Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“We don’t know” meaning us, or paleontologists and other scientists will never know.
The whole debate here about whether Neanderthals were “human” or not is meaningless since it all depends on how you define the word “human”. Different people define it in different ways and it is not really a scientific term.
 
The whole debate here about whether Neanderthals were “human” or not is meaningless since it all depends on how you define the word “human”. Different people define it in different ways and it is not really a scientific term.
Ok, so it’s just their opinion. I get it now.
 
So back to the OP, why are some posters up in arms over what our Pope (whom I love), had to say?
 
I find the account of genesis especially the account of God, Adam, Eve, Satan, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; extremely profound and very important for our day and time. If the entire account is read closely, especially regarding the lies of Satan and their consequences to Adam, Eve, and us her children; it is obvious that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil did not actually give that knowledge to those who ate it’s fruit. It gave the concept or idea that we humans can tell by thinking what is good and what is evil and therefore don’t have to obey God’s Commandments.

Think about the fact that the Church’s official teaching is that Sacred Scripture is the word of God and that although the teachings of the Church stand on 3 pillars, “Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium; that nothing can oppose Sacred Scripture.”

To confirm both the Church’s official teachings and Sacred Scripture I will quote 2 Scriptures. 2nd Timothy, 3:16, “All Scripture is God Breathed and useful for instruction. *******”." 2nd Peter1:21,22 “Above all you must understand that prophesy of Scripture did not come about by the prophets own intention of things. For prophesy never had as it’s origin the human will, but prophets though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

If the Magisterium cannot oppose Sacred Scripture which says that a prophet or Moses who wrote the Old Testament or a prophet or Apostle who wrote the New Testament then who are you or I to say that the prophet or Apostle who wrote the New Testament had some personal agenda such as opposing something happening at the time, rather than at times, the clear meaning as expressed through the writer by the Holy Spirit?

It is not that Evolution of the Species is false because of some issue of faith although that could be true. The Evolution of the Species is not true because it is bad science. The tactic of the PhD Evolutionist is to present the layman with so many facts and claims that the ordinary College educated person says to themselves, "There is no way I can sort out all of that information and discern whether it is true or not. These people are scientists and would not lie and so accept the Hypotheses (it is not actually a theory because a theory is an hypotheses that has been tested by experiment by many experts and the results from all of the experiments are the same. It is impossible to subject the hypotheses to experiments.

I say that is a tactic because anyone with courses in high school biology, physics, and Chemistry, and can asses things using critical thinking can see that Evolution is scientifically impossible. To start at the beginning, no one who has taken the classes I mentioned should believe that a bolt of lightening that contains only electrons hit water that only contains 2 atoms, Hydrogen and Oxygen ( H2O) and the result was a living being that was made up of hundreds of atoms. It can’t happen. Scientists used to say that the Lightening hit a “primordial soup” in the water that contained DNA, RNA, and all the other substances necessary for the first living creature to be created. It took a lot of time but eventually someone clued them in to the fact that there was no “primordial soup” before there was any life because all of those things in the soup do not occur naturally, they are created by living beings. Then they said that all of the necessary ingredients came to Earth on billions and billions of comets every year for billions and billions of years. Of course if the first life was created on Earth and they have not found any life anywhere else, There would be no way any of that “primordial stuff” could have gotten on any comet.! There are many things like this in the hypotheses of Evolution that scientifically prove that it was impossible for any kind of evolution to have ever taken place.
That was Pope Benedict’s position. We can’t drag X number of generations of humans into the laboratory today. He added that it was not possible to conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theory.

The origin of life - which some constantly repeat is a separate question - is critical to our understanding of the beginning. According to a science program I watched, all you needed was a planet that was the right distance from its sun, water and “the building blocks of life,” which are amino acids. Then life would appear. But they don’t know if that’s true.

Most young people who respect authority, like their science teachers, won’t dispute it. A college age relative of mine had her science book sitting out and I mentioned that some of the information was not provable. Her somewhat angry response was, “Why would they lie to me?”

Finally, Pope Benedict said: “Science has opened up large dimensions of reason … and thus brought us new insights,” the pope wrote. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.”

Best,
Ed
 
So back to the OP, why are some posters up in arms over what our Pope (whom I love), had to say?
First, there is the Evolution Model that is normally applied to non-humans including ants, bacteria, cats, dinosaurs, elephants and the rest of the alphabet. H for humans is not part of this alphabet, because that Evolution Model is strictly in the material/physical realm of scientists. In contrast, human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds.
(Information source. CCC, 355-357; CCC, 365; CCC, 1730-1732)

Second, when it comes to the Science of Human Evolution, the Catholic Church objects to its basic principle of humans evolving as a population.

My personal guess regarding the question – “So back to the OP, why are some posters up in arms over what our Pope (whom I love), had to say?” –

is that the Pope knows the difference between the material world and the spiritual world, but there are some, not all, persons who have a hard time dealing with both worlds when natural science is involved.
 
Yes. But Divine Revelation tells us this is what God did.
One possible interpretation of Divine Revelation does. There are other possible interpretations.

Many Bible passages have many different interpretations.

rossum
 
Not criticizing you, but I find that as a whole our society seems to think that science is the only means of validating truth claims and this is simply false.

Science cannot answer things that are outside of its range of activity, and that range is limited to phenomenal affects of the natural world. That leaves out mathematics, theology, reference data for travel schedules, emotional questions like love, respect, fear and devotion, and 90% of the rest of the things we deal with cay to day in our personal lives.

Thinking that science is the only means of finding answers is a modern myth.
Things have certainly moved in that direction. It’s all natural - no God/gods/supernatural forces required. But we don’t believe in a God that cannot do the impossible. “Creator of heaven and earth.” He actually did things. However, there is the false notion being marketed that this is a totally secular country. Not true.

As I read on amazon.com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

Best,
Ed
 
I don’t want to abandon the Genesis story and I don’t see any Catholics that give me that impression.

But I do want to understand it in the way the author or inspired writer intended it, which cannot include meaning as a text of modern science for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons? God intervened is the correct answer, not “evolution did it.” Any attempts to shoe-horn science into God’s work will fail every time. Which makes me wonder what people really want. 'We have evidence that human life developed like this or that." Really? It makes me question the soul-human nonsense being promoted here. Humani Generis is quite clear: God created man. And there were no other true men around that did not take their origin from him. Once again, looking for scientific explanations will just not work.

Ed
 
Yeah. Really. Ok so your link equates them with humans but most of what I’ve read, including a link from someone here (Ed?), that doesn’t. So we don’t know if they were human or not.
And if they weren’t human, then, again, what does that say about us, we aren’t fully human?
What does that say about our ancestors? They didn’t all have rational souls? And if they didn’t how do we know we have rational souls?
What does rational souls have to do with scientific claims? Science cannot study the soul. As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as a soul. So I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from. Or why it’s important. We have Neanderthal DNA, our offspring were not sterile, which means Neanderthals were just as human as any other human being. The Church tells us we all have souls.

Ed
 
That was Pope Benedict’s position. We can’t drag X number of generations of humans into the laboratory today. He added that it was not possible to conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theory.

The origin of life - which some constantly repeat is a separate question - is critical to our understanding of the beginning. According to a science program I watched, all you needed was a planet that was the right distance from its sun, water and “the building blocks of life,” which are amino acids. Then life would appear. But they don’t know if that’s true.

Most young people who respect authority, like their science teachers, won’t dispute it. A college age relative of mine had her science book sitting out and I mentioned that some of the information was not provable. Her somewhat angry response was, “Why would they lie to me?”

Finally, Pope Benedict said: “Science has opened up large dimensions of reason … and thus brought us new insights,” the pope wrote. "But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need."

Best,
Ed
Human life and human society based solely on what science can discover is not really even possible.
Reason and rationality have traditionally had much more profound connotations that believing that what is potentially available to our senses is really all that exists in reality.
 
What does rational souls have to do with scientific claims? Science cannot study the soul. As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as a soul. So I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from. Or why it’s important. We have Neanderthal DNA, our offspring were not sterile, which means Neanderthals were just as human as any other human being. The Church tells us we all have
Nobody knows if Neanderthals were human or not.
 
👍
So I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from. Or why it’s important. We have Neanderthal DNA, our offspring were not sterile, which means Neanderthals were just as human as any other human being.
Being able to reproduce apparently has no bearing on whether 2 species are the same or not.
 
What does rational souls have to do with scientific claims? Science cannot study the soul. As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as a soul. So I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from. Or why it’s important. We have Neanderthal DNA, our offspring were not sterile, which means Neanderthals were just as human as any other human being. The Church tells us we all have souls.

Ed
Rational souls have everything to do with scientific claims made by the Science of Human Evolution. Time to catch up with science!

The Science of Human Evolution posits that what is considered a spiritual rational soul is actually a material emergence or an epiphenomena of the material/physical human anatomy. Consider the research which is trying to locate volition or free choice somewhere in the mass of brain cells via study of awake brain surgery. Consider the pictures of people with their heads wrapped in wires in order to pick up brain sensations aroused by various images. Regardless of the validity of this research, its prominence pounds home that humans are material beings with super material skills. The underlying interpretation is that the spiritual soul is no longer needed.
 
What does rational souls have to do with scientific claims? Science cannot study the soul. As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as a soul.
Based on science, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard would have to disagree with you. 😉
 
edwest2;12498317:
What does rational souls have to do with scientific claims? Science cannot study the soul. As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as a soul. So I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from. Or why it’s important. We have Neanderthal DNA, our offspring were not sterile, which means Neanderthals were just as human as any other human being. The Church tells us we all have
Nobody knows if Neanderthals were human or not.
Then why do we have their DNA?

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top