A
a_priori
Guest
In days gone by, were Catholics correct to “rejoice” in the truth that the Earth was the center of the universe?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
To put this all into perspective here is a rundown of a bunch of prior evo hoaxes.
Biology Eliminates Evolution and Confirms Genesis 1-11.
Biology Eliminates Evolution and Confirms Genesis 1-11.
B
buffalo
Guest
It depends what one means by center, We know God willed man for His own sake so that puts man as the centerpiece of creation. It naturally follows that the earth is a special place too. (anthropic) If God is focused on man and the earth we are His center.
So yes we should rejoice. It is wonderful to occupy sch a high place in God’s eyes. Think about the alternatives.
A
a_priori
Guest
The Sun does not orbit the Earth.
J
Jean_1958
Guest
Here are some thoughts on evolution by Pope Benedict XVI:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences_en.html
K
kalt
Guest
Actually, the scientists (and lay people) know very well that similarity doesn’t mean that things are related. They’re especially careful when working with only bones. One example they use is a marsupial that, by its bones, looks like a canine.
The Church doesn’t have to change her doctrine on creation to accept evolution facts. The Bible isn’t a science book, and it doesn’t tell us how God created the world, only that he did.
Some believe in a literal interpretation of that part of Genesis, like many non-Catholic Christians. Something doesn’t have to be literal to be true.
B
buffalo
Guest
Polygenism not allowed
Adam and Eve first parents
Eve from Adam
Preternatural gifts
Bodily immortality
Freedom from pain and sickness
Freedom from sickness
infused knowledge
J
Janet1983
Guest
So what is that going to prove? It was Time’s cover in 1999 and one thing was pretty obvious: More than half of the skull is not actual fossil, but plaster, figment of somebody’s imagination. Then they found a toe bone… wow… if it was a toe bone at all… well Time put it under this caption: “THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS.”
Yeah, right. And at the end of the article it kind of did read that the “toe bone” was found 10 miles from the skull… Oh why, oh wonder… Even whether or not that bone belongs to the other specimen is pure speculation that is given us as if it were facts…
I’d consider it a hoax just like the Piltdown Man or the Nebraska Man (that was “reconstructed” from a tooth that in the end proved to belong to a peccary)…
And even if this animal was proven to walk on 2 feet it does not mean that this is our ancestor… gorillas can walk on 2 feet!! Tanzanian chimpanzees stand on two feet when gathering fruits… Zaire’s pygmy chimpanzee walks… So what? This can also provide proof for a common designer.
H
historyb
Guest
A bunch of nonsense.This was posted in Secular News, and I’m posting it here so creationists can get their panties in a bunch.
msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809…ience-science/
So what you think? Interesting, no? If you’re an expert on evolution, do you think this will change human evolution or not?
I thought in order to be catholic one had to embrace evolution.“panties in a bunch”?Look, I understand how hard it is to overcome the brainwashing of the world, but as long as you refuse to love the truth, you will never overcome it. I overcame because I wanted to believe the Word of God (see my sig). So I sincerely sought the truth, and God explained it to me, and now I understand. It’s all about free will: Evolution is for the unbelievers - not you…
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” - Richard Dawkins
…according to God’s plan.
C
ccolley2
Guest
Good link. And, yes it is interesting. Although I am certainly NOT an expert on evolution; I do have a degree in Anthropology. Any new scientific evidence of this nature always changes our perspective on human evolution. The article points out - and rightly so- that even Charles Darwin was not willing to make “bold claims” about the common ancestor of modern humans. Anthropology is always an exciting science, because there is still so much that we simply do not know about how we came to be. As the article states, somewhere along the evolutionary chain, there is a “common ancestor”. We will have many more answers when or if we find it…in anthropology any new find yields more questions than answers.This was posted in Secular News, and I’m posting it here so creationists can get their panties in a bunch.
msnbc.msn.com/id/33110809…ience-science/
So what you think? Interesting, no? If you’re an expert on evolution, do you think this will change human evolution or not?
just my two (anthropological) cents,
CC
A
Aramis
Guest
four of the last five popes have said differently. The fifth was only pope for a season, and didn’t make statements either way.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Evolution does not imply polygenism. You don’t understand what polygenism means. Pope JPII taught that the creation of Adam and Eve in scripture represents “an actual ontological event”. Ontological has to do with “the state of being”. Adam and Eve were the first humans, the first beings made in the image and likeness of God. Their “state of being” was radically different than any being before them. How their physical bodies came to be is irrelevant to the fact that their immortal souls were created immediately by God in His image and likeness.
Catholics are under no obligation to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. The popes certainly don’t believe in a literal interpretation, The catechism says that Genesis is a poetic representation of the origins of the earth and of human beings.
Every human being is descended from Adam and Eve (monogenism). How Adam and Eve’s bodies came to be is (currently) known only to God. We are free to theorize about it all we like and still be faithful Catholics, so long as we believe that:
- God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing.
- The soul of man did not evolve, but is created individually and immediately at the moment of conception.
Paul
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Nope. As Catholics we are free to believe in any interpretation Genesis from strictly literal to completely figurative, so long as we accept that:
- God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing.
- The soul of man did not evolve, but is created individually and immediately at the moment of conception.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Thank you Paul for that!
E
Eucharisted
Guest
We are not free to believe any intrepretation of the Scriptures; there are two sesnes a Cathoilic must believe in: the literal and the spiritual. To intrepret the Scripture outside of these senses is to interpret the Scriptures incorrectly. Moreover, the interpretation of the Scriptures is bound up with - so to speak - the teaching of the Catholic Church, since the Bible came from the Church.
Reason is also something to keep in mind when interpreting the Bible. For example, we know that the Universe was created over billions of years, not seven days. Science purges religion of superstition. According to Genesis, as you correctly stated, God created all good things and the soul is created at conception. Religion purges science of superstition.
L
Luke65
Guest
Well, I’m sure I don’t know where you would get that idea.
But no, you don’t have to embrace any godless myths in the Catholic Church. You can the have Faith of our Fathers, and Doctors, and Saints and the whole Catholic Church for most of Her existence, and still be a Catholic today. And there’s nothing the modernist wolves can do about it, except howl. So let the howling proceed!
E
Elric
Guest
I dont understand what this disproves.
The “Hobbit” found in Indonesa simply raises some questions about the theory of the human races origions and activity in Africa. It shows that they dont have all the pieces of the puzzle (which they admit already) that they are trying to put together. It doesnt disprove anything or show that they have no idea what is going on (ie: incompetent).
Its actually quite interesting.
R
Rites
Guest
If scientists know very well that similarity does not equal relation, why do they so dogmatically assert that evolution is true? It is impossible to prove the theory except through observation, so why do they advertise every old fossil they discover as if it were a missing link that provides unquestionable proof? It seems to me that when dealing with evolution, they find it prudent to simply leave logic at the door.
That Genesis is not capable of telling us the real facts about how creation came into being is your opinion only. An allegorical interpretation of the first book of the Bible is extremely problematic in that it is hard to tell when to stop being allegorical, a difficulty which has ultimately led many to modernism, since what it really ends up doing is questioning everything and looking at Divine Revelation through the eyes of a scientist instead of a Catholic. It is much easier and more logical to simply believe the whole to be literal than engage in a complicated, modernist-flavored exegesis that depends on the constantly developing science of the day.
“2. [We condemn as modernism the idea that] The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.”
– Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane
A
a_priori
Guest
It’s just another piece of an emerging puzzle, a puzzle that should not scare people who have faith in the God who created it all. God’s doing fine. He is on the throne and will be forever. He made it all. It is not a virtue to ignore what His creation reveals. Genesis was not written with the specificity of a jet engine fuel control schematic. It tells us what we need to know. We have no right to cram scientific observations into one preconceived interpretation of Genesis and by doing so thinking we are pleasing God. He gave us a brain to explore His wonderful universe. Evolution, at this time in history, is the best explanation of how God Almighty placed us here. Why is this so scary???
K
kalt
Guest
Similarity in the skeleton doesn’t prove definitively that something is related. As another poster said (trying to disprove evolution) you have to look at the big picture.
Scientists for more than a hundred years were saying that all primates are closely related and that the chimp and humans were most closely related. They came to that conclusion by looking at fossils and modern examples, taking into account modes of movement, behavior, etc. As it turns out, DNA research has proved that the scientists were right. Humans are more closely related to other primates than they are to other animals, and humans are most closely related to the chimps.
It’s that big picture that gets in the anti-evolutionist’s way. They say the scientists don’t look at the big picture, but only the fossils. In reality, it’s the anti-evolutionists who focus solely on the fossils. This is probably because they have knee-jerk reactions to short articles in newspapers that report on the find. They don’t know what the big picture is or that the scientists are most definitely looking at it.
The Church doesn’t read Genesis literaly. What are you trying to say with that quote?
I would say that following non-Catholic Christians’ literal interpretation of Genesis is easier (lazy, even), but it’s not more logical. I think it defies logic. It defies logic, not because one thinks science disproves creation, but because insisting on a literal interpretation doesn’t allow us to know the truth of creation.
It’s much more logical to accept the fact that God created the world and to accept the reality of the world around us than it is to insist that God created the world in 7 days and ignore the reality of the world around us.
- Status