Genesis v Evolution

[buffalo]

Your unwillingness or inability to answer a very plain question is noted. It is not a question about science, or a Catholic’s attitude to science, but what Catholics must believe. Since it is quite straightforward, I will repeat it:

Since the Church does NOT teach today that Catholics must believe literally and historically that Eve was created from the side of the sleeping adult Adam, which of these statements is true?:

• infallible propositions can be changed by subsequent generations
• the pope and current church leadership are heretics
• your analysis that the proposition was made infallibly is wrong.
  So which is it?

By the way, I don’t care which of these is true, but one of them must be true as this is a MECE (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) list. So which one is it, in your view? (If you stick by your analysis then the only logical conclusion for you is the second option.)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Obviously #1 cannot be true.

That leaves 2 or 3.

You claim the Church does not teach Eve came from Adam. Documentation please?

If the documentation is satisfactory then #3 would be the logical conclusion.

And that is precisely what the argument is. You will find Fr Harrison to be pretty throrough in his research.

So a fourth option presents itself.

The Church still teaches what it had always taught and without an official infallible pronouncement contrary, it is some Catholics are heretics.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Church still teaches what it had always taught and without an official infallible pronouncement contrary, it is some Catholics are heretics.

Humm, you do agree with this don’t you? Benedictus XVI’s message in the L’Osservatore Romano on September 23, 2007, 'When the logic of sharing and solidarity prevails’

“In addition, I wish to recall that today in Italy the St Vincent de Paul Society is holding a campaign against illiteracy, a great social wound that still touches many people in various regions of the world. I wish great success to this initiative and welcome the occasion to address a cordial greeting to the children and young people who have just begun a new scholastic year, as I do naturally to their teachers. Good studies to all.”
vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/039w01.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/039w01.pdf

I should mention that there is a wealth of information within his message. I really like this too!

“In his Encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul II wrote: “The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human freedom exercised in many other fields” (n. 32). Yet, he adds that capitalism must not be considered as the only valid model of economic organization (cf. ibid., n. 35). Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.”

I love John Paul:yup:

 

[drpmjhess]

Hey drp, i would just like to congratulate you on your effort dispell the creationism myth. Creationists are making all of christianity look like a stupid stubborn child. I thank god for catholic scientists like you who show the athiests that there are resonable and rational people who believe in a god. Keep up the goodwork!.

G’day, mate – sounds like you put up with a lot of liquid laughs down under. Thanks, but I’m a theologian, albeit scientifically educated and working daily side by side with biologists, paleontologists, geologists, physical anthropologists, biological anthropologists, ecologists, mammalogists, biochemists, philosophers, and historians. Those of us who are Catholics or other Christians cringe when we hear Catholic fundie claims trumpeted, because we know the inevitable eye-rolling that will come from our unchurched colleages. To be fair to them, however, most of them are kind and gentle people who recognize in educated Christians fellow questers after (at least part of) the truth. I don’t proselytize for my faith, but lead by Catholic example.

Good onya,
Petrus

 

[steveandersen]

…I watched a great flick on DVD recently that may interest you and others, POPE JOHN PAUL II, ‘based on the powerful true story’ of his life. “Shot on location in Rome and Poland with the cooperation of the Vatican, this moving film takes an intimate look at the man who touched millions and changed the face of the Church and the world". I was fortunate to have seen him years ago. Of course, we know Pope John Paul II believed that science was truth! …

Do you mean the film with Cary Elwes and Jon Voight?
Great flick.

As a fat, middle-aged North American I live an embarrassingly comfortable life.
Imagine having to deal with both Nazis and Soviets?


I don’t know how he kept the faith in the face of all that

 

[buffalo]

G’day, mate – sounds like you put up with a lot of liquid laughs down under. Thanks, but I’m a theologian, albeit scientifically educated and working daily side by side with biologists, paleontologists, geologists, physical anthropologists, biological anthropologists, ecologists, mammalogists, biochemists, philosophers, and historians. Those of us who are Catholics or other Christians cringe when we hear Catholic fundie claims trumpeted, because we know the inevitable eye-rolling that will come from our unchurched colleages. To be fair to them, however, most of them are kind and gentle people who recognize in educated Christians fellow questers after (at least part of) the truth. I don’t proselytize for my faith, but lead by Catholic example.

Good onya,
Petrus

We also need to be careful of syncretism.

 

[edwest2]

Sadly Ed, I really believe you know that this is not true. You know we have no desire to remove God from creation. We seek to keep Catholicism if not Christianity from looking rediculous in the eyes of the world. God is Not removed from creation. We all believe sincerely that God is the Creator, we just don;t idolize a book’s version.

And I know you know better about Pope Benedict. He is on record, and I’ve given you the site, with his acceptance of science as a better source of scientific history than the bible.That follows JPII and Pius XII, who both publically stated that evolution was not in opposition to church teaching.

No theory is ever “proven” and I think you know that also. That has virtually nothing to do with anything. Look up the NAS 1999 address on Science and Creation.

If you need to believe otherwise Ed, so be it, but at least be intellectually honest here where we known what you’ve been given as evidence. Don’t pretend you didnt.

Who are this “we” you refer to? I have the article link for Pope Benedict’s statement if you want to see it again. I have all of the relevant articles ready. What is not honest is the constant, daily, “believe Evolution” or you will be embarrassed mantra. This is not the only Christian forum on the internet.

Go to any other that deals with this issue. Virtually the same statements and from some of the same people. I’ve gotten a free college level course in evolution on the internet. And why is that? Why would a number of people spend their time here, day in and day out, to say the same things over and over? Certainly not to educate anyone.

And I assure you, the Church hierarchy will not be calling me for consultation so enough with the strange connection between my comments and what the Church ends up saying or doing. Finally, and this I can also document, the greatest concern of the unbeliever is the Church gaining a greater foothold in the world. This is about ideology and not science.

Theistic evolution is simply, “Sure, you can tack God onto that but the Theory don’t need any god.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Agreed. I (strongly) oppose creationism yet am in favor of the doctrine of Creation. There is apparently a damning difference between the two. Creationism is terribly anti science, a mockery of theological opinion and makes Christianity seem a hopeless joke whereas Creation is simply the doctrine that an External Unmoved Being has/is capable of creating the Universe that we see today.:

GuanYuWarGod, thanks for your post. (I don’t know what “stickying” means).

I am entirely with you. In the sense that Christians have always believed in the doctrine of creation – namely that the cosmos is not self-subsistent but ontologically dependent upon something outside itself (as in Aristotelian eternalism) – I am a creationist. Unfortunately, the ancient Christian creational theology was hijacked at the turn of the 20th century by “Young Earth” fundies, who arrogated to themselves exclusive use of the time-honored term “creationism.” An excellent book is Christopher B. Kaiser’s "Creational theology and the history of physical science: the creationist tradition from Basil to Bohr (Leiden ; New York: Brill, 1997). Kaiser argues that without belief in creationism modern science would probably not have arisen, at least not in the manner or at the time it did.

Fundamentalist Catholics also don’t seem to be aware that early on there was no official campaign against the evolutionary hypothesis. An excellent book by someone I highly respect (we’ve spoken together at conferences) is “Negotiating Darwin: the Vatican confronts evolution, 1877-1902,” by Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martínez (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Mariano (sadly, he died last year) was a fine Opus Dei priest and warm colleague, and with Glick and Martinez he has shown that there was no organized campaign against evolution in the 19th century.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

We also need to be careful of syncretism.

Agreed! That has been a theological challenge since that Fathers confronted, sorted out, rejected, absorbed, and integrated various streams of Greek thought into Catholic doctrine

Petrus.

 

[wildleafblower]

Do you mean the film with Cary Elwes and Jon Voight?Great flick.

As a fat, middle-aged North American I live an embarrassingly comfortable life. Imagine having to deal with both Nazis and Soviets?

I don’t know how he kept the faith in the face of all that

Hi Steve

Yup, that’s the flick! Pope John Paul II was a miracle in the making ! He left an impression on my soul that can never be erased. He hovered above me in a helicopter for quite a few minutes as I was blowing bubbles in the air. I guess he was wondering what those shiny little bursts of light on the top of a hill were during Mass

Our dear John Paul drew strength from adversity which enabled him to have a deep compassion for his homeland and people around the globe. Remember his letter to Padre Pio? Awesome!

 

[buffalo]

Fundamentalist Catholics also don’t seem to be aware that early on there was no official campaign against the evolutionary hypothesis. An excellent book by someone I highly respect (we’ve spoken together at conferences) is “Negotiating Darwin: the Vatican confronts evolution, 1877-1902,” by Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martínez (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Mariano (sadly, he died last year) was a fine Opus Dei priest and warm colleague, and with Glick and Martinez he has shown that there was no organized campaign against evolution in the 19th century.

Petrus

The Church has fought against evolution since the beginning 2000 years ago.

 

[drpmjhess]

The Church has fought against evolution since the beginning 2000 years ago.

Buffalo, this is quite simply false. There was, of course, opposition to the hostile presentation of evolution as a materialst philosophy, and Rome’s Jesuit-run “La Civilta Cattolica” did carry numerous articles critical of what the editors feared as a covert atheistic science. Read “Negotiating Darwin” for a finely detailed and sophisticated historical investigation into the six cases that came under scrutiny by the congregation of the Index. If credentials add any weight to argument, does it sway you that one of its historian-authors was an Opus Dei priest, a fine, loyal, and compassionate churchman?

Petrus

 

[hecd2]

Obviously #1 cannot be true.

That leaves 2 or 3.

You claim the Church does not teach Eve came from Adam. Documentation please?

If the documentation is satisfactory then #3 would be the logical conclusion.

And that is precisely what the argument is. You will find Fr Harrison to be pretty throrough in his research.

So a fourth option presents itself.

The Church still teaches what it had always taught and without an official infallible pronouncement contrary, it is some Catholics are heretics.

But it clearly doesn’t teach that Catholics MUST believe in the literal and historical truth of the creation of Eve from the side of a sleeping adult Adam (let’s call it EFAS for convenience), which it should do if that belief has been proposed infallibly.

What the Church actually teaches is a matter of fact not an infallible matter (in other words, EFAS might have been declared infallibly, but the Church certainly doesn’t teach that it is a required belief of Catholics today). Phil knows far more than I do about this, but it is clear , even to an amateur like me that what the Church teaches does not REQUIRE Catholics today to believe in EFAS. So for example the famous encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII:
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

JPII: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Benedict: “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. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

It’s abundantly clear that the current Church leadership accepts at least the possibility that the scientific theory of evolution is correct, and, more importantly, does NOT teach that Catholics MUST believe EFAS. If you can show that the Church leadership does teach EFAS infallibly today then you can have your option 4. Otherwise, and this is actually the case, option 4 is not available to you and you have to choose from 1, 2 or 3 (and if you insist the proposition HAS been made infallibly, then you have to include Pius XII, JPII and Benedict XVI in your statement: “it is some Catholics are heretics”).

Alec

 

[buffalo]

But it clearly doesn’t teach that Catholics MUST believe in the literal and historical truth of the creation of Eve from the side of a sleeping adult Adam (let’s call it EFAS for convenience), which it should do if that belief has been proposed infallibly.

What the Church actually teaches is a matter of fact not an infallible matter (in other words, EFAS might have been declared infallibly, but the Church certainly doesn’t teach that it is a required belief of Catholics today). Phil knows far more than I do about this, but it is clear , even to an amateur like me that what the Church teaches does not REQUIRE Catholics today to believe in EFAS. So for example the famous encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII:
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

JPII: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Benedict: “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. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

It’s abundantly clear that the current Church leadership accepts at least the possibility that the scientific theory of evolution is correct, and, more importantly, does NOT teach that Catholics MUST believe EFAS. If you can show that the Church leadership does teach EFAS infallibly today then you can have your option 4. Otherwise, and this is actually the case, option 4 is not available to you and you have to choose from 1, 2 or 3 (and if you insist the proposition HAS been made infallibly, then you have to include Pius XII, JPII and Benedict XVI in your statement: “it is some Catholics are heretics”).

Alec

It pretty clear here:

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - PART I

The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

 

[buffalo]

DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION

…** A. What does *Arcanum *teach about our physical origin? **

     There are essentially five points of Catholic truth explicitly affirmed by the Pope in the paragraph we have reproduced above, in addition to another point (the first in the following list) which is presupposed or implied as the necessary foundation of those which follow:

     (1) the historical character of chapters 1-3 of Genesis;
     (2) the creation of Adam by God on the sixth day, including the formation of his body from the slime (or dust) of the earth;
     (3) the formation of Eve's body from the side of Adam;
     (4) monogenism - the doctrine that the entire human race has been propagated from this original couple alone;
     (5) the unity of marriage - that it is between one man and one woman, thus excluding adultery and polygamy;
     (6) the perpetuity of marriage - its life-long character, excluding divorce.

     In regard to the first of the above points, it is clear that in this passage Leo XIII wants not only to profess, but even to emphasize, the truly historical**[ 8](http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html#FN_8)** character of the Genesis narratives. In the first place, he makes a point of asserting that those "detractors of the Christian faith" whose views he wishes to censure are striving to "erase the history"**[ 9](http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html#FN_9)** of the nations. Then, immediately after that, he makes a point of placing the divine creation of Adam and Eve - body and soul - in its precise time-slot within biblical history: "on the sixth**[ 10](http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html#FN_10)** day of creation." The implication is unmistakable: Leo XIII is asserting here that first among those ***historical*** truths whose light the enemies of the faith "can neither extinguish nor weaken" are those recounted in Genesis 1-2: the creation of the world by God in six days,**[ 11](http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html#FN_11)** including the creation of Adam and Eve.

 

[mich2]

Ed, creationists typically construct three different meanings of evolution, with only one of which they disagree. The disputed issue over antibacterial resistance comes from a misconception that organisms evolve new structures in response to environmental change. Instead, it is more accurate to think of the variation already existing in the population, so that when the environment changes it selects for organisms at one end of the variation spectrum. This is evolution, and it takes millions of years. But of course, your a priori extra-scientific assumption of the short timeline in the Genesis cosmogonic myth, which you impose on science, precludes your reading genotypical and phenotypical change in light of the millions of years of geological time.

You referred to and misinterpreted the work of Dr. Maura Meade-Callahan. I decided to phone her this morning, and although she was unavailable I spoke with her colleague Luke Holbrook (an evolutionary biologist at the same institution, Rowan University). He confirmed that you completely misunderstand her work on the evolution of drug bacterial drug resistance, and sighed that he is all too familiar with your type of creationist half truth and misrepresentation.

To begin with, I’m not a scientist of any type, so I’m here mostly to ask questions. I personally don’t have any problems with the theory of evolution as such, but am confused as to why the term
“intelligent design” is said to be unscientific. In my opinion, the term itself doesn’t need to focus directly towards a Divine creation, but does imply a momentum of life development in the direction starting from a lesser and moving towards a more complex type of lifeforms…which is what evolution actually means in the first place.
To claim the process is not an intelligent one, while under the same breath speak of robotic artifial intelligence seems odd to me. Can we not view an ant colony holistically as an intelligently designed lifeform? If not, what would prevent us to see it as such?

you wrote:
The disputed issue over antibacterial resistance comes from a misconception that organisms evolve new structures in response to environmental change. Instead, it is more accurate to think of the variation already existing in the population, so that when the environment changes it selects for organisms at one end of the variation spectrum.

The question remains: how did such variations within the organism come to exist in the first place? Certainly an answer would be by random mutation. However, it is this very aspect of evolution which must demand, in my opinion, an enormous amount of transitional fossil forms, something that many believe is lacking. However, if the mutation is done through a direct reaction to it’s environment, it would then become a controlled form of mutation, which we would still observe as random due to our lack of understanding in the processes of life. Nevertheless, such a process of mutation would, in my opinion be considered an intelligent process.

Andre

 

[buffalo]

Why Human Evolution Can Never Become
Part of the Deposit of Faith

…**(a) **as early as 3 February 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, Vas Electionis, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man” (see p. 8); and

 

[Orogeny]

Why Human Evolution Can Never Become
Part of the Deposit of Faith

…**(a) **as early as 3 February 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, Vas Electionis, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man” (see p. 8); and

That seems to be in conflict with Cardinal Ratzinger’s position. Is it your opinion that statements by the current and recent popes have been consistent with this teaching or are they heretical?

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. (from Communion and Stewardship:Human Persons Created in the Image of God The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution)

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Here is the answer from the Library of this site:

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[mich2]

Why Human Evolution Can Never Become
Part of the Deposit of Faith

…**(a) **as early as 3 February 557, in an epistle to King Childebert I and later in an epistle, Vas Electionis, addressed to the whole Church, Pope Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of man” (see p. 8); and

I would agree with the above. Adam and Eve is a story about life within a heavenly dimention, being the reason as to why it is allogorical in essence. I believe the persons involved, Adam, Eve Satan are real, but ought to be viewed as more than humans…for they walked with God in Paradise, while we do not.
It seems that Adam was created before there was any shrubs or plants on earth, while a heavenly garden did exist. Therefore, in my opinion, Adam was not created on the 6th Day, but probably on the first. Eve is said to be the mother of all life, not only humans. Life on earth might have been created by God through Adam and Eve…who knows?

Andre

 

[buffalo]

That seems to be in conflict with Cardinal Ratzinger’s position. Is it your opinion that statements by the current and recent popes have been consistent with this teaching or are they heretical?

Peace

Tim

It seems there needs to be an explanation.

I think the recent Popes have been very careful on the evolution issue. Evolution has not been made doctrine.

Now for one to be heretical they must make a definitve pronouncement against the constant teachings of the Church. I have not been aware of this obstinance.