Evolution - it's about religion

[joeybaggz]

The questions and conundrums you offer show that your are on the right track.

To its great credit, the Catholic Church is not afraid of any search for truth because the Catholic Church is grounded in "the way, the truth, and the light. As Paul said, (and I’m not good on verbatim Scripture) “examine all things, and keep that which is good”

You ask whether Pius may be right … that he gave us an understanding of original sin … that Jesus mentioned Adam and would the Son of Man refer to a myth. YES. Pius was right and Jesus did refer to an inerrant teaching of the faith.

Pius’ understanding of original sin reflects the understanding of the true Church till his time (including I think in fairness, the non-Catholic Christian denominations), and that Jesus never referred to a myth, he referred to an inerrant teaching of THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Later to be written in what we now call the Bible.

In this discussion, we may not be stating an obvious dilemma. The usage of the word “day” in Genesis. Atheists and agnostics attack the literal idea that God created from a void, all of existence, short of man, in a period of five days, 120 hours. I have to believe they object because science has, in their minds, (and in the minds of many of the rest of us) proven that, such things as the ice age, the bronze age, the Jurassic period are periods of time that existed. And they are logically in opposition to the idea that the earth is a mere ten thousand years old, and that Adam and Eve resided in a Garden 6000 years ago, ergo, man is only about 6000 years old. Scientific evidence such as carbon dating, analysis of the formation of structures and civilizations, archaeological finds, etc. etc. may point to the idea that the Genesis story isn’t historically accurate. But it doesn’t prove that its lessons are inerrant.

Jesus pointed to Adam and “the beginning”. He was pointing the the inerrant teaching that Adam was the first man, that God infused in Adam reason and will, that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. God stepped into creation and made man in His image and likeness, infused man with reason, will, and an immortal soul. That is what Jesus refers to. That is what we believe. Scripture says God formed man from the dust of the earth. It doesn’t say that he did it in one minute and 34 seconds. God may have formed man from the dust of the earth over eons. But GOD FORMED MAN AND BREATHED HIS - GOD’S - LIKENESS INTO US. That is the inerrant lesson of Scripture, that is what Jesus referred to, that is what Pius set forth, and this is what the Church teaches and believes.

American history has a popular legend that George Washington, was a very honest man. And that he was firm in his conviction that the nation be founded on truth, liberty, fairness, and honesty. The legend of course is that when confronted about chopping down a cherry tree, young George is said to have referred, “I connot tell a lie”. You may prove the cherry tree incident never occured as told in the story, that it is an allegory, but that doesn’t deny that Washington was an honest man, and the nation was founded on those principles. Not a great example, but maybe…

Your last point that we can’t discount tradition and Genesis is an actual representation of our first parents is right on the money. Remember, nothing was written down from the establishment of the covenant with Abraham, circa 1800-1900 B.C. to Moses writing the Pentateuch circa 1200-1300. Everything was oral tradition, passed on orally from generation to generation. That story - Genesis - is a representation of our first parents, its lesson is inerrant, that God created man and made him in his image and likeness. That is true. The Chosen People and Christians have believed that from “the beginning” as Christ asserts. And the idea that God formed man from the dust of the earth does, in a way, give some credulence to evolutionary theory. The problem is that atheists take God from the equation and postulate a theory of random, chaotic development of life with no Grand Design, and no Grand Designer.

Atheists do have a point. Man does experience random, chaotic growth … right within himself. Unfortunately, its called … cancer.

Shalom

 

[newbetx]

More “who-knows” ism. Baloney. More “but that was written so long ago and we know so much more now.” Baloney.

Pope Benedict has just written a book about this issue. “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.”

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

It’s about promoting atheism. Always has been.

Peace,
Ed

An excerpt from the article:

US courts have ruled both creationism and ID are religious views that cannot be taught in public school science classes there.
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as “theistic evolution”, the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.

So in some respects, Ed is quite right. Pure Evolution is an anti-religious subject taught to our kids. NO OTHER explaination is allowed.

However, ID is allowable under our faith which includes an evolutionary angle.

“The athiestic scientific community” (not all scientists are athiests) denouces ID as “creationism” because it includes the existance of God which by their nature they must denounce.

So I agree with Ed. Evolution (in pure science form) is part of the athiest agenda. It is against God and religion.

As a scientist, I believe, the more science uncovers, the more information we have that proves there must be a God. Keep digging guys!

 

[masterjedi747]

Pure Evolution is an anti-religious subject taught to our kids.

I cannot agree. Unless by “pure evolution”, you mean “atheistic evolution”.

NO OTHER explaination is allowed.

Atomic theory is taught. NO OTHER explanation is allowed. Why? Because NO OTHER explanation fits all of the facts. NO OTHER explanation works, without turning God into a deceiver who created things to appear as what they are not.

However, ID is allowable under our faith which includes an evolutionary angle.

This is where the distinction needs to be made between the two types of ID. The first kind is what the Church teaches, and is not incompatible with evolution. The second kind is inherently and deliberately incompatible with evolution, and THIS is the kind that has tried to pass itself off as “science” to be taught in the classroom. It’s this second kind of ID that is not allowed in schools. Nobody actually tries to teach the first kind of ID in the science classroom, since nobody has ever claimed that the first kind of ID is “science”.

Evolution (in pure science form) is part of the athiest agenda. It is against God and religion.

Again, I can’t agree. Evolution in pure science form, just like EVERY other scientific theory, is inherently neutral on the subject of God. It only becomes part of the atheistic agenda when combined with an atheistic philosophy.

Evolution – descent through modification – is not inherently atheistic, against God and religion. It can’t be. If it were, then evolution would be inherently opposed to the Church, which is obviously not the case, since the Church allows us to believe it. If you believe that evolution is opposed to God and religion, then you’ve bought right into what the atheists want you to believe. And I refuse to do so. They are wrong.

And I gotta ask joeybaggz… what in the world happened between Posts 20 and 21, above?

 

[teachccd]

The questions and conundrums you offer show that your are on the right track.

To its great credit, the Catholic Church is not afraid of any search for truth because the Catholic Church is grounded in "the way, the truth, and the light. As Paul said, (and I’m not good on verbatim Scripture) “examine all things, and keep that which is good”

You ask whether Pius may be right … that he gave us an understanding of original sin … that Jesus mentioned Adam and would the Son of Man refer to a myth. YES. Pius was right and Jesus did refer to an inerrant teaching of the faith.

Pius’ understanding of original sin reflects the understanding of the true Church till his time (including I think in fairness, the non-Catholic Christian denominations), and that Jesus never referred to a myth, he referred to an inerrant teaching of THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Later to be written in what we now call the Bible.

In this discussion, we may not be stating an obvious dilemma. The usage of the word “day” in Genesis. Atheists and agnostics attack the literal idea that God created from a void, all of existence, short of man, in a period of five days, 120 hours. I have to believe they object because science has, in their minds, (and in the minds of many of the rest of us) proven that, such things as the ice age, the bronze age, the Jurassic period are periods of time that existed. And they are logically in opposition to the idea that the earth is a mere ten thousand years old, and that Adam and Eve resided in a Garden 6000 years ago, ergo, man is only about 6000 years old. Scientific evidence such as carbon dating, analysis of the formation of structures and civilizations, archaeological finds, etc. etc. may point to the idea that the Genesis story isn’t historically accurate. But it doesn’t prove that its lessons are inerrant.

Jesus pointed to Adam and “the beginning”. He was pointing the the inerrant teaching that Adam was the first man, that God infused in Adam reason and will, that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God. God stepped into creation and made man in His image and likeness, infused man with reason, will, and an immortal soul. That is what Jesus refers to. That is what we believe. Scripture says God formed man from the dust of the earth. It doesn’t say that he did it in one minute and 34 seconds. God may have formed man from the dust of the earth over eons. But GOD FORMED MAN AND BREATHED HIS - GOD’S - LIKENESS INTO US. That is the inerrant lesson of Scripture, that is what Jesus referred to, that is what Pius set forth, and this is what the Church teaches and believes.

American history has a popular legend that George Washington, was a very honest man. And that he was firm in his conviction that the nation be founded on truth, liberty, fairness, and honesty. The legend of course is that when confronted about chopping down a cherry tree, young George is said to have referred, “I connot tell a lie”. You may prove the cherry tree incident never occured as told in the story, that it is an allegory, but that doesn’t deny that Washington was an honest man, and the nation was founded on those principles. Not a great example, but maybe…

Your last point that we can’t discount tradition and Genesis is an actual representation of our first parents is right on the money. Remember, nothing was written down from the establishment of the covenant with Abraham, circa 1800-1900 B.C. to Moses writing the Pentateuch circa 1200-1300. Everything was oral tradition, passed on orally from generation to generation. That story - Genesis - is a representation of our first parents, its lesson is inerrant, that God created man and made him in his image and likeness. That is true. The Chosen People and Christians have believed that from “the beginning” as Christ asserts. And the idea that God formed man from the dust of the earth does, in a way, give some credulence to evolutionary theory. The problem with atheists is that they take God from the equation and insert a theory of random, chaotic development of life with no Grand Design, and no Grand Designer.

Atheists do have a point. Man does experience random, chaotic growth right within himself. Unfortunately, its called … cancer.

Shalom

Very well said…in all counts I see that we may be on the same track. I am just appalled at those modernists who seem to undermine almost 2000 years of theology to advance contemporary thought when those thoughts are just as theoretical as any. Truth, as you point out, is in the message but we must be careful not to distort the message to “prove” the truth… God Bless…teachccd

 

[R_McGeddon]

No myth at all. Adam was the creature God put his spirit into, elevating him from dumb animal to rational man.

So where do Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, Homo Sapiens etc. all fit in with this? They all existed, there is evidence to back it up.

 

[masterjedi747]

So where do Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, Homo Sapiens etc. all fit in with this? They all existed, there is evidence to back it up.

They could have been Adam’s ancestors. And if that’s the case, then they were probably reasonably intelligent (but not rational) animals. Adam was the first human person.

 

[R_McGeddon]

They could have been Adam’s ancestors.

I don’t think so, in the story of Adam and Eve they could talk straight away, whereas early man would have had to develop a language first in order to communicate.

Adam was the first human person.

Whoever wrote genesis had no idea how we came about, so came up with the “created from the dirt of the Earth”. That was probably the best he could come up with at the time.

 

[joeybaggz]

And I gotta ask joeybaggz… what in the world happened between Posts 20 and 21, above?

I have NO idea. Must have been a computer glitch of some kind. I don’t remember any post where I might have quoting myself.

 

[newbetx]

I cannot agree. Unless by “pure evolution”, you mean “atheistic evolution”.

That is exactly what I meant. A mechanism that purposely excludes forces beyond what is assumed to be natural.

Atomic theory is taught. NO OTHER explanation is allowed. Why? Because NO OTHER explanation fits all of the facts. NO OTHER explanation works, without turning God into a deceiver who created things to appear as what they are not.

Atomic theory? What does that have to do with evolution? Or were you just quoting me out of context for some unrelated reason?:tsktsk:

This is where the distinction needs to be made between the two types of ID. The first kind is what the Church teaches, and is not incompatible with evolution. The second kind is inherently and deliberately incompatible with evolution, and THIS is the kind that has tried to pass itself off as “science” to be taught in the classroom. It’s this second kind of ID that is not allowed in schools. Nobody actually tries to teach the first kind of ID in the science classroom, since nobody has ever claimed that the first kind of ID is “science”.

Two types of ID? Oh, Creationism is ID and ID can include evolution. No wonder ID is rejected by both sides. ID can be either one you don’t like. Sounds like ID needs an ID.

Again, I can’t agree. Evolution in pure science form, just like EVERY other scientific theory, is inherently neutral on the subject of God. It only becomes part of the atheistic agenda when combined with an atheistic philosophy.

Funny, the first time you quoted this, You did agree. :ehh: Science is enherently neutral. I agree. But HOW it is taught or how assumptions are made (to fill in the gaps) is not always neutral.

Evolution – descent through modification – is not inherently atheistic, against God and religion. It can’t be. If it were, then evolution would be inherently opposed to the Church, which is obviously not the case, since the Church allows us to believe it.

If “natural selection” and “random mutation” are ALL that is required for “evolution” then that science is presented such that it excludes God’s assistance. That would not be neutral. That would be Godless. Is that what you call decent through modification?

If you believe that evolution is opposed to God and religion, then you’ve bought right into what the atheists want you to believe. And I refuse to do so. They are wrong.

Why do you wish to argue with someone that mostly is of the same thinking as you?

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t think so, in the story of Adam and Eve they could talk straight away, whereas early man would have had to develop a language first in order to communicate.

Except we know that Adam and Eve were given several preternatural gifts before the Fall (such as freedom from death and suffering), so there’s no reason why God couldn’t have also started them off with some infused knowledge, “jump starting” them, as it were, with a basic conventional language that they could then expand and develop.

Whoever wrote genesis had no idea how we came about, so came up with the “created from the dirt of the Earth”. That was probably the best he could come up with at the time.

…you are aware that the Scriptures were/are divinely inspired, right? So whether that story that was passed down by tradition, or God actually revealed that to the author… it’s certainly a little more than “probably just the best that the author could come up with at the time”.

 

[masterjedi747]

Why do you wish to argue with someone that mostly is of the same thinking as you?

…honestly, I didn’t get the feeling that you were. My apologies, however, if I misunderstood.

“Unless by “pure evolution”, you mean “atheistic evolution”.”

That is exactly what I meant. A mechanism that purposely excludes forces beyond what is assumed to be natural.

See, I was already working on a different page than you right here.

To me, “pure evolution” is simply the neutral scientific theory. If you add an atheistic philosophy, and come out with “atheistic evolution”, then it’s no longer “pure evolution”. Hence, I disagreed with your statement that “Pure Evolution is an anti-religious subject…”

Atomic theory? What does that have to do with evolution? Or were you just quoting me out of context for some unrelated reason?

No. I was just applying an example of your same logic to another “pure” scientific theory. Obviously it failed to make its point, however, because we were already misunderstanding each other over what exactly was being asserted in the preceding point.

Two types of ID? Oh, Creationism is ID and ID can include evolution. No wonder ID is rejected by both sides. ID can be either one you don’t like. Sounds like ID needs an ID.

Atheistic evolutionists reject both kinds of ID.
Theistic evolutionists embrace the first, but reject the second.
Theistic non-evolutionists embrace both forms of ID.

Read this, a much clearer explanation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3548544&postcount=4

Funny, the first time you quoted this, You did agree. :ehh:

Not really, because we weren’t exactly understanding each other.

Science is enherently neutral. I agree. But HOW it is taught or how assumptions are made (to fill in the gaps) is not always neutral.

If “natural selection” and “random mutation” are ALL that is required for “evolution” then that science is presented such that it excludes God’s assistance.

That would not be neutral. That would be Godless. Is that what you call decent through modification?

See, that’s another point at which I think we disagree. You’re assuming that natural selection and random mutation must operate outside of Divine Providence… but I don’t think that they can, or that they do. Natural selection and random mutation do not necessarily exclude God’s assistance, unless you further insert an atheistic philosophy in which (1) the universe is deterministic, or (2) something can come from nothing. So that’s where I disagree.

Hopefully this will help clear up some of the misunderstanding. Again, my apologies.

 

[newbetx]

They could have been Adam’s ancestors. And if that’s the case, then they were probably reasonably intelligent (but not rational) animals. Adam was the first human person.

… with a soul. This, I understand, is the key difference, not ability to speak, rationalize, etc. So Adam was the first person with a soul. Could one assume it, too, was at conception? Or would that be a stretch?

I don’t think so, in the story of Adam and Eve they could talk straight away, whereas early man would have had to develop a language first in order to communicate.
Whoever wrote genesis had no idea how we came about, so came up with the “created from the dirt of the Earth”. That was probably the best he could come up with at the time.

It is reasonable to say we came from the dirt. Afterall, we return as dust. It’s just that HOW one was created from dirt may have been a more lengthy process.

 

[The_Barbarian]

After spending some time reviewing atheist, Darwinist, freethinker, secular humanist and bright forums, the conclusion is clear. The promotion of atheistic evolution is job one.

Apparently, they aren’t having much luck. Even Dawkins admits that evolution doesn’t rule out God.

Evolution science is unassailable.

Strike one. Turns out that evolutionary theory has been repeatedly modified as evidence indicated.

Any attacks upon it are attacks against all of science, against reason and against rationality.

All of science? That’s an exaggeration. Chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, paleontology, botany, biochemistry, yes. But I don’t think that it would affect metallurgy much. Or meteorology.

But contrary to statements posted here that the public school version of evolution is neutral toward religion or does not exclude God - that is false.

Strike two. Nothing in any science textbook used in public schools denies God. If you have an exception, now would be the time to give us the particulars; name, publisher, when and where used, etc.

Clearly, once the people, including the religious, accept evolution, they will then be courted for their votes. Votes for what? Gay marriage, among other things.

Ah, that’s what is bothering you. Honest ed, evolutionary theory is not about gay marriage. Honest.

So my fellow Catholics. No matter how often you read that the textbook theory is neutral or cannot exclude God, you should know that there are people who want you to believe it does.

You, for example. But you’ve never been able to show us such a thing.

As the Church document “Human Persons Created in the Image of God” makes clear, evolution without divine providence cannot exist.

Fortunately, evolutionary theory doesn’t deny divine providence.

Conversely, to determine that evolution occurs purely by chance and necessity is going beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

Strike three. Darwin’s great discovery was that it didn’t happen by chance.

As Pope Benedict stated in his recent book, the “rationality” behind Creation is God.

Which is fine, as far as evolutionary theory is concerned. It makes no claims about such things.

 

[newbetx]

…honestly, I didn’t get the feeling that you were. My apologies, however, if I misunderstood.

See, I was already working on a different page than you right here.

appology accepted, but we’re still not communicating.

To me, “pure evolution” is simply the neutral scientific theory. If you add an atheistic philosophy, and come out with “atheistic evolution”, then it’s no longer “pure evolution”. Hence, I disagreed with your statement that “Pure Evolution is an anti-religious subject…”

Since scientific theory does not have an equation for “and here, a miracle happens.” Then yes, in my estimation, they are the same. Athiestic and “neutral” result in the same thing. A Godless set of assumptions or facts.

No. I was just applying an example of your same logic to another “pure” scientific theory. Obviously it failed to make its point, however, because we were already misunderstanding each other over what exactly was being asserted in the preceding point.

Atheistic evolutionists reject both kinds of ID.
Theistic evolutionists embrace the first, but reject the second.
Theistic non-evolutionists embrace both forms of ID.

Now this last one confuses the heck out of me.

Read this, a much clearer explanation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3548544&postcount=4

I will, but it’ll have to wait a few days. Thanks.

Not really, because we weren’t exactly understanding each other.

Now on the above, I’m certain.

See, that’s another point at which I think we disagree. You’re assuming that natural selection and random mutation must operate outside of Divine Providence…

No I’m not. But that is my objection as to what is being taught our children… “simple mutation and survival of the fitist.”

but I don’t think that they can, or that they do. Natural selection and random mutation do not necessarily exclude God’s assistance, …

This is how I think, too.

I think I now understand what the issue is. Let me try…
You are explaining from a position that there is one evolutionary theory and two ID positions on it. I was arguing from the direction that there are two evolutionary positions and one ID concept. I never had a clue there were two.

 

[masterjedi747]

…with a soul. This, I understand, is the key difference, not ability to speak, rationalize, etc. So Adam was the first person with a soul.

Mostly yes. Adam was the first person with a spiritual soul, that’s correct. However, you can’t be a person without a spiritual soul, and if you have a spiritual soul, you’re a person. The capacity for language and reason also necessarily follow from the fact that you have a spiritual soul. So you’re really not saying anything different than I was, you’re just saying it differently.

Could one assume it, too, was at conception? Or would that be a stretch?

Oh, I think it’s possible.

It might even be necessary, if Adam was indeed born in this manner… since I’m not sure we’re allowed to consider Adam’s spiritual soul as having been infused into an adult body. We might have to understand it as having been created at the same moment that his body was.

It is reasonable to say we came from the dirt. Afterall, we return as dust. It’s just that HOW one was created from dirt may have been a more lengthy process.

Yep.

Since scientific theory does not have an equation for “and here, a miracle happens.” Then yes, in my estimation, they are the same. Athiestic and “neutral” result in the same thing. A Godless set of assumptions or facts.

headdesk…OK. But that takes me right back to the atomic theory example.

Atomic theory does not have an equation for “and here, a miracle happens”… so that makes atomic theory atheistic? A godless set of assumptions or facts, and an “anti-religious subject”?

That’s where I’m completely losing you.

1. How does your exact same logic not apply to all other scientific theories? And if evolution and atomic theory are atheistic, then Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to believe either of them… but we are. The Church is OK with theistic evolution, but not atheistic evolution.
2. It seems to me like you’re saying that a theory not including God is identical to a theory excluding God. But I think there’s a difference. A theory that doesn’t include God isn’t necessarily ruling Him out… it’s open to the possibility, but simply silent on the matter. A theory excluding God, on the other hand, would have to be saying “and God is not possibly involved in any way”. I don’t see that here. In fact, I’m not even sure a scientific theory ever could take a position like that – I think it would require an atheistic philosophy being imposed from without.

Now this last one confuses the heck out of me.
I will, but it’ll have to wait a few days. Thanks.

You are aware that I only linked you to one post, right? (link here again)

No I’m not. But that is my objection as to what is being taught our children… “simple mutation and survival of the fitist.”

…so you think those must operate outside of Divine Providence? (…because I don’t.)

I think I now understand what the issue is. Let me try…
You are explaining from a position that there is one evolutionary theory and two ID positions on it. I was arguing from the direction that there are two evolutionary positions and one ID concept. I never had a clue there were two.

…yeah. I might break it down even a little more, though.

One evolutionary theory (completely neutral to religion). Two philosophies which can be opposed upon it (theistic and atheistic… the second hostile to religion). And yes, two very different types of ID… although the second one is the only one that’s gotten all the publicity, so it’s understandable (though unfortunate) that most people don’t distinguish between them.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Except we know that Adam and Eve were given several preternatural gifts before the Fall
(such as freedom from death and suffering), so there’s no reason why God couldn’t have also started them off with some infused knowledge, “jump starting” them, as it were, with a basic conventional language that they could then expand and develop.

We don’t "know", it’s all just speculation.

you are aware that the Scriptures were/are divinely inspired, right?

I’m aware of that claim, but if there is a God and he’s as portrayed in the bible, I find it hard to swallow that an all powerful, all knowing entity could be responsible for such vague, contradictory and open to multiple interpretation stories as found in the bible.

So whether that story that was passed down by tradition, or God actually revealed that to the author… it’s certainly a little more than “probably just the best that the author could come up with at the time”.

I doubt it.

 

[R_McGeddon]

… with a soul. This, I understand, is the key difference, not ability to speak, rationalize, etc. So Adam was the first person with a soul. Could one assume it, too, was at conception? Or would that be a stretch?

It just says first man. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me.

It is reasonable to say we came from the dirt. After all, we return as dust. It’s just that HOW one was created from dirt may have been a more lengthy process.

I don’t think it is reasonable, I doubt we share much DNA with dirt.

 

[masterjedi747]

We don’t "know", it’s all just speculation.

My apologies, I wasn’t aware of the fact that you’re not Catholic.
But, for Catholics, Adam and Eve’s preternatural gifts are a fact of which we are certain de fide.

I’m aware of that claim, but if there is a God and he’s as portrayed in the bible, I find it hard to swallow that an all powerful, all knowing entity could be responsible for such vague, contradictory and open to multiple interpretation stories as found in the bible.

I think it’s very clever, myself. It’s specific enough to express some certain fundamental truths to all people at all times, yet “vague” enough that our understanding of the details is able to improve over time (in light of other discoveries and revelations) without actually ever being in error. Plus, there’s a lot of symbolism, and a whole lot of deeper significance hidden in the text, especially when you go back to the original language.

I don’t think it is reasonable, I doubt we share much DNA with dirt.

…we don’t share any DNA with dirt. Dirt doesn’t have DNA.
But I still don’t understand why this isn’t reasonable? Whether you believe God picked up a handful of dirt (I think the correct translation is more literally “earth”, anyway) and fashioned it into a human body, or guided an evolutionary process over time, all the way back from a giant puddle of primordial slime (which had to have been made from the earth)… it all comes down to the same thing. I mean, earth (“dirt”) is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons… and so are our bodies. The point is simply that our bodies, ultimately, came out of the earth in some way, and are composed of the same materials. Proof for this being that, when we die, our bodies break down and decompose into simpler elements.

 

[Wolseley]

Adam was the creature God put his spirit into, elevating him from dumb animal to rational man.

Or in other words, Adam left the Democratic Party and became a conservative.

 

[edwest2]

It’s interesting in these discussions about science on a Catholic forum that God is not brought into the discussion as the Church speaks of Him. Pope Benedict has called science and faith complementary. That does not seem to be the thinking here.

Also, going back to original language is significant when talking about the Bible, but it is also important to know what the Church considers closed to discussion. In his statement about evolution being more than a hypothesis, Pope John Paul II also referred to “fixed points” that needed to be kept in mind. Pope Benedict referred to these same fixed points when he said that evolution as presented by science excludes areas of reason that we still need. The Church teaches that knowledge from God is real knowledge.

In “Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69,” it is clear that evolution requires divine providence or it cannot exist. The Church can take scientific information and combine it with divine revelation. God did things. It’s not all science as in the textbook.

God bless,
Ed