Which is why the Modernists latched so enthusiastically on to Teilhard de Chardin's theories, as a means of legitimizing the notion of "evolution" toward a higher religious understanding.
Faith (based on Divine Revelation) and reason (based on natural revelation) must remain in harmony. Therefore, "natural science" will never disprove Divine Revelation.
No credible evidence has been presented in support of macroevolution from ape to man. The same fossil record that disproves the "new earth" theory does not provide a chain of evidence establishing the proof that Adam and Eve evolved from apes, yet in the field of genetics, the consensus that all humans descend from Mitochondrial Eve actually provides scientific support of Genesis.
Regarding the Six Days of Creation, there is no scriptural reason for cognitive dissonance were one to believe that "day" might not refer to a 24-hour period.
"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past." Psalm 90:4
"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past." Psalm 90:4
The verse about the thousand years (which originates in the Hebrew Bible, not the "new testament") is merely making the point that G-d exists outside time altogether. It is not an excuse to subject the supernatural act of ex-nihilation to current natural physical laws.
You are yet one more example of a right wing traditionalist Catholic who rejects the literal historical truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Where does this antipathy to Genesis come from? Why do Catholics consider the historical facticity of Genesis to be such a threat to Catholicism? Just what is going on here?
"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the Biblical Eve. "She" is a postulate of science and has no connection to the Biblical narrative.
My opposition to evolution is actually more accurately described as my defense of the literal/historical sense of Genesis 1-11. My rejection of evolution has nothing to do with science for the simple reason that cosmogony is outside the legitimate purview of science altogether. Our knowledge of this subject can come solely from Divine Revelation and theology, and the role of science in this field is to sit down and shut up. It only has access to the world as we know it today and has no competence when pontificating on realities outside that.
My position is also based on simple logic. You believe in miracles. Why then do you believe that the act of Creation was a natural phenomenon accomplished by purely natural means? The calling of everything into existence from absolutely nothing is certainly as great a miracle as the "virgin birth" (do you believe natural "secondary causes" were used in that?). The insistence that G-d used purely natural means to create a world in which miracles constantly occur is simply ridiculous.
I call your attention to allendale's post 19, in which he insists that "Catholics don't believe" that G-d actually smote the first born of Egypt (and that's not even in Genesis!). Are you fine with this as well? Which "church father" taught this?
You're all such disappointments. I'm sorry.
I would be careful about using this verse because it still doesn't support millions of years of evolution.