Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[frobert]

All I wanted to knows is there any animal today that has some kind of appendage (fin, feather, scale,etc ) visible growing out of its body that we can say is changing into something new.

Rattlesnakes losing their genetic ability to rattle

We all know that there’s a specific purpose to a snake’s rattle— to scare larger animals and humans away. And it generally works! Hearing that rattle signals immediate danger and most of us move away as quickly as possible. But what if you couldn’t hear the rattle and be warned? What if you sat down on a log or were walking down a trail and didn’t know that a snake was inches from you because there was no warning rattle?! Some experts say that’s what is happening with the Crotalus Viridis¸ or the prairie rattlesnake in the Black Hills of South Dakota. rattlesnake tails

Over the past couple of years, naturalists have noticed many rattlesnakes with “curly-Q” tails, like you find on pigs. The tail muscles on these snakes have atrophied and can’t move the rattle. Snakes that have this genetic defect are the ones that are surviving. They reproduce and pass along that genetic defect to their offspring. The benefit to the snake is that if they are not heard, they are not killed. Because when most people hear that chilling rattle, if they have a garden shovel or gun available, it’s all over for the snake.

 

[mVitus]

As a Catholic, you can trust the judgement of the Church and the judgement of the Church is that, with proper understanding the theological realities, evolution does not contradict the faith. Genesis uses figurative language, hence no necessitating 7 days. But it also conveys truths like Adam and Eve and original sin. I’d advise to start by reading Humani Generis as part of it talks about evolution and the faith.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

All I wanted to knows is there any animal today that has some kind of appendage (fin, feather, scale,etc ) visible growing out of its body that we can say is changing into something new.

Rattlesnakes losing their genetic ability to rattle

We all know that there’s a specific purpose to a snake’s rattle— to scare larger animals and humans away. And it generally works! Hearing that rattle signals immediate danger and most of us move away as quickly as possible. But what if you couldn’t hear the rattle and be warned? What if you sat down on a log or were walking down a trail and didn’t know that a snake was inches from you because there was no warning rattle?! Some experts say that’s what is happening with the Crotalus Viridis¸ or the prairie rattlesnake in the Black Hills of South Dakota. rattlesnake tails

Over the past couple of years, naturalists have noticed many rattlesnakes with “curly-Q” tails, like you find on pigs. The tail muscles on these snakes have atrophied and can’t move the rattle. Snakes that have this genetic defect are the ones that are surviving. They reproduce and pass along that genetic defect to their offspring. The benefit to the snake is that if they are not heard, they are not killed. Because when most people hear that chilling rattle, if they have a garden shovel or gun available, it’s all over for the snake.

The rattlesnake is lucky it can evolve itself out of that problem, I wish them well in the future .

 

[setarcos]

Greetings and blessings be upon you.

You are co-mingling the 2 accounts of Genesis. The first account didn’t mention “dirt”. I don’t see a timing problem with the first. Animals/beasts were created before man.

The two accounts of genesis cannot contradict each others accounts if we are to take any stock in their reflection on the truths of creation as divinely inspired works. Any so called co-mingling of the accounts would not only be proper but necessary in order to gain a fuller picture of the genesis events. One would expect them to be complementary to each other. I’m not sure what timing problem you are referring to? My reference to the chronology of events was meant to refer to the general accepted processes of Evolution in which the more complex arises from the lesser in a generally progressive manner except apparently in the case of man in which the most complex system arose from a primordial condition much less complex than the existing organisms at the time. If true this would be an extraordinary event evolutionarily speaking.

You are reading a literal meaning of dirt meaning silicon dust?. The Church never teaches that was the biological significance of that. Others would quote a very cosmological slant and call it stardust which may well be true in fact. Planets are all formed from stardust.

It doesn’t matter the exact composition of the so called “dust” man was made from. The context of the statement in genesis is that the dust was inorganic and primordial an apparent back pedaling of the general laws of evolution. If true man wouldn’t be a branch on the tree of evolving life he would be like a new sapling springing up on his own next to this already established evolutionary tree.

 

[setarcos]

Figurative language yes, but this language conveys truth about the “class” of knowledge it speaks of. There is a reason Moses used a representation of time (days) and the progression from day one to seven. This is not just arbitrary figures of speech. I suspect the intent was to show a chronology of events made to be comprehended linearly as events actually taking place in time. One event preceding another. Moses definitely had some conception of an evolving creation.

 

[mVitus]

Setarcos, you seem to be fixated that it is a must-believe that God took dust and made a fully formed human directly from dust, but in Humani Generis that is not one of the things Pope Pius XII iterated as a necessary belief. To take an excerpt from it,

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

Now we did come from dust in the sense that it was from inorganic matter that life began, but evolution’s proposition that man came from a bodily near-man whose ancestors stretched back to the, to use the term ancestors loosely, dust. Evolution of the body, unlike the heretical evolution of the soul, does not contradict the deposit of faith. Now if you personally believe God made Adam from literal dust, fine, but it’s not necessary.

 

[spina1953]

Glark: The creation stories especially how man became is bases upon the knowledge of the time the stories were being told. People of that time had no concept of science. man was trying to explain how man came about from from a religious point. Man’s understanding of creation nature and how man came to be is and was very limited compared to modern man’s understanding and knowledge. We centuries later with much more knowledge much look at their understanding from their perspective and understanding, otherwise we lose the point of the whole story and meaning they wished to convey. From a science point it appears that humans have been around for maybe some 6 million years or so, yet we are evolved from man some 2 or so millions years where if it can be proved by dna we came from a common ancestor while all other human like forms died out.

The Bible stories especially those found in Gen. were never meant to be science., nor history as we understand it. The teaching of Gen. tries to explain God’s intervention in man’s history. That One God is the sole author of all that exists revealing to man Himself beginning a special relationship between man and God. In Gen. God begins the revealing of Himself and the religious conditions from the beginning of time to Abraham to the people of Israel.

Evolution is nothing more than theory to explain from a science point of view the origin of life. Evolution is not religion or of a religious nature. it is one way to try and explain what we do not know from a scientific understanding. However science can not explain faith, or God Science can not prove one way or the other whether God exists how God exists and how God exists eternally without beginning or end.

Jesus was not clueless nor were the Apostles when they spoke of Adan and Eve as real persons. Jesus as Divine would have known, and if Jesus were to reveal exactly how live began would anyone have been able to understand How God did it and would it have helped in one’s salvation? The Apostles would have spoken of Adam and Eve as real persons because that is what they knew and understood at that time based on the knowledge of the time.

Evolution is not a myth but a theory to try and explain from the scientific point and that is the simple answer. The reason why people place their trust in the Bible is due to faith and a belief in God. Scripture is religious teachings, it was never meant to be science or history in the modern sense.

 

[mVitus]

Good post overall, but Jesus and The Apostles also spoke of Adam and Eve as real because they were. (Read Pope Pius on all true men taking their origin through Adam.) Other than that, a good post.

 

[setarcos]

I disagree. Genesis has birds (Day 5) before land animals (Day 6). That is the reverse of the correct chronology.

Excellent observation! I too noticed this and wonder. Genesis definitely has a Chronological theme though. The creation events are delineated by time (days) which we most probably are correct in taking as figurative but the point is events took place which were separated in time. If we accept Moses as the author of genesis and the fact that he was a highly educated individual for his time and was divinely inspired in what he wrote we might properly conclude that there was a reason he stated sea creatures and “birds” were created previous to land dwelling animals, even in spite of the seeming contradiction of evolutionary theory. Remember current theory concludes that birds and dinosaurs for instance are closely related and neither has been definitively proven to have preceded the other.

Again, I disagree. God said, “Let the earth bring forth…” so the land animals were from the earth. Later God forms man from the earth. Since animals are also earth, we can say earth -> animals -> man, with the soul added last. God formed man from earth, but the particular piece of earth He used was a land animal derived from the earth.

You may not agree with that interpretation, but it is a possible interpretation.

I never disagreed that all forms of life came from the same so called original primordial “goop”. I said there seems to be a back pedaling of the chronology of mans creation from this goop instead of from the existing creatures on earth. You will notice that significant or not the verse you quoted genesis 1:24 says, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:…” which seems to indicate a kind of undirected evolution taking place whereas genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” which seems to indicate a kind of directed creation separating man from the other creatures. Further separation is indicated in the genesis 2 account of mans creation in which the creation of these other beasts are not even mentioned along side the creation of man. The focus is totally on God creating man directly for a purpose. I don’t know if this is significant but the word used for the dirt man was created from (aphar) is a masculine noun whereas the earth or land associated with the creation of the other creatures (erets and adamah respectively) are all feminine nouns. I think your interpretation of earth → animals → man is a stretch from reading the context of genesis which implies a separation of the creation of man from the other animals but I do agree it would seem genesis doesn’t strictly deny the possibility you’ve posed.

 

[spina1953]

Hi mVitus, I understand where you are coming from and it does make sense from that perspective I’m sure for the Apostles Adam and Eve were real persons to them There was no way they could have known otherwise if they were not real. Whether or not Adam and Eve were real people is open to question since from what I learned Adam in hebrew meant human race not an individual as we have for so long thought of it. I do think however,we do come from a common ancestor, that is one that even from science’s point of view were human as we are today. Before that time who knows? I for one really don’t concern myself about whether or not Adam and Eve were real or not, its more what the story is trying to teach me from the religious perspective in aiding my understanding of salvation history and my relationship with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[rossum]

Remember current theory concludes that birds and dinosaurs for instance are closely related and neither has been definitively proven to have preceded the other.

Your source is misinforming you. We have early dinosaurs from 230 million years ago, well before the earliest birds, which were about 180 million years ago. We have other land animals from a lot earlier. Genesis is not a science textbook, and to treat it as such is both an error, and makes Genesis appear to contain errors.

rossum

 

[mVitus]

Well in regards to Adam, the Church has concerned itself with whether or not he and Eve were real.

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

-Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

So on that count, the Church does consider it important in regards to salvic history.

Now, when it comes to genetic diversity, I’ve yet to see any official stance on the idea that all men trace lineage back to A&E for their souls, but to other for genetic too. (ie the idea that A&E’s children mated with proto-humans who get souls from their grandparents but genetic from both ensouled true humans and nonensouled proto humans.) It seems like such a view might be able to be reconciled, but I would be thankful if anyone has any word from the Church on such an idea.

 

[Rau]

If millions of years of evolution is the truth, why does God indicate in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 that it took a few days? Why the deception?

You might as well say that if Genesis refers to a talking snake (which it does) then either there was a talking snake, or that was a deception. Which view do you hold?

 

[FiveLinden]

There is absolutely no doubt about evolution being a fact. All living things are related. We know this because they share genetic material. Genetic material is transferred by descent. There is no other explanation than evolution. This information is the same that is used in courts to identify people and their relationships. The theory of evolution is about the way in which evolution occurs and what drives it: isolation, sexual preference for certain characteristics, greater or lesser survival of offspring etc.

 

[IWantGod]

You might as well say that if Genesis refers to a talking snake (which it does) then either there was a talking snake, or that was a deception. Which view do you hold?

Something tells me that he is going to say there was a literal talking snake.

 

[Gorgias]

If millions of years of evolution is the truth, why does God indicate in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 that it took a few days? Why the deception?

It’s called “allegory”, not “deception”.

Folks are quoting Humani generis left and right in this thread, primarily to demonstrate its prohibition against accepting polygenism (which, by the way, accepting the theory of evolution doesn’t require a Catholic to do). One might well remember this passage from Humani:
Humani generis #38:

the [first eleven] chapters [of Genesis], (the Letter [from the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies] points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.

“simple and metaphorical language”.
“popular description of the origin of the human race”.

In other words, Genesis isn’t a science book, and it isn’t “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.” It tells truth, without a doubt, but metaphorically.

 

[setarcos]

mVitus I am not of the disposition of believing that anything is a “must-believe” apart from reasons for doing so. Even then I am well aware of the possibility of having to amend or abandon any particular line of said reasoning given newly acquired or newly understood evidence, considering man isn’t a perfect creature. I am merely trying to make sense of what genesis is telling us by reasoning with others on here on what it has to say about man and the universes origins as being “inspired” scripture.
Let us analyze what you’ve quoted for my benefit.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

From this I gather that the Teaching Authority sees no contradiction with the faith (“given the present state of human sciences and sacred theology”) in believing that man evolved from earlier evolved living matter making humanity contingent upon the “proper” evolution of a creature fitting for God to call man. This would have to be a “directed” evolution which would contradict the principals of natural evolution anyway which contradicts scientific reasoning. Directed evolution is no true evolution at all being neither based in randomness nor without willed goal. It would seem the primary concern is with the direct creation by God of the soul not the body. This separates the body from our humanity which itself is defined from it. How then are we to separate the soul from the body and remain what God created which is to say human? When God created the man he was created as a tripartite system of body, soul, and spirit none of which is human without the others. The body is what defines the soul as human and humanity is what God is concerned with. It is presumed here that the body has a soul when God animated it with his life given breath. In other words man became uniquely aware of the self simultaneously with God breathing life into the formed body. Do we have different gradations of self-aware soulless human like bodies wondering around before we have a truly soul filled humanity? It is true scripture says God formed man then breathed life into him however this would presuppose that the body had no life before God intended which belies the fact that if the body evolved from earlier life how is it that life instead of evolving life evolved non-life? Are we to believe human bodies were evolved but were not alive? Is it possible that man, at least bodily, fully evolved into what we inhabit now yet without souls until Adam? Is it possible that Adam was formed among evolved animals with human bodies that were soulless? Scripture does not describe a human soul that was created apart from inhabiting a human body as far as I’m aware.

 

[setarcos]

this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

I gather from this verbiage that the Teaching authority of the Church is refraining from taking a stand for or against natural evolution for fear of being embarrassed if proven wrong but wishes ensure everyone knows that it retains the ultimate Authority on all matters. It would seem then that the church is dismissing itself from taking a definitive stance on the origins and evolution of the human body because of its relative unimportance to its teachings.

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Here again the teaching authority takes no stance on the matter other than to remind everyone that they may be wrong and shouldn’t be so quick to judgement. I’m certainly glad they’ve reminded us of the obvious. I wonder why they would think that science, which generally thinks it HAS proven this point should not be so quick to say so? Might it be that the teaching authority is finding it hard to fully integrate the two views – for evolution and what Gods revelation proclaims? Mere speculation of course.

 

[setarcos]

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Here at least they do take a stance. I tend to agree with the Church here. Monogenism is the current favored theory of science, a single origin for humans somewhere out of Africa. If natural evolution is true however there were differing species of “human” creatures living on earth at the same time. Granted each having a common ancestor from which they evolved but this common ancestor would not have been what we consider to be human and thus wouldn’t have been Adam or Eve if they are to be representative of us as modern humans. The distinct species of “man” being Neanderthals, Denisovans, and all modern humans. Now the question is if Adam is representative of modern humans and science tells us that modern humans inter bred with Neanderthals, another species of human, rendering some of us to have Neanderthal dna to varying degrees then what does this say about all modern humans being descended from Adam since genetically at least we wouldn’t totally have been. Genetically it’s possible that some modern humans are less genetically similar to Adam than others. It would be as if all modern humans started out pure from the first organisms in the line, Adam and Eve, and then some of their children interbred with a species which did not originate from Adam and Eve but a common ancestor and passed on those genes to their resulting offspring up to the population of modern humans today. Clearly this poses a problem for the Churches statement if the unfolding evolution of man is true according to science. I would gladly accept any corrections or additional clarifications to my reasoning.
God Bless….

 

[ChunkMonk]

If millions of years of evolution is the truth, why does God indicate in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 that it took a few days? Why the deception?

Indeed. The trouble with evolution is it requires us to bend over backward turning everything into metaphor and allegory, and begins the subtle process of holding Scripture to an outside standard, attempting to verify the claims of God by seeking a second, ‘more trustworthy’ opinion.

Not to mention the theological implications of an evolved man. That means no Garden and thus no Original Sin. It also means God created man imperfect and corrupt and therefore is responsible for man’s sinful nature. It is no wonder that so many in the Church have fallen into serious error concerning sin when such opinions were allowed. (And worse, encouraged!)

The Popes of the past, God bless them, were very foolish to have not seen through the Satanic ploy. I suspect there was not a little bit of wishful thinking on their part that perhaps if they were tolerant they would be rewarded by nonbelievers with an honest dialogue, where they then hoped to make the stronger case. We see a lot of that today, actually. We should have listened to Christ when he talked about casting pearls before swine.