“The evolution of nature DOES NOT contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” –Pope Francis
Is the Pope right?
Does Evolution not contrast with the notion of Creation? What do you say? Why?
mythopoeic = "of or relating to the composition of myths." (Collins English Dictionary)
myth = "an unfounded or false notion." (Mirriam-Webster)
Is Reverend Paul right? Is the Genesis account a myth?
“In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.”
Genesis 1:1-2
How can we know if this is true? Science can not prove it. It happened in the past. None of us was here. Therefore, science cannot disprove it either. It would have been a supernatural act by a supernatural God. You either believe it or you don’t.
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness. God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
Genesis 1:3-5
And here is the first problem. How, exactly, can the Bible claim that God made heaven, and earth, and light on the first day when everyone knows that the universe is at least 13 billion years old and the earth more than 4.5 billion?
Well, firstly, does everyone know that? How? Radiometric dating, we are told.
Radiometric dating = "a method of dating geological or archeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample." (Bing)
But is radiometric dating really that reliable? In investigating the validity of radiometric dating, we found this:
“Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements.”
Encyclopedia Britannica
And in checking further, I discovered that:
“One should be cautious about investing much confidence in the resulting age.”
Talk Origins
Yet–more commonly–especially in academia, we find articles that contradict these statements:
“Radiometric Dating Does Work!”
The National Center for Science Education
“Radiometric dating is a very accurate way to date the Earth.”
University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB ScienceLine)
So which is it? Well let’s ask some questions:
- “What if there were some of the daughter isotope in the sample when it was formed? (Or, by analogy, what if (an) hourglass had some sand already in the bottom vessel when the hourglass was first placed upright?)“
- “What if the sample were not a “closed system”, and isotopes (either parent or daughter) could enter or leave the system? (What if there were holes in either vessel of the hourglass that could let sand grains in or out?)”
Couldn’t such unexpected circumstances affect estimates of how long the radiometric dating “clock” has been running?
And that would mean that radiometric dating’s results are “highly questionable,” right?
So, why, exactly, did Catholic doctrine embrace the “millions of years” required for Evolution? The answer is that they do not see the Bible the way Jesus did- UNBREAKABLE. (John 10:35)
The beautiful thing, though, is that any of us can change that anytime we want.
“Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that, namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books.” –Ven. Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 papal encyclical, “Divino Afflante Spiritu”
His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter on the Promotion of Biblical Studies
September 30, 1943
To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Archbishops and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness. In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.“[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and–as they contended–in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
