Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s an ‘ex cathedra teaching’ that creation was six 24-hour days? OK, I’m game. Please cite it.
Actually, I don’t think he intended to imply that. Rather, he defends the position he holds by declaring there is no ex cathedral statement that opposes his position. Seems nothing the Church says - including its broad tolerance of evolution as not contradicting the faith - should be taken too seriously unless it is ex cathedra.
 
it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
I don’t believe there is any Church teaching at all on the timing of creation of “the world” (other than that its age is finite). Though it seems there is disagreement as to what genesis actually reveals. The Church has of course guided us in that regard, and in so doing has not taken genesis to provide historically accurate timing.
 
I agree there would be no point in arguing, but we can grow through the sharing of ideas.

It is of great significance what we believe, since it will define what we do and therefore who we become. While it may appear that we are arguing about shades of green, how we understand the cause of our existence has implications on what we hold to be important and how we treat one another. And, there’s a big difference between whether our being is the product of random happenings and whether it is created by God. There is also a chasm between the idea that God set things in motion to run their course and whether He acts Now, involved in every moment.

The Theory of Evolution conflicts with Genesis in its view that we are animals and that originally all life came to be from the preexisting forces of nature, specifically electrochemical, rather than as a new form of being in itself, that we emerged from a group rather than two first parents, that Eve was not formed, body and soul, from the original Adam. Now to put this all together requires one to really step outside the box of how the world is presented to us by modern society. It does fit, but not with the reductionist pap we are fed.

The appearance is the hardness of wood, the magnet which moves the iron filings, the bursting into flames of a match, the ocean wave that breaks on the shore. The structure that underlies all these diverse phenomena includes those subatomic processes and events (particles is one way to conceive of them) coming together as a new whole of material being in the form of the atom. The relationship that atoms have which one another is described by physics which explains all the above-mentioned seemingly different events.

There is clearly no one agreed to Theory of Evolution, but as science deals with the reproduceable and never one-of events, as is creation, it holds that life originated and flourished in its vastness, variety and distinctness, from random physical events and that it did so in accordance with what is today assumed to be the way the world works. Recall that we once thought, not incorrectly when one gazes at the stars, that they move around the earth. What appears to be random, such as the neural activity going on in my brain, is ordered in accordance with my will, here and now. Similarly, the universe is a symphony of events of different shapes, intensities and durations, brought into existence and maintained by God, who created us to know Him, to become Love. Science doing what it is intended to do, should pay homage to that reality, instead it chases shadows.
 
Last edited:
What is even happening on this thread of mine?

How old is the universe? Let’s answer that question
It’s evolving, I guess.

Others have provided you with the Church’s response.
It doesn’t matter or it would have been revealed.

On the one hand, I would go with the dating done by astrophysics.

But, what exactly is time?
What is time without the existence of the person with their four-score years of life?
What is time for angels in eternity?
What is time for God who brings every moment into existence?
Does it make sense to say that for Him, the smallest Planck unit is of shorter duration than an eon?

So, on the other hand, I’d also go with that latter perspective that would see God’s creation as happening in stages, a new creation, composed from that previously created, growing in complexity with each step, culminating in the person, a creature capable of communion with its maker.
How long did this take in God days, each a new dawn followed by its twilight?
My cat is almost a hundred in cat years. God created the world in six God days.
 
Last edited:
The point is, the “details” of Creation are beyond our limited scope of understanding this side of heaven. As long as we acknowledge God as the Creator, I don’t see the point of tying ourselves in knots, and neither do recent Popes, whose theological knowledge likely far surpasses yours.
 
The funny thing is that you focus on these words, “there was evening, and morning, the Nth day”, without recognizing the cadence found in the narrative. It’s a poem
It’s a what? A poem? LOL!! Oh the nonsense evolutionists will resort to!
No… according to me, the reason for the seven “day” creation was to give voice to the notion of Sabbath rest… which was enshrined in covenant with the Mosaic law.
If I were a Darwinist like you I would want to ignore Exodus 20:11 too, since Yahweh strongly suggests that the six days of creation are literal days.
You. You’re the one insisting on literalistic interpretation, remember
I stated nowhere that Genesis is science. On the contrary, I stated Genesis is an account of history. In your world, history is science?
A history book that describes literal events must be in accord with science… or else it’s a lie, no? You can’t have it both ways: if it’s literal, and historical, it must fit with scientific reality.
Hang on, let me get this straight: Describing the life of Jesus is history - except for the miracles, which aren’t history, because they can’t be scientifically explained? I wish I were smart enough to grasp this genius logic.
Fine. Just one example, to demonstrate to you that you’re making claims that you can’t support:

In Exodus 14, we see a reference to the “evening watch” (or the “watch before the dawn”). Yes, even in the Pentateuch, we see that the ancients had divisions of time less than a ‘day’.
An “evening” is a unit of time? A day is 24 hours; how long is an evening?

Rev 9:15 - “the hour, the day, the month, the year” - no mention of an “evening”, I’m afraid. No mention of a literal “hour” in the OT, which leaves a “day” as the shortest unit of time in the OT.
There’s an ‘ex cathedra teaching’ that creation was six 24-hour days? OK, I’m game. Please cite it.
That’s not what I meant. You seem to think accepting that evolution can be squeezed into the Bible is ex cathedra.
 
Last edited:
The Theory of Evolution conflicts with Genesis in its view that we are animals and that originally all life came to be from the preexisting forces of nature, specifically electrochemical, rather than as a new form of being in itself, that we emerged from a group rather than two first parents, that Eve was not formed, body and soul, from the original Adam.
I think you mean it conflicts with your reading of Genesis. Now I may agree with you in very limited aspects eg. monogenism vs polygenism.

Catholic Answers provides a more authoritative assessment (complete with Imprimatur) and which does not accord entirely with what you wrote. See:
CA Tract on Adam and Eve and Evolution

I mention in passing that the term “atheistic evolution” is IMO ambiguous and problematic. God is quite capable of creating a universe that develops just as he ‘intends’ despite changes and development which are indistinguishable from randomness.
 
The point is, the “details” of Creation are beyond our limited scope of understanding this side of heaven. As long as we acknowledge God as the Creator, I don’t see the point of tying ourselves in knots, and neither do recent Popes, whose theological knowledge likely far surpasses yours.
The Church also recognises that almost all the “details” are of no relevance to the salvation of souls.
 
Just as science is not always immediately understandable by all of us, so too it is with Scripture. While few would claim an infallible understanding of Science, it seems that others willingly claim an infallible understanding of Scripture. Most Catholics look to the Church for guidance, believing that is a large part of why it was established.
You need to factor in the “diabolical disorientation” that Sister Lucy (Fatima) warned us about.
 
Not just evolution stands in contradiction to a literal reading of the text. Cosmology, astrophysics, geology, natural history…rather an extensive array of science…and for most of this, the only basis to dismiss it lies in a literal interpretation of the bible. [It seems creationists in fact contend the totality of the universe was created in “6 days”.]

How perplexing that scientific evidence from many fields piles up in opposition to literal biblical readings. It would be much simpler if the evidence told the same story as a literal reading of the biblical story! Otherwise, we are left to contemplate why God crafted so much deception to feed our enquiring minds!
Aren’t you being a tad inconsistent? Science stands in contradiction to the many miracles described in the Bible, yet (I assume) you accept these miracles as truth.

But now you are arguing against a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis because science stands in contradiction to it!

What is this mysterious form of reasoning called? Selective logic?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
The funny thing is that you focus on these words, “there was evening, and morning, the Nth day”, without recognizing the cadence found in the narrative. It’s a poem
It’s a what? A poem? LOL!! Oh the nonsense evolutionists will resort to!
Actually, this analysis comes from Scripture scholars, not Darwinian scientists.
You. You’re the one insisting on literalistic interpretation, remember
I stated nowhere that Genesis is science. On the contrary, I stated Genesis is an account of history. In your world, history is science?
In the real world, historical accounts are scientifically accurate. Is your world different?
I wish I were smart enough to grasp this genius logic.
So do we. 😉
An “evening” is a unit of time? A day is 24 hours; how long is an evening?
No – the “evening watch” is a measure of a period of time that is less than one day. Remember – your claim is that there weren’t measures of time less than the ‘day’ in the OT. I’ve just shown your claim to be inaccurate.
Rev 9:15 - “the hour, the day, the month, the year” - no mention of an “evening”, I’m afraid.
Nice try. You asked for me to stick with the OT, and not pay attention to the NT. You don’t get to ignore my example by quoting the NT. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 😉
No mention of a literal “hour” in the OT, which leaves a “day” as the shortest unit of time in the OT.
Again… nice try. I just demonstrated that your claim that the “day” was the smallest unit into which time was divided is false: the ancients recognized various “watches” within the course of the day.
There’s an ‘ex cathedra teaching’ that creation was six 24-hour days? OK, I’m game. Please cite it.
That’s not what I meant.
Thanks for that clarification. I’ll remember that “what you say” isn’t “what you mean”. That’ll be helpful in the course of further discussion. 👍
 
Aren’t you being a tad inconsistent? Science stands in contradiction to the many miracles described in the Bible, yet (I assume) you accept these miracles as truth.

But now you are arguing against a literal interpretation of the creation because science stands in contradiction to it!

What is this mysterious form of reasoning called? Selective logic?
You’re not thinking clearly. There is no evidence amenable to scientific examination of biblical miracles. Science cannot analyse a story of past events - it cannot say “the evidence contradicts the story”. The subject matter in question is unreachable by Science.

In contrast, science has evidence of factors such as age of the rocks in the earth, their means of formation, the age of mummies, and so forth. In opposition to that is a story that the organisation - the Church - that brings forward that story does not even itself contend is meant to be understood literally. Do you see the difference? Do you see you are on your own here? And more importantly, do you see that the salvation of souls is not influenced one jot by these “details”?
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that the world God created is false and misleading? Is your God a version of Loki/Trickster, who made the world to deceive people? The correct interpretation of scripture must match with the correct interpretation of the world. See the Galileo affair for a good example of this.
Your YEC interpretation of scripture is wrong because it does not match with the work of God. The YEC God is a deceiver; the Christian God is not.
“Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth” - Rev 12:9
 
Last edited:
You need to factor in the “diabolical disorientation” that Sister Lucy (Fatima) warned us about.
Consider that factored in! Do you know how to recognise “diabolical disorientation”? [Hint: It involves Dogmas of the Faith]. If you do, you should recognise that rejecting a literal reading of genesis - as you have argued - does not meet the threshold for “diabolical disorientation”.
 
I am simply amazed that these multiple Popes and millions of evolutionist Catholics can’t answer simple questions regarding the theological implications of their belief. And until I see one of them hammer out the details without the hand-waving and faux-astonishment I’ll stick to my position that it is incompatible.
Is their contempt for the authority of Scripture symptomatic of weak faith? Or something else? The fact that so many Church leaders are willing to abide this mendacious farce indicates a disconnect with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, imo.

Romans 1 describes how spiritual corruption manifests itself in the forms of sexual and intellectual corruption. The sexual corruption amongst Church leaders is by now well known; the intellectual corruption is less well known but is obvious to those with the eyes to see it.
 
The miracles of Jesus. True, literal. He died and then rose from the dead. Thomas doubted that and Jesus appeared to him (them actually) and invited Thomas to examine his wounds. He knew human beings want this evidence, yet being Catholic requires faith and free will. The choice to accept life or not. But back to the topic. No one seeks out the Church’s agreement for quantum mechanics or dark matter, but this — this is the heart of the matter. The Biology textbook as scripture. Oh yes, I know, the basic framework has been modified by new discoveries but no matter what these new discoveries are, one thing is certain even before the fact: it changes nothing. Not really. I ask everyone to honestly ask themselves, if evolution was not true tomorrow, how would it have any practical effect on your lives? I’ve never gotten an answer to that question.

Here’s mine. It wouldn’t. Drug discovery will be by trial and error. New strains of viruses and bacteria will be “discovered.” Look up the history of penicillin. Look up the history of the 4th largest company in the world in 1933, IG Farben, who investigated coal tar for medicinal uses. No cookbook. Just trial and error. This global chemical conglomerate was the largest in the world but few know it ever existed.

Miracles are why we have so many saints. The Congregation for Saints Causes does rigorous work that can take a decade or more. And yes, it calls on anyone in any field that has the competence to examine something science has no explanation for. It even has a person to argue against the evidence to ensure there are no holes, no missing pieces. We have Saint Pope John Paul II without miracles? But back to the topic: it’s not about science. Never was.
 
Good question. God can change bread and wine into the body and blood of His Son in an instant, but apparently He needs billions of years to form life on earth!
 
Last edited:
I think you’re overreacting to the constant but gentle browbeating going on here. Pope Benedict stated that this theory cannot be verified. End of story. But the gentle browbeating will continue.
 
I ask everyone to honestly ask themselves, if evolution was not true tomorrow, how would it have any practical effect on your lives? I’ve never gotten an answer to that question.
I’ve no idea. But I’m quite certain the “details” of the process of creation has no bearing on the salvation of souls!
Miracles are why we have so many saints. The Congregation for Saints Causes does rigorous work that can take a decade or more. And yes, it calls on anyone in any field that has the competence to examine something science has no explanation for.
Quite right. Science cannot explain various latter day events. I am entirely comfortable with science concluding:
  • We don’t have a defensible explanation for these events; or
  • Speculating about possible explanations.
It isn’t necessary for science to conclude: “Ah hah…it must be a miracle!” Had science been prone to this behaviour through history, imagine what discoveries might not have been made.
 
What happened to your thread? What happened is that some people end up disparaging what the Church teaches and that riles it up some people. While there have been some interesting discussions and I’ve seen some interesting discussion from some of the creationists here, those other threads of conversation take things up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top