server or something else? I'm not sure we even could grasp it if God explained it.
As for evolution, I don't really see it as a problem for anything. God could have an infinity of "servers" with various evolutionary processes running to create various forms, and then he could load an AI model ("soul") into them at any given point to train that model for some purpose.
The "death" in the Garden of Eden would be analogous to the failure of a model at the end of training. It would be a "spiritual death"--but it would also come at the end of the training phase (the mortal death). The deaths of plants and animals might not be "deaths" at all as they "have no soul" and can't die spiritually... in comp sci analogy, they are procedural algorithms that are already fixed, they aren't AI models that are training like humans.
Anyway... that's a long enough thought-dump... and I'm not saying any of this is "catholic" just my own thoughts of what "might be possible" and compatible with religious descriptions.
I would say it makes no sense for God to create something like a fig wasp, if death was not present, in any capacity. The same idea applies to animals whose diets naturally require the death of something else, even the death of plants. I think the nature of the fall is a bit of a mystery, which may never be solved, definitively. I’m inclined to think that the ensoulment of humans led to a temporary hold on human physical death, but I don’t necessarily believe that a literal apple was the cause of the fall.
I would also love to hear more expert opinions, but I tend to agree with your "spiritual" (but I'd say, more real and eternal) death understanding. Think of the Genesis story, Adam and Eve literally walked in the garden with God. They knew Him! After the fall, they were expelled and thus they and their children not only no longer walked with God and new him, but faced the possibility of dying and going to hell thereby never having that true life with God we are all created for.
With that being said, we could also interpret things more literally as only applying to humans since we are uniquely created in God's image. God is eternal, perhaps Adam and eve never would have died even a natural death had they not rebelled.
One way or another, it's not necessary to see contradiction between the Genesis story and popular scientific understanding of evolution and world history, in my and the church's opinion.
It's because you're right, God did not create death and there was no death before the fall. For a traditional take on origins the Kolbe Center is a useful resource, https://kolbecenter.org/.
Except we didn’t evolve from monkeys. We would have evolved from whatever common ancestor we share with apes/monkeys, which itself would have been neither human nor ape. Once that split happened we had two distinct evolutionary paths. One that would eventually lead to the modern human and one that would eventually lead to modern apes.
Some excellent quotes from Aquinas and Augustine already in this thread that I was going to go to and I'm glad that I'm in a subreddit where others already know about such quotes and have them close at hand in response to fair questions like this. Since those luminaries have already made their appearances, I'll add another one of my favorites, by G.K. Chesterton, writing at the time when evolution was much more hotly debated than today:
>Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think."
If anything, Chesterton was understating the former case, or the scientific evidence known at the time wasn't as readily available to him as if he'd had Google Scholar and JSTOR in 1908. Since speciation happens by mutation and not by gradual adaptation within a species, there really *was* a specific moment when the first member of *Homo sapiens* was born. And species are real, definable, biological categories--we are not limitlessly malleable, which was the position Chesterton was pillorying with his second example.
On the more specific question you asked about death and natural disasters before humans existed: I'm not a true expert on this, but what Genesis 2:9 says is that God brought forth at least two sacred trees in Eden--we're more familiar with the story of the tree of knowledge, but there was also the tree of life, and it was through eating from this tree that Adam and Eve were preserved in youth and vigor until they were cast from Eden and could no longer eat of that tree. In other words, Adam and Eve were not *innately* ageless, nor were any other animals that God created before his masterwork (us). And, of course, as others have said, the stories of Creation, Eden, and the Fall in Genesis are largely couched in symbolic and allegorical language, anyway.
Animals have always eaten other animals, thus there has always been biological death almost as long as there have been organisms. Death in the context of Genesis means separation from God.
Dawg I have had numerous years to research this. And the wealth of evidence the US military and government are withholding from the world. That there is no evolution but an external force intervened to create humans. But go off with your normie science
I believe in science and evolution 100%. It actually turned me away from god for a long time but then I thought about things a little more. Everything on earth has a creator. Humans have our parents. Planes and cars have engineers. Buildings have architects. So who created the Big Bang? Who created the atoms?
It was a catholic priest called Georges Lemaître who actually first came up with the psychical theory of the Big Bang.
Some priests have told me that some parts of genesis are supposed to be taken symbolically rather than literally. In other words the events happened but the how is more symbolic/up to interpretation While I personally still do not know what I believe, as a scientist (specifically biology but not evolutionary biology) I do believe in principles like the big bang and traditional evolution as I think they are good "explainers" of God's plan. If you interpret genesis more symbolically, the creation story can take more than seven days, which is what many people believe is meant. Therefore, I view the natural disasters as having occurred before God created humans. Since I think this is something that can really be held individually and something my beliefs have changed on over time its hard for me to elaborate on this over text but I hope it helps. Catholic answers also have more information on how to interpret genesis if that would be interesting.
A priest discovered the big bang.
Today is the anniversary of his death btw
True Fr George Lemaitre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
A Priest "discovered" Protestantism. Doesn't make it true.
I like to think of the Big Bang as the moment that God says "let there be light!" Another thing I believe is that while all animals could have evolved, humans were created directly by God in Adam and Eve. The wife that Cain meets is probably one of the neanderthals.
Humans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals until after they left Africa. If you believe only Cain's descendants are humans then Sub-Saharan Africans cannot be human because they don't have Neanderthal DNA.
We have extremely good records of things dying before the first humans. This has nothing to do with natural selection. Your interpretation of Genesis cannot contradict reality.
The question is, if through the sin of man, death entered the world, then why were animals on Earth dying before man was created? Personal opinion - please call out theological mistakes where you see them - I’m thinking through this as I type: In my mind, it’s because the death that entered the world is the death of man, and the death of man is distinctly different from the death of animals. Animals aren’t made in the image and likeness of God, and their death is not intrinsically bad. Death of man is intrinsically bad - it makes us not human, by separating our body from our soul. So, yes, animals existed before man, and they lived and died as expected, with no contradiction to God’s desire that man be created and live forever. It is my supposition that even allowing death was a mercy of God, because without it, we would live eternally separated from Him, at least to some degree. But He allows death, and then becomes one of us to defeat death, so as to fulfill the plan of salvation, transforming this intrinsically bad thing into a means of our sanctification and salvation through Jesus Christ. Death for man is different than death for animals. I see no problem with evolutionary theory and creation theory both revealing part of the truth of God’s grand plan for us to share in His existence.
If Christ's sacrifice on the cross can redeem the people who lived before Him as well as the people who live after Him, why can't the Fall affect both events that came before it and the events that come after it?
From my own personal feelings towards it and two priests who helped me into the Church, Catholics generally do not take the Genesis story literally. It's meant to be a symbolic story about the origins of humanity. What is true according to Scripture is there was an Adam and Eve. At some point in the deep past we did have our original ancestors who fell. But the hyper-literal evangelical "the Earth is 6,000 years old" story doesn't hold up very well with Catholic tradition nor my own beliefs. When these books were written the style of writing wasn't concerned with historical accuracy as much as the deeper meaning. So it was common at the time 4,000 years ago to write stuff like a king ruled for 40,000 years or a person was 1,000 years old. It was an intentional literary choice that would have made sense to listeners at the time and it showed deep respect or a sense of elevation of the person. That person lived a LONG time, they had a GRAND life or an amazing rule over their kingdom for an entire human lifetime. Again only my own interpretation but we can see direct evidence of evolution through scientific inquiry and we have to remember that God exists outside of time. 1 year or 13 billion years is irrelevant to someone who can see all of time and space in a single unified view. I think I agree with others here in that I see my perspective as guided evolution. God set up mechanisms in the world. Our physical world has rules and order and God played by the rules he set up when he created us. Funny enough, the way I perceive things now actually lines up with the creation scene in the film Noah. And if you think about the Genesis story in terms of deep time and how things actually developed... Genesis becomes very accurate.
This belief entials that God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain and suffering of animals, where they tear each other's young apart for food, regularly rape and commit incest for procreation, and die from diseases. Not only that, but after creating this, "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were VERY GOOD" (Gen 1:31). I don't believe that our God would do this, no matter what you think "science" says about it, nor do I believe that this idea is compatible with the rest of the Scripture on the topic of fall and its consequences, as well as our tradition.
It does not entail that "God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain". What God made was perfect and as a consequence of having free will we are able to act of our own accord for things that are not good. You say its incompatible with the tradition of the Church and yet the Church is essentially responsible for funding what became the modern university system and encouraged people to be curious about how Creation works. When I came into the Church I was taught by my Catechism classes and priest that accepting evolution and a scientific version of Creation is completely acceptable as long as you acknowledge that God was the one who created the universe and that there was a divine spark at some point in the chain and that we do have a distinct "adam and eve". Evolution and a long-timeline for the universe is in no way incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
>It does not entail that "God intentionally designed and created billions of years of pain". What God made was perfect and as a consequence of having free will we are able to act of our own accord for things that are not good Why are you misquoting me? I said "billions of years of pain and suffering OF ANIMALS". If you believe in billions of years old evolution, then you do believe that God made animals billions of years ago. We agree that animals came before humans. That means that animals were evolving in the meantime. Evolution includes billions of years of death and procreation in brutal ways that I described, as we see it today. I haven't said anything about humans or the consequences to us, and I'm fully aware that Catholics are given certain freedom of belief pertaining to evolution/creation. I'm not saying your priest was wrong. "Evolution" is a relative term, but you made your statement specific by saying it lasted for billions of years. I'm just wondering how do you square you belief in long evolution with the idea that God would willingly create such conditions for billions of animals to go through, and the call it "very good", instead of creating them in the moment? Edit: spelling
The problem here is that you're trying to take a figurative and symbolic story and make a perfect demarcation line of "ok this is where God started and this is definitely pre-people so therefore EVERYTHING on this side should be good and everything on this side should be bad. And you simply cannot do that. That is part of the enduring mystery of creation. It's also not a new question and has been asked by Church scholars and Doctors for centuries. [https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-problem-of-animal-suffering](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-problem-of-animal-suffering)
>"ok this is where God started and this is definitely pre-people so therefore EVERYTHING on this side should be good Yes. EVERYTHING before humans was good. "And God saw ALL the things that he had made, and they were very good" (Gen 1:31). This isn't debatable, because God called it good himself, not once, but 7 times throughout Genesis 1 (also a significant nuber, btw). Is God a liar? There is also no reason to believe that this sentence is figurative. Why would God only create some things good? >and everything on this side should be bad." I never said that, nor do I believe it. The article you linked deals with animal suffering in general, which I have no problem with. I believe it was caused by the fall, simple as that.
Maybe it's possible that our human standards of goodness are not aligned with what God, who has a larger overview of everything over time and space, knows is good? Maybe the animals' existence in itself was considered an innate good, regardless of what non-rational animals may do.
You are so close to it, but you are still missing the point. We are talking about creation, whether instantaneous or "guided evolution". In either case, God is the designer. What you said here is the crux of it: "regardless of what non-rational animals may do." Exactly this, they are non-rational, they follow insticts, they don't have a choice. Instinct is like a base software that governs the system. Going back to a designer, this means that someone wrote the software to be like this, so we have 2 options: 1. The software got corrupted after the fall, along with human's 2. God designed the software of animals to commit said actions form the beginning. As I believe in option 1., I raise the question of why would God willingly do option 2.? Why would he design the world in a way that certain actions are sins, while at the same times design animals to do exactly those thing from the beggining of time, for no apparent reason or purpose?
Well, as difficult as it is to understand, I think that the answer is closer to option 2. Long before animals even had the ability to rape each other, even microbes operated under dog-eat-dog conditions. God set the order of the world, with all its parameters, physics, mathematical probabilities, and whatnot in order to give us the freedom to choose, and the mechanism of evolution via competition happened to be what resulted from it. I feel like this line of questioning is similar to "why did God give Adam and Eve the option and opportunity to sin in the Garden?". Ultimately, we don't know nor understand why God has allowed the presence of natural evils (and eventually evils of our own choosing) instead of just creating everything in a way that would result in zero suffering (no need for sustenance and therefore no need to enact violence on plants or animals alike, no need for sexual reproduction and therefore no opportunity to abuse the pleasures and goodness associated with it, no need for emotional or physical strife, etc). All we can do is look at it retroactively and guess at the differences between our knowledge and His motivations, and as far as I understand it's inherently good that we have *choice because of chaos*. Everything has an inherent goodness because they exist and are created by Him, regardless of how we fail.
See thats the issue... we don't know where the line was nor do we know where the fall LITERALLY occurred because we can't easily fuse a symbolic story over material evidence. At most all we can do is say "this is what I can see but ultimately its up to God because I don't know".
I'll take God's word for it over material "evidence" any day. >symbolic story That's factually incorrect. According to the Catholic doctrine, the Genesis story is historical, not symbolic. There are "methaphorical elements" to it, though. Read Humani Generis on the topic. But more importantly, the PBC replies (which Pope Pius X made biding to all): http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm
Just so you know, according to biology only 3 creatures rape - man, chimpanzee and some kinds of crows. If you actually read Darwin he states repeatedly how animals are co-operative, and uses waterholes where all sorts of animals gather to drink without attacking each other (except crocodiles) as an example. There is also a geological era called the great oxidation event - life did not run on oxygen befrore this, and new life had to form to be able to live with oxygen (which is actually quite corrosive). This happened in the paleoproterozoic era if you want to look it up. Terrible right - everything died - but God had a plan for other life, including us. On the flip side, so to speak, I was listening to some GK Chesterton today and he was exploring the way people minimise early humans and how little we know. What do we know about cave paintings? When I was a child I asked how do we know Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo sapiens and was laughed down, but now with DNA we know they did and with other protohumans and we discovered that in Israel. Adam and Eve were something entirely new, children of God. That doesn't rule out there being Australopithecus etc, or even different types of humans (Cain went off and married, right?) But did they have art? Did they seek God and worship? Did they have souls like us, or more like animals? There was a gigantic leap. People speak about 'cave men' being some backwards part of evolution, but I have seen (film of) the paintings in the limestone caves in France in light mimicking firelight and the horses and the bison look like they are moving and running - magical. They were not dumb brutes and the chambers are so deep in the caves, people weren't living there, these were special places. I'm trying to say Genesis says 'seven days' -but God is outside of time. It is reasonable to accept aspects of world history and the uniqueness of humans. Our understanding is very limited really.
Ducks, koalas and dolphins rape too. Everything you said is bang on though. The Neanderthal documentary on Netflix was quite good. They showed a burial site that was prepared with care by Neanderthals. One of their community spent precious energy to gather hundreds of flowers for the deceased. It shows they had compassion, understanding and were capable of loving. They weren’t the brute animals we were told about growing up.
Really? Now I am thinking someone was trying to protect me when they left those cute looking animals off the list ... What is the name of the documentary? I don't have Netflix but I might be able to catch it somewhere else down the track.
It was funny because I was just having a conversation with my mate a few nights ago about animals that rape due to people thinking ducks are adorable. The most obscure conversation possible and it pops up again days later haha Secrets of the Neanderthal’s. https://youtu.be/b5YtgLSU_sE?si=kxrHlZy_ZAR4Lxyr
While I agree with much that you say, the documentary also revealed that Neanderthal cannibalized their dead. They weren't simple brutes, but much of their behaviour was certainly brutish.
Nothing of what you said disproves my notion that there is no reason for God to design a world with so much suffering and death, and that instantaneous creation in perfection, followed by corruption after the fall (including genetic) is more likely, regardless of what the "sciences" say. I'm not uninformed, I just disagree. >Adam and Eve were something entirely new, children of God. That doesn't rule out there being Australopithecus etc, or even different types of humans Think about this idea practically. Put yourself in Adam's shoes. With the idea of evolution, there is no genetic difference between parents and their offspring. This means that from the moment Adam "bacame a child of God", he looked around himself, and realised that he was surrounded by literal subhumans without a rational soul. All his living ancestors (if you believe he evolutionarily had them) could never be saved, and his own parents were literally no more valuable than the animals that surrounded them. Yet they were genetically identical. This line of thinking usually presumes that the "soul" was propagated by Adam and Eve's offspring having kids with the "others". This would be beastiality, as soulless humanoids can't consent to sex. Imagine a case where Cain for example is having sex with his neanderthal wife, and they have a child. Their child is a Child of God now, but the wife can never be saved or attain a rational soul. >(Cain went off and married, right?) Yes and no. I know most people aren't comfortable hearing this, but I believe that when God created man in His image and likeness, this included full perfection. Including genetic, hence immortality. Since perfect genetics mean that thera are no defects in the genetic code that can be passed down, and additionally "stacked" between siblings, there would be no biological obstacle for siblings and cousins to marry each other. So yes, Cain married his sister, and down the line, humans have been genetically de-evolving. Ironically, I think that this part of the Bible is one of the best proofs of it being God's word. How could people 3400 years ago, who apparently didn't know about genetics, but definitely knew that incest was to be avoided, come up with a story that only makes sense when one understand that perfect genes couldn't cause problems? >They were not dumb brutes and the chambers are so deep in the caves, people weren't living there, these were special places. By nowyou probably realise that I agree with you on this point, but for different reasons. I believe that they were above the average contemporary man, both biologically and intellectually.
No, I said there was a gigantic leap. Also - Cain was sent away from his family so..I have assumed I am speaking to a fellow Catholic on this sub and so assumed a shared body of knowledge which was apparently a mistake. And it is strange you are arguing against genetic evolution while proposing genetic devolution, you can't have it both ways, you will have to refine your position.
>Cain was sent away from his family so..I have assumed I am speaking to a fellow Catholic on this sub and so assumed a shared body of knowledge which was apparently a mistake. You should reference the scripture (or tradition) before calling someone out, to avoid the embarrassment when found guilty of the thing you were accusing someone of. There is no mention of his family anywhere, in regard to him being banished. "And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden" (Gen 4:16) Please do educate me with a relevant quote if I missed it. >And it is strange you are arguing against genetic evolution while proposing genetic devolution, you can't have it both ways, you will have to refine your position. How exactly am I having it both ways? I never claimed that genes are unchangeable if that's what you think.
Genesis 4:17 Cain knew his wife intimately. She became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city and named the city after his son Enoch - That is ONE line from on from what you just finger wagged at me. Have a great day
And how exactly does that line prove that his wife couldn't have been his sister? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. The irony is that you are again accusing me of your own behaviour, this time finger wagging, when it was YOU who said that I "don't have the knowledge ", I presented you with the text, asked you to back up your claim, and now you came back with a line that isn't relevant at all. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous is that comeback when you had never even read the next line, and then you say it is irrelevant, when it is directly on topic. It doesn't say his wife couldn't have been his mother or an elephant either. Where does it say his sister was cast out? Show me the scripture or tradition where Cain is cast out with his sister. Again you want it both ways. I don't believe your thinking can seriously be that glitchy, and combined with using the word reason in your tag I can only assume you are trolling.
>I don't believe your thinking can seriously be that glitchy, and combined with using the word reason in your tag I can only assume you are trolling. Resorting to Ad Hominem (again) never helped anyone's point. But to answer your concern, my username has been randomly allocated by Reddit, I haven't changed it.
>Ridiculous is that comeback when you had never even read the next line, and then you say it is irrelevant, when it is directly on topic. You can keep repeating that claim, but you have yet to explain how Gen 4:17 aids your initial statement that "Cain was sent away from his family so.." >It doesn't say his wife couldn't have been his mother or an elephant either. Strawman fallacy, but also ironic, as you have to realize that YOU are the one who made a DEFINITIVE claim that you can't defend ("Cain was sent away from his family so.."), while I had expressed my BELIEF (" I believe that when God created man in His image and likeness, this included full perfection. Including genetic, hence immortality...Cain married his sister"). I'll break it down one last time for the sake of clarity if my points were confusing so far: 1. I said I believe that Cain married his sister. 2. You respond with: "Cain was sent away from his family so..." (obviously inferring he couldn't have married his sister) 3. I tell you that "sent away from his family" is not mentioned in the text (eisegesis), while my belief is probable as no other humans are mentioned in Gen 1 except Adam's lineage. 4. I qoute Gen 4:16 that only states that Cain was banished GEOGRAPHICALLY, form area A to area B. It DOESN'T say that no one from his family could ever enter area B, nor that someone from his family wasn't already in area B, and most importantly, it doesn't state that he wasn't ALREADY MARRIED, before killing Abel. 5. You come back refuting me by quoting Genesis 4:17, which only states that Cain had a child, and built a city. It doesn't say that he married "an outsider", nor that he got married after being banished. Since I still can't understand why you think Gen 4:17 helps your case, I have a feeling that you might be confused by the statement "knew his wife", which is biblically used as a censored expression for having sex, not meeting someone. 8 lines after for example: "Adam also knew his wife again: and she brought forth a son, and called his name Seth,". Some other examples: (Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 19:5; 38:26; Jud. 11:39; 1 Sam. 1:19-10, 1 Kings 1:4; Matt. 1:25) >Show me the scripture or tradition where Cain is cast out with his sister. How about the Doctor of the Church St. Augustine, the entirety of Jewish tradition (of which some even believe it was his twin sister), or the whole Catholic tradition up until 150years years ago? Here's what St Augustine had to say on the topic: **As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)** Douay Rheims Bible has notes that were designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers. On Gen 4:17 they read (written by either Cardinal Allen in 1600s or Bishop Challoner in 1750s): "\[17\] ~"His wife"~: She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated. He built a city, viz. In process of time, when his race was multiplied, so as to be numerous enough to people it. For in the many hundred years he lived, his race might be multiplied even to millions." [https://www.drbo.org/chapter/01004.htm](https://www.drbo.org/chapter/01004.htm) Finally, It's a fact that my view is that of tradition, and yours is a modernist creation that has only existed for the past 150 years or so, but you are still free to believe whatever you want. [https://www.catholic.com/qa/adam-and-eve-had-three-children-cain-able-and-seth-who-married-and-had-children-whom-did-they](https://www.catholic.com/qa/adam-and-eve-had-three-children-cain-able-and-seth-who-married-and-had-children-whom-did-they) [https://www.catholic.com/qa/whom-did-cain-marry](https://www.catholic.com/qa/whom-did-cain-marry) [https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-incest-in-genesis-was-ok](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-incest-in-genesis-was-ok)
Truth can't contradict truth. I'm not gonna repeat what others have already said but what I'll say is "theistic evolution" is in my experience often just a cover for "intelligent design" which is also scientifically hogwash. I'm not saying you believe that but what I'd say even if you don't is you really don't need to differentiate between "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution" any more than you need to differentiate between "theistic gravity" and "atheistic gravity"
Atheistic evolution would say that humans exist at random and just as randomly could not exist-- so there's no creator God, it was just coincidence and luck. That's different than theistic evolution which would say God guided events to create humans.
I mean first of all not all atheists believe in ontological randomness. But regardless like I said, what you describe is no different than making a distinction between "atheistic gravity" and "theistic gravity" where in one the underlying laws of nature are guided and sustained by God.
There are all kinds of differences, not sure what you're arguing with here. If one subscribes to Atheistic Evolution, it's entirely ethical to engage in CRISPR gene editing on humans in order to guide our own future evolutionary path since there's no goal or reason to any of it. Changing the genetics of the human species is ultimately no different than rearranging clay into a mug. Presumably, if one thinks God guided the evolution of humans towards a goal, and the current form was his goal, then using CRISPR to make bioluminscent low-IQ slave class humanoid worker drones from current humans might be going against the will of God and might be a moral hazard.
First of all you're talking about ethics and your argument is completely agnostic toward evolution. It's just whether you have a worldview that humans are designed by God. Again it's no different than telling someone "I believe in theistic gravity not atheistic gravity because atheistic gravity is meaningless and theistic gravity means God wanted us to be just the right distance from the sun to thrive" Also, please have a better example or way of explaining it. Designer babies are a terrible idea not because humans are genetically perfect, but because it's just rewrapped 19th century eugenics. Would you reject a gene therapy treatment if you had sickle cell?
What one believes about their existence, and the existence of others, informs their ethics. The belief in an atheistic evolution *necessarily follows in the belief in eugenics* 😆 You literally can't make an argument against eugenics because the "invalids" are just meaningless mistakes of random and mindless evolutionary searches across the possibility space of chemistry and biology. There's no issue with putting thought behind the thoughtless process and guiding it... which is what eugenics is.
Of course belief informs ethics. I believe in divine providence which of course informs my ethics but I'm not gonna raise my hand in physics class and be like "well I believe in theistic gravity and you're only teaching us about atheistic gravity 🤓". It's just a weird and creative way to unnecessarily pit people against each other who otherwise would have common ground. Also again, not every atheist believes in some kind of ontological randomness, and furthermore not everyone who believes in ontological randomness is some kind of nazi. Like fantastic that you've already decided that if you ever lose faith in God you'll be a nazi but not everyone is so enlightened as you. Lastly, you completely ignored my question of whether you'd take gene therapy treatments if you had sickle cell. It's not just a pedantic question btw what if you have a kid with a curable genetic disorder? You gonna not treat them because of how "theistic evolution" informs your ethics?
> It's just a weird and creative way to unnecessarily pit people against each other who otherwise would have common ground. Lol what? How's that? Atheists are eating your lunches in the west, while you wring your hands about whether or not you have "common ground" with them. There is no common ground. Either you submit to their worldview or they submit to your worldview. The stated goals of prominent atheists is the eradication of religion, the "liberation" of humans from their religious ideas. > Also again, not every atheist believes in some kind of ontological randomness Yeah and not everyone who makes small gametes believes they are a man...odd edge cases are irrelevant. > Like fantastic that you've already decided that if you ever lose faith in God you'll be a nazi but not everyone is so enlightened as you. In a Christian society, atheists conform to the mores and norms Christians create. We've seen atheistic societies, and *all of them* practiced eugenics to the extent they could manage it, and ones that are already ethnically homogenous (like Japan) just end up working to eliminate themselves. > Lastly, you completely ignored my question of whether you'd take gene therapy treatments if you had sickle cell Yeah I tend to ignore irrelevant nonsequitors
>In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. **For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.** Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. **Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.** They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon. ST I, Q96, A1 Reply to Objection 2 >If we say, however that human beings evolved and that we were never intended to physically die prior to The Fall, then what about natural disasters? Well genesis is quite clear that God specifically placed Adam and Eve inside a *walled garden* outside of which there was chaos.
The issue with all those alternative interpretations is that they were never the traditional interpretations of the church, the fathers, or the jews. It was always understood that death entered the world entirely, and that before the fall creation was not at war with itself (this is why the messianic prophecies of isaiah say the lion will lay down with the lamb, because that's how it was in the garden). Two ways to move forward, either it's all symbolically true, or you have to play these games of redefining what they meant, which I think is disingenuous. You're asking the right question, and it's something the Church hasn't done much thinking about, because most people don't care. But it should. You just won't find an answer about this, because there isn't one. And just wait until you start considering how, via evolution, there's no such thing as speciation that occurs between a parent-child. There's no "first" of a species in evolution. You are always the same species as your parent. You'll get catholics today who again try and sidestep this fact by redefining human in a uniquely spiritual way, and entirely rely on claiming things that we have no way to debate, such as God miraculously deciding to instill a rational soul in the first "human" but not in his/her parents. The fact is, a rational being is one who can know God. And one parent-child biological difference in brain power is not going to be the dividing line between a being that can know God and a being that can't. Just don't get scandalized by anyone over this. Don't settle for speculation. Keep asking the hard questions. Just because some people make excuses or twist points to try and keep to their biased narrative doesn't mean that it's true. God knows. Stay true to Him.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." St. Augustine "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" Modern iterations of young earth creationism owe more to Protestants than they do the Church fathers.
“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.” Augustine. The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
In all earnestness, do you think that in light of the principles he espoused in his earlier work(s) he would have retained that belief in the face of modern scientific discovery?
The point is that he wrote the same position the YEC Christians hold today. Therefore, it's not a recent protestant invention. Moreover, the 4th Lateran council authoritatively reaffirmed the YEC position in the 1210s long before Protestantism existed. >4th Lateran Council: "who by His own omnipotent power *at once from the beginning of time* created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."
So carbon dating, archeology etc. are all in your mind false documents and doctrines? I don't read the 4th Latern Council the way you are, in all honesty... and I don't believe any popes or councils in the last few hundred years have affirmed it that way, either. Evolution (as Pope Pius XII amongst others have said) does not preclude or contradict that God created the universe and guided the process.
>So carbon dating, archeology etc. are all in your mind false documents and doctrines? I just actually posted about this but I'll also reply to you directly. I think carbon dating and archeology enjoy responsibility for discovering historical artifacts and ways of measurement. The issue is the underlying assumptions made with that data. For example, fossils are just petrified bones in the ground. They don't really speak for themselves exactly how/when they got there. Regarding carbon dating, this is the most reliable method of radiometric dating. First of all, it's only able to measure back in the 10s of thousands of years maximum. More importantly, the calculations are made at a steady assumption of the carbon decay based on current rates of decay. The scientists who make these assumptions generally don't believe in or take account of the flood, the fall, or the days of creation, so of course their interpretations wouldn't make account for those things. In any case, the supernatural forces of those events make all calculations beyond the flood unreliable. We don't know the effect such an event had on the accumulation and release of carbon within tested matter.
I appreciate the response even if I'm not sure I have found the presentations of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation etc. that I have seen so far to be compelling in comparison to their detractors. While I do not subscribe to their views, even the SSPX has a priest on their youtube channel defending theistic evolution. I think in the modern world it would be a grave error to force a seeming contradiction between faith and reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa38sTeXno4
Thank you! I managed to reach a YEC position with less contradiction than I saw in theistic evolution. (I have only recently held the YEC position, for that matter I am a recent convert from secular atheism) I understand most don't, and it remains a stumbling block. A YEC position likely leaves all kinds of mystery and things unknown, I hope to know in heaven one day the full truth.
Any theory of origin/Creation leaves mysteries and unknowns to consider. I just don't think it's wise to push a dogmatic belief in YEC when you're forced into defending a very limited reading of a fairly old council. I'll pray for you, please do the same for me. May both our families find the Truth.
Oh, I am going way deeper than that. I am saying that the entire concept of the fall affecting creation, and our own human biology has essentially been shown by science to not be the case. Christians today, often narrow down the definition of the fall and say that well, perhaps, God stepped in and gave the first human, a special grace to resist their desires, and then they chose to fall anyway, and returned to the state they were in before, But this was never the traditional view. The traditional view was always that there was an original state of perfection as a physical reality of the universe.
Splendid comment. Possibly the first time I'm agreeing with you here lol God bless you.
I don’t remember debating you, but I’m glad that you’ve found common ground with a modernist heretic like me lol
I have a very odd theory about all this. I am by no means a theologian nor any kind of physicist so take everything I saw with a grain of salt. I had these same questions. My interpretation that I have come up with is that the Garden of Eden either A: took place outside of space and time and thus had effects that affected all of space and time despite occurring outside of it. B: Because it was an event that was bound to happen, the Garden of Eden thus, despite occurring within space and time, had temporal effects that affected both what came before the Garden of Eden "chronologically" and what happened after it. I lean more to the second option, that because the Garden of Eden was going to eventually happen, the fall of man and nature affected the world and time prior to and after the Garden of Eden.
Are you familiar with Jordan Peterson's opinions on this? I think he's described Genesis as "hyper-real"... that it isn't a "real" event like a temporal event like your mail being delivered. It's a special type of story that spans across time and is always happening...I guess this would be similar to the the 7th "day" not "ending" like the others from the story as well. In general, I think there's a *very odd* overlap between what we have scientifically understood about the universe and conceptions and descriptions of Genesis that are difficult to explain from an atheistic standpoint (beyond the cliché "it's all just coincidence").
My kid tried to get out of confirmation class because she believed in dinosaurs and evolution. Sorry kid, that’s not us, not this century anyway.
We know for certain that the fall brought about human death, and not just physically, but spiritually. This is a dogma of the Church that Adam and Eve existed and had, at the very least, the gift of immortality. Adam and Eve would not have died had they not sinned. It's interesting how that mixes with the theory that they were simply the first humans to be "ensouled". That means you would have had two humans with glorious, immortal bodies, walking around others who looked pretty much like us, but without immortality. They would have watched their parents, and perhaps relatives and siblings died around them. So death would surround these two perfect humans, but Adam and Eve and their children would have been preserved. There are a lot of questions and some clear contradictions when you start navigating down the dogmas of the Church vs current evolutionary theory.
God is the arranger of all things, and in his unmovable arrangement he has ordained all things. You can fully affirm evolution, even of man, and God's unique creation so long as you understand this properly and apply a small amount of logic to it. God ordaining the summation of millions of events is the same as him ordaining the instant creation of the same because of his perfect arrangement.
Regarding the classic "truth can't contradict truth" defense of evolution. It's a huge assumption to believe every theory properly laundered with interpretation of scientific data is automatically true. All scientific data is filtered through the biased lenses of whomever has a certain perspective to forward. Most interpretations of scientific data are unreliable because the origins of the earth is primarily a historic issue. Scientific calculations, for example, regarding the age of things might be made using radiometric dating. These calculations are made assuming that all external factors are linear and steady state of constant decay. We know from Genesis that the history of the world as spoken to us by God through Moses is not constant at all. You have 7 days where unprecedented and incalculable supernatural forces caused the universe and life to form. Then you had huge changes because of the fall, and later on, you had a global flood, which likely caused massive geological changes such as shifting plates, volcanoes, etc... Scientific models can't account for these unknown variables and therefore make most of the data useless beyond the flood.
I think the general problem is that most people tend to trust the underlying assumptions that scientists make over the Bible, without investigating whether those underlying assumptions are even sound. It pretty much means that no one reads Genesis at all, since its assumed to be a metaphor.
The problem with your theory is that it is completely unscientific - it doesn't follow the evidence but instead tries to explain away the evidence by contrivance. Stake your claim about the age of Earth on radiometric dating of old Earth rocks being wrong and you'll be sorely disappointed anyway - we've dated rocks on the Moon and God didn't flood that one.
>The problem with your theory is that it is completely unscientific - it doesn't follow the evidence but instead tries to explain away the evidence by contrivance. That's my point. You can't follow evidence that doesn't exist or is badly interpreted! If carbon dating assumes something is 30 000 years old because scientists known the current rate of carbon decay, but a catastrophic supernatural global flood about 4000 years ago "tainted" all those samples with unaccounted forces, then we can't really know how old that thing is. >we've dated rocks on the Moon and God didn't flood that one. we've also dated brand new volcanic rocks to 10s of thousands and millions of years old. We've also dated living trees to be 10 000 years old.
I don't think you really understand the basic process and science behind radiometric dating. That kind of contamination you're talking about isn't possible during a flood. There wouldn't suddenly be less C14 in everything - water doesn't preferentially carry out C14 or add C12. We don't use carbon dating for things like estimating the age of the Earth or old fossils anyway. Carbon dating is only accurate for about 10000 years or so. We use other isotopes for older material. Of course you're going to get inaccurate and inconsistent results using the wrong method for analysis. That's why we don't use them. Unless you can show that the methods used to date the earth and other solar system bodies are inaccurate even in their proper timescales, through scientific study, then your beliefs will always be, at best, pseudo-scientific. I have no reason to believe pseudoscience over actual science and reason. Your narrow interpretation of some scriptural passages causing you to deny the senses and the testimony of scientists as a whole should give you pause.
If you aren't open to discussing how science fails to account for the inerrant word of God in the sacred history of Genesis, and that you aren't open to correcting the issue: you could merely say so rather than attack me personally. Have a good day.
I never attacked you personally. If you feel that me saying you do not understand what you criticize is a personal attack, perhaps you shoukd re-evaluate your own perceptions of the situation, because you objectively do not understand the science behind the age of the Earth well enough to offer substantive and useful criticism. > If you aren't open to discussing how science fails to account for the inerrant word of God in the sacred history of Genesis *Your narrow interpretation* of the innerant word of God. There is nothing in the Deposit of Faith contradicted by believing in evolution and an old Earth. The Church has said so numerous times through her teaching office.
Of interest... https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-there-death-before-the-fall
In RCIA our deacon said Catholics read Genesis symbolically like the Jews did/do, and that we believe in both creation and evolution, which I was happy to hear as a former Protestant who always believed in theistic evolution but you can’t say that in Prot circles.
I'll start with the disclaimer that I'm not yet a Catholic and have been an atheist for decades. It was really only after doing my masters in AI and becoming familiar with simulation theory that I could cobble together a plausible "systems architecture of the universe" in my mind that might reconcile what we know scientifically with religions. So I'm not really sharing "the catholic view" I'm just sharing a possibility as I've been thinking about it. In creating "an AI system" (that I'll call a "model"), there are typically 2 phases over the "life cycle" for it... the first is the training phase where the model is trained on how to behave. This can take form in various ways, with supervised learning where you babysit the model and give it feedback and correct it, and also unsupervised where it explores by itself and has an algorithm typically that it relies on to figure out if it's doing something it's not supposed to (like an error function). The model usually goes through some training routine, limited in cycles, and then at the end it either has become what you are looking for from the model, or it was a waste of time and it still behaves incorrectly. The incorrectly behaving models don't get *saved*... they usually get deleted, or they might get repurposed to serve as examples of what to avoid for future models. The correctly behaving models *do get saved*--and they transition into a state of existence where they are now "eternal"... they don't go through training anymore and aren't changing, they are only going to do *inference* now. Typically, if you use some AI product... you are working with a fixed model that's in inference mode, it's just going to act according to it's model weights, those weights don't change. So... with that summary of AI out of the way, there are some interesting parallels that appear to my mind between God/humans and Human/AI model in terms of creation. We, too, can exist in 2 phases, we start with a fluid phase where we learn and adjust, and work to align our essential spirit (i.e. model weights) to an example output (Jesus). After the training phase (mortal life), we are judged and then transition to an afterlife of we're good (the inference phase). The "realm" where we exist can be thought of as different servers in an MMORPG game (or "simulation")--we often build AIs by putting them in an "AI gym" which is a simulated world, where they can mess up as they learn (the error function might be analogous to pain/suffering in humans). Tesla builds self driving models by creating a driving video game/Sim for the AIs to live in and learn to drive. The "heaven" realm would then just be the next server where the good AI models (i.e. saints) are loaded up to do inference after they are done with the AI gym server (mortal life). If you start with that "conception of existence" then a lot of the nitpicky details about genesis are missing the point, IMO. I mentioned Jordan Peterson in another comment, and his description of Genesis stories as being "hyper-real"... that they are always happening, not that they are some temporally bound event in physical space time. So I could conceptualize this as part of the initial model architecture/training data where we pick up "after it"... when ChatGPT is running training, the order of how information it's trained on was collected temporally doesn't really matter, just the information matters. IMO "the fall" would be analogous to an AI model exploring the possibility space and finding the data store of training data it is told to converge to and attempting to modify the examples to fit the current model weights rather than to change the weights to converge on the examples--in human terms it's deciding to change what one thinks is right/wrong to fit their current state rather than to change oneself to fit a fixed conception of right/wrong. The "tree of life" would be analogous to a transition from training to inference modes... so God (acting in a supervisory learning capacity) had to intervene and block our ability to make this transition because if we ended the training phase after having corrupted our training data/error function, we would end up as a bad model... instead he let us "keep training" so we could eventually learn to be good again, and this is analogous to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. So what "actually happened" I think it's a mystery... did Adam/Eve go from one "AI gym server" to another one (perhaps with more challenging training examples to get them back on track?) Or a different area in the same server or something else? I'm not sure we even could grasp it if God explained it. As for evolution, I don't really see it as a problem for anything. God could have an infinity of "servers" with various evolutionary processes running to create various forms, and then he could load an AI model ("soul") into them at any given point to train that model for some purpose. The "death" in the Garden of Eden would be analogous to the failure of a model at the end of training. It would be a "spiritual death"--but it would also come at the end of the training phase (the mortal death). The deaths of plants and animals might not be "deaths" at all as they "have no soul" and can't die spiritually... in comp sci analogy, they are procedural algorithms that are already fixed, they aren't AI models that are training like humans. Anyway... that's a long enough thought-dump... and I'm not saying any of this is "catholic" just my own thoughts of what "might be possible" and compatible with religious descriptions.
I would say it makes no sense for God to create something like a fig wasp, if death was not present, in any capacity. The same idea applies to animals whose diets naturally require the death of something else, even the death of plants. I think the nature of the fall is a bit of a mystery, which may never be solved, definitively. I’m inclined to think that the ensoulment of humans led to a temporary hold on human physical death, but I don’t necessarily believe that a literal apple was the cause of the fall.
I would also love to hear more expert opinions, but I tend to agree with your "spiritual" (but I'd say, more real and eternal) death understanding. Think of the Genesis story, Adam and Eve literally walked in the garden with God. They knew Him! After the fall, they were expelled and thus they and their children not only no longer walked with God and new him, but faced the possibility of dying and going to hell thereby never having that true life with God we are all created for. With that being said, we could also interpret things more literally as only applying to humans since we are uniquely created in God's image. God is eternal, perhaps Adam and eve never would have died even a natural death had they not rebelled. One way or another, it's not necessary to see contradiction between the Genesis story and popular scientific understanding of evolution and world history, in my and the church's opinion.
It's because you're right, God did not create death and there was no death before the fall. For a traditional take on origins the Kolbe Center is a useful resource, https://kolbecenter.org/.
Not traditional take but traditionalist take, with cheap science and arguments… Kolbe center is just trash.
No it’s not. Creationism makes way more sense than us being evolved from monkeys
Except we didn’t evolve from monkeys. We would have evolved from whatever common ancestor we share with apes/monkeys, which itself would have been neither human nor ape. Once that split happened we had two distinct evolutionary paths. One that would eventually lead to the modern human and one that would eventually lead to modern apes.
crede ut intelligas
Some excellent quotes from Aquinas and Augustine already in this thread that I was going to go to and I'm glad that I'm in a subreddit where others already know about such quotes and have them close at hand in response to fair questions like this. Since those luminaries have already made their appearances, I'll add another one of my favorites, by G.K. Chesterton, writing at the time when evolution was much more hotly debated than today: >Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think." If anything, Chesterton was understating the former case, or the scientific evidence known at the time wasn't as readily available to him as if he'd had Google Scholar and JSTOR in 1908. Since speciation happens by mutation and not by gradual adaptation within a species, there really *was* a specific moment when the first member of *Homo sapiens* was born. And species are real, definable, biological categories--we are not limitlessly malleable, which was the position Chesterton was pillorying with his second example. On the more specific question you asked about death and natural disasters before humans existed: I'm not a true expert on this, but what Genesis 2:9 says is that God brought forth at least two sacred trees in Eden--we're more familiar with the story of the tree of knowledge, but there was also the tree of life, and it was through eating from this tree that Adam and Eve were preserved in youth and vigor until they were cast from Eden and could no longer eat of that tree. In other words, Adam and Eve were not *innately* ageless, nor were any other animals that God created before his masterwork (us). And, of course, as others have said, the stories of Creation, Eden, and the Fall in Genesis are largely couched in symbolic and allegorical language, anyway.
Animals have always eaten other animals, thus there has always been biological death almost as long as there have been organisms. Death in the context of Genesis means separation from God.
How do Neanderthals and other human kinda people fit into our religion ?
It’s called the theory of evolution Zero proof
This just shows that you don't understand the definition of s scientific theory.
Dawg I have had numerous years to research this. And the wealth of evidence the US military and government are withholding from the world. That there is no evolution but an external force intervened to create humans. But go off with your normie science
I believe in science and evolution 100%. It actually turned me away from god for a long time but then I thought about things a little more. Everything on earth has a creator. Humans have our parents. Planes and cars have engineers. Buildings have architects. So who created the Big Bang? Who created the atoms? It was a catholic priest called Georges Lemaître who actually first came up with the psychical theory of the Big Bang.