Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[Alethios]

On a prior thread –The Crackpot Challenge forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=333500 - a challenge was made to disprove Copernicanism and neoDarwinism and reverse being labeled ‘crackpots’ . The thread used the three knowledge domains appropriate to the subject matter for a Catholic – theology, logic/philosophy and science – to refute the claim that the Earth orbits the Sun. The thread was uncontested; no defense was made of the Copernican belief by the challenger nor by any other forum member.

In this thread the same tools and 3 KDs will be used to refute the belief in neoDarwinism/evolution as in the first thread.

One philosophical point should first be emphasized about philosophical consistency. Karl Popper emphasized that logical systems must have consistent axioms that do not contradict each other. An example would be adding another axiom to arithmetic that produces a logical conflict, such as

Googol = Googol + 1 ( googol is a term for a 1 followed by 100 zeroes.)

Modern sophists might say that this is not an important violation of arithmetic, because googol is so large that no one in science will ever use it/ or that no one cares about numbers this big / or that some one in the future will prove that this equality may be true, / or that there are still an infinite number of valid operations in arithmetic(only one is invalid), etc.

Not so. By subtracting googol from both sides of the equation - a valid operation in arithmetic – we get
0 = 1 , and by adding 1 to both sides we get
1 = 2 etc

The inconsistent axiom can in fact be used to prove any equation is true… or false. x = y , for any x or y!
This single axiom has thus poisoned the entire validity of arithmetic , making it worthless as a rational basis for truth. Using the modified arithmetic after it’s shown to be inconsistent can prove anything is true!

The MORAL: Once a system is shown to be inconsistent (by having even one internal contradiction) IT CANNOT BE USED FOR FURTHER RATIONAL DISCUSSION!

Now we begin the deconstruction of neoDarwinism with the queen of all sciences – theology.

The challenge of modern revisionists usually focuses on Genesis and the meaning of ‘day’…
Claim: the translation of the Hebrew ‘yom’ is ambiguous and includes the meaning of millions of years, as in geological ages.
Response: When used as in the phrase ‘any day now’, the word can have a meaning other that 24 hours, but not when enumerated, as in Day 1, Day 2, etc. In this usage day/yom always means the 24 hour day, in Hebrew as it does in English.

Claim: the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1907 (at that time PBC had Magisterial authority; not today) allowed yom to be interpreted as megayears.
Other science conflicts with Genesis could also be resolved.
Response: Correction to the statement above:
The PBC in 1907 allowed discussion only of the meaning of yom among theologians and scientists, to see if there was a very good reason to interpret yom as other than the traditional 24 hours. NO OTHER DISCUSSION WAS PERMITTED. More than 100 years later the ‘discussion’ continues, with the traditional literal interpretation in effect meanwhile.

Claim: Pope Pius XII in *Humani Generis *allowed interpretation of Genesis in accord with modern science beliefs.
Response: Correction to the statement above:
Pope Pius XII in *Humani Generis *allowed discussion of Genesis among theologians and scientists, with strict limits imposed on the discussion . More than 50 years later the ‘discussion’ continues, with the traditional literal interpretation in effect meanwhile.

Claim: The meaning of yom as day was affirmed in 1880 by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical ARCANUM:
“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”There is no possible ambiguity of Hebrew here; the English word day is unequivocal.
Response: none

Claim: All the Fathers believed in a 24 hour Genesis day. The unanimous belief of the Fathers is part of the Magisterial deposit of faith – Sacred Tradition.
Response to claim: St. Augustine believed in immediate creation, not 6 days. So the belief of the Fathers was not unanimous on the length of yom.
Response to objection: St. Augustine in *De Genesi ad litteram *speculated on the meaning of the Genesis day and offered to yield to any more reasonable explanation than simultaneous creation. This musing, not a belief as the other Fathers had, cost Augustine a canonization in the Eastern rite, where he is venerated as blessed Augustine.

Claim: Genesis states three times that Day 7 was the day God ceased from all His creation.
Gen 2: 1 So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.The Douay Rheims footnote for “He rested”: That is, he ceased to make or create any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John 5. 17,“He still worketh”, viz., by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls.
Response: none

Claim: Since 1859 – the publication date of Origins of Species – the Magisterium has made no ruling regarding Darwinism/evolution.
Response: Not so. This requires detailed and previously undisclosed exposition……continued in the next posting.

AMDG

 

[Namesake]

Now we begin the deconstruction of neoDarwinism with the queen of all sciences – theology.

AMDG

This is the error that makes your effort meaningless. Theology is not universally accepted as “the queen of all sciences”, and scientists won’t/can’t accept as valid any analysis of scientific theory from theology.

If you want to deconstruct the theory of evolution and have it make sense to scientists, you have to use science. I think that’s a pretty simple concept, no?

 

[Bobby_Jim]

This is the error that makes your effort meaningless. Theology is not universally accepted as “the queen of all sciences”, and scientists won’t/can’t accept as valid any analysis of scientific theory from theology.

If you want to deconstruct the theory of evolution and have it make sense to scientists, you have to use science. I think that’s a pretty simple concept, no?

I’m a scientist and I know I’m in trouble when I have to invoke theology to explain the results I got in the lab that day!

Theology comes in much more during the writing of grant proposals, i.e. we propose to mix this and this, add the secret sauce, and then a miracle happens, and we expect to discover XYZ - we will need $500,000 per year for three years.

 

[buffalo]

This is the error that makes your effort meaningless. Theology is not universally accepted as “the queen of all sciences”, and scientists won’t/can’t accept as valid any analysis of scientific theory from theology.

If you want to deconstruct the theory of evolution and have it make sense to scientists, you have to use science. I think that’s a pretty simple concept, no?

Theology is indeed a higher science. It is the study of the Divine. Everything flows from the Divine. Natural science is simply a subset.

 

[Namesake]

Theology is indeed a higher science. It is the study of the Divine. Everything flows from the Divine. Natural science is simply a subset.

One of the hallmarks of science is the willingness to toss out existing ideas based on evidence that something else is a better explanation for observations. In other words, constant change. Does theology do that?

 

[buffalo]

One of the hallmarks of science is the willingness to toss out existing ideas based on evidence that something else is a better explanation for observations. In other words, constant change. Does theology do that?

That would be science in pursuit of the truth wherever it leads them. Pure science does not exist today. It is fraught with politics and bows to funding.

Materialistic science does not for it cannot allow the Divine foot in the door. Science is limited by its own definition and further limited by the a priori materialistic beliefs of over 70% of biologists.

Theology has found truths. Truth doesn’t change so there is no need.

 

[edwest2]

“constant change”? Or a means of refining the results to better reveal the true principles and mechanisms?

But constant change is the byword today. Constant change as to right and wrong, constant, or at least, frequent change in the Church to conform to the desire for novelty among men.

This is precisely what the Pope wrote about in 1950 in Humani Generis. And warned against. What God has revealed is what God has revealed, but no, no, says, the Modernist – We’ve got new, new ideas. So we’ll just take the Bible, tweak a few things here, make this part symbolic, and voila! A Bible that suits us! How about it, Catholic Church?

God has set forth His truths in ancient times, and while, due to the demands of scoffers and heretics, the Church has had to explain a few things – what is held in the Deposit of Faith is unchangeable.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

That would be science in pursuit of the truth wherever it leads them.

In science there is no absolute or final truth. In science what you call truth is constantly changing.

Pure science does not exist today. It is fraught with politics and bows to funding.

I doubt that anything even close to what you call “pure science” has ever existed.

Materialistic science does not for it cannot allow the Divine foot in the door. Science is limited by its own definition and further limited by the a priori materialistic beliefs of over 70% of biologists.

Theology has found truths. Truth doesn’t change so there is no need.

Science can’t answer all questions and doesn’t pretend to.

 

[Namesake]

“constant change”? Or a means of refining the results to better reveal the true principles and mechanisms?

Peace,
Ed

Another way to phrase the idea is rigid flexibility. In science we should try to be rigidly flexible. That means that we should maintain a willingness to change as evidence changes.

 

[buffalo]

In science there is no absolute or final truth. In science what you call truth is constantly changing.

I doubt that anything even close to what you call “pure science” has ever existed.

Science can’t answer all questions and doesn’t pretend to.

Let’s see. Pure science would be complete openness to truth. Hmmmmm!!Just where might we find this pursuit? Theology maybe? No, it couldn’t be.

Thanks for you honest admissions regarding science.

 

[edwest2]

Another way to phrase the idea is rigid flexibility. In science we should try to be rigidly flexible. That means that we should maintain a willingness to change as evidence changes.

And what does that have to do with Catholics and Evolution?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Let’s see. Pure science would be complete openness to truth. Hmmmmm!!Just where might we find this pursuit? Theology maybe? No, it couldn’t be.

Thanks for you honest admissions regarding science.

Open to change and no ideas of absolute truth. (I really don’t understand your term “pure science”.)

 

[Namesake]

And what does that have to do with Catholics and Evolution?

Peace,
Ed

I don’t know. I was just replying to your post. Maybe it has nothing to do with anything.

 

[edwest2]

I see. Well, then why does this subject get brought up so often here? Could it be part of the ‘just say yes to evolution’ campaign?

I can only fully trust the Catholic Church on this subject. No polygenism. Christ did not die for randomly chosen almost humans.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alethios]

On a prior thread –The Crackpot Challenge forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=333500
Claim: Since 1859 – the publication date of Origins of Species – the Magisterium has made no ruling regarding Darwinism/evolution.
Response: Not so. This requires detailed and previously undisclosed exposition……continued in the next posting.

A reminder that this is – at least in name – a Catholic forum, so the rules of evidence are so chosen to give primacy to revealed inerrant truth when ever faith and philosophy or science overlap and appear to conflict. They overlap usually only at the highest level of abstraction, but when they do, faith always holds the trump card. And truth at the highest levels descends to all the lower levels of knowledge.

Continuing the challenge response :

Claim: The Church has made no official pronouncements about evolution, and it is unlikely it will, because the question is one of science rather than faith. The Catholic Church has never really had a quarrel with the idea of evolution.
Response: If there were no overlap between science and faith on evolution , the question would be one of science.
But the overlap includes the very nature of man. In such cases Revelation trumps science - always!
The left leaners have been smug in the belief that the Magisterium has never ruled on Evolution.
Not so. The Magisterium and the Vatican HAVE MADE pronouncements about evolution……

*Under flickering candle light the black robed researcher struggles to read the tomes before him. The lone figure sneezes and coughs as dust rises like the devil’s protest, with every book dragged from the shelves. Some of these records are still on parchment and scrolls, perhaps never opened in a century or more. What will he find here – the answer to his quest?
The scene is the bowels of the Vatican archives and Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is pursuing an answer to the burning question that lies unresolved in the modern Catholic mind: has the Roman Magisterium ever ruled on cases of evolution, as they did in the Galileo case over three centuries before? *
Over dramatic, perhaps, as we see the reality in the following link to the upper second floor of the Vatican Secret Archives …. asv.vatican.va/immagini/arch/2pianosuperiore.jpg
A summary of what Fr Harrison’s research uncovered follows; full article can be found at rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html …*Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology *
Only one year after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the first significant Magisterial response was that of the German Catholic bishops, who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), definitively condemned the idea of natural human evolution:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Never withdrawn, this ruling of the regional Council of Cologne still binds all of informed conscience in the local diocese of Köln with a minimum of formal heresy.

No further declarations were made on evolution by the Holy See. Nevertheless, Vatican silence in response to Germany’s eloquence obviously signified her consent, since those bishops were simply repeating what the Church had always taught, and what was then taught in all approved Catholic theology faculties at the time.

Then a Dominican scholar and evolution partisan, Fr. Léroy, published a book around 1894 upholding the opinion of Darwin, affirming that

1. in the Genesis narrative the only truths of orthodoxy are the creation of the universe by God and the action of His providence;
2. the ‘how’ of creation is left to human investigation;
3. Moses’ narrative is ‘an old patriarchal song, . . . a tissue of metaphors’;
4. science cannot take any account of the literal sense of Genesis.
5. the only divine intervention in Adam’s creation was God’s act of infusing the soul

After being challenged by the Holy See, Fr. Léroy contends in his own defense that:

1. the Church has so far condemned only atheistic evolution;
2. the Bible tells us nothing of the manner in which plants and animals were made;
3. evolution is not contrary to Tradition; Augustine’s rationes seminales comes quite close to evolution.

Fr. Harrison’s research uncovered direct quotes of Congregation for Defense of the Faith(CDF) theologians of the late 1800’s, responding to Fr. LéRoy:

“Fr. Léroy, . . . instead of combating the absurd opinion of evolutionist anthropologists with the dictates of Revelation, seeks to harmonize evolution with Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition. . . Evolution, as all Catholic philosophers teach, stands resolutely condemned by the science of ontology as well as by empirical science.”

“I express the desire that the author be seriously warned and repressed in the intemperance and audacity of his thoughts, which will please evolutionists as well as atheists and materialists, but which cannot be accepted by true Catholics.”

“[evolutionists] postulate means for [bringing about] such transformations that are totally insufficient and often ridiculous”. [addressing neoDarwinism ]

“[Evolutionary biology is not] in harmony with Genesis, taken in its most natural sense, nor with the morally unanimous judgment regarding Genesis itself which has been given to us by the Fathers and Doctors. Moreover, it is not supported by scientific evidence.” True then, true now]

… tbd

AMDG

 

[Namesake]

A reminder that this is – at least in name – a Catholic forum, so the rules of evidence are so chosen to give primacy to revealed inerrant truth when ever faith and philosophy or science overlap and appear to conflict. They overlap usually only at the highest level of abstraction, but when they do, faith always holds the trump card. And truth at the highest levels descends to all the lower levels of knowledge.

Continuing the challenge response :

Claim: The Church has made no official pronouncements about evolution, and it is unlikely it will, because the question is one of science rather than faith. The Catholic Church has never really had a quarrel with the idea of evolution.
Response: If there were no overlap between science and faith on evolution , the question would be one of science.
But the overlap includes the very nature of man. In such cases Revelation trumps science - always!
The left leaners have been smug in the belief that the Magisterium has never ruled on Evolution.
Not so. The Magisterium and the Vatican HAVE MADE pronouncements about evolution……

*Under flickering candle light the black robed researcher struggles to read the tomes before him. The lone figure sneezes and coughs as dust rises like the devil’s protest, with every book dragged from the shelves. Some of these records are still on parchment and scrolls, perhaps never opened in a century or more. What will he find here – the answer to his quest?
The scene is the bowels of the Vatican archives and Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is pursuing an answer to the burning question that lies unresolved in the modern Catholic mind: has the Roman Magisterium ever ruled on cases of evolution, as they did in the Galileo case over three centuries before? *
Over dramatic, perhaps, as we see the reality in the following link to the upper second floor of the Vatican Secret Archives …. asv.vatican.va/immagini/arch/2pianosuperiore.jpg
A summary of what Fr Harrison’s research uncovered follows; full article can be found at rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html …*Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology *
Only one year after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the first significant Magisterial response was that of the German Catholic bishops, who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), definitively condemned the idea of natural human evolution:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Never withdrawn, this ruling of the regional Council of Cologne still binds all of informed conscience in the local diocese of Köln with a minimum of formal heresy.

No further declarations were made on evolution by the Holy See. Nevertheless, Vatican silence in response to Germany’s eloquence obviously signified her consent, since those bishops were simply repeating what the Church had always taught, and what was then taught in all approved Catholic theology faculties at the time.

Then a Dominican scholar and evolution partisan, Fr. Léroy, published a book around 1894 upholding the opinion of Darwin, affirming that

1. in the Genesis narrative the only truths of orthodoxy are the creation of the universe by God and the action of His providence;
2. the ‘how’ of creation is left to human investigation;
3. Moses’ narrative is ‘an old patriarchal song, . . . a tissue of metaphors’;
4. science cannot take any account of the literal sense of Genesis.
5. the only divine intervention in Adam’s creation was God’s act of infusing the soul

After being challenged by the Holy See, Fr. Léroy contends in his own defense that:

1. the Church has so far condemned only atheistic evolution;
2. the Bible tells us nothing of the manner in which plants and animals were made;
3. evolution is not contrary to Tradition; Augustine’s rationes seminales comes quite close to evolution.

Fr. Harrison’s research uncovered direct quotes of Congregation for Defense of the Faith(CDF) theologians of the late 1800’s, responding to Fr. LéRoy:

“Fr. Léroy, . . . instead of combating the absurd opinion of evolutionist anthropologists with the dictates of Revelation, seeks to harmonize evolution with Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition. . . Evolution, as all Catholic philosophers teach, stands resolutely condemned by the science of ontology as well as by empirical science.”

“I express the desire that the author be seriously warned and repressed in the intemperance and audacity of his thoughts, which will please evolutionists as well as atheists and materialists, but which cannot be accepted by true Catholics.”

“[evolutionists] postulate means for [bringing about] such transformations that are totally insufficient and often ridiculous”. [addressing neoDarwinism ]

“[Evolutionary biology is not] in harmony with Genesis, taken in its most natural sense, nor with the morally unanimous judgment regarding Genesis itself which has been given to us by the Fathers and Doctors. Moreover, it is not supported by scientific evidence.” True then, true now]

… tbd

AMDG

Could you maybe just distill this a little for those of us who read really slowly?

 

[buffalo]

A reminder that this is – at least in name – a Catholic forum, so the rules of evidence are so chosen to give primacy to revealed inerrant truth when ever faith and philosophy or science overlap and appear to conflict. They overlap usually only at the highest level of abstraction, but when they do, faith always holds the trump card. And truth at the highest levels descends to all the lower levels of knowledge.

Continuing the challenge response :

Claim: The Church has made no official pronouncements about evolution, and it is unlikely it will, because the question is one of science rather than faith. The Catholic Church has never really had a quarrel with the idea of evolution.
Response: If there were no overlap between science and faith on evolution , the question would be one of science.
But the overlap includes the very nature of man. In such cases Revelation trumps science - always!
The left leaners have been smug in the belief that the Magisterium has never ruled on Evolution.
Not so. The Magisterium and the Vatican HAVE MADE pronouncements about evolution……

*Under flickering candle light the black robed researcher struggles to read the tomes before him. The lone figure sneezes and coughs as dust rises like the devil’s protest, with every book dragged from the shelves. Some of these records are still on parchment and scrolls, perhaps never opened in a century or more. What will he find here – the answer to his quest?
The scene is the bowels of the Vatican archives and Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is pursuing an answer to the burning question that lies unresolved in the modern Catholic mind: has the Roman Magisterium ever ruled on cases of evolution, as they did in the Galileo case over three centuries before? *
Over dramatic, perhaps, as we see the reality in the following link to the upper second floor of the Vatican Secret Archives …. asv.vatican.va/immagini/arch/2pianosuperiore.jpg
A summary of what Fr Harrison’s research uncovered follows; full article can be found at rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html …*Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology *
Only one year after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the first significant Magisterial response was that of the German Catholic bishops, who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), definitively condemned the idea of natural human evolution:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Never withdrawn, this ruling of the regional Council of Cologne still binds all of informed conscience in the local diocese of Köln with a minimum of formal heresy.

No further declarations were made on evolution by the Holy See. Nevertheless, Vatican silence in response to Germany’s eloquence obviously signified her consent, since those bishops were simply repeating what the Church had always taught, and what was then taught in all approved Catholic theology faculties at the time.

Then a Dominican scholar and evolution partisan, Fr. Léroy, published a book around 1894 upholding the opinion of Darwin, affirming that

1. in the Genesis narrative the only truths of orthodoxy are the creation of the universe by God and the action of His providence;
2. the ‘how’ of creation is left to human investigation;
3. Moses’ narrative is ‘an old patriarchal song, . . . a tissue of metaphors’;
4. science cannot take any account of the literal sense of Genesis.
5. the only divine intervention in Adam’s creation was God’s act of infusing the soul

After being challenged by the Holy See, Fr. Léroy contends in his own defense that:

1. the Church has so far condemned only atheistic evolution;
2. the Bible tells us nothing of the manner in which plants and animals were made;
3. evolution is not contrary to Tradition; Augustine’s rationes seminales comes quite close to evolution.

Fr. Harrison’s research uncovered direct quotes of Congregation for Defense of the Faith(CDF) theologians of the late 1800’s, responding to Fr. LéRoy:

“Fr. Léroy, . . . instead of combating the absurd opinion of evolutionist anthropologists with the dictates of Revelation, seeks to harmonize evolution with Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition. . . Evolution, as all Catholic philosophers teach, stands resolutely condemned by the science of ontology as well as by empirical science.”

“I express the desire that the author be seriously warned and repressed in the intemperance and audacity of his thoughts, which will please evolutionists as well as atheists and materialists, but which cannot be accepted by true Catholics.”

“[evolutionists] postulate means for [bringing about] such transformations that are totally insufficient and often ridiculous”. [addressing neoDarwinism ]

“[Evolutionary biology is not] in harmony with Genesis, taken in its most natural sense, nor with the morally unanimous judgment regarding Genesis itself which has been given to us by the Fathers and Doctors. Moreover, it is not supported by scientific evidence.” True then, true now]

… tbd

AMDG

There can be no question as to what the Church’s constant teaching and belief is on man’s origins. Time and time posters make claims that the church is ok with evolution. They are surprised when the documents show different.

 

[reggieM]

Only one year after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the first significant Magisterial response was that of the German Catholic bishops, who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), definitively condemned the idea of natural human evolution:

Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Never withdrawn, this ruling of the regional Council of Cologne still binds all of informed conscience in the local diocese of Köln with a minimum of formal heresy.

That was excellent research – thanks.

 

[Alethios]

[continuing direct quotes of the CDF theologians of the late 1800’s, responding to the book of Fr. LéRoy, who was probably the first published clerical theistic evolutionist:]

In regard to Gen. 2: 7, that God “formed man from the dust of the earth”:
*“an almost unanimous consensus of the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians has understood that phrase literally, and so as to exclude the cooperation of created forces”.

…”[arguing for] the evolution of an organism which God would then render human touches those limits beyond which boldness would turn into rashness, and so merit condemnation".

“Could one ever explain [the origin of man’s body] by a transformation through natural processes and forces, . . . that is, by the natural evolution of an animal organism which reaches the point of requiring the infusion of a human soul – an infusion which results in the organism then becoming, truly and perfectly, a human body? Or rather, must it be admitted that the formation of the first man’s body, prior to God’s infusion of the soul, came about through the unique and immediate action of God, and that only thus can it be explained?”*In Gen. 2: 7 two actions of God are clearly specified:
*. . .” it is said that only after the infusion of the soul did the body molded from clay possess life: “. . . and man became a living soul”. Thus, prior to that it had no life at all. Therefore, it could not have come about through evolution from any animal.”

[it would be contrary to Gen. 2: 7, and therefore heretical, to postulate any natural cause by which a material body could become] “sufficiently disposed to receive an intellective soul”*Gen. 1: 26-27 does not mention any intermediary between God and the first man and woman:
*“indeed, such mediation is excluded; for He alone created the man whom he created in His own image and likeness”.*There were **public retractions **by the evolution partisans…

Fr. Léroy, when his book was placed on the Index:
“I have learned today that my thesis, which has been examined here in Rome by the competent authority, has been judged unacceptable, above all in what concerns the human body, since it is incompatible with both the texts of Sacred Scripture and the principles of sound philosophy”.

A similar censure against the book Evolution and Dogma, by J. A. Zahm, led to this note to his translator:
“I have learned from unquestionable authority, that the Holy See is adverse to the further distribution of Evolution and Dogma, and I therefore beg you to use all your influence to have the work withdrawn from sale” CDF collective opinions and comments are expressed:

• Ontology demonstrates that essences are unchangeable, while empirics shows that hybrids are sterile.
• Léroy’s views are roundly condemned as “anti-Christian and anti-Catholic”.
• St. Thomas is cited in ST Ia,Q.91,a.2, and Q.92,a.4:

“The first formation of the human body could not have been accomplished by any created power, but immediately by God".
Léroy’s opinion is said to be scientifically untenable because there are no facts that support evolution. [A: as can be said today – *a fortiori.]

If Adam’s body evolved, why should that have only happened once? Multiple human evolution is polygenism – an unconditionally forbidden belief.

All of the Fathers distinguish a three-fold action of God in the creation of man:

1. • His creation of matter;
   • His formation of the body;
   • His infusion of the soul.
   They distinguish the formation of man from that of other creatures.
   Until 1858 all theologians taught that God is the unique efficient cause of the bodies of our first parents.
   
   A doctrine can be *de fide divina *although not yet *de fide catholica *when it is clearly contained in Scripture, but has not so far been authentically proposed as such by the Church, to be believed by all. It is thought that the immediate formation of Adam’s and Eve’s bodies by God falls into this category of de fide divina.
   In any case errors less grave than heresy cannot be embraced by the faithful.
   
   Other Old Testament texts are cited which speak of man’s formation by God from the earth without a hint of any intermediary: Job 10: 8-9; 33: 4, 6; Sirach 17: 1, and Wisdom 7: 1.
   
   Other issues:
   
   Significant appeals are made to the “undisputed” immediate creation of Eve, which even Fr. Léroy admits cannot be read as evolutionary. Would it not be improbable that only the woman, and not the man as well, should be formed by the direct action of God?
   
   Note that not even the revisionists dare to suggest that Eve’s body, as well as Adam’s, was a product of evolution. If they can’t be reduced to symbolism, verses opposed to their evolution position are ignored. [A: true then, true now. ]
   
   Then there’s the issue of innocence: ordinary devout Catholics are scandalized and incredulous at the notion that the human race is descended from ape-like ancestors; this point needs to be taken into account as one witness among others to the faith that has been handed down over the ages.
   
   The cowardice of too many contemporary Catholic scholars, who, by their excessive fear of what “science” has to say, manifest nothing but the weakness of their own faith. A: true then, true now; As Nero fiddled, Rome burned… now Rome fiddles while the faith burns] ]
   
   end of CDF comments, not of challenge -
   
   AMDG

 

[Alethios]

[continuing summary of the CDF theologians of the late 1800’s, responding to the books of evolution partisan Fr. LéRoy et al.]

Two important differences in the theological climate from Galileo to Darwin:

• The clear opposition of the vast majority to Darwinian evolution
• The obedience of the dissidents in retracting their publications.[A: both true then, false now]

Pure Darwinists disagreed with Léroy’s position that allowed the supernatural infusion of a rational soul in man:
if lower beings derive their whole nature from lower forms, why should man be an exception? A consistent evolutionary approach requires the materialistic view that the soul too evolved.
[A: By trying to accommodate both camps, thevolutionists fit in neither. ]

The non-Catholic Professor Virchow of the University of Berlin abandoned belief in evolution because of the absence of intermediary forms – ‘missing links’ – in the fossil record.
[A: True then, true now; note that the CDF did use scientific advice to refute evolution! . ]

Specific conclusions drawn from the research in the Holy Office archives ….

**Re sub-human evolution: **
Rome never censured the hypothesis of biological evolution in reference to lower, sub-human species.

The Council of Cologne limited its condemnation to the hypothesis of a purely natural evolution of the human body.

If the ‘six days’ of Creation week are understood literally and historically – as plain and straight-forward language, as three popes have stated *ex cathedra *is the primary meaning - this obviously does rule out (macro-)evolution of any kind.

If the seventh day is understood as the end of Creation, as Genesis says and Tradition upholds, then this also rules out (macro-)evolution of any kind.

Re human evolution:

The belief that the Vatican in the 1600’s notoriously blundered by condemning Galileo and proscribing all works propagating the Copernican worldview is known as ‘Galileo’s guilt”. The Vatican of the late 1800’s was intimidated to abstain from intervening with similar public and vigorous condemnations of evolution. Call this ‘Darwin’s guilt’?

The anti-Darwinian decision of the German bishops in 1860 was tacitly “approved” by Rome, although apparently given little publicity.

At the papal seminary in Rome – the training ground of future theologians - the dogmatic theology text declared the immediate formation of Adam’s body by God to be a “most certain truth” derived from Revelation.

Rome did not embark on a vigorous anti-evolution crusade, as did some Protestant denominations. No papal bulls or encyclicals thundered against the novel ideas; but neither did any such ‘heavyweight’ documents ever condemn Galileo or Copernicus.
When specific works supporting evolution confronted the Congregation with the need to speak out ‘for’ or ‘against’, the decision was invariably and unambiguously negative.

The natural sense of Genesis indicates two logically distinct divine actions:

• the formation from ‘clay’ of Adam’s body and
• the ‘breathing in’ of the life-giving soul

An unbroken consensus of the Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians interpreted the text in this sense.

Philosophically, how could a purely material, biological process produce matter apt for reception of a spiritual soul - an effect differing in kind from its cause? Where was the radical distinction between the nature of spirit and matter?

Regarding the first woman. No censure was necessary, during this period, either of :

• a polygenistic account of human origins or
• the body of the first woman was also a product of evolution.

No reformer went so far as to question God’s miraculous formation of Eve from Adam’s side as he slept by revising the meaning of Genesis text, as was done with ‘yom’. This truth was reasserted by Pope Leo XIII himself as an “undoubted” part of “the Church’s permanent doctrine” (Encyclical Arcanum, February 10, 1880, §5).
[A: The concordism of Darwinism and the formation of Eve in Genesis presumably awaits future ‘evolution’ of Biblical revisionism…]

The decision against ‘natural transformism’ has never been reversed (nor can it be) by any subsequent decision of the See of Peter.

But ‘special transformism’ - God’s intervention periodically in natural transformism - suffers from the fatal defect of being totally ad hoc; there is no positive evidence from revelation or reason to support it. It seems like a desperate attempt to ‘baptize’ evolution by mixing together two radically different world-views that cannot blend in with each other if the creation description is taken objectively, not subjectively. No evolution scientist would ever accept this concept of miraculous supernatural intervention as having the slightest scientific support for evolution. The operational and ideological premise of modern science is that any reference to religious/supernatural causes is positively precluded.

The kind of miracle being postulated here – the infusion of a human soul in a beast - finds no more support from revelation than it does from science. Nothing in the Bible or Tradition suggests even remotely that God carried out any miracle involving the conception of Adam by a pair of ape-like, semi-human creatures.

Will Catholic theology of the 21st century return to the historical truth of that natural and traditional reading of Genesis which CDF theologians and the Holy Office defended in the 19th century - the direct, immediate formation by God of the first man’s body from non-living, inorganic matter?

We must detest and constantly avoid what the trickery of heretics is trying to accomplish, and matters which have been religiously and fully defined must not be brought up again for debate St. Leo the Great