Is Evolution Compatible With Catholicism?

[no2masters4life]

not at all - cradle to [now at 81]grave Catholic - it will be impossible for you to prove otherwise -

You’re known by your fruit. If you’re Catholic, why are you promoting a Protestant Ministry over your own faith? Why are you promoting Protestant teaching over the teaching of your own faith? Do you berate the Church’s stated positions on evolutionary theory in favor of your own bible understanding? Do you ridicule one of the greatest Popes of the last 500 years because his insight doesn’t “equal” your own? Are you defensive about biblical inerrancy arguments? Do you accept Church Teaching over your own ideas, yes or no? Do you believe that the Council of Trent had the final say on the biblical inerrancy argument? Do you believe that your Church is correct on matters of biblical teaching? Does the Church believe, do they forswear in the name of God, anywhere in the Catechism, that a person may be justified in interpreting the Bible of their own authority? You are guilty of all of these.

sadly many Catholics are biblically deficient and the Church is now taking measures to put this to right - as a Catholic it is binding to accept that the Bible is the word of God and so is totally inerrant in all its parts and no Archbishop will even care or dare to deny this -

An Archbishop TELLS you how to look at the Scripture, lest you commit a Lutheran heresy. Did you bother to read the Catholic Answers link? The forum moderators took time to to put that out there for folks like you. You are not given leave to do your own interpretations as a Catholic lest you begin telling people that John 6:53 is metaphorical, the End Times are near, and the Protestant heresies all have a point. You failed to answer my arguments. Not surprisingly, because as a Christian, you would have trouble lying in the name of Christ.

btw I as a Catholic creationist find myself more at home with other Christian creationists than with Catholic evolutionists or Catholics who would reject the authority and total inerrancy of the Bible which is a Catholic book and treasure - btw the Trinity does get a mention in the Scriptures and that Abraham’s God is a triune God - so we see it not only behoves us to read and love the Scriptures but also to search and study it for ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ - twinc

The Trinity is never named. No passage names it. Why are you insisting on perverting my language to win an argument!! Send me the Biblical quotation that uses THE WORD TRINITY. If you read my comment, you will see that I identified the Trinity without having to see it written out in a word. Which was my point.

You have strange bedfellows. Ken Miller is an acclaimed evolutionary biologist as Brown who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God”. He is known for his devout Catholic faith and his ability to explain evolution without dismissing one iota of that faith. Why don’t you seek him out, and leave the Creationists to stand on street corners and scream out? They need to repeat it and scream it over and over in order to believe it and accept it, and that is exactly what I see you doing on these forums.

 

[no2masters4life]

there are suggestions ad infinitum how the Bible should or should not be read and understood but the Church teaches that we are to follow the rule laid down by St.Augustine and seconded by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and any interpretation of scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals[Council of Trent and Vatican 1] - btw all the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the creation period was no longer than six 24-hour-days and that the world was only thousands of years old - so why the acceptance of the way out,weird and wacky - twinc

The Church updated this position during the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). Why did you leave this out?

 

[twinc]

The Church updated this position during the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). Why did you leave this out?

there was no update or cancellation,nor could there be - there was only confirmation and elaboration - twinc

 

[minkymurph]

not was but will be and this is guaranteed - twinc

So, does this mean the universe was not once in an extremely hot, dense state, it did not expand rapidly, and as a result the young universe did not cool? None of these things happened? That scientific evidence in relation to the big bang is wrong, purely speculative or imaginary?

Does this mean these cosmological events; the universe entering an extremely hot, dense state followed by rapid cooling of the young universe will happen in the future, or are you speaking metaphorically?

 

[twinc]

You’re known by your fruit. If you’re Catholic, why are you promoting a Protestant Ministry over your own faith? Why are you promoting Protestant teaching over the teaching of your own faith? Do you berate the Church’s stated positions on evolutionary theory in favor of your own bible understanding? Do you ridicule one of the greatest Popes of the last 500 years because his insight doesn’t “equal” your own? Are you defensive about biblical inerrancy arguments? Do you accept Church Teaching over your own ideas, yes or no? Do you believe that the Council of Trent had the final say on the biblical inerrancy argument? Do you believe that your Church is correct on matters of biblical teaching? Does the Church believe, do they forswear in the name of God, anywhere in the Catechism, that a person may be justified in interpreting the Bible of their own authority? You are guilty of all of these.

An Archbishop TELLS you how to look at the Scripture, lest you commit a Lutheran heresy. Did you bother to read the Catholic Answers link? The forum moderators took time to to put that out there for folks like you. You are not given leave to do your own interpretations as a Catholic lest you begin telling people that John 6:53 is metaphorical, the End Times are near, and the Protestant heresies all have a point. You failed to answer my arguments. Not surprisingly, because as a Christian, you would have trouble lying in the name of Christ.

The Trinity is never named. No passage names it. Why are you insisting on perverting my language to win an argument!! Send me the Biblical quotation that uses THE WORD TRINITY. If you read my comment, you will see that I identified the Trinity without having to see it written out in a word. Which was my point.

You have strange bedfellows. Ken Miller is an acclaimed evolutionary biologist as Brown who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God”. He is known for his devout Catholic faith and his ability to explain evolution without dismissing one iota of that faith. Why don’t you seek him out, and leave the Creationists to stand on street corners and scream out? They need to repeat it and scream it over and over in order to believe it and accept it, and that is exactly what I see you doing on these forums.

it appears you are mistaken and misinformed in concluding that I am mistaken and misinformed - you yourself have quoted just one case where the Church clearly shows it accepts the literal sense - btw your Ken Miller does not get a very good press on the internet at www.evolutionnews.org/kenmiller - instead of relying on individuals try the Catholic experts and specialists at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

 

[samiam1611]

The following is some select quotes from catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution:

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan

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.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, “**The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge **of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337)

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language …” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

IOW Scripture = not science.

Twinc - Your Church’s Catechism says to give thanks to your Creator for spendidly enriching our knowledge of the earth and life. By calling science phony and fake, you are saying, “screw you God. I don’t want the wisdom and knowledge that you are giving everyone else.” You are rejecting your God-given intellect. God didn’t give animals the ability to do scientific research or understand complex things like biology or cosmology. He gave you that ability but you are not using it bc you stubbornly insist on interpreting scripture as a literal scientific explanation of nature, which Leo XII specifically said was not the way it was meant to be interpreted.

Believe what you want, but the Church does not require Catholics to interpret scripture as if it was meant to be a scientific account of history. Catholics can believe in theistic evolution.

 

[minkymurph]

Twinc - Your Church’s Catechism says to give thanks to your Creator for spendidly enriching our knowledge of the earth and life. By calling science phony and fake, you are saying, “screw you God. I don’t want the wisdom and knowledge that you are giving everyone else.” You are rejecting your God-given intellect. God didn’t give animals the ability to do scientific research or understand complex things like biology or cosmology. He gave you that ability but you are not using it bc you stubbornly insist on interpreting scripture as a literal scientific explanation of nature, which Leo XII specifically said was not the way it was meant to be interpreted.

Believe what you want, but the Church does not require Catholics to interpret scripture as if it was meant to be a scientific account of history. Catholics can believe in theistic evolution.

I can understand why some Catholics would object to certain evolutionary theories.

However, I am absolutely GOBSMACKED when I hear Catholics say the bible must be interpreted literally.

 

[twinc]

The following is some select quotes from catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution:

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan

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.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, “**The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge **of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337)

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language …” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

IOW Scripture = not science.

Twinc - Your Church’s Catechism says to give thanks to your Creator for spendidly enriching our knowledge of the earth and life. By calling science phony and fake, you are saying, “screw you God. I don’t want the wisdom and knowledge that you are giving everyone else.” You are rejecting your God-given intellect. God didn’t give animals the ability to do scientific research or understand complex things like biology or cosmology. He gave you that ability but you are not using it bc you stubbornly insist on interpreting scripture as a literal scientific explanation of nature, which Leo XII specifically said was not the way it was meant to be interpreted.

Believe what you want, but the Church does not require Catholics to interpret scripture as if it was meant to be a scientific account of history. Catholics can believe in theistic evolution.

of course you have got it all mixed up and confused - so as advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists in most of the disciplines of science and theology - these can be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - just on commonsense alone Catholics cannot and must not accept evolution which cannot and did not happen and to try and drag or add God to this non event is to make an idiot of God as well - furthermore you are suggesting to yourself and others that God knows nothing at all about history,science,cosmology etc or at least a lot less than the scientists He created - again it has been and is strongly advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists,even as regards how scripture should be interpreted - btw there is no after the Big Bang either since there never ever was a Big Bang,but there will be one without any afters - the heavens and the earth etc were created by God at the very beginning in an instant,complete and out of nothing as was everything else on each of six 24hr days - that this is how God creates was demonstrated by Jesus Christ - twinc

 

[twinc]

I can understand why some Catholics would object to certain evolutionary theories.

However, I am absolutely GOBSMACKED when I hear Catholics say the bible must be interpreted literally.

The Church says so so just see what Jesus said and said He meant literally even though then as now some refuse to accept and walk no more with Him as at Jn.6:61-70 and elsewhere - twinc

 

[samiam1611]

of course you have got it all mixed up and confused - so as advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists in most of the disciplines of science and theology - these can be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org -

I consulted the experts at Catholic.com (link given in post) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a handful of documents on vatican.va (the Holy See’s official site).

just on commonsense alone Catholics cannot and must not accept evolution

Catholics are advised to take scientific and scriptural evidence into consideration.

which cannot

God is not capable of creating the universe in the way the Big Bang theory has described?

and did not happen

and you know this how?

and to try and drag or add God to this non event is to make an idiot of God as well - furthermore you are suggesting to yourself and others that God knows nothing at all about history,science,cosmology etc or at least a lot less than the scientists He created

No, I am not suggesting that.

• again it has been and is strongly advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists,even as regards how scripture should be interpreted

If they do that, they will find numerous statements in support of evolution etc

• btw there is no after the Big Bang either since there never ever was a Big Bang,but there will be one without any afters - the heavens and the earth etc were created by God at the very beginning in an instant,complete and out of nothing as was everything else on each of six 24hr days - that this is how God creates was demonstrated by Jesus Christ - twinc

Pope John Paul II:
“Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer… Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.”

Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.

 

[minkymurph]

btw there is no after the Big Bang either since there never ever was a Big Bang,but there will be one without any afters - the heavens and the earth etc were created by God at the very beginning in an instant,complete and out of nothing as was everything else on each of six 24hr days - that this is how God creates was demonstrated by Jesus Christ - twinc

So, Thomas Aquinas was wrong then? Are all his writings on the topic psuedo, phoney Catholicism and his science flawed and false?

In addition, the kolbecentre which you have frequently referred to in your posts does not deny there was a big bang. They may not say there definitely was a big bang, but they do not say there definitely was not.

They write, ‘if there was a big bang, God initiated it.’ I have taken this from their site.
In addition, it comes from this book -

The Catholic Church & Science - Answering the Question, Exposing the Myths
Benjamin Wiker.

Therefore, ‘there was no big bang’ is not the opinion of the Catholic experts you refer to.

The Church does not teach Catholics must read the entire bible literally. If Jesus wanted us to take everything he said literally, why did he teach in parables?

The Church does not teach each creative day was 24 hours long. They do not teach Catholics cannot believe that, but they do not teach they must.

If you want to believe the big bang was not a cosmological event, and each creative day is 24 hours long, that’s your prerogative. However, it doesn’t matter how often you assert the Church teaches Catholics must reject the big bang theory, and must believe each creative day was 24 hours long. They don’t. Even the people you consider to be experts; this kolbecentre, don’t concur with you have stated.

Case closed.

 

[no2masters4life]

there was no update or cancellation,nor could there be - there was only confirmation and elaboration - twinc

No, Twinkie. There was a significant change in perspective, an “update” concerning how the natural sciences are viewed in the light of scripture. Stop obfuscating the truth and turn to the Second Vatican Council’s report on science.

 

[Mudgely]

Yes it is compatible, as long as you realise that God is the one who created us, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
That is wasn’t by mere chance.
A day to God is a 1000 days to us. Remember that.

There is no conflict whatsoever!

1,000 days? Is that written down somewhere, or are you speaking figuratively?

 

[no2masters4life]

it appears you are mistaken and misinformed in concluding that I am mistaken and misinformed - you yourself have quoted just one case where the Church clearly shows it accepts the literal sense - btw your Ken Miller does not get a very good press on the internet at www.evolutionnews.org/kenmiller - instead of relying on individuals try the Catholic experts and specialists at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

Twinkie, please support your arguments with PROOF. You might think it’s funny to argue in circles, or mischaracterize evolution, or not respond to direct questions, but you’re not fooling anyone.

However, it seems you and your brethren at Kolbe are upset that you cannot speak for the Church. The Church has no problem at all with Evolutionary Theory. The Church does not embrace Kolbe Center biblical literalism. Vatican 2 is binding.

“Evolution NEws” is a Creationist site that, of course,would slander Ken miller and any other Catholic scientist who called out Creationism as the canard that it is. That stated,
Ken Miller is an established evolutionary biologist, a Catholic and a true science advocate. Here is a link you didn’t post:

nationalacademies.org/evolution/StatementsScience.html

 

[macaddicted]

it appears you are mistaken and misinformed in concluding that I am mistaken and misinformed - you yourself have quoted just one case where the Church clearly shows it accepts the literal sense - btw your Ken Miller does not get a very good press on the internet at www.evolutionnews.org/kenmiller - instead of relying on individuals try the Catholic experts and specialists at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

An ID site doesn’t like Miller.

And the Sun still rises in the east.

 

[macaddicted]

The Church says so so just see what Jesus said and said He meant literally even though then as now some refuse to accept and walk no more with Him as at Jn.6:61-70 and elsewhere - twinc

If we are to interpret scripture literally then why are there so many differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John? And I don’t mean there are different parables but that there are fundamental differences in the order of Christ’s actions on earth.

 

[no2masters4life]

The Church says so so just see what Jesus said and said He meant literally even though then as now some refuse to accept and walk no more with Him as at Jn.6:61-70 and elsewhere - twinc

The Church does not interpret the bible like this! You cannot turn to a scripture and say, “See, Jesus said this and therefore the Church means this!” You have to listen to what the Church teaches about poetic narratives, parables and allegories in Scripture.

 

[no2masters4life]

of course you have got it all mixed up and confused - so as advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists in most of the disciplines of science and theology - these can be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - just on commonsense alone Catholics cannot and must not accept evolution which cannot and did not happen and to try and drag or add God to this non event is to make an idiot of God as well - furthermore you are suggesting to yourself and others that God knows nothing at all about history,science,cosmology etc or at least a lot less than the scientists He created - again it has been and is strongly advised consult the Catholic experts and specialists,even as regards how scripture should be interpreted - btw there is no after the Big Bang either since there never ever was a Big Bang,but there will be one without any afters - the heavens and the earth etc were created by God at the very beginning in an instant,complete and out of nothing as was everything else on each of six 24hr days - that this is how God creates was demonstrated by Jesus Christ - twinc

Your use of the straw man argument and “no true Scotsmans” fallacies are not going unnoticed.

The Kolbe Center is no hub of science or Catholic expertise, but rather a Protestant Creationist site. You are a Protestant.

You continually mischaracterize people who question your reasoning instead of answering them truthfully.

 

[twinc]

The Church does not interpret the bible like this! You cannot turn to a scripture and say, “See, Jesus said this and therefore the Church means this!” You have to listen to what the Church teaches about poetic narratives, parables and allegories in Scripture.

there is a difference in how the Church interprets the Bible and how the Church says we must interpret it - twinc

 

[twinc]

So, does this mean the universe was not once in an extremely hot, dense state, it did not expand rapidly, and as a result the young universe did not cool? None of these things happened? That scientific evidence in relation to the big bang is wrong, purely speculative or imaginary?

Does this mean these cosmological events; the universe entering an extremely hot, dense state followed by rapid cooling of the young universe will happen in the future, or are you speaking metaphorically?

the Universe originally was created very good,catastrophic hot eruptions,shifting plates etc were as a result of global flooding etc and not a big bang - since it is conjectured that it took millions and billions of years for the world to form,then work has not yet started on the new heavens and earth,so the end of this world is no where in sight - the impending big bang it seems will destroy and the heat will melt the elements - twinc