Gird Under Construction

[1Timothy115]

Does the Roman Church teach a literal 6 day creation as described in Genesis?

[John81]

No. They have "left open" how God could have created everything. They have made proclamations that science has proved evolution (funny that it's still a theory!) and that God could have used various means to bring about the creation. If I understand correctly, with their many contradictory statements, and Catholic could believe just about anything regarding creation and be in accord with RCC doctrine on the issue.

[HappyChristian]

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith OBliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Time Question


Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the OBject of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.


Chronological Reading


According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as OBvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

It sounds like they really can't make up their minds!

[Invicta]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

It sounds like they really can't make up their minds!

[1Timothy115]

I wonder what the average Roman Church member believes

Edited December 9, 2010 by 1Tim115

[Invicta]

I don't know about the RCC, but my Funk & Wagnalls dictionary has a History, Day By Day in the back and that says the Anglican church accepted evolution in Jan 1938. Strangely enough, I know a number of anglicans who don't accept it.

[Crushmaster]

I wonder what the average Roman Church member believes

It depends. Here in America, I'm not even sure most people believe in evolution. However, in other countries, I'm sure that number rises...

Feliz Navidad!
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.

[Bro Jim]

You want a surprise check out http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

Just a preview:
39% Believe
25% Do Not
36% No opinion either way
1% no answer
The real surprise is the church goers

[1Timothy115]

You want a surprise check out http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

Just a preview:
39% Believe
25% Do Not
36% No opinion either way
1% no answer
The real surprise is the church goers

Jim, church goers who believe in Darwin doesn't surprise me.
2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[Bro Jim]

A little off topic but, this is part of the reason so many young people (18-30) are leaving the church. We don't stand against the evolutionaries. And if you watch the the teens, they may even now looking for the chance to leave.

Look around you church this Sunday before you respond to this.

The RC's are trying to get ahead of the exodus by embracing the fallacy.

Me, I'm a new earther. The Word created it!!

Edited December 10, 2010 by Bro Jim

[John81]

Most RCC and others seem to either believe in evolution or something along those lines or they don't really even think or care about it.

Most RCC I've known buy into evolution and have never heard any teaching on God literally creating everything just as it says in Genesis.

Little wonder so many believe in evolution since it permeates movies, TV shows, documentaries, and nearly everything on the Discovery channels, the Weather channel programs and others.

I know lot's of professing Christians also believe in what they learned in public school and saw on TV regarding evolution.