Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, good for you. It takes a lot of will to pull away from getting everyone to agree or getting oneself to a point where one can satisfactorily agree with everyone else. Cudos to you for recognizing the point at which further discussion is unproductive.
 
edwest21 said:
The Church has not been “bending over backwards” regarding this. It is constantly being challenged by those looking for anything to confirm the Church agrees with it. Not so. As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis:

“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.”

In other words, there is a for and against and the Church has the authority to have the final say.

Pope Benedict, regarding the often quoted statement by Pope John Paul II, added that - especially regarding the human body - that this alleged series of changes cannot be reproduced in the lab and so cannot be verified.

And yes, Adam and Eve were two literal individuals who were responsible for Original Sin which is passed on to all by generation since we all descend from that couple. It is necessary for our salvation to know this. One: we have a physical body and a spiritual body or soul which is immediately created by God. Two: Jesus Christ was not born into this world for no particular reason. Because of Original Sin, He died as a sacrifice for all and rose from the dead, literally. John the Baptist baptized with water but Jesus told us baptism would be with water and the Holy Spirit. He established His Church and gave us much more information about how to live because He was true man and true God.

But I can guarantee one thing: these threads will appear again and again. And again. This suggests supporting atheism.

Ed
Click to expand...
I’m not sure your essential gist of “if evolution, then atheism” is particularly necessary. It certainly looks like a slippery-slope.

I’d caution you, Ed, to remember the lesson Galileo taught the Church. It may apply here as well.
 
Darwin’s theory of evolution is a theory just a little over a 100 years old to try and explain how live evolved. There are still many gps in the theory and still lots we do not know or understand. There are those who it seems or appear that view evolution as the last word and true. Other are against the theory believing it against religious beliefs, but those religious beliefs are all over the board since some still believe God created in 6 days and actually rested on the 7th day. some believe the earth is only some 6000 years old.

The question as i see it is does believing in an evolution theory take one away from faith in God who created? if it does why? One think I think no one knows is how God created, Is it really important whether God created in say 7 days or billions of years. Does time have any meaning to God or does time have meaning for man since time is nothing more than the distance between one event and another a ways to measure one event from another event.

Can science help one to better understand Scripture or history better understand Scripture especially Gen. and creation. Maybe, I do think some understanding of how people thought of themselves and the world they lived in from their point of understanding. They did not know science to explain how they come to be or the world they lived in, nor did they view history in the same way we modern man does. What is the real purpose of Gen.? It was never meant to be some scientific explanation of how man and the world came to be but more how God revealed Himself and God’s relationship with man. At least that is what I am thinking.
 
No. One. In. Authority. Has. Ever. Said. Genesis. Should. Not. Be. Read. Literally.
 
From richarddawkins dot net "Dawkins and others have argued the evolutionary reasons for morality which, not that they are invalid, seem to disappoint the theist because they automatically see it as a rebuff to their human dignity. They might say, “Morality is what separates us from the animals because it is a product of the soul or God within man.”

“We will never get the theist, at least not yet, to admit that morality is a process of genetics and deterministic chemicals operating within the brain and making our choices for us; and while the atheist may be willing to accept morality as a process of evolution and determinism there is still something unsettling to a great many atheists about the notion of free will being illusory.”
 
Last edited:
Ed - scientific findings need to be kept separate from the conclusions scientists draw from them.
 
ChunkMonk said:
No. One. In. Authority. Has. Ever. Said. Genesis. Should. Not. Be. Read. Literally.
Click to expand...
And Glark is the only one saying it must be read literally and condemns the only party is in Authority - the Church - for opposing him. The only party in authority says it need not be read literally and has no difficulty with the faithful accepting scientific evidence about the age of the universe and the earth and life.
 
This is like saying the direction we get from reading holy scripture should be kept separate from how we worship God. Perhaps we should warship God without drawing conclusions about how to?
Conclusions from scientific findings often direct scientists to further scientific findings from which to draw conclusions. That is scientific progress. Its a given that conclusions can be wrong but that is the nature of being imperfect beings. Its substantially more consistently progressive to advance by testing the conclusions you’ve drawn rather than draw no conclusions and wait for an serendipitous event to come along to point the way. That is not to say that serendipitous events haven’t advanced science but that its not as consistently progressive.
 
ChunkMonk said:
No. One. In. Authority. Has. Ever. Said. Genesis. Should. Not. Be. Read. Literally.
Click to expand...
I suspect we’re using “Genesis” as shorthand to mean “the first few chapters of Genesis”, right? After all, there is historical narrative in Genesis, and we’d want to hold to the stance that we read it as such. However, it’s just not the case that all of Genesis is historical narrative.
 
Vonsalza said:
I’d caution you, Ed, to remember the lesson Galileo taught the Church.
Click to expand...
Would that lesson be, “if you keep telling a scientist ‘you can’t prove what you claim’ long enough, eventually he’ll slander the pope in print”? 🤣
 
Lol…nice. Pretty much sums up all of humanities discussions on everything. I keep hoping though…one day…of course I guess that would be the day of apocalypse when we all get a definitive answer whether we like it or not.
 
What? Or to put it another way - What? Scientific findings always need an interpretation. When one is talking about finding something out, the mechanisms need to be published and conclusions need to be drawn. This applies to peer reviewed studies. In other words, “based on these findings, I conclude it will be useful for…” Otherwise, how does science advance?
 
Oh brother. Pope Leo XIII:

“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.”
 
setarcos said:
This is like saying the direction we get from reading holy scripture should be kept separate from how we worship God.
Click to expand...
I am afraid I don’t see the connection,

My point is straightforward. A scientist who observes scientific findings and “concludes” there is no God (say) has not drawn a scientific conclusion. One is properly within the domain of science and the other is not.

Science is not Anti-God and the study of science does not lead away from God despite what some may think.
 
edwest21 said:
What? Or to put it another way - What? Scientific findings always need an interpretation.
Click to expand...
Sure. Aim, methods, results, conclusion. I’ve yet to see the experiment leading to a conclusion about the existence of God or the ultimate source of morality. Some scientists may fancy themselves as philosophers able to make leaps they call “scientific conclusion”. Nothing scientific about those leaps.
 
I understand what your saying. He or she has most certainly drawn a scientific conclusion. You must realize that if a scientist concludes there is no God (not all scientists do) he/she is doing so presumably based on presentable evidence which if one is to show that his/her conclusions are wrong, at least based on the presented evidence, they must be shown to be wrong in the same reference frame from which the conclusions were drawn. That is by making evidential conclusions of your own. I agree science is merely a tool by which one may draw conclusions about reality subject to revision of course. There comes a point though, statistically, where all practical reason may draw fairly conclusive assumptions about reality. God is not subject to science but may be an object of scientific inquiry IF, as Christianity claims, he made the natural world and it in some manner reflects his nature. Miracles may be of supernatural origin but once perceived in the natural world they become subject to scientific inquiry. Any unverifiable miracle is meaningless and equivalent to no miracle at all, and I don’t mean unverified miracle.
 
setarcos said:
You must realize that if a scientist concludes there is no God (not all scientists do) he/she is doing so presumably based on presentable evidence…
Click to expand...
Your “presumption” is the problem. One can no more scientifically conclude there is a God than scientifically conclude there is not. Unexplained phenomena are properly deemed by science “unexplained”. Imagine the course of discovery if scientific enquiry came to a halt at each unexplained phenomena with scientists exclaiming: “Miracle!”
 
Last edited:
The simple answer is “yes”, as our store of knowledge has increased significantly since the early days of the Church, and particularly in the last several hundred years, as methods and instruments used in the study of science have become refined or been invented.

For example, my SIL, the Catholic evolutionary biologist, uses computational methods (computer-based) to place organisms as precisely on the “tree of life” as possible. It is a fairly new, and still small, niche in the field of biology, and has advanced - and continues to advance - the body of knowledge significantly. The “great scholars” of the Catholic Church didn’t have access to today’s amazing methodology, and even if they did, science was generally not their wheelhouse - nor did it need to be.

I think that what really gets under the skin of folks who refuse to entertain the idea that evolution is real is the fact that some of its proponents make the mistake of trying to use it to disprove God, which is an impossibility; because they are mistaken about God, their message must be in error. In actuality, their opinions have no effect on reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top