There is NO Conflict Between Christianity, the Book of Genesis and Evolution

[JimBowie1958]

The early church fathers knew that the six days of Creation were not necessarily literal.

Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]). [/1]

Theophilus of Antioch
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).

Irenaeus
"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

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

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian
"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Victorinus
"God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).

Lactantius
"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

So there have been various interpretations of what exactly might be meant in regard to a 6 day story of Creation, and this is true from the very beginning of the Christian church.

Nor does the theory of Evolution necessarily contradict any other belief in God or the Bible, though I suppose one can always interpret for oneself anything to be contrary to anything else, if one is willing to be so subjective in interpretation. The hostility between biological science regarding Evolution and Christianity is a product of two beneficiaries who work in faux opposition; fundamentalists who use their claims of incompatibility between Evolution and the Bible as a wedge to separate people from Main Stream churches and thus are free to join the fundamentalist church, and the atheists on the other hand who jump at every opportunity to make Christians look ridiculous and anti-science.

The evidence for Evolution is profound and implied. Adaptation of one species to its environment is not contrary to the Young Earth Creationists point of view, but evolution from one 'kind' to another kind is. And yet there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that points to evolution of kinds as well as adaptation in species.

1) "Kinds" of creatures tend to be more similar to each other the closer they are geographically. Why would God do this if He created each and every kind as they are today? This correspondence between geographical proximity and similarity strongly suggests evolution of kinds.

2) The fossil record shows an increasing complexity with the younger age of rock the fossils are found in. Yes, I know that rock sometimes gets inverted, and so forth. There are exceptions to every rule, but by and large the layering of rock is consistent and we can derive fairly accurate age to them. Why would God put fossils into the Earth if our planet is less than 10,000 years old? It would appear obvious that life grew more complex as the eons wore on. Does God play tricks on men, to fool us?

3) Evolution has proven to be a fairly accurate predictive tool for the discovery of other fossils and 'intermediate' kinds of animals and plants. This makes it a valuable scientific theory that also implies similar processes to sociological, technological, and moral development as well. If this theory has such predictive value, how can it not be true itself? Isn't all Truth God's Truth?

There is nothing anti-Christian about the Theory of Evolution, and Christians need to become more open minded and tolerant of it. In fact, the concept of the evolution of cultures and morals is a great aid to Christianity as one can point to the evolution of mankind's ability to understand God's moral lessons and this provides much explanation as to why some thing were moral or immoral at various times in human existence.

Yes, all Truth is God's Truth, and it behooves any Christian to use all the tools of learning the Truth that God has given us.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity are, for the most part, a very recent trend.

The "early Church fathers" of the first millennia were more likely to accept the Bible as metaphor rather than literal truth than Evangelicals in America are today.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity are, for the most part, a very recent trend.

The "early Church fathers" of the first millennia were more likely to accept the Bible as metaphor rather than literal truth than Evangelicals in America are today.

Yeah, so the media reporting the faux controversy has led most people to think that there is some deep gulf between scientific truth and religion, which is bullshit.

When the media ignores the prevalent 'dog bites man' stories and only reports when man bites dog, after a while the public begins to think only men bite innocent dogs.

 

[PostmodernProph]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

 

[Hollie]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

Light and time both have existed for a bit more than 6,000 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jimbowie explained this "contradiction" well: there is none.

Fundamentalism does not explain Genesis well at all, imho.

 

[Hollie]

jimbowie explained this "contradiction" well: there is none.

Fundamentalism does not explain Genesis well at all, imho.

The contradiction is glaring and profound.

First, there’s a much bigger issue that is not being addressed. Other than happenstance, why does anyone believe the Judeo-Christian tale vs. another? It’s pretty obvious. Keep in mind, that it is only a matter of time, parentage and happenstance that places us here discussing these issues.

Consider this scenario: If we were both sitting on one of the Greek isles several thousand years ago we’d be discussing the various attributes of Zeus as one of the various gods extant at that time. It’s just a fact that several thousand years ago, believers were just as strident in their claims of "my god(s) is THE god(s)" as believers are with the god(s) currently in vogue. If we were discussing these issues in the context of being born and raised during the period of time when Isis was the god of choice, the expectation is, overwhelmingly, that the arguments anyone presents would support that god. We are a product of our environments, as are humans and animals and as
such we... evolve <---- (uh oh, I said that word). We evolve, thus the gods we invented have evolved.

 

[JimBowie1958]

jimbowie explained this "contradiction" well: there is none.

Fundamentalism does not explain Genesis well at all, imho.

The contradiction is glaring and profound.

First, there’s a much bigger issue that is not being addressed. Other than happenstance, why does anyone believe the Judeo-Christian tale vs. another?

What the hell does that have to do with Evolution?

Consider this scenario: If we were both sitting on one of the Greek isles several thousand years ago we’d be discussing the various attributes of Zeus as one of the various gods extant at that time. It’s just a fact that several thousand years ago, believers were just as strident in their claims of "my god(s) is THE god(s)" as believers are with the god(s) currently in vogue. If we were discussing these issues in the context of being born and raised during the period of time when Isis was the god of choice, the expectation is, overwhelmingly, that the arguments anyone presents would support that god. We are a product of our environments, as are humans and animals and as
such we... evolve <---- (uh oh, I said that word). We evolve, thus the gods we invented have evolved.

Obviously you are not aware of the FACT that Greek philosophers came to believe in a Creator and rejected polytheism long before Christianity came about or the general population rejected polytheism.

You assertion is contradicted by a simple reading of the history of philosophy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

both

 

[Hollie]

jimbowie explained this "contradiction" well: there is none.

Fundamentalism does not explain Genesis well at all, imho.

The contradiction is glaring and profound.

First, there’s a much bigger issue that is not being addressed. Other than happenstance, why does anyone believe the Judeo-Christian tale vs. another?

What the hell does that have to do with Evolution?

Consider this scenario: If we were both sitting on one of the Greek isles several thousand years ago we’d be discussing the various attributes of Zeus as one of the various gods extant at that time. It’s just a fact that several thousand years ago, believers were just as strident in their claims of "my god(s) is THE god(s)" as believers are with the god(s) currently in vogue. If we were discussing these issues in the context of being born and raised during the period of time when Isis was the god of choice, the expectation is, overwhelmingly, that the arguments anyone presents would support that god. We are a product of our environments, as are humans and animals and as
such we... evolve <---- (uh oh, I said that word). We evolve, thus the gods we invented have evolved.

Obviously you are not aware of the FACT that Greek philosophers came to believe in a Creator and rejected polytheism long before Christianity came about or the general population rejected polytheism.

You assertion is contradicted by a simple reading of the history of philosophy.

Right. Many cultures believed in many different gods. Those gods were shaped and redefined with time. Your gods are no more true than any of the earlier, human configured gods.

 

[PostmodernProph]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

Light and time both have existed for a bit more than 6,000 years.

who gives a fuck about 6000 years?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

both

both, first?....

 

[Moonglow]

Why do the fundies never recognize Adams first wife, but only his second?

 

[Flopper]

There is no conflict except with those that literally interpret parts of the Bible that support their beliefs. It's the same bunch that literally interprets the Constitution. We've heard it a thousand times. "Where does it say in Bible (Constitution) that....

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no conflict except with those that literally interpret parts of the Bible that support their beliefs. It's the same bunch that literally interprets the Constitution. We've heard it a thousand times. "Where does it say in Bible (Constitution) that....

Your hermeneutics are off a bit if you are comparing a collection of books written separately over the course of 1500 to 2000 years and nearly 2000 years ago on one hand and a modern legally binding document written as a founding piece of law.

The first is meant to be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the literary style of the book in question, while the entirety of the Constitution is written in legally binding founding law and intended from the start to be taken literally, word for word. Yes it is a living breathing document but that is because of the amendment process, not case law rewrite via libtard abuse of the court system.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do the fundies never recognize Adams first wife, but only his second?

What are you talking about? Genesis 1 vrs Genesis 2?

 

[Old Rocks]

The owl.

 

[rdean]

Pat Robertson, yes, THE Pat Robertson says right wingers should stop talking against evolution. It makes them look like clowns.

 

[Flopper]

There is no conflict except with those that literally interpret parts of the Bible that support their beliefs. It's the same bunch that literally interprets the Constitution. We've heard it a thousand times. "Where does it say in Bible (Constitution) that....

Your hermeneutics are off a bit if you are comparing a collection of books written separately over the course of 1500 to 2000 years and nearly 2000 years ago on one hand and a modern legally binding document written as a founding piece of law.

The first is meant to be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the literary style of the book in question, while the entirety of the Constitution is written in legally binding founding law and intended from the start to be taken literally, word for word. Yes it is a living breathing document but that is because of the amendment process, not case law rewrite via libtard abuse of the court system.

If we are to take the constitution literally, a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple&#8217;s second child and place it in a foster home.

In amendment 1, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There are religions that require human sacrifice, so it could not be prohibits it by federal law.

A literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment would allow for any citizens, even felons serving time in prison to keep weapons of any type, atomic, biological, or whatever.

Segregation, Jim Crow, and miscegenation laws would still be legal.

A literal interpretation of the constitution makes little sense and if it were as old as the bible it would no sense at all.

 

[Flopper]

that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16)

a case in point.....

And God said, &#8220;Let there be light,&#8221; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light &#8220;day,&#8221; and the darkness he called &#8220;night.&#8221; And there was evening, and there was morning&#8212;the first day.

was it "light" that God created?.....what he created he called "day" and "night" and that which separated them.....what separates day and night is time.....and there was evening and there was morning - the first day......

did God create "light" or did he create "time"?.......

Light and time both have existed for a bit more than 6,000 years.

Which is why a literal interpretation of the Bible makes no sense. The Bible was written so that people of that day could understand and accept it. Those same passages taken literally today results in misunderstanding and rejection.