Is Evolution Compatible With Catholicism?

[twinc]

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

btw imho it seems the Church in her wisdom realises the danger that pseudo/phoney Catholic evolutionists,from merely being pseudo/phoney evolutionists may become pseudo/phoney Catholics - twinc

 

[minkymurph]

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

I regret having difficulty trying to understand your posts. If what you are saying is not clear, then obviously and understandably it will be misinterpreted.

What do you mean by the ‘evolution’ of ‘real’ evolutionists? If by the ‘evolution of ‘real’ evolutionists’ you are referring to atheistic concepts of the origins of the human race, it does not need to be stated such theories are incompatible with Catholicism because it’s obvious. Why would anyone even inquire as to the compatibility of atheistic theories being compatible with Catholicism when the answer is so obvious?

To my knowledge no one this thread has said every evolutionary theory is compatible with Catholicism. As other posters have said, the term ‘evolution’ covers a very broad spectrum and there are many approaches to evolution. An atheistic approach is one of them, but I don’t see why this approach to evolution should be termed the ‘real’ one, because I don’t see how theories and discoveries concerning biological and cosmological developments are more ‘real’ when considered from an atheistic perspective. Of course I’m making the assumption that by ‘real’ evolutionists you mean atheistic ones. Perhaps you don’t.

The OP stated they were not Catholic, so I was responding to someone who is not a Catholic, not someone who is.

If it is forbidden to teach evolution, how come it is taught in Catholic schools?

 

[twinc]

I regret having difficulty trying to understand your posts. If what you are saying is not clear, then obviously and understandably it will be misinterpreted.

What do you mean by the ‘evolution’ of ‘real’ evolutionists? If by the ‘evolution of ‘real’ evolutionists’ you are referring to atheistic concepts of the origins of the human race, it does not need to be stated such theories are incompatible with Catholicism because it’s obvious. Why would anyone even inquire as to the compatibility of atheistic theories being compatible with Catholicism when the answer is so obvious?

To my knowledge no one this thread has said every evolutionary theory is compatible with Catholicism. As other posters have said, the term ‘evolution’ covers a very broad spectrum and there are many approaches to evolution. An atheistic approach is one of them, but I don’t see why this approach to evolution should be termed the ‘real’ one, because I don’t see how theories and discoveries concerning biological and cosmological developments are more ‘real’ when considered from an atheistic perspective. Of course I’m making the assumption that by ‘real’ evolutionists you mean atheistic ones. Perhaps you don’t.

The OP stated they were not Catholic, so I was responding to someone who is not a Catholic, not someone who is.

If it is forbidden to teach evolution, how come it is taught in Catholic schools?

how come it is taught in Catholic schools and seminaries even and accepted by many Catholic hierarchy,clergy and laity - if someone wanted to know about real Catholicism or real Evolutionism who would one be best advised to consult - strangely though it seems real evolutionists seem to know what and where Catholicism stands on the evolution issue than most Catholics do and Catholic experts and specialists know exactly where real evolutionists stand on the evolution issue - I repeat these are found at www.kolbecenter.org and even at www.daylightorigins.com and also at www.scripturecatholic.com under Science/Evolution scroll down L/H column - btw Catholic anathema is only relevant to someone who is already Catholic and should at least have been taught to query the Catechism re Catholic doctrine of creation[simul et ex nihilo] at CCC327 - twinc

 

[minkymurph]

how come it is taught in Catholic schools and seminaries even and accepted by many Catholic hierarchy,clergy and laity

Is this an answer to the question, ‘How come it is taught in Catholic schools if it is forbidden to teach it?’ If so, your answer is not clear.

• if someone wanted to know about real Catholicism or real Evolutionism who would one be best advised to consult

Are you asking a question here?

• strangely though it seems real evolutionists seem to know what and where Catholicism stands on the evolution issue than most Catholics do and Catholic experts and specialists know exactly where real evolutionists stand on the evolution issue - I repeat these are found at www.kolbecenter.org and even at www.daylightorigins.com and also at www.scripturecatholic.com under Science/Evolution scroll down L/H column -

What is ‘real’ Catholicism and what is a ‘real’ evolutionist? I tend not to read links others give me. The reason being, anyone can direct someone to read someone else’s words in a book, article or internet site in an attempt to validate one’s own opinions. Telling someone, ’ Go and find out for yourself by read this, or that,’ without offering any explanation is the easy way out. People should also be able to articulate their own ideas or beliefs because the extent to which they can do so is an indication of how well they know and understand what they think or believe. However, as a gesture of common courtesy, I had a look at one of the links you gave me and here is a quote:

'Materialistic “evolution”: all differentiation of matter has arisen simply through evolution, in particular the realm of the living, including Man. I am referring here to macro-evolution, i.e. the jump to another species, and not micro-evolution within a species, the existence of which is not in dispute.'

Does ‘not in dispute’ not only mean micro-evolution is compatible with Catholicism and it is not necessary to reject this theory of evolution, but is it a scientific fact that cannot be questioned?

btw Catholic anathema is only relevant to someone who is already Catholic and should at least have been taught to query the Catechism re Catholic doctrine of creation[simul et ex nihilo] at CCC327 - twinc

So what’s your point? Is this a response to the OP’s original question, and is that response, ‘The Church teaches that any Catholic who accepts any evolutionary theory at all is in anathema? Therefore, in order to become a Catholic it is necessary to reject all evolutionary theories?’ Perhaps I am misinterpreting your words, but in my attempt to understand your posts, I’m having to read between the lines.

 

[Mudgely]

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.

Gravitation is only a theory. The weight of evolutionary theory and natural selection are not really in question… there is more than 100 years of voluminous research.

 

[twinc]

Is this an answer to the question, ‘How come it is taught in Catholic schools if it is forbidden to teach it?’ If so, your answer is not clear.

Are you asking a question here?

What is ‘real’ Catholicism and what is a ‘real’ evolutionist? I tend not to read links others give me. The reason being, anyone can direct someone to read someone else’s words in a book, article or internet site in an attempt to validate one’s own opinions. Telling someone, ’ Go and find out for yourself by read this, or that,’ without offering any explanation is the easy way out. People should also be able to articulate their own ideas or beliefs because the extent to which they can do so is an indication of how well they know and understand what they think or believe. However, as a gesture of common courtesy, I had a look at one of the links you gave me and here is a quote:

'Materialistic “evolution”: all differentiation of matter has arisen simply through evolution, in particular the realm of the living, including Man. I am referring here to macro-evolution, i.e. the jump to another species, and not micro-evolution within a species, the existence of which is not in dispute.'

Does ‘not in dispute’ not only mean micro-evolution is compatible with Catholicism and it is not necessary to reject this theory of evolution, but is it a scientific fact that cannot be questioned?

So what’s your point? Is this a response to the OP’s original question, and is that response, ‘The Church teaches that any Catholic who accepts any evolutionary theory at all is in anathema? Therefore, in order to become a Catholic it is necessary to reject all evolutionary theories?’ Perhaps I am misinterpreting your words, but in my attempt to understand your posts, I’m having to read between the lines.

it seems you do not know or want to know what the Church teaches re Evolution - since you and many other Catholics do not know we must or should ask why were we not told since the Catechism at CCC282 declares that catechesis on creation is of major importance - at its bare minimum the Church teaches that God created everything “in its whole substance” in an instant out of nothing in the beginning[CCC327-Lateran IV-Council of Cologne-Vatican 1] - I hope there is no need to read between the lines here - twinc

 

[minkymurph]

it seems you do not know or want to know what the Church teaches re Evolution

It is of course your prerogative to form opinions regarding what posters may or may not know, and what they want to know or do not want to know.

• since you and many other Catholics do not know we must or should ask why were we not told since the Catechism at CCC282 declares that catechesis on creation is of major importance -

I need to read between the lines here because I this sentence is unclear. What do I and many other Catholics not know we ‘must or should ask why were not told?’
Not told what? Must and should ask why in relation to what?

Reading between the lines, no one on this thread has said creation is not of major importance. Therefore, based on what has been stated it cannot be concluded this is what I and many other Catholics posting on this thread think.

I asked a question concerning micro-evolution in my last post. Is micro-evolution incompatible with Church teaching? Is it forbidden to accept evolutionary theories in relation to micro-evolution? Are Catholics who accept micro-evolution in anathema? Is it forbidden to teach micro-evolution? Is it necessary to reject micro-evolution in order to become a Catholic? Does the Church teach micro-evolution did not happen? Are scientific theories concerning micro-evolution false?

at its bare minimum the Church teaches that God created everything “in its whole substance” in an instant out of nothing in the beginning[CCC327-Lateran IV-Council of Cologne-Vatican 1] - I hope there is no need to read between the lines here - twinc

No, there isn’t.

However -

No one on this thread has stated God did not create everything in it’s whole substance, or God did not create everything out of nothing.

The Church does not to explain how God created everything.

I’m guessing at what your inferring by use of the word ‘instant.’ The Catechism uses the term, ‘made at once.’ It is highly unlikely the catechism is using the term ‘made at once’ in a very literal sense, as even a very literal reading of Genesis does not suggest God created everything all ‘at once.’ There was a time period involved. The time period itself is disputed but to my knowledge, the Church has always taught there was a time period, the length of which cannot be accurately determined. In addition, everything being created in ‘an instant’ would not allow for micro-evolution which the site you directed me to states is indisputable.

 

[twinc]

It is of course your prerogative to form opinions regarding what posters may or may not know, and what they want to know or do not want to know.

I need to read between the lines here because I this sentence is unclear. What do I and many other Catholics not know we ‘must or should ask why were not told?’
Not told what? Must and should ask why in relation to what?

Reading between the lines, no one on this thread has said creation is not of major importance. Therefore, based on what has been stated it cannot be concluded this is what I and many other Catholics posting on this thread think.

I asked a question concerning micro-evolution in my last post. Is micro-evolution incompatible with Church teaching? Is it forbidden to accept evolutionary theories in relation to micro-evolution? Are Catholics who accept micro-evolution in anathema? Is it forbidden to teach micro-evolution? Is it necessary to reject micro-evolution in order to become a Catholic? Does the Church teach micro-evolution did not happen? Are scientific theories concerning micro-evolution false?

No, there isn’t.

However -

No one on this thread has stated God did not create everything in it’s whole substance, or God did not create everything out of nothing.

The Church does not to explain how God created everything.

I’m guessing at what your inferring by use of the word ‘instant.’ The Catechism uses the term, ‘made at once.’ It is highly unlikely the catechism is using the term ‘made at once’ in a very literal sense, as even a very literal reading of Genesis does not suggest God created everything all ‘at once.’ There was a time period involved. The time period itself is disputed but to my knowledge, the Church has always taught there was a time period, the length of which cannot be accurately determined. In addition, everything being created in ‘an instant’ would not allow for micro-evolution which the site you directed me to states is indisputable.

if someone misinterprets then the conclusion will more than likely be wrong - Jesus Christ showed us how God creates in an instant out of nothing - so everything was created in six days but everything that was created on each of those six days would have been created in an instant,complete and out of nothing - the Church and Church Fathers have never taught that there was a period of time of thousands of years etc - why get all mixed up and tied up in the way out,weird and wacky improper sense rather than the original and proper sense - for a better explanation as already advised see www.scripturecatholic.com and see what the Church and Church Fathers accepted,taught and teach -see under Evolution and six days etc - btw do you confess or reject that to accept or teach evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - being created in an instant,complete and out of nothing,in no way does away with micro-evolution but it makes atheistic and theistic evolution unnecessary and impossible - btw micro-evolution is not really evolution but merely variation within kind and continues today and beyond - I repeat that the Catechism at CCC282 states clearly the Catechesis on Creation on creation is of major importance etc - so why has CCC327 not been explained and clarified for Catholics or what was said and is binding by Lateran IV,Council of Cologne and Vatican 1 and what is forbidden and anathema - we must it seems individually accept or reject - twinc

 

[macaddicted]

if someone misinterprets then the conclusion will more than likely be wrong - Jesus Christ showed us how God creates in an instant out of nothing - so everything was created in six days but everything that was created on each of those six days would have been created in an instant,complete and out of nothing - the Church and Church Fathers have never taught that there was a period of time of thousands of years etc - why get all mixed up and tied up in the way out,weird and wacky improper sense rather than the original and proper sense - for a better explanation as already advised see www.scripturecatholic.com and see what the Church and Church Fathers accepted,taught and teach -see under Evolution and six days etc - btw do you confess or reject that to accept or teach evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - being created in an instant,complete and out of nothing,in no way does away with micro-evolution but it makes atheistic and theistic evolution unnecessary and impossible - twinc

Why does the site focus only on the creation stories in Genesis? Are we bound by statements of Church Fathers based on “science” we now know is incomplete or incorrect?

 

[minkymurph]

Why does the site focus only on the creation stories in Genesis? Are we bound by statements of Church Fathers based on “science” we now know is incomplete or incorrect?

Because it’s a biased site.

As far as I know, the Holy Spirit enables the Church to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals, it does not enable the Church to teach infallible science.

 

[minkymurph]

btw do you confess or reject that to accept or teach evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - being created in an instant,complete and out of nothing,in no way does away with micro-evolution but it makes atheistic and theistic evolution unnecessary and impossible

My personal beliefs and opinions are none of your concern.

In any case, we are not discussing what I personally confess or reject, we are discussing what the Church teaches.

If it is forbidden to teach evolution, why has the Church not directed Catholic schools not to teach it? There are other faith schools in Britain and Ireland that do not teach it. Why are Catholic schools different. Now, you can say they are wrong to teach it. However, that does not explain why the Church has not directed them not to teach it. Why have they not?

• btw micro-evolution is not really evolution but merely variation within kind and continues today and beyond.

So, micro-evolution isn’t really evolution. So now you have clarified what in your opinion is not evolution, do you intend to clarify what this ‘real’ evolution you speak of is? Or is your intention to leave others to speculate?

• I repeat that the Catechism at CCC282 states clearly the Catechesis on Creation on creation is of major importance etc - so why has CCC327 not been explained and clarified for Catholics or what was said and is binding by Lateran IV,Council of Cologne and Vatican 1 and what is forbidden and anathema - we must it seems individually accept or reject - twinc

Are you saying the Church has not explained or clarified it’s teaching on Creation? I was under the impression it has been explained in commentaries that have been written on the catechism.

 

[twinc]

Why does the site focus only on the creation stories in Genesis? Are we bound by statements of Church Fathers based on “science” we now know is incomplete or incorrect?

exactly what is it that is incomplete and incorrect according to pseudo/phoney non science and nonsense fraught with fakes,frauds,cons,hoaxes,fantasy,fiction and fairytales for adults - twinc

 

[no2masters4life]

Keep in mind that Pope John Paul II said of evolutionary theory that it is “more than a hypothesis”.

The Catholic Church does not say that evolutionary theory is “ONLY a theory”. It is the leading scientific theory currently used in a variety of disciplines from geology to biology to paleontology to explain the prehistory of Earth. The church has no dispute with its explanation of the prehistory so long as God remains the creator of the human soul and Jesus remains The Christ.

Biblical literalists have taken issue with Darwin for 150 years. Having failed to persuade scientists, many of these types flock to the political realm to sway the masses. Remember that Catholics are not biblical literalists. Jesus spoke in parable. God uses metaphor or poetic figures to communicate complex ideas to primitive people. Catholics do not adopt their own ideas by reading Scripture and falsely boasting of divine inspiration. They turn faithfully to the Church, the bride of Christ, in whom the powers of death shall never prosper.

The church has no issue with any scientific theory. At present, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for how speciation occurs on Earth. The fossil evidence, microorganism resistance to inoculations over time, and the Darwinian Finch studies (among many studies) point to an evolving mechanism that gradually changes one species into another through random mutation. Traits which allow for greatest adaptability to a changing environment are passed to the next generation.

 

[twinc]

Keep in mind that Pope John Paul II said of evolutionary theory that it is “more than a hypothesis”.

The Catholic Church does not say that evolutionary theory is “ONLY a theory”. It is the leading scientific theory currently used in a variety of disciplines from geology to biology to paleontology to explain the prehistory of Earth. The church has no dispute with its explanation of the prehistory so long as God remains the creator of the human soul and Jesus remains The Christ.

Biblical literalists have taken issue with Darwin for 150 years. Having failed to persuade scientists, many of these types flock to the political realm to sway the masses. Remember that Catholics are not biblical literalists. Jesus spoke in parable. God uses metaphor or poetic figures to communicate complex ideas to primitive people. Catholics do not adopt their own ideas by reading Scripture and falsely boasting of divine inspiration. They turn faithfully to the Church, the bride of Christ, in whom the powers of death shall never prosper.

The church has no issue with any scientific theory. At present, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for how speciation occurs on Earth. The fossil evidence, microorganism resistance to inoculations over time, and the Darwinian Finch studies (among many studies) point to an evolving mechanism that gradually changes one species into another through random mutation. Traits which allow for greatest adaptability to a changing environment are passed to the next generation.

it seems you are confused between changes in species and changes in kinds,finches with differences are still only finches and birds,and dogs are only dogs and cats are only cats etc - mutations do not add but subtract and so cannot really be evolution etc - if Catholics are not Biblical literalists they should be because the Church teaches that the literal and obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise - so perhaps you may reconsider - when you are talking about the disciplines of geology,biology,paleontology etc it would seem you are including pseudo/phoney non science and nonsense for just in geology alone the geological column/s as depicted here,there and everywhere really does not exist in fact but only in imagination as I read it and the fossils really show no macro evolotion in strata which in most cases is even upside down - btw it would be extremely foolish to accept anything and everything a Pope or Popes have said or are supposed to have said as interpreted by some, outside of ex cathedra - so we as Catholics should as advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists in all the disciplines of science and theology and these for Catholics can be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

 

[twinc]

My personal beliefs and opinions are none of your concern.

In any case, we are not discussing what I personally confess or reject, we are discussing what the Church teaches.

If it is forbidden to teach evolution, why has the Church not directed Catholic schools not to teach it? There are other faith schools in Britain and Ireland that do not teach it. Why are Catholic schools different. Now, you can say they are wrong to teach it. However, that does not explain why the Church has not directed them not to teach it. Why have they not?

So, micro-evolution isn’t really evolution. So now you have clarified what in your opinion is not evolution, do you intend to clarify what this ‘real’ evolution you speak of is? Or is your intention to leave others to speculate?

Are you saying the Church has not explained or clarified it’s teaching on Creation? I was under the impression it has been explained in commentaries that have been written on the catechism.

creationists are also asking why evolution is being accepted and taught and the reason appears to be that not just with evolution but what the Church teaches as regards contraception,divorce,abortion,women priests is also being blatantly ignored - real evolution postulates that in an instant[via a big bang]something came from nothing and turned into everything and you via goo and zoo - twinc

 

[macaddicted]

exactly what is it that is incomplete and incorrect according to pseudo/phoney non science and nonsense fraught with fakes,frauds,cons,hoaxes,fantasy,fiction and fairytales for adults - twinc

Geocentrism for one.

What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.

Quoted from scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

You may take the Church Fathers. I’ll stick with NASA and the flight paths they worked out for everything from Mariner to Cassini.

Seem to recall something about truth not contradicting truth…

 

[no2masters4life]

it seems you are confused between changes in species and changes in kinds,finches with differences are still only finches and birds,and dogs are only dogs and cats are only cats etc - mutations do not add but subtract and so cannot really be evolution etc

You are mischaracterizing evolution. Do scientists ever refer to “kinds”? They refer to species. An evolutionary biologist can show you how species evolve from one to the next. EX: wolves and dogs are two separate species who descend from a common ancestor.

• if Catholics are not Biblical literalists they should be because the Church teaches that the literal and obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise - so perhaps you may reconsider -

Catholics ARE NOT biblical literalists. The Church doesn’t teach Catholics to be biblical literalists. A Catholic submits to the teaching authority of the Church. In this case, the Church has no quarrel with Evolutionary Theory.

when you are talking about the disciplines of geology,biology,paleontology etc it would seem you are including pseudo/phoney non science and nonsense for just in geology alone the geological column/s as depicted here,there and everywhere really does not exist in fact but only in imagination as I read it and the fossils really show no macro evolotion in strata which in most cases is even upside down -

The sciences I mentioned – biology, paleontology, geology – are very acquainted with evolutionary theory’s contributions to their respective magisteria. All higher educational institutions offer coursework and degrees in these disciplines using evolutionary theory as an explanation for why the genome mutates over time. If you have a problem with the geological column, it is a personal one. Yale, Stanford, UCLA, MIT, Cal Tech, I would say the overarching majority (99%) of universities in this country have no such problem, with the Christian Fundamentalist Universities and Think-Tanks accounting for the exception due to a deeply-engrained belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. I do not think your findings overturn the bedrock beliefs of accredited universities in any validated way. Can you admit in all good conscience that you possess the advanced education to challenge a scientific principle that has stood in the line of fire for 150 years?

btw it would be extremely foolish to accept anything and everything a Pope or Popes have said or are supposed to have said as interpreted by some, outside of ex cathedra - so we as Catholics should as advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists in all the disciplines of science and theology and these for Catholics can be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org

• twinc

It is not “extremely foolish” if you are Catholic. I trust and love the Pope as the vicar of Christ. A sitting twentieth century Pope who stated that a scientific theory should not be roundly dismissed as it is in the biblical literalist circles is not trying to “trick” you.

What does it say in your Catechism about evolutionary theory?

 

[no2masters4life]

creationists are also asking why evolution is being accepted and taught and the reason appears to be that not just with evolution but what the Church teaches as regards contraception,divorce,abortion,women priests is also being blatantly ignored - real evolution postulates that in an instant[via a big bang]something came from nothing and turned into everything and you via goo and zoo - twinc

You are mischaracterizing evolutionary theory. Please copy and paste the link or quote from an accredited scientist saying “GOO AND ZOO”, or admit this is your own outlook.

 

[twinc]

Geocentrism for one.

What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.

Quoted from scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

You may take the Church Fathers. I’ll stick with NASA and the flight paths they worked out for everything from Mariner to Cassini.

Seem to recall something about truth not contradicting truth…

yes but it seems the truth is,as I read somewhere, that NASA based its calculations on a stationary earth and consequently were bang/spot on target - so here we go again on the old merry go round getting off one horse but sadly getting right back on to another - twinc

 

[Apagano]

Check out this book: angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8338/evolution-judged-by-reason-and-faith

Blessings!