B
Booger
Guest
Somebody should tell the admins to post an Evolution FAQ sticky in the Apologetics section that deals with some of these common fallacies.
- Status
E
Edwin_Taraba
Guest
I was merely pointing out that evolution and the fall are not compatible story lines. The magisterium to my knowledge has not directly addressed this point. They have said that it is possible God used a gradual process to do His creating. They are claiming no conflict between evolution and the creation of living beings - so long as you credit God with creation of the soul and don’t believe the soul evolved from matter. Although the catechism clearly states Adam and Eve are literal humans - the first humans and that their following Satan brought death into the world - the catechism does not discuss what effect that has on the idea of evolution which involves millions of years of death to bring about humans. Evolution theory demands that there never were just two first humans as stated in the bible and by the magisterium.
PhilVaz is an evolutionist and Roman Catholic and stated this very well. He recognizes the conflict. His post stated it very clearly. There appears to be a theological conflict. I accept the fact that I don’t know everything. When all is said and done it may be clear then. Maybe there will be no conflict when all is understood. But right now there appears to be a definite conflict. Evolution says there were not two individual parents from which all mankind has descended. The catechism says there were two humans named Adam and Eve from which all mankind has descended. If that’s not a conflict I don’t know what is.
E
Edwin_Taraba
Guest
Just because we share genes with other species does not require common descent - ie we didn’t necessarily evolve from the life forms that share common genes. Motorcycles, cars, jet planes and bicycles share common parts. They didn’t evolve they were created by engineers. Life forms can share common building pieces without having evolved from one another. The designer could have used building blocks that are similar from species to species even if He created the first frog by going - poof - there’s a frog and poof - there’s a chicken - from nothing to something in one instant.
It is all in your interpretation of the data. Be careful of making assumptions that may or may not be true. How can you be so certain? Do we really know how creation or evolution was accomplished? there is more than one way of looking at the available data. I admit I don’t know for sure. The evolutionists on the other hand are adamant. But you might soon find out science has changed their minds on the subject.
E
Edwin_Taraba
Guest
By the way the Ratzinger book is available on amazon.com. It is a very good book (in my opinion, in case you haven’t noticed!). Thank you all for not having this thread devolve (pun intended) into an argument about different evolutionary theories. God bless all.
The theory of evolution claims millions of years of death, disease, toil & pain prior to the fall of mankind. The teachings of the Catholic Church state otherwise. The teachings of the Catholic Church portray two specific humans with names, personalities and identities, created as the very first humans in a state of grace and bodily immortality. As per PhilVaz’s post: “The reason there appears to be a conflict is the requirement of the Catholic to believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve who were originally bodily immortal.”
In fact, evolution theory not only claims millions of years of death, disease, toil & pain prior to the fall – it denies there ever was any fall. If evolution is true then we have been growing better and better every year since the beginning. We started out pretty yucky and bit-by-bit nature has been molding us into better and better beings with more and more abilities. It is not enough to say: “some people believe ‘nature’ is molding us but we believe God is molding us”. Because if you say we are being molded into better and better beings, THAT IS A CONFLICT whether it is God or “nature” that is doing the molding. The bible does not portray beings being molded into better and better beings it says we were created in the image of God in a state of grace and immortality.
Evolution erases the fall from the story. In evolution there is no fall only climbing higher and higher.
E
Edwin_Taraba
Guest
Oolon Colluphid:
Besides the dating process is totally screwed up. But that issue could take a whole other thread.
Again be careful about your interpretation of data. Many assumptions are being made there. Just because two fossils have similar traits does not necessarily mean one descended from the other. God could have just as easily created them from nothing in a single instant as unique beings. If we go to a junk yard we will find similar traits between cars. So what? They were created with similar traits. Doesn’t prove anything.
Besides the dating process is totally screwed up. But that issue could take a whole other thread.
B
Booger
Guest
Edwin Taraba, evolution doesn’t directly claim that there was death before a certain point in time. That is more of an assumption based on reality as we know it. According to the world around us, things live and things die. Therefore, evolution is descent with modification of these living and dying organisms. If God is real, he could have started this after the fall. Evolution does not assume that God is real because that is beyond the realm of science, so it has to assume that living things have always died. You shouldn’t get too worked up over this because assuming God exists, he could have done it this way.
Also, I don’t think you should be too worried about whether Genesis happened the way that it says it did. The Christian concept of sin fits most humans, therefore sin (disobeying God’s rules) exists. Does it really matter when, where or how it originated? Christ’s mission should still be the same. His mission would be to save man from this sinful nature. Men do sin. Christ’s mission should still be to save men from sin regardless of whether Adam and Eve happened or not.
Also, I don’t think you should be too worried about whether Genesis happened the way that it says it did. The Christian concept of sin fits most humans, therefore sin (disobeying God’s rules) exists. Does it really matter when, where or how it originated? Christ’s mission should still be the same. His mission would be to save man from this sinful nature. Men do sin. Christ’s mission should still be to save men from sin regardless of whether Adam and Eve happened or not.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Booger << Somebody should tell the admins to post an Evolution FAQ >>
There is a FAQ (if you wanna call it that) on evolution at Catholic Answers. Check out their library articles here (I quote parts of one in above posts)
Faith and Science articles
Catholic Answers also had an article last year in their published magazine This Rock that was fairly negative on evolution with many of the same misconceptions you see here (“no transitional fossils” comes to mind). But Karl did have an excellent article on the Grand Canyon and young-earthism. Catholic Answers is not young earth at least, but they are sympathetic with the ID-movement and evolution-deniers.
I think that Adam/Eve as historical people (not necessarily with those exact names, but real people), and we trace humanity back to these two people is Catholic dogma. Add in the idea of “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve before the Fall and those are your main theological objections to macroevolution (at least the evolution of humanity). From the Catechism here (paragraph 390 seems relevant)
Phil P
There is a FAQ (if you wanna call it that) on evolution at Catholic Answers. Check out their library articles here (I quote parts of one in above posts)
Faith and Science articles
Catholic Answers also had an article last year in their published magazine This Rock that was fairly negative on evolution with many of the same misconceptions you see here (“no transitional fossils” comes to mind). But Karl did have an excellent article on the Grand Canyon and young-earthism. Catholic Answers is not young earth at least, but they are sympathetic with the ID-movement and evolution-deniers.
I think that Adam/Eve as historical people (not necessarily with those exact names, but real people), and we trace humanity back to these two people is Catholic dogma. Add in the idea of “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve before the Fall and those are your main theological objections to macroevolution (at least the evolution of humanity). From the Catechism here (paragraph 390 seems relevant)
- The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
And besides the excellent hominid fossil skull collection above, all participants in discussion forums online have definitely evolved
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Edwin << PhilVaz is an evolutionist and Roman Catholic and stated this very well. He recognizes the conflict. His post stated it very clearly. There appears to be a theological conflict. >>
Ah ha, Edwin and I agree on something.
I was just trying to be honest with both science and Catholic teaching. The way I see the issues: (1) there certainly appears to be very good evidence for evolution (including that of homo sapiens), and (2) there are theological conflicts that need resolving. There are probably a couple dozen good Catholic books out there that deal with these conflicts in detail…
One book from the evangelical Protestant side that looks promising is by Glenn Morton, the former young-earth creationist, now theistic evolutionist. His book Adam, Apes and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man is what I am looking for except from a solid Catholic perspective. Maybe Fr. Stanley Jaki has written such a book. The Cardinal Ratzinger book doesn’t deal much in science according to the one review of the book at Amazon.com
Glenn Morton in his book posits there was no “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve before the Fall (he also has several articles on this). That’s how he resolves the theological difficulty. He says basically the “promise of immortality” wouldn’t have been offered to Adam/Eve if they already were immortal. Granted there is much in Genesis chapters 1-3 that is allegorical as I’ve stated. Morton also says (in his summary) “the Biblical Adam and Eve did not live 200,000 years ago, but would have had to have lived many millions of years ago” and then he presents all the anthropological and scientific evidence.
Evangelicals are more free to accept whatever interpretation they can come up with to reconcile evolution and Genesis, the Catholic is more limited I suppose, since some things have been made dogma by the Church that the orthodox Catholic is required to believe. A book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott spells out those “De Fide” dogmas explicitly.
Phil P
Ah ha, Edwin and I agree on something.
I was just trying to be honest with both science and Catholic teaching. The way I see the issues: (1) there certainly appears to be very good evidence for evolution (including that of homo sapiens), and (2) there are theological conflicts that need resolving. There are probably a couple dozen good Catholic books out there that deal with these conflicts in detail…One book from the evangelical Protestant side that looks promising is by Glenn Morton, the former young-earth creationist, now theistic evolutionist. His book Adam, Apes and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man is what I am looking for except from a solid Catholic perspective. Maybe Fr. Stanley Jaki has written such a book. The Cardinal Ratzinger book doesn’t deal much in science according to the one review of the book at Amazon.com
Glenn Morton in his book posits there was no “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve before the Fall (he also has several articles on this). That’s how he resolves the theological difficulty. He says basically the “promise of immortality” wouldn’t have been offered to Adam/Eve if they already were immortal. Granted there is much in Genesis chapters 1-3 that is allegorical as I’ve stated. Morton also says (in his summary) “the Biblical Adam and Eve did not live 200,000 years ago, but would have had to have lived many millions of years ago” and then he presents all the anthropological and scientific evidence.
Evangelicals are more free to accept whatever interpretation they can come up with to reconcile evolution and Genesis, the Catholic is more limited I suppose, since some things have been made dogma by the Church that the orthodox Catholic is required to believe. A book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott spells out those “De Fide” dogmas explicitly.
Phil P
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
Les Richardson:
Vindex Urvogel
Is it now? Not only has the data advanced by the scions of ID (e.g., Behe, Dembski) failed to withstand serious scrutiny but the very philosophical structure of ID and the argumentation advanced by its adherents, leaves much to be desired. Having just watched Bill Dembski in action debating Niall Shanks I can say without ambiguity that his argumentation is a clevery hidden tissue of dissimulations, a simple argument from personal incredulity, masquerading as science.
Are you stating that speciation has not been observed?
Vindex Urvogel
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
Edwin Taraba:
Vindex Urvogel
Except this is a horrifically complicated ad-hoc argument to preclude falsification of your hypothesis. We could say that a train doesn’t go to Chicago, but rather Chicago goes to the train while it alone remains stationary just as equally, and just as fallaciously. The evidence from multiple independent sources converges upon the explanation advanced by evolutionary biology for the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties. Alternative interpretations are both unsubstantiated and untestably vague, as well as unparsimonious.
Vindex Urvogel
B
Booger
Guest
Edwin and PhilVaz, I’m sorry that you fellows would rather put dogma ahead of empirical evidence. That is why you can’t reconcile evolution with your faith. That is irrational.
G
georgeaquinas
Guest
“Evolution theory demands that there never were just two first humans as stated in the bible and by the magisterium.” by Edwin.
Exactly. But Catholic dogma does. Dilemma? No. Contradiction? No.
What is a human? You will get two complete different defientions from science and religion. I think we would all agree that the definition from religion (the Catholic definition) is the more complete of the two.
What does the Catholic definition have that the scientific definition lacks? *The profesion of faith of the Fouth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God 'from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body. *CCC 327
Evolutionary theory cannot speak of how man obtained his spirit. Our spirit (used in the sense above) comes from God. I see no problem in saying that God created human kind by giving two earthly creatures a spirit and made them man.
Just some thoughts.
Happy Fouth all. That fact that we all can debate so civilly and openly like this is a testament to our great country.
PS Edwin FYI If you look in the front of the CCC you will see that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave the CCC its Imprimi Potest. He is also the Prefect of the Congreagation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as such should be read and listened to. Just in case you didn’t know.
Exactly. But Catholic dogma does. Dilemma? No. Contradiction? No.
What is a human? You will get two complete different defientions from science and religion. I think we would all agree that the definition from religion (the Catholic definition) is the more complete of the two.
What does the Catholic definition have that the scientific definition lacks? *The profesion of faith of the Fouth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God 'from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body. *CCC 327
Evolutionary theory cannot speak of how man obtained his spirit. Our spirit (used in the sense above) comes from God. I see no problem in saying that God created human kind by giving two earthly creatures a spirit and made them man.
Just some thoughts.
Happy Fouth all. That fact that we all can debate so civilly and openly like this is a testament to our great country.
PS Edwin FYI If you look in the front of the CCC you will see that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave the CCC its Imprimi Potest. He is also the Prefect of the Congreagation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as such should be read and listened to. Just in case you didn’t know.
D
DuMaurier
Guest
There is no conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology. None whatsoever. In fact evolution justifies the Catholic concept of Original Sin over that of the Eastern Churches. The East see Adam and Eve’s sin as bringing forth the chief consequence of death. But if evolution is true then death existed before Adam and Eve and then the Catholic concept becomes more plausible.
J
jjanderson
Guest
I need some advice on this subject from someone out there. I homeschool and am uncertain how to approach this subject with my elementary aged children. I don’t know enough about it. I do agree with Les that the prime movers of evolution shaped their theories around their atheistic worldviews, and that in fact those theories linked with those worldviews today affect our culture adversely today. (i.e. excusing and explaining certain human behaviors as ancestoral instinct. In other words, it’s not our fault.) I also will never concede the fact that God created one man and one woman, and infused in them a soul which sets them apart from all creation forever. Any advice on what I can read to pull all this together and teach my children responsibly? I will say I shy away from teaching solely the young earth theory or staunch creationism. Thanks!
M
Mike_Rainville
Guest
IMHO, the battle is just beginning to get interesting. When their pet theory, that makes atheism intellectually possible for them, is about to become the accepted theory – now, they want to shy away from the debate!
Evolution has been on shaky ground for a long time, propped up by repeated falsification of evidence, and persistent errors in textbooks.
Intelligent Design is a new, alternative approach, to the problem from scientists who have honestly approached the data with an open mind, open to the possibility that there MAY be a creator, though the evidence and its analysis does not require a creator.
Look here: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Evolution has been on shaky ground for a long time, propped up by repeated falsification of evidence, and persistent errors in textbooks.
Intelligent Design is a new, alternative approach, to the problem from scientists who have honestly approached the data with an open mind, open to the possibility that there MAY be a creator, though the evidence and its analysis does not require a creator.
Look here: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
P
pwilders
Guest
Two reasons for Catholics to reject evolution:
- Lateran IV excludes any possible form of evolution
- Peer reviewed experiments in sedimentology invalidate the principles of stratigraphy upon which the multi-million year time-scale was constructed. The same experiments used in the field show that large geological formations can form in weeks rather than millions of years
J
jjanderson
Guest
P.S. When I say I will never “concede” the fact that God created one man and woman, I mean I will never yield on that fact. I believe it to be true. Again, looking for guidance on Catholic science curriculum. I am familiar with several protestant homeschool science curriculum, and they do a very good job in presenting a Christian worldview in relation to science. What are we Catholics teaching at the elementary level regarding this subject? I know several Catholic homeschool parents who are pretty much forced to use Protestant science curriculum, considering the alternative (secular.) Thanks
G
georgeaquinas
Guest
Please amplify this remark. How do you reconcile this remark with the clear teachings of the CCC:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. 283
There is no conflict. Indeed, these discoveries lead us onto the wonders of God:
These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of man. These discoveries invite us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: 'It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements…for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." 283
- Status