Catholics: (POLL) Do you accept evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet, not a single one of the people you mentioned has ever come forward with a detailed analysis of how evolution and Scripture can be harmonized. They say it can, but they never explain how.
Click to expand...
Um, (1) YOU are the one saying that Scripture and evolution contradict, but (2) Actually, plenty of them look into precisely how evolution and Scripture are reconciliable. Take Christopher Baglow, whom I listed. His book Faith, Science, and Reason: Theology on the Cutting Edge is worth a read:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

These are among some of the contents which deal precisely with Genesis and how the Catholic Church interprets Scripture.
 
Last edited:
How many stood with Athanasius? How many stood with John Fisher?
Click to expand...
OK you seem to be claiming two different things at different times:
  1. The magisterium itself is in error, for example, when you called Pope Francis’ comments on evolution “blasphemous” and you akin JPII, Francis, Benedict, and others as “Moses allowing for divorce” and being ignorant. In this case, you clearly recognize that the Successors of Peter allow for evolution—but you simply claim to know better than them.
  2. At other times, you are implying that the greater faithful at large — in various organizations (like Catholic Answers) or writers like Christopher Baglow or evangelists like Bishop Robert Barron or Catholic Answers Forums participants (in this poll) — are in error in HOW they are interpreting the magisterium.
So which is it: Is the magisterium in error, or are the faithful misunderstanding the magisterium, when it comes to accepting evolution as an allowable position?
 
Last edited:
Likewise, the only authoritative document you can provide from a Pope explicitly condemns the leading theories of evolution and only cautiously allows for a further examination into the question.
Click to expand...
So the need is to see how the magisterium continues to unfold and interpret the teaching that came before it.

And when we see someone like Pope John Paul II explicitly reference Pius XII’s encyclical, he bluntly says evolution is “more than a hypothesis” and recognizes the advances in the sciences since Pius XII. I choose to follow the flow of the magisterium rather than how you are telling me I must interpret, say, Pius XII.
 
Last edited:
AndrewAxland said:
Then it’s your business to work it out for yourself. It’s unreasonable to expect the Church and the rest of the Universe to conform to your private imaginings.
Click to expand...
They don’t. I conform to the Church. The Church is especially rich in the understanding of human nature. Revelation takes primacy in our understanding ot reality and the world.
 
ChunkMonk said:
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
Click to expand...
Can you show me where the Catholic Church teaches that?
 
For many people, a rejection of a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is the scientific evidence concerning the age of the Universe, the formation and history of Earth, and the origin and evolution of life. But none of this contradicts the literal meaning of Genesis, insofar as we understand the actual truths God is telling us.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Syllogism said:
What’s your reasoning behind rejecting a literal interpretation of Scripture in relation to Genesis 1 and the chronology that can be derived from adding lifespans?
Click to expand...
  1. Science.
  2. the Church allows us to accept science.
 
@angel12 (and others), do you think much of this controversy is simply the educational context we were raised in? I went to Catholic school K-8, and all our science textbooks (when we got to the appropriate grade) discussed evolution and the formation and history of the Universe. But none of this was ever seen as contradicting the Catholic faith or Scripture. We were immersed in the Catholic faith at school, after all.

I wonder if many people who identify as creationists on here simply approach evolution from a different context, as if it were a threat, or some secular tool to destroy Faith. You know? Could be a generational thing. I went to Catholic school in the early to late 2000s. I’m not saying that my acceptance of evolution is merely dependent on my educational context at school, for I think the greater Catholic world (Popes, catechetical ministries, parishes, bishops, speakers, evangelists, theologians, professors, writers) also acknowledge evolution.
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
You’re seriously saying you don’t know the difference between scientific areas and religious areas? And yet you continue to claim you know “The Truth” of both?

I give up.
Click to expand...
Just need a for instance.
 
catholic1seeks said:
@angel12 (and others), do you think much of this controversy is simply the educational context we were raised in? I went to Catholic school K-8, and all our science textbooks (when we got to the appropriate grade) discussed evolution and the formation and history of the Universe. But none of this was ever seen as contradicting the Catholic faith or Scripture. We were immersed in the Catholic faith at school, after all.

I wonder if many people who identify as creationists on here simply approach evolution from a different context, as if it were a threat, or some secular tool to destroy Faith. You know?
Click to expand...
Frankly, I have no idea. I’ve seen suggestions that it’s evangelical fundamentalist influence, but I don’t think that’s likely for as many people as we see with this attitude. Or that they see anything but absolute Biblical literalism as some kind of threat. Which, again, is pretty fundamentalist evangelical.

I’m just baffled. To me, scientific discoveries just make God’s magnificence even more amazing and awe-inspiring.
Even so, I totally would say someone has every right to deny all evidence and believe in a young earth/flat earth/literal-6-day-creation, IF they didn’t also say that those who – with the Church’s agreement – believe otherwise are somehow less faithful. Those slaps at the Church are what really bother me.
 
The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis
A powerful must see video:

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion

idvolution.blogspot.com

The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis

The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
No one argues against micro-evolution aka adaptation. It is macro-evolution that is not empirically provable.
 
@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.
 
Last edited:
I’m just baffled. To me, scientific discoveries just make God’s magnificence even more amazing and awe-inspiring.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I mean, just that chart I posted above is so wonderful. It displays God’s creativity so, so much more. That God can create through secondary causes is so exciting. He’s so powerful – all-powerful – that He can at once be behind ALL of creation and yet still let it have its own inherent properties and causation.
 
Syllogism said:
Seeing how no one can answer my consistent hermaneutic question in relation to Scripture, I’ll ask another question. Given that we know that evolution doesn’t select for an accurate perception of reality, what epistemological justification can you provide for your belief that evolution is true?
Click to expand...
Ooooo! Big words! I’m really impressed now!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top