Why Evolutionary Theory, including views of Theistic Evolution, are not Catholic Truths; a presentation and defense of the Dogma of Special Creation/Divine Conservation.
The book "THE DOCTRINES OF GENESIS 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins" by Fr. Warkulwiz is an excellent book on this subject.
If the point being made here is that Genesis is accurate in saying the God created the universe out of nothing, I agree. If, on the other hand, if the point is that God created the universe out of nothing in exactly the way that Genesis described it (6 days, Garden of Eden, forbidden fruit, talking serpent) the I probably disagree with it.
I apologize in that I seem to be late to this dance. I suspect that much of this has long since been discussed. I would appreciate an answer to help me catch up,
Steven Work, The Genesis account is the original Creation story, and modern hyper historical critical scholarship is completely silly attempting to equate it with other a creation "myths" or even attempt to say that Moses (or as they say "The Biblical Author of Genesis") copied his story from the "Enumu Elish", though there is no way to prove it whatsoever, and quite the opposite actually makes sense...
"Enumu Elish means “When on high.” Some of the lines of Enumu Elish read as follows: When above the heaven had not been named; and below the earth had not been called by a name; when Apsu primeval, their begetter; Mummu, and Ti amat, she who gave birth to them all; still mingled their waters together;
And no pasture land had been formed and not even a reed march was to be seen;
When none of the other gods had been brought into being; When they had not yet been called by their names, and their destinies had not yet been fixed; at that time were the gods created within them; Lahmu and Lahamu came into being;
they were called by their names; Even before they had grown up and become tall; Anshar and Kishar were created; they surpassed them in stature; They lived many days, adding years to days; Anu was their heir presumptive, the rival of his fathers; Yea, Anu, his first-born, equaled Anshar; And Anu begot Nudimud, his likeness; Nidimud, the master of his fathers was he; He was broad of understanding, wise, mighty in strength; Much stronger than his grandfather, Anshar; He had no rival among the gods of his brothers... (The Babylonian Genesis, Alexander Heidel, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, 1951, p. 😎. It is amazing that scholars would once claim that Enumu Elish is the very “model” of Genesis, adding that the latter is a poor copy of the former. Enumu Elish is almost twice the length of Genesis 1, meandering from topic to topic; it is not a creation story, whereas Genesis clearly is; it is mythical poetry, whereas Genesis is didactic and academic, devoid of myth; Marduk appears on the scene very late, whereas Elohim is the only agent making his world; Marduk struggles, whereas Elohim merely speaks and the work is done; Marduk is picked by the gods because they want revenge, whereas Elohim is in competition with no one and serves no one; Marduk is a bloody warrior and creates mayhem, whereas Elohim creates beauty and order; Marduk is constantly agitated and anticipating his next battle, whereas Elohim rests contently after his constructive work. If anything, Enumu Elish appears to be a corrupt form of Genesis 1....
Unfortunately, some Catholic exegetes have been heavily influenced by the historical-critical theory that Genesis 1 was not written until the return from Babylonian captivity between 515 and 445 B.C. Stanley Jaki states: “And since Genesis 1 is, on stylistic grounds alone, a patently post-exilic document...” in Bible and Science, p. 45, yet Jaki equivocates in Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp. 25-26 and says that “accepting higher criticism about the three or more different sources of Genesis that almost force one to date Genesis 1 as post-exilic” (ibid., p. 62). He traps himself, however, in his remarks on Psalm 104.
After quoting, “You have spread out the heavens like a tent-cloth; you have constructed your palace upon the waters,” Jaki states that the phrase, ‘Nor shall they cover the earth again’ “includes a post-diluvian perspective” which “ does not seem to bother the Psalmist.” This means that the Psalmist would have had the information both of Genesis 1 and Genesis 7-9 in order to make such a comparison between the two waters. If, as Jaki claims, Genesis 1 is “post-exilic” (a sixth century BC occurrence), Psalm 104, having been written about the eleventh century BC, would have no record of the “waters,” and thus, contrary to Jaki, Genesis 1 could not be “post-exilic.” We see the same sort of logic in Jaki’s view that the book of Ezekiel is “certainly a post-exilic product” (ibid., p.
5). Jaki simply ignores the fact that Ezekiel makes it quite clear that he is predicting, and eventually in the midst of, the Babylonian captivity, not subsequent to it. To claim, as Jaki does, that Ezekiel is “post-exilic” means that there is no real prophecy in Ezekiel; rather, Ezekiel merely poses his after-thoughts as prophecy to give the impression of divine revelation. Modern scholars do the same with Daniel. All of Daniel’s prophecies are said to be written “after the fact,” and thus the so-called “prophecies” are merely historical recountings, not predictions of the future. Although holding to evolution, Jaki does admit: “...the evolution of the universe, from very specific earlier states to a very specific present state, nothing is, of course as much as intimated in Genesis 1. Much less should one try to find there the idea of a biological evolution...” Jaki also admits: “In other words, nothing can any longer gloss over the fact that the fossil record defies the mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin...the paleontological record was never known to have contained clear transitional forms, let alone a series of gentle gradations leading up to man....The only solid ground for holding evolution is belief in the createdness of the universe, and therefore in the strict interconnectedness of all its parts, a feature demanded by the infinite rationality of the Creator” (ibid. pp. 145-146). It is hard to say why Jaki feels he must limit God’s “rationality” to evolution as opposed to instantaneous, ex nihilo, creation...
Richard Clifford, S. J., in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, states: “In Mesopotamian culture, evidently the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories and cosmogonies, not through abstract reasoning....Genesis 1-11 then is a single story, an unusually sustained ‘philosophical’ and ‘theological’ explanation of the human race....The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world, exploring major questions about God and humanity through narrative” (pp. 8-9). In contrast, Bruce Vawter in A Path Through Genesis (Sheed and Ward, 1958) and On Genesis: a New Reading (Doubleday, 1977) admits that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally crafted a sharply different cosmology than Enumu Elish. Vawter writes: “Genesis took itself seriously as serious history"
Genesis has been written out of an historical experience that was independent of the materials of which it fashioned its history, or better, which found in these materials resonances and insights that corresponded with the experience….Genesis stands apart from the rest of the Near Eastern myth and folklore to which it is otherwise so evidently related” (On Genesis, pp. 30-31). The contrasts are: many gods versus one god; gods as part of the world versus God not part of the world; matter exists first versus God exists first; stars help create the world versus stars being created on the fourth day; sea creatures rival the gods versus sea creatures as mere creatures. As Sir Frederic Kenyon states: “There is almost nothing to link the [Babylonian] narrative to that of Genesis” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London: Nelson, 1953, p. 184). Clifford’s reinterpretations of Genesis contradict the finding of the 1909 Biblical Commission: “Whether we may, in spite of the character and historic form of the book of Genesis...teach that the three aforesaid chapters do not contain the narrative of things which actually happened, a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historic truth; and whether we may teach that these chapters contain fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies belonging to older nations....Answer: in the negative to each part.” Genesis (Sheed and Ward, 1958) and On Genesis: a New Reading (Doubleday, 1977) admits that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally crafted a sharply different cosmology than Enumu Elish. Vawter writes: “Genesis took itself seriously as serious history….Genesis has been written out of an historical experience that was independent of the materials of which it fashioned its history, or better, which found in these materials resonances and insights that corresponded with the experience..." -From Dr. Robert Sungenis in "The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-11, The CASB, Volume IV"
The rejection of the Anchor to Natural Law, Rationality, and Sanity of Descartes and later is significant and has warped the West into the insane accepting state we now in world-wide.
As a converted Catholic of less than a decade and a Traditionalist of perhaps 3 years, and in my self-directed Catechizing, I see parallels between the rejection of the Truth, Justice, Order based solid anchor that Thomas Aquinas expanded and illuminated through Natural Laws and past Philosophers & Theologists - in Reflecting of Divine Holy Law and our human and Creation's condition - and the Modernist irrational Philosophy started by Descartes onward, all of which are anchorless struggles to find an anchor - the only Anchor, Truth - that they rejected. A parallel between that situation and our social and governing secular situation.
The Catholic Church's 60+ years of Modernist control display similar destruction of Truth, Justice, Order from the top imposing heretical insane changes from those who clearly intended treachery and betrayal of those Offices before taking them and have so distanced themselves from God and His Holy Carisma, Graces, and priority of Holy Ghost that such Offices bring to those with Good intent, and division, scandal and confusion exists that must share much of what Catholic society went through when Modernist Poison and division fragmentations the Protestant revolution had.
My belief that a significant line was crossed when Western society and most peoples were raised to accept the clearly insane, damaging and darkening our intellect, destroying innocence, distorting all factors that protect us and help us to have Truth and God reflected as clearly in our soul as possible for our condition and station in life that we should be able too. Weakened from deflecting other demonic-influences, we are open to other (all) soul damaging and possibly killing in the damage done in forced indoctrination & punishments for not, in acceptance of insanity of mothers hire Witches to torture to death our babies as Sacrifices to Satan and Sin.
It seems that from the de-anchoring from Truth, that this goal was the target, for once society and world accepted that and other insanities, then what limits to insanity and evil are closed, directed as we have been by Powerful directed by Witches, Demons, minions of Satan and Hell?
The book "THE DOCTRINES OF GENESIS 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins" by Fr. Warkulwiz is an excellent book on this subject.
I am not sure if I do or do not agree.
If the point being made here is that Genesis is accurate in saying the God created the universe out of nothing, I agree. If, on the other hand, if the point is that God created the universe out of nothing in exactly the way that Genesis described it (6 days, Garden of Eden, forbidden fruit, talking serpent) the I probably disagree with it.
I apologize in that I seem to be late to this dance. I suspect that much of this has long since been discussed. I would appreciate an answer to help me catch up,
Steven Work, The Genesis account is the original Creation story, and modern hyper historical critical scholarship is completely silly attempting to equate it with other a creation "myths" or even attempt to say that Moses (or as they say "The Biblical Author of Genesis") copied his story from the "Enumu Elish", though there is no way to prove it whatsoever, and quite the opposite actually makes sense...
"Enumu Elish means “When on high.” Some of the lines of Enumu Elish read as follows: When above the heaven had not been named; and below the earth had not been called by a name; when Apsu primeval, their begetter; Mummu, and Ti amat, she who gave birth to them all; still mingled their waters together;
And no pasture land had been formed and not even a reed march was to be seen;
When none of the other gods had been brought into being; When they had not yet been called by their names, and their destinies had not yet been fixed; at that time were the gods created within them; Lahmu and Lahamu came into being;
they were called by their names; Even before they had grown up and become tall; Anshar and Kishar were created; they surpassed them in stature; They lived many days, adding years to days; Anu was their heir presumptive, the rival of his fathers; Yea, Anu, his first-born, equaled Anshar; And Anu begot Nudimud, his likeness; Nidimud, the master of his fathers was he; He was broad of understanding, wise, mighty in strength; Much stronger than his grandfather, Anshar; He had no rival among the gods of his brothers... (The Babylonian Genesis, Alexander Heidel, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, 1951, p. 😎. It is amazing that scholars would once claim that Enumu Elish is the very “model” of Genesis, adding that the latter is a poor copy of the former. Enumu Elish is almost twice the length of Genesis 1, meandering from topic to topic; it is not a creation story, whereas Genesis clearly is; it is mythical poetry, whereas Genesis is didactic and academic, devoid of myth; Marduk appears on the scene very late, whereas Elohim is the only agent making his world; Marduk struggles, whereas Elohim merely speaks and the work is done; Marduk is picked by the gods because they want revenge, whereas Elohim is in competition with no one and serves no one; Marduk is a bloody warrior and creates mayhem, whereas Elohim creates beauty and order; Marduk is constantly agitated and anticipating his next battle, whereas Elohim rests contently after his constructive work. If anything, Enumu Elish appears to be a corrupt form of Genesis 1....
Unfortunately, some Catholic exegetes have been heavily influenced by the historical-critical theory that Genesis 1 was not written until the return from Babylonian captivity between 515 and 445 B.C. Stanley Jaki states: “And since Genesis 1 is, on stylistic grounds alone, a patently post-exilic document...” in Bible and Science, p. 45, yet Jaki equivocates in Genesis 1 Through the Ages, pp. 25-26 and says that “accepting higher criticism about the three or more different sources of Genesis that almost force one to date Genesis 1 as post-exilic” (ibid., p. 62). He traps himself, however, in his remarks on Psalm 104.
After quoting, “You have spread out the heavens like a tent-cloth; you have constructed your palace upon the waters,” Jaki states that the phrase, ‘Nor shall they cover the earth again’ “includes a post-diluvian perspective” which “ does not seem to bother the Psalmist.” This means that the Psalmist would have had the information both of Genesis 1 and Genesis 7-9 in order to make such a comparison between the two waters. If, as Jaki claims, Genesis 1 is “post-exilic” (a sixth century BC occurrence), Psalm 104, having been written about the eleventh century BC, would have no record of the “waters,” and thus, contrary to Jaki, Genesis 1 could not be “post-exilic.” We see the same sort of logic in Jaki’s view that the book of Ezekiel is “certainly a post-exilic product” (ibid., p.
5). Jaki simply ignores the fact that Ezekiel makes it quite clear that he is predicting, and eventually in the midst of, the Babylonian captivity, not subsequent to it. To claim, as Jaki does, that Ezekiel is “post-exilic” means that there is no real prophecy in Ezekiel; rather, Ezekiel merely poses his after-thoughts as prophecy to give the impression of divine revelation. Modern scholars do the same with Daniel. All of Daniel’s prophecies are said to be written “after the fact,” and thus the so-called “prophecies” are merely historical recountings, not predictions of the future. Although holding to evolution, Jaki does admit: “...the evolution of the universe, from very specific earlier states to a very specific present state, nothing is, of course as much as intimated in Genesis 1. Much less should one try to find there the idea of a biological evolution...” Jaki also admits: “In other words, nothing can any longer gloss over the fact that the fossil record defies the mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin...the paleontological record was never known to have contained clear transitional forms, let alone a series of gentle gradations leading up to man....The only solid ground for holding evolution is belief in the createdness of the universe, and therefore in the strict interconnectedness of all its parts, a feature demanded by the infinite rationality of the Creator” (ibid. pp. 145-146). It is hard to say why Jaki feels he must limit God’s “rationality” to evolution as opposed to instantaneous, ex nihilo, creation...
Richard Clifford, S. J., in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, states: “In Mesopotamian culture, evidently the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories and cosmogonies, not through abstract reasoning....Genesis 1-11 then is a single story, an unusually sustained ‘philosophical’ and ‘theological’ explanation of the human race....The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world, exploring major questions about God and humanity through narrative” (pp. 8-9). In contrast, Bruce Vawter in A Path Through Genesis (Sheed and Ward, 1958) and On Genesis: a New Reading (Doubleday, 1977) admits that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally crafted a sharply different cosmology than Enumu Elish. Vawter writes: “Genesis took itself seriously as serious history"
Genesis has been written out of an historical experience that was independent of the materials of which it fashioned its history, or better, which found in these materials resonances and insights that corresponded with the experience….Genesis stands apart from the rest of the Near Eastern myth and folklore to which it is otherwise so evidently related” (On Genesis, pp. 30-31). The contrasts are: many gods versus one god; gods as part of the world versus God not part of the world; matter exists first versus God exists first; stars help create the world versus stars being created on the fourth day; sea creatures rival the gods versus sea creatures as mere creatures. As Sir Frederic Kenyon states: “There is almost nothing to link the [Babylonian] narrative to that of Genesis” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London: Nelson, 1953, p. 184). Clifford’s reinterpretations of Genesis contradict the finding of the 1909 Biblical Commission: “Whether we may, in spite of the character and historic form of the book of Genesis...teach that the three aforesaid chapters do not contain the narrative of things which actually happened, a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historic truth; and whether we may teach that these chapters contain fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies belonging to older nations....Answer: in the negative to each part.” Genesis (Sheed and Ward, 1958) and On Genesis: a New Reading (Doubleday, 1977) admits that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally crafted a sharply different cosmology than Enumu Elish. Vawter writes: “Genesis took itself seriously as serious history….Genesis has been written out of an historical experience that was independent of the materials of which it fashioned its history, or better, which found in these materials resonances and insights that corresponded with the experience..." -From Dr. Robert Sungenis in "The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-11, The CASB, Volume IV"
The rejection of the Anchor to Natural Law, Rationality, and Sanity of Descartes and later is significant and has warped the West into the insane accepting state we now in world-wide.
As a converted Catholic of less than a decade and a Traditionalist of perhaps 3 years, and in my self-directed Catechizing, I see parallels between the rejection of the Truth, Justice, Order based solid anchor that Thomas Aquinas expanded and illuminated through Natural Laws and past Philosophers & Theologists - in Reflecting of Divine Holy Law and our human and Creation's condition - and the Modernist irrational Philosophy started by Descartes onward, all of which are anchorless struggles to find an anchor - the only Anchor, Truth - that they rejected. A parallel between that situation and our social and governing secular situation.
The Catholic Church's 60+ years of Modernist control display similar destruction of Truth, Justice, Order from the top imposing heretical insane changes from those who clearly intended treachery and betrayal of those Offices before taking them and have so distanced themselves from God and His Holy Carisma, Graces, and priority of Holy Ghost that such Offices bring to those with Good intent, and division, scandal and confusion exists that must share much of what Catholic society went through when Modernist Poison and division fragmentations the Protestant revolution had.
My belief that a significant line was crossed when Western society and most peoples were raised to accept the clearly insane, damaging and darkening our intellect, destroying innocence, distorting all factors that protect us and help us to have Truth and God reflected as clearly in our soul as possible for our condition and station in life that we should be able too. Weakened from deflecting other demonic-influences, we are open to other (all) soul damaging and possibly killing in the damage done in forced indoctrination & punishments for not, in acceptance of insanity of mothers hire Witches to torture to death our babies as Sacrifices to Satan and Sin.
It seems that from the de-anchoring from Truth, that this goal was the target, for once society and world accepted that and other insanities, then what limits to insanity and evil are closed, directed as we have been by Powerful directed by Witches, Demons, minions of Satan and Hell?
God Bless., Steve