Catholics: (POLL) Do you accept evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not accept your assertion that Catholics must believe Eve literally came from Adam’s side/rib.

But let’s grant that for the moment. How does THAT specific instance rule out evolution of species over time — even the very body of Adam?
 
HEADS UP

This poll may be somewhat skewed because, even though I asked for only Catholics to vote, it seems others – even atheists – have voted as well :confused:

🤔:crazy_face:🤭

Doesn’t seem too skewed though. I only saw 2-3 so far who aren’t Catholic.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
But let’s grant that for the moment. How does THAT specific instance rule out evolution of species over time — even the very body of Adam?
Click to expand...
The story has to go like this. One day God chose an evolved brute to ensoul after 14 Billion years. Then immediately put Adam into a deep sleep and fashioned Eve from his side? Are you OK with this?
 
My review shows they skirt around Eve coming from Adam. Did I miss it?
Click to expand...
You seem to be the only one insisting on it.

JPII said the image represents woman’s equality with man!

OH! And I just received my new Eastern Catholic Catechism (Christ Our Pascha, by the Ukranian Catholic Church), and it also says that Eve from Adam is an “image” depicting her equality with Adam.
 
Last edited:
This one is a problem: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...preting-the-creation-narratives-in-the-bible/

So the first assault on Scripture is to bring out the two creation account canard.

“For example, there is a second creation narrative in Genesis, which appears in chapter 2. This account presents a different order of creation: Eve is made from Adam’s rib only after the animals have been created and are found to be unworthy partners for the man. In this reportage, God made the heavens and the earth, and then the first man, Adam. Whether this all occurred on the same day or on different days is not specified. God then planted a garden and placed the man in it. Next, God made the animals, which Adam named as each was brought to him. And finally, Eve was created.”​

But we know these two accounts are complementary. The first is the order of creation, the second is man’s importance.
 
The story has to go like this. One day God chose an evolved brute to ensoul after 14 Billion years. Then immediately put Adam into a deep sleep and fashioned Eve from his side? Are you OK with this?
Click to expand...
I’m OK if someone wants to believe that, because you can be Catholic and figure it like that.

I do not, because I don’t think God works by having nature act, then performing a miracle. He’s not a God of the Gaps. ALL THINGS are under his providential care.
 
catholic1seeks said:
You seem to be the only one insisting on it.

JPII said the image represents woman’s equality with man!
Click to expand...
Of course. Scripture has layers of understanding on top of the literal.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
These additional senses are built on the literal and do not substitute.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I’m OK if someone wants to believe that, because you can be Catholic and figure it like that.

I do not, because I don’t think God works by having nature act, then performing a miracle. He’s not a God of the Gaps. ALL THINGS are under his providential care.
Click to expand...
So we basically agree this hinges on Eve coming from Adam. Right?
 
I am not a Catholic and believe evolution to be true. I do think it contradicts with scripture, but then again, so does most of modern science.
 
These additional senses are built on the literal and do not substitute.
Click to expand...
Right, and I do not think the literal sense demands LITERALLY thinking Eve came from Adam’s side. That is literalistic interpretation, not literal, which means getting at the assertion:

JP II said in his audience on the matter:
The woman is made “with the rib” that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and figurative way of expressing the thought, we can establish that it is a question here of homogeneity of the whole being of both. This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man’s first words to the woman who has been created: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23).(15) Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the “incarnation” of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as “a helper fit for him” (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20).(16) In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity.
Click to expand...
And a note:
  1. It is interesting to note that for the ancient Sumerians the cuneiform sign to indicate the noun “rib” coincided with the one used to indicate the word “life.” As for the Yahwist narrative, according to a certain interpretation of Genesis 2:21, God rather covers the rib with flesh (instead of closing up its place with flesh) and in this way “makes” the woman, who comes from the “flesh and bones” of the first man (male).
    > In biblical language this is a definition of consanguinity or descent from the same lineage (cf. Gn 29:14). The woman belongs to the same species as the man, different from the other living beings created before.
    In biblical anthropology, the term “bones” expresses a very important element of the body. Since for the Jews there was no precise distinction between “body” and “soul” (the body was considered an exterior manifestation of the personality), “bones” meant simply, by synecdoche, the human “being” (cf., for example, Ps 139:15: “My frame was not hidden from you”; in Italian, “Non ti erano nascoste le mie ossa” [bones]).
    Bone of my bones can therefore be understood in the relational sense, as “being of my being.” “Flesh of my flesh” means that, though she has different physical characteristics, the woman has the same personality as the man possesses.
    In the first man’s “nuptial song,” the expression “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” is a form of superlative, stressed, moreover, by the repetition of “this,” “she.” (In Italian there are three feminine forms: questa, essa, la.)
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb8.htm
 
Last edited:
Nope. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. God performs miracles. The Ukrainian Catholic Church? They’ve got it wrong. And I’m from an Eastern European background. My first language was not English.
 
Nope. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. God performs miracles. The Ukrainian Catholic Church? They’ve got it wrong. And I’m from an Eastern European background. My first language was not English.
Click to expand...
The Ukranian Catholic Church is the largest Eastern Catholic Church. The Catechism is representative of Eastern Catholic tradition and teaching.

But bold of you to know better.
This Catechism witnesses to the intrinsic relation of the Kyivan-Christian tradition to universal Christianity. Thus, this Catechism addresses the UGCC faithful, as well as members of other Churches and all people who are sincerely seeking the Truth. The Synod of Bishops offers this Catechism as a source of catechetical education for continuing growth in faith of the UGCC faithful. At the same time, this Catechism is a symbol of our communion in faith with the other Particular Churches within the bosom of the one Catholic Church.
http://catechism.royaldoors.net/
Click to expand...
But again, you and @buffalo are just asserting that to be so. I believe God performs miracles, but I don’t believe Eve was formed from Adam’s side, and I don’t see any evidence that I have to believe this as a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Adam’s body was formed directly from dust.
Gorgias said:
If you had written, “how it contradicts one particular interpretation of Scripture”, then I’d agree with you. However, the way you wrote it, your statement is in error. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
We can only reject the literal interpretation if the literal is against reason… I notice no one has addressed this:

“Human biology requires a male and female parent, therefore thr virgin conception of Christ must not be literal, but allegorical.”

Is this a sinful belief?
 
I think most would consider it a miracle, because it goes against how it works in every other situation. Conversely does that one event mean the ‘theory of human reproduction’ that suggests human life can go from one tiny cell all the way to a full sized human being get thrown out?
 
Adam’s body was formed directly from dust.
Click to expand...
You can believe that.

You can also be an orthodox Catholic and accept that Genesis is teaching something much deeper, using “figurative language,” as the Catechism says. You can believe that Adam’s body evolved over time, as several Popes have allowed us to believe. As common Catholic knowledge (as expressed on CA, and even in this poll) suggests.
 
Last edited:
What it means is that we cannot reject the literal interpretation because it goes against what we currently “know” about science. Creation is miraculous.
catholic1seeks said:
You can believe that Adam’s body evolved over time, as several Popes have allowed us to believe.
Click to expand...
I consider the statements of those Popes to be akin to Moses allowing divorce. Error can be forgiven if it is honest and if addressing the error would cause more harm than good. However, given the current state of the Church, i think it is evident they made a terrible miscalculation. This should have been nipped in the bud immediately.

The poll means nothing. Dogma is not democratic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top