Evolution a Farce?

[buffalo]

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

It has been well established over and over again that constant Catholic teaching has been Eve from Adam.

Are you expecting this to be overturned? Or do we have to reconcile this somehow?

 

[VociMike]

It has been well established over and over again that constant Catholic teaching has been Eve from Adam.

Then why isn’t it found in Humani Generis?

 

[buffalo]

Then why isn’t it found in Humani Generis?

\

Why do you think everytime the Pope issues an encyclical he has to go back and include all the past teachings? It is not necessary.

Humani Generis rules out polygenism. It states the study evolution can be pursued. It does not say it is accepted or embraced.

Whether you like it or not there is an issue here. I will await the Magisterium to tell me 2000 years of Catholic teaching was a mistake. Don’t hold your breath.

What we need to do is to reconcile this constant teaching. We can begin by helping science understand itself better. We can help by holding science to its former standard of proving things positively.

We as Catholics should make science fit into the total understanding of reality, not just its own. We should not allow scientism into the faith.

 

[VociMike]

\

Why do you think everytime the Pope issues an encyclical he has to go back and include all the past teachings? It is not necessary.

Humani Generis rules out polygenism. It states the study evolution can be pursued. It does not say it is accepted or embraced.

HG states

For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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…

Since the body of Eve was a human body, the logical conclusion is that we are not required to believe that her human body came literally from the side of Adam.

 

[buffalo]

HG states
For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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…Since the body of Eve was a human body, the logical conclusion is that we are not required to believe that her human body came literally from the side of Adam.

Is this infallible?
Is it overturning previous teachings?
Were all the previous Popes, Saints and Fathers wrong?

 

[buffalo]

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

1. Still, the purpose We have set before Us is not to recount, in detail, benefits of this kind; Our wish is rather to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God bath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)

 

[M0nkey]

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

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Thank you for this, I just remembered back in school (I went to OU) they shoved this stuff down our throats like it was the Living Gospel, and they never explained how this particular piece of information is practical, other than to give atheist an explanation to logically refute God (in my school most plp were Atheist), of course, none of us were scientist.

A question in my mind still exists, is this really evolution? Or adaptation?

 

[Orogeny]

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

1. Still, the purpose We have set before Us is not to recount, in detail, benefits of this kind; Our wish is rather to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God bath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)

Is this infallible? Does it carry more weight than Humani Generis?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

A question in my mind still exists, is this really evolution? Or adaptation?

What is the difference?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Is this infallible? Does it carry more weight than Humani Generis?

Peace

Tim

I do not know. However it is consistent with the prior 1800 years.

The recent statements are out of step. That is the question. Is this being overturned?

Again, there is an issue here that needs to be reconciled. I see too many have just ignored the past teachings and hold fast to the recent statements. Many of us have jumped onto the current bandwagon.

Should we just ignore the past teachings? Pretend they did not exist? Toss them away to a misunderstanding or Revelation?

That poses a big problem.

I submit we cannot just ignore them and any Catholic serious about mans origins should be aware of the constant teachings of the Church. I see many are ignorant and make blanket statements that are contrary to the facts.

The conversation needs to include all the facts.

 

[buffalo]

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Bendict XVI says that evolution’s strongest claim, common descent, is “virtually certain.” He also says that it cannot be proven.

Scientists would strongly agree with him. Although science never proves anything in the proper sense of “prove,” as the Pope says, it has amassed enough evidence to make it a virtual certainty.

If the teaching of the Church ruled out evolution, it seems unlikely that Pope Pius XXII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would be saying otherwise.

 

[M0nkey]

What is the difference?

The difference is in scope. Adaption takes place in the present, as cells mutate to better adapt to their habitat. Evolution takes it a step further, and claims that this series of ‘radom’ mutations, according to the enviroment, can change the species altogether over a long period of time.

 

[rossum]

Adaption takes place in the present, as cells mutate to better adapt to their habitat.

Oh dear. You should learn more about biology before posting. A cell’s DNA is pretty much set when it originates. Any mutation that happens is very likely to occur as the new cell is formed from its parent. Mutations may make a cell better adapted (rare), worse adapted (less rare) or have no effect on adaptation (common). We know that mutations are random, and not induced by the environment, because of work like the Luria-Delbrück experiment.

Evolution takes it a step further, and claims that this series of ‘radom’ mutations, according to the enviroment, can change the species altogether over a long period of time.

Evolution has evidence to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that genomes of populations change over time. If the change is large enough then separate populations can no longer interbreed. This is not a problem for creationists, as witness Answers in Genesis - Brisk Biters:Informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several (without the addition of new information, thus not ‘evolution’ as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species on the Ark emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches, often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more. The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.
Creationists need speciation in order to fit a small number of “kinds” onto the Ark, while allowing for the much larger number of different species we see in the world around us now. Not only do you need a refresher in biology, you also seem to need a refresher in creationism.

Not a good post, I am sure you can do better than this.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

The difference is in scope. Adaption takes place in the present, as cells mutate to better adapt to their habitat. Evolution takes it a step further, and claims that this series of ‘radom’ mutations, according to the enviroment, can change the species altogether over a long period of time.

Rossum already hit the major points, but can I ask you to clarify what you mean when you write “this series of ‘radom’ mutations, according to the enviroment”?

Also, could you tell me what would happen if you have “adaptation” for each generation over, say, 100 generations? Would the individuals of the 100th generation be the same as the 1st generation?

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

Any mutation that happens is very likely to occur as the new cell is formed from its parent.

Agreed. I’m no expert here (Obviosly), but that’s what I mean by ‘in the present.’

Rossum already hit the major points, but can I ask you to clarify what you mean when you write “this series of ‘radom’ mutations, according to the enviroment”?

Not sure what you are asking for here. I was running under the assumption creatures can better adapt to their enviroment. Again, not an expert, I could be wrong.

Also, could you tell me what would happen if you have “adaptation” for each generation over, say, 100 generations? Would the individuals of the 100th generation be the same as the 1st generation?

I was merely pointing out Adaptation vs. Evolution. I tend to think these changes are orchestrated by Intelligent Design, not random processes.

 

[Orogeny]

Not sure what you are asking for here. I was running under the assumption creatures can better adapt to their enviroment. Again, not an expert, I could be wrong.

Well, let me clarify my question. Do you think that evolutionary theory says that random mutation is driven by the environment?

I was merely pointing out Adaptation vs. Evolution. I tend to think these changes are orchestrated by Intelligent Design, not random processes.

I asked what the difference is. You seem to think that adaptation and evolution are two different things. My question was asked to get you to think about that. That being said, let me ask again. If you have “adaptation” for each generation over, say, 100 generations, would the individuals of the 100th generation be the same as the 1st generation? Think about it.

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

Do you think that evolutionary theory says that random mutation is driven by the environment?

That’s what I was taught by my 9th grade teacher. Of course, that was a long time ago. A lot could have changed since then. I’m sure someone will correct me here if I’m wrong.

If you have “adaptation” for each generation over, say, 100 generations, would the individuals of the 100th generation be the same as the 1st generation? Think about it.

I hope you are not implying you are the offspring of random mutations or mistakes (a freak!). To be more clear, when you think about evolution in the practical sense, (read post #63) to me it’s still not clear if this is truly evolution, and not adaptation.

May the Lord be with you.

 

[Dale_M]

Orogeny:

Do you think that evolutionary theory says that random mutation is driven by the environment?

That’s what I was taught by my 9th grade teacher. Of course, that was a long time ago. A lot could have changed since then.

I’m 50 years old and that wasn’t what I was taught. If a random mutation is adaptive (improves the fit), it tends to be selected by the environment. But the evironment doesn’t cause the mutation.

to me it’s still not clear if this is truly evolution, and not adaptation…

Evolution is the natural selection of adaptive mutations. Adaption is not outside of evolution. Do you believe in the inheritance of acquired traits e.g. a giraffe which stretches its neck to reach high leaves will pass on its longer neck to its offspring?

 

[Orogeny]

I hope you are not implying you are the offspring of random mutations or mistakes (a freak!).

Want to take a guess as to how many mutations (differences) you have compared to your parents?

To be more clear, when you think about evolution in the practical sense, (read post #63) to me it’s still not clear if this is truly evolution, and not adaptation.

So you don’t really want to answer the question. It really only needs a yes or no answer. If you have “adaptation” for each generation over, say, 100 generations, would the individuals of the 100th generation be the same as the 1st generation?

Peace

Tim