EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me re-read and think about this again. Of course, interpreting the Adam and Eve story literally obligates us to account for one of the genetic bottlenecks. Interpreting the Noachian flood story literally obligates us to account for another: human genetic diversity and post-diluvian animal diversity, a thing difficult to account for in only a few thousand years.
As Pope Benedict said, Evolution raises questions that cannot be answered within science.

Those who worship the human mind and view man as just another biological mechanism have ignored the work of God. Somehow, it escapes some Catholics that as God, Jesus could walk on water or command the wind or raise the dead. These are things God can do. But, around here, it appears to be: Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Now let’s see. What would be a “natural” explanation? There’s got to be one…

Peace,
Ed
 
You agree? Yet the slide into naturalism and mechanistic ‘explanations’ continues without apparent regard for Church teaching. Truths held in the deposit of faith are truths. Science cannot explain the works or Godhood of Jesus Christ, at least as it’s currently practiced.

Peace,
Ed
 
You agree? Yet the slide into naturalism and mechanistic ‘explanations’ continues without apparent regard for Church teaching. Truths held in the deposit of faith are truths. Science cannot explain the works or Godhood of Jesus Christ, at least as it’s currently practiced.Peace,Ed
Yes – I agree. Yea, though I walk through the valley of evolution, I fear not the slide into metaphysical naturalism.
 
Ed writes:
As Pope Benedict said, Evolution raises questions that cannot be answered within science.
St. A replies:
I quite agree, as no doubt would most other posters on this thread.
Barbarian observes:
But it’s nice to see Ed starting to come around to the Catholic point of view on this.
 
If you study the genetics involved, you’ll discover why it is not possible to avoid a genetic bottleneck if you have only two individuals (or eight Noachians) rather than a breeding population of several thousand from which all succeeding generations descend.
It is my belief that God created, invented, caused, etc, the entire universe. I don’t think He needed to study genetics when it came time to creating human beings. He did it from scratch…without consulting instructions 👍 .

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.
 
It is my belief that God created, invented, caused, etc, the entire universe. I don’t think He needed to study genetics when it came time to creating human beings. He did it from scratch…without consulting instructions 👍
grannymh, of course God created the entire universe, but no one had suggested God had to study genetics. I was responding rather to your specific claim that all human beings could have sprung directly from one historical pair named “Adam” and “Eve.” I pointed out that from a genetic point of view this is impossible, and it’s also a literalistic reading of Genesis that is theologically unnecessary. Of course, you may reject genetic science, but that’s a different question altogether.

Have a happy and restful weekend!
StAnastasia
 
grannymh, of course God created the entire universe, but no one had suggested God had to study genetics. I was responding rather to your specific claim that all human beings could have sprung directly from one historical pair named “Adam” and “Eve.” I pointed out that from a genetic point of view this is impossible, and it’s also a literalistic reading of Genesis that is theologically unnecessary. Of course, you may reject genetic science, but that’s a different question altogether.

Have a happy and restful weekend!
StAnastasia
Dear StAnastasia,

I wouldn’t reject genetic science. No need to. It is fascinating how humans have developed it. I’m old enough to remember debates between heredity and environment. (maybe they are still going on) Science has moved swiftly since then.

What I am saying is that God wasn’t bound to follow genetic science. Nor did He have to worry about the rules for empirical science. I am very happy to hold two claims about Eve and Adam, the theologically unnecessary one and the one which could place them one step ahead of genetics.

You, too, have a happy and restful weekend. I enjoy exchanging ideas with you.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect.
 
Actually, it’s a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. So the rights of the few are not subject to the whim of the many.

No, thank God. Remember, Catholics are a minority. And from time to time, we’ve been oppressed by those who violated the Constitution.

They’ve pointed out that the Constitution applies to everyone. It outrages some, but that is what the Founders intended.

Well, not yet. But we’re working on it. When that comes, we won’t need the courts; abortion has been most effectively curtailed by changing hearts and minds. I think God wants it that way.

Unless the amendment was worded to conflict with some other part of the Constitution, they couldn’t.

The Founders asserted that the government should stay completely out of religion. It hasn’t always been that way. But that we have done wrong in the past is not license to do it now.

Those are what Madison wrote were “de minimus” violations that were not worth arguing about.

What is good for the Goose here is not good for the Gander.

If it were possible, and Satanists decided they wanted one, too, then they would also be allowed to do it. You sure you want that?
I think you are confused for the last time I checked a majority of a states vote elected the Senators and Representatives of a State.

In a Pres. Election each state has assigned electorates that after voting the assigned electorates go to the winning candidate for the most part.

That these Goverment elected official are to represent and are to represent the people

Goverment shall make no law in regards to Religion there is no seperation of Church and State in the Constitution.

No ones individual rights I agree should not be impeded upon for race,creed, color sex, disability, etc…
to practice there religion or no religion.

The courts though are now saying for the past 40 years that if practicing ones religion bothers another than it is unlawful.

The Christmas managers on city hall property, the ten commandments in a court house, etc… How does this impede civil rights? How does this impede anyone from practicing their religion?

Is their a constitional amendment that states you shall not practice or have religious symbols in public spaces? Nope.

The forced refraining from allowing churches to preach political forums from the pulpit is the Goverment making laws in regards to religion though is unconstitutional.

Most American Holidays(holydays) are derived from religion. Valentines day, Holloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc…
Soon I guess if it annoys one person we should do away with these Holidays.
 
The courts though are now saying for the past 40 years that if practicing ones religion bothers another than it is unlawful.
The Christmas managers on city hall property, the ten commandments in a court house, etc… How does this impede civil rights? How does this impede anyone from practicing their religion?
(1) When have the courts ruled that practicing one’s religion is unlawful?

(2) City hall does not hire Christmas managers.
 
It sounds good, but I think it contradicts Scripture and the Fathers, both of which indicate that death was the RESULT of sin.
Death for us. Death was already part of the biological world, and had been since the beginning. The death spoken of in Genesis is s spiritual death.

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

And yet when Adam eats it, he doesn’t physically die that day. But as the serpent said, his eyes were opened, making him like God, aware of good and evil. He died spiritually that day. This is the death that came into the world.
 
(1) When have the courts ruled that practicing one’s religion is unlawful?

(2) City hall does not hire Christmas managers.
When it outlawed prayer in public schools

Misspelling, what I meant was the religious scenes during Christmas and other Religious Holidays(Holydays)on Public Property.
 
I think you are confused for the last time I checked a majority of a states vote elected the Senators and Representatives of a State.
That’s what “republic” means. I thought you knew.
In a Pres. Election each state has assigned electorates that after voting the assigned electorates go to the winning candidate for the most part.
That is also representative government, which is a republic.
That these Goverment elected official are to represent and are to represent the people
Yes a republic.
Goverment shall make no law in regards to Religion there is no seperation of Church and State in the Constitution.
It merely forbids the government to support or restrict religion. That is what the Founders meant by “separation of church and state.” If you’d like to learn more about what they thought, I would suggest “On Religious Assessments” by James Madison. He was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and his thoughts on the matter might help you.
The courts though are now saying for the past 40 years that if practicing ones religion bothers another than it is unlawful.
No. They have ruled that government establishment of religion is unlawful. That is what the Constitution says. And we are a nation of laws, not men.
The Christmas managers on city hall property, the ten commandments in a court house, etc… How does this impede civil rights?
You mean “mangers?” It is establishment. Madison argued that some of this was “de minimus” violation, meaning it was too trivial to be concerned about. But it does mean that your local satanists would have to be allowed to put up a display, too. Would you like that?
The forced refraining from allowing churches to preach political forums from the pulpit is the Goverment making laws in regards to religion though is unconstitutional.
Nope. If you take a handout from the government, there will always be strings attached. Tough lesson, but it’s a good one. If you want your church to be a political organization, just give up your tax exemption.
Most American Holidays(holydays) are derived from religion. Valentines day, Holloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc… Soon I guess if it annoys one person we should do away with these Holidays.
So long as government stays out of it, it’s nobody’s business but those who celebrate. And that’s how it should be.
 
When it outlawed prayer in public schools
Prayer is not outlawed in a public school. It’s just that the government can’t get involved. My daughter did an “at the flagpole” prayer before school every morning. No one could stop them, because the school administration wasn’t involved.

So long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public school.
 
Prayer is not outlawed in a public school. It’s just that the government can’t get involved. My daughter did an “at the flagpole” prayer before school every morning. No one could stop them, because the school administration wasn’t involved.

So long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public school.
So I may stand in a classroom before homeroom begins and say the Our Father with all who want to paticipate?

So I may sit in a lunch room at lunch time and say a prayer before meal vocally?

I may have a bible on my desk same as having a notebook on a desk is ok. if the teacher has not asked all the desks to be cleared off and am not disruptive.
 
(A brief interlude, to return to the topic of this thread.)
Let me re-read and think about this again. Of course, interpreting the Adam and Eve story literally obligates us to account for one of the genetic bottlenecks. Interpreting the Noachian flood story literally obligates us to account for another: human genetic diversity and post-diluvian animal diversity, a thing difficult to account for in only a few thousand years.
Emphasis added.

Humani Generis dismisses any claim that Catholics are obliged to accept the Adam-and-Eve story as literal history.

If the Church (‘The Catholic Church is the only the Church.’ – Lenny Bruce) teaches that the story of the Flood is literal history, I’m unaware of it. If she does, someone please cite some sources (e.g. conciliar documents, encyclicals, catechisms); opinions don’t count.

Are there religious bodies that do teach both of those stories (and the Creation story, as well) as literally true in every detail? Perhaps so, but that’s their problem. I have no interest in defending what other people believe; my concern is with the Church.
 
(A brief interlude, to return to the topic of this thread.)

Emphasis added.

Humani Generis dismisses any claim that Catholics are obliged to accept the Adam-and-Eve story as literal history.

If the Church (‘The Catholic Church is the only the Church.’ – Lenny Bruce) teaches that the story of the Flood is literal history, I’m unaware of it. If she does, someone please cite some sources (e.g. conciliar documents, encyclicals, catechisms); opinions don’t count.

Are there religious bodies that do teach both of those stories (and the Creation story, as well) as literally true in every detail? Perhaps so, but that’s their problem. I have no interest in defending what other people believe; my concern is with the Church.
The Catholic Church most certainly give direction here.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

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).
 
When it outlawed prayer in public schools

Misspelling, what I meant was the religious scenes during Christmas and other Religious Holidays(Holydays)on Public Property.
Don’t mean to be flip – but I couldn’t help thinking that maybe Christmas managers are needed especially in the crazy culture wars.😉

Maybe the Catholics who will leave their jobs because they refuse to be a part of abortion via FOCA can fill in part-time as managers.😉

Seems to me that a “Catholic” solution is needed.

Blessings,
granny

All human liffe is worthy of respect. Human life is sacred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top