EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[Orogeny]

But you also agreed below that somebody who knows more about evolution than you do would also be correct.

Both you, and the guy who knows more than you can’t have contradictory conclusions and both be correct.

Try reading my post again, ricmat, and make your point based on what I wrote not what you wanted me to say.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

I was wondering if in all these pages of discussion anyone has brought up the idea that evolution seems to contradict the fact that the universe is in a fallen state because of original sin? If evolution is true then wouldn’t that mean death must have existed from the beginning?

Death has existed from the beginning of life on earth, and so has species extinction. Individual organisms have finite lifespans, and 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Death and extinction are part of the cost of living.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Try reading my post again, ricmat, and make your point based on what I wrote not what you wanted me to say.

Peace

Tim

OK - here’s the post:

Ricmat said:

You know more about evolution than I do. Does that make you correct?

You said:

If I know more about evolution than you do, it makes it much more likely that I am correct than it is that you are correct when we are discussing evolution.

 Quote: Ricmat said:

                                              What about the guy who knows more about evolution than you do, and disagrees with you. Does that make him correct?

And you said:

Most likely.

So if the guy who knows more about evolution than you happens to agree with me, you “most likely” have a logical contradiction here.

The point I’m trying to make is the whole “I know more than you so that makes me correct” is not a good way to look at things. Remember Lord Kelvin and the Wright Bros.

 

[Orogeny]

Here is what you originally wrote:

Both you, and the guy who knows more than you can’t have contradictory conclusions and both be correct.

This is your updated version:

So if the guy who knows more about evolution than you happens to agree with me, you “most likely” have a logical contradiction here.

Interesting that they are not the same.

The point I’m trying to make is the whole “I know more than you so that makes me correct” is not a good way to look at things.

You know, there is a reason I qualified my answer. It may not have made a difference to you and you can look for a “gotcha” all you want, but it doesn’t change the truism that I wrote - when discussing a topic (any topic), the person with more knowledge of the topic is more likely to be correct than the person with less knowledge of the topic. You can disagree with that all you want and call it pride. It doesn’t matter.

Peace

Tim

 

[SedesDomi]

That is not how the Church understood it for nearly 2000 years. All the Church fathers, saints and doctors of the Church understand it in the literal sense. What makes us think that we are now somehow know better and can freely contradict them?

Are you saying that “spiritual death” is not a literal death? I would suggest that spiritual death is the most literal death there is.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It won’t be that hard to admit that pride can get in the way of reasoning, will it? Even if its just a smidgeon?

That would apply equally to those who aren’t educated in the subject. Some have a perverse pride in being ignorant, or worse, assume they know what they don’t.

Perhaps all of us should consider the possibility that we might be wrong.

And old Jewish saying is that it’s not a sin to be poor, but it’s no great honor, either. That goes for ignorance and education.

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It won’t be that hard to admit that pride can get in the way of reasoning, will it? Even if its just a smidgeon?

Just do it.

That would apply equally to those who aren’t educated in the subject. Some have a perverse pride in being ignorant, or worse, assume they know what they don’t.

Correct!

Perhaps all of us should consider the possibility that we might be wrong.

 

[ricmat]

Here is what you originally wrote:This is your updated version:Interesting that they are not the same.

You asked me to re-read your post, and I did. I changed the wording to try and clarify the point I was making.

You know, there is a reason I qualified my answer. It may not have made a difference to you and you can look for a “gotcha” all you want, but it doesn’t change the truism that I wrote - when discussing a topic (any topic), the person with more knowledge of the topic is more likely to be correct than the person with less knowledge of the topic. You can disagree with that all you want and call it pride. It doesn’t matter.

Peace

Tim

I’m neither disagreeing with you nor calling it pride.

In general, I agree that the person with the most knowledge is more likely to be correct. My counter point is that you can almost always find a person B with more knowledge than A, then a person C with more knowledge than B, etc. and they don’t always agree. So unless you give a global-wide test of knowledge to find out who knows the most, there will always be a disagreement about who is right. And even if you’ve found the guy who knows the most, some new facts may come in tomorrow and change the whole situation anyway.

Your point, I think was that one needs to make decisions based on practical concerns. In general I agree with that as well. But when one starts to talk about things being 100% correct, or being absolute Truth, or theories having no flaws, then I believe that it is dangerous ground to stand on that science can’t support. BTW I don’t know where you stand (no pun intended) on those things but they have been mentioned in these threads recently.

And as a separate BTW - In terms of pride…we all have more than we need, but there are some others out there who seem to take pride in their pride (which neither of us do).

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you saying that “spiritual death” is not a literal death? I would suggest that spiritual death is the most literal death there is.

But life forms between 3.5 Ga BP and the rise of humans were presumably subject only to physical death.

 

[edwest2]

To grannymh,

“we might be wrong” is a common opoinion related phrase on the internet. For Catholics, it is not worth saying (or writing) in light of absolute truth. It is not a definition of humility. There is absolute right and absolute wrong as taught by the Church. I don’t think anyone would tell the Pope, well, you know, you might be wrong, about things held in the deposit of faith.

Thos who have itching ears and who heap up for themselves teachers are always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the Truth. That truth is taught by the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Me too, but that wasn’t the question.

You see, buffalo, I take offense by your post regarding pride. I think that is a clear attack on people with an education (including myself since it was my post you were replying to) and it was both uncharitable and uncalled for.

I worked hard to get my meager education. I am proud of what I was able to accomplish but I am not a prideful person regardless of what others on this forum think, but you clearly painted me and everyone else with educations with a very broad brush.

I am not ignorant about science but some other posters on this forum are. Am I prideful to point out to them that they are wrong? Should I just ignore that which I worked hard to understand because some person insists that the earth is the center of the universe or that some quack from France decided to lie to people that don’t understand geology?

Am I prideful if I correct someone who is pro-abortion?

I consider you a friend so I will forgive that slight whether you meant it or not.

Peace

Tim

Then I was attacking myself, too.

I don’t think it was uncharitable. (True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.) You pointed it out in your comment about abortion. Bottom line, each of us has to examine** ourselves** to see if we are guilty of the sin of pride.

I mentioned no names in my comment. I am quite surprised at the reaction.

And likewise it is important to point out to those who don’t know what the Catholic church has taught. Your back is up. People learned in theology backs are up to. That is the issue. Hopefully it will all be reconciled soon. And as you know my concern is the origins of man specifically.

Hopefully I remain your friend. I am sorry.

 

[SedesDomi]

But life forms between 3.5 Ga BP and the rise of humans were presumably subject only to physical death.

True, and I would suggest that when Genesis talks about Adam and Eve bringing “death” into the world, that the “death” referred to is spiritual death, since “physical death” had already been present for at least 3 billion years.

 

[StAnastasia]

True, and I would suggest that when Genesis talks about Adam and Eve bringing “death” into the world, that the “death” referred to is spiritual death, since “physical death” had already been present for at least 3 billion years.

That makes good theological sense to me, and it certainly fits the science.

 

[Discerner]

Odd then, that the Church never made it a doctrine.

Barbarian,

From my trusty Catechism:

Section 1008: "Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as **authentic interpreter **of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered. (quotes from Guadium et Spes (VII Documents))

Even suffering, which includes the suffering of all beings did not exist before sin.

Section 1521: …Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

Once again, evolution requires suffering and death from the beginning of Creation.  The Church has always maintained that God being entirely good created an original world of perfect harmony, beauty, and justice.  Only the fallen world brought forth fierce animals, toxic plants, etc.

Until evolution is a proven fact, I trust in the Church’s timeless teaching.

 

[Discerner]

True, and I would suggest that when Genesis talks about Adam and Eve bringing “death” into the world, that the “death” referred to is spiritual death, since “physical death” had already been present for at least 3 billion years.

See my post 754 for the teaching from the CCC. It states quite clearly that death means literal bodily death.

 

[StAnastasia]

Even suffering, which includes the suffering of all beings did not exist before sin.

I’m not sure how you avoid suffering, since for much of the time of life on earth before “Adam” and “Eve” the creatures that died through predation or accident were furnished with nervous systems.

 

[rad314]

From my trusty Catechism: . . .

Read in context, I think those passages mean that if Adam had not sinned, Man would not have suffered or died. Remember that Adam was the first ‘true man’, in Pius XII’s words – the first physically human-like creature with an immortal soul.

Also, those passages deal with Man. Whether other creatures suffered and died is beside the point.

 

[Discerner]

I’m not sure how you avoid suffering, since for much of the time of life on earth before “Adam” and “Eve” the creatures that died through predation or accident were furnished with nervous systems.

That’s the whole point. According to Church teaching, there was no suffering before sin. Neither human nor animal. In other words, the world “de-volved” because of evil and sin. God is perfect in every way beyond our comprehension. He didn’t create an imperfect world, but a perfect one because God is incapable of imperfection. A world with suffering would be imperfect.

Don’t ask me how these things are possible, I’m just telling you what the teaching of the Magisterium is about this whole subject. They have the authoritative interpretation. Maybe they’re nervous systems were not the “fallen” nervous systems that we understand.

All of this stuff simply transcends science. This is extremely hard for us to accept in our time.

We have to be humble and acknowledge that the works of God our light years above what we can conceive of. We can still seek truth in the sciences, but part of us has to admit that it’s all over our heads, because our “heads” are in a fallen state! Many of today’s scientists deny God’s existance and worship their own fallen intellects and convince others to do the same.

 

[Discerner]

Read in context, I think those passages mean that if Adam had not sinned, Man would not have suffered or died. Remember that Adam was the first ‘true man’, in Pius XII’s words – the first physically human-like creature with an immortal soul.

Also, those passages deal with Man. Whether other creatures suffered and died is beside the point.

I'll look at it again, maybe I am reading it out of context.

 

[Discerner]

Read in context, I think those passages mean that if Adam had not sinned, Man would not have suffered or died. Remember that Adam was the first ‘true man’, in Pius XII’s words – the first physically human-like creature with an immortal soul.

Also, those passages deal with Man. Whether other creatures suffered and died is beside the point.

This is Section 400 of the CCC:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286