Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are about 400,000 plant species and 8 million animal species.Now add up all the transitional forms and steps and what do you get ?
 
The Church -
  1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
  2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pra
    gmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
  3. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
  4. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
  5. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
 
  1. 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
  2. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
 
Last edited:
Church Teaching

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
buffalo:
[even to the extent of being thrown out if it cannot be reconciled.]
Which is what is happening right now.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking, I fear.
Click to expand...
You have more patience than I do. I’m reminded as to why I left CA so long ago. There are too many here who talk around direct questions asked to avoid losing a debate (the game) than seeking the truthful understandings. That there are Catholics still arguing against Evolution Science is embracing because their arguments aren’t grounded in reason. It fine to not believe in evolution. The Church does not dictate which science theory one must believe or not believe. However, evolution science dissenters never present any convincing counter theory. Referring to Revelation is an abuse of theology.

A Brief Exploration of the Catholic Position on Evolution

There is a great misperception in the culture that Catholicism is anti-science. Many college students confront this error when they encounter reductionism, rationalism, and materialism through their professors. These students do not know how to respond–and far too often–dismiss Catholicism...
catholicexchange.com catholicexchange.com

“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?” - Saint Augustine.

Other than that debating this is a waste of time.
 
So God has 10 fingers, 10 toes, and a penis? God is a mammal?

No, surely not. Surely this passage refers to consciousness or a soul, or to the capacity for free will, and not God’s physiological ability to grab branches.
 
Last edited:
What do you think of St Augustine and “prime matter”?

IDvolution.org

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Hmmmm - yet God came to earth in human form. Of course God is immaterial.

The second person of the Trinity is Jesus. God figured this out later after Adam evolved?
 
On the contrary, Intelligent Design, and reverse engineering biological components go hand in hand, but this sort of thinking is ignored or ridiculed here. Sometimes, emotional words and terms are used to distract and divert conversations or shut them down. Today, scientists have no choice if they are going to learn anything. It’s call Bioinformatics, and it is a sound approach.

“Bioinformatics… is an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines Computer Science, Biology, Mathematics, and Engineering to analyze and interpret biological data.”
 
Last edited:
So… Argue the merits of the case. Most evo sites are anti-Catholic

Now you know that ID is science and has peer reviewed papers.
 
Right, God had no clue. The self-sustaining mechanism was let loose and we could all be lizard men right now if evolution took a different turn somewhere along the line.

1 Corinthians 15:45

New International Version
“So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.”

New Living Translation
“The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” But the last Adam–that is, Christ–is a life-giving Spirit.”

English Standard Version
“Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
 
Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically?

But a Catholic cannot accept all of this. Even if a Catholic wants to accept that things have evolved in some way (whether through macro or microevolution) a Catholic cannot say that this process is simply random, chance, blind, or with no purpose. We believe that God alone created all things, and that he sustains all things. Neither do we confess some sort of “deist” God who merely started things off and then lets them take their own course. Rather, God sustains and carries out every detail.

Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? - Community in Mission

I posted a couple of days ago on Genesis and the comments really lit up. As always the Genesis accounts of creation provide a rich field for controversy and discussion. The last post focused on the question of the genre of the Genesis texts. In this post I would like to ponder another point for...
blog.adw.org
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically?

But a Catholic cannot accept all of this. Even if a Catholic wants to accept that things have evolved in some way (whether through macro or microevolution) a Catholic cannot say that this process is simply random, chance, blind, or with no purpose. We believe that God alone created all things, and that he sustains all things. Neither do we confess some sort of “deist” God who merely started things off and then lets them take their own course. Rather, God sustains and carries out every detail.

Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? - Community in Mission
Click to expand...
quote your link: “Disclaimer– I do not intend to answer all the questions about evolution and Genesis here. This is a blog, not a theological or scientific journal. I am not a dogmatic theologian, neither do I have an advanced degree in Scripture. Neither am I a trained biologist. My MA is in moral theology.”
 
“3. Especially since Vatican Council II, the doctrine of the imago Dei has begun to enjoy a greater prominence in magisterial teaching and theological research. Previously, various factors had led to the neglect of the theology of the imago Dei among some modern western philosophers and theologians. In philosophy, the very notion of the “image” was subjected to a powerful critique by theories of knowledge which either privileged the role of the “idea” at the expense of the image (rationalism) or made experience the ultimate criterion of truth without reference to the role of the image (empiricism). In addition, cultural factors, such as the influence of secular humanism and, more recently, the very profusion of images by the mass media, have made it difficult to affirm the human orientation to the divine, on the one hand, and, on the other, the ontological reference of the image which are essential to any theology of the imago Dei. Contributing to the neglect of the theme within western theology itself were biblical interpretations that stressed the permanent validity of the injunction against images (cf. Exodus 20:3-4) or posited a Hellenistic influence on the emergence of the theme in the Bible.”
 
“52. “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling. No wonder, then, that all the truths mentioned so far should find in him their source and their most perfect embodiment” (Gaudium et Spes, 22). This famous passage from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World serves well to conclude this summary of the main elements of the theology of the imago Dei. For it is Jesus Christ who reveals to man the fullness of his being, in its original nature, in its final consummation, and in its present reality.”
 
“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads 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”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

From Communion and Stewardship

Divine providence is truly denied a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top