T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s not what the Pope says.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Namesake
Guest
It’s a mistake to expect evolution theory to address theological matters. Just try to keep evolution theory confined to it’s rightful place which is the origin of species. Evolution isn’t about the origin of life itself.It seems to me that there exists a fundamental conflict between the Catholic Doctrine (or Dogma?) of Original Sin and evolution.
The Church clearly teaches that death came to humans at that moment of disobedience (an act which the Church also asserts was, though figuratively presented in scripture, nevertheless a real event, and not just a metaphor).
Yet, in contrast to the Catholic teaching above, death is necessary for the process of evolution to work, for it is the turnover via death that largely integrates beneficial mutations into a species. So…
**1. If evolution is true, and death occurred prior to the First Human, then Original Sin is refuted.
A) How it is that death would be viewed by this “Adam” as anything new, and at the very least some sort of punishment.
- If the dogma of Original Sin is true, and death did not occur prior to the First Human, then evolution is refuted.
**
If Catholics wish to claim that evolution is not incompatible with Original Sin because God infused a higher primate with a soul which became the “first human”, then I would request that they also explain:
B) At which point on the evolutionary tree did this “infusion of a soul” occur?
C) If the above questions cannot be reconciled adequately with the evidence of evolution, on what basis should Catholics continue to adhere to the doctrine of Original Sin?
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
That’s all well and good, but when the leader of the church makes the assertion “there is no conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic teaching”, I would think some sort of examination of the assertion is warranted at the least. That is all I have done here.It’s a mistake to expect evolution theory to address theological matters. Just try to keep evolution theory confined to it’s rightful place which is the origin of species.
The claim has been made by the Pope that there is no conflict, but I seem to have encountered one.
Agree. Where did I say otherwise?Evolution isn’t about the origin of life itself.
B
buffalo
Guest
Well in this case you can just compact time and what do you have - creation?Wow, you can’t see the critical point here? The critical point is that there is no “random” to God. God either controls “random” directly, or at the very least he has complete foreknowledge of every “random” event in the universe. So there is nothing whatsoever to prevent God from setting the conditions of the universe to bring about precisely each and every hair on your head. There is no contradiction, no difficulty here at all.
What Stephen Jay Gould says is simply words, and not very useful words at that, given the rather obvious reality that we can’t rewind evolution.
E
edwest2
Guest
No. We don’t have to wait for the final judgement. We can know what the Church teaches today. Do you remember where you heard the Pope make a reference to an animal being connected to Adam?edwest2 wrote:
What I heard Benedict 16 say was that it was possible for an animal to be picked for the instilling of Grace to be the ADAM of human existence. He is not speaking doctrinally, but theologically. Both he and I are not saying there were more than one set of parents as this would definitely be against our revealed truth. This is not inconsistent with doctrine concerning creation. God created “man” but we just don’t know how and it is not important for Him to tell us now. We will have to wait for the Final Judgement when God’s plans are unveiled to us.
mdcpensive1
bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
Pope Benedict XVI
Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htmThat’s not what the Pope says.
Pope Benedict XVI
Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
Peace,
Ed
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
To me, that reasoning justifies the pro-abortion argument. It also justifies the twisted rationale of dictators, religious fanatics and secular purists in their dealings with the sub-human class of their preferred enemy. All of you cannot be right and I’d not like to give any quarter to the abortionists.Man is an animal.
I do not think God would have created a factual dilemma such as evolution and creation are currently understood. This is not the same type of differentiation a Catholic makes to a non-Catholic/Christian explaining the ‘pagan roots’ of Christmas as it is explaining transubstantiation of the Eucharist to them.
A round-about-explanation to show the truth (as I currently see it): God keeps things fairly simple. Christianity’s Scripture can be translated into any tongue and be fully understood. (Not the words but the Word) Unlike Islamic scripture that is often defended as a misunderstanding because it must be read and heard in classical Arabic to know what it truly means. I mention that because, granted it is plausible that the human being evolved and God imbued a transformation in a creature(s) that is now humanity. It’s also plausible the geological transformation of the planet formed following the many natural courses that are described by science to support the emergence of life all the way until the 1st living thing is mentioned in Genesis. I see these as introductions of something new by the same supernatural that created the universe itself, flooded the world, and fed thousands with two fish and five loaves.
If the rise and fall of species between the inhospitable periods of Earths history can swing from microbes and cockroaches to T-Rex and humans as masters of the planet in their respective periods, then human life is seemingly not so different as the sparrows despite the soul that dwells within.
Not everything (Scripture) is literal and not everything is allegory, but all of it must be true and not contradict what we hold as true in any part of our life. Pro-choice Catholics in public life are a good example of a contradicted truth. Pro-war, pro-amnesty Catholic/Christians are too imo. I do not see the nobility of killing innocents to save them or breaking just civil law at the expense of legal citizens. There are better ways to help.
The human being is more than animal, like Jesus is more than human but was human. Everything is Gods creation whatever the truth of the matter. If the truth is human beings evolved from animals that emerged in Africa somewhere in the timeline, the spiritual act of God giving two evolved beings a soul that would make them unique, and every other creature would be inferior and different to man from that moment on and humanity would spring from that alone is contradicted by this explaination of Adam (60k yr, play video).
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html
I assume that is fairly accepted for human evolution to be considered true.
I see too many contradictions as it stands with my admitted limited knowledge of biology. Evolution wouldn’t shake my faith if it proves true, but I do not believe it. I accept a lot of science and an old Earth; I take issue with the human being at least and those things that reduce its worth for evil purposes and the acceptance of being an animal seems to do that.
Something doesn’t add up. As in all the things I do not fully understand, what is true will make sense once it is known. My experience of trying to disprove God when my faith did not make sense or seemed contradictory has only proved God all the more to me in some humbling ways. All the talk of mitochondrial Eve and scientific leaps of faith to bridge problematic evolutionary gaps is like the need to know classical Arabic to know the truth.
N
Numinous
Guest
Death did not occur, for man, before the first sin, because with sin, death entered the world. Can’t speak to stars, animals, and other non-man organisms/entities/bodies.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:Man came from an animal? That’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching does say that all human beings had Adam and Eve as their first parents. There were no “other” parents. And we just didn’t show up unexpectedly due to evolution. We were created.
That’s not what the Pope says.
**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
**
And…
**Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.**
And tying it together…
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).
Get the picture now?
V
VociMike
Guest
Well what you (that is, God) can do and what he did do are not identical. And we can only know what he actually did do by looking at both his revelation and his evidence. In this case, his revelation says what he did, and his evidence tells us how he did it. And as always, the two cannot be in conflict when properly understood, for when properly understood they both reveal truth.Well in this case you can just compact time and what do you have - creation?
A
agangbern
Guest
Evolved from monkeys? That’s impossible!
Oh, the link you gave is about evolution of consciousness, not about evolution of man from monkeys!The diagram on the following site shows how Christian and Scientific evolution are possible. thinkuni.startlogic.com/page6.html
T
Thing
Guest
90% Monkey
50% Banana
50% Banana
S
soma
Guest
The abstract part of the diagram is the evolution of pure consciousness to matter. The other half is evolution of matter back to pure consciousness. That would be from the unicellular animals to the multi-cellular animals to man, and then from man to pure consciousness.
E
edwest2
Guest
Gould did not regard man as anything special, whereas the Church defends the uniqueness of man in Creation.In defense of Gould I would like to point out that he expressed sincere respect for religions even though he was not a believer. He was nothing at all like the militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett.
Gould’s words were and still are quite important in this world whether you agree with him or not.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Science does not recognize God. They worship their own minds and hold their science as their truth and nothig else.Wow, you can’t see the critical point here? The critical point is that there is no “random” to God. God either controls “random” directly, or at the very least he has complete foreknowledge of every “random” event in the universe. So there is nothing whatsoever to prevent God from setting the conditions of the universe to bring about precisely each and every hair on your head. There is no contradiction, no difficulty here at all.
What Stephen Jay Gould says is simply words, and not very useful words at that, given the rather obvious reality that we can’t rewind evolution.
The contradiction is clearly stated here:
nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447753a.html
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Neither does plumbing. But that doesn’t have you in a lather, because you aren’t threatened by water running through pipes.Science does not recognize God.
However, scientists and plumbers can and do recognize and worship God.
You’ve conflated plumbing and plumbers again, Ed.
E
edwest2
Guest
Should I put up another link to the 2007 Nature article that denies man was made in God’s image? The international weekly journal of science obviously felt very threatened by… a politician. God and politics, subjects which I would expect in Time or Newsweek.
You like evidence. Just go to youtube and listen to the PZ Myers interview (plumbing is never mentioned but religious belief is). Pick up a copy of the God Delusion. I have a Secular Humanism link where Sam Harris disparages his fellow scientists for listening to “the alien hiss of religious lunacy.” More links available for the asking. I also recommend Darwin Central. (Note to new Catholics: I would avoid Darwin Central.)
Peace,
Ed
You like evidence. Just go to youtube and listen to the PZ Myers interview (plumbing is never mentioned but religious belief is). Pick up a copy of the God Delusion. I have a Secular Humanism link where Sam Harris disparages his fellow scientists for listening to “the alien hiss of religious lunacy.” More links available for the asking. I also recommend Darwin Central. (Note to new Catholics: I would avoid Darwin Central.)
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Darwinians need to see this video on the Extended Synthesis and how Darwinians are undermining science.
The fight goes on because science is not where it should be.
The fight goes on because science is not where it should be.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Cool. So the extended synthesis includes God as an explanation?Darwinians need to see this video on the Extended Synthesis and how Darwinians are undermining science.
The fight goes on because science is not where it should be.
Peace
Tim
V
VociMike
Guest
Since science cannot say anything about God via the scientific method, then it should not “recognize” God. And when individual scientists do attempt to demonstrate that science somehow disproves God, they reveal appalling ignorance about religion and theology, and only make themselves look foolish.Science does not recognize God. They worship their own minds and hold their science as their truth and nothig else.
There is no conflict between science and faith, and those on either side who maintain otherwise have a false understanding of one or (more likely) both.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.