Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In your link Adam, Eve and Evolution, it says:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church. Has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that mans BODY developed from previous biological forms, under Gods guidance, but it insists on the SPECIAL CREATION of his SOUL.”…

It also says: “ 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…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 - but the Catholic faith obliged us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”

Let’s discuss this.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the repeat posts, something went wrong on my end, here and now I don’t know how to correct it.
 
rossum said:
You do realise that monkeys were also formed from lifeless matter: “Let the earth bring forth…” Look at Matthew 1: 1 “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. Sometimes the Bible leaves out intermediate steps. Genesis 2:7 is doing the same. The full process was lifeless matter -> monkeys -> man. The description is shortened, just as Matthew 1:1 is shortened. Jesus was not the direct son of David, there were intermediates. Adam was not the direct ‘son’ of earth, there were intermediates.
Click to expand...
With your aptitude for twisting Scripture, you would make any excellent evo-Catholic! Adam literally means “ground”. Gen 2:7 says Adam was taken from lifeless earth and transformed into a “living being”. Going from inanimate matter to a living being doesn’t mean going from a living being to another living being. Gen 3:17 says Adam will return to the ground from where he was taken. Further, it makes no sense at all to say that God waited billions of years for Adam to evolve, but created Eve in an instant. Reading billions of years into these verses is laughable nonsense. The Church makes a fool of herself when such pathetic “theology” is allowed to persist.
 
It seems to me that most Jews look pretty white. No matter, olive skin is groovy.

Sometimes I wonder if white Europeans are decendants of white Jews.
 
Subrosa said:
The church has never read the creation stories in Genesis in literal terms. These are mythology which attempts too portray truth in creative terms. For instance, there must have been a first man and a first woman. They are called Adam and Eve in the story.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Before the madness of Darwinism infected the Church, 99.9% of Catholics interpreted Genesis literally.
 
When it comes to evolution and the Church, I wouldn’t recommend the articles offered by “Catholic Answers” - it’s very biased in favour of theistic evolution.

Btw, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very biased towards evolution as well, going so far as to present microbe-man evolution as a fact. It also presents only one possible interpretation of the six days of creation - ie, “symbolically” (ie, Darwinist-friendly). As far as I can see, there is not the slightest suggestion in the CCC that the faithful can believe in a literal six days. I suspect that the evolutionists who composed the Catechism considered a literal interpretation of the six days to be so backward and ignorant that it wasn’t even worth mentioning.
In these respects, the CCC is a flawed and erroneuos documment and is therefore in dire need of correction.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Before the madness of Darwinism infected the Church, 99.9% of Catholics interpreted Genesis literally.
Click to expand...
Darwin died only in 1882. What theories to account for the history and diversity and the origin of species were widely supported before his that might weigh against a literal view of Genesis? And who is to say that God didn’t take a different route in creating the body of man than seems all the evidence suggests is the case for all other life? I don’t reject that out of hand. But science is right to assume otherwise.
 
Glark said:
I suspect that the evolutionists who composed the Catechism considered a literal interpretation of the six days to be so backward and ignorant that it wasn’t even worth mentioning.

In these respects, the CCC is a flawed and erroneuos documment and is therefore in dire need of correction.
Click to expand...
I’m sure readers here will give these comments their due consideration. Are there other parts of the CCC that you find similarly flawed, or is it just this topic?
 
Last edited:
How can it be 6 days when the first 3 “days” were before God created the sun. You need the sun in order to create a day
 
Thank you for confirming that you have no explanation for the origin of complexity.

I do not explain the origin of a log cabin by assuming the prior existence of a log cabin. You are trying to explain the existence of complexity by assuming the prior existence of complexity. Your analogy does not work.

rossum
Click to expand...
Again with this silliness, as if you’ve made any kind of a point at all.

Of course he claims no explanation for the origin of complexity–that would be God (or is it that you have issues with the notion of God to begin with?)

It is the radicalized hard core secular atheist evolutionistas who pretend that science can explain everything–including the beginning of intelligence…and complexity…and therefore suggest that everything, including complexity and intelligence, could have come into being in the first place…accidentally.

What’s more, you make another material error in your logic:
I do not explain the origin of a log cabin by assuming the prior existence of a log cabin
Click to expand...
" I do not explain the origin of X by assuming the prior existence of X" is not what anyone is saying.

It’s more like if you observe the existence of X, and X requires Y to exist, then it stands to reason that Y preceded X–or one might say, it is logical to conclude that Y preceded X.

X=Log Cabin (or complexity, order…)
Y=Intelligence.

The only alternative would be to conclude that X just accidentally happened.

Who needs Y?

Everything just happened accidentally…then Shazzam! It accidentally became intelligent! and soon order followed! (or did Order accidentally happen, precede intelligence, and realize how brilliant it was???).
 
I don’t think so. Before the madness of Darwinism infected the Church, 99.9% of Catholics interpreted Genesis literally.
Click to expand...
IDK…St. Augustine in City of God, doesn’t seem to espouse a rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis:

Book 11, Chapter 7.— Of the Nature of the First Days, Which are Said to Have Had Morning and Evening, Before There Was a Sun.

We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven; Galatians 4:26 and in another place, For you are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 1 Thessalonians 5:5 Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, Night was, but The evening and the morning were the first day. So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm
 
Last edited:
That’s from the diaspora when Jews fled following the sac of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And following the Bar Koba revolt it was pretty clear Israel wasn’t theirs anymore.
Assimilation is what did that.
 
Goya said:
Of course he claims no explanation for the origin of complexity–that would be God (or is it that you have issues with the notion of God to begin with?)
Click to expand...
Which is my problem with Abrahamic God, He does not explain the origin of anything that He already is. For example, being a “living God” He cannot explain the origin of life. Similarly, God cannot explain the origin of complexity. The origin is assumed without proof rather than explained.
It is the radicalized hard core secular atheist evolutionistas…
Click to expand...
Numerically, you are closer to atheism than I am. You are one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away. You are making a false assumption about me here.
It’s more like if you observe the existence of X, and X requires Y to exist, then it stands to reason that Y preceded X–or one might say, it is logical to conclude that Y preceded X.
Click to expand...
X exists. X requires Y to exist. That is fine. The problem is that your Y (intelligence) itself requires X (complexity) to exist. You cannot explain complexity through intelligence, because intelligence is itself complex. You have an infinite loop. Can you show me a non-complex intelligence? We know that an omniscient God cannot be non-complex because all possible knowledge is very complex indeed.
Goya said:
The only alternative would be to conclude that X just accidentally happened.
Click to expand...
Your lack of knowledge of the way the world works is obvious. That lack can be cured by learning: “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

Take chemistry. Is it an ‘accident’ that there is a lot more H2O than HO2 in the universe? Once you have learned about valency (a part of chemistry) you will not make the error of calling it an “accident”.

rossum
 
Numerically, you are closer to atheism than I am. You are one God away from atheism. I am tens of thousands of gods away. **You are making a false assumption about me here**.
Click to expand...
I didn’t make an assumption about you per se, but rather directed my objection to the usual source.

Is it fair to conclude then, that you’re a pagan, who believes science can explain the origin of intelligence and complexity?
You cannot explain complexity through intelligence, because intelligence is itself complex. You have an infinite loop.
Click to expand...
Correct, I can not, and have never pretended to.
Your lack of knowledge of the way the world works is obvious.
Click to expand...
You were saying something about false assumptions earlier? 😉
Take chemistry. Is it an ‘accident’ that there is a lot more H2O than HO2 in the universe? Once you have learned about valency (a part of chemistry) you will not make the error of calling it an “accident”.
Click to expand...
I’ve taken plenty of chemistry. I’m not the one calling anything in chemistry, accidental.

I’m the one saying that those who deny intelligence in the initial design(s), must necessarily conclude that everything came about accidentally.
 
Last edited:
Which is my problem with Abrahamic God, He does not explain the origin of anything that He already is. For example, being a “living God” He cannot explain the origin of life. Similarly, God cannot explain the origin of complexity. The origin is assumed without proof rather than explained.
Click to expand...
btw, I’m really curious about this line here–you attack “Abrahamic God” as being inadequate or wanting, because He ‘cannot explain the origin of life’, nor the origin of complexity…"

Never mind that God has never attempted to explain any such, as He owes no such explanation, nor duty to provide such explanation to anyone…

My question to you, is…how is that supposed to amount to a problem with God?

What’s more, it seems to imply that your gods do have this answer (or that you have it).

Can you explain the origin of complexity and intelligence?

Can your gods?
 
Last edited:
Look at it this way. The Church, rightly or with bad intent, gets asked questions. This subject has been promoted - heavily - for over a century. What changed? Darwin’s book. Before, anyone could give any or no reason for not believing in God. After The Book, here were scientists AND influential people like Marxists and Communists who could use it to manipulate people and entire countries. I’m not saying all scientists suddenly became atheists, but people who wanted to spread a certain ideology just had to make it official policy and it had to be taught from the “See! No God.” angle. In the West, all you needed were enough people to teach this, year after year after year, to poison generations. At first, it was “their word was enough,” followed by elaborate guesswork and speculation. Pope Pius XII mentions this threat regarding theologians in 1950 in the encyclical, Humani Generis. Pope Benedict reinforced the fact that evolution can’t be proven. Cardinal Schoenborn reinforced this fact in his book, Chance or Purpose? Read the description:

https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Purpose-Creation-Evolution-Rational/dp/1586172123

No, the tireless work of the revilers of the faith is done in many ways and the Church is well aware.
 
Last edited:
Goya said:
Is it fair to conclude then, that you’re a pagan, who believes science can explain the origin of intelligence and complexity?
Click to expand...
Look at my avatar picture, the Prajnaparamita of Java. I am Buddhist; I don’t know if you consider that pagan or not.
Goya said:
I’m the one saying that those who deny intelligence in the initial design(s), must necessarily conclude that everything came about accidentally.
Click to expand...
There is a third option besides chance and design: necessity. See Monod, Dembski and others.

Specifically, evolution is a combination of chance (random mutations) and necessity (natural selection). That combination can give the appearance of design without actual design.

For a non evolutionary example, look at the sorting of the pebbles on Chesil Beach. Local fishermen could tell where they were at night by checking the size of the pebbles which told them how far north on the beach they were.

That beach has the appearance of design without any actual design. The action of waves has sorted the pebbles into order of size. No intelligence required.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top