Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter kfarose2585
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kfarose2585

Guest
I recently read a book by a Catholic-leaning man named Kenneth R. Miller about how the biological theory of evolution does not actually conflict with the Bible (the book was Finding Darwin’s God–I strongly recommend it). This was a tremendous relief to me, as both a Catholic and a scientist. Discovering that God may have created evolution significantly strengthened my faith, but it left me wondering: what does the Church believe?

Does the Catholic Church completely condemn evolutionary teaching? Or does it leave some room for interpretation? Although I’d hate to go against the Church, at the same time I think that Dr. Miller may have stumbled onto a spectacular piece of truth. What are your opinions?
 
Pope Pius XII in Humani generis:

“The Church’s Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. … It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
That is, God created man, but we humans cannot place arbitrary limits upon the method he used. Essentially, God could have chosen any method to create Man and infuse a soul; whether he did so from the dirt of the earth or through the process of evolution does not change Catholic belief.

Hope this helps.
 
My understanding is that the Church has taken no official position on evolution - we are free to believe or not believe that God employed an evolutionary model to create the human body.

I think the only defined teachings which we must hold as Catholics is that the individual human soul is a unique creation of God, that the first woman descended from the first man, and that all humankind then descended from a single original set of parents.

Blessings.
 
:twocents:
The “Theory” of Evolution is like the “Theory” of Gravity. If I claim that the gravitational attraction between two bodies is proportional to the square of their masses and the square root of their distances, and that that proves that God did not make the cosmos, I commit an error against both faith and science. God made the world such that things fall down. Physics lets me predict how, and why, things fall. Science does not, can not, undermine my faith, because I know my God made all things seen and unseen.

Miller’s book is excellent. Miller’s Biology text is also excellent.

May our Mother Protect us!

Saba
 
40.png
OhioBob:
My understanding is that the Church has taken no official position on evolution - we are free to believe or not believe that God employed an evolutionary model to create the human body.

I think the only defined teachings which we must hold as Catholics is that the individual human soul is a unique creation of God, that the first woman descended from the first man, and that all humankind then descended from a single original set of parents.

Blessings.
Click to expand...
The Church has taken historical positions. The Church has fought evolution from its very beginning. See above post.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The Church has taken historical positions. The Church has fought evolution from its very beginning. See above post.
Click to expand...
At least to the extent of dealing wih the issue of the intellect and the soul.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The Church has taken historical positions. The Church has fought evolution from its very beginning. See above post.
Click to expand...
I am certainly not a theologian, and I would never presume to place my interpretations above those of the Church. I have not read all the historical documents of the Church and I don’t have the time nor the brain power to do so. I have read many writings of JPII and I have read the Catechism. I trust them for authentic Catholic teaching.

I don’t trust my own ability to glean understanding from interpreting writings from hundreds of years ago. And I have no reason to value the interpretations of others who proport to speak for the Church above the teachings of the Church itself.

If you are proposing that current Church teaching regarding evolution is erroneous, you will have to propose it to someone else. I’m not terribly interested.

Sorry.

Interesting reading though…

Christ established the Church and placed its care in the hands of Peter. He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That’s good enough for me.

Blessings.
 
The Barrister–great link. Thank you very much. That has clarified a lot for me. I am glad that the Church recognizes science as something separate but complimentary to spirituality (except in the case of false science, of course).

Buffalo–I read the entire article that you posted, and I could go on and on about all the scientific and religious errors I found in it. For starters, Eve was taken from Adam’s side, not his rib. The first living creatures were bacteria, not amoebae. And, evolution fits perfectly with the belief in:
(a) the creation of all things wrought by God at the beginning of time; (God created Eve at the beginning of time just as He created Adam; he simply formed Eve later. Perhaps the same can be said of the bald eagles and African elephants–they were created by God at the beginning of time, but were formed by God through evolution at a later time).

(b) the special creation of man; (man’s creation in the evolutionary scheme was God’s intent, not an accident).

(c) the formation of the first woman from man; (which makes sense when one examines our genetic similarities).

(d) the unity or oneness of the human race; (see above).

(e) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality. (The Bible confirms this, and evolution says nothing against it).

Philip Johnson isn’t even a scientist, and Kenneth Miller eloquently explains Michael Behe’s misinterpretations of microbiology in Finding Darwin’s God. I think the real issue here is atheist scientists who leave no room for spirituality. They are the real threat, not evolution. However, I think it is unwise to take the other extremist route and say that spirituality precludes the need for science. Both are important, and as the Pope himself said, when done right they are not in conflict.
 
40.png
OhioBob:
My understanding is that the Church has taken no official position on evolution - we are free to believe or not believe that God employed an evolutionary model to create the human body.

I think the only defined teachings which we must hold as Catholics is that the individual human soul is a unique creation of God, that the first woman descended from the first man, and that all humankind then descended from a single original set of parents.

Blessings.
Click to expand...
This is correct. The church does not take an official stance on this subject. I do believe we are free to believe in it as long as we acknowledge God was (is) always in contol of it, or it was by his design. 👍
 
The Barrister said:
An examination of what John Paul II has said about evolution.
Click to expand...

I found this link quite interesting, because it offers an analysis of what the Pope said when he was speaking French. The author of the site assumes that Pope John Paul II speaks French fluently, including an absolute command of idioms.

The Pope may speak French fluently, or may have had a native-speaker review the text of this speech. But it seems a little risky to parse words spoken in other than one’s native language.

example:
I have run the French sentence past multiple French-speakers. Those who are native English-speakers and learned French in school have been uncertain what the correct translation is, but all of the people who have French as their native tongue have said that the most widely reported translation of the key phrase – “more than a hypothesis” – is undoubtedly correct and that if he had intended to say “more than one hypothesis” French idiom would have required it to be phrased a different way.
Click to expand...
and
The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.
Click to expand...
It’s a modern-day example of those who read the Bible literally, using an English or even Greek translation.
 
The rib is indeed located in the side. However, had God taken only a rib from Adam, the latter would not have exclaimed of Eve, “she is flesh of my flesh,” but merely, “she is bone of my bone.” It is a scientific impossibility for a person to be created by a bone, whereas it is possible that by fission a new being may be created from the side of another. Since the Bible and true science can never stand in opposition, then pleura must be translated “side;” a different word is used in Daniel 7:5, and that is the true word for “rib.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top