Evolution according to the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter tori2323
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe its that Evolution is God creating - the whole evolution of the universe is Gods creation in the works - in other words its continuing. Why is that not plausible. What we have seen and found out seems to point in that direction.
 
I think what is at stake has more to do with “emergence” than anything else… The immaterial soul is created immediately by God - the soul (or what seems to be a soul) does not come to be due to an increase in the sophistication of neural networks… That’s impossible.
 
Please, to spare poor Freddy more distress can everyone continue this thread aware of these facts:
  1. Evolution is itself a fact. We know this because DNA is (in all but rare circumstances) transmitted by descent. All living things share DNA and other genetic material. Therefore all are related by descent.
  2. The theory(ies) of evolution are about the processes by which genetic material changes across generations giving rise to the many forms of life we can observe. It is not a ‘theory’ in the sense of a hypothesis, that evolution occurs. That is a fact (see 1)
  3. Moneys and people, like all living things share common ancestors. Just as we, and my pot plant, share ancestors, so do we and monkeys. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. However, many Americans (alone in the English-speaking world as far as I can see) use the word ‘monkey’ to describe bot apes and monkeys. If they mean that, they are right, we did descend from monkeys.And for those of us who are parents, so did our children since we ourselves are primates, or great apes.
  4. The Catholic Church generally views the world and all things in it as resulting from an act of creation, or acts of creation in some cases as each human is said to be individually created by God. However, the Church has no view on how this happens.
  5. There are one or two fairly obscure Catholic teachings, rarely reinforced, that are difficult to square with modern knowledge about evolution such as the existence of two first humans, Adam and Eve. But people seem to manage to do it.
  6. About now someone in the thread will ask how come something can come from nothing and how do we prove the big bang. This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all. It’s different science about a different thing. Everyone accepts that there was ‘something’ before life and evolution began.
Hope that helps. Good luck, Freddy! 🙂
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
Which story in Genesis got the sequence wrong?
Click to expand...
I seem to remember there was light before the sun. However that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Snakes starting out with legs was pretty accurate though, and confirmed by evolutionary studies and morphology.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
Freddy:
They didn’t. The sequence is completely wrong
Click to expand...
Which story in Genesis got the sequence wrong?
Click to expand...
On the third day He created ‘grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself’.

Grasses and flowering plants didn’t appear until after animals appeared. Certainly not fruit trees.

On the fifth day He created fishes, whales and birds. Birds didn’t appear until after mammals and whales likewise.

On the sixth He created animals and insects. But insects appeared at about the same time as the fish.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
I seem to remember there was light before the sun. However that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Snakes starting out with legs was pretty accurate though, and confirmed by evolutionary studies and morphology.
Click to expand...
Yes in Genesis light occurs before first and second generation stars.
Ah the serpent in the garden.

My comment was in response to freddy. Which account was he referring to as being out of sequence and why.

@Freddy Freddy which account are you referring to?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I haven’t suggested that He isn’t. I’m just pointing out that what is described in Genesis is creation. Not evolution.
Click to expand...
Nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution. When The Lord says let the earth bring forth all creatures, does this contradict evolution?
 
Freddy said:
40.png
mary77:
Evolution is what we do all our life, physically and spiritually. The world we know will end and we will still not know all there is to know about our creation . That the book of Genesis speaks of evolution is itself a miracle.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say anything about evolution. It speaks of creation. The two are diametrically opposed views of how we came to be.
Click to expand...
Creation isn’t necessarily *Creationism".
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
I seem to remember there was light before the sun. However that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Snakes starting out with legs was pretty accurate though, and confirmed by evolutionary studies and morphology.
Click to expand...
Yes in Genesis light occurs before first and second generation stars.
Ah the serpent in the garden.

My comment was in response to freddy. Which account was he referring to as being out of sequence and why.

@Freddy Freddy which account are you referring to?
Click to expand...
It’s in the post directly above the one in which you asked the question.
 
hazza590 said:
40.png
Freddy:
I haven’t suggested that He isn’t. I’m just pointing out that what is described in Genesis is creation. Not evolution.
Click to expand...
Nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution. When The Lord says let the earth bring forth all creatures, does this contradict evolution?
Click to expand...
In the order it did so…yes.
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
mary77:
Evolution is what we do all our life, physically and spiritually. The world we know will end and we will still not know all there is to know about our creation . That the book of Genesis speaks of evolution is itself a miracle.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say anything about evolution. It speaks of creation. The two are diametrically opposed views of how we came to be.
Click to expand...
Creation isn’t necessarily *Creationism".
Click to expand...
I thought it would have been obvious that I’m talking about ‘creationism’. Which is a term devisd to describe creation as detailed in Genesis.
 
hazza590 said:
Nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution. When The Lord says let the earth bring forth all creatures, does this contradict evolution?
Click to expand...
As Freddy has pointed out the time sequence for the emergence of different forms of life as given in Genesis contradicts what he know from biological science, let alone evolution. It also fails to mention any extinct creatures, or microscopic creatures or to recognise, say, that whales are mammals and that marsupials exist. While knowledge of these things would not have been available to the originator(s) of Genesis if it is to be claimed that they were inspired by God it is necessary to provide an explanation for these answers as God provided information about other unseen and unknown things like angels.
 
Last edited:
Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.
Click to expand...
And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.
 
There is no science to say how abiogenesis could happen, that is life from no life. Somehow life has to come into existence before it can evolve.
 
Freddy said:
40.png
OurLadyofSorrows:
Ah, you know chapter 2 and its creation account is older, right.

I find your literal reading of 1 quite interesting, given you are an atheist.
Click to expand...
And I find it interesting that someone could have thought that it decribes evolution when it plainly doesn’t. It describes creation. Oops…my bad. Creationism.
Click to expand...
Well, not necessarily. It depends on your approach to the text.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top