Catholics and evolution

[Benjamin]

Matt16_18:

It is only your mortal body that evolved out of the slime. That never would have occurred if Adam and Eve had not fallen.

Tell me your not trying to say that Adam and Eve had human form, (what we look like now, what man has looked like since man has thought about such things and searched for the answers to such questions) they ate from the tree of knowledge and being booted from the Garden of Eden became slime?
The first of mankind’s punishment from God was to turn man to slime and then wait for billions of years of evolution for slime to turn back to man. This seems illogical to me.

How your making the connection from Romans-8 into evolutionary theory is frankly, a little over my head. This chapter talks about the differences of your flesh, (the hear and know flesh, not the flesh of the slime to human story) the Spirit (Holy Ghost) and the battle between the two. The flesh yearns for things against the will of God, who only cares for your soul. Your flesh is of no use to God in heaven. The chapter goes onto talk about the need for the Spirit to intercede on our behalf in prayers to God, 26: “In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings”. This chapter is a instruction from Paul in the proper way to get salvation, though the redemptive work of Christ.

Galatians chapter 5 has Paul preaching about circumcised and non-circumcised men, how that it make no difference to Jesus if you are one or the other. The verse that you sight gives only a partial list of the desires of the flesh that works against the Spirit. Be careful to read the whole chapter, and then you will not be as likely to take things out of context.

Genesis, back to where it all began. On the fourth day God created the abundance of the sea and the birds that fly. He said it was good and directed all his creatures to be fruitful and multiply. Not to evolve and become different species. On the fifth day: Genesis 1:24, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: …”. Now I know that we can argue until the second coming that we don’t know that God actually said, “… the earth “, but the bible has existed pretty much with the same meaning for thousands of years. How can the story of creation go down the way in which you suggest; first creation, then destruction followed by evolution? That theory is very hard for me to believe. Genesis details Adam and Eve being sent away from the garden, why would it not tell of all this destruction upon their exit? Why would God allow the omission of such a huge revelation for all of these years?

Benjamin

 

[Churchmouse]

Sorry for not getting back earlier, but I have a huge deck to wash and a wife to appease because I have a huge deck to wash

First of all, I am a tried and true creationist and believe in a young earth. That aside, I must admit, this is the first time I ever heard a theory like yours. Not that I am intrigued by any possibility that it happened the way you claim, but I just wanted to see if I understood your theory correctly. If anything, I believe in de-evolution, the theory that man is quickly becoming monkeys . With that being said….

In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts, and the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace. Do you agree with that statement?

I do.

I think you are reading me wrong. Adam and Eve lost the preternatural gifts and the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace by committing the original sin. They were cast out of the garden of Eden and forced to dwell in Satan’s kingdom as human beings without sanctifying grace. I have never said that Adam and Eve lost their human nature. Do you understand what preternatural and supernatural means?

Okay, I got one question answered. According to this theory of yours, they remained human beings, possessing the intellectual faculties that we humans possess today. They lost their preternatural and supernatural gifts (sanctifying grace), but they weren’t transformed into what is commonly known as “cavemen” as a result of their sin. I was under the impression that they were punished by being thrown into a process of evolution; that they had degraded physically and intellectually into lower forms of hominids, such as what is known as Australopithecus africanus. I am clear about this now. Now, what about their offspring? Do you believe in a literal “Cain and Abel”? Or were they now officially our amoebic ancestors? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t know where in the grand scheme of things the process known as evolution began according to your theory—the process where man began as an amoeba.

I wouldn’t know if they were less intelligent, but certainly they became more ignorant with the loss of the preternatural gift of infused knowledge.

Of course! And by infused knowledge, I assume you are speaking of the knowledge that was created into man by God.

No, you are not correct - I have never said this. I am having a hard time understanding exactly what you are trying to say, because you are using unusual terminolgy. For example, what is a “sin nature”?

Matt, I am trying to determine where the evolutionary process began according to your theory. Man sinned, God threw them out of Eden and into the world. They lost their preternatural gifts and the gift of sanctifying grace. Although ignorant, they were capable of intellectual thought in every way as we are today. They were in every way like us today (well, most of us anyway ). They didn’t become amoebas and they didn’t become dumb cavemen (i.e Australopithecus africanus, Neatherthal, Cro-Magnon, etc.). So, I am wondering where the actual process of human evolution began in light of your theory.

Please define the term ”adhering sin”. Don’t all sins “adhere” to us until they are forgiven?

Of course, but are you saying that beings such as Australopithecus were capable of sinning without knowing what sin is? Yes, sin adheres, but at what point in the evolutionary cycle was man able to recognize sin to where it counted as sin against the man.

Peace,
CM

 

[milimac]

I have a feeling that if it is still a burning question after we come into the full everlasting presence of God, He’ll tell us, and we’ll say “Wow, imagine that! Cool!” I don’t think I’m going to be deeply disappointed if it doesn’t turn out exactly like I thought it would.

I do find it troubling though that we would have a slim chance of ever enjoying such an interesting study of the many theories of how this world came to be in a public school, where the state-established religion of secularism is promoted to the exclusion of anything that might suggest there is a God.

 

[Matt16_18]

Benjamin

• Tell me your not trying to say that Adam and Eve had human form, (what we look like now, what man has looked like since man has thought about such things and searched for the answers to such questions) they ate from the tree of knowledge and being booted from the Garden of Eden became slime?*

I am saying that the immortal bodies that Adam and Eve had in the garden of Eden were entirely different types of bodies than the mortal bodies that we now possess. Is that such an unusual idea? We confess in the Creed that we believe in the resurrection of the body. Surely you don’t think that our glorified bodies are going to be mortal bodies like we now possess? The immortal bodies of Adam and Eve were types that signify the antitype of the resurrected glorified body.

• The first of mankind’s punishment from God was to turn man to slime and then wait for billions of years of evolution for slime to turn back to man. This seems illogical to me.*

I am not saying that God turned man to slime . I am saying that it is not outside of the Catholic Church’s teachings to say that the mortal bodies that we possess came about through the process of evolution. God never joined a human soul with slime, he joined the immortal souls of Adam and Eve with mortal bodies, and that union of mortal body and immortal human soul is a human being – the flesh that Jesus speaks about in John 3:6 (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh’).

As a Catholic, I am free to speculate that Adam and Eve’s mortal bodies were formed out of the same material that forms the DNA of all plants and animals. All I am saying is that we can speculate that the DNA that God used for human bodies came about through a process of evolution. This was an evolution that God was guiding in a fallen world, a world where men’s bodies are subject to the same laws of nature that govern all the rest of nature.

• How your making the connection from Romans-8 into evolutionary theory is frankly, a little over my head.*

The connection that I am making in Romans-8 is that the sin of Adam and Eve brought death and decay to all creation. A “young earth” theory that speculates that death was in God’s creation before the Fall is contradicting scriptures. The creation accounts of the world in Genesis 2-3 are describing a world where there is no death or decay. Since the creation accounts in Genesis 2-3 cannot be describing our world (death-world), it is wrong to read Genesis 2-3 as a text that forces a Christian to believe that the earth was created in six solar days. The solar day is a measurement of time in our death-world, not the world where the garden of Eden still exists.

• Your flesh is of no use to God in heaven.*

That is a very Gnostic comment. Our mortal bodies have been sanctified by God, and they are holy temples in which God dwells. Our bodies will be resurrected and transformed when the laws of physics that govern this world pass away.

• How can the story of creation go down the way in which you suggest; first creation, then destruction followed by evolution?*

The Bible says that the physical creation was at first totally free from decay and death, and that sin of Adam and Eve brought decay and death to immortal plants and animals. In a sense, the Bible affirms that there was first a sinless creation, and then a degradation (not total annihilation) of all of creation caused by original sin. Evolution can be seen as the degrading of creation; it is the wrath of God - his just punishment for original sin.

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

• Now, what about their offspring? Do you believe in a literal “Cain and Abel”? Or were they now officially our amoebic ancestors? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t know where in the grand scheme of things the process known as evolution began according to your theory—the process where man began as an amoeba.*

It is a de fide belief of the true faith that all humans are the literal descendents of Adam and Eve. I never said that man began as an amoebae.

• I am trying to determine where the evolutionary process began according to your theory.*

Adam and Eve first dwelt in a universe that was free from death and decay. They then were cast out of that universe and into death world. Evolution occurred in the transition between the two worlds.

• …are you saying that beings such as Australopithecus were capable of sinning without knowing what sin is?*

No, I am not saying that. Can a chimp commit a sin? Do we share over 99% of our DNA with chimps?

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse

• Now, what about their offspring? Do you believe in a literal “Cain and Abel”? Or were they now officially our amoebic ancestors? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t know where in the grand scheme of things the process known as evolution began according to your theory—the process where man began as an amoeba.*

It is a de fide belief of the true faith that all humans are the literal descendents of Adam and Eve. I never said that man began as an amoebae.

But you did say that they were thrown into a process of evolution. I am assuming you are speaking of evolution in the strictest scientific sense of the word.

• I am trying to determine where the evolutionary process began according to your theory.*

Adam and Eve first dwelt in a universe that was free from death and decay. They then were cast out of that universe and into death world. Evolution occurred in the transition between the two worlds.

But what type of human evolution happened between these two worlds?

• …are you saying that beings such as Australopithecus were capable of sinning without knowing what sin is?*

No, I am not saying that. Can a chimp commit a sin? Do we share over 99% of our DNA with chimps?

I must admit, I am more confused than ever. So, at what point in human evolution, was man once again cognizent of sin and aware of God?

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

• But you did say that they were thrown into a process of evolution.*

No, I said that we can speculate that the DNA of the mortal bodies of human beings was formed by the process of evolution - an evolution that was guided by God. I have never said that man was first an amoebae or anything like that.

• I am assuming you are speaking of evolution in the strictest scientific sense of the word.*

I don’t understand what you are saying.

• But what type of human evolution happened between these two worlds?*

Again, I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you asking me if I believe in a purely atheistic and materialistic explanation of evolution?

• I must admit, I am more confused than ever. So, at what point in human evolution, was man once again cognizent of sin and aware of God?*

All I am saying is that it is perfectly acceptable to speculate that the DNA of mortal human bodies came about through the process of evolution. A man is more than just a body. In Genesis, God created the body of the man first, and then he breathed a human spirit into the body he created. When the breath of life was joined to the body of the man, a human being was created, a being that has both a human body and a human soul.

Think of evolution as a punishment for original sin. God allows the DNA that forms a mortal body to come about through the process of evolution. God breathes a human soul into a mortal body, and viola – a human being is created. The mortal body of a human beings is subject to the same physical laws that all of creation is subject too, and that is a consequence of original sin.

Adam and Eve were the first humans with immortal bodies, and they were the first human beings with mortal bodies. We are all descendents of Adam and Eve. There never was a time when mortal human beings were not cognizant of sin.

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse

• But you did say that they were thrown into a process of evolution.*

No, I said that we can speculate that the DNA of the mortal bodies of human beings was formed by the process of evolution - an evolution that was guided by God. I have never said that man was first an amoebae or anything like that.

• I am assuming you are speaking of evolution in the strictest scientific sense of the word.*

I don’t understand what you are saying.

• But what type of human evolution happened between these two worlds?*

Again, I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you asking me if I believe in a purely atheistic and materialistic explanation of evolution?

• I must admit, I am more confused than ever. So, at what point in human evolution, was man once again cognizent of sin and aware of God?*

All I am saying is that it is perfectly acceptable to speculate that the DNA of mortal human bodies came about through the process of evolution. A man is more than just a body. In Genesis, God created the body of the man first, and then he breathed a human spirit into the body he created. When the breath of life was joined to the body of the man, a human being was created, a being that has both a human body and a human soul.

Think of evolution as a punishment for original sin. God allows the DNA that forms a mortal body to come about through the process of evolution. God breathes a human soul into a mortal body, and viola – a human being is created. The mortal body of a human beings is subject to the same physical laws that all of creation is subject too, and that is a consequence of original sin.

Adam and Eve were the first humans with immortal bodies, and they were the first human beings with mortal bodies. We are all descendents of Adam and Eve. There never was a time when mortal human beings were not cognizant of sin.

Hi Matt,

All I’m questioning is where evolution as in “beings evolving into modern man”, with all the physical and intellectual attributes, began within in your theory, but that’s okay. Maybe a lot of this is over my head anyway

Thanks for the dialogue, though. You were a true gentleman <-----<<gosh, i really like that little “thumbs up” guy>>

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

churchmouse

Evolution began after the Fall - maybe.

Lucifer was cast out of heaven before the Fall of man, and he reigned over the world that he was banished to as the Prince of Darkness. Perhaps in the kingdom of Satan, evolution was already occurring in the physical plane, and that Adam and Eve were banished from the garden of Eden into a physical world that was already corrupted by decay and death. But I don’t think that scriptures give that much support for this speculation.

There are great mysteries in the transition between Adam and Eve possessing immortal bodies in a world without death, and Adam and Eve living in mortal bodes in a universe that is ruled by the Prince of Darkness.

There are not just two ways to frame the debate about Genesis, i.e. that one must either believe in an atheistic materialistic evolution, or one must either believe in the bad science and bad theology of young earth Creationism. I just want people to be willing to consider possibilities other than these two unacceptable positions - while at the same time accepting all the infallible doctrines that the true church teaches about these matters. It is a challange to do this!

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse

Evolution began after the Fall - maybe.

Lucifer was cast out of heaven before the Fall of man, and he reigned over the world that he was banished to as the Prince of Darkness. Perhaps in the kingdom of Satan, evolution was already occurring in the physical plane, and that Adam and Eve were banished from the garden of Eden into a physical world that was already corrupted by decay and death. But I don’t think that scriptures give that much support for this speculation.

There are great mysteries in the transition between Adam and Eve possessing immortal bodies in a world without death, and Adam and Eve living in mortal bodes in a universe that is ruled by the Prince of Darkness.

There are not just two ways to frame the debate about Genesis, i.e. that one must either believe in an atheistic materialistic evolution, or one must either believe in the bad science and bad theology of young earth Creationism. I just want people to be willing to consider possibilities other than these two unacceptable positions - while at the same time accepting all the infallible doctrines that the true church teaches about these matters. It is a challange to do this!

Matt,

I remember a pastor years ago (can’t remember his name though) who believed that the earth was populated at one time and then repopulated through Adam and Eve. He used the passages in Isaiah 14 coupled with Genesis 1:28, where the semantic range of the word “mâlê” allowed for the word “replenish” (to fill again). He believed that the earth could be older, but again, he believed that the earth was filled at one time prior to Adam and Eve. Does this sound similar to your theory as well?

Peace,
CM

 

[Matt16_18]

cm

• Does this sound similar to your theory as well?*

Not to my ears.

 

[Benjamin]

Matt16_18:

That is a very Gnostic comment. Our mortal bodies have been sanctified by God, and they are holy temples in which God dwells.

I am merely stating that God does not need your body in order to get you to heaven. I should have explained myself better. How that is pursuing knowledge for my salvation, I can’t wait to find out. I don’t want to be known has a heretic. I was saying the same thing that you are about our glorified bodies in heaven. As you like to point out, our glorified bodies may share ninety percent of our earthly bodies DNA but they are not exactly the same bodies. And this has nothing to do with proving evolution.

Why would the Bible not state that man came from creatures of the earth? How does evolution explain the existence of women without going against the teachings of the Bible? The Bible is explicit about how women was created, from Adams rib. It seems to me that the importance of how woman was created differentiates man from all the outer creatures of the earth. The creation of woman is told in detail. How woman came from man;” bone of my bone flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2-23). During the naming of the animals Adam finds that no animal is a suitable partner for him. God creates Eve from Adam. If man came from creatures of the earth why would the Bible not explain this as it explains where Eve came from?

I have more but not the time right now. I wanted to make sure I got the heresy part explained. My big problem with evolution is the inconsistencies that are not scriptural based. More on this latter.

Benjamin

 

[Matt16_18]

Benjamin

• As you like to point out, our glorified bodies may share ninety percent of our earthly bodies DNA but they are not exactly the same bodies.*

I never said that our glorified bodies are going to share any DNA with our mortal bodies. Our glorified bodies are not going to be ruled by the laws of physics that govern this world. The laws of physics that govern this world are passing away.

• If man came from creatures of the earth why would the Bible not explain this as it explains where Eve came from?*

Where does the Bible talk about the creation of the mortal bodies of either Adam and Eve? Nowhere. The creation accounts in Genesis are accounts of the creation of a world where death had no rule. Genesis describes the creation of the immortal bodies of Adam and Eve, bodies that they possessed while they were living in a universe where there was no disease, decay, or death.

Because of their sin, Adam and Eve were banished from the universe that contains the garden of Eden, and they were sent into the universe that we dwell in – the world that is the dwelling place of the Prince of Darkness. Adam and Eve had mortal bodies in Satan’s Kingdom. The bible does not explain how God created the mortal bodies that Adam and Eve came to posses in the Kingdom of Darkness.

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt1618 << The creation accounts in Genesis are accounts of the creation of a world where death had no rule. Genesis describes the creation of the immortal bodies of Adam and Eve, bodies that they possessed while they were living in a universe where there was no disease, decay, or death. Because of their sin, Adam and Eve were banished from the universe that contains the garden of Eden, and they were sent into the universe that we dwell in – the world that is the dwelling place of the Prince of Darkness. >>

I think this is an interesting interpretation of Genesis that solves the problem of reconciling evolution (where death does rule, since it is a normal part of life today) and the pre-Fall Genesis state (where death does not rule, and Adam/Eve were originally immortal bodily).

Glenn Morton, the former young-earther, has suggested another possibility on what the Tree of Life means

I have seen Catholic magisterial statements that clearly imply that Adam/Eve would not have died (neither physically nor spiritually) had they not sinned. So this does seem to contradict evolution at least on this theological point. For example, the Catechism 400-402 (which cites Romans 5:12, etc)

And this paragraph citing the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom

1. “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

Also this article by a traditionalist publication

The Evolution of Original Sin

EXCERPT: As for dogma, under “Preternatural Gifts” in the Pocket Catholic Dictionary (by Rev. John Hardon, S.J.) we read: “They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title - infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

I need to write an article for my apologetics site someday on this since this theological objection to evolution keeps coming up…

Phil P

 

[Intrntsrch]

Um,

I have a question. Can anyone provide a valid scientific experiment or demonstration of the evolution of a specific animal? It would be very helpful. I think in order to be true to the scientific method, a description of the event that includes the mechanism by which the evolution happened would go a long way to clarifying some confusion.

Oh, one last request. Please avoid using the fossil record because it does nothing to explain the mechanism of evolution. Without knowing “how” it happened only leads to rationalized conjecture.

 

[PhilVaz]

Intr << Can anyone provide a valid scientific experiment or demonstration of the evolution of a specific animal? >>

Land mammals (mesonychian or artiodactyls) to whale (cetaceans) evolution has been fairly well documented recently (1990s)

Gingerich on Whale Evolution

Thewissen on Whale Evolution

I’m not sure what you mean by “evolution of a specific animal” though? Please explain. There are plenty of reptile-like mammal and mammal-like reptile fossils in the record, they’ve been well described and documented. I’m not sure what other scientific explanation makes sense there other than evolution. Of course macroevolution is inferred, since there will not be direct observation of a fish turning into an amphibian, or a dinosaur turning into a bird, since these transitions take millions of years.

If the evolutionist experts at the Infidels site (or other experts) sees this, they would be happy to answer you. You are the one earlier that said in another thread that Archaeopteryx is a “fraud” (or least one of the specimans?) and that the Peppered Moth story is a hoax. I’ve answered those quite thoroughly. A couple other folks also brought up the old “Nebraska Man” pig-tooth. You gotta read more than just creationist literature and web sites.

Phil P

 

[traditionMike]

I read an article once a few years ago in a scientific journal that DNA experts had proven there is no way man evolved from ape. I have always wished I saved the article, I’m sorry but I didn’t save it and I can’t remember the journal or the author.

I am a scientist and it is a lot easier for me to believe the instant creation of Adam and Eve, than man evolving from apes. But if God wanted to create the Big Bang I am okay with that.

Someone said it in this string - That stupid cartoon of man evolving from apes that we all saw in our science books always made me cringe.

Mike

 

[MiddleBear]

Creationism:

The Catholic doctrine that the soul of each human being is immediately created by God at the moment of conception.

Modern Catholic Dictionary John A.Hardon S.J.

 

[StephenBlue]

gomer tree:

I personally don’t believe in evolution, but I do believe the earth is billions of years old. God is not a God of deception. Why would He create something 6000 years ago and give it every appearance of being billions of years old? That woould seem to me to be a direct hindrance to faith.

Greetings Everyone!

I could not help but respond to this. There are more indicators for a “young” earth than there are for an “old” earth. For instance , Geocronology (the study of the age of the earth using natural processes) has over 80 processes that are used to come up wuth an age - such as the rate of accumalation of salt in the oceans. Salt is being “drained” into the oceans of the world from the moutains by the rivers that flow into the seas. If you take the rate of salt flowing into the seas and extrapolate backwards in time – you will arrive at an age that is far, far, far younger than what some scientist believe.

Another process used is “space dust”. Cosmic “dust” is entering the earth at a rate that has been constant ever since it has been discovered. If the earth is as old as some scientist say – there should be a fifty foot deep covering of this dust. There is not because of the wind, rain and many other activities that keep stiring it up.

But, the moon is dead and dormant and has NO SUCH ACTIVITIES on it. Therefore, since the moon is of the same age as the earth – WE SHOULD FIND A FIFTY FOOT DEEP LAYER OF DUST COVERING IT! When scientist were preparing for a landing on the moon, they spent millions of dollars preparing for just such a finding. When the rover finally landed they found ONLY 2 INCHES of dust. This is the equivalant of less than Ten Thousand Years. They had no explanation for it!

Of the over 80 processes – ONLY TWO point to an “old” earth, Carbon 14 dating and Radioisotope dating. Both are FLAWED!

 

[twf]

Phil: I’ve been meaning to post, but I’m quite busy at the moment. I do have a thing to two to say regarding your post a ways back on ‘1 000 000’ species on the ark and a world flood and such.

For now, though, I’d like to link to answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp (Arguments creationists SHOULD NOT use). It includes the ‘moon dust’ argument, which is a strawman. StephenBlue, I recommend you check out AiG…they are more reliable than many of the other more ‘fringe’ groups out there.
God bless.