Evolution In The Classroom

[gearhead]

When did Darwin’s book come out? It wasn’t hundreds of years ago.

On the Origin of Species came out 150 years ago this year, but the idea of evolution pre-dated Darwin. Lamarck also acknowledged evolution in works he published 200 years ago, and aspects of it are in work by others such as Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who published his works in the 1700s.

(Note: the idea of evolution by descent with modification wasn’t new when Darwin published his theories. Lamarck’s theories were similar; the main difference was that Lamarck believed that how an organism lived could affect the inheritable traits it would pass on to its offspring. What Darwin did was identify the mechanisms involved in evolution as we now know it.)

The Church has always spoken cautiously about it and the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s showed that other Christian groups didn’t like the idea either. So please don’t come off like this is some simple problem.

Sure - the Bible literalist Protestant groups didn’t like it. Is the Catholic Church Bible literalist?

It is precisely an us vs them issue. Just read the previous posts. The rabid, keep your religion out of the classroom posts. Of course, you are going to defend that on scientific grounds but what you don’t get is this: Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution, which just happens to be the form currently being taught. It is complete and totally functional and God is a useless addition. So useless that atheists love it. That is and will be the problem.

Secular <> atheistic.

 

[carinapir]

Magisterial Source please?

Pius XII, Humani Generis 36:

1. 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

The Church says that research in evolution of the human body is fine, but that the origin of the human body via evolution has not yet been proven. Which scientists should agree with. Evolution is still a theory but the basic idea is not heresy.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve given you the links many times before… but here you go AGAIN:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
biblelight.net/darwin.htm

The Cahtolic.com site and Popes have declared that evolution of the body is not a threat to the church, so I fail to see how you think you somehow know better. Stop being so arrogant.

These are your Magisterial sources?

 

[carinapir]

From Pope John Paul:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.html

"The reply of the Magisterium was offered in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII in 1950. In it we read: “The magisterium of the Church is not opposed to the theory of evolution being the object of investigation and discussion among experts. Here the theory of evolution is understood as an investigation of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are created immediately by God…” (DS 3896).

It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature."

 

[buffalo]

Pope Benedict on design of the universe vs. chance

…The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. **And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.” **

Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: **“What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.” **

Monod does not dispute this. His thesis is that the entire ensemble of nature has arisen out of errors and dissonances. He cannot help but say himself that such a conception is in fact absurd. But, according to him, the scientific method demands that a question not be permitted to which the answer would have to be God. One can only say that a method of this sort is pathetic. God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence…"

 

[buffalo]

For the record - an official Magisterial document/source would include the Pope and Bishops teaching in Communion. Even though I have quote the Pope’s statements on evolution they are not infallible.

Does anyone have such a document that would affirm that the Church now holds and teaches that polygenism is OK?

 

[reggieM]

These are your Magisterial sources?

An atheist coming here to teach Catholics about the faith, apparently.

All this from a guy who admitted that he has “no interest at all in Catholicism”.

He previously linked to a Wikipedia article to support his opinion on Catholicism.
So perhaps this time he thinks that Michael Schiefler’s “Bible Light” page is even more impressive.
Here’s some of the magisterial teaching from his site:

So the evidence presented here makes 666 a link between ancient sun worshipping pagan Babylon and the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church, which is dominated by pagan practices and solar images, and referred to as Babylon in the book of Revelation. This is just a small part of the evidence that makes this relationship apparent.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the Church proclaiming the truth about science. That’s right. Even if something like evolution occurred. it is required by Catholics to include all of what is contained in the deposit of faith. There was purpose, not accident. There was intent, not chance. And the evangelist who speaks to the people who already believe they are mere accidents in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have them in mind, what Does He Have to Give them? He gives them faith and knowledge. Faith cometh by hearing.

No, the Biology text cannot held up as the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts. By saying it does not deny God, what would you say If I said that random mutation and natural selection are both insufficient mechanisms? Since that reality is missing from the text, my fellow Catholics should realize what the Church is saying. For example: Stephen Gould is dead wrong when he says that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. Man was not an accident, he was intended.

The evangelist tells the one who believes he is the product of chance and error followed by selection that there is One who cares about him, who made the Universe and who did have him in mind. This is radically opposed to the mountains of materialism that have buried whatever science may exist in the theory of evolution. That have twisted it so that it is only truly suitable for the atheist who wants his world to be a God free zone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[carinapir]

Does anyone have such a document that would affirm that the Church now holds and teaches that polygenism is OK?

There is no need to do so. A Catholic does not have to accept polygenism to accept the validity of the theory of evolution. Science will never be able to determine into which body God first put a soul and created Adam.

 

[liquidpele]

An atheist coming here to teach Catholics about the faith, apparently.

All this from a guy who admitted that he has “no interest at all in Catholicism”.

He previously linked to a Wikipedia article to support his opinion on Catholicism.
So perhaps this time he thinks that Michael Schiefler’s “Bible Light” page is even more impressive.
Here’s some of the magisterial teaching from his site:

So the evidence presented here makes 666 a link between ancient sun worshipping pagan Babylon and the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church, which is dominated by pagan practices and solar images, and referred to as Babylon in the book of Revelation. This is just a small part of the evidence that makes this relationship apparent.

Hey, I’m no expert. I just googled for church sources about it’s view on evolution. The site quoted a pope, so regardless of what else was on there it doesn’t take away the fact that the pope said those things. Most of the Catholics here have been defending evolution too. In fact, it’s only been you, ed, and buffalo with some kind of fundamentalist vendetta.

 

[liquidpele]

For the record - an official Magisterial document/source would include the Pope and Bishops teaching in Communion. Even though I have quote the Pope’s statements on evolution they are not infallible.

Does anyone have such a document that would affirm that the Church now holds and teaches that polygenism is OK?

Nope. Do you have one saying it is not?

And are you ever going to answer my question about why you have a vendetta against evolution and not other sciences that go against the literal version of genesis such as cosmology and geology. Why do you focus on evolution?

 

[edwest2]

There is no need to do so. A Catholic does not have to accept polygenism to accept the validity of the theory of evolution. Science will never be able to determine into which body God first put a soul and created Adam.

There were no multiple bodies, just one, followed by the miraculous making of the woman from part of the man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

There were no multiple bodies, just one, followed by the miraculous making of the woman from part of the man.

Peace,
Ed

Clearly the idea that animals changed and improved themselves over time is much sillier than God literally making woman from man’s rib one day.

 

[buffalo]

Science will never be able to determine into which body God first put a soul and created Adam.

This is a good start.

Continuous teaching of the Church

Adam and Eve first parents
All humans descended from Adam and Eve
Eve from Adam
Bodily immortality
freedom from sickness and irregular desire
infused knowledge
preternatural gifts

original sin

Evolution has to reconcile with all of the above.

 

[buffalo]

Hey, I’m no expert. I just googled for church sources about it’s view on evolution. The site quoted a pope, so regardless of what else was on there it doesn’t take away the fact that the pope said those things. Most of the Catholics here have been defending evolution too. In fact, it’s only been you, ed, and buffalo with some kind of fundamentalist vendetta.

Nope no fundamentalism here - - I just argue the constant teaching and understanding of the Church. Those that are defending evolution are arguing scientism.

 

[buffalo]

And are you ever going to answer my question about why you have a vendetta against evolution and not other sciences that go against the literal version of genesis such as cosmology and geology. Why do you focus on evolution?

Maybe because these threads are about evolution.

No vendetta - just after the truth.

 

[carinapir]

There were no multiple bodies, just one, followed by the miraculous making of the woman from part of the man.

Peace,
Ed

That is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but your own personal belief. As indicated below there could have been creatures with physical bodies that appeared to be human or human like, but “souls are immediatly created by God.” So Adam getting a soul could have been the “creation” of the first true man. This is from a Pope by the way.

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. "

On the point of Eve, the Church appears to be silent. I searched and I only came back to the text that you provided in ARCANUM, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII. ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE. This paper is speaking on the topic of marriage and not on creation or evolution. The Catholic Church is very good about being specific about what is required belief. I have asked a apologist on this site to clarify the matter, but at this time I do not believe that this paper is ment to be a declaration of what Catholics must believe specifically with regards to Eve’s creation.

 

[liquidpele]

Nope no fundamentalism here - - I just argue the constant teaching and understanding of the Church. Those that are defending evolution are arguing scientism.

I imagine you’d be the one telling Galileo he was dangerous because you already believed something different.

 

[liquidpele]

Maybe because these threads are about evolution.

No vendetta - just after the truth.

So you’d be just as against geology, cosmology, paleontology, anthropology, Organic Chemistry, etc?

 

[reggieM]

So you’d be just as against geology, cosmology, paleontology, anthropology, Organic Chemistry, etc?

No. I’d be against claims that Aphrodite’s Magic Girdle, Thor’s hammer and The Flying Throne of Kai Kavus are real.