Contending For The Faith---Part 3

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

A Matter of Time

A hotbed of controversy revolves around the age of the Earth/universe. Must a Traditionalist Catholic believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and was created exactly as described in the first chapter of Genesis, or can he believe the Universe began 13.8 billion years ago? I have studied the issue for quite awhile. I will set forth the major views on this topic (with references for proponents of each), and analyze its compatibility with the Faith. 

1. Young Earthers

Proponents: Many Traditionalists and Fundamentalist Protestants such as Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (See answersingenesis.org) and the Institute for Creation Research (See icr.org).

Basic Belief:

Also known as "Young Earth Creationism," they believe the creation account in Genesis describes 6 literal, 24-hour days. The entirety of the universe and all life appeared within the six-day timeframe. Young Earth creationists believe the universe is between six thousand and ten thousand years old, with definite leanings toward the six-thousand-year mark.

All life was specially created. No natural processes were involved. All organisms, including humans, were created instantly, separately, and in their present form, fully mature and functional. Young Earth creationists concede a point, however, regarding variations in basic “kinds.” They believe organisms were created with the potential to give rise to multiple varieties within a generic “kind”—for example, lions, tigers, and domesticated cats are derived from a specially created “cat kind.”

Noah only needed to take representative “kinds” aboard the ark. (Note: the concept of “kind” is unique to Young Earth Creationism and is not a concept found in modern biology---Introibo). Many young Earthers believe all animals, including fully formed and developed carnivores, were created as vegetarians; therefore no animal ate meat until after the sin of Adam and Eve.

Human Beings:

The first man, Adam, was specially created, fully formed and mature, from dust. The first woman, Eve, was specially created, fully formed and mature, from Adam’s rib. Humans share no ancestry with any other animal but were fully human in form and nature from their creation. All humans who have ever lived are directly descended from this original pair. The eight survivors on the ark were direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and all humans since the flood descend directly from those eight.

Scientific Evidence:

If there is a conflict between a literal Bible reading and science evidence, the Bible is always correct, and the science is always wrong. For example, the fossil record conflicts with the order of Creation given in Genesis: fruit trees, followed by sea creatures and birds, then finally land animals. Since the order given in Genesis is correct, modern scientific interpretations of the fossil record must be, by default, incorrect.

Compatibility with the One True Church:

This may be believed and comports with much of what the Church Fathers said. There is no conflict between this view and Catholicism. There is a danger of falling into Protestant errors if  information is gotten from heretical Protestant sources, such as Ken Ham. 

2. Old Earthers

Proponents:

Some Traditionalist Catholics and some Protestants. There is a group of outspoken Protestants led by Dr. Hugh Ross and his organization, Reasons to Believe that champion this view publicly. (See reasons.org). 

Basic Belief:

This view is also known as "Old Earth Creationism." As the descriptor implies, old Earthers accept modern scientific evidence for the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) and the Earth (4.6 billion years). The Genesis word used by Moses for “day” was "yom," and is best interpreted as an extremely long, but finite time period. In other words, the Creation week was not composed of 6 literal 24-hour days, but billions of years divided into six periods of creative action. Old Earthers believe the days of creation as described in Genesis are a chronological account of the appearance of life on earth. In a billions-of-years-long creation “week,” God specially and separately created each of the millions of species, both extinct and living. Many believe God miraculously intervened billions of times throughout earth’s history to separately create each and every species.

Noah’s flood destroyed all humans and animals not saved on the ark. In a major departure from young Earthers, many old Earthers do not believe the flood was global in extent. Instead, the flood was limited to areas of human settlement.

Human Beings:

Old Earth Creationists accept the evidence of the fossil record, including premodern humans like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the Australopithecines. However, premodern "humans" are considered animals and not true humans with a soul. The human body may have developed by a type of evolution, but the soul was created immediately and directly out of nothing (ex nihil) by God.

Adam and Eve were a literal, historical couple. They were separately and specially created and share no ancestry with any other creature. All humanity descended from Adam and Eve.

Scientific Evidence:

The Big Bang (theory developed by Belgian Catholic priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre), and all modern discoveries in biology, geology, etc.

Compatibility with the One True Church:

It is possible (not required) for a Catholic to hold this position. Proof:

In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII teaches:

...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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.  For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (See para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism.

According to theologian Tanquerey:

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The opinion which asserts that the human body has arisen from animality through the forces of evolution is not heretical, in fact in can be admitted theologically…

Thesis: The universal human race has arisen from the one first parent Adam.  According to many theologians this statement is proximate to a matter of faith. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:394-398; Emphasis mine).

Theologian Ott says similarly:

The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

The basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original).

Finally, the following question was proposed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. This means that the "days" of creation need not be actual periods of twenty-four hours each. This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

3. Intelligent Design

Proponents: Traditional Catholics and theists of all kinds, Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, Mohammedans, etc. The major voice today is The Discovery Institute (See discovery.org).

Basic Belief:

The centerpiece of intelligent design research is the concept of “irreducible complexity”: unguided (natural) processes could never produce the complexity and machine-like qualities we see in biological systems and structures. Remove any part of the system or structure, and the system or structure is useless. Therefore, complex systems are specially and intentionally designed and are irrefutable evidence of a Designer. The Designer is never referred to as God, and no theological doctrines are taught. 

Intelligent design accepts the modern scientific evidence for a billions-of-years age for the Earth and Universe. Intelligent Design does not make any claims regarding Genesis, so Noah’s flood or “flood geology” is not addressed.

Human Beings:

Intelligent design makes no claims regarding a literal, historical Adam and Eve. There are no claims concerning the Flood and Noah. 

Scientific Proof:

Intelligent design focuses on the unexplained in science, such as "irreducible complexity." Where there is a gap in science knowledge, intelligent design advocates ask, “is it actually explainable?” It also emphasizes weaknesses in evolution theory. All modern science discoveries are accepted. The largely atheistic scientific organizations have labeled Intelligent Design as "pseudo-science."

Compatibility with the One True Church:

The "Argument from Design" or "Fine Tuning Argument" are great proofs for the existence of God. Hence, it may be used against an atheist, but it is not sufficient alone as compatible with Church teaching as it does not affirm our First Parents and many other truths of Faith.  

4. Evolutionary Creationism

Proponents: 

Modernists and Liberal Protestants.

Basic Belief:

The Genesis creation account is written in the genre of ancient Near Eastern creation stories, of which there are several. Using a format common to cultures surrounding Israel, Israel tells its version, with God as the cause and at the center of the story. The Bible is in no way an historical record, but a myth.

 The account of Noah is part of the genre of ancient Near/Middle Eastern flood stories, of which there are several. Like the Creation story, the Noah story is read in the context of like-culture stories, but with God as the central figure in the story. Opinions vary as to whether Noah’s flood was actually a localized historical event or a story with a theological message, or a combination of both.

Human Beings:

Adam and Eve were not factual, historical people; nor are they accepted as the genetic ancestors of all humans. Human beings evolved by the Will of God and have a special relationship with Him. 

Scientific Proof:

Evolutionary theory according to Neo-Darwinian scientists is uncritically accepted. All modern science is accepted and if anything conflicts with theology, then theology must change to adapt to the latest scientific models. 

Compatibility with the One True Church:

Evolutionary Creationism is heretical, and as such, must be rejected by Traditionalist Catholics. It denies defined dogma regarding the Bible, monogenism, and implicitly denies both Original Sin and the need for a Divine Savior.

Conclusion

These are the major views on the beginning of the universe. I excluded Atheistic Evolutionism since it is virtually the same as Evolutionary Creationism minus the nominal mention of God. It is a good exercise in apologetics to know all points of view on a subject. This allows you better defend your position and see the weaknesses in other viewpoints. The Old Earth and Young Earth views are both acceptable, and Traditionalists should not bash one another over the issue; we have enough to fight for already that is necessary. Let this exposition make us more aware of what is and is not acceptable on the origin of the universe, remembering the old aphorism, "Those who do not understand their opponent's point of view, do not fully understand their own."