Is believing in evolution sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enigma87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Enigma87

Guest
Hey, basically I believe in evolution as well as the creation story. I have a little mix… here is my theory… God created the Earth in 7th days in the same order except, the days weren’t 24 hour days more like millions of years, and that he created evolution, but used days as million of years. Is this thought sinful? Science is discovering a lot of things and I kinda see it fitting in with religion in a werid way, like the 7 creation days not being 24 hours. Discuss?
 
That’s a perfectly moral and Catholic position to take. I think it was John Paul II (or someone high up) who said that Catholics can still believe in evolution.
 
It’s not a sin but you should understand what the Church teaches. The reference to Pope John Paul II was adopted by secularists but is not a full explanation of his ideas. He referred to theories of evolution, not just one. He also referred to ‘fixed points.’ There are things Catholics are taught that are part of the Deposit of Faith. This includes divine revelation about the nature of man and woman. This in contrast to the secular version of evolution where man is just another animal that just happened to appear at some point in history. If a process did occur, God was a direct causal agent, working infallibly.

God bless,
Ed
 
**Evolution is real, within species & is the will of God!

“Evolution” theorized by Darwin & many “progressive intellectuals” that includes one species becoming another is just a bad theory & has absolutely no proof to back it up, ie. man did not come from apes…**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Enigma87 said:
Hey, basically I believe in evolution as well as the creation story. I have a little mix… here is my theory… God created the Earth in 7th days in the same order except, the days weren’t 24 hour days more like millions of years, and that he created evolution, but used days as million of years. Is this thought sinful? Science is discovering a lot of things and I kinda see it fitting in with religion in a werid way, like the 7 creation days not being 24 hours. Discuss?
Click to expand...
Enigma – See the links on this thread from the Ask an Apologist section: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=439094

They explain the Church’s position on these issues.

.
 
It’s perfectly acceptable to believe in evolution as a Catholic. Here’s what John Paul II had to say about evolution. He wasn’t speaking ex cathedra at the time, but he says some things in favor of evolution, like this:
The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Click to expand...
There are no ex cathedra denouncements of evolution. There are a few points which are non-negotiable though. I don’t have a source for this at the moment, but if I recall, these are the main ones:
  • all humans are descended from a single man and woman, Adam and Eve
  • humans are more than animals because we have immortal souls, which are directly created by God—animal souls can’t evolve into human souls
  • the age of the universe is finite, i.e. there was a creation and the universe has not always existed
Catholic.com has a few resources about evolution. Here are two that I found: Evolution and the Magisterium and Adam, Eve, and Evolution.

Be ready for this topic to cause quite a controversy on the forums though…
 
edwest2 said:
It’s not a sin but you should understand what the Church teaches. The reference to Pope John Paul II was adopted by secularists but is not a full explanation of his ideas. He referred to theories of evolution, not just one. He also referred to ‘fixed points.’ There are things Catholics are taught that are part of the Deposit of Faith. This includes divine revelation about the nature of man and woman. This in contrast to the secular version of evolution where man is just another animal that just happened to appear at some point in history. If a process did occur, God was a direct causal agent, working infallibly.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Can you explain this a bit more. You are saying that you can believe in evolution, but you are just supposed to believe that God set it into motion? In my opinion, if you believe in God and you believe in evolution, this is basically the position you take by default.
 
hellopeople said:
This isn’t an infallible teaching, right? Because it would really discredit the Catholic Church if it were.
Click to expand...
How so? In any case, I found a source in the link in my previous post, Adam, Eve, and Evolution. Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis that everyone is descended from a single Adam and Eve. That, I think, is not an infallible teaching, and I doubt that it’s been stated infallibly anywhere else. So I guess that point isn’t quite non-negotiable, but of course the opinion of a Pope still carries quite a bit of weight.
 
Yes one can hold a theistic form of evolution…(tis a question of the emperical sciences…) so long as one holds the various truths of the Faith…God could use various means in regards the the material world…

here though is an important quote for you Pope Benedict is certainly interested in the various reasonable theories in regards to evolution…but he reminds us too that God is Logos…and any evolution is not some blind chance…:

"We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But again the question has to be asked: is this still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: “I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth” -I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to help others see the reasonableness of faith, as Saint Peter in his First Letter explicitly urged the Christians of his time to do, and with them, ourselves as well (cf. 3:15)!

We believe in God. This is what the main sections of the Creed affirm, especially the first section. But another question now follows: in what God? Certainly we believe in the God who is Creator Spirit, creative Reason, the source of everything that exists, including ourselves."-- Pope Benedict XVI

From:

vatican.va/holy_father/be…nsburg_en.html
 
Mark77 said:
Evolution is real, within species & is the will of God!

“Evolution” theorized by Darwin & many “progressive intellectuals” that includes one species becoming another is just a bad theory & has absolutely no proof to back it up, ie. man did not come from apes…

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
Click to expand...
that’s an appropriate stance. we do indeed observe new species arise thanks to natural selection, mutation, and geographic isolation. but the descendants of a fish turning into an amphibian turning into a lizard turning… we do not observe that, nor is it Biblical.

personally, i trust the Bible’s account of a literal, six-day Creation, as evidenced by the “mornings and evenings” of those days, the context of the text itself, and the fact that for several hundred years all Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) taught that six days meant six days, not six eras.

there’s a book you may want to read by Jonathan Sarfati called “Refuting Evolution”. the title may sound rather abrupt, but it’s a good read. “Refuting Compromise” is another one of his books, also worth reading.
 
I believe in evolution, including the species evolving from bacteria to fish to dinosaurs etc.

I do believe that one can reconcile the science and the faith without losing anything on either side. So yes, we are related to monkeys, yet maybe God had a hand in making sure we were uniquely different from them.
 
presidentjlh said:
I believe in evolution, including the species evolving from bacteria to fish to dinosaurs etc.

I do believe that one can reconcile the science and the faith without losing anything on either side. So yes, we are related to monkeys, yet maybe God had a hand in making sure we were uniquely different from them.
Click to expand...
so Christ came to save us from evolved monkey DNA? or from the seperation from Him and need for forgiveness and reconciliation cased by one man’s sin? are the geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke fables or parables, or do they record what they propose to record; history?

and at which proposed evolutionary ancestor of men did pre-men become men? was Adam an Australopithecine, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Neaderthal, or something else?

if you are interested, if… Sarfati’s books are quite good. they read for what they are, critical and well thought out, Biblical, and reasonable. it’s another perspective, and the reasons why.
 
grace_singh said:
so Christ came to save us from evolved monkey DNA? or from the seperation from Him and need for forgiveness and reconciliation cased by one man’s sin? are the geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke fables or parables, or do they record what they propose to record; history?

and at which proposed evolutionary ancestor of men did pre-men become men? was Adam an Australopithecine, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Neaderthal, or something else?

if you are interested, if… Sarfati’s books are quite good. they read for what they are, critical and well thought out, Biblical, and reasonable. it’s another perspective, and the reasons why.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the whole thing, I seek truth. But to say that all the science and evidence for it is complete bunk is also wrong, for didn’t God also give us science to determine the ways of nature?

I am not saying how God did it. I can’t say I know exactly in what way God did it, but I do believe He, in His perfection, did at one point say, “You are Adam, a man.” and so on. The Old Testament is much more symbolic than the New Testament. I do believe that the “7 days” represented much more than simply 168 hours. If official Church teaching does not declare otherwise, I feel it to be acceptable.
 
yellowantphil said:
How so? In any case, I found a source in the link in my previous post, Adam, Eve, and Evolution. Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis that everyone is descended from a single Adam and Eve. That, I think, is not an infallible teaching, and I doubt that it’s been stated infallibly anywhere else. So I guess that point isn’t quite non-negotiable, but of course the opinion of a Pope still carries quite a bit of weight.
Click to expand...
Well many popes believed that the earth was the center of the universe…even saying it was heretical to say otherwise. And people even used the bible to prove this point, and galileo said don’t use the bible to prove that the earth is the center of the universe, because you are just discrediting the bible. I feel the same way about evolution and people claiming we came from Adam and Eve. Scientifically, it just doesn’t make sense that Adam and Eve ever existed.
 
From Yellowantphil’s link:

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul."

That is exactly what I think about the whole thing. The body developed from previous biological forms under God’s guidance, but the soul was something completely unique and specially created for man.
 
grace_singh said:
so Christ came to save us from evolved monkey DNA? or from the seperation from Him and need for forgiveness and reconciliation cased by one man’s sin? are the geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke fables or parables, or do they record what they propose to record; history?

and at which proposed evolutionary ancestor of men did pre-men become men? was Adam an Australopithecine, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Neaderthal, or something else?

if you are interested, if… Sarfati’s books are quite good. they read for what they are, critical and well thought out, Biblical, and reasonable. it’s another perspective, and the reasons why.
Click to expand...
I have a few things to say about this. First of all I don’t really believe in original sin. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve existed because it doesn’t make sense scientifically. You can try to reconcile the story with evolution by saying the days were actually longer than days, or something similar, but in the end (in my opinion at least) the creation story is a complete myth. It was there to show why humans have a propensity to sin. In fact, Jews don’t even believe in original sin, but they believe that they just are born with a propensity to sin.

As for the genealogies, I challenge you to trace your genealogy back 10 generations. I GUARANTEE you wouldn’t be able to do it without an extreme amount of research (and to be honest, you probably wouldn’t be able to do it at all). And this is in the time of the internet, official records, birth certificates, etc…yet you think someone 2,000 years ago could write a proper genealogy that traces back thousands of years? It is basically impossible.

So we have a few choices to consider. Either the creation story was guided by the holy spirit and is completely true, but for some reason God decided to provide extreme amounts of empirical evidence basically proving it false. Or, the story was guided by the holy spirit and isn’t actually true but is meant to show a spiritual message. Or it wasn’t guided by the holy spirit at all and is just a fabricated story. I personally think the first option is the least likely.
 
presidentjlh said:
From Yellowantphil’s link:

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul."

That is exactly what I think about the whole thing. The body developed from previous biological forms under God’s guidance, but the soul was something completely unique and specially created for man.
Click to expand...
In my opinion this makes sense and is completely rational for someone to believe that believes in both God and evolution.
 
hey, thank you for responding.

what is not possible is reconciling the Biblical narrative with currently held scientific theory regarding the origins of earth, life, and man. no one has actually observed or measured evolution on the levels Darwin proposed. no one still living was there at the creation of man, and the current model of human evolution is based on theories, ideas, and suppositions based upon the scenario of Darwin’s theories being true, and viewing fossil remains against the backdrop of this supposition.

Creation scientists do the same, looking at phsyical evidence with the assumption that the Bible is a literal and true account of Creation, and examining physical data in light of the narratives therein.

secondly, i do indeed trust the geneologies of the Bible to record Christ’s hereditary line. yes, it is remarkable to have a geneology which traces one’s ancestry back to the first man, but it is by no means impossible, especially considering that this is God’s Word, and an historical text on divine, social, political, and phrophetic matters.

Biblical archology continues to confirm a surprising number of the Bible’s recorded historical events, places, people, and timelines for a text many consider to be fabricated, and based on legend or myth.
hellopeople said:
I have a few things to say about this. First of all I don’t really believe in original sin. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve existed because it doesn’t make sense scientifically. You can try to reconcile the story with evolution by saying the days were actually longer than days, or something similar, but in the end (in my opinion at least) the creation story is a complete myth. It was there to show why humans have a propensity to sin. In fact, Jews don’t even believe in original sin, but they believe that they just are born with a propensity to sin.

As for the genealogies, I challenge you to trace your genealogy back 10 generations. I GUARANTEE you wouldn’t be able to do it without an extreme amount of research (and to be honest, you probably wouldn’t be able to do it at all). And this is in the time of the internet, official records, birth certificates, etc…yet you think someone 2,000 years ago could write a proper genealogy that traces back thousands of years? It is basically impossible.

So we have a few choices to consider. Either the creation story was guided by the holy spirit and is completely true, but for some reason God decided to provide extreme amounts of empirical evidence basically proving it false. Or, the story was guided by the holy spirit and isn’t actually true but is meant to show a spiritual message. Or it wasn’t guided by the holy spirit at all and is just a fabricated story. I personally think the first option is the least likely.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top