Genesis v Evolution

[rskempf]

Thanks Phil. This is just what I was looking for.

If anyone wants to investigate another reference, here is a site to check.

scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html

 

[Ahimsa]

Side 2: Macroevolution is true since all the scientific evidence points to this; Genesis 1-11 is myth; traditional Catholic dogma must be re-interpreted (especially on Adam/Eve, original sin, Genesis, etc) along the lines that modern Catholic theologians (like John Haught) are doing so. In this category are GottleOfGeer, SpiritMeadow, drpmjhess, perhaps others. Correct me if I have you wrong!

That’s my side.

 

[wildleafblower]

Side 5. As a Catholic I keep science and religion separate. Also, I should mention that I was the person who kindly requested Alec back in 2003 to write An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

I’m proud to be proud! :angel1: Amen to that. for * True faith is animated by love of God, which is inseparable from love for our brothers and sisters.*

 

[drpmjhess]

My opinion, there are four sides amongst Catholics in here, and some Protestants or Orthodox also can put themselves in one of these categories (substitute “traditional Catholic dogma” for “the Bible” where appropriate for fundamentalists or evangelicals). Phil P

Thanks, Phil - I would expand Side 4 into the following positions (OEC = Old Earth Creationist):

4a - Progressive creationist (Hugh Ross)
4b - Day Age OEC (Watchtower Society)
4c - Gap theory OEC (Custance)
4d - Omphalist YEC (Gosse)
4e - Non-omphalist YEC (ICR, AiG, CRI)
4f - Geocentric YEC (Sungenis)
46 - Flat Earth YEC

I hope this helps.
Petrus

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hey how do you guys who reject a literal and historical Adam/Eve interpret this from the Catechism?

Catechism: By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.” As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin (This inclination is called “concupiscence.”) “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16]. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 416-419).

Adam/Eve as “our first parents” are referred to specifically in paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), and 416-419 above, etc.

It seems pretty clear to me. This was published in 1994, updated in 1997. It may not be a scientific description of the origin of humanity, but it is dogma. Now someone recommended theologian John Haught. Here is what Haught thinks:

Haught: Original sin is not a specific act committed by a literal historical couple Adam/Eve, but refers to our general state of present human estrangement from God, from each other, and from the world. We have not inherited anything from a literal Adam/Eve, but rather have inherited environments, cultures, habits, and a whole history filled with evil and opposition to life.

That’s my summary of his position found in Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution [Paulist Press, 2001], question 19, page 27-28; question 58, page 80-81.

Is Haught’s position what you agree with, and is that what you think Catholic teaching now is? Do you see a difference between what Haught believes, and what the Catechism states?

For the record, I’ve been defending evolution in here since May 2004 when the board opened, but I don’t want to water down or deny Catholic dogma. Are you affirming or rejecting Catholic dogma? If you say affirm, how do you understand the Catechism above?

My creation-evolution articles here

Phil P

This is what I’ve been trying to understand as well.

How does one reconcile theistic evolution with original sin without falling into the dangers of Teilhard?

This is indeed a great mystery.

 

[edwest2]

I reject polygenism as the Church does. Adam and Eve were our first parents. Humani Generis is clear on this.

Evolution is the number one tool in the unbeliever tool box. Jesus Christ was God and man, and came to live among us for a very particular reason. The fault freely committed by our first parents. See Humani Generis.

At no time should science ever appear more important than the established Word as handed down by the Church. The secular world wants its own way and walks in darkness. Science is only part of the answer to the question of the human being, divine revelation, out of which proceeds all truth, is paramount and most necessary.

So, my brothers and sisters in Christ, a few here say science is the source of all knowledge but our faith is not vain and our communion is with the living God. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the light.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

So, my brothers and sisters in Christ, a few here say science is the source of all knowledge but our faith is not vain and our communion is with the living God. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the light.” God bless,Ed

Ed, who here says that science is the source of all knowledge? I haven’t heard that articulated in the last couple of weeks. If you’re setting up yet another straw man, you’re gonna have to truck in a couple more bales…

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Soft tissue in a 68 million year old T-Rex fossil?

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5717/1952

68 million years and soft tissue? I don’t think so. There is a bias in studying evolution, an anti-God bias.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ahimsa]

This is what I’ve been trying to understand as well.

How does one reconcile theistic evolution with original sin without falling into the dangers of Teilhard?

This is indeed a great mystery.

What would be the primary danger of Teilhard?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, who here says that science is the source of all knowledge? I haven’t heard that articulated in the last couple of weeks. If you’re setting up yet another straw man, you’re gonna have to truck in a couple more bales…

Petrus

I have no straw.

Thank you for your concern, and grudging acceptance that I am not “totally limited” which is hugely charitable, but I am an MBTI “thinker” so appeals to emotion don’t cut much ice with me.

Faith is believing things without evidence - faith is a deliberate suppression of our critical faculties - faith is the acceptance of unwarranted beliefs. It’s time we gave it up and stopped treating it as a virtue.

We were talking about the fact that science is the only reliable way to discover knowledge about the natural world, that it needs no belief in supernatural phenomena or gods of any kind to do its job, and that therefore it is, as I claimed, sufficient unto itself.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

But he thinks faith in God, well… you know.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed, you have taken a snippet (ref. msg. 689) of a rather lengthy argument that Alec and Buffalo,etc. were discussing from another topic. (1) Without reading the entirety of their lengthy discussion, what you have presented that Alec stated could be interpreted incorrectly as you done. Alec was strictly speaking about science not needing Faith in the strictest sense of the word as applied to a ‘religious faith’. Of course, I did ticker with the word faith in a different sense in its meaning as is noted on that topic. I shall go back to that topic tomorrow and develop a clearer vision of my observations along with additional data that will support my position. Let us remember that Alec MacAndrew has every right to defend and protect scientists and Science.

1. Topic : **Is evolution a fact? ** YES, it is! ]forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2864556#post2864556
   http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2864556#post2864556

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What would be the primary danger of Teilhard?

Polygenism…the denial of Adam and Eve as literal people who transfered the stain of original sin onto their offspring-- therefore, by successive generation, unto us as well.

Some people just outright deny that Adam and Eve were literal people…a postion that I and the Church I belong have strongly rejected…and these people, like Teilhard, therefore reject original sin to accomodate the evolutionary hyposthesis.

This isn’t to say that all people who reject original sin do so for evolutionary compatibility. I think the Orthodox, for example, do not believe in original sin in the same sense that Catholics do for example. Likewise, Jewish believers believe something went wrong in the beginning, even if thisd wrongness it isn’t on the scale of the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Evolution isn’t the issue in this sense.

Nonetheless, other people seem to reject evolution because it, once again, seems to lead toward the conclusion of polygenism. Other passages of Catholic and Orthodox Scriptures seem to likewise deny one of the most powerful evolutionary aspects of the evolutionary hypothesis: death itself.

For example, the doctrinal teachings of the deutero-canonical Book of Wisdom knows that God made man after His image, creating him for immortality (ii, 23), so that death entered the world, apparently, only through the envy of the Devil (ii, 24).

In short…

For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.

It appears that God had no intention for death for man, that humanity would be spared from death if they would follow God’s path. And yet much death must have occured in order for man to have been brought forth by God from pre-existing species.

The two views appear to be irreconcilable as far as I can determine with very little middle ground available. That’s why I say this really is a deep mystery.

Evolution is highly plausible, more than a theory but not quite a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. I’m supposing that it’s very possible that we are misunderstading something like how we misunderstood the earth to be the center of the solar system at one time.

I am open to theistic evolution but I am still skeptical. When in doubt, I will default to the historical exegesis of the Scriptures until something more defined is revealed to be reasonably true. I would, however, like to have a good answer for this though.

How does one reconcile theistic evolution with original sin without falling into the dangers of Teilhard?

This is indeed a great mystery.

God, what is the answer to this question?

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed, you have taken a snippet (ref. msg. 689) of a rather lengthy argument that Alec and Buffalo,etc. were discussing from another topic. (1) Without reading the entirety of their lengthy discussion, what you have presented that Alec stated could be interpreted incorrectly as you done. Alec was strictly speaking about science not needing Faith in the strictest sense of the word as applied to a ‘religious faith’. Of course, I did ticker with the word faith in a different sense in its meaning as is noted on that topic. I shall go back to that topic tomorrow and develop a clearer vision of my observations along with additional data that will support my position. Let us remember that Alec MacAndrew has every right to defend and protect scientists and Science.

1. Topic : **Is evolution a fact? ** YES, it is! ]forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2864556#post2864556
   http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2864556#post2864556

edwest2;2880536:

I have no straw.

But he thinks faith in God, well… you know.

God bless,
Ed

Straw? Are you kidding? [Ah, I see PhilVaz has shown up below. Ed, you said, “There is a bias in studying evolution, an anti-God bias.” Oh, dear you hate science. I know a lot of children in elementary school from different religious backgrounds that love science!]

Side 5. As a Catholic I keep science and religion separate. Also, I should mention that I was the person who kindly requested Alec back in 2003 to write An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution
by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology

I’m proud to be proud! :angel1: Amen to that. for * True faith is animated by love of God, which is inseparable from love for our brothers and sisters.*

Hi Phil:wave: I’m a cloud floating along above you.

 

[PhilVaz]

EdWest << 68 million years and soft tissue? I don’t think so. There is a bias in studying evolution, an anti-God bias >>

Thank you, if you think there is really something to that article, that puts you in side (category) 4: you reject evolution on both theological and scientific grounds. And as someone points out above, that runs the gamut from Hugh Ross (old earth creationism) down to Sungenis (geocentrism) and flat-earthers. But your position has nothing to do with the modern Popes who reject those forms of “scientific” creationism:

"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)

The answer to that dino-blood article by Gary Hurd from a few years ago:

Dino Blood and the Young Earth ( www.TalkOrigins.org )

Dino Blood Redux ( www.PandasThumb.org )

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

Well, you may think the conflict is between belief and science. It is more fundamental than that. Right now, some do not want to endure sound doctrine. They need a way out, and so, science has become that way.

It may appear to be easy to put me in some category, but I do not label myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I am continuing my studies in chemistry and electronics, evolution is not, and never was, the “whole” of science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << It may appear to be easy to put me in some category, but I do not label myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I am continuing my studies in chemistry and electronics, evolution is not, and never was, the “whole” of science. >>

My categories (sides) are rather simple:

If you definitely reject evolution: you are side 4.
If you think evolution may or may not be true: side 3.

Evolution has no scientific evidence in its favor: side 4.
You reject evolution mainly for theological reasons: side 3.



I am on side 1: evolution is true, Catholic dogma is true, but they are hard to reconcile. And I don’t want to re-interpret Catholic dogma just yet (which is side 2).

The Popes can be put somewhere on side 1 or 2 depending how you interpret their writings on Genesis – for John Paul II see his Theology of the Body and for Benedict XVI see In The Beginning… and the 2004 ITC Statement (especially paragraphs 63-70). Both Popes see Genesis 1-3 in some sense as “myth” and also affirm macroevolution.

Phil P

 

[Ahimsa]

I am on side 1: evolution is true, Catholic dogma is true, but they are hard to reconcile.

Is it just coincidence that your side is conveniently numbered side *one – *as in Number One, Numero Uno, A-1, First-Class, Superior, and Excellent?

 

[Orogeny]

Is it just coincidence that your side is conveniently numbered side one – as in Number One, Numero Uno, A-1, First-Class, Superior, and Excellent?

No, it was intelligently designed!

Peace

Tim

 

[impalass]

Well, you may think the conflict is between belief and science. It is more fundamental than that. Right now, some do not want to endure sound doctrine. They need a way out, and so, science has become that way.

It may appear to be easy to put me in some category, but I do not label myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I am continuing my studies in chemistry and electronics, evolution is not, and never was, the “whole” of science.

God bless,
Ed

Throughout history, organized religion has been our whole problem. It doesn’t bring people together (it brings so called christians together) but doesn’t embrace others who by luck of the draw were born into a different culture/religion.

    The Pope recently stated that churches that protestants attend are not real churches because they didn't follow the successsion of the first christian church.  Christians diividing themselves from christians (LOL)   If only religion would put their differences aside.   

The catholic church by far is not squeaky clean.  

57 years ago I was born and raised a catholic.   Not anymore.  I accept all people for who they are not because of where they were born and what they believe.   Life is too short to worry about such trivial things.

 

[edwest2]

Life is short, eternity isn’t. You would do well to consider that what you have been hearing are constant repetitions from those who hate the Church. They vary in intensity but all come down to the following: Religion is the root of all evil.

I have a close friend who tells me most of the killing in this world was done by religion. Religion makes you want to harm people.

My God, Jesus Christ, never told His followers to harm anyone.

God bless,
Ed