Evolution

[rossum]

So you say, now support your assertions.

The YEC 6x24-hour day interpretation is contradicted by cosmology, astronomy, stellar physics, thermodynamics, geology, chemistry, atomic physics and quantum mechanics that I can think of off the top of my head. There may well be more. It is just as well for the Catholic Church that it does not require, though it does allow, a YEC interpretation.

One or both are wrong if …

You asked for evidence, yet you use an unsupported “if”. Check out who the parents of the King were in Chronicles 2 and Kings 2.

Also read up on some Biblical scholarship, this is a scribal error, which is sufficient to show that the version of the Bible we have today is not the original. Even Biblical inerrantists are careful only to ascribe inerrancy to the original manuscripts, which are no longer available.

However, this discussion is wandering far from evolution.

The Catholic Church allows acceptance of evolution as a method God used to produce the material human body. Evolution does not claim to produce the soul, and Catholics are not allowed to believe that it does so. See my quote from Humani Generis early on in this thread.

rossum

 

[fniper]

The YEC 6x24-hour day interpretation is contradicted by cosmology, astronomy, stellar physics, thermodynamics, geology, chemistry, atomic physics and quantum mechanics that I can think of off the top of my head. There may well be more. It is just as well for the Catholic Church that it does not require, though it does allow, a YEC interpretation.

You asked for evidence, yet you use an unsupported “if”. Check out who the parents of the King were in Chronicles 2 and Kings 2.

Also read up on some Biblical scholarship, this is a scribal error, which is sufficient to show that the version of the Bible we have today is not the original. Even Biblical inerrantists are careful only to ascribe inerrancy to the original manuscripts, which are no longer available.

However, this discussion is wandering far from evolution.

The Catholic Church allows acceptance of evolution as a method God used to produce the material human body. Evolution does not claim to produce the soul, and Catholics are not allowed to believe that it does so. See my quote from Humani Generis early on in this thread.

rossum

I am not exactly sure what theYEC is but I don’t necessarily think the creation story need have occurred over 144 hours. But I do not discount the power of God to accomplish anything He wills in His creation. You list a series of scientific disciplines which contradict the 144 hour theory, pick one and make your case. Just realize a theory does not establish facts which have not been established it only hypothesizes and extrapolates from the facts that can be etablished and thus its weakness is the false promise scientific theory gives those who wish it establishes as fact what it does not.
Maybe the age of Ahaziah was measured by the reaching of manhood by one author and by birth by the other. Who knows.
Bart Errorman is hardly a scholar, he is a showman of some little talent but enough to sell books to the hungry masses. Where does the Catholic Church acknowledge or accept evolution as the method used to produce the material body? Origin is quite different from natural developement, it would be a shame if you were mixing the two concepts and falsely portraying the Church’s position on the origins of the first man and woman. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit we trust what He provides, it is not a matter of not being allowed to believe but a question of faith in the teacher who teaches with authority.

My apologies Rossum, it is time to share time with my wife. I will gladly address any further points you would like to make at a later time. A theory establishes nothing. Please allow me to wish grannymh a good night as well.

 

[rossum]

I am not exactly sure what theYEC is but I don’t necessarily think the creation story need have occurred over 144 hours.

YEC = Young Earth Creationism. 6 x 24-hour days 6,000 years ago.

But I do not discount the power of God to accomplish anything He wills in His creation.

As soon as you invoke miracles, then any pretensions to be doing science go straight out of the window. An omnipotent being could have created the world last Thursday, with all the appearance of age already present. That is no longer science.

You list a series of scientific disciplines which contradict the 144 hour theory, pick one and make your case.

This thread is not for discussing YEC. There are numerous scientific refutations of YEC available on the internet.

Just realize a theory does not establish facts which have not been established it only hypothesizes and extrapolates from the facts that can be etablished and thus its weakness is the false promise scientific theory gives those who wish it establishes as fact what it does not.

You do not have sufficient understanding of the scientific vocabulary, in particular the correct scientific usage of ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ and how they both differ from facts. Science starts with facts. Facts are used as a base for hypotheses, which are immediately attacked by other scientists, each trying to destroy each other’s hypotheses. Yes, it can get bloodthirsty. Any hypothesis which survives the gauntlet, and is useful at explaining and predicting facts, will get elevated to theory status. Until a better theory comes along, that is, just as Newton’s theory was replaced by Einstein’s.

My apologies Rossum, it is time to share time with my wife. I will gladly address any further points you would like to make at a later time. A theory establishes nothing. Please allow me to wish grannymh a good night as well.

Real life is like that, it gets in the way of the internet.

rossum

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are Catholics being encouraged to accept this as the most viable explanation for the origin of man? Patrick Madrid said about as much on the radio not long ago.

Patrick is welcome to his opinion. No, Catholics are required to believe that some form of evolution is possible but that Man was not begotten from an animal in the usual sense of the term and that all men descended from one man and one woman. Just how this could come about is open to speculation. But Catholics may also believe that God created man in the manner that Genesis relates.

 

[Pheonix]

Are Catholics being encouraged to accept this as the most viable explanation for the origin of man? Patrick Madrid said about as much on the radio not long ago.

Evolution does not seek to explain the origins of man, or even the origins of life. Scientists study the origins of life in a separate scientific discipline known as abiogenesis. Evolution, to overgeneralize a bit, seeks to explain why the world contains such a colossal biodiversity of life.

In any case, the most accurate way to answer your question is to say “no.” The Catholic Church is not against science. After all, the Church is unable to infallibly declare, proclaim, or define scientific truths because papal infallibility is restricted to matters of faith and morals. Likewise, science is not against religion because religion seeks to explain the supernatural. Supernatural phenomena, by definition, are not restricted to the physical universe. Scientists, who are concerned solely with the physical universe, therefore cannot objectively study the supernatural. The only time the Church would be against science is if scientists tried to define matters deeply rooted within theology (e.g. “what are the origins concerning the human soul?”). You rarely find scientists who try and do such things, though.

Evolution, in truth, does not contradict Catholic theology. Therefore, the Catholic Church, as is the case with most scientific matters, allows her members to either accept or deny evolution as a well-established, well-supported, and well-tested scientific theory. Whether a Catholic chooses the former or the latter option, he or she will remain in good standing with the Church and her teachings.

 

[edwest2]

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

**What Does The Catholic Church ****Teach about Origins?

**

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• 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.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.