Genesis v Evolution

[Koru]

Koru << The Church has always taught this, and the sacred scripture itself teaches that the entirety of all things were created within a week and that the world does not move because it is the center of the universe and that the universe revolves around it… >>

And I quote Cardinal Schonborn again:

"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…

“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.” (Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)

Let’s summarize, Cardinal Schonborn says:

– Six-day creationism or “the earth is 6000 years old” is “nonsense”
– Genesis is not making literal chronological and scientific statements
– attempting to use science for a young earth (or geocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of unbelievers, patently opposed to reason, and makes the faith look ridiculous

Your response to Schonborn was what again?

Phil P

Let’s speak about the quote in red first:

What makes you automatically ASSUME that St. Thomas is speaking about the Six-day creation? I can just as easily interpret that quote as it being against “theistic evolution”. You can not automatically place the original teachings of the Church as “nonsense”.

Schonborn is not speaking “ex cathedra” and he cannot do so unless he is ever elected into the papacy. What he is speaking from is his own personal idiology and interpretations of the teachings in the Catholic Church. Besides, he is speaking mostly about “fundamentalism” which takes every single word literally in the bible, which is not what I’m defending. I don’t believe in fundamentalism and I can’t say that I ever will. His attack is on the fundamentalist Protestants who are trying to assert their views scientifically and the methods they use to get it done. Cardinal Schonborn is not stating that he does or doesn’t believe in a literal six-day creation, he is stating how these Protestants are forcing the subject down people’s throats and any sort of teaching shouldn’t be done that way.

Let’s go over your “summary”:

– You are taking two different quotes and placing your assumptions to fit the range of what St. Thomas is quoted for on the issue of teaching idiotic falsehoods to promote the faith.
– That’s not what the Church has taught from its initiation, so explain to me the proof you have for this part of your summary.

EDIT:
Also, remember the quote from Athanasius:
“the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” - Athanasius (summarized)"

The scripture teaches our world is the center of the universe and that God created everything in 6 days (THE first day, THE second day, THE third day, etc.)
– attempting to use science for an old earth (or acentrism & heliocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of the believers in the original Church teachings, patently opposed to reason, and is making the faith look ridiculous

 

[Steve40]

i just read an article in the US News & world report, Sept 29, 2003 called Divining nature’s plan.

“a generation after his pioneering work in the burgess shale, simon conway morris is convinced that far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose. in his new book, *life’s solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe *(cambridge university press, 2003), he argues that not only does evolutionary history “make sense” but that its results - including humanity - are the exact opposite of the evolutionary accidents that most biologists believe them to be.”

something you debaters might want to review

It sounds like he is one step closer to accepting design. With purpose and design the random evolutionary process doesn’t make sense because there are functions that work together in a design that could not have evolved. He is coming to the conclusion that the information in natural selection and small change were already there, designed in. I think he’ll come around eventually to seeing that the chicken really did come before the egg.

 

[cpayne]

– attempting to use science for a young earth (or geocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of unbelievers, patently opposed to reason, and makes the faith look ridiculous

At one point in my naive CAF career, I would have thought this too obvious to need to say. Evidently I was wrong.

So let’s say it again, shall we?

– attempting to use science for a young earth (or geocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of unbelievers, patently opposed to reason, and makes the faith look ridiculous.

 

[Koru]

"cpayne:

At one point in my naive CAF career, I would have thought this too obvious to need to say. Evidently I was wrong.

So let’s say it again, shall we?

– attempting to use science for a young earth (or geocentrism I’ll add) is provoking the scorn of unbelievers, patently opposed to reason, and makes the faith look ridiculous.

Apparently no matter how many times you repeat that mantra, it won’t make it true. Maybe you should go back and read what I stated as a reply to that exact quote? Besides, how does having faith in what scripture teaches as fact make the faith look rediculous… please elaborate.

 

[hecd2]

It sounds like he is one step closer to accepting design. With purpose and design the random evolutionary process doesn’t make sense because there are functions that work together in a design that could not have evolved. He is coming to the conclusion that the information in natural selection and small change were already there, designed in. I think he’ll come around eventually to seeing that the chicken really did come before the egg.

It’s grotesque that you should patronise a great biologist like Conway Morris. But just to be absolutely sure about what he holds, let me quote from his book itself:
“…if you happen to be a ‘creation scientist’ (or something of that kind) and have read this far, may I politely suggest that you put this book back on the shelf. It will do you no good. Evolution is true it happens, it is the way the world is, and we too are one of its products… This does not mean that evolution doesn’t have metaphysical implications, I remain convinced that this is the case. To deny, however, the reality of evolution and more seriously to distort deliberately the scientific evidence in support of fundamentalist tenets is inadmissible. Contrary to popular belief the science of evolution does not belittle us”

No-one who has actually read the book could claim that Conway Morris, great biologist as he is, thinks that “the information in natural selection and small change were already there”. That’s just wishful thinking. He , like all professional biologists, accepts the role of adaptation in creating the diversity of species. Conway Morris is not a blind believer in the special creation of kinds.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mirdath]

Dear Folks: Believing that evolution is a fact of nature, I have no problem with the above teachings of the CC except for the one word “immortality” in # 5. Anyone want to tackle that? In what way were our primal parents immortal?

Koru has answered this from the strictly literal perspective, but I disagree. ‘Immortality’ does not refer to physical immortality at all, but to the death of the soul in hell.

We know from Church teaching that God has a divine plan for each and every human being; this plan ends with us in heaven. Adam and Eve, as human beings, were then destined for that just as we are; whether they would have died as we know it or merely been taken to God is immaterial: at some point, they would have ceased to exist upon this earth. This is not immortality as popularly conceived, a state of eternal life on earth, but immortality of the spirit: before the Fall, they were in no danger of hell.

 

[edwest2]

You mention the “Fall.” Where would that be placed on the evolution timeline exactly? And Adam lived, physically, for a very long time after being cast out of the Garden.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Koru]

Koru has answered this from the strictly literal perspective, but I disagree. ‘Immortality’ does not refer to physical immortality at all, but to the death of the soul in hell.

We know from Church teaching that God has a divine plan for each and every human being; this plan ends with us in heaven. Adam and Eve, as human beings, were then destined for that just as we are; whether they would have died as we know it or merely been taken to God is immaterial: at some point, they would have ceased to exist upon this earth. This is not immortality as popularly conceived, a state of eternal life on earth, but immortality of the spirit: before the Fall, they were in no danger of hell.

Where do you determine how “immortality” doesn’t refer to the physical?

Let me clarify some things:

"71. Where does the soul come from?

The spiritual soul does not come from one’s parents but is created immediately by God and is immortal. It does not perish at the moment when it is separated from the body in death and it will be once again reunited with the body at the moment of the final resurrection." - Compendium for the Catechism of the Catholic Church - page #25

The spirit still is immortal even after the Original Sin, but the Church teaches that humanity lost its immortality due to the fall… This immortality that was lost has to be of the physical because the spirit remains immortal.

God desired for humanity to be saved from the fall of man…

"78. After the first sin, what did God do?

After the first sin the world was inundated with sin but God did not abandon man to the power of death. Rather, he foretold in a mysterious way in the ‘Protoevangelium’ (Genesis 3:15) that evil would be conquered and that man would be lifted up from his fall. This was the first proclamation of the Messiah and Redeemer. Therefore, the fall would be called in the future a ‘happy fault’ because it ‘gained for us so great a Redeemer’ (Liturgy of the Easter Vigil)." - Compendium for the Catechism of the Catholic Church - page #27

Doesn’t the Church teach that we will once again obtain our perfect bodies and live with Christ for all eternity?

"202. What is the meaning of the term ‘body’ (or ‘flesh’) and what importance does it have?

The resurrection of the flesh is the literal formulation in the Apostles Creed for the resurrection of the body. The term ‘flesh’ refers to humanity in its state of weakness and mortality. ‘The flesh is the hinge of salvation’ (Tertullian). We believe in God the Creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem flesh; and we believe in the resurrection of flesh which is the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1. What is meant by the ‘resurrection of the body’?

This means that the definitive state of man will not be one in which his spiritual soul is separated from his body. Even our mortal bodies will one day come to life again." - Compendium for the Catechism of the Catholic Church - page #56

Mortality is the inevitable separation of the spirit from the body, immortality is the impossibility of separation of the spirit from the body. Adam was immortal before the fall of man.

 

[steveandersen]

You mention the “Fall.” Where would that be placed on the evolution timeline exactly? And Adam lived, physically, for a very long time after being cast out of the Garden.

God bless,
Ed

evolution cannot speak about individuals, just populations

 

[freesoulhope]

Apparently no matter how many times you repeat that mantra, it won’t make it true. Maybe you should go back and read what I stated as a reply to that exact quote? Besides, how does having faith in what scripture teaches as fact make the faith look rediculous… please elaborate.

Do you agree with the Pope when he speaks of Evolution being compatible with the faith, so long as we believe that we came from Adam And Eve, and that the soul was created directly by God?

 

[cpayne]

Do you agree with the Pope when he speaks of Evolution being compatible with the faith, so long as we believe that we came from Adam And Eve, and that the soul was created directly by God?

A good and direct question deserves a Yes / No answer, don’t you think?

 

[Koru]

Do you agree with the Pope when he speaks of Evolution being compatible with the faith, so long as we believe that we came from Adam And Eve, and that the soul was created directly by God?

Evolution can only be compatible with faith if it is PROVEN as true. Since macroevolution has not been proven and cannot be proven, there will be no official standing on the Church regarding the issue… Since the Church is chiefly concerned with the salvation of mankind, the specifics concerning the how of evolution is not necessary to gain salvation.

One must also believe in the judgements of man (which is the casting out of Paradise and in the worldwide flood).

But long story short, if you believe in evolution… there are strict guidelines one must follow. Believing in evolution is acceptable under those conditions. But, in the same breath… I’d also point out that simply because something is permissable to believe in doesn’t make it something one SHOULD believe in.

A good and direct question deserves a Yes / No answer, don’t you think?

Yes, evolution is compatible with the faith under many strict guidelines and barriers. No, evolutionary origin shouldn’t be believed even if it is permissible and acceptable under these guidelines. Special Creation as been taught throughout the ages and has no strict guidelines because it is taught in sacred scripture as well as being taught since before and after Christ’s life and death. Special Creation is the only origin story that the Church has taught as truth, the Church has not and will not teach theEvolutionary origin story as fact. She can only make the theory compatible with the faith so that She doesn’t lose many of the faithful.

I can only suggest that people watch the First International Convention for the Catholic Doctrine of Creation. I see no reason to believe in evolutionary origin and that conference explains a lot of the reasons why.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Also, I’d like to announce that I cannot be as active on this website as I have been this past week or so because business has gotten pretty hectic. I’ll try to participate as much as possible so please don’t bombard me with 50 questions a day >_< at least give me a chance to defend my side. Thanks!

(maybe somebody will rise to the challenge in my place while I’m gone )

God Bless,
~Cole

 

[cpayne]

Yes, evolution is compatible with the faith under many strict guidelines and barriers.

:dancing: Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[Koru]

:dancing: Thank you. :tiphat:

Hahaha, now I never stated that it wasn’t allowed… I was always only stating why it shouldn’t be believed

The Church decided the conditions that evolutionary origin can be allowed but evolution is still originally an athiestic teaching to get away from a Creator.

 

[hecd2]

Evolution can only be compatible with faith if it is PROVEN as true. Since macroevolution has not been proven and cannot be proven, there will be no official standing on the Church regarding the issue…

Yes, evolution is compatible with the faith under many strict guidelines and barriers…

She can only make the theory compatible with the faith so that She doesn’t lose many of the faithful.

All of these statements from Cole appear in the same post.

Evolution is:

1. Compatible with faith only if proven and proof not possible
2. Is comaptible with faith (with conditions)
3. Made compatible with faith to keep church membership up

So which is it?

We can be forgiven for concluding that Cole’s thinking is rather muddled here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Koru]

All of these statements from Cole appear in the same post.

Evolution is:

1. Compatible with faith only if proven and proof not possible
2. Is comaptible with faith (with conditions)
3. Made compatible with faith to keep church membership up

So which is it?

We can be forgiven for concluding that Cole’s thinking is rather muddled here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

My apologies, I mixed up my wording from my intention. Let me clarify…

Evolution can only be taught with faith if it is PROVEN as true. Since macroevolution has not been proven and cannot be proven, there will be no official standing on the Church regarding the issue…

Yes, evolution is compatible with the faith under many strict guidelines and barriers…

She only makes the theory compatible with the faith so that She doesn’t lose many of the faithful.

Does this help any?

 

[wildleafblower]

The Church decided the conditions that evolutionary origin can be allowed but evolution is still originally an athiestic teaching to get away from a Creator.

The Theory of Evolution is science. I was taught decades ago while attending a public school the basics of evolution in Biology 101. Science didn’t impose upon my religious faith as a Catholic. I wasn’t taught that Science and Faith are compatible, but rather Truth is a bridge between the two and there resides God’s Revelation about man. I had wonderful Catholic priests as friends that were also teachers, who were incrediably holy and wise as they often did travel the world with Bishops and Jesuits.

Pope John Paul stated on November 9, 2003 to the members of the PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES elequently announced, “Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research. We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...cdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf

 

[cpayne]

She only makes the theory compatible with the faith so that She doesn’t lose many of the faithful.
Does this help any?

No; in fact, it is harmful. You are saying that the CC only allows for evolution in order not to lose its followers, which is certainly a base motive. If that were its motive, why would not the CC change its position on the far more controversial social issues such as abortion?

No, the reason the CC allows for belief in evolution is because of the empirical evidence supporting evolution, and because all truth is one and comes from God. Including scientific truth.

 

[steveandersen]

My apologies, I mixed up my wording from my intention. Let me clarify…

*Evolution can only be taught with faith if it is PROVEN as true. Since macroevolution has not been proven and cannot be proven, there will be no official standing on the Church regarding the issue…

Yes, evolution is compatible with the faith under many strict guidelines and barriers…

She only makes the theory compatible with the faith so that She doesn’t lose many of the faithful.*

Does this help any?

Well since there have been observed instances of speciation (what some folk call “macro" evolution) then it has been “proven” as an observable fact. The exact details of the mechanism(s) might still be under theoretical consideration but that doesn’t affect the observations.
This won’t affect the Church taking an “official position” on it since She is not a science organization and cannot comment on it any further than She has.

Evolution is completely compatible with faith as is every other facet of science. (The use that folks put that knowledge to might be incompatible but that is another matter)

As for the Church making accommodations in basic beliefs just to keep bums on seats… not bloody likely.

 

[wildleafblower]

Evolution is completely compatible with faith as is every other facet of science. (The use that folks put that knowledge to might be incompatible but that is another matter)

Hi Steve

I’ve always considered you one of the brightest of the bunch. A very polished gentleman. I’m being picky as far as semantics goes with concern that the word compatible within your statement might imply that there isn’t a “Separation of Church and State”. Evolution is ‘science’ and faith is ‘an encounter with the living God’ which has been announced by a religious institution:

On December 25, 2005 BENEDICTUS PP. XVI stated, "Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God’s standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

My thought runs in this direction, faith isn’t compatible with science that is why it isn’t taught in public schools because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a separation of Church and State.

Gee, I hope I worded that correctly. My days have been long of late.