Bellarmine Theological Forum<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\nThe following is a rebuttal to an Op Ed piece written by John Young<\/strong> in the January 10, 2002,\u00a0issue of The Wanderer<\/em> titled: \"The Claim That Evolution is Heresy.<\/strong>\"<\/span><\/p>\nExcerpts from Young's article are preceded by \"Young<\/strong>\" and responses from Robert Sungenis are preceded by \"Sungenis<\/strong>\"<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: The claim is made by some Christians that macro evolution is incompatible with divine Revelation. Biblical texts are cited in support of this claim, and some Catholics appeal to statements of the Magisterium. A result can be that a text is forced to say something it was never intended to say.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: Whether evolution is \"compatible\" with divine revelation is a debatable point, but I think it is safe to say that there is neither a biblical text nor a Magisterial statement that teaches<\/strong><\/em> evolution as a factual reality. Even theistic evolutionist, Stanley Jaki, admits that: \"...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...\" (Bible and Science<\/em>, p. 145). For a biblical text or Magisterial statement to teach evolution as a fact, each must be clear and explicit. That is, the Bible would have to say something akin to: \"And God created an evolutionary process by which all things came into being,\" and the Magisterium would have to do likewise.<\/span><\/p>\nAs it stands, wherever Scripture addresses the topic of origins, it never teaches<\/strong><\/em> that the universe came about by an evolutionary process (e.g., Genesis 1-2; Job 38-42; Heb 11:1-3; Psalm 104, et al). Nor has the Magisterium taught that evolution has occurred (the recent statements by John Paul II, notwithstanding, which will be covered last in this rebuttal). The only thing the Magisterium has allowed is a continued discussion of the issue.<\/span><\/p>\nBoth Genesis and the Magisterium state such things as \"God created the heavens and the earth\" or that \"God spoke and there was light,\" and other clear and direct statements. Literally interpreted, those statements mean<\/strong><\/em> (not \"imply,\" \"suggest\" or merely \"are compatible with\"), that God created the universe and its light by speaking it into existence, instantaneously.<\/span><\/p>\nOf course, the $64,000 question is: Should Genesis be interpreted literally? That is a fair question, but it is really the only question at issue. So let's make it clear at the outset: A literal reading of Genesis DOES NOT teach evolution, and thus a literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with evolution<\/span>. A literal reading of Genesis teaches an instantaneous, special creation, because that's what the text, literally interpreted, means. <\/span><\/p>\nYoung:<\/strong> This article is not about a case for or against evolution. What I want to do here is look at biblical texts and a famous statement of the Church's Magisterium which, I contend, are misinterpreted as a refutation of evolution. First let us note that care has to be taken not to give an over-literal interpretation to the creation texts in Genesis.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: We often hear such complaints from theistic evolutionists (I am not saying Mr. Young is a theistic evolutionist, but it certainly appears that he is partial to that position). They cast suspicions on literal interpretation by appealing to its excesses.<\/span><\/p>\nOn the one hand, we certainly don't want to \"over\" do anything, for extreme positions on any issue are usually not good. On the other hand, I am always puzzled and amazed at the more or less cavalier attitude some Catholics today have toward a literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Genesis and various other spectacular narratives (e.g., crossing the Red Sea; the story of Jonah, etc). Why am I puzzled? Because Catholic exegesis has been noted throughout history for its doggedly literal interpretation of Scripture, most often in places where other groups and denominations have sought to spiritualize the text!<\/span><\/p>\nFor example, take the biblical passage where Jesus says, \"This is my body.\" Which church, of all the churches in the world, has interpreted that sentence most literally? Yes, the Catholic Church. Every other church, to one degree or another, balks at that kind of \"over-literal\" interpretation, because they find it impossible to accept that a mere wafer turns into the actual body of Jesus Christ. Undaunted, the Catholic Church hangs tenaciously to that literal interpretation, for she reasons, as she has done thoroughout her history, that if Scripture said it, without any hint of it being metaphorical, it must be understood at face value, no matter how absurd it may be to our senses.<\/span><\/p>\nIn arriving at the decision of interpreting Scripture at face value did the Church first convene a conference of all the world's scientists to decide whether transubstantiation was scientifically possible before she rendered her decision? No, not at all. The Church started with the fact that Jesus' statement had to be accepted by faith, and only then did she even seek a \"scientific\" explanation. It wasn't until twelve hundred years later that Thomas Aquinas tried to put a least some metaphysical\/scientific explanation on the Eucharist by appealing to the Aristotelian categories of \"accidents and substance,\" and even then, Thomas' explanation, by his own admission, was still not fully adequate. The point is that the literal interpretation of the text came first, and then the scientific explanation, if any, came later.<\/span><\/p>\nThe same is true with many of our other Catholic beliefs garnered from Scripture. Why do we interpret the water of John 3:5 literally, whereas most other churches try to make a mere symbol out of Baptismal waters? Why do we interpret John 20:23 literally, whereas most other churches claim that Jesus did not give men the power to forgive sins? Why do we interpret the anointing of the sick with oil in James 5:14 literally, whereas most other churches spiritualize the command, or don't even use it? Why do we interpret the Rock of Matthew 16:18 literally, whereas every other church denies Peter is the rock?<\/span><\/p>\nI could list dozens of examples like this, but I think the point is well taken: If there is any church which has adhered to a literal interpretation of Scripture, if there is any church which has not feared to take Scripture at face value, it is the Catholic Church. In fact, interpreting any of the above statements in a non-literal fashion is considered heresy in the Catholic Church.<\/span><\/p>\nBut suddenly, in the last few hundred years, theologians have become so timid of interpreting the Bible literally, usually from fear of crossing the indomitable Goliath of King Science. There are a number of Catholic theologians today who have decided that a literal interpretation of John 6:54 is wrong, and that Christ is not present, in substance, in the Eucharist (See my book Not By Bread Alone<\/em>, Appendix 10, pages 397-418). They use the same claim that Catholic evolutionists use today - that science has shown us that such things do not occur, that they are the product of uninformed and often superstitious people, and that they must be explained in a more naturalistic way.<\/span><\/p>\nEven though the Bible has been vindicated time after time by archeological and other scientific disciplines, for some reason, men today bow to the theories of science as if they were gospel, and seem to succumb to the illusion that the \"primitive\" Bible can no longer hold its own against modern science. But the truth is, although science has given us some advancements, it is hardly the monolith of achievement it is sometimes made out to be. I can tell you that firsthand. I was a chemistry and physics major in college. I've studied science all my life. I read several books and a few journals per month on science, and I can safely tell you that scientists are just as puzzled today as they were yesterday, if not more so. The more they peer into the recesses of the universe, from the tiny atom to the nature of distant galaxies, and most everything in between, the more they realize how much they don't know. Theory after theory has been overturned, such that science is littered with the dead bodies of men who once had a great idea. As physicist Max Born once opined: \"science advances funeral by funeral.\"<\/span><\/p>\nConversely, the scientific advances of Creation science, in particular the work of Catholic sedimentologist Dr. Guy Berthault, who has shown through field research and laboratory experiment that geological strata are not formed chronologically over thousands or millions of years but within days or months, has been virtually ignored by the scientific establishment, since, if true, it reverses every theory concerning the geologic column that evolutionists have depended on for so long. Other Catholic scientists such as paleontologist Dr. Roberto Fondi; geneticist Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti; and mathematician and physics professor Dr. Wolfgang Smith have published important books refuting evolution, but these are totally ignored by the Pontifical Academy of Science which advises the Magisterium on scientific matters. I will tell you more about this in my upcoming book: Not By Science Alone: Modern Science at the Crossroads of Divine Revelation<\/em>, due out in 2004.<\/span><\/p>\nFor now, suffice it to say that one shouldn't be frightened or even impressed by the so-called \"advances\" of science. Real advances are few and far between. Too often, technological advances which produce easier living standards are often confused for advances in scientific disciplines, but the two are totally different. When this is added to the falsely concocted experiments, false recording of data, and deliberate suppression of opposing views, a whole book on the subterfuge that takes place in the scientific world could be written.<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: Gen. 1 to 3 uses much figurative language, such as God walking in the garden, or breathing on the clay He had formed.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: We can see the assumption with which Mr. Young is working. In a nutshell, here is what he is saying: \"The Bible speaks of God doing physical things, and since we know God is a spirit, and that spirits cannot do physical things \u2013 with a body \u2013 then obviously the language of Scripture need not be taken literally. Therefore we are not be obligated to take any of the language of Genesis 1 literally.\"<\/span><\/p>\nBut this is both a distorted view of God and a bad way of reasoning. When God said to Adam in Genesis 3:9: \"Where are you?\" how did Adam hear him? Somehow, a voice from God must have resonated through the air to hit Adam's eardrum. But how did God make a physical sound if he is merely a spirit? He's not a ventriloquist, is he? Evidently, either spirits can make physical sounds, or God was in an alternative form such that he could produce a vibration of the air waves (unless someone wants to postulate that God spoke in Adam's mind, but I haven't run across anyone advancing that theory).<\/span><\/p>\nSo God has, or can have, a physical voice. Does God have a body? Let's put it this way. If and when God chooses to have a body, then he is going to have a body. Can anyone argue with that? I don't think so.<\/span><\/p>\nLet's flesh this out a little more. In Exodus 33, God is speaking very intimately with Moses. In verse 11, God says he speaks as a friend, face to face. No surprise here. Moses heard God's voice on many occasions. In this instance, the Shekinah glory cloud would descend on the tent-of-meeting, and there God would tell Moses all he needed to know. But then, a most spectacular thing occurs. God gives Moses more to see than just the Shekinah glory cloud. In Exodus 33:18-23, God tells Moses that he will \"pass his glory before him\" and that Moses will see God's \"back parts,\" but not his \"face.\" The Hebrew reads: \"...and you shall see my back...\" (using the regular Hebrew word for \"back\" -- achor<\/em>). So we must conclude that Moses saw something. God calls it his \"back.\" But what is a divine \"back\"? I don't know, but it must have been something that was quite visible to the human eye, since God had to hide Moses in the cleft of a rock and shield him from his brilliance as he passed by.<\/span><\/p>\nOr would you rather say that God is making all this up, and he is merely a spirit, and spirits don't have any alternate forms in which to appear? Again, we have another case where the literal interpretation screams to be appreciated. All in all, we must be very careful of dismissing a literal interpretation based solely on the idea that God is a spirit. Obviously, that idea begins to break down when we start asking the right questions. As St. John Chrysostom<\/strong> once said: \"When you hear that 'God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,' understand the word 'planted' befittingly of God: that is, that he commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was creted and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it (Homilies on Genesis<\/em> 13:3). END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: Leo XIII observes that the sacred writers \"did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time\" (Providentissimus Deus; p. 22 in Rome and the Study of Scripture). He endorses St. Thomas' statement that the sacred writers \"went by what sensibly appeared.\"<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: The problem here is the author is assuming that things which \"sensibly appear\" do not function as they \"sensibly appear.\" In other words, he's trying to condition you into thinking that if the narrator writes something from the point of view of our senses, this means that it did not occur as it would be sensibly observed; rather, it occurred in some other way, as yet undefined.<\/span><\/p>\nFor example, if the text says, \"And God created the sun and the moon and placed them in the firmament,\" it seems Mr. Young is inclined to say that the Genesis narrator was only speaking<\/em><\/strong> in terms which were commonly used at the time or by what sensibly appeared, but not also describing<\/strong><\/em> what actually occurred. Because of this apparent difference, he would therefore feel the right to conclude that God didn't literally place the sun and the moon in the sky.<\/span><\/p>\nBut is that allowable? On what basis can he safely conclude that the \"sensible\" description does not describe what actually took place? Did Pope Leo or Aquinas, which Mr. Young cites, specify that the things which were \"sensibly created\" were created in some other form than what they sensibly appeared to be? No, but Mr. Young assumes it to be so, because he has conditioned his mind to interpret Leo and Thomas in just that way.<\/span><\/p>\nGranted, Genesis does not go into an elaborate description of astronomical facts like: distances (93 million miles from sun to earth); ellipses (earth is said to revolve in conjunction with two foci); zeniths (the plane of the revolution shifts); masses (the sun is one million times the volume of the earth); velocities (the earth is said to move at 18.5 miles per second); and chemical compositions (the sun is a mixture of mostly hydrogen and helium), but would such details necessarily exclude the simple fact that God placed the sun and moon in the sky? No. The Genesis narrator can make simple statements of fact concerning God's placement of the sun in the sky without feeling the necessity to go into any details. In fact, the details would be superfluous. If he gave just one detail he would be obliged to give more, until the whole passage would become rather cumbersome.<\/span><\/p>\nNo one is denying that the Genesis narrator uses \"sensible language,\" but that is far different than saying that what was \"sensibly\" written did not happen as recorded. In fact, Thomas was one of the more literal interpreters of Genesis. For example, in opposition to Augustine's one symbolic interpretation (which said that the light of Genesis 1:3 may refer to the angels), Thomas said that the light of Genesis 1:3 was literal light, because without that light there would have been no first day (ST I, q. 67, art 4). END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: St. Thomas also, in his interpretation of Gen. 1:6 (on the firmament in the midst of the waters), is guided by the consideration that \"Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as are apparent to sense\" (Summa Theol. 1, 68, 4) <\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: Same difference. Thomas is not saying that the firmament did not take the form it is described to have in Genesis 1. He is merely saying that when Moses wrote the passage he made a conscious effort to condescend to the level of the people in his description of the firmament. Hence, rather than going into a long description of the nature of the firmament, Moses simply says that the firmament was a RAQUIA (Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:6) that divided the waters above from the waters below. Here again, Thomas, this time in agreement with Augustine, said that the firmament was a literal substance that divided literal water.<\/span><\/p>\nLet's see the two great doctors discuss this issue:<\/span><\/p>\nAugustine<\/strong><\/em> writes: \"With this reasoning some of our scholars attack the position of those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heavens while maintaining that the star whose path is in the height of the heavens is cold. Thus they would compel the disbeliever to admit that water is there not in a vaporous state but in the form of ice. But whatever the nature of that water and whatever the manner of its being there, we must not doubt that it does exist in that place. The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity\" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis<\/em>, Bk 2, Ch. 5, No 9).<\/span><\/p>\nAquinas<\/em><\/strong> said the same thing regarding the superiority of Scripture to decide such matters: \"Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters...\" (Summa Theologica<\/em>, Bk. 1, Ques. 68, Art 3).<\/span><\/p>\nSo how much \"sensible appearance\" is allowed by Augustine and Thomas? Just enough to affirm that what Genesis recorded literally occurred, whether or not they understood then, or whether we understand today, how it could have occurred as stated.<\/span><\/p>\nAugustine later goes into some detailed explanation as to how he thinks the firmament functioned, but he admits that he cannot make any firm conclusions. The one thing he is sure about, however, is that it occurred as it \"sensibly appeared.\" If someone today wants to venture beyond Genesis 1 and postulate further into the meaning of the \"sensible\" descriptions concerning the creation and function of the firmament, he has every right to do so, but one thing he can't tell is that the \"sensible appearance\" did not occur as it would sensibly appear to an observer who was there to see it. <\/span><\/p>\nIn light of this, the Fathers tell us that Moses received his knowledge about the creation directly from God. St. Ambrose writes: \"Moses 'spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision or in dreams, but mouth to mouth\" (Hexaemeron<\/em> 1, 2). St. Basil add: \"This man [Moses], who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God (Hexaemeron<\/em> 1, 1). END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: Also, we must take into account the way Scripture, especially the Old Testament, speaks of God's causality. In Exodus God says: \"I will harden Pharaoh's heart\" (7:3), meaning He would allow Pharaoh to harden his own heart. As the following chapter says, Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15). In other words, God's permissive will is spoken of as though it were His positive will.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: The author is making conclusions based on an unproven premise. There is an alternative explanation that he didn't even consider. That is, God hardens Pharaoh's heart in response to Pharaoh's hardening of his own heart. In fact, that is the more likely meaning, since Scripture is replete with instances in which God takes an active role in the disposition of sinners, and he does so by withdrawing his grace. As Catholic doctrine teaches, no man can do anything good without God's grace (cf., Lv 26:36; Dt 28:28, 65f; 1Sm 16:14; 26:12; Jb 12:24; Pr 21:1; Is 6:9-10; 29:10,14; 44:18; Jr 6:21; Ez 7:26; 14:9; Zc 12:4; Mt 11:25; Jn 12:40; Rm 1:24-28; 2Th 2:11). Hence, there is a mysterious intertwining between the will of God and the will of Pharaoh. Although it is sometimes true that God \"permits\" things to happen, it is also true that God takes an active role in how they come about, and therefore Mr. Young's one-dimensional conclusion cannot be used to support his ideas concerning the interpretation of Genesis. END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: Another peculiarity, from our modern standpoint, is the way secondary causes are sometimes ignored, and the primary cause alone is given. Psalm 139 (138 in some versions) says: \"Thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb\" (v. 13), and similar expressions are used elsewhere, including in Isaiah and Job.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: Again, the author makes assumptions which, because they have not been proven, cannot be used to support his argument. First, how does he know that God plays no secondary role in the formation of the child in the womb? He doesn't. He just assumes it to be so because science has told him that cells divide. Thus to him, God only has an initial role, but no role in the process itself. Granted, cells divide, but who is to say that God has no role in that process?<\/span><\/p>\nIn fact, the Catholic Church, because it must uphold the doctrine of Original Sin, teaches that God actively creates a human soul in each person conceived in the womb. It takes some amount of \"knitting\" to do that, does it not? And regarding the physical world, doesn't Scripture tell us that God upholds the very universe by His power, and that the sparrow He Himself clothes does not fall to the ground without his consent? (Hb 1:3; Cl 1:17; Ps 19:1f; Mt 6:26; 10:29; 2Pt 3:7). These verses certainly do not suggest that God merely sets things in motion and then sits back and watches it all unfold, with no more involvement. That is more a Deist concept of God than the Catholic concept of God. No, Scripture teaches that without God's direct and consistent involvement the universe would cease to function and exist.<\/span><\/p>\nOn a lighter note, I am often intrigued by the statement of Isaac Newton, who, from his calculations that the universe was so wobbly and influenced by unpredictable forces, opined that it was necessary for God to \"fix\" it every once in a while. I will say more about this in my book Not By Science Alone<\/em>. END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: If we keep these principles in mind, we will be cautions about passages where effects are attributed immediately to God, as when Gen. 1:25 says God made the beasts. <\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: From everything I've said thus far, I think I have shown that the burden of proof is on anyone who suggests that effects are not attributed to God. This is especially true with the author's statement regarding God's making of the beasts. There is simply nothing in the text of Genesis 1:20-26 which teaches that God used secondary causes to make the beasts. The text says, \"And God said, \u2018Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.'\" This is the same kind of description we have in the other days: God spoke and it was done.<\/span><\/p>\nThe literal interpretation means that God spoke and it came to be, immediately. The only way a theistic evolutionist could make room for himself is to interpret the passage in a non-literal fashion, but he must have license to do so, not merely because he desires to do so. The burden of proof is on him, since the text does not say<\/em><\/strong>, literally, what he would like it to say.<\/span><\/p>\nNow, some theistic evolutionists attempt to take the phrase \"the earth brought forth\" to mean that the \"earth\" brought forth the beasts in such a way that the beasts came from the soil in an evolutionary fashion. But this attempt is futile.<\/span><\/p>\nFirst, the only way the theistic evolutionist could even suggest such an interpretation is by interpreting the words \"the earth brought forth\" in a somewhat literal fashion. But if that is the case, then why not interpret everything else in Genesis in a literal fashion? You can't have it both ways.<\/span><\/p>\nSecond, such an interpretation relies on a distortion of the Hebrew grammar. The Hebrew words for \"earth bring forth\" are TOTSA HAARETS, from the Hebrew YATSAH. As such, the verb simply means that the earth is the PLACE from which the animals appeared, and from which the animals proceeded to roam, not a description of HOW God created the animals.<\/span><\/p>\nThis can be seen more clearly by comparing the passage with the other verses. The \"earth\" is chosen as that which produces animals in contrast to the \"sea\" in verse 21 that produces the fish. In other words, YATSAH merely shows that land is the domain of the animals, as opposed to the sea being the domain of the sea creatures. There is no suggestion of evolution in YATSAH, especially since the verb is not used of any other creature God created. The use of YATSAH is no different than the use of the verb DASHAH in Genesis 1:11 (\"Let sprout the earth tender shoots and the herb yielding seed...\") or the use of YATSAH in verse 12 (\"And the earth produced tender sprouts and the herb yielding seed\").<\/span><\/p>\nThird, Genesis 1:20 states: \"And God said, let the waters swarm with the living soul of swarmers.\" The verse does not indicate that the water evolves living souls of swarmers; rather, it says that the living souls begin to swarm in the waters. The Hebrew for \"swarm\" is SHARETS. It has no causative meaning, as can be seen in other passages where it is used (Ex 8:3; Ps 105:30). END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: Likewise, the text, \"The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground\" (Gen. 2:7), could quite well mean, so far as the language of Scripture is concerned, that man was formed through secondary causes from other living matter originally derived from the earth.<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: Yes (and I don't mean to be cute here) but it could also mean that space aliens, taking the form of men, came from Krypton, and settled on the earth. (I don't hesitate to mention that today there is a popular and respected evolutionist, Fred Hoyle, who has suggested that the earth was originally seeded by space aliens). Here's the problem. There is nothing in the text that gives the interpreter a clue as to its meaning if he decides to interpret it non-literally. Unfortunately, \"theistic evolutionists,\" by virtue of the label they have given to themselves, have been conditioned to interpret such textual ambiguities in their favor.<\/span><\/p>\nThe present attempt is even a little more high-brow, since the author says \"so far as the language of Scripture is concerned.\" He's trying to say that Scripture will allow him to interpret, using an evolutionary model, the means by which God formed man from the dust of the ground. Does it? Does Scripture ever teach an evolutionary model? No, not if interpreted literally. Does Scripture ever use the language \"And God formed man from the dust of the ground\" in a metaphorical way in other places, or in an instance teaching secondary causes? No, the only other place Scripture uses the same language is Tobit 8:8, and there it is also in a context which doesn't contain metaphors. Is there any evidence in Scripture showing that when God creates he uses secondary causes? No. Has the Church ever officially taught any of these ideas? No. Has any Father or Medieval theologian taught \"that man was formed through secondary causes from other living matter originally derived from the earth\"? No. So, where is our author getting these ideas?<\/span><\/p>\nAlso, I want you to notice the mixing-and-matching between literal and non-literal interpretation that is being used by Mr. Young. On the one hand, he says that \"formed\" means God used organic matter from the ground, yet he cannot literally mean \"formed,\" because evolution is not based on God forming anything. Evolution says that matter<\/em><\/strong> forms things by its inherent mechanisms. So in this sense \"forming\" would have to be interpreted non-literally. (And the author has already told us that God-forming and matter-forming are NOT the same thing, since he earlier stated that God is not directly involved in secondary causes, e.g., \"knitting together in the womb\").<\/span><\/p>\nOn the other hand, he interprets the Hebrew aphar<\/em> (\"dust\") quite literally, though with a little twist, categorizing it as \"living matter\" from the earth (perhaps because soil contains microorganisms). But such a literal interpretation is going to get a little sticky, since evolution does not say that man came from the ground, but that he came from an ape. If the text of Genesis said something like: \"And God formed man from the beasts of the field,\" then perhaps our author would have something going for him.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat is happening, however, is that as soon as he abandons the literal method of interpretation, he finds himself equivocating, borrowing, and even speculating as to the meaning of the text. He finds himself having to vacillate between a literal and non-literal interpretation, all in an effort to give room to the evolutionary hypothesis. END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: A further point is that the word YOM need not mean a day of 24 hours, but can mean an indefinite period of time. It is used in that indefinite sense in many places in the Old Testament, as can be verified by reference to a concordance. An example is Num. 20:15, where Moses uses it of the long period the Israelites spent in Egypt: \"...And we dwelt in Egypt a long time.\"<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: The author is referring to the Hebrew word YOM, which is normally translated \"day\" in English. First, let me deal with his reference to Num 20:15. Yes, the word \"day\" is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM (\"days\"), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means \"many.\" In other words, the translation says \"long time\" because it IS a long time. It is \"many days\" in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.<\/span><\/p>\nAs for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never<\/strong><\/em> refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day...the second day...the third day...and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which \"day\" preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus' Hebrew Grammar<\/em>, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).<\/span><\/p>\nThe most conclusive evidence that the word \"day\" in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase \"and there was evening and morning<\/strong><\/em>,\" which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of \"evening and morning\" in Scripture shows that it always<\/em><\/strong> refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of \"evening and morning\" in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).<\/span><\/p>\nThere are some cases in which the words \"morning\" or \"evening\" appear separately with the word \"day,\" some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages \"evening and morning\" are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.<\/span><\/p>\nIf the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (\"let them be for days and for years\") or Genesis 3:14 (\"dust shall you eat all the days of your life\"). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days<\/em><\/strong> are always in view.<\/span><\/p>\nAs an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures. END<\/span><\/p>\nYoung<\/strong>: The Pontifical Biblical Commission has permitted this understanding of YOM as the meaning of the six days of creation (Response of June 30, 1909).<\/span><\/p>\nSungenis<\/strong>: Although true, this is very misleading. For the record, the commission stated that the \"day\" in Genesis 1 could be \"either in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time.\" Why allow a \"less strict sense\" as well as the \"strict sense\"? Not necessarily because the Commission was advocating the theory of evolution or that a day in Genesis 1 comprises millions of years. Neither of those ideas had been advanced by the Church, at least not in 1909.<\/span><\/p>\nIn fact, evolutionary theory had been virtually silenced by the Church, as was the case in 1860 when the Council of Cologne<\/strong> condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words: <\/span><\/p>\n\"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith<\/em>.\"<\/span><\/p>\nIn this statement the Church teaches that man, as defined by the Church, was definitely not the product of an evolutionary process. The Church defines man as a person with a physical body and an eternal soul. This would mean that both man's physical body and his eternal soul are not the product of evolution. Whatever one believes about the origin of animals (i.e., that they were made over millions of years), the Church, at least in this instance, is clear that man is not a product of animals; rather, he was made independently.<\/span><\/p>\nTen years later, Vatican Council I<\/strong> in 1870, laid out this infallible dogmatic statement, along with an accompanying anathema, saying:<\/span><\/p>\n\"If anyone does not confess that 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, let him be anathema<\/em>.\"<\/span><\/p>\nVatican I adds new strictures that were not in previous conciliar statements. Not only is man in view, but Vatican I specifies that \"the world and all the things which are contained in it\" are the product of ex nihilo creation.<\/span><\/p>\nMoreover, notice the words, \"their whole substance<\/em><\/strong>,\" the first time the Church had specified this phrase. The requirement that things be made \"out of nothing\" is one thing, but in \"their whole substance\" makes it very difficult for anyone to advance the theory of evolution, for unless evolution can show that it's upward processes result in fulfilling Vatican I's criterion, then its efforts are futile.<\/span><\/p>\nVatican I does not say \"the parts of their substance have been produced by God from nothing,\" or \"the inner workings of progressive development,\" but it says specifically \"their whole substance has been produced by God from nothing.\" The sequence is: Nothing => Whole Substance, which doesn't leave too much room for anything else to occur.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is especially significant since Vatican I specifies that, along with the corporal creatures, the \"spiritual\" creatures were made out of nothing in their whole substance. \"Spiritual\" must refer to the angels. No one has ever argued that the angels came into existence by an evolutionary process. The church has always taught that the angels were created out of nothing, instantaneously, in their whole being. That being the case, we are on safe ground in concluding that Vatican I was not simply interested in combating the idea of materialism (that is, the Greek concept that things came into being from pre-existing matter) but of promoting the idea that God created his creatures whole and complete, both spiritual and corporal. In essence, if instantaneous wholeness applies to the spiritual realm, it must also apply to the physical realm, otherwise Vatican I would be creating a contradiction in terms.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nPope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae<\/em><\/strong>, stated this about Creation: <\/span><\/p>\n\"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep<\/em>.\"<\/span><\/p>\nNotice that Leo makes mention of the \"sixth day of creation\" when God created Adam from the dust. It seems that Leo is not viewing the sixth day as representing millions of years, since evolution would require the existence of primates between the dust and Adam. Leo makes no such provision. His interpretation of Genesis seems clear that the dust was instantaneously fashioned into the first man.<\/span><\/p>\nWe surmise this is Leo's intent because he purposely adds that Eve was \"miraculously\" taken from the side of Adam on the same sixth day when Adam was in a \"locked\" sleep. If Eve was miraculously made, then she was made instantaneously in one day. Consequently, if Leo thought Eve was created in one day, it would be logical to assume that he meant that Adam was miraculously made in one day, for Leo offered no hint of a chronological distinction between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve.<\/span><\/p>\nIf Leo thought there was an evolutionary distinction in Adam and Eve's respective appearances, then it is reasonable to assume he would have mentioned it. Without it, Leo's silence is deafening against theistic evolution. In fact, knowing the insurmountable problems Eve causes for theistic evolution, in 1932 one Catholic evolutionist, J. Paquier, proposed that Adam and Eve were twins from the same immediate ancestor!<\/span><\/p>\nYet we must still deal with the fact that Scripture sometimes uses the word \"day\" in reference to an indefinite period of time. For example, Isaiah 4:2 says: \"In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious and the fruit of the earth will be the adornment of the survivors of Israel.\" Most likely, this passage is suggesting more than a 24-hour period, since the Lord's glory is to go on indefinitely.<\/span><\/p>\n