Are Catholics creationists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_of_Woking said:
This is an important question and an important debate.

I am agnostic in respect to Evolution. I am very confused about the issue and keep changing my mind!

I have no doubt that 99% of catholics believe in Evolution but 99% can be wrong!

I submit that I find it hard (not impossible) to reconcile the doctrines of Creation and Original Sin with The Origins of Species as expounded by Darwin and his successors.

I also readily admit that it is a big stumbling block to Faith to many (including me at times) so I pray urgently for the issue to be resolved.

I currently read a lot of the Faith movement’s literature (pro-evolution and orthodox) but also I will not shut out, nay I will respect charitably and listen with an Open Heart to the Creationist position as advanced by Hugh Thomas and Co. I believe the debate is not yet over.

I do wish people wouldn’t brush over the issue or call evolution a fact. It is an interesting hypothesis and seems more likely than Creationism but lets debate the issue in love and not resort to slander.
Click to expand...
Hello John,

Have you read Communion and Stewardship?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

I call your attention to parts 64 and 69 as being particularly relevant.

What do Catholics understand about Adam and Eve? First, they are our parents. Any attempts made here to connect them with science runs the risk that the work of God will be undermined by an assertion. An assertion that science cannot regard one way or another. But what I call the ‘insistence argument’ is made here all the time. Those who propose that we had more than two parents cite some scientific work and conclude, entirely on their own, that a drastic revision is necessary predicated on nothing more than their own opinion. I’m sure you’ve read in the Bible that by one man, sin entered the world. Again, what science can uncover is limited.

I’m certain that a scientist who appeared from the future in Christ’s time and watching Him perform genuine miracles, would have to conclude that God did, in fact, do it.

I encourage you to not become anxious over this issue. I suggest you also consider the motives of those identifying themselves as Catholic and not, regarding their urgency. Is it related to the thruth or something else?

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
I thought I had already answered it. Yes – that is a good definition of “genetic bottleneck.”
Click to expand...
Thank you. Now I am going through some evolutionary theory research papers to see if there is any evidence that the genetic bottleneck is the same as the point of origin for the fully complete human being.

In 1995, Francisco J. Ayala wrote: “There is considerable controversy about the origin of modern humans.” *The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins. *Ayala described the multiregional model but appeared to favor the African origin for modern humans. His last sentence is: 'The current blossoming of molecular evolutionary anthropology surely will soon provide more definitive and precise answers." I am looking forward to reading those definitive and precise answers – that is, if they have been found by now.
 
John_of_Woking said:
I currently read a lot of the Faith movement’s literature (pro-evolution and orthodox) but also I will not shut out, nay I will respect charitably and listen with an Open Heart to the Creationist position as advanced by Hugh Thomas and Co. I believe the debate is not yet over.
Click to expand...
John of Woking, Here’s a report on the recent Catholic Young EarthCreationism conference:

“As Catholic theologians such as Pope and Lonergan tap into the richness of their Church’s tradition and scientists continue to provide evidence supporting evolution, it appears that the last laugh will not be by Kolbe Center director Hugh Owen.”

metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10930/Default.aspx
 
grannymh said:
Thank you. Now I am going through some evolutionary theory research papers to see if there is any evidence that the genetic bottleneck is the same as the point of origin for the fully complete human being.

In 1995, Francisco J. Ayala wrote: “There is considerable controversy about the origin of modern humans.” *The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins. *Ayala described the multiregional model but appeared to favor the African origin for modern humans. His last sentence is: 'The current blossoming of molecular evolutionary anthropology surely will soon provide more definitive and precise answers." I am looking forward to reading those definitive and precise answers – that is, if they have been found by now.
Click to expand...
You know you won’t have fully anything even in the beatific vision, and it will be an eternity in heaven and you still won’t know everything.

Yet, you demand that there be total clear cut perfection in knowledge here and now? When most of your sacraments are described as “mysteries”?

Am I missing something here?
 
StrawberryJam said:
You know you won’t have fully anything even in the beatific vision, and it will be an eternity in heaven and you still won’t know everything.

Yet, you demand that there be total clear cut perfection in knowledge here and now? When most of your sacraments are described as “mysteries”?

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Was it my phrase fully complete human? I’m trying to describe the human nature which includes matter and spirit, body and soul. However, since I am working on the evolutionist’s turf, I hesitated about using spiritual. Would you help me here?

Evolutionary theory deals with the material aspects of living organisms. One of the ways scientists differentiate the various Homo species is by the size of the scull. Larger cranium, more brain power. With fossils turning up everywhere, it is apparent there were pre-humans probably very much like us. But, the human species is more than matter. So how does one determine when the first true or complete human nature appeared? I do have some ideas on this. However, I think it best that I learn what science says first. Besides I am intently curious about this subject.

I do think it is important to give credit to the spiritual realm. But I don’t want to get into a debate about the existence of God. That should be left to the philosophers.
I believe in God; yet, I want to respect the world view of others who don’t believe the same things I do. Is that understandable?

Regarding Sacraments as mysteries. My mind is a blank right now. But there is a really neat description of mystery, sort of an old time usage. Actually, I would like clear cut knowledge right away. I know that it is impossible. The funny thing is that while I am writing, it occurs to me that when one humbly, with the emphasis on humbly, seeks knowledge, it should lead straight to God Who, as Creator, has all the answers.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
 
I just want to tell you granny, that I am thankful I ran into you.

You sure have a very different approach than most.🙂
 
Without having read the entire thread, I assert that Catholics are creationists, in that all that is was created by a single thought by God. How he carried that out is for scientists to try and figure out.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Without having read the entire thread, I assert that Catholics are creationists, in that all that is was created by a single thought by God. How he carried that out is for scientists to try and figure out.
Click to expand...
I would amend that to say “all that is is created and sustained by a single thought by God.” Creation was not a one-time push from the past, but is rather an ongoing ontological sustaining by God who is the ground of all Being.
 
StAnastasia said:
I would amend that to say “all that is is created and sustained by a single thought by God.” Creation was not a one-time push from the past, but is rather an ongoing ontological sustaining by God who is the ground of all Being.
Click to expand...
No argument with that.
 
edwest2 said:
That is 100% wrong. Science Which Cannot Study God or The Supernatural, Is Brought here All The Time to say, without any scientific authority whatsoever, that ‘your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.’ The people who post this have zero science to back up their claims. There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers analyzing Genesis or any other parts of the Bible.

And let’s get this straight, God is not just about spiritual dimensions. Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and rose from the dead, in fact.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Certainly many people who have a problem with God are delighted with evolution, for it appears to many to contain a mechanism which explains how creation is possible without a creator.

This is improper use of science of course. Benedict XVI on the other hand, in his speach to scientists (which so inflamed the Muslim world as a by-product), gives good reasoning as to how religion has nothing to fear from science, for good science cannot disprove deeper truths.
The proper role of science is to be in service to mankind’s highest values, and mankind’s needs. To the extent that scientists pretend that their findings contradict Catholic teaching and prove their material positivism worldview, they are serving nothing but the voiding of value from modern life.

To the extent that Catholics assume that one must subscribe to a materialistic explanation of everything, and that their battle is against creationists, they are wrong.

Catholics need not be scriptural literalists. The Church herself teaches the essential meanings of scripture. It is better for us to follow the lead of the Church on these things then, than to assume that Protestant fundamentalists have the best answers in these areas.

To be a Catholic is to believe in God, the (perpetual) Creator of all things seen and unseen.
 
StAnastasia said:
Darryl, I agree with you for the most part,. However, what would you say to the work of Barbara Hagerty in The Fingerprints of God, who explores both the spiritual and the scientific dimensions of apparently “transcendent” experiences?

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Not having read the book, my response would be that the relationship between God and genetics is exactly the same as between the Bread and Wine and the Body of Christ.

For all appearances, we are stardust. It is our beliefs, our faith, our values, our searching for good, and fighting against evil, and above all our relationship with Christ that transcends this appearance.

A scientist will look at the Eucharist and find carbohydrates and sugar molecules, which is true enough as far as that goes. Such is the accidents of Transubstantion
A Christian will digest that Bread and Wine and be filled with God. There may well be physiological differences which explain why one Christian will have a mystical experience while in such a meditation and another will fight evil with his fists, but I tend not to see one as spiritual, and the other as not. Neither is more spiritual than the other, in my view.

Spirituality is not so much an inner process and the special relationship that each of us may have with God, if we so chose.
And that is available to all of us, if we want it to be.
 
Darryl1958 said:
There may well be physiological differences which explain why one Christian will have a mystical experience while in such a meditation and another will fight evil with his fists, but I tend not to see one as spiritual, and the other as not. Neither is more spiritual than the other, in my view.
Click to expand...
Darryl1958, I recommend to you a book by Barbara Hagerty, entitled Fingerprints of God., in which she discusses the neurophysiology of religious experience. She is a bit on the dualist side with respect to her metaphysical assumptions, and that undoubtedly colours her interpretation, but it’s wroth a read. I’ve asked her about the dualism, and she admitted to being unaware of the parameters of the discussion, so we’re in dialogue on that.

StAnastasia
 
Darryl1958 said:
Not having read the book, my response would be that the relationship between God and genetics is exactly the same as between the Bread and Wine and the Body of Christ.

For all appearances, we are stardust. It is our beliefs, our faith, our values, our searching for good, and fighting against evil, and above all our relationship with Christ that transcends this appearance.
Click to expand...
Having an extremely active imagination, I love the poetic reference to stardust.

However, I cannot imagine that the relationship between God and genetics is exactly the same as between the Bread and Wine and the Body of Christ. Which is the substantial presence, God or genetics? And how is the other, the outward accidents, characteristics or signs?
 
40.png
grannymh:
Having an extremely active imagination, I love the poetic reference to stardust. However, I cannot imagine that the relationship between God and genetics is exactly the same as between the Bread and Wine and the Body of Christ. Which is the substantial presence, God or genetics? And how is the other, the outward accidents, characteristics or signs?

GrannyMH, I’m not sure what he meant by the analogy, but I think we can say that God is substantially present in the stardust of universe through the Incarnation. In assuming flesh, God took on the quarks of the Big Bang, the cells of the first Eukaryotes, the vertebrate physiology of the Cambrian explosion, and the primate genome. God became flesh and dwelt among us, just as God is united with the chemistry of the Eucharistic elements.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
GrannyMH, I’m not sure what he meant by the analogy, but I think we can say that God is substantially present in the stardust of universe through the Incarnation. In assuming flesh, God took on the quarks of the Big Bang, the cells of the first Eukaryotes, the vertebrate physiology of the Cambrian explosion, and the primate genome. God became flesh and dwelt among us, just as God is united with the chemistry of the Eucharistic elements.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Regarding post 116. In my humble opinion the poster has good poetic intentions. However, if reality were intended, then this personal opinion post is not at all close to real Catholic theology. Without further comments, I shall simply say that I disagree.
 
StAnastasia said:
John of Woking, the biologists with whom I work speak of evolution as the most coherent explanation of biological relatedness and diverstiy; they also speak of the fact of evolution insofar as it is explained by the theory of natural selection. I am a theologian, not a scientist, and I believe it is important to distinguish between the Creationism that is the Christian doctrine of creation, held by every monotheist, and the creationism that is the anti-scientific theory of a Young Earth and recent six-day creation of all species.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post. I am a theologian (well at degree level (not a Doctor)) aswell.

I am sure the biologists with whom you work apprehend the issue in great depth. It just seems to me that the more I read about evolution the more it seems at odd with Catholic doctrine i.e. polygenism, paradiscial state e.t.c.

I have read ‘Fides et Ratio’ by JPII and am assured that Faith and Reason are the wings by which man ascend to Heaven so I guess I should leave this to the experts and focus on the fundamentals.

As an aside Does anyone one know of any Saints (post mid nineteenth century) who have affirmed or denied evolution.

I’d love to know what any canonised saints (Padre Pio, Max Kolbe or Edith Stein etc) thought on the issue…not that they were scientists and I am not implying their judgments on matters of Science would be accurate. It would just be interesting to see if they thought it was a tool of Satan to diminish faith or whether they affirmed it as most did/do.
 
John_of_Woking said:
I am sure the biologists with whom you work apprehend the issue in great depth. It just seems to me that the more I read about evolution the more it seems at odd with Catholic doctrine i.e. polygenism, paradiscial state e.t.c.
Click to expand...
The more I study evolution and discuss it with my theologian colleagues, including priests and bishops, the more it seems consonant with Catholic doctrine. You might enjoy Archbishop Jozef Zycinski’s God and Evolution (2006).

StAnastasia
 
grannymh said:
Regarding post 116. In my humble opinion the poster has good poetic intentions. However, if reality were intended, then this personal opinion post is not at all close to real Catholic theology. Without further comments, I shall simply say that I disagree.
Click to expand...
Granny, do you disagree with the doctrine of the Incarnation? That’s what I was defending, and it is quite consonant with Catholic theology. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top