Catholics: (POLL) Do you accept evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
Much to my distress, it seems that a particular bunch on these forums have gone so far as to say that evolution in itself — even of the human body — is AGAINST Catholic doctrine and the Bible.

I wanted to clear up my perception, which may be distorted from the participants in a recent forum on creationism.
  • I’m more of a creationist: Literal creation account in Genesis
  • To be a faithful Catholic, you MUST believe in a literal creation account
  • Evolution is OK, but evolution of the human body is not allowed
  • I accept evolution even of the human body is acceptable
0 voters
 
Last edited:
Ignorance is excusable, but wilfull rejection of the Scripture is not.
 
I don’t know if I believe in evolution but I’m not opposed to it. But Catholics can believe in it.

I just don’t know if I do from a scientific point of view.

I need to look into it more.
 
The soul is not allowed to evolve though, but I think the human body is allowed too, if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited:
I am not especially informed on the matter. From what I have read I think much of it is likely true. I am also not opposed to the idea that the human body evolved.

If it were somehow proven unequivocally true or false it would not alter my faith in God or the Church in any way, nor how I view humanity and its relation to the rest of God’s creation.
 
Last edited:
So is Pope Francis ignorant, when he said that evolution is OK for Catholics?
 
The Church allows for ignorance, but it explicitly condemns those who wilfully doubt the truth of the Scripture.
 
Interesting. I think many Catholics who accept evolution (like the past popes) would agree with this in principle. Not sure what bearing it has on the current question of evolution, though.
 
SammyRose said:
Evolution is not a rejection of scripture.
Click to expand...
It is forgivable that you don’t think it is, but the fact remains that evolution and Scripture are mutually exclusive.
catholic1seeks said:
Not sure what bearing it has on the current question of evolution, though.
Click to expand...
Thus a man can be excused for believing in evolution, being that he is ignorant of how it contradicts Scripture, but he cannot be excused if he denies Scripture because it contradicts evolution.
 
No it doesn’t and if you want to convince me otherwise you should explain.
 
It is ok to believe in the theory of evolution, but it is also ok to have doubts about it. It is not proven fact. After all, some scientists doubt it. A long time ago I read a scientific paper that raised very good points: how it is perfectly possible to have an ecosystem in equilibrium with a few dozen species, not millions, how scientists tried unsuccessfully in the lab to accumulate microchanges to change a species into another, how there is a living fish species that has both lungs and gills, etc. The most interesting point raised to me was that evolution should have led to something so simple but that is only human: the wheel. There should be rodents with retractable wheels, and sea bottom dwellers with wheels because it saves energy and gives an advantage against predators, however none exists. At the same time, evolution led to something so complex like electricity generation and storage, for instance in electric eels?
 
Scripture clearly tells us that Adam was “formed from the dust” and that Eve was “formed from his rib”. This is just one contradiction between evolution and Scripture. Being that we can only deny the literal meaning of Scripture if it is against reason and that Adam being formed of dust and Eve being formed of a rib is not against reason we must conclude that Adam was formed of dust and Eve formed of the rib.

I have seen some people (Hugh Ross comes to mind) that have tried to create a kind of pseudo-evolutionary theory that combines literal Scripture with the theory of evolution but I find those to be extremely flawed in both their examination of Scripture and their understanding of evolution. I suppose it is possible that eventually someone will square the circle, but until I see it, I cannot in good conscience believe it.

The example given by Aquinas was the sons of Jesse. It is excusable for a man to believe that Jesse had nine sons if this is what he were taught, but once he finds out that Scripture teaches Jesse actually had eight sons, he is now bound to believe that Jesse had eight sons and cannot be excused for continuing to believe that Jesse had nine sons. Likewise, if a man believes in evolution because he is unaware of how it contradicts Scripture, he is excused due to ignorance. Being that evolution and the Biblical account of Creation are very complicated, it is understandable that many would be ignorant of the contradictions. However, once made aware of these contradictions, a man must reject evolution until such time as the evolutionist comes up with a theory that is in line with Scripture. What we cannot do is to form our understanding of Scripture around the theories of evolution.
 
I don’t see how Adam being formed from dust and the things about Eve contradicting evolution. Maybe God did make Adam from dust and Eve from his rib and then they evolved later. Can you link what Aquinas said?
 
Is the Church in error, then, in allowing the faithful to accept human evolution?
 
Well those would just contradict human evolution. They would not contradict evolution of the species. However, evolution of the non-human species would be contradicted by other passages: the rest of the Creation account and Noah’s ark being the main two.

I’ve seen the theory that Adam was actually a proto-man and that homo-sapiens were descendant from his descendants but I don’t think that is possible. If Adam were of some other species of creature then Jesus’ sacrifice could not have absolved Adam’s sin as it was necessary for the form to be the same for the sacrifice to be effective.

Aquinas never talked about evolution. He made the point about Jesse’s sons. I’m just applying that principle to evolution. I apologize for the confusion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top