Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would provide an incomplete picture. Human beings are not just humanoids that can talk and make sophisticated things. We have a soul - a spiritual body as well. Even a learned man from the Bible could not grasp the idea of what Jesus was talking about:

John 3:3:

New International Version
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

New Living Translation
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

English Standard Version
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

3:4:

New International Version
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

New Living Translation
“What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”

English Standard Version
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

3:5:

New International Version
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

New Living Translation
Jesus replied, "I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.

English Standard Version
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

3:6:

New International Version
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

New Living Translation
Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.

English Standard Version
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
Adam would not wholly be the first man, having received his body from parents. Just the first man with an immortal soul.
Click to expand...
There’s no problem with Adam receiving his body from parents. The body of every life form as well as the ground we walk on was made in stars and ultimately by God. The path God chose from nothingness to Adam and Eve seems irrelevant and without implication for the salvation of souls.
 
It’s very relevant. As proved by threads like this that continue to appear over and over and over again. Original Sin is why Jesus had to be born, to die as a sacrifice for all so that sins could be forgiven and our relationship with God could be restored. Catholic teaching tells us Adam and Eve had no parents.
 
edwest21 said:
It’s very relevant. As proved by threads like this that continue to appear over and over and over again. Original Sin is why Jesus had to be born, to die as a sacrifice for all so that sins could be forgiven and our relationship with God could be restored. Catholic teaching tells us Adam and Eve had no parents.
Click to expand...
The thread does not prove it is relevant, it demonstrates people choose to discuss it.

Where does catholic teaching address the parentage of Adam and Eve or the creation of the matter of their bodies? And how might/would that bear on the doctrine of Original Sin?
 
Last edited:
From Catholic Answers:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Darwin’s theory leaves out this crucial information. Without it, human beings are free to believe that nothing created them and they are then responsible to no one, including God.
 
Ed - the quote does not contradict my earlier remarks. I didn’t address how Adam and Eve come to be the parents of us all.
 
Man received an immortal soul in.a manner and type that is revealed by the Incarnation.
The Creation of the first Adam is hidden in birth of the second Adam. How Adam received a body from pre existing flesh. The dust of the earth. The body of Adam.

I would like to work out this attempt to resolve the creation of Adam on this thread.

I’ll be back later. tonight God willing to begin
 
If Adam had parents one would assume they had material souls since Adam is the first living soul. One would assume again, that those parents would be part of a community or population that would continue reproducing after Adam was born. I don’t think one person could out reproduce the race of people they were born into.

Perhaps they were the last of the mortal humans and died out about the time Adam was born. I believe there would have to be some measure of certainty about the likeliness of that situation as a prerequisite for considering Adam having parents with material souls.

IMy main issue is that it fails to address how the intellect entered into animal life. If Adam had parents that lacked intellect we would have to call them animals. How can intellect, and immortality unite to material reality? I think an explanation of that is required in order to believe Adam came from parents with material souls
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
I think an explanation of that is required in order to believe Adam came from parents with material souls
Click to expand...
Yet one tends to require no explanation for a claim such as “God just made Adam on the spot”. We don’t know how everything happened.
 
Rau said:
I’ve not noticed any dogma.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Well, I guess it’s a bit like sailing - if you’re travelling with the wind, you don’t feel it. Turn against the wind and then you feel it. Evolution is preached as scientific dogma at every level of education. And you haven’t noticed?!

You haven’t explained why so much emphasis is placed on a scientific theory that is UNPROVEN and UNTESTABLE and is COMPLETELY USELESS in any practical sense. Or why the Church bends over backwards to accommodate same. I’m amazed that so many intelligent, educated adults don’t find that peculiar.
Because right reason recognises that facts in our face oughtn’t to be ignored
Click to expand...
What “facts”? How can a theory that is UNTESTABLE and UNPROVEN be a “fact”? You’ve been indulging too much atheist propaganda, my friend.
 
Gorgias said:
If you’re going to critique the theological views of Catholics who disagree with you, at least represent their arguments accurately, please.

We don’t have the freedom to suggest that “Adam never existed”. There may be non-Catholics who make that claim, but that’s not a claim that we’re free to make (and still be faithful to Church teachings).
Click to expand...
Tell that to Cardinal George Pell. He thinks a literal Adam and Eve is “certainly not a scientific truth”, but a “religious story”.
 
Glark said:
How can a theory that is UNTESTABLE and UNPROVEN be a “fact”? You’ve been indulging too much atheist propaganda, my friend.
Click to expand...
Two points. First, evolution is both a theory and a fact. The fact is that the genomes of an interbreeding population changes over time, which is commonly observed. That is evolution as a fact. The theory of evolution is science’s current best attempt to explain that fact.

Second, it is common for non-scientists to claim that a scientific theory is “unproven”. They are right: all scientific theories are unproven. Every scientific theory is “the best explanation we currently have” and so is always open to replacement by a better explanation. For a long time Newton’s theory of gravity was the best explanation, but it was never proven. Then Einstein came a long with a better explanation and Newton’s theory was replaced by Einstein’s theory. We already know that Einstein’s theory has problems, so scientists are working on an even better theory, Quantum Gravity. That in its turn will be “unproven”, as will its successor.

Science advances by replacing good explanations with better explanations. Hence, all explanations are temporary, or “unproven”. Exactly the same is true of evolution. Your “unproven” seems to be a good argument to a non-scientist. To a scientist it is as effective as saying that the sky is blue. All scientific theories are unproven from the start, so you are not saying anything new or important.

rossum
 
Rau said:
I’m pretty sure they are good enough to reliably distinguish 100 years, 5000 years and 50,000 years (about the age of aboriginal occupation in Australia).
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure 50,000 years of man is one of many fairy tales invented to make evolution seem real.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
The part that you’ve been defending here: that one cannot be a good Catholic without believing in the historical literalism of the first chapters
Click to expand...
Naturally, you can back up such an accusation with proof.
Like Augustine, who claimed that a historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly?
Click to expand...
A citation, please.
 
The Cardinal is correct. Science hasn’t found evidence to support the claim. It is a religious story.

A story that reveals truth about the origin of modern humans. I’m sure the Cardinal believes that.
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
The Cardinal is correct. Science hasn’t found evidence to support the claim. It is a religious story.

A story that reveals truth about the origin of modern humans. I’m sure the Cardinal believes that.
Click to expand...
Good point. Thank you.
 
Reminds me of what my astronomy instructor in college said, " I’m not going to teach you the truth. I’m going to teach you the current state of the art. It’s been alot of years and he was right. Alot of what he taught is old news
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Like Augustine, who claimed that a historical reading of Genesis that flies in the face of scientific evidence just makes us Christians look silly?
Click to expand...
A citation, please.
Click to expand...
Certainly. Augustine, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1:19
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, “although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” [1 Timothy 1.7]
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas refers to Augustine in his Summa:
In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
Click to expand...
The woodenly literal interpretation of Genesis exposes scripture to the “ridicule of unbelievers” and places “obstacles” to anyone with any sort of scientific knowledge.

Gorgias was correctly referring to Augustine, as is confirmed by Thomas Aquinas.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top