A little confused about evolution, Adam/Eve, and the RCC

[grannymh]

So I understand that many Catholics and members of other denominations accept evolution as a plausible theory to the development of species and all.

If you wish, I will be happy to answer your questions or thoughts about evolution. It would be easier if you tell me what you know. For example. Are you aware of the difference between the science of evolution per se and the science of human evolution?

This is a good link for some general information.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

And here is an interesting comment about the beginning of the human species.

The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him. Genesis 2:18 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2%between%

 

[twf]

Maybe the Magisterium is playing both sides of the fence & wants to appease the evolutionists.

The Bible says God made man independently from all the other creatures.

As Catholics, the Bible means little apart from the Magisterium. She gave us the Bible and She teaches us the Bible. Period.

 

[twf]

Give the Chapter & Verse, please.

This is a very Protestant question to ask.

I always found it interesting that the Genesis account speaks of God “forming” Adam from the dust of the earth and then “breathing” on him. So first He guides the natural elements along a process that brings about his body, and then He bequeaths the fully formed man a soul. Genesis doesn’t show God “poofing” Adam out of nothing. Likewise, while our souls come from God, our bodies arise through natural processes from our parents. Pope Leo XIII already describes us as animals with the gift of a soul 120 years ago.

 

[Techno2000]

As Catholics, the Bible means little apart from the Magisterium. She gave us the Bible and She teaches us the Bible. Period.

What truetofaith says has some truth to it.

 

[twf]

I’m sorry, this post is too time consuming so I’ll just stick to Genesis & I believe I can’t go wrong.

You won’t read the Church’s own Catechism? Sticking with Genesis without the magisterium? You can go very very very wrong indeed. This was the fatal error that birthed Protestantism.

 

[twf]

What truetofaith says has some truth to it.

I trust the Catechism. I trust every pope since Pius XII. End of story. This American Catholic fascination with the fantastical opinions of Evangelicals is very interesting.

 

[Techno2000]

This is a very Protestant question to ask.

I always found it interesting that the Genesis account speaks of God “forming” Adam from the dust of the earth and then “breathing” on him. So first He guides the natural elements along a process that brings about his body, and then He bequeaths the fully formed man a soul. Genesis doesn’t show God “poofing” Adam out of nothing. Likewise, while our souls come from God, our bodies arise through natural processes from our parents. Pope Leo XIII already describes us as animals with the gift of a soul 120 years ago.

So Adam’s parents were soulless human ape/monkey like creatures?

 

[twf]

So Adam’s parents were soulless human ape/monkey like creatures?

So Adam’s parent was a pile of dust?
That’s what a literal interpretation of Genesis suggests. We’re talking about the origins of his physical body, not his soul.
Why trust Evangelical preachers over the likes of St. John Paul II?
I’m not saying that you have to accept modern science… the Church encourages it…its right there in the Catechism (quoted earlier in this thread)… but its not a dogma of the faith. That said, I think we are going to lose a lot of ground when engaging the secular world if we are reduced to an anti-intellectual laughingstock.

 

[Techno2000]

So Adam’s parent was a pile of dust?
That’s what a literal interpretation of Genesis suggests. We’re talking about the origins of his physical body, not his soul.
Why trust Evangelical preachers over the likes of St. John Paul II?
I’m not saying that you have to accept modern science… the Church encourages it…its right there in the Catechism (quoted earlier in this thread)… but its not a dogma of the faith. That said, I think we are going to lose a lot of ground when engaging the secular world if we are reduced to an anti-intellectual laughingstock.

If the first life on earth was algae how long did it take for that to evolve ?

 

[Techno2000]

That said, I think we are going to lose a lot of ground when engaging the secular world if we are reduced to an anti-intellectual laughingstock.

"Maybe the Magisterium is playing both sides of the fence & wants to appease the evolutionists" - truetofaith

So truetofaith was right ?

 

[twf]

If the first life on earth was algae how long did it take for that to evolve ?

That’s a scientific question to which there may not be a definitive answer yet. I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so I can’t really elaborate beyond what a quick Google search will yield.

 

[Vico]

…I understand that when talking about “death” being the wages of sin, this was referring to more of a “death of the spirit” kind of thing, if that’s a proper term to use… Or did humanity as a whole get implanted with this “rational soul” upon Adam and Eve’s Fall?

Each human has a rational soul from conception. No, it is not only death of the spirit but physical death. Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts and supernatural gifts. These gifts were lost for mankind. The supernatural gifts are restored through baptism. The preternatural gifts include infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Grace refers to something more than natural or preternatural gifts, it is for the eternal salvation of each soul, and the gifts of grace are supernatural, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace.

 

[twf]

"Maybe the Magisterium is playing both sides of the fence & wants to appease the evolutionists" - truetofaith

So truetofaith was right ?

As St. John Paul taught - “fides et ratio”…faith and reason are not at war with one another. My point was that if we don’t show the world that we are people of reason, and not only of faith, we will drive away many souls who might otherwise embrace the faith. Its not a compromise…its embracing truth in whatever form it takes.
Why evolution? God seems to like to work gradually. He grants sanctifying grace to a soul at baptism, yet it takes many years of trials and suffering, and on top of that, for most people, purgatory, before we are spiritually mature enough to enter heaven.

 

[sudy]

So, you reckon that God just used an ape and breathed the soul into it to create Adam? Don’t you trust in God’s ability to create mankind as well as animals? Or are you further suggesting that he created a simple organism which evolved into all species?

We’re told that God created Adam from dust. See Genesis 2:7, Genesis 3:19, Job 10:8-12, Psalm 103:13-14, Ecclesiastes 3:20, Ecclesiastes 12:7 etc.

Let’s face it, you’re restricting God’s ability to create life quite a bit. But let’s run with it for a moment… you could probably reason that the dust was an ape already, but what about Eve then? We’re told that Eve was created from Adam, as there was no suitable helper among God’s creatures, already. Genesis 2:21-24. So, if Eve was created from Adam, himself, how do you reckon this was done? You can’t use another ape as this won’t be from Adam.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So, you reckon that God just used an ape and breathed the soul into it to create Adam? Don’t you trust in God’s ability to create mankind as well as animals? Or are you further suggesting that he created a simple organism which evolved into all species?

We’re told that God created Adam from dust. See Genesis 2:7, Genesis 3:19, Job 10:8-12, Psalm 103:13-14, Ecclesiastes 3:20, Ecclesiastes 12:7 etc.

Let’s face it, you’re restricting God’s ability to create life quite a bit. But let’s run with it for a moment… you could probably reason that the dust was an ape already, but what about Eve then? We’re told that Eve was created from Adam, as there was no suitable helper among God’s creatures, already. Genesis 2:21-24. So, if Eve was created from Adam, himself, how do you reckon this was done? You can’t use another ape as this won’t be from Adam.

The entire story is theological not biological. Evolution is an awesome witness to God’s power, creativity and generosity. It is a flow of life, a dynamic creative process just like the beautiful sunsets in the evening, always changing, always different.

Eve coming from Adams rib means they are equals. But notice in Genesis 1 God first crates animals and then man. In Genesis 2 man is created first and then animals. These two accounts were are not meant to be historical nor biological. Why try to make them so? Evolution is the way God works. Look at your own life. You grow, change, adapt and yet part of you remains the same. If it comforts you to take Genesis creation accounts literally, fine. But don’t expect others to be that simplistic.

 

[sudy]

Actually, I don’t disagree with evolution in various forms, as there is evidence supporting it, but I think it ought to be acknowledged that it was willed by God the Creator. I don’t expect others to take the creation story literally. I’m not sure that I agree with you that Eve coming from Adam simply means that they are equal though. They are not equal, unless you mean in dignity. Man has authority over his wife, so I think there is much more to it than simply meaning they are equals.

I do believe that God created Adam as a entirely new species… whether using an ape or not is really not my concern, but I do think the Eve question needs answering. As I said, I don’t believe it’s to indicate equality, unless you mean in dignity.

We believe that God actively creates a soul at each and every conception… I don’t see why there would be an issue willing man into existence in a similar form to an ape, without actually using an ape… but from dust.

 

[Casilda]

I trust the Catechism. I trust every pope since Pius XII. End of story. This American Catholic fascination with the fantastical opinions of Evangelicals is very interesting.

Which catechism? There lies the problem. Saying the catechism has been ‘revised’ to include ‘new’ revelation (atheistic scientific research) simply means it’s been altered. Fatally so.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson5.htm

Luckily for the church there is an Apostolate whose sole purpose is restore the traditional teaching of the church (magesterium). It was prayerfully placed under the protection of St. Maximilian Kolbe, who by the way, believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis and the creation account. kolbecenter.org

 

[Techno2000]

The entire story is theological not biological. Evolution is an awesome witness to God’s power, creativity and generosity. It is a flow of life, a dynamic creative process just like the beautiful sunsets in the evening, always changing, always different.

Eve coming from Adams rib means they are equals. But notice in Genesis 1 God first crates animals and then man. In Genesis 2 man is created first and then animals. These two accounts were are not meant to be historical nor biological. Why try to make them so? Evolution is the way God works. Look at your own life. You grow, change, adapt and yet part of you remains the same. If it comforts you to take Genesis creation accounts literally, fine. But don’t expect others to be that simplistic.

Everyday Darwin’s theory of Evolution of is being shot down, because it’s seriously flawed .

youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

youtube.com/watch?v=UKyyaURZW-o

 

[rossum]

Give the Chapter & Verse, please.

Genesis 1:24 “And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.”

Since the earth brought forth the animals, then those animals are formed of earth.

Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

Here God starts with earth, which we already know He previously commanded to bring forth non-human animals. Hence we can interpret this verse as God taking earth, in the form of a non-human unsouled animal, and imparting a soul to that earth-formed animal. The final result being a souled human being.

You may disagree with this interpretation, but AIUI it is an allowed interpretation.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

So, you reckon that God just used an ape and breathed the soul into it to create Adam? Don’t you trust in God’s ability to create mankind as well as animals? Or are you further suggesting that he created a simple organism which evolved into all species?

We’re told that God created Adam from dust. See Genesis 2:7, Genesis 3:19, Job 10:8-12, Psalm 103:13-14, Ecclesiastes 3:20, Ecclesiastes 12:7 etc.

Let’s face it, you’re restricting God’s ability to create life quite a bit. But let’s run with it for a moment… you could probably reason that the dust was an ape already, but what about Eve then? We’re told that Eve was created from Adam, as there was no suitable helper among God’s creatures, already. Genesis 2:21-24. So, if Eve was created from Adam, himself, how do you reckon this was done? You can’t use another ape as this won’t be from Adam.

How is one less impressive or more restrictive than another? Or do you view God as some deist clockmaker?