Catholic View on Evolution

[scameter18]

I’m looking into this topic for personal interest: what is the Catholic Church’s official teaching on evolution? I’d rather remain on just the Church’s view, not personal opinion for now if we can, just to stay on-topic.

 

[passus]

This should help.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

 

[Fran65]

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” CCC paragraph 283

Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” CCC paragraph 286

Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation. CCC paragraph 289

My understanding based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that the individual is free to believe in evolution or not. The Church certainly does not teach the literal truth of the account in Genesis, but individuals are free to believe in it if they are convinced. I hope that this helps.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

I was told when I was in RCIA… evolution could have happened… God could have done whatever He wanted…

 

[scameter18]

That information is very helpful. Thank you to everyone who replied.

Honestly, it seems to me that whether or not evolution is accurate to nature is more a matter of opinion. It is not really relevant to faith, as long as it does not delve into spiritual matters. So, essentially, the problem with evolution sometimes is the bias some scientists have by being atheists. As long as one can discern that bias, evolution can be studied purely scientifically.

 

[Dameedna]

That information is very helpful. Thank you to everyone who replied.

Honestly, it seems to me that whether or not evolution is accurate to nature is more a matter of opinion. It is not really relevant to faith, as long as it does not delve into spiritual matters. So, essentially, the problem with evolution sometimes is the bias some scientists have by being atheists. As long as one can discern that bias, evolution can be studied purely scientifically.

Well since you’ve given your opinion that’s not so much on topic of catholic beleifs but your own, I’ll respond.

Firstly, evolution is not a matter of opinion. The "fact’ that we evolved is well established. How it actually happened is up for debate, but evolution itself is not. It’s not opinion anymore than humans having an organ called a heart is an opinion. Religious people often call it that, because they are at least subconciously aware it challenges their traditional beilefs. This is not integrity even if it offers some comfort.

Scientists don’t’ need to debate evolution. It hasn’t been in doubt for quite a while now.(several hundred years…lol)

2ndly, Evolution indicates that we evolved into self-awareness and conciousness, and that we did not come from one man and one woman. Adam and Eve could never have actually existed as humans given the knowlege the universe has so far presented.

Evolution also shows, we did not “fall” into a state of imperfection from a state of perfect union with a God. We cannot have been “in union” with God as we were evolving since our ancestors were single cell organism. At what point in our evolutionary path did we fall?

There is not a bias amongst scientists towards athiesm. People who study human life, biology and history begin to 'realize" that religion is wrong, especially when it makes a very disctinct claim we come from one man and woman, and that we 'fell" from a state of union, rather than grew into self-awarness… A difference of opinion is not alway’s a bias. Those that enjoy and research the world, “become” athiests as it is the only rational place they can be considering what religions expect them to believe about God. it’s a result of knowlege and understanding to a degree. it’s not a bias in and of itself.(Although bias can often occur)

Evolution contradicts the traditional christian story completely, and evolution is not an opinion. It is just one of the most difficult concepts for believers to really address. If we evolved, we simply did not “disobey” a God at any point and this life is not a result of a seperation from God.

You cannot base your faith on a story , a church or a religion. It must be based on an actual, very real God. The traditional christian story, relies now on a belief despite evidence. And it is failing. Thankfully, there are some humans whos’ faith in a God doesn’t actually come from a Book or a church. They don’t need to call evolution an Opinion anymore than they need to deny buddha. I like these people. They are very interesting

Cheers

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well since you’ve given your opinion that’s not so much on topic of catholic beleifs but your own, I’ll respond.

Firstly, evolution is not a matter of opinion. The "fact’ that we evolved is well established. How it actually happened is up for debate, but evolution itself is not. It’s not opinion anymore than humans having an organ called a heart is an opinion. Religious people often call it that, because they are at least subconciously aware it challenges their traditional beilefs. This is not integrity even if it offers some comfort.

Scientists don’t’ need to debate evolution. It hasn’t been in doubt for quite a while now.(several hundred years…lol)

2ndly, Evolution indicates that we evolved into self-awareness and conciousness, and that we did not come from one man and one woman. Adam and Eve could never have actually existed as humans given the knowlege the universe has so far presented.

Evolution also shows, we did not “fall” into a state of imperfection from a state of perfect union with a God. We cannot have been “in union” with God as we were evolving since our ancestors were single cell organism. At what point in our evolutionary path did we fall?

There is not a bias amongst scientists towards athiesm. People who study human life, biology and history begin to 'realize" that religion is wrong, especially when it makes a very disctinct claim we come from one man and woman, and that we 'fell" from a state of union, rather than grew into self-awarness… A difference of opinion is not alway’s a bias. Those that enjoy and research the world, “become” athiests as it is the only rational place they can be considering what religions expect them to believe about God. it’s a result of knowlege and understanding to a degree. it’s not a bias in and of itself.(Although bias can often occur)

Evolution contradicts the traditional christian story completely, and evolution is not an opinion. It is just one of the most difficult concepts for believers to really address. If we evolved, we simply did not “disobey” a God at any point and this life is not a result of a seperation from God.

You cannot base your faith on a story , a church or a religion. It must be based on an actual, very real God. The traditional christian story, relies now on a belief despite evidence. And it is failing. Thankfully, there are some humans whos’ faith in a God doesn’t actually come from a Book or a church. They don’t need to call evolution an Opinion anymore than they need to deny buddha. I like these people. They are very interesting

Cheers

we arent biblical literalists, and faith doesnt depend on a literalist interpretation, in fact only the protestants believe sola scriptura, which is why they are the majority of antievolutionists, it kills one of the pillars of that heresy. that doesnt apply to us

you should check out the Problem of Evil on this thread, because i just killed it dead.

maybe you can defend its existence.

 

[gearhead]

This should help.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The article touched on one point that may be difficult to reconcile with science:

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

This is a problem, because speciation happens in groups, not in lone pairs. I can see some ways that the issue can be resolved… for example, maybe the first group who were genetically homo sapiens were not “people” in whatever sense the Church defines the term (maybe they didn’t have souls at this point? Dunno), and all “true” people have as common ancestors the lone pair of “Adam” and “Eve” who would be necessary for the doctrine of Original Sin to work.

Effectively, this would imply that there were “soulless” human beings wandering around before they all died out.

Now… whether this all squares up with Church theology, I have no idea. And while there’s a potential conflict between the doctrine and the science, it’s miles ahead of the denominations that adhere to ideas like Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Fran65]

Dame,

If you had read my post you would also have read that the Catholic Church tells us that science has indeed enriched our understanding of the development of life forms. It does not teach, and neither did I say that it did that '“evolution is a matter of opinion”.

What the Church does say is that in some things it is up to the individual to make up their own mind. This means that it does not thrust a specific explanation of the origins and development of life upon Catholics - other than to say that God is the ultimate origin. There are many and mysterious ways in which God works, and if the evidence points to evolution, then He has worked through evolution.

However, there are those who prefer to believe that Genesis is a literal account. As how life forms developed is not a dogma and is something that we are continually learning about, those people are free to believe in this form of Creationism. In this way, the Church is more progressive than some atheists who seem to frequently state how things are and refuse to consider or accept anything other than the way they believe things to be

 

[redhen]

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Interesting find. So if the “Fall” is figurative, yet a universal separation of mankind from God occurred, where sin entered the world, what was the nature of this “original fault freely committed by our first parents” ?

And how do you know that?

p.s. the article specifically mentions “the beginning of the history of man”, when would that have been, and what species does it include/exclude?

…and again, how do you know this?

 

[gearhead]

Interesting find. So if the “Fall” is figurative, yet a universal separation of mankind from God occurred, where sin entered the world, what was the nature of this “original fault freely committed by our first parents” ?

And how do you know that?

I have absolutely no idea what it might be. Personally, I reject the whole notion of Original Sin. I was just musing about how a Catholic might be able to reconcile scientific knowledge with his or her faith.

p.s. the article specifically mentions “the beginning of the history of man”, when would that have been, and what species does it include/exclude?

…and again, how do you know this?

Again, I have no idea how the Catholic Church would go about defining “man”. I assume it would have something to do with the existence of a soul, but that’s pure supposition on my part.

Personally, I think that it’s a smooth continuum; I don’t have any basis on which I can cleanly divide our ancestral history and say “okay, everything before right here is entirely ‘animal’ and everything after is entirely ‘man’”… though I also don’t have the problem of dividing all living things into the categories the Church does (e.g. graced with a soul vs. soulless, or culpable vs. innocent, etc.).

 

[buffalo]

What Does The Church Teach About Origins?

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be
Adam.)
· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall
(Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have
originated via evolution.
· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason
dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had
remained obedient (Pius XII).
· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second
Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican
Council I).
· We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or
morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
· All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.
(Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been
created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
· St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the
then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds
of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
· The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to
Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
· Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
· Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of
evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[redhen]

I don’t have any basis on which I can cleanly divide our ancestral history and say "okay, everything before right here is entirely ‘animal’ and everything after is entirely ‘man’"

Yeah, that’s not what we see in the rest of nature en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology

I’d still like to know what Adam and Eve did to disobey God, since much of this story is admittedly figurative.

 

[redhen]

What Does The Church Teach About Origins?

· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)

I thought some of it was figurative, no?

The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Like a rib? straightdope.com/columns/read/87/do-women-have-an-extra-rib-because-eve-got-one-of-adams

· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

so believe as fact unless proven otherwise?

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden

I’d still like to know the nature of that disobedience.

· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

So all non-human animals that ever existed, did not suffer until man appeared?

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

I think this is where reason dictates or necessity requires a non-literal sense.

· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

same

· St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)

Surely this has been updated since 1302? This is starting to get embarrassing.

· The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

Really? You sure this hasn’t been superseded by an update since 1566?

 

[buffalo]

I thought some of it was figurative, no?

**90 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

Like a rib? straightdope.com/columns/read/87/do-women-have-an-extra-rib-because-eve-got-one-of-adams

It just so happens the rib is one of the best sources for stem cells.

so believe as fact unless proven otherwise?

I’d still like to know the nature of that disobedience.

Pride

So all non-human animals that ever existed, did not suffer until man appeared?

I think this is where reason dictates or necessity requires a non-literal sense.

same

Surely this has been updated since 1302? This is starting to get embarrassing.

Revealed truth needs no update

Really? You sure this hasn’t been superseded by an update since 1566?
Revealed truth needs no update

 

[gearhead]

It just so happens the rib is one of the best sources for stem cells.

Why would this matter to an all-powerful God?

 

[buffalo]

Why would this matter to an all-powerful God?

It doesn’t really but I thought it really cool.

On the other hand, when God made Eve from Adam he might have picked Adam’s rib.

 

[j1akey]

Bone marrow contains stem cells in it but I’m not sure how the bone marrow of a rib is any different than the cells from bone marrow in any other part of the body. I could use more explanation on this as I was unable to find any documentation to support the rib thing.

 

[buffalo]

Bone marrow contains stem cells in it but I’m not sure how the bone marrow of a rib is any different than the cells from bone marrow in any other part of the body. I could use more explanation on this as I was unable to find any documentation to support the rib thing.

I cannot find the paper - I posted it here on CAF a while ago. I will find it though - trust me.

In any case bone marrow in the rib fits nicely with Eve coming from Adam’s side to be his helpmate.

 

[thunderballs75]

For some reason a lot of Catholics think you can only believe in creationism. The popes (even before Vatican II) taught that evolution is compatible with Catholic theory, so long as the faithful would not deny that the Triune God created the universe ex nihilo, and that God gave each human a soul.

However, evolutionary theory does not concern the teachings of faith or morals, so they would not make an authoritative statement, especially considering that the Church is a Church and not a scientific organization. You are free to believe in evolutionary theory or creationism.

Keep in mind that Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, and Georges Lemaitre, the father of the Big Bang theory, were both Catholic priests (pre-Vatican II, even).