Do you believe in Adam and Eve or Evolution?

[Debra_C]

On what grounds do you make such a claim? I can assure you it is false.

Catholics are indeed allowed to accept evolutionary theory, though not to the exclusion of basic truths taught in the Bible’s creation story such as God as the first cause and creator of the universe, Adam and Eve being our first parents, whose first fall has corrupted the nature of man so that we have the tendency to commit sin, that we were created male and female for one another, a precept from which our Natural Law doctrines regarding marriage and family flow… I am sure this list is not exhaustive. PJPII and BXVI have expressed belief in evolution with these caveats, which is often referred to as the idea of Intelligent Design, meaning evolution was not so random but guided by the hand of our creator. ie it is acceptable (though by no means required) to view the creation story as an allegorical literary form containing important truths of the faith rather than a precise literal accounting of creation. I think it was our current pope who said (paraphrasing) that religion/faith, reason, and science should inform one another.

 

[1voice]

The Catholic Church does indeed accept the science of evolution as a matter of biological origins.

If, in fact, the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution as the origin of man, as you say, then how does the CC square the evolution of man with the account of the creation of man in Genesis? Does the CC accept the theory that man evolved from sub-human forms of some kind? If yes. Which ones?

---

How does evolution fit with the genealogy of Jesus recorded in the Gospel?

 

[Ghosty]

I believe in both Adam and Eve as literal people, and in evolution as the process by which God made them. This isn’t nearly as contradictory as people think, since what defines humanity, according to Genesis, is our soul and not the body.

I believe God took two homo sapiens and granted them rational souls, making them human persons. What we call “humans” prior to that were simply animals with human bodies. It was from these two that all human persons descend, though I believe their offspring may have interbred with “biologically human” animals over the course of the millenia. The children of such pairings would be fully human persons, not “hybrids”, and eventually all that was left is the humanity we see today.

This view fits with both the scientific facts and with the Catholic teaching of monogenism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

A true believer will always believe every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, period! And to believe in any other untruths comes directly from the enemy. He is a lier and deceiver and will do anything to have God’s children to fall away from the truth as he is doing so powerfully in these Last Days. I stand with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who created me. Who do you stand with and believe ? Make this choice and decision very wisely because your accountable for every word and thought that cometh from you before its to late.

edited to correct nuances. May need to clean up more later.

You’ve just told a lie about Catholics here because you are the Pope of your own church. You’ve just stated something very vile without authority to say such things. Catholics could say that since you do not hold to the truth about God and His Church, you have no chance to make it to heaven. Some of us actually hold to that. It’s something we are actually allowed to believe because Christ says it in John 6, that unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. If you’ve committed serious sin without reconciliation under absolution, you are severely compromised. However, I never said that your soul is in jeopardy…

Satan is the father of lies? Please watch what you say, or you’ll end up in a fight you can’t win. You might think you can win, but we know better, because God is on our side, those that hold to the truth… the way. We have the Eucharist…the fullness of truth. Don’t go down this line of debate, it doesn’t prove or solve anything.

I used to say things like in your post too a long time ago. But sense them I got over myself and discovered truth after realizing things were much more complex than I allowed them to be. I realized the lies and inconsistencies of my protestant faith. The truth is right there starring you in the face, yet you do not seek the truth because you are comfortable in you lack of understanding, yet hold people to an irrational believe outside the teachings of the authority of the Church, who are in communion with the Holy Father in Rome.

Now that I’ve called you out on the carpet for such harsh words. I believe in Creation and Adam and Eve. I am quite knowledgeable about evolution theories, science and all that jazz. I laugh at those that THINK they know better because they are acting just like you are right now. The bible says to seek peace. We are called to believe in our first parents, Adam and Eve. Those that fail to understand this point, fail to understand the truth about God. They’ve just dubbed the bible as fairy tales and the theology taught by the Church for 2000 years is just thrown out the window, in spite of the very fact I just gave to you - only the majesterium has the authority to declare such things as truth. And most of the scientists throughout salvation history were Catholic.

It very likely I’ll need to “clean up” what I just wrote. It’s difficult to convey complex things in short posts. But then who wants to read long posts?

 

[1voice]

I believe in both Adam and Eve as literal people, and in evolution as the process by which God made them. This isn’t nearly as contradictory as people think, since what defines humanity, according to Genesis, is our soul and not the body.

I believe God took two homo sapiens and granted them rational souls, making them human persons. What we call “humans” prior to that were simply animals with human bodies. It was from these two that all human persons descend, though I believe their offspring may have interbred with “biologically human” animals over the course of the millenia. The children of such pairings would be fully human persons, not “hybrids”, and eventually all that was left is the humanity we see today.

This view fits with both the scientific facts and with the Catholic teaching of monogenism.

Peace and God bless!

Why do you not believe the literal Biblical account of the origin of man?

 

[buffalo]

Catholics are indeed allowed to accept evolutionary theory, though not to the exclusion of basic truths taught in the Bible’s creation story such as God as the first cause and creator of the universe, Adam and Eve being our first parents, whose first fall has corrupted the nature of man so that we have the tendency to commit sin, that we were created male and female for one another, a precept from which our Natural Law doctrines regarding marriage and family flow… I am sure this list is not exhaustive. PJPII and BXVI have expressed belief in evolution with these caveats, which is often referred to as the idea of Intelligent Design, meaning evolution was not so random but guided by the hand of our creator. ie it is acceptable (though by no means required) to view the creation story as an allegorical literary form containing important truths of the faith rather than a precise literal accounting of creation. I think it was our current pope who said (paraphrasing) that religion/faith, reason, and science should inform one another.

1. Did God know what Adam would look like?
2. Did Adam look as God planned?

 

[Ghosty]

Why do you not believe the literal Biblical account of the origin of man?

I don’t believe in a literalist account because I don’t believe it’s what the author of Genesis intended to convey. The first portions of Genesis are not written in the style of a historical account, but of a creation story meant to convey Truth in an easy to understand and memorize form. This is especially obvious given that there are two distinct and different stories of creation in the opening of Genesis (in the first story, plants come before man, and in the second story they come after, for example).

Given that Genesis is obviously not written to be taken as a literalistic account of creation, it is very reasonable to look to natural observation of the world to get the “physical details” of creation, without abandoning the key Truth being taught in Genesis. Genesis tells us the important Truth, that we are created in the image of God, who made all the world, and that we have two first parents who Fell in some manner. Scientific inquiry can fill in the other details that Genesis is not even intended to deal with.

In short, if Genesis is to be taken literalistically then it is self-contradictory and false. If it is understood as a True story with embellishments of details, then it neither contradicts natural observation, nor its own account.

Peace and God bless!

 

[1voice]

Catholics are indeed allowed to accept evolutionary theory, though not to the exclusion of basic truths taught in the Bible’s creation story such as God as the first cause and creator of the universe, Adam and Eve being our first parents, whose first fall has corrupted the nature of man so that we have the tendency to commit sin, that we were created male and female for one another, a precept from which our Natural Law doctrines regarding marriage and family flow… I am sure this list is not exhaustive. PJPII and BXVI have expressed belief in evolution with these caveats, which is often referred to as the idea of Intelligent Design, meaning evolution was not so random but guided by the hand of our creator. ie it is acceptable (though by no means required) to view the creation story as an allegorical literary form containing important truths of the faith rather than a precise literal accounting of creation. I think it was our current pope who said (paraphrasing) that religion/faith, reason, and science should inform one another.

Then why didnt God just say it. Something like… Man was formed over a long period of time through stages of development up until the time of Adam and Eve.

 

[1voice]

I don’t believe in a literalist account because I don’t believe it’s what the author of Genesis intended to convey. The first portions of Genesis are not written in the style of a historical account, but of a creation story meant to convey Truth in an easy to understand and memorize form. This is especially obvious given that there are two distinct and different stories of creation in the opening of Genesis (in the first story, plants come before man, and in the second story they come after, for example).

Given that Genesis is obviously not written to be taken as a literalistic account of creation, it is very reasonable to look to natural observation of the world to get the “physical details” of creation, without abandoning the key Truth being taught in Genesis. Genesis tells us the important Truth, that we are created in the image of God, who made all the world, and that we have two first parents who Fell in some manner. Scientific inquiry can fill in the other details that Genesis is not even intended to deal with.

In short, if Genesis is to be taken literalistically then it is self-contradictory and false. If it is understood as a True story with embellishments of details, then it neither contradicts natural observation, nor its own account.

Peace and God bless!

Where does it say that God made man before he made the plants?

 

[Ghosty]

Where does it say that God made man before he made the plants?

In Genesis 2 plants don’t grow until God plants them after forming man from the dust.

Peace and God bless!

 

[buffalo]

In Genesis 2 plants don’t grow until God plants them after forming man from the dust.

Peace and God bless!

Genesis 1 speaks to the order of Creation, Gen 2 to the importance of man. They are complementary.

 

[1voice]

In Genesis 2 plants don’t grow until God plants them after forming man from the dust.

Peace and God bless!

One explanation might be that the overall process of creating the earth is outlined in the first chapter … and then the second chapter goes back and describes exactly where man was introduced into the outline…
It doesnt seem to specifically say that God created Adam after the end of the 6th or 7th day.

Another possibility: God created the environment that would accomodate plants … and planted the seeds… but they did not begin to grow until Adam was brought into the picture.

 

[Neildown]

I really don’t see how this can even be seriously argued, for the fact that neither side has any cold hard evidence concerning the matter. I say if Adam and Eve did exist, so be it. If they were just analogy, so be it. If they did exist and evolution occurred… So be it…

 

[ijf90]

I believe in both Adam and Eve as literal people, and in evolution as the process by which God made them. This isn’t nearly as contradictory as people think, since what defines humanity, according to Genesis, is our soul and not the body.

I believe God took two homo sapiens and granted them rational souls, making them human persons. What we call “humans” prior to that were simply animals with human bodies. It was from these two that all human persons descend, though I believe their offspring may have interbred with “biologically human” animals over the course of the millenia. The children of such pairings would be fully human persons, not “hybrids”, and eventually all that was left is the humanity we see today.

This view fits with both the scientific facts and with the Catholic teaching of monogenism.

Peace and God bless!

^This idea, popularized by Teilhard de Chardin (the Eclessiastical Monitum against de Chardin’s teachings still stands by the way), is completely heretical! Prior to the Original Sin, creation was perfect and harmonious. These first humans that you say God bestowed a soul upon while conceived in the womb of an ape-like beast, initially, would have been without sin. They would have been conceived immaculate. This completely contradicts Church teaching that Mary the Mother of God is the only human to be conceived immaculate. She is THE Immaculate Conception, not an immaculate conception, not the third immaculate conception. A genuine, literal interpretation of Genesis (which the church has upheld and taugh since her beginings) has no conflictions with the Immaculate Conception of Mary because the Bible states that Adam was created “out of the clay of the ground”.

 

[1voice]

^This idea, popularized by Teilhard de Chardin (the Eclessiastical Monitum against de Chardin’s teachings still stands by the way), is completely heretical! Prior to the Original Sin, creation was perfect and harmonious. These first humans that you say God bestowed a soul upon while conceived in the womb of an ape-like beast, initially, would have been without sin. They would have been conceived immaculate. This completely contradicts Church teaching that Mary the Mother of God is the only human to be conceived immaculate. She is THE Immaculate Conception, not an immaculate conception, not the third immaculate conception. A genuine, literal interpretation of Genesis (which the church has upheld and taugh since her beginings) has no conflictions with the Immaculate Conception of Mary because the Bible states that Adam was created “out of the clay of the ground”.

 

[Lui]

I really don’t see how this can even be seriously argued, for the fact that neither side has any cold hard evidence concerning the matter. I say if Adam and Eve did exist, so be it. If they were just analogy, so be it. If they did exist and evolution occurred… So be it…

Good point. I neither believe that Adam and Eve really existed nor do I take many other stories of the Bible like Noah’s ark literally but if others believe it I won’t try to convince them otherwise.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I find a lot of pressure is exerted on people to accept evolution, often uncritically. I have absolutely no idea as to it’s veracity but it is a cold and unappealing account of our origins. I cling to the teaching of the Church with a naked faith on this issue. The doctrine of original sin is so integral to the faith that if its not true the whole house of cards collapses.

 

[noobio]

If evolution is true then isn’t Genesis wrong. They complety contridicit eachother.

 

[1voice]

Good point. I neither believe that Adam and Eve really existed nor do I take many other stories of the Bible like Noah’s ark literally but if others believe it I won’t try to convince them otherwise.

What do you do with the fact that Noah and his son are in the direct genealogy of Jesus listed in the Gospel Account.

 

[Lui]

What do you do with the fact that Noah and his son are in the direct genealogy of Jesus listed in the Gospel Account.

Nothing. I don’t think that I need to believe that Noah actually built a boat with billions of species on board.
It says no where that Catholics have to believe in the literal interpretation of all stories in the Bible.

"What do Catholics believe about Adam and Eve?"
Catholics don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. The Catechism explains belief in original sin as Genesis giving a figurative account of a “primeval event” that occurred at the beginning of humankind’s existence. Our first parents - regardless of what names they had - sinned. And their sin was larger than them. Its roots were in the kind of evil that exists in opposition to God. So as a Catholic you don’t have to believe in Adam and Eve as historic person, but you do have to believe in the original sin of humanity, a sin that leaves a mark on every human since the very first.
saintjamesacademy.com/why.html