Gen 1:1-5 1 In the beginning God *c r e a t e d * the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (note: the morning and evening marked the 'day', just like our today)

The Pope has recently made comments about evolution and the big bang theory that reveal his opinion may differ with the book of Genesis account of creation, especially the six days time period described in the book, with the length of days also described as 6 24 hour periods, ie. day and night equaling one day. (the Pope did this by calling the big bang and evolution theories 'real'-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

If God planned to use the Big Bang or if He had wanted to use a process like evolution, He could have told us about it in the Bible, as He did all the other important things to our lives.

Instead Genesis 1 gives us an entirely different picture than either the Big Bang or Evolution. Since Genesis 1 describes the length of the days mentioned, ie. one day equals morning and evening, and then light and darkness, we already have our biblical account of how Creation occurred, with even the time frame spelled out in black and white. The creation days are the same as all of the other days on earth, containing light and darkness from morning to evening.

God would have the ability to just as easily inspire and inform us if He created things, one out of the next, using a process of evolution. He could have also described the Big Bang to us, just as easily, in the words of the beginning of Genesis.

Is Genesis 1 now thought to be a poetic story by the Pope and the RCC?

I believe well intentioned believers in God have been taken advantage of by theories of scientists. Hasn't science always proved the Bible to be true, in the past? Yes, it has. Please see [Understanding Creation - Copeland & Baugh (1) | YouTube][1] (Dr. Carl Baugh for evidence that supports the Genesis Creation Account and how the actual established laws of physics themselves contradict the big bang theory and evolution. They also explain how carbon dating is being used to guess at the age of things they use it to date, and how unreliable carbon dating is, listing all the errors it has produced.



  • For your reference, here is the official text of his speech PDF - w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/… HTML - w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/… – LoveTheFaith Nov 4 '14 at 4:37
  • 1
    The Pope did not make comments "against the book of Genesis account of creation", he made comments which were in favour of a specific interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. – DJClayworth Nov 4 '14 at 16:14
  • Maybe the Pope knows a bit about 'Big Bang Theory' and general relativity. (For a person on the point of origin only six, 24 hour days would have passed while for a person riding the 'edge', millions of years would have passed. Relativity is truly weird. Evolution is also not easily understood. Incredibly the Bible is more accurate than Darwin. I see no contradiction, so no need for a defense and thus no reason for the question. – gideon marx Nov 4 '14 at 18:24
  • Please don't just link to external documents. Questions should be entirely self-contained, to protect against link-rot: please quote the relevant part of the documents you refer to. – Andrew Leach Nov 5 '14 at 8:44
  • 2
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is a rant against evolution posing as a question. – Flimzy Dec 3 '14 at 3:35

The Catholic Church's defense, if there is any that is required, comes from the Sacred Deposit of faith = Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition.

One would look at what the Church has taught, consistent with the deposit of faith, throughout the ages.

One such teaching is from Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus the Encyclical on the Study of Holy Scripture given in 1893 (please note Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species came out in 1859). In No. 18 under The Authority of Holy Scripture; Modern Criticism; Physical Science, the Pope quoting St. Augustine, a Church father and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, teaches

18 [...] There can never, indeed, 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."1 If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."2 To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."3 Hence they 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, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"4 or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

1. In Gen. op. imperf. ix., 30.
2. De Gen. ad litt. i. 21, 41.
3. S. Aug. ib. ii., 9, 20.
4. Summa theol. p. I, q. lxx., a. I, ad 3.


  1. If a Pope when speaking were to be understood as declaring as a fact what was a theory, that would be erroneous (OP terms "Evolution" and "the Big Bang" as "theories").
  2. Whatever is in the Sacred deposit of faith, even if it were contrary to the prevailing scientific thinking, must be held by all the faithful without the slightest hesitation.


From The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission On questions of Sacred Scripture Translated by E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J. (a translation of this) point No.

VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.

Answers OP: In the Catholic Church one is free to understand "day" in Genesis literally, or as a certain space of time.

Reader is encouraged to read all the points I through VIII.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.