G
Gorgias
Guest
And she has learned not to make declarations on science, but to leave that to the scientists. The Church teaches theology, not science, and invites scientists to practice the latter.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
E
edwest211
Guest
I saw Pope John Paul II quoted a lot after his out of context statement was hailed as “the Church accepts evolution.” It does not consider only the science, which is inadequate. If there is a clear dividing line between science and theology, then the Church would say little, but she has said a lot.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Sorry – my mouse, going brain dead, twitched unpredictably. Reboot.
B
buffalo
Guest
Has Science Run Its Course?
Has Science Run Its Course?
One year after scientists flipped the switch on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), physicist Lawrence Krauss fretted, “I worry whether we’ve come to the limits of empirical science.” His worry was not…
www.crisismagazine.com
O
o_mlly
Guest
As a theologian, Aquinas reasons from the a priori knowledge of faith to synthesize those certain truths with the likely truths of the science of his time. Scripture teaches, and Augustine before him held, that the Creator finished the work of creating on the sixth day. That understanding, a certainty for Thomas, established the necessity to reason in its defense – all directly created beings existed on or before the sixth day.
However, when Thomas reasons as to the existence of a rational soul, he puts the Creator back to work concluding a special act of creation for every rational beings. In an accommodation to Augustine, Thomas allows, perhaps, the creation of a warehouse of generic souls along with the angels to supply the human beings already present in the Eternal Omniscient Mind.
Could Thomas accept theistic evolution theory? If one speculates that whatever number of limited beings directly created possessed the potential to generate all subsequent non-rational and irrational substantial forms then theistic evolution is a possibility. In light of today’s exegeses on Genesis and science’s progress over the intervening 700 years, I think not probable.
E
edwest211
Guest
From Communion and Stewardship:
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Neither of these statements answer the question. Can you quote the Church teaching that denies macro-evolution?Hobgoblin:
JPII stated there are several theories of evolution.
Bottom line - one we have evidence for the other we do not.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is interesting to hear that one should be careful about voicing an opinion. While it is true of all human history that it is wise to do so, I’m feeling confident that I am not at any risk.Be careful with your interpretations, especially when you cite Scripture to support your position – “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” would equally well describe a pair consisting of an ensouled human and an unensouled hominin. They have the same “bones” and “flesh”.
The rest of the quote goes:
I believe that this ontological truth has a historical dimension, that Eve was formed from Adam. The original plan for human nature seems to have been as a solitary creature, perhaps on the lines of an angel, one who is a species unto himself, but having a physical form. The purpose would be:
And, one became two.
In the sexual act we are meant to become one, as is the Trinity, two persons joined in a mutual love, from which springs a new creation. Our alienation from this foundation is a consequence of sin, which can be overcome in Christ.
What we have to be careful of is of our actions. Our actions are influenced by how we see our situation. Creation myths are part of a larger world view, telling us who, what and why we are, in addition to providing some understanding of how it is that we are. As a creation myth, evolution provides secular society with a justification for its mores. That it is not sinful to engage in sexual activity without a connection of the heart, would follow from the belief.
Clearly our bodies contain much the same information as other creatures. This does not necessitate there being an ancestral connection.
It is our physical structure rather than its being that is the issue. Our body’s being and our spirit are one. The claim is that two nonhuman gametes can produce a human fertilized egg. Obviously there is no way to prove this can happen. What we do is conduct thought experiments imagining solely the material dimension of what constitutes a person and how it comes together. Minute transformations are thought to have occured to produce the more sophisticated brain, necessary for the full expression of the spirit. The reality however, is that body and spirit being one; we are persons from conception and that it occurs only with the fusion of two human gametes. This is my understanding.
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I don’t like to speculate on what someone might or might not except were they around today. All we can do is see whether or not current understandings fundamentally contradict older ones. That being said, you’ll have to express why you think Aquinas would not accept theistic evolution if you’re going to claim that he probably wouldn’t. Please at least explain why you believe theistic evolution contradicts what he did indeed accept.
This is not meant as a challenge for the purpose of debate, but a push and invitation to better explain your reasoning.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
- Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
- Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
- The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus ).
- The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
This is not an article of Faith.
B
buffalo
Guest
Really? There are quite a few papal pronouncements on this. Plus it states it explicitly in Scripture.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Yup, not an article of Faith.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
?? None of this denies macroevolution.
So do you know of any Church teaching that denies macroevolution?
Scientific theories aren’t myths.
There’s no conflict between real history and macroevolution.
Who said they weren’t? What does this have to do with macroevolution?
Sure it does. What does this have to do with macroevolution? We’ve had several great posts over the past couple of days explaining how humanity could propagate through an evolved Adam without polygenism.
What’s “the beginning”? Adam didn’t arrive until Day 6. Eve sometime later that day. What about donkeys and tangelos? Mark 10:6 is about marriage, not origins.
Whether Eve was specially created or not has no bearing on macroevolution.
So do you know of any Church teaching that denies macroevolution?
R
rossum
Guest
Then trees have hands and hills can sing, it says so explicitly in scripture.
What a woodenly literal approach you have, buffalo. It is a good thing that the Bible writers were not as literal as you.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
It would be in the CCC if this was Church doctrine.
T
Techno2000
Guest
All life comes from God,and returns back to God, because God is life itself.
A
Aloysium
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
What is your definition of an “article of faith”?
- Status