Is Evolution Compatible With Catholicism?

[minkymurph]

I asked the question and ask it again because your answer would have prevented you still wondering - so does “let him be anathema” mean let him accept evolution because many wrongly state the Church does - accept your own answer and that of the Church and not mine - twinc

You cannot presume to know what someone else’s answer to a question is if they have not stated it. It quite possible my answer is one you have not even imagined. In addition, I believe you may have inferred in one of your other posts that the Church and certain Pope’s are wrong?

To my knowledge, the Church does not consider Catholics who accept some biological and cosmological evolutionary theories ex-communicate. In fact, is it not the case that the term ‘anathema’ pretty much fell into disuse a long time ago? You are free to believe they should be, but I have never a heard a Pope state, or read in a Papal document, or any other authoritative Church statement, anything to that effect.

 

[Dan_Daly]

There are approximately one gazillion threads on this topic here. **The short answer is that evolution and Catholicism are compatible. ** Here is a link to a Church document that discusses human origins:

Communion and Stewardship

I’m not sure that this should the deciding factor in your choice of faiths, but I wish you well in your search. If you want to learn more about Catholicism, you could start by reading the Catechism:

Catechism

But it might be easier to sit down with your local priest.

That depends on how you define “evolution”. The Church teaches among other things:

-There was one original man and one original woman, from who all others descend.
-The first man was made by God out of the earth.
-The first woman was made from the side of the first man.

If a particular theory of “evolution” agrees with those teachings, then perhaps it is compatible with the Catholic faith, but a simple statement that evolution and Catholicism are compatible is too broad and encompasses much that many people think of as “evolution” that is not compatible with the faith.

Pax.

 

[ricmat]

I couldn’t point you to an academic science text book on biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology, immunology, the principles of thermodynamics or chemical composition of elements that mention God’s involvement. However, I can point you to books that discuss theistic evolution.

God and Evolution by Warren Kurt VonRieschlaub
Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Michael Ruse.

I actually have God and Evolution on order - it should arrive tomorrow, with luck.

But it’s by somebody else.

 

[minkymurph]

I actually have God and Evolution on order - it should arrive tomorrow, with luck.

But it’s by somebody else.

There are hundreds of book with the title ‘God and Evolution’ all written by different authors.

There is also a well respected Jewish physicist who writes extensively on things like the ‘Big Bang’ and Genesis. I can’t remember his name now, I’d have to look it up. I read a book of his a few years ago which was enlightening. Of course that does not mean you have to accept everything he, (or anyone else) says, but he is considered an expert in his field, and takes a theological approach.

 

[ricmat]

There are hundreds of book with the title ‘God and Evolution’ all written by different authors.

There is also a well respected Jewish physicist who writes extensively on things like the ‘Big Bang’ and Genesis. I can’t remember his name now, I’d have to look it up. I read a book of his a few years ago which was enlightening. Of course that does not mean you have to accept everything he, (or anyone else) says, but he is considered an expert in his field, and takes a theological approach.

His name is Gerald Schroder. I’ve read many, if not all of his books. I liked them a lot.

 

[ricmat]

That depends on how you define “evolution”. The Church teaches among other things:

-There was one original man and one original woman, from who all others descend.
-The first man was made by God out of the earth.
-The first woman was made from the side of the first man.

If a particular theory of “evolution” agrees with those teachings, then perhaps it is compatible with the Catholic faith, but a simple statement that evolution and Catholicism are compatible is too broad and encompasses much that many people think of as “evolution” that is not compatible with the faith.

Pax.

True.

Watch how the definition changes when a religious person walks into the room. Suddenly, the entirety of the theory becomes “change over time”, and now we ALL agree that evolution is true.

The devil is in the details. Really.

 

[minkymurph]

His name is Gerald Schroder. I’ve read many, if not all of his books. I liked them a lot.

Yep, that’s him. Thank you. I like his stuff too.

 

[victorg001]

We must understand that the “Theory of Evolution” is just that, a theory. We must take the word lightly and not as a fact. No man today was there to record the events, seen them or able to go back in time and say “see I told you”. Our fossil records, plate tectonics, discovery of oil, seashells on the top of 5000-foot mountains do show something was here and markedly different then what we see today. These are but reflections of history. Still this evidence doesn’t falter from what the scriptures already says happened.

To be clear, as some have shown, each day in the first seven weren’t declared as fixed 24 hour days. Even in other areas of the scriptures it’s sometimes said “one day is equal to a thousand years” ( 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4 ). So as for time there is no set designator and the closest we may come is it’s probably as “set period of time”.

In each creation of events the animals and plants developed “according to their kind”. If we take it literally then any other fossil records should have all remained the same till today, but there not. So to make a long story short something changed, or did it? Paleontology and other sciences are now realizing through DNA analysis that many species today still have the same DNA as its ancestral fossils but in time something triggered a change. Look at stories now how they feel we can develop a Jurassic animal using a chicken just by triggering the DNA.

Then there is the seventh day, “and God rested”. Again in agreement with the scriptures. “He rested”, he wasn’t creating. Because of his divine wisdom all things were set in motion to develop on it own, he didn’t need personal intervention anymore for each species. And so we are continuing with “be fruitful and multiply…fill the earth”

As for evolution being compatible with Catholicism the answer would not be clear yet, but when both sides find the “truth”, I know they will see the same.

We must remember the scriptures is true to its word and hasn’t failed yet. We may not understand clearly it’s meanings, but when we interpret the scriptures we must be careful we are not interpreting what we want instead of seeing what God has laid out in front of us.

 

[JM3]

Then there is the seventh day, “and God rested”. Again in agreement with the scriptures. “He rested”, he wasn’t creating. Because of his divine wisdom all things were set in motion to develop on it own, he didn’t need personal intervention anymore for each species. And so we are continuing with “be fruitful and multiply…fill the earth”.

John 5:17

But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.”

CCC 301

With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.

 

[macaddicted]

That depends on how you define “evolution”. The Church teaches among other things:

-There was one original man and one original woman, from who all others descend.
-The first man was made by God out of the earth.
-The first woman was made from the side of the first man.

If a particular theory of “evolution” agrees with those teachings, then perhaps it is compatible with the Catholic faith, but a simple statement that evolution and Catholicism are compatible is too broad and encompasses much that many people think of as “evolution” that is not compatible with the faith.

Pax.

Um, you might want to go back and look at the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII, 1943) with regards to the historicity of Genesis.

 

[macaddicted]

no doubt true science and God/Church must be and are compatible - but we are being palmed off with pseudo/phoney science, fraught with fakes,frauds,hoaxes,cons,fantasy and fiction in the disguise of true science and giving it and God a bad press - twinc

There is often a problem when referring to science. What we think of as “science” is methodological naturalism. It is entirely based on reason and observation.

But then there is metaphysical naturalism. It’s what we hear from Dawkins, Dennett (a philosopher anyway) and Hitchens. They’ve extended the idea that because we can discover the mechanisms of how the world works we only need reason. Effectively they move the mechanics of science into the philosophical/theological realm. EVERYTHING is understandable by the light of reason. It’s like saying humanity is sociology; sociology is biology; biology is chemistry; and chemistry is physics. Each can be broken out and understood by reason, thus there’s no need for God. Since they’ve learned to answer “How” they think they can use that knowledge to answer “Why.”

Science, as it has come into being, is entirely separated from God. The old cartoon with “Then a miracle occurs” is true because miracles don’t fit into the methodologies of science. They are not repeatable on demand. But when you try to extend that methodology to philosophy you are playing on the theologians ground, which is why Catholics have objections to evolution with regard to issues surrounding God’s grace (e.g. original sin, the human soul).

Science, as something discovered through the light of human reason, is a sub-set of truth, encapsulated totally by revelation found through God’s grace. There are issues raised by evolution- polygenism, the soul- that appear to be in conflict today. There are others- the evolution of the human body- that the Church seems willing to accept. Ultimately I’m left with the position I’ve held for years: Leave the science to the scientists, but the theology (and philosophy) belongs to the theologians.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Um, you might want to go back and look at the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII, 1943) with regards to the historicity of Genesis.

There’s nothing in Divino Afflante Spiritu, which contradicts any of the points I mentioned- the descent of all mankind from two original parents, the creation of Adam from the earth, and the creation of Eve from Adam’s side. Those points of Church teaching have been consistently taught from the beginning. Divino Afflante Spiritu, correctly teaches, that Gensis must be understood in the literal sense, and also correctly teaches that we may have difficulty understanding it in the literal sense. There is no contradiction there.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[macaddicted]

There’s nothing in Divino Afflante Spiritu, which contradicts any of the points I mentioned- the descent of all mankind from two original parents, the creation of Adam from the earth, and the creation of Eve from Adam’s side. Those points of Church teaching have been consistently taught from the beginning. Divino Afflante Spiritu, correctly teaches, that Gensis must be understood in the literal sense, and also correctly teaches that we may have difficulty understanding it in the literal sense. There is no contradiction there.

Pax and God Bless.

Then why the letter from Secretary of the PBC to Cardinal Suhard with regard to Divino and the interpretation of Genesis? That response was aimed directly at the 1909 PBC decree on the historicity of Genesis 1-3, and was taken up in the the Humani encyclical.

 

[Elizium23]

We must understand that the “Theory of Evolution” is just that, a theory. We must take the word lightly and not as a fact.

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word you are using. Scientific theory is more than just idle conjecture. Based on empirical evidence, it is testable and falsifiable.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word you are using. Scientific theory is more than just idle conjecture. Based on empirical evidence, it is testable and falsifiable.

If it is testable, when will the test be that shows hydrogen gas turning into butterflies, bunny rabbits, and people?

Pax

 

[macaddicted]

If it is testable, when will the test be that shows hydrogen gas turning into butterflies, bunny rabbits, and people?

Pax

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

 

[Dan_Daly]

evolution without abiogenesis, would mean that life has existed for all eternity, which would be in direct contrast with Divine Revelation. Only God has existed from the beginning.

Life had to come from somewhere. It either came into being on its own somehow, or God made it.

But that point aside, when is the demonstration of single cell organisms turning into butterflies, bunny rabbits, and people?

 

[twinc]

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

nor is anything else - twinc

 

[twinc]

We must understand that the “Theory of Evolution” is just that, a theory. We must take the word lightly and not as a fact. No man today was there to record the events, seen them or able to go back in time and say “see I told you”. Our fossil records, plate tectonics, discovery of oil, seashells on the top of 5000-foot mountains do show something was here and markedly different then what we see today. These are but reflections of history. Still this evidence doesn’t falter from what the scriptures already says happened.

To be clear, as some have shown, each day in the first seven weren’t declared as fixed 24 hour days. Even in other areas of the scriptures it’s sometimes said “one day is equal to a thousand years” ( 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4 ). So as for time there is no set designator and the closest we may come is it’s probably as “set period of time”.

In each creation of events the animals and plants developed “according to their kind”. If we take it literally then any other fossil records should have all remained the same till today, but there not. So to make a long story short something changed, or did it? Paleontology and other sciences are now realizing through DNA analysis that many species today still have the same DNA as its ancestral fossils but in time something triggered a change. Look at stories now how they feel we can develop a Jurassic animal using a chicken just by triggering the DNA.

Then there is the seventh day, “and God rested”. Again in agreement with the scriptures. “He rested”, he wasn’t creating. Because of his divine wisdom all things were set in motion to develop on it own, he didn’t need personal intervention anymore for each species. And so we are continuing with “be fruitful and multiply…fill the earth”

As for evolution being compatible with Catholicism the answer would not be clear yet, but when both sides find the “truth”, I know they will see the same.

We must remember the scriptures is true to its word and hasn’t failed yet. We may not understand clearly it’s meanings, but when we interpret the scriptures we must be careful we are not interpreting what we want instead of seeing what God has laid out in front of us.

some of what you have stated is good but some is bad and incorrect and liable to mislead where it seems you have been misled viz where you state a day is equal to a thousand years is not what Scripture properly read and interpreted says,if not only because the forty days of the deluge would have to be forty thousand years of rain which could not possibly be just a local flood which those who also doubt the six days of creation would insist we accept - the fossil records in the main show no marked changes,except in size etc for there were even giants in those days including Dinosaurs - btw common DNA merely proclaims same designer as different paintings,books etc proclaim same painter or author - twinc

 

[twinc]

I can assure you I am not color blind, and I do not believe red is green. It is also unnecessary to resort to this type of rhetoric in order to get your point across.

You are entitled to believe what you wish, but to my knowledge no one on this forum including myself, has you can believe what you like and we are not discussing the validity of evolutionary theories.

I regret your wrong interpretation here as elsewhere - by you was not meant as thou and thou alone but more correctly as someone - it seems two individuals may have the same information,details etc and yet come to different conclusions - btw only someone who claims to be Catholic and/or is already presumed to be Catholic and does not accept or refuses to accept or confess that the Church teaches and has always taught that the Evolution of the real Evolutionists is not fit for Catholic consumption and is forbidden and anathema to Catholics and Catholics alone to accept or teach it - twinc