Catholics: (POLL) Do you accept evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The ol’ two books idea.
Click to expand...
No – let’s be perfectly clear: God created us precisely so that we would use the talents and faculties He gives us, so He gives us the ability to think, reason, and make discoveries. In fact, science owes a debt to theology!

But, in their particular disciplines, they are distinct.
buffalo said:
In the beginning (time)
God created the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)

It was revealed right at the beginning and only recently science confirmed it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but science reveals the ‘how’, whereas theology identifies the ‘what’. 😉
 
It cannot be verified. That’s one point. The other is that it is not consistent with Scripture at some critical points. If a process occurred, it would be entirely guided, infallibly. The current model is incomplete.
 
catholic1seeks said:
@buffalo So in your perspective, if macro-evolution were “empirically provable,” would you accept it?

In other words, is it just a matter of scientific evidence for you?

TBH, I’m having a hard time sorting out the gist of the arguments between you, @edwest211, and others. It’s hard for me to keep the nuances up. Some are saying that evolution is inherently anti-Faith. And I believe it was you who said macro-evolution is not compatible with Catholicism and Scripture, regardless of scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
One time events cannot be empirically provable.

We do not observe macro-evolution and to claim it happens by extrapolating micro is weak.

I have claimed that Eve coming from Adam is an issue as it has been the firm and constant teaching of the Church and affirmed by several Popes since a few centuries after Christ.

If macro-evolution was empirically provable, Genesis would have Revealed something different since faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both flow from the very same God (truth)
 
From above link:
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yet we see the great fossil beds, where many different creatures were suddenly buried together confirming a cataclysm. We see that sedimentary layering shows that a lower strata can be laid down earlier than a higher one with moving water.
 
The account of creation in Genesis is literally a mode of storytelling called mythology. The point of it is not to demonstrate exactly how we were formed, but to point at certain theological truths: That God created us, that He wants a relationship with us, that the first humans betrayed him and brought about original sin, and so on.

Our bodies could very well be evolved from an ape, and the science we know suggests that’s likely what happened; but the moment our souls were made into human souls, we ceased being animals and became human beings.

This is what makes sense from both a theological and scientific perspective, and so that’s what I go with. Ultimately, however, it doesn’t even matter HOW we were made; what matters is the WHY.
 
On the contrary, how we were made matters, If we are just advanced apes we will live and die like other animals. If not, the Church has some definite teaching about that. No, God did not pick two almost humans and just dropped souls into them.
 
Raxus said:
The account of creation in Genesis is literally a mode of storytelling called mythology. The point of it is not to demonstrate exactly how we were formed, but to point at certain theological truths: That God created us, that He wants a relationship with us, that the first humans betrayed him and brought about original sin, and so on.

Our bodies could very well be evolved from an ape, and the science we know suggests that’s likely what happened; but the moment our souls were made into human souls, we ceased being animals and became human beings.

This is what makes sense from both a theological and scientific perspective, and so that’s what I go with. Ultimately, however, it doesn’t even matter HOW we were made; what matters is the WHY.
Click to expand...
That is called the two books idea. It came from the pressure of methodological naturalism on Scripture. I believe it to be wrong.

Scripture tells us why and tells us what.
 
buffalo said:
If macro-evolution was empirically provable, Genesis would have Revealed something different since faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both flow from the very same God (truth)
Click to expand...
  • completely unprovable assertion, there.
  • rests on the opinion that evolution causes a rift between faith and reason.
  • not certain that “one-time events cannot be provable empirically”. Every person who ever lived and died has had a one-time event: death. That one’s pretty easy to prove and demonstrate. Drive past the cemetery of your choosing for the proof. 😉
 
Last edited:
Where’s the one with an ancient creature buried next to a modern one? Where’s the T-Rex with a chicken in its belly? Or a dog buried next to tiktaalik? Why is there clear segmentation between animals and I keep asking this but why do they seem to similar to the ones in layers above and below them but less and less similar to the ones further away from them? If they all got jumbled up in a flood why are they sorted the way they are?
 
Gorgias said:
not certain that “one-time events cannot be provable empirically”. Every person who ever lived and died has had a one-time event: death. That one’s pretty easy to prove and demonstrate. Drive past the cemetery of your choosing for the proof. 😉
Click to expand...
Empirical is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Drop a ball - you can observe it fall. Yo can repeat it over and over. And you can predict it will happen again.

Macro-evolution does not meet the test. It is therefore historical science.
 
Dan123 said:
If they all got jumbled up in a flood why are they sorted the way they are?
Click to expand...
They are not all sorted in the great fossil beds.

Study the flume experiments… and you will see how the beds can get laid.
 
I would love to read about a fossil bed that has a mix of creatures from different periods of geological history. I’d also be curious why it’s so isolated though, why just there why not everywhere? Wasn’t it a global flood?
 
@edwest211 and @buffalo
I was listening to EWTN radio just now – Open Line with Colin Donovan, and someone asked a question regarding Adam’s rib and Eve.

He was clear that Catholics do not have to believe that Eve literally came from Adam’s side, though you can believe that if you want. He also referenced John Paul II in his answer regarding the literal interpretation of the rib. He is the Vice President for Theology at EWTN. I would dare anyone to question his orthodoxy.

Again, the sources and references keep adding up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top