Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Actually, compiled by Moses based on clay tablets he had in his possession.
Click to expand...
And you evidence for this is? Do you have a Bible verse? Do you have the tablets, or pieces of them? What evidence is there? The Bible says that the Book of Genesis was written by Moses, not copied. If you are going to go against the Bible then you will need some supporting evidence behind you.
buffalo said:
Gee, why did Noah go through the trouble making [a]n ark? He could walk the animals quite a distance in 100 years.
Click to expand...
Ask God, He was the one who told Noah to build an Ark, not me.

rossum
 
Scripture could say that, but it doesn’t. It says he was created from the ground and why his name is Adam.
 
buffalo said:
Scripture is to be read literally, not literalistically.
Click to expand...
Certainly metaphors may evaporate in a literalistic reading. Does it require a literal or literalistic reading of scripture to conclude all life on earth was created 5778 years ago (along with the Sun) as Glark has asserted?
 
The genaeologies have to be calculated. Ussher’s figure could be off by quite a lot. Billions though? I don’t think so.
 
From the Catechism: The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code: 
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.8
 
Each human being is a new creation.
We have eternal/raltional souls, God’s breath.
Animals have what has been termed, sensitive souls.
They are different beings altogether.
Given the description of mankind’s creation, Adam could not have been a transformed animal.
 
Last edited:
St. Julian in Norwich

And in this he showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed. And it was as round as any ball. I looked upon it with the eye of my understanding, and thought, ‘What may this be?’ And it was answered generally thus, ‘It is all that is made.’ I marveled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen to nothing for littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and ever shall, for God loves it. And so have all things their beginning by the love of God.

 
And that’s the point. Adam was not a transformed animal with previous animals as his parents. The basic idea goes like this:
the first cell, then a group of cells, then a more complicated group of cells, marine life, amphibians, land animals and insects and so on. So, the problem is: all of these life forms exist now. To say this developed into that and that developed into this ignores this simple fact that anyone can observe.
 
buffalo said:
Toledoths and colophon phrases.
Click to expand...
Toledoths is opinion/hypothesis by fallible human scholars like Wiseman. You obviously have no Bible verses and no physical evidence to support your opinion. You are presumably aware that some Bible scholars disagree with Toledoths? Both Hamilton and Wolf have problems with it, and those two names took me less than a minute of searching.

rossum
 
Found the actual Pontifical Biblical Commission statements:

On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch (June 27, 1906)

I: Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date?
Answer: In the negative.

II: Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses’ own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name?
Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part.

III: Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified?
Answer: In the affirmative.

IV: Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as: additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism?
Answer In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church.

Document listed on the Vatican website: 33. De mosaica authentia Pentateuchi (June 27, 1906)
 
**The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:FFM_08xFR1OhlM:http://www.ancientdays.net/images/mosgen1.jpg Clay Tablet with Colophon

**
  • Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos Author: (God Himself (?)
  • Tablet 2: Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind (Adam)
  • Tablet 3: Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah(Noah)
  • Tablet 4: Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham & Japheth )
  • Tablet 5: Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem (Shem)
  • Tablet 6: Genesis 11:10b - 11:27a. The histories of Terah (Terah)
  • Tablet 7: Genesis 11:27b - 25:12. The histories of Ishmael (Isaac)
  • Tablet 8: Genesis 25:13 - 25:19a. The histories of Isaac (Ishmael, through Isaac)
  • Tablet 9: Genesis 25:19b - 36:1. The histories of Esau (Jacob)
  • Tablet 10: Genesis 36:2 - 36:9. The histories of Esau (Esau, through Jacob)
  • Tablet 11: Genesis 36:10 - 37:2. The histories of Jacob(Jacob’s 12 sons)
 
John 5:46

New International Version
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

New Living Translation
If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.

English Standard Version
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

Berean Study Bible
If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Why would God bother to use evolution, and take billions and billions and billions of years when he could do it in an instant ?
Click to expand...
“Why would God?” can be applied to many different theological constructs. A Protestant asked me once “why would God have Mary remain a virgin?” My response was “compared with Virgin births, deaths and resurrections, tongues of fire, burning bushes, mana from Heaven - someone remaining a virgin for the rest of their lives doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch of the imagination".

So yeah, we could ask “why would God bother with evolution”?" - but that could easily be applied elsewhere as well.
 
buffalo said:
The genaeologies have to be calculated. Ussher’s figure could be off by quite a lot. Billions though? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
So, perhaps 4000 - 8000 years would cover it? Not a single bacteria, let alone plant or animal prior to that? Is that in the ball park of what Catholics reading scripture ought to believe? Looks like the rate of the loss of species was far, far higher in the past than these days…
 
Rau said:
Certainly metaphors may evaporate in a literalistic reading. Does it require a literal or literalistic reading of scripture to conclude all life on earth was created 5778 years ago (along with the Sun) as Glark has asserted?
Click to expand...
Buffalo, thanks for the ccc quote, but you’ve not answered this question. Vary the precise 5778 years if you need to.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how. God is capable of creating His universe and His people any way He wants to. He gave us the brains to try to figure out how. I am sure wants us to use these brains so we can be amazed at the wonderful miracle of life itself. I have never comprehend the divide between reason and faith. They are one and the same to me.
 
Science can conclude that intelligent design was responsible for the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, or for the existence of a computer, but can’t conclude that intelligent design was responsible for the complex structures and functions of living creatures. Therein lies a contradiction, me thinks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top