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.
10gr8kids said:
I thought all living things have a soul. 🤷

From CA:
Click to expand...
My bad. Man is the only being to have a rational soul.
Ok. Whew. I’m glad that is cleared up.
Back to the point.
Man is
  1. body
  2. soul
    Must have both. Unity of body and soul.,
Other creatures have bodies that look like man.
Only man is given a -rational- soul.
The process of evolution cannot explain ensoulment. When evolutionary science crosses the boundary between science and faith, it goes out of it’s area of competence. Attempts by scientists to do this extra step do not negate the validity of science, any more than ignorance among Catholics detract from the Catholic faith.

In the same way, the Catholic Church does not attempt to explain “the how”
of man’s physical form. We proclaim God as the source of all creation. The how is open to scientific inquiry.

The Pope is not saying anything controversial or out of step with preceeding Popes. If there is controversy, it is with those who protest what the Catholic Church teaches (or does not teach, as in science)
 
we are not required to believe in Darwin’s humans came from apes theory. I don’t believe in it and I certainly wouldn’t tell my nieces and nephews that they are just evolved apes with souls.

Each human is unique in the fact that they were created in the image and likeness. We are not animals, we are human.

Evolution is also an insult to Jesus who dwelt among us as a man and his holy Mother. That’s my own take on it,
 
There is still debate on evolution being a fact or a theory

Again, I believe in evolution within a species but not evolving from one species to another.

I feel it is consistent with Genesis.
 
Jon_S said:
Theistic evolution is not limited to what you describe…in fact, I reject the view you describe.

There is nothing wrong with saying God created through the evolutionary process. He is more than capable of doing so.

This clip from the Noah movie demonstrates a form of theistic evolution well in my opinion and also demonstrates the figurative language of genesis.

youtu.be/OwSWRdbSQK0
Click to expand...
Thats what I am saying!!! That is what I mean. So, I am not sure what you mean by disagreeing…God creating through evolution. We know God created becausde of Genesis. We know he did it through evolution because of science.
 
RACJ said:
I vehemently disagree with Pope Francis on this. We have enough blood vessels in our bodies to circle the globe three times! These marvelous machines we all occupy did not “evolve” cell by cell. Our brains contain a million billion synapses, all of which which fire an incomprehensible TEN million billion times every second. There is no step-by-step sequence which could have produced this. Call me disappointed with this pronouncement. :cool: Rob
Click to expand...
I think you are assuming that evolution implies non-Creation. It does not.

Look, for example at the Dachshund (wiener dog). God created wolves, not wiener dogs), but wiener dogs evolved from wolves under the guidance and direction of humans.

But, of course, there had to be something existing to evolve into wiener dogs, and that process, as you pointed out, had to have been guided. And that is the position of the Catholic Church.

God knows not only when every sparrow falls, but also every electron that changes energy levels and every atom that He controls and coordinates the whole process.

So yes, species change, either by man’s intervention, or God’s. So what the Pope is saying does not imply an action that does not include God. The wolf had to come from somewhere 🙂
 
truetofaith said:
There is still debate on evolution being a fact or a theory

Again, I believe in evolution within a species but not evolving from one species to another.

I feel it is consistent with Genesis.
Click to expand...
Genesis is not a science textbook.

Please read Humani Generis, and John Paul 2’s commentary on it.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

There is no real debate in the scientific community (including Catholic scientists) about the validity of the origin of species, one from the other. It is easily demonstrable fact that species evolve and develop, one from the material of another. Resistance to immunity is a demonstration of organisms developing and changing, evolving.
Genesis beautifully gives us God’s primary role (cause without a cause) in creating all that exists, the pinnacle of which is man, who is a unity of body (material stuff) and soul.

Genesis does not pretend to give a scientific explanation of the origin of man’s material stuff. Catholic scripture scholars will tell you that Genesis literature was never intended by the ancient peoples to give a literalist and scientific explanation of our existence. First of all, they did not have the scientific tools available to do this.
Genesis tells us that according to God’s loving will, he gave our first two parents souls, along with the bodies he created.

There should be no conflict between science and faith.
 
truetofaith said:
There is still debate on evolution being a fact or a theory

Again, I believe in evolution within a species but not evolving from one species to another.

I feel it is consistent with Genesis.
Click to expand...
Evolution within a species is fact more than theory.

We know that human beings today are far more evolved than 100,000 years ago.

I side with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in that he believed that mankind evolved biologically quickly up until about 10,000 years ago. Then the biological evolution slowed down.

However, intellectual and spiritual evolution began to speed up and we’re still evolving today.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a scientists and was on the team that discovered Peking Man,.

Jim
 
latin_rite said:
Bible teaching ALWAYS trumps Church teaching.
Bible says 7 days. Then 7 days it was.
Click to expand...
Wow…how very fundamentalist Protestant of you.

Bible says a 10 horn dragon will appear at end of the world…10 horns it will have.

Bible says that Solomon’s beloved had breasts like two fawns…two fawns they were.

We must identify the genre we are reading. The beginning of genesis is not historical or scientific in genre, but instead epic prose.

How could the church add the New Testament to the Bible if the Scriptures reign supreme? Shouldn’t the Old Testament dictate the new testament if that is true?

The Catholic Church teaches their are 3 legs of the stool…the bible, sacred tradition and Magesterium.
 
I see attempts to subordinate Catholic teaching to ever evolving scientific theory.
 
Jon_S said:
Wow…how very fundamentalist Protestant of you.

Bible says a 10 horn dragon will appear at end of the world…10 horns it will have.

Bible says that Solomon’s beloved had breasts like two fawns…two fawns they were.

We must identify the genre we are reading. The beginning of genesis is not historical or scientific in genre, but instead epic prose.

How could the church add the New Testament to the Bible if the Scriptures reign supreme? Shouldn’t the Old Testament dictate the new testament if that is true?

The Catholic Church teaches their are 3 legs of the stool…the bible, sacred tradition and Magesterium.
Click to expand...
You still havent answered my question. How is my “theistic evolution” different from what you are saying?
 
Jon_S said:
Bible says that Solomon’s beloved had breasts like two fawns…two fawns they were.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Seamus_L said:
I see attempts to subordinate Catholic teaching to ever evolving scientific theory.
Click to expand...
No.

Catholic teaching describes faith and morals. Scientific theory describes the material world. Neither can be subordinate to the other; they belong to different domains. Speaking about them as if they were in conflict with each other, or as if one has to be subordinate to the other, is a category mistake.

That said, research methods can be subject to morals. But that does not mean the matter studied is subject to faith or morals; it simply means we cannot use any means we wish to study it.
 
Seamus_L said:
I have a real problem with the words "God is not a divine being or a magician (or wizard). Never heard of people concluding that creation sounded like magic or wizardry.
Click to expand...
True. Sometimes I feel that the Pope is ashamed of God.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Evolution within a species is fact more than theory.

We know that human beings today are far more evolved than 100,000 years ago.

I side with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in that he believed that mankind evolved biologically quickly up until about 10,000 years ago. Then the biological evolution slowed down.

However, intellectual and spiritual evolution began to speed up and we’re still evolving today.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a scientists and was on the team that discovered Peking Man,.

Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe evolution within a species is a fact. I thought I made that clear. 🤷
 
Quote : Jon S - “Bible says that Solomon’s beloved had breasts like two fawns…two fawns they were.”
Then it’s obvious women evolved from deer. 😉
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You can stomp your feet and use superlatives all you want. That does not constitute evidence. Common sense is not involved since there is nothing “common” about what happened millions of years ago. It is all equally uncommon, and therefore out of the domain of common sense. At one time it was thought that common sense indicated the world was flat. That is because the experience of seeing our globe with its 24000 mile circumference was beyond the common experience. Similarly millions of years of small changes adding up to macro-evolution is beyond the common experience of our limited lives. So of course it is going to seem uncommon.
Click to expand...
Leaf, what we do know is that mutations are usually neutral or negative. Yet you and other evos continue to believe that billions of positive mutations brought us to today, without negative mutations blowing it all apart. You can believe this, but there is no evidence to support your contention. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top