Search A Catholic Life:

Sunday, May 7, 2006
Catholics and the Theory of Evolution
edit_button

“Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our view of what we are.  It influences not just our thoughts but also our actions in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory” (Dangers to theFaith: Recognizing Catholicism 21st Century Opponents by Al Kresta)

I posted the other day how a person I know attacked Catholics for what he believed was our position against evolution. A reader asked me what is the exact beliefs of Catholic concerning evolution, so I thought it would be wise to examine how Catholicism and the theory of Charles Darwin fit together.

First, we as Catholics know that the universe was created out of nothingness (cf. Dei Filius, can. 2-4; Lateran Council IV). Some scientists claim that the universe was randomly created in what they call the Big Bang. Most people don't realize that the theory of the Big Bang was first conceived by a Belgian priest named Georges-Henri Lemaître although he did not give it the name "Big Bang".  Yet this is one theory of the origin of the university that has its own drawbacks in light of scientific discoveries (or lack thereof)

At Vatican I, the Church infallibly stated 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). So, we do not believe the world was created in a random order without God's role.

The Church does not have a position on whether or not the stars and planets were created at the same time as the universe. However, when they were created they were also done so under the guidance of God. "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). The Church has also infallibly stated that the universe is finite - it did not always exist. God alone is the only one that has always existed.

With biological evolution, the Church does not have a firm position on the matter, but again, the creation of all creatures is again attributed to God. No animal or plant lifeform developed without God's active guidance. He is the Creator.

Concerning human evolution, the Church is much more clear on its position. We must believe as an absolute truth that the human soul has never evolved and is never passed on from our parents. Our soul is unique to us, and the soul has never evolved. Also, it is an absolute truth that we have descended from one person - Adam, from whom Original Sin has been passed down to us. This must be believed.

Pope Pius XII wrote, "The Church does not forbid that...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." (Encyclical Humani Generis)

Whatever is true regarding the origins of man is true only because God has willed it to be so. God is our Master and Our Creator. The world has come into being through Him, and that is the firm truth. We can learn about God from the created world. I personally do not believe in the theory because of inconsistencies.

In Encyclical Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X in 1907 condemned Modernism, which is based on Evolution. He called it the the "synthesis of all heresies". St. Pius X also condemned the idea that the Faith must be subject to current views of Science and History.

Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma stated the following points concerning science. These are all infallibly defined and consequently are true and must be believed by Catholics.
  • All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
  • God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
  • The world was created for the Glorification of God.
  • The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
  • God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
  • God has created a good world.
  • The world had a beginning in time.
  • God alone created the world.
  • God keeps all created things in existence.
  • God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
"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).

Overall, the Church permits belief in special creation (the literal belief from the Book of Genesis) or in developmental creation, where God created us but we did evolve with the exceptions already mentioned above. The Church condemns belief in atheistic evolution, which claims God had no role in our creation. Atheistic evolution is a lie.

We above all can learn of God through the created world (Romans 1:20-23). If evolution is true, it is only true because God has willed it to be the method He used in the creation of the world.

Bibliography:

Catholic Answers
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Where is Evolution in Catholic teaching?

Highly Recommended Reading:

"Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism" by Thomas McFadden.  You may request a free copy of the book by contacting Mr. McFadden at scienceandcatholicism[at]gmail[dot]com

32 comments:

del_button May 7, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Kim said...

I don't have too much to contribute, except it was the fact that Catholics CAN believe in evolution that drew me even closer in. I came from a "NO EVOLUTION PERIOD!" mindset. And because I'm a geologist and studying anthropology, I can't NOT believe in evolution.

Although, I must admit it's funny to watch people go "you're Catholic...and a scientist? HOW?" (tee hee!)

del_button May 7, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Layla said...

How wonderful it is to be able to stand with the Church and say that we believe that God is big enough to use whatever means He wanted to create the world!

It makes me sad when people are so afraid of evolution theory (which they usually don't even begin to understand) that they say God COULDN'T have used it. Who are we to say what mechanisms He could or could not have used?

The Bible was written so that we might, in our tiny, finite, and dim minds, have some very small insight into the Mind of God. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that the six-day creation account in Genesis was written in that way to help our feeble brains understand the Infinite Glory of the Creator than to fly in the face of geology and other natural sciences (which God allowed us to develop so we might come to know Him more), demanding that God's six days be the same as our six days?

This was a good post, Moneybags. Thank you for bringing attention to this wonderful aspect of Church teaching.

del_button May 7, 2006 at 2:20 PM
Dr. Thursday said...

Here's Chesterton on the subject:

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought.
[GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:237-8]

For an excellent overview see Chesterton, a Seer of Science by S. L. Jaki.

del_button May 8, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Matthew said...

Thank you moneybags!

del_button May 8, 2006 at 9:15 PM
Layla said...

So this would mean that if homo sapiens exsisted, they had souls as well?

del_button May 8, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Moneybags said...

Layla, I believe the answer is yes.

del_button June 30, 2008 at 4:10 AM
Anonymous said...

I don't understand how we can simultaneously affirm that (it is possible that) humans evolved by natural selection, and also that Adam was the first man. Could you clarify this for me? It seems clearly contradictory.

del_button July 4, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Seminarian Matthew said...

We can believe that God created Adam as the first man. And following this act of creation, man has slightly changed through natural selection. He never changed from ape to man. He merely slightly adapted to conditions of his area. This would seemingly be in accord with Catholic Doctrine.

del_button December 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM
mbarbaric@email.si said...

I don't want to insult you or any other commentor. I wouldn't deny God, or mock, blasphem Him or anyone from his family nor any holy men and women of the Church of God.
I'm not posting obscene or impure images or words here. Neither would I advertise, nor link anything anti- Chatholic. I simply wat to say how contradictory is everything I have read here.

del_button December 22, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Matthew said...

Please elaborate to defend and explain your position.

del_button April 10, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...

Thank you. I feel that this is one of the most important issues facing Christianity in the 21st century. "Closed minded" Christians that reject science outright are causing many to leave the Church and the rest of the world to mock us. It's one thing to be persecuted because of our faith, but many are "persecuted" for their ignorance and make Christians look like fools. Haven't we learned our lesson with Galileo and so many other scientists who loved and sought truth? All truth is God's truth.

del_button August 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM
Matthew said...

As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, science cannot contradict the Faith:

There can never… be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.”

Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.

The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu:

"The Holy Ghost, Who spoke by them [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men these things—that is the essential nature of the things of the universe..."; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences…”

Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.

So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.

del_button September 22, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...

His Holiness Pope John Paul II recognised that evolution is a viable theory. I believe you are mistaken in your belief that all Catholics MUST recognise that all humans came from one ancestor, Adam. This is untrue. Catholics are not implored to read scripture in a literal context. Contextual criticism is key, and in today's Catholic schools it is taught that the creation story was simply a cultural story with very important moral lessons included in it.

There are many outside of our Church that think It to be this strict, conservative entity. So many don't realise that Catholicism is a social justice religion, or that it recognises many biblical stories as metaphors.

It is good of you to educate those that don't understand Catholicism, as this lack of understanding so often leads to fear.

del_button September 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Matthew said...

We are NOT a social justice religion. If you think we are, you have yet to grasp what being Catholic means.

And if you do not recognise that all humans came from one ancestor, Adam, then you disobey Vatican I and the popes for centuries. You are then a heretic and outside of the Church of God.

del_button December 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM
RoryHaleya said...

Perhaps Adam was the evolved man...who God made from dust. Beast came before man in the creation story. And in evolution, life evolved from particles, single celled organisms... All part of God's plan. The different days of creation must represent the eveloutionary steps. They coincide. But theirs no way to ever fully understand Gods plans until we are with him and our eyes are open

del_button March 18, 2013 at 4:23 AM
No Catholic Evolution said...

If you are a geologist, then you HAVE to be a Catholic Creationist: http://www.kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

del_button August 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM
zuma said...

The following is the extract of the confession (XI) from Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD):
Chapter 5. God Created the World Not from Any Certain Matter, But in His Own Word.
7. But how did Thou make the heaven and the earth, and what was the instrument of Your so mighty work? FOR IT WAS NOT AS A HUMAN WORKER FASHIONING BODY FROM BODY, according to the fancy of his mind, in somewise able to assign a form which it perceives in itself by its inner eye. And whence should he be able to do this, had not Thou made that mind? And he assigns to it already existing, and as it were having a being, a form, as clay, or stone, or wood, or gold, or such like. And whence should these things be, had not Thou appointed them? Thou made for the workman his body—Thou the mind commanding the limbs—Thou the matter whereof he makes anything, — Thou the capacity whereby he may apprehend his art, and see within what he may do without—Thou the sense of his body, by which, as by an interpreter, he may from mind unto matter convey that which he does, and report to his mind what may have been done, that it within may consult the truth, presiding over itself, whether it be well done. All these things praise You, the Creator of all. But how do You make them? How, O God, did Thou make heaven and earth? Truly, neither in the heaven nor in the earth did Thou make heaven and earth; nor in the air, nor in the waters, since these also belong to the heaven and the earth; nor in the whole world did Thou make the whole world; because there was no place wherein it could be made before it was made, that it might be; nor did Thou hold anything in Your hand wherewith to make heaven and earth. For whence couldest Thou have what You had not made, whereof to make anything? For what is, save because You are? Therefore You spoke and they were made, and in Your Word You made these things.

The phrase, For it was not as a human worker fashioning body from body, that is extracted from the Confession (XI) of Augustine of Hippo implies that he personally did not support the heaven and the earth were formed in the same way as a human worker in making an object by fashioning body from body. For instance, if he would support evolutionary theory, he would certainly mention that an object should be formed by moulding it and even shaping it from time to time to the extent of fashioning body from body.

Did Augustine believe the existence of objects prior to God’s involvement in creation? Let’s meditate the extract of his confession as below:

Truly, neither in the heaven nor in the earth did Thou make heaven and earth; nor in the air, nor in the waters, since these also belong to the heaven and the earth; nor in the whole world did Thou make the whole world; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PLACE wherein it could be made BEFORE IT WAS MADE, that it might be; nor did Thou hold anything in Your hand wherewith to make heaven and earth.

When Augustine wrote the phrase, because there was no place wherein it could be made before it was made, he referred it to the time before the universe and the earth were made. Or in other words, there was no place for God’s creation prior to the creation of the universe and the earth.

What did Augustine believe about the time that the universe and the earth were created?

The following is the extract of the confession (XI) of Augustine:

Therefore You spoke and they were made, and in Your Word You made these things.

The phrase, You spoke and they were made, as extracted above implies that Augustine believed that God’s creation of the universe and the earth was immediate and He did not take more than a day for the creation. God created the universe and the earth speedily after His spoken words.

Nevertheless, it is irrational to support that evolutionary theory could trace back as early as Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD).

del_button August 18, 2013 at 6:37 AM
zuma said...

Did Pope Benedict XVI provide any view of his support of evolutionary theory?

The following is the extract of the speech from Pope Benedict XVI when he had his dialogue with Fr Alberto at the church of St Justin Martyr on 24th July 2007:

I think you have just given us a precise description of a life in which God does not figure. At first sight, it seems as if we do not need God or indeed, that without God we would be freer and the world would be grander. But after a certain time, we see in our young people what happens when God disappears. As Nietzsche said: "The great light has been extinguished, the sun has been put out". Life is then a chance event. It becomes a thing that I must seek to do the best I can with and use life as though it were a thing that serves my own immediate, tangible and achievable happiness. But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being. Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF EVOLUTION, and THOSE WHO INSTEAD SUPPORT EVOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE GOD. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ANSWER EVERY QUERY, especially the great philosophical question: WHERE DOES EVERYTHING COME FROM? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ALL OF REALITY. THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life. This seems to me to be the first point: to discover that my being is truly reasonable, it was thought of, it has meaning. And my important mission is to discover this meaning, to live it and thereby contribute a new element to the great cosmic harmony conceived of by the Creator. If this is true, then difficulties also become moments of growth, of the process and progress of my very being, which has meaning from conception until the very last moment of life. We can get to know this reality of meaning that precedes all of us, we can also rediscover the meaning of pain and suffering; there is of course one form of suffering that we must avoid and must distance from the world: all the pointless suffering caused by dictatorships and erroneous systems, by hatred and by violence. However, in suffering there is also a profound meaning, and only if we can give meaning to pain and suffering can our life mature. I would say, above all, that there can be no love without suffering, because love always implies renouncement of myself, letting myself go and accepting the other in his otherness; it implies a gift of myself and therefore, emerging from myself. All this is pain and suffering, but precisely in this suffering caused by the losing of myself for the sake of the other, for the loved one and hence, .....

del_button August 18, 2013 at 6:38 AM
zuma said...

Comments upon the speech of Pope Benedict XVI as listed above and observe carefully those words that are placed in capital letters:

Despite Pope Benedict XVI did mention above that there are too many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality, he did not state clearly of his stand towards evolutionary theory since nothing is mentioned whether he had found favourably towards this theory.

As the phrase, those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that those people that uphold the truth that God should be the Creator of this world could not be able to identify whether there could be any link between the doctrine of evolution and Creator. This is by virtue of those people that support creationism would perceive that God was the One that directly created everything instead of being treated as everything would be the work of evolution and that He just stood aside just to assist without directly creating it.

As the phrase, those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God, is mentioned above, it implies that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to exclude God in their process of formation of everything. This is certainly true in the sense that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to support that God has to be excluded to be direct creation of this world since their belief is based on the assumption that He only stood aside and to assist in the formation of the world without directly creating it. If God would turn up not to be directly creating everything, how could he then call Him to be the Creator as mentioned in his speech above? As Benedict XVI called God to be the Creator, He should have supported that God was the One that had created everything directly.

Despite Pope Benedict XIV mentioned that there are many scientific proofs for evolution, he did not mention that all these evidences could be useful to prove the creation of this world. As the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that he did not support evolutionary theory could be a useful source to answer every query that would bring towards it. As the phrase, where does everything come from?, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, it implies that the doctrine of evolution could not provide a suitable reason how everything would come about, such as, Was God the One that directly created this world? How would God create this world? As the phrase, they are not enough to explain all of reality they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above, it gives an absolute conclusion that the doctrine of evolution should not be treated as reliable and sufficient source to prove how everything would come about. As the phrase, they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above pertaining to the doctrine of evolution, it implies that Paul Benedict XIV did not intend Christians to treat evolutionary theory to be useful source to tackle answer as where everything comes about or how everything could be formed in the beginning.

Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XIV did not mention that evolutionary theory could be useful to support how everything could be formed in the beginning, such as, How could human beings be formed? Was God directly created them? This is by virtue of evolutionary theory could not provide sufficient source to prove it.

del_button August 19, 2013 at 10:08 AM
zuma said...

Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:

The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.

Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.

The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope John Paul II:
‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible—incommunicabilis.
2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This "maintenance" is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’

Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.

As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.

As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.

del_button August 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM
zuma said...

The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.

Pope John Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:

‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’

The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
‘According to the "canons" added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD"OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS" (DS 3021).
2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.

As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.

Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.

If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

It could be that:

When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.

Or

He could have made a mistake in his statement.

Or

He spoke it ignorantly.

del_button August 30, 2013 at 10:15 AM
zuma said...

The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

In this website, it is mentioned that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organisms to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organisms to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for unicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land so as to form a multicellular organism especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell...

del_button August 31, 2013 at 8:48 PM
zuma said...

Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-...

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not 'little green men,' says NASA director

As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had "made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO." ’

The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

del_button August 31, 2013 at 8:49 PM
zuma said...

Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

del_button September 1, 2013 at 8:46 AM
zuma said...

Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p... , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, ­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
“Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
"It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

The same is supported in other websites below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu...
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis...

Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?

del_button September 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM
zuma said...

There are three different views regarding the time in which the stars were formed.

1)Scriptural order of creation.

Let’s meditate the verses below:

Genesis 1:6, “Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.” (New American Standard Bible)
Genesis 1:11, “Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.”
Genesis 1:16, “God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.”

As Genesis 1:11,, the creation of fruit-bearing plants or flowering plants, is mentioned after Genesis 1:6, the appearance of land, and before Genesis 1:16, the creation of stars, it implies that the scripture highlights fruit-bearing plants should have been created after the appearance of land and before the creation of stars (Genesis 1:16).

2)Scientific view of creation.
What did scientists suggest the date in which flowering plants began to evolve?

It was shown in the chart from the website address, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-evolutionary-history-of-plants.... , that the flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago.

What did scientists suggest the date of formation of stars?

The following is the extract from the website address, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55.... , after the sub-title, Answer:

‘Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed. ‘

As scientists suggest that flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago, the above discovery that first stars were formed only about 200 million years ago would turn up to be that the flowering plants began to evolve after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years) and after the formation of stars (200 million years ago).

3)Alternative scientific view of creation.

Let’s compare with the extract below from first paragraph of the website address, http://fossils.valdosta.edu/era_precambrian.html :

The sun and solar system formed about 4,600 million (or, 4.6 billion) years ago from a vast cloud of interstellar hydrogen and helium, enriched with a sprinkling of heavier elements. …..LONG BEFORE OUR SUN WAS BORN, generations of STARS LIVED AND DIED, paving the road for the existence of Earth and the other rocky planets.

When was the sun formed?

The following is the extract from the second paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ,

‘The Sun formed about 4.6 billion[b] years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.’

As the earth was formed in 4.5 billion years ago and the sun was formed in 4.6 billion ago and the stars lived and died long before our sun was born, it implies that this website, supports that the flowering plants began to evolve (135-65 million years) after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years ago) and before the formation of the stars since they were formed long before the sun was born.

The great discrepancies about times in which the stars were formed have caused us to question how accurate the times that have been furnished by scientists.

del_button September 7, 2013 at 4:25 AM
zuma said...

Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm, under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:

‘This is an artist's impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”

The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:
‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’

My comment: Genesis 1:3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (King James Version)

Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.

Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.html, to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:

‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’

My comment: Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”

Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”

As the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.

del_button September 7, 2013 at 9:08 PM
zuma said...

The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:

Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.

The following are the extracts:

Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?

Was Eve formed from Adam?

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?

Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

del_button September 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM
zuma musa said...

Miller and Harold Urey did successfully create non-life organic compounds through experiments in year 1950s. The successful creation of non-life organic compounds does not provide the evidence that lively creatures could be evolved from non-life object. This is simply due to they failed to create lively organic compounds previously. Thus, it is not justifiable for any scientists to use them as an excuse that lively unicellular organisms could be evolved from non-life object.

The following is the extract from the website, http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/7.html , under the subtitle, VI. LIFE EVOLVES :

'Such experiments have been repeated many times and it is clear that it is easy to make many complex organic compounds BUT NONE OF THESE SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS PRODUCED EVEN THE BASICS OF LIFE.So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called Stanley Miller made an attempt at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However a closer look at his experiment shows that even he did not succeed (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.This was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiments done in the 1950's.'

The same is mentioned in the third paragraph from the website, http://www.findtheanswer.net/whataboutevolution/waechemicallife.php :

'So have scientists managed to produce life from non-life? Many have tried, but no experiment has succeeded. A scientist called STANLEY MILLER MADE AN ATTEMPT at this and claimed that he had succeeded. However A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS EXPERIMENT shows that even HE DID NOT SUCCEED (for more info on Stanley Miller’s experiment click here.'

del_button September 14, 2013 at 6:19 AM
zuma musa said...

Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :

‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:

‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.

del_button September 16, 2013 at 10:52 PM
zuma musa said...

Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.


What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

del_button September 16, 2013 at 10:54 PM
zuma musa said...

The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

Is God omnipotent?

Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Future Posts on A Catholic Life

Enter email address:



Copyright / Disclaimer

Copyright Notice: Unless otherwise stated, all items are copyrighted under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. If you quote from this blog, cite a link to the post on this blog in your article.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links on this blog are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and/or believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”