Catholics: (POLL) Do you accept evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They accept it because the evidence best supports the “theory”.
 
There are people who are adamant we must believe Eve physically came from Adam. No surprise there. You do.

The Church currently does not mandate this.

And much of those references were simply PRIOR to the science of evolution. Like really? Quoting a sixth century Pope? OF COURSE they aren’t going to mention evolution in the context of talking about Genesis.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for this, I’m going to quote some stuff I’ve read here that better explains my position:
Unlike the cosmos, literature (whether written or orally transmitted) is the creation of men; and it is created precisely in order to be understood by other men. Hence (aside from Rosetta-Stone-type situations where translation is a problem), there is no reason why we should expect literature to contain profound secrets which cannot be unlocked by other men without laborious research requiring thousands of years of effort. If Gen. 2: 21-23 were really just intended as symbolic or metaphorical in character, why was this never discovered long before the advent of Darwin? Why did neither the classical Jewish commentators — undoubted experts on literary genres coming from their own culture and language — nor the Church’s Fathers, Doctors, Bishops and Popes — assisted collectively by the light of the Holy Spirit — never discern this truth about the Genesis passage? Why, indeed, did they consciously decide against giving it any such figurative or symbolic interpretation?
Click to expand...
They will maintain that, since there is no serious literary or linguistic reason to suspect a parabolic/symbolic intention on the part of the ancient author, those believers who postulate such an intention, in an attempt to reconcile the divine inspiration of Genesis with the perceived need to read it through Darwinian-tinted spectacles, are merely resorting to a self-deceptive ploy. That is, they are shielding themselves from the unpleasant, but more rational, conclusion that the evolutionary account of human origins, if correct, will render the integral truth (and, therefore, the divine authorship) of Genesis untenable — a fact which will in turn debunk the whole of historic Christianity (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox), which has committed itself irrevocably to the divine inspiration of the entire Bible as a dogma of faith.
Click to expand...
The devotee of this approach will conveniently be able to find pretty much whatever he wants to find as the Holy Spirit’s supposed message in any given passage of Scripture. He reads it through, mentally sifting the text with a view to discerning, in an a priori fashion, what he feels is its essential ‘salvific’ or ‘theological’ content. This is then dubbed the only ‘real’ divine message communicated to us by the Holy Spirit in this text, so that anything left over can be politely laid aside as ‘merely human’, ‘non-salvific’ and therefore possibly not free of error. Thus, in the case of I Corinthians 11 before us, we will be told that the only truth that God wants to communicate to us here is something like the intimate reciprocity or interdependence of man and woman (and perhaps, if the interpreter is not strongly feminist, the headship of men over women)
Click to expand...
 
Why do you keep posting lenghty quotes that aren’t even addressing the issue? No one on here is saying that evolution negates design. No one is saying that evolution precludes God.

Your very quote says:
“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true.”
Click to expand...
That’s macro-evolution. That’s all we needed you to say. Thank you. A Catholic can accept evolution.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
So the only way to make Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 non-contradictory is to admit that they are not word-by-word straightforward, descriptive details of what actually happened.
Click to expand...
I knew you were trying this “trap” so I addressed it. I notice you ignored the refutation and plowed on ahead (what I also predicted). Until you address my refutation, I will have no further discussion on the topic.
catholic1seeks said:
Well, this is how most people understand evolution most generally.
Click to expand...
No. That is the principle theory of how evolution takes place. Applied to the origins of the universe and man, it is non-Christian and in fact anti-Christian. Applied to the events following the creation of the universe and man it is philosophically barren and possibly non-Christian, but it is not explicitly anti-Christian.
 
catholic1seeks said:
However, that specific link is not referring to the Eve-from-Adam’s side issue. I have found JPII talk about it in general audiences, and have posted the quotes in other posts, but I do not remember what Colin Donovan referenced today on his show. Regardless, JPII and the church generally allows a non-literalistic interpretation of Genesis more generally and even Eve’s creation more specifically. Colin confirmed that THAT is indeed the case, when a caller asked about it on today’s show.
Click to expand...
And they say this because they have lost their faith in Scripture. They have more faith in provisional human reasoning.

In my own case it took me a while to understand this as well as the clear consistent teaching of the Church.
 
Last edited:
…as the clear consistent teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yet another poster who thinks he knows better than JPII, Benedict, or Francis. Looks like if the Popes disagree with you, just call them out as ignorant, “blasphemous,” or weak. Got it!
 
Pope Palagius:
I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man…
Click to expand...
Somehow I have the feeling this Pope will be waved away and ignored.
This document, the Constitution Fidei catholicae, takes up and canonizes the classical Patristic theme that the formation of Eve from Adam’s side, far from being some kind of strange, incomprehensible and perhaps salvifically insignificant prodigy, was a profound and beautiful foreshadowing of the very heart of the work of our Redemption: the mystical foundation of the Church, the immaculate Spouse of Christ, in the water and blood — symbols of the principal sacraments — which flowed from the Saviour’s side as he ‘slept’ in death on the Cross. The relevant text reads as follows: (We confess) … that after (Jesus’) spirit was already rendered up, his side suffered perforation by a lance, so that through the ensuing flow of water and blood, the one and only, immaculate, virgin holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, might be formed, just as from the side of the first man, cast into sleep, Eve was formed for him unto marriage. This happened so that the reality manifested in our last Adam, that is, Christ, might correspond to a certain prefiguring of that reality constituted by the first and ancient Adam, who, according to the Apostle, “is a type of the one who was to come”
Click to expand...
A still more telling witness than the foregoing illustration is the draft schema prepared by bishops and theologians of Vatican Council I for the proposed Constitution De doctrina catholica. More than a decade after The Origin of Species appeared, these conciliar Fathers and periti consciously defied its implications in the second draft of this schema with the following solemn affirmation: This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: When God was about to make man according to his image and likeness in order that he might rule over the whole earth, He breathed into the body formed from the slime of the earth the breath of life, that is, a soul produced from nothing… . And blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It says “A common ANCESTOR.”
Click to expand...
That is in the singular.

And regardless, it’s not an issue. LOL. Everyone on here but a select few know that Catholics can accept macro-evolution.
 
C’mon - the two accounts are complementary. One shows the order of creation, the other the importance of man. Please…
 
You want to hear only what you want to hear. That part is obvious. The rest of the story is ignored.
 
Somehow I have the feeling this Pope will be waved away and ignored.
Click to expand...
Exactly the sixth (?) century Pope I mentioned. Did he know anything about modern science? I suspect he assumed the Earth was the center of the cosmos, too. Oh, and I doubted he knew the content of stars, or that a few other continents existed.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Exactly the sixth (?) century Pope I mentioned. Did he know anything about modern science? I suspect he assumed the Earth was the center of the cosmos, too. Oh, and I doubted he knew the content of stars, or that a few other continents existed.
Click to expand...
Provisional science with its self limiting methodological naturalism a priori claims trumps God’s Revelation?
 
“Modern” science? Your examples are like - yeah, so what? Science doesn’t change certain Biblical truths.
 
No, it’s that much of your content is superfluous. You often post precautions about evolution as if that is addressing the flow of the conversation, which is whether or not Catholics must be creationists.

No one denies there are precautions. The evolution of Richard Dawkins, an atheist, is not allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top