Evolution and Eve?

[GR1G1O]

I have heard it on CA Live many times about evolution. That Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they also believe that 1) mankind was created in the likeness of God and according to God’s plan. (it wasn’t chance that mankind came about) and 2) that the soul did not evolve. God creates spiritual souls of all of us individually.

So my question. In this theory, where would Eve come into play? The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

 

[Ahimsa]

I have heard it on CA Live many times about evolution. That Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they also believe that 1) mankind was created in the likeness of God and according to God’s plan. (it wasn’t chance that mankind came about) and 2) that the soul did not evolve. God creates spiritual souls of all of us individually.

So my question. In this theory, where would Eve come into play? The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

The Eve question is partially answered in your option number 1: “mankind was created in the likeness [AND image] of God and according to God’s plan”.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

If someone wants to believe Adam was a monkey destined to grow to and past what we are today, and thus Eve was a similar monkey, that is allowed, though I suggest that is not a science based theory.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Why even trouble yourself with the imaginings of men?

They cannot prove evolution which is why it remains a mere theory and always will remain a mere theory because they will never be able to bring about the evolution of a man from a ape in the laboratory which is what they would need to do to meet the requirements of the scientific method to prove something to be a fact, and even then they would only be proving that it was a possibility it would still have not proved that that was what actually happened thousands of years ago.

The truth concerning our origins is above the ability of science to discover.

 

[Angel7]

A thoery. Is something that has been given a lot of thought. and there is a lot of evidence for.
There is nothing wrong with evolution, as long as it doesn’t go against what The Church Teaches.

There is actually a lot of evidence FOR Evolution.
Over Billions and Millions of years.
Happening because of mutations.
If The Lord did create man by using evolution.
I wonder if I will ever know why.

May God Bless You

 

[rossum]

I have heard it on CA Live many times about evolution. That Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they also believe that 1) mankind was created in the likeness of God and according to God’s plan. (it wasn’t chance that mankind came about) and 2) that the soul did not evolve. God creates spiritual souls of all of us individually.

So my question. In this theory, where would Eve come into play? The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

There is currently a temporary ban on evolution threads.

1 The story of Eve and Adam’s rib may be symbolic.

2 The story of Eve and Adam’s rib may be true, since it has no detectable effects in the present, unless we find Adam’s skeleton with a missing/regrown rib.

rossum

 

[rossum]

They cannot prove evolution which is why it remains a mere theory

You are correct, but not in the way I think you mean. Scientists can never “prove” any scientific theory because all scientific theories are provisional until a better theory is found. Since we cannot know what will be discovered in future we can never know that any of our theories is final and undisprovable.

Scientists cannot prove gravity which is why it remains a mere theory.

Scientists cannot prove quantum electrodynamics which is why it remains a mere theory.

Science does not do proof, but that does not stop the theories of gravity, quantum electrodynamics and evolution being very close to the truth.

rossum

 

[cassini]

I have heard it on CA Live many times about evolution. That Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they also believe that 1) mankind was created in the likeness of God and according to God’s plan. (it wasn’t chance that mankind came about) and 2) that the soul did not evolve. God creates spiritual souls of all of us individually.

So my question. In this theory, where would Eve come into play? The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs;
and Faith succumbs to reasoning.’
Albert Pike 33º Freemason — Morals and Dogma (1871).

There was a time in the Catholic Church when the significance of the creation of Eve from Adam’s side, as well as the door in the side of Noah’s Ark, was clearly connected with the creation of the Church from the side of Christ on the cross. This magnificent theology was standard reading at the turn of the twentieth century. Take for example THE LITURGAL YEAR by Abbot Gueranger, OSB. On ‘the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus’, the Gospel tells us of the soldier who ‘opened’ the side of Jesus (not pierce or stab, but opened). This was the path chosen by God to bring the Church into the world. ‘she could not have had any other beginning than this; for it is for this His Bride, that He has acomplished all His other works. Eve was taken from Adam’s side, in figure of a future mystery; but, for the very reason of its being a type and a prediction, no trace was to be left of the fact itself.’ in the hymn fo matins we find: ‘from the wounded Heart is born the Church, the bride of Christ, this opened side is the door set in the side of the Ark for the salvation of his people.’

Today, promoted by the hoards of evolutionists in the Church for a 100 years now, many of whom today scan CAF yhreads to promote their belief in this human reasoning, this theology has gone from the Church to be replaced with rubbish like IN THE BEGINNING by one Cardinal Ratzinger back in 1981. Given Adam and Eve are presented today as a split twin zygot of some monkey that God zapped with two human souls (what happened the animal souls?), one can see how traditional theology causes only embarrassment to our scientific era. The Ark is now presented as a figment of someone’s imagination and has nothing to do with the birth of the Church from the side of Christ, the only means of salvation just as the Ark was supposed to be the only means of salvation from the global flood.

So GR1G1O, you can have a choice today, you can dismiss evolutionism as the Devil’s way of eliminating the magnificent theology of the Church, or you can believe in that system and try till the cows come home to figure out how Catholic theology can be rendered in order to conform to ‘modern science’. I know what my choice is.

 

[buffalo]

I have heard it on CA Live many times about evolution. That Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they also believe that 1) mankind was created in the likeness of God and according to God’s plan. (it wasn’t chance that mankind came about) and 2) that the soul did not evolve. God creates spiritual souls of all of us individually.

So my question. In this theory, where would Eve come into play? The bible doesn’t say how long God took to create Adam, so the time is open for discussion of evolution or instant creation. But Eve was created from Adam’s rib. So I don’t see where evolution is on Eve’s side, unless there is symbolism here. Any thoughts or insight?

**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

**Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

 

[buffalo]

**WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH

****In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.
**
It is indeed unfortunate for both the faith and the moral well-being of Western society as a whole that the theological and scientific research and discussion, permitted by Pope Pius XII in 1950, concerning the possibility of human evolution, was not brought to fruition within a few years after that permission was given.
This should have at least elicited the existence of the theological reasons, binding upon all Catholics, for the rejection of human evolution. In addition, the complex nature of the living cell discovered in 1953 emphatically pointed to intelligent design and so ruled out chance upon which evolution theories rely. Furthermore, in 1953-54 the “evidence” put forward to support the existence of the “Piltdown Man”, strongly declared to be an evolutionary predecessor of man, was found to be a forgery.

 

[thistle]

WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH

**In this essay several definitive reasons are given why an evolutionary creation of our first parents can never become part of the Deposit of Faith. This being so, it is imperative that the Catholic Church should without delay not only reject the possibility of such a creation but should also re-affirm those teachings of the Church that hold that our first parents were created as described in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 2.
**
It is indeed unfortunate for both the faith and the moral well-being of Western society as a whole that the theological and scientific research and discussion, permitted by Pope Pius XII in 1950, concerning the possibility of human evolution, was not brought to fruition within a few years after that permission was given.

					This should have at least  elicited the existence of the theological reasons, binding upon all  Catholics, for the rejection of human evolution. In addition, the  complex nature of the living cell discovered in 1953 emphatically  pointed to intelligent design and so ruled out chance upon which  evolution theories rely. Furthermore, in 1953-54 the “evidence” put  forward to support the existence of the “Piltdown Man”, strongly  declared to be an evolutionary predecessor of man, was found to be a  forgery.

We are required to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
We are required to believe that we all come from one set of parents we call “Adam and Eve”.
Neither of these beliefs contradicts evolution. Its was up to God to decide how we developed.
We are not required to believe the creation story literally, e.g. I do not believe the 6 days of creation are a literal 6 x 24 hour periods and we are not required to.

 

[buffalo]

We are required to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
We are required to believe that we all come from one set of parents we call “Adam and Eve”.
Neither of these beliefs contradicts evolution. Its was up to God to decide how we developed.
We are not required to believe the creation story literally, e.g. I do not believe the 6 days of creation are a literal 6 x 24 hour periods and we are not required to.

Do you agree with all of these:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the 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.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

 

[jimmy]

Why even trouble yourself with the imaginings of men?

They cannot prove evolution which is why it remains a mere theory and always will remain a mere theory because they will never be able to bring about the evolution of a man from a ape in the laboratory which is what they would need to do to meet the requirements of the scientific method to prove something to be a fact, and even then they would only be proving that it was a possibility it would still have not proved that that was what actually happened thousands of years ago.

The truth concerning our origins is above the ability of science to discover.

You should study the scientific method before criticizing evolution as ‘a mere theory’. We have the theory of Gravity and the atomic theory and many other theories, but no one doubts that Gravity exists or that atoms exist. A theory isn’t just a guess at a possible solution to a problem, it is the result of scientific study. You have confused a theory with a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of scientific data, while a hypothesis is an educated guess.

It is not a law because that is not how it works. Theories don’t become laws. They might produce scientific laws that are explained by mathematical equations, but the theory itself doesn’t become law. Scientists generally accept that evolution occured, the theory is in the explanation of the details.

 

[Redratfish]

‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs;
and Faith succumbs to reasoning.’
Albert Pike 33º Freemason — Morals and Dogma (1871).

So GR1G1O, you can have a choice today, you can dismiss evolutionism as the Devil’s way of eliminating the magnificent theology of the Church, or you can believe in that system and try till the cows come home to figure out how Catholic theology can be rendered in order to conform to ‘modern science’. I know what my choice is.

The devils work? I think a quote from Thomas Aquinas will help here, “Truth cannot contradict Truth” (also found in cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Evolution is the best theory out there, vestigal organs all but prove this. Whales have pelvises, we have appendixes, for what? We don’t know, but we have them. As stated before, I believe God created everything, however, he is God. He is not limited to a literal interpretation. God can create life however he sees fit.

If anything I could argue that the Devil is trying to stop Christians from finding truth. ( Hes not but it can be argued). I’ve been called many things for believing in Theistic evolution, but never a devil worshiper (as you imply).

And To Buffalo: That post you made is 90 percent of you explaining the definition of the words you use, and only 10 percent substance. I do not have time to find that 10 percent.

 

[grannymh]

The devils work? I think a quote from Thomas Aquinas will help here, “Truth cannot contradict Truth” (also found in cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus).

Thomas Aquinas gave strict qualifications to the “truth” bit.

From This Rock Magazine, November 2008, “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design”
by Michael W. Tkacz. Professor Tkacz explains:

"Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the
author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there
can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. **Provided we **
**understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, **
we will find the truth."

and

"In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with
what we learn of nature through scientific research, **provided we both **
**understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific **
**research **consistently and rigorously."

Link: www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

If someone wants to believe Adam was a monkey destined to grow to and past what we are today, and thus Eve was a similar monkey, that is allowed, though I suggest that is not a science based theory.

I would not say that Catholics are allowed to believe Adam is a monkey because Adam is a true, fully complete human person.

 

[grannymh]

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»

 

[thistle]

Do you agree with all of these:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the 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.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

1. 
   I believe and accept all the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church. When it comes to some of the disciplines I may have opinions but even then I still accept and obey.
   
   There are no teachings of the Church which contradict evolution. That is why Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution or not.

 

[grannymh]

I believe and accept all the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church. When it comes to some of the disciplines I may have opinions but even then I still accept and obey.

There are no teachings of the Church which contradict evolution. That is why Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution or not.

Yes. You are right. But what has happened in the last 15- 20 years or so is that some interpretations of various scientific studies of the human anatomy are being used against various Catholic teachings.

When in doubt, Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[rossum]

So GR1G1O, you can have a choice today, you can dismiss evolutionism as the Devil’s way of eliminating the magnificent theology of the Church, or you can believe in that system and try till the cows come home to figure out how Catholic theology can be rendered in order to conform to ‘modern science’. I know what my choice is.

I will not get into a discussion about evolution, which is currently under a temporary ban. Rather I will talk about the relation between science and scripture.

Science is the study of the material world. Physics, biology, chemistry etc. all deal with the material world. Since, in Catholic theology, God made the material world then the study of that world is also the study of God’s work, as in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1. The truths of God’s world and of God’s word cannot contradict each other. God is not inconsistent.

We cannot say that the word always overrules the word; nor can we say that the world always overrules the word. For an obvious example of the world overruling the (literal) word see Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,”

We use our knowledge of the world – we can see that trees do not have hands – to allow us to interpret the words of Isaiah as metaphor. Nobody I think interprets those words literally and accuses atheist scientists of a massive anti-Christian conspiracy to hide the fact that trees actually have hands.

However there are those who take the references to the six days of creation as literal and accuse scientists of just such a conspiracy. That is nonsense. There is no conspiracy; it is merely another case where scientists studying God’s world have enabled a better interpretation of God’s word.

Evolution can be seen as God’s way of making man’s material body. The Catholic Church allows, though it does not require, this interpretation. Those who say that God’s word always overrules God’s world have to explain why trees do not have hands.

rossum