Evolution a Farce?

[The_Catholic]

Not everybody read what I posted on the other thread, so I’m sorry for the repeated information. Eventually, I will collect all of the refutations of pro-Darwinist ideas that I’ve collected and post them somewhere. There are various points that come up all the time.

I know what you mean, i do the same thing sometimes

 

[Dale_M]

Where can I find the dogmatic teaching that Eve literally came from the side of Adam? Now that you’ve made the claim, please back it up.

Buffalo has quoted the Catechism, but you can also find it in the Bible: Gen 2:21-23

21
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
23
5 the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm

 

[VociMike]

[766](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/766.htm’) The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. "The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus."171 "For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’"172 As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.173

Obvious metaphorical language (as is made clear by the earlier use of the word “symbolized”).

 

[edwest2]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. There is nothing symbolically symbolical about it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[redhen]

I personally don’t see how this theory of evolution has further advanced research in the medical field, genetic research, stem cell research, etc. All that it does is explain away, if you are atheist, how science and religion (Truth) do not coalesce.

With all due respect, (sincerely) evolutionary theory was not concocted with the goal of discrediting God. That’s not how science works.

Here’s a list of some of the practical uses of evolutionary theory;

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

 

[VociMike]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. There is nothing symbolically symbolical about it.

Why do you do this time after time? The question is about Eve coming literally from the side of Adam. Please don’t obfuscate.

 

[buffalo]

Obvious metaphorical language (as is made clear by the earlier use of the word “symbolized”).

OK - we can go here to back it up.

Did Woman Evolve from the Beasts?
A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine
Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology,
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico

Now before you rip it apart promise you will read and refute it point by point - check out who he is quoting. You will quickly see what you are now up against.

 

[VociMike]

OK - we can go here to back it up.

Did Woman Evolve from the Beasts?
A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine
Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology,
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico

Now before you rip it apart promise you will read and refute it point by point - check out who he is quoting. You will quickly see what you are now up against.

I’m not going to read a refute a 29 page paper. I just don’t care that much. Sorry you couldn’t offer something more succinct.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not going to read a refute a 29 page paper. I just don’t care that much. Sorry you couldn’t offer something more succinct.

I just don’t care that much = concession. But you could just skim and read the quotes.

 

[VociMike]

I just don’t care that much = concession. But you could just skim and read the quotes.

No, I just don’t care that much = if that’s the best you’ve got, I doubt you’ve got much. It shouldn’t take an obscure 29 page paper to demonstrate that a teaching is dogmatic.

 

[buffalo]

No, I just don’t care that much = if that’s the best you’ve got, I doubt you’ve got much. It shouldn’t take an obscure 29 page paper to demonstrate that a teaching is dogmatic.

No one on this forum has successfully challenged its content. I knew you wouldn’t be able to either.

It is true and you have to deal with it.

 

[reggieM]

I would highly recommend reading anything by Fr. Brian Harrison. He is one of the finest theologians in the Church today. He is very careful and specific when he makes his case – and he is orthodox and faithful in his belief.

 

[The_Catholic]

Adam and Eve were our first parents. There is nothing symbolically symbolical about it.

Peace,
Ed

And the earth is flat. Ha ha, just teasing friend :whacky:

 

[buffalo]

And the earth is flat. Ha ha, just teasing friend :whacky:

Have you fallen for the myth of the flat earth. too?

 

[VociMike]

No one on this forum has successfully challenged its content. I knew you wouldn’t be able to either.

Your self-proclaimed victory is a small one. I’m not a theologian. I have no idea if your paper is gold or garbage. So your point is?

My point, to repeat, is that any dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church should not require a single obscure 29 page paper to demonstrate the teaching to be dogmatic.

It is true and you have to deal with it.

If it’s true then give me something better than an obscure 29 page paper. I’m Catholic, I want to believe all Catholic dogma. So convince me. But don’t expect me to believe that the only proof of a dogmatic teaching is found in a single obscure paper. That’s a preposterous assertion and one that reeks of quackdom.

 

[The_Catholic]

Have you fallen for the myth of the flat earth. too?

Hehe, ya I know, I’ve read this already. But still, there was a time when some people believed the earth was flat, and that the earth rested on top of a god’s shoulders, etc.

 

[buffalo]

Your self-proclaimed victory is a small one. I’m not a theologian. I have no idea if your paper is gold or garbage. So your point is?

My point, to repeat, is that any dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church should not require a single obscure 29 page paper to demonstrate the teaching to be dogmatic.

If it’s true then give me something better than an obscure 29 page paper. I’m Catholic, I want to believe all Catholic dogma. So convince me. But don’t expect me to believe that the only proof of a dogmatic teaching is found in a single obscure paper. That’s a preposterous assertion and one that reeks of quackdom.

Yeah, the trinity is simple, too. The mysteries of faith are simple. I could go on.

When a paper or a thousand papers gathers up the facts what else do you need? Is repetition the proof you need? How then do you believe in the Resurrection?

First you asked for a simple and succint article, I gave you more, completely footnoted and you trash it.

I gave you a Catechism quote and you doubted that.

But since you persist I will try and help.
Where is Evolution in Catholic Teaching?

 

[VociMike]

Yeah, the trinity is simple, too. The mysteries of faith are simple. I could go on.

When a paper or a thousand papers gathers up the facts what else do you need? Is repetition the proof you need? How then do you believe in the Resurrection?

I can find the Resurrection in the Nicene Creed. That’s what I mean by succinct. Can I find that Eve literally came from Adam’s side in the Creed?

First you asked for a simple and succint article, I gave you more, completely footnoted and you trash it.

No, I didn’t trash it. I said that I was unqualified to assess it. If you offered me a 29 page legal argument I would also be unqualified to assess that. If you offered me a 29 page theory in advanced physics I would also be unable to assess that. So, I must rely on authority. Show me a council or papal statement that says Eve literally came from the side of Adam. That I would accept on authority. Your 29 page paper I do not accept on authority.

I gave you a Catechism quote and you doubted that.

No, I argued, quite reasonably, that it was speaking metaphorically, based in part on the explicit use of the word “symbolically” in the text.

 

[buffalo]

Your self-proclaimed victory is a small one. I’m not a theologian. I have no idea if your paper is gold or garbage. So your point is?

My point, to repeat, is that any dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church should not require a single obscure 29 page paper to demonstrate the teaching to be dogmatic.

If it’s true then give me something better than an obscure 29 page paper. I’m Catholic, I want to believe all Catholic dogma. So convince me. But don’t expect me to believe that the only proof of a dogmatic teaching is found in a single obscure paper. That’s a preposterous assertion and one that reeks of quackdom.

Here is a short summary:

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be
Adam.)
· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall
(Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have
originated via evolution.
· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason
dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had
remained obedient (Pius XII).
· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second
Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican
Council I).
· We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or
morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
· All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.
(Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been
created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
· Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
· Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of
evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[PhilVaz]

Or to make Catholic dogma even clearer, here are the De Fide statements from Ludwig Ott. There are other statements less definitive, but these are all De Fide –

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

Even Ludwig Ott said (originally in the 1950s mind you) that evolution stands or falls based on the scientific evidence (“on weighty grounds”), that Genesis need not be interpreted literally, that “special creation” applies to the human soul, that human evolution does not contradict Catholic dogma, and that theistic evolution is compatible with divine revelation and is probably our best option.

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures…The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible.” (Ott, pages 93-94, 95)

Phil P