Catholicism vs Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that science can’t work this out. However, science could make it more or less plausible.
Re Neandertals: They had the soul which corresponded to the substance of Neandertalism, that which formed a Neandertal.
Interesting idea. But why would God find it necessary to make a different sort of soul for people who varied so slightly from us? They are at most, a very closely related species, and might even be the same species as we are.
Homo sapiens is a substance. The soul has to correspond to the embodiment.
I’m not aware of anything in the teaching of the Church that says Neandertals have to have a different sort of soul. Could you tell me about that?
These are the things a theologian has to work out scientifically if the soul is the “form” of the body; especially if it is the fact that humanity is still in the process of evolving.
That would be another good poll question: How many people believe that the human race is still physically evolving?
That is a given; we still see changes in the allele frequency of populations over time. Will there be further speciations of humans before the race ends? That’s hard to say. But there’s no reason it couldn’t be so.
 
:signofcross: Lent is coming.

Who has the convincing defense of Theistic Evolution?

Who has at least a partial defense of Theistic Evolution?

Anyone?

Any guesses?

:confused:

Early morning blessings,
granny

Eve & Adam need a friend. Soon.
 
It’s hard to believe that Catholics in perfectly good working order actually entertain the notion that Christ was ‘evolving’ in the years He walked among men, and that we may evolve to something BEYOND what He IS in human form!

Maybe He wasn’t Mr.Perfect Personified as I’ve been led to believe.

I guess the JWs and Mormons may have something, after all.

The poll is ambiguous because the choices are *no evolution *or some evolution. That “some” is broad enough to fit the universe!

:cool:
 
It’s hard to believe that Catholics in perfectly good working order actually entertain the notion that Christ was ‘evolving’ in the years He walked among men, and that we may evolve to something BEYOND what He IS in human form!
Who believes that?
The poll is ambiguous because the choices are *no evolution *or some evolution. That “some” is broad enough to fit the universe!
The poll is exactly what I wanted it to be.

Peace

Tim
 
I had to vote for option 2 despite not really knowing the catholic position. Mainly because Catholic teaching is not opposed by evolution 🙂
 
I accept that evolution is true, yes.
Identification.
How so? I set up the poll for my own purposes and no one is required to participate. What deception is there?

Peace

Tim
Qualification.
It is interesting. I’m a bit surprised that some of the posters who have either specifically claimed or strongly implied that evolution is not allowed by the Church haven’t voted.

Peace

Tim
Confirmation.

Deception, completed.

:cool:
 
I’m sure a few people are highly upset that Tim has drawn the line and asked people here to volunteer whether or not they accept the Church’s teaching on evolution.

They could have simply refused to say. But I think what really riles them, is that they have to confront themselves about it.

Which is probably a good deal more painful than publicly admitting that they will not accept what the Church teaches.
 
I had to vote for option 2 despite not really knowing the catholic position. Mainly because Catholic teaching is not opposed by evolution 🙂
Can someone please give me the Catholic ‘teaching’ that says evolution is not opposed to Catholic teaching.
 
Can someone please give me the Catholic ‘teaching’ that says evolution is not opposed to Catholic teaching.
Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):
“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”
This quite clearly states that:
  1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
  2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
  3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
So I voted for number 2 based on item 3 directly above.
 
Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

This quite clearly states that:
  1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
  2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
  3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
    So I voted for number 2 based on item 3 directly above.
Thanks for that ricmat. Its as I thought, no teaching as such only an opinion that is so confusing that it is an insult to Catholic teaching. A Catholic teaching is a dogma or doctrine that has tradition. Indeed this is such a profound subject I will start a new thread on it.
 
Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

This quite clearly states that:
  1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
  2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
  3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.
So I voted for number 2 based on item 3 directly above.
The evolutionary framework existed and was promoted within the Christian scientific tradition and in the atmosphere of Christian investigation before Darwin’s ‘cause’ so how did the evolutionary framework find itself separate to or outside Christianity.I am afraid everyone here has to look at themselves first to discover the answer -

“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.” St Augustine
 
Organic Evolution only seems to apply within species.

To get species breakouts / or new species creation … a supernatural impetus a Genesis creation] seems required.
This, right here.

And I didn’t reach this conclusion from any religious teaching–I got it from studying evolutionary biology.
 
There weren’t all that many people opposed to the Church’s teaching on evolution, after all.

Or at least there weren’t many who were willing to go on record as such.
 
There weren’t all that many people opposed to the Church’s teaching on evolution, after all.

Or at least there weren’t many who were willing to go on record as such.
You Barb, you’re either a wordsmith or an idiot.

Perhaps, a bit of both!

How you can twist the ‘vote’ to speak AS Catholic teaching, as reflected in all your posts, never fail to amuse me.

:cool:
 
You Barb, you’re either a wordsmith or an idiot.
Perhaps, a bit of both!
Well, let’s take a look…
How you can twist the ‘vote’ to speak AS Catholic teaching
I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Turns out I didn’t. I mentioned that the vote shows that almost everyone here acknowledges Catholic teaching on the subject. Only two dissenters, I think.
as reflected in all your posts, never fail to amuse me.
A good teacher is both informative and amusing.
 
Re: Can someone please give me the Catholic ‘teaching’ that says evolution is not opposed to Catholic teaching.

My but aren’t you theistic evolutionists as short on ‘Catholic teaching’ that says evolutionism and Catholicism are compatible, as you were in not being able to answer my other thread asking one of you to show us how evolutionism and the dogmas on Adam and Eve and Original Sin can be made comply with evolution.

On this thread the best you guys can come up with is Humani Generis, an encyclical letter from Pope Pius XII that merely carried warnings that evolutionism MUST comply with Catholic dogma, not that it IS.

‘If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’

At best it allows evolutionists TRY to show how it can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. This way everybody will see it DOESN’T.

But Pope Pius XII was well aware that you theistic-evolutionists, so cock-sure of your ‘science’ that he had to warn others about YOU:

‘Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question…’

Tell me half the threads on this forum on evolution were not written by Catholics who place science ahead of revelation and catholic theology in their list of infallible beliefs.

Humani Generis’s final warning

’ 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’

more no. nos for evolutionists, including the question none of you could answer on my other thread about Adam and Eve and Original Sin.’

Now someone correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Cardinal Ratzinger hint or point to Adam and Eve as methaphor for ‘mankind’ in his book In The Beginning 1981, reprinted when he wasa made pope? I certainly know I have read many such accounts written by ‘Catholics’ that include all the no, nos forbidden by Pius XII above.

So, where in God’s name does the above say evolution is not not opposed to Catholic faith? You first have to compile your theology, submit it to the Church, and then you will see if your mish-mash is compatible to Catholic teaching.

‘provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.’

Given the pathetic three liner theology by one of you on the other thread, we find you have NOTHING to say. Compare this with the 1000 posts on the ‘scientific evidence’,

Finally, here is the new religion of the evolutionists:

Fr Guy Consolmagno SJ, Vatican Observatory, revising the Galileo case once again for all gullible Catholics today, said recently:

‘or, to put it in another way, religion tells us that God made the universe, science tells us how He did it.’

Now time was when Catholic theology told us how God created and there is a wealth of theology on the matter. How sad to see all this theology redundant. Evolutionism, any Catholic worth his or her salt should see if they had any faith in them, is a doctrinal POISON.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top