Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
edwest21 said:
You’re deflecting from my point. The human body, minus the water, is just a bag of chemicals - nothing more. That’s why some people believe this life is all there is, and then we’re food for worms after we die. There’s nothing and no one.
Click to expand...
I’m not deflecting, I’ve guided you to the accurate part of what you’ve said. Btw, water is also a chemical.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Do you think Adam and Eve’s inlaws were disappointed when they got expelled from the Garden of Eden ?
Click to expand...
Of course they were! After all, they had to put up with their kids saying, “can we move back in? We just lost our jobs and got kicked out of our house!” 🤣
 
edwest21 said:
That claim is rubbish.

NCBI Insights : PubMed Journals will be shut down

http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...bjects_molecular-biology&foxtrotcallback=true
Ed
Click to expand...
Nothing in the articles that you linked suggests that junk DNA negates evolution? If you read the articles I linked to you would know that the controversy over junk DNA was how ENCODE defined DNA biochemical activity. The studies I linked acknowledge that junk DNA has limited activity that does not negate evolution.
 
Last edited:
They do point to the complexity of life and leads us to the conclusion that unless there were a Hand to bring it into existence and guide it, life on earth simply wouldn’t be. The world can no more create, than it can randomly configure itself into its current form. Darwin’s Theory of evolution, beyond its limited use in describing some aspects of microevolution, not only contradicts Catholicism, but reason itself.

By the way, this is some of the disgusting research being carried out as a result of an “evolutionary” understanding of life:

www.bbc.com

UK scientists edit DNA of human embryos

Understanding the first moments of life could lead to better IVF and explain why women miscarry.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

And, it too suggests to the rational mind that the complexity that underlies the formation of our physical bodies is not the result of randomly happening events.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about how Gen 1 could be human population that becomes the dust of the earth that God formed adam from. The word ‘dust’ is used in the bible to mean a large human population. In this case a collective Adam. God calls them male and female at their genesis. He doesn’t name them. He won’t ever call them like He does Adam in Gen 2? No sign of the intellect in this account. No discord.

So God created humankind[e] in his image,
_ in the image of God he created them;_
_ male and female he created them._

No prohibitions placed on them, no law. Nothing it seems requiring intellect.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”

A population of people with a modern human body but have a soul that was produced by the earth. The image of God is a male and a female. Together they are ‘man’ Rather than one individual called ‘man’ containing both. They would be humans with a material soul, produced by the earth.

His commands to them are to do what they would have done naturally to survive. No test of free will.
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Click to expand...
Nothing special about the union of male and female connected to multiplying.

It seems the mandate here is multiplying, eating and dominating.

To thrive and fill the earth.
They prepare a body God can breath life into. They are the dust of the earth.

Just thinking
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
I’ve been thinking about how Gen 1 could be human population that becomes the dust of the earth that God formed adam from. The word ‘dust’ is used in the bible to mean a large human population. In this case a collective Adam. God calls them male and female at their genesis. He doesn’t name them. He won’t ever call them like He does Adam in Gen 2? No sign of the intellect in this account.

So God created humankind[e] in his image,
_ in the image of God he created them;_
_ male and female he created them._

No prohibitions placed on them, no law. Nothing requiring intellect.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”
A population of people with a modern human body but have a soul that was produced by the earth. The image of God is a male and a female. Together they are ‘man’ Rather than one individual called ‘man’ containing both. They would be humans with a material soul, produced by the earth.

His commands to them is to do what they would have done naturally to survive. No test of free will.
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Click to expand...
Personal interpretation of the Bible destroys the word of God.
Click to expand...
 
Techno2000 said:
Personal interpretation of the Bible destroys the word of God.
Click to expand...
And heaven knows we’ve had a lot of personal interpretation offered on this thread. Apparently the Church is not good enough for some. I note evolution of the bodies of Adam and Eve is not opposed by the Church.
 
I wrote I was just thinking not interpreting.
Just had an idea and thought I might play it out for the sake of science and religion. If you see anything that violates church teaching or scriptures I would appreciate correction.
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
I wrote I was just thinking not interpreting.
Just had an idea and thought I might play it out for the sake of science and religion. If you see anything that violates church teaching or scriptures I would appreciate correction.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
This story will contain types… A type of Body of Christ. A type of resurrection. A type of Incarnation. A type of Christ Crucified. I thought a virgin birth be necessary but I see no reason for God to be the father, He makes alot of living souls without doing that.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Benadam:
I wrote I was just thinking not interpreting.
Just had an idea and thought I might play it out for the sake of science and religion. If you see anything that violates church teaching or scriptures I would appreciate correction.
Click to expand...
"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.
Click to expand...
I got all that covered. No violations of Church teaching or Scriptures.
 
Really? I believe you are mistaken. Adam and Eve were special creations.
 
edwest21 said:
Really? I believe you are mistaken. Adam and Eve were special creations.
Click to expand...
Do you refer to their bodies or there totality as body and soul? If “body”, you are free to believe that but such is not required by the Church. Do you hold to any view about the date of that special creation?
 
Last edited:
There have been attempts made here to align the Church with the Biology textbook. The Church can’t do that regarding man and life in general.

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Source: Communion and Stewardship
 
edwest21 said:
It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Click to expand...
What is being referred to here are certain “leaps” of a philosophical kind that assert science has something to say about the existence of God.
 
I think the language is plain. To… “deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” At best, this means excluding divine providence due to the limits of the scientific method, which is one thing. But - speaking generally - to say divine providence does not apply here at all is incompatible with the Catholic faith. So a purely materialist theory is not compatible with the Catholic faith.
 
lots of divine providence in this adaptation. If there is divine providence in the Christ Event there is in this genesis adaptation. United in types.
 
Both Genesis and Christ are easily dismissed as just stories by some. Not the case with Church teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top