Evolution and Original Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me, that you accept what you call science, which is not all of science but just a part.

Referring to the title of this thread. You promote evolution but appear to deny original sin.

Catholics believe original sin is a fact, not a philosophical fact, not a symbolic fact, but a fact.

Science, as you call it, denies a fundamental fact. You want me to recognize the horse that pulls the carriage but you are ignoring the driver.

Peace,
Ed
 
The biology textbook does not include divine providence. It clearly presents evolution as a purely natural, chance and necessity only, theory. That’s not what the Church teaches. That is the whole point of this discussion.

Biology text - natural processes only.

Catholic Church - natural processes with divine providence only.

That is where the disagreement comes in. This is where atheists can stand up and say: “Look! No God needed. Period.”
What if the biology text book comments on the likelihood of evolution happening by chance. How likely or unlikely is life from a natural biological point of view. Then people can make their own decisions about whether this is something miraculous or something random or necessary.
 
And that is not in contrast to the science of evolution. Evolution does not exclude divine providence.Do you want biology taught?Fine. Quit requiring that God be taught as a mechanism then.A position which I don’t remember you affirming.Of couse not. Why would we? Of course, that is a straw man when injected into this discussion.It isn’t, but it is the topic of this thread. Why is it that you deny science? Remember, faith and reason are compatable.

Peace

Tim
It seems to me there is evolution - the science and evolution the worldview. I believe that is what ed is referring too. Right Ed?
 
Reg << I’ll just quote from an ardent Catholic-Darwinist who posted this here: >>

PhilVaz << From PhilVaz: After 3+ years of discussing this subject in here, I still don’t have good answers to the theological objections. I simply affirm macroevolution, affirm traditional Catholic dogma, and say I don’t know how to completely reconcile. >>

Well since you are quoting me, I’ll quote and update myself as of May 2008:

After 19+ years of discussing this subject in here 😃 , I still don’t have good answers to the theological objections. I simply affirm macroevolution, affirm traditional Catholic dogma, and say I don’t know how to completely reconcile.

And you know what, you’ll see the Pope and the Cardinal (Schonborn) agree with me. Read their books, I now have them both:

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith

Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI

They do not try to reconcile a historical-literal Adam/Eve and/or “no death before the Fall” (e.g. or other “De Fide” doctrines, etc) with the modern biological theory of evolution. That’s what I’m talking about trying to reconcile. They simply affirm the science (i.e. evolution, including human evolution, is a fact and the best theory that explains all the data, etc), affirm Catholic dogma (i.e. the Catechism about Adam/Eve, etc), and suggest the questions and problems to reconcile are philosophical in nature, not scientific. Since I am not a trained philosopher is probably why I don’t have or don’t understand what would be a complete resolution to this. Although there is a lot in Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God that attempts some explanations.

And I am working on a new creation-evolution article you’ll be glad to know

Catholics and Bad Arguments Against Evolution

I am also doing a review on my William Lane Craig debates, so this may take some time. 👍

Phil P
 
Hi buffalo,

You know, at one time, this whole theory of evolution concept was pretty straightforward for Catholics: God and whatever science uncovers are linked.

Very recently, it has become a point of contention. And I am inclined to believe it has very little to do with science. Example: Republicans don’t believe in evolution. That’s like saying all people with red hair don’t believe in evolution. Another example: the current administration has been accused of manipulating science for ideological ends. That’s like saying all or most politicians will do, say or manipulate anything if it means a vote for them or their party or whatever cause they are standing behind. Now this happens to be true.

Why do I deny science? Why is that so important, especially now?

I believe it has less to do with science and more to do with evangelizing a worldview where religion, all the major religions, are pushed aside so that science is put in charge.

The problem with that? Fallible and imperfect humans will be in charge. To quote from an old movie: “I’ll believe whatever you tell me to as long as there’s a steady paycheck in it.”

Self-interest becomes more important than God interest. Every religion is pushed aside so that all powerful, all true, all factual science will be put in its place. However, the same human beings who are willing to lie, manipulate and say they are for whatever it is the voters think they should be for will still be around. The manipulation is an eternal feature of human history. From Stalin’s new man to the modern “new normal.”

I write this in all sincerity: more people are interested in finding a way to separate you from your money and, more importantly, from what you believe, so that you can better be used to serve in the system which they will create for you.

Since people have been telling me “we’re all just animals,” no rules actually apply to them. They have the freedom and a tremendous number of ‘rights’ that include killing the unborn, the sick, the elderly, and the inconvenient. Instead of cooperation, elimination. Instead of a community of shared values, an anarchist fantasy where individuals are told they are free in a media saturated environment that tells them what to think, what to wear, how to talk and how to behave.

Tolerance becomes a one-way street. The Christian values upon which the United States is based are denied as if they never existed in the first place. Religious tolerance becomes intolerance for all religion. This, partly because naturalism tells you that the only evidence you have is the biology textbook. The revelation of God is a fantasy. Therefore, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

Once that fantasy takes hold, there is no basis for a true morality outside of ‘scientific’ constructs developed by some expert that will be overturned a short while later by another ‘expert’ who will take out his research and say, “See. I’m right.” To be followed by experts to infinity.

“But we’re talking about science here! All of that is irrelevant!”

If man confronted the fact that he does, in fact, carry original sin, he would realize the fault of our first parents and then he would realize why Jesus Christ was born, lived and died for each of us. He would also realize that God is real, which is something the Catholic Church tells us man can know through natural reason.

So when anyone says faith and reason are compatible, what I believe they are really saying is: “Believe in evolution! God… yeah, OK, whatever. The important thing is that you believe in evolution.”

God is an afterthought, trivia, unimportant. As Pope Benedict recently stated: “Today, religion counts for nothing.” This in reference to secularism in the Western world. Now where do you think that secularism came from? And how are most of those people behaving now that they are ‘free’ of the inside of the Church building?

God bless,
Ed
 
I am comfortable with atheism…
Have you thought out the impact of what you just said here?

Your saying it’s ok to rape and murder your loved one. :mad: If not what universal moral code that is recognized by all atheists says it’s wrong, and don’t lean on God’s laws and morality to bail you out.?

Have you ever considered that the quality of life you have now is due in the most part by the majority who have agreed to adhere to a Deictic moral code?

Andy
 
It seems to me, that you accept what you call science, which is not all of science but just a part.
No, evolution is not all of science but the same rules for science pertain to evolution. You want to make evolution as something that it is not.
Referring to the title of this thread. You promote evolution but appear to deny original sin.
You have a very sore lack of reading comprehension then. You and I have discussed this before. You either have forgotten, didn’t understand what I wrote at the time or are willfully ignoring what I have written. I am Catholic. I accept the teaching of the Church.
Catholics believe original sin is a fact, not a philosophical fact, not a symbolic fact, but a fact.
I guess that would apply to me, then.
Science, as you call it, denies a fundamental fact. You want me to recognize the horse that pulls the carriage but you are ignoring the driver.
No, science as you configure it in your head denies a fundamental fact. Science clearly does not.

Peace

Tim
 
Science as I configure it? No. I’ll take some time here to provide you with the words and even motivations of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn regarding this subject:

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html

“… he and the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin’s theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.”

Pope Benedict: “Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!”

“This… inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science… where does this rationality come from?” he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the “creative reason” of God.

Please note the reference to “many scientists.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Science as I configure it? No. I’ll take some time here to provide you with the words and even motivations of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn regarding this subject:
Yes, as you configure it. That is the problem.

Many other scientists hold that God is the Creator of everything. They both are arguing from positions of faith, not science. You are factually incorrect when you chant “evolution kicks out God”. It does no such thing. The worst part is that you know it.

Peace

Tim
 
Pope Benedict writes a book and Cardinal Schoenborn writes as well about this subject.

I agree with their motivations. I understand their concern. I agree with them 100%.

You are apparently disagreeing with them.

Peace,
Ed
 
Pope Benedict writes a book and Cardinal Schoenborn writes as well about this subject.

I agree with their motivations. I understand their concern. I agree with them 100%.

You are apparently disagreeing with them.

Peace,
Ed
Nope, you don’t because they (at least Pope Benedict) accepts the science side of the discussion. You don’t.

Peace

Tim
 
Why are you changing the subject Tim? The Pope and the principal author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are compelled to address the “many scientists” who point out the theory of evolution negates a role for God.

That is my primary concern. It should be a concern of all Catholics.

I don’t know if I’ve made this clear in the past, but the only authority I trust to advise me about evolution, the science and its directly connected worldview, is the Catholic Church, not scientists.

As I wrote about a few posts previous, I see evidence that individuals, primarily politicians and the media, are committed to a “we are all animals” worldview fueled by anti-God, naturalistic science. I encourage you to take a look at the secular-media’s 24 hour messages. Nihilism, materialism, and naturalism.

You seem to think the Catholic Church has nothing to say about non-religious issues. The Church is not just interested in saving souls but advancing the dignity of the human being. By studying science through its own Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

It is a big mistake to think the Catholic Church’s only role in the lives of its followers is determining which way the priest should face, how many times people should genuflect and which days are holy days.

The naturalistic, we are all animals worldview fantasy is being vigorously promoted. The Catholic Church has a bioethics association, it is a voice in public policy and it is a voice in science.

The Catholic Church deals with the complete human being, physical and spiritual. I respectfully suggest you should consider that. When Human Persons Created in the Image of God states that evolution without divine providence cannot exist, I believe that as a true, factual spiritual and scientific statement. That’s right, a real fact.

Peace,
Ed
 
Why are you changing the subject Tim? The Pope and the principal author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are compelled to address the “many scientists” who point out the theory of evolution negates a role for God.
I’m not changing the subject, you just can’t answer the obvious issues I have brought up.
I don’t know if I’ve made this clear in the past, but the only authority I trust to advise me about evolution, the science and its directly connected worldview, is the Catholic Church, not scientists.
We know, Ed. However, you only seem to apply that to evolution and not thermodynamics or relativity. Why is that, Ed?
As I wrote about a few posts previous, I see evidence that individuals, primarily politicians and the media, are committed to a “we are all animals” worldview fueled by anti-God, naturalistic science. I encourage you to take a look at the secular-media’s 24 hour messages. Nihilism, materialism, and naturalism.
And none of that has to do with science.
You seem to think the Catholic Church has nothing to say about non-religious issues. The Church is not just interested in saving souls but advancing the dignity of the human being. By studying science through its own Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
No, the Church accepts the science of evolution. Do you really think that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences reject evolution? Really?
It is a big mistake to think the Catholic Church’s only role in the lives of its followers is determining which way the priest should face, how many times people should genuflect and which days are holy days.
So it’s a good thing that isn’t what I think.
The naturalistic, we are all animals worldview fantasy is being vigorously promoted. The Catholic Church has a bioethics association, it is a voice in public policy and it is a voice in science.
And that voice accepts the science of evolution.
The Catholic Church deals with the complete human being, physical and spiritual. I respectfully suggest you should consider that. When Human Persons Created in the Image of God states that evolution without divine providence cannot exist, I believe that as a true, factual spiritual and scientific statement. That’s right, a real fact.
Yeah, all but the evolution part. You reject science, remember. You said so yourself.

Peace

Tim
 
Interesting play on words Tim when you write “You reject science.” Everyone reading this knows that is not a factual statement. The word is “evolution” not “science.”

There was a period when Catholics lived in a more black and white world. I was there. Your insistence on evangelizing for evolution seems to have no obvious motivation. I have to assume that the primary motivation of those posting daily or frequently on the internet, promoting evolution (as opposed to coal gasification), has zero to do with science.

I deal with many people and in the end, motivations generally don’t revolve around promoting the truth but a cause, usually political. If you want, I’d be curious to know what cause you are promoting. Your knee-jerk reaction (imitated on many other internet sites) is “keep your beliefs out of my science classroom.” I’m not interested in joining the local school board infiltration conspiracy.

Peace,
Ed
 
Interesting play on words Tim when you write “You reject science.” Everyone reading this knows that is not a factual statement. The word is “evolution” not “science.”
You are right. You didn’t write “reject”, you wrote:
Why do I deny science? Why is that so important, especially now?

I believe it has less to do with science and more to do with evangelizing a worldview where religion, all the major religions, are pushed aside so that science is put in charge.
So were you misleading then or now?
I was there. Your insistence on evangelizing for evolution seems to have no obvious motivation. I have to assume that the primary motivation of those posting daily or frequently on the internet, promoting evolution (as opposed to coal gasification), has zero to do with science.
I’m not here to evangelize evolution. Evolution is science, not faith and therefore needs no evangelization. And, just in case you haven’t noticed, the topics on this forum are typically about evolution, not coal gassification. If you would like to discuss that, we can, but that would need to be another thread.
I deal with many people and in the end, motivations generally don’t revolve around promoting the truth but a cause, usually political. If you want, I’d be curious to know what cause you are promoting.
My cause is to let people know that, contrary to your narrow view of Catholicism, one can be a solid Catholic AND accept science.
Your knee-jerk reaction (imitated on many other internet sites) is “keep your beliefs out of my science classroom.” I’m not interested in joining the local school board infiltration conspiracy.
No, you just want biology out of the curriculum. For that matter, for you to be consistent, you should also want to ban all science teaching because NO science uses God as an explanation, a point that you have spent a lot of time dodging.

Peace

Tim
 
I haven’t dodged anything. If the only real article of faith I have to believe is evolution, it makes me even more skeptical that any of these discussions are about science. Not just here but elsewhere on the internet.

It also makes me more skeptical about evolution itself, especially when I read the writings of atheist scientists and the posts on atheist forums.

No. This is only about ideology, as Cardinal Schoenborn has rightly pointed out.

When the LA Times calls the papacy of Pope John Paul II a “reign of terror,” it clarifies my observations.

Peace,
Ed
 
After 19+ years of discussing this subject in here 😃 , I still don’t have good answers to the theological objections. I simply affirm macroevolution, affirm traditional Catholic dogma, and say I don’t know how to completely reconcile.
I wasn’t disagreeing with your conclusion, but rather using your quote as evidence that there is, indeed, a potential conflict (at least unreconciled for now) between science and Catholicism.

That is the way I see it also. I wouldn’t say that science and traditional Catholic dogma *cannot *be reconciled. But I think you point out that anyone who claims that there’s “no conflict between science and the Catholic Faith” has not considered this particular problem (or has redefined science and/or the Catholic Faith in some unique way).
 
Evolution does not exclude divine providence.
I think the concern is that the Holy See has taught that some theories of evolution deny divine providence.
In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
I think it’s difficult to ask Catholics to just dismiss this statement from the Magisterium of the Church – or to simply offer a counter statement that contradicts this.
 
Hello reggie,

Those who promote evolution act as if the theory exists in a vacuum. But all manmade artifacts, including science, are absorbed into the culture. Fixing a doorknob or a water faucet does not extend into philosophy or theology, but the origin of the human being does. To say things are unresolved is akin to saying divine revelation is a constantly changing realm of reason, without certain fixed points. This was why Pope John Paul II could look at evolutionary science, and consider it, but only in reference to those fixed points.

Referring again to Pope John Paul II. He clearly rejected materialist only explanations for the existence of man since they did not ground the dignity of the human person.

This is clear. Only those who wish to ignore, or subvert, the truths held by the Catholic Church think, or pretend to think, otherwise.

God bless,
Ed
 
because NO science uses God as an explanation
Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton to name a few all wrote scientific texts with God as an explanation for various aspects of nature and the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top