Reconciling apparent contradictions between church teaching and science

[noorez]

I have had this question in my mind for a bit but wasn’t sure how to ask it but I’ll try any how:

How does the church reconcile apparent contradictions between church teaching and scientific discoveries (male and female only vs intersex persons, monogenism vs genetic analysis/evolution)…

I am looking for a general answer and one that does not explore each of those examples I posted. I just put them there to hopefully make my question easier to understand.

 

[angell1]

there aren’t any contradictions that i am aware of. nothing specifically factually proven anyways. perhaps you are confusing with theories or hypotheses?

 

[angell1]

there aren’t any contradictions that i am aware of. nothing specifically factually proven anyways. perhaps you are confusing with theories or hypotheses?

for example, church teaching opposes the darwinian theory of evolution. as in we didn’t evolve from one cell organisms millions of years ago. however, the church is in no way opposed to specific adaptability of species which is also technically evolution. like DNA diversity or bacteria “evolving” to be more resistent. god did the creating, he is allowed to implement factors to govern his creation so that it survives properly without him having to interfere with every little detail. as for “intersex”, there is always a specific gender if you look at DNA, tha anamolies that occur are due to poor development or anatomical problems. sorry, just used your examples because i can’t really think of any other. hope that helps

 

[noorez]

for example, church teaching opposes the darwinian theory of evolution. as in we didn’t evolve from one cell organisms millions of years ago. however, the church is in no way opposed to specific adaptability of species which is also technically evolution. like DNA diversity or bacteria “evolving” to be more resistent. god did the creating, he is allowed to implement factors to govern his creation so that it survives properly without him having to interfere with every little detail. as for “intersex”, there is always a specific gender if you look at DNA, tha anamolies that occur are due to poor development or anatomical problems. sorry, just used your examples because i can’t really think of any other. hope that helps

To clarify my example (guess we can’t completely avoid them) on ‘intersex’, I was thinking of the cases in which both male and female DNA are present in an individual. XX and XY chromosomes are present. Such things can cause ambiguous genitalia. Now you don’t have something that is clearly male or clearly female.

This is the type of scientific teaching which I’m trying to get at which ‘might’ be at odds with the church teaching.

 

[relstudent]

for example, church teaching opposes the darwinian theory of evolution. as in we didn’t evolve from one cell organisms millions of years ago. however, the church is in no way opposed to specific adaptability of species which is also technically evolution. like DNA diversity or bacteria “evolving” to be more resistent. god did the creating, he is allowed to implement factors to govern his creation so that it survives properly without him having to interfere with every little detail. as for “intersex”, there is always a specific gender if you look at DNA, tha anamolies that occur are due to poor development or anatomical problems. sorry, just used your examples because i can’t really think of any other. hope that helps

^ This is not necessarily true as is the case of mosaic DNA. Some cells appear male while others appear female according to genetics. In some cases cells are neither male nor female, but an anonmily such as XXY

 

[Razanir]

for example, church teaching opposes the darwinian theory of evolution. as in we didn’t evolve from one cell organisms millions of years ago.

:ehh: I always thought theistic evolution meant God created everything in Genesis by creating that single-celled organism and leading everything in evolution from it. The Catholic Church only teaches that the human soul was created directly by God. She makes no comment on if the human body was also created directly by God or if the human body evolved, then God just upgraded our souls, so to speak.

 

[noorez]

Not to be the stick in the mud but we need to avoid discussing evolution… I would like my question answered.

I only mentioned to help make my question clear…

 

[Razanir]

Not to be the stick in the mud but we need to avoid discussing evolution… I would like my question answered.

I only mentioned to help make my question clear…

I know. I just responded to that comment because it didn’t sound entirely in-line with actual Church teaching. For sake of discussion, since you seem interested in the topic, I decided to clear up any possible misconceptions.

 

[angell1]

I know. I just responded to that comment because it didn’t sound entirely in-line with actual Church teaching. For sake of discussion, since you seem interested in the topic, I decided to clear up any possible misconceptions.

i feel like it’s one of those things we’re never going to know until christ’s return. and honestly, it’s pretty pointless anyways. i am leaving this thread now; i realize i hav nothing to contribute really. i hope more knowledgeable people will be able to answer your question

 

[bzkoss236]

God created Man, male and female, but because of the fall of Man, disease and a lot of other stuff entered the world, which would include those who are born intersex. So, intersex in no way contradicts Church teaching.

Also, the Church leaves it to science to say how God created the world. The Church only cares that God created it, He created Man in His own image, and that Man fell from grace (Original Sin). Scientific theories and conclusions can be reconciled with Church teaching.

There is no contradiction here.

 

[grannymh]

I have had this question in my mind for a bit but wasn’t sure how to ask it but I’ll try any how:

How does the church reconcile apparent contradictions between church teaching and scientific discoveries (male and female only vs intersex persons, monogenism vs genetic analysis/evolution)…

I am looking for a general answer and one that does not explore each of those examples I posted. I just put them there to hopefully make my question easier to understand.

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[ToTheCross]

God created everything: male, female, even intersex. What exists in today’s world that He did not or could not have created? As a scientist myself, here is how I have best heard it explained: science cannot contradict God’s existence because it is only the study of what He created. How could you study for example, how a car is made and then deny that someone made it? When you delve into any study, the links are there, but some people will always refuse to see them.

On a side note, the theory of evolution always tickles me. After all this time, it is still just a theory. Why? Because we are missing a few key links that every once in a while someone will (falsely) proclaim that they have found. For some laughs, look up the pre-cambrian period. During this time, most of the mammalian species we know today magically and suddenly appeared on the earth. Darwin believed over time we would find evolutionary proof of how these species came to be. Now it has been hundreds of years since Darwin, and the links still cannot be found. Therefore, question always, question everything.

*Please note, it’s not that I do not believe in evolution, just not in all the ways it is taught, as above.

 

[holyrood]

To clarify my example (guess we can’t completely avoid them) on ‘intersex’, I was thinking of the cases in which both male and female DNA are present in an individual. XX and XY chromosomes are present. Such things can cause ambiguous genitalia. Now you don’t have something that is clearly male or clearly female.

This is the type of scientific teaching which I’m trying to get at which ‘might’ be at odds with the church teaching.

People are born with all sorts of anomalies. How does this show any conflict between Church teaching and science?

 

[Blacksword]

for example, church teaching opposes the darwinian theory of evolution. as in we didn’t evolve from one cell organisms millions of years ago. however, the church is in no way opposed to specific adaptability of species which is also technically evolution. like DNA diversity or bacteria “evolving” to be more resistent. god did the creating, he is allowed to implement factors to govern his creation so that it survives properly without him having to interfere with every little detail. as for “intersex”, there is always a specific gender if you look at DNA, tha anamolies that occur are due to poor development or anatomical problems. sorry, just used your examples because i can’t really think of any other. hope that helps

The Church does not oppose evolution. It is a fact of nature that the Church has accepted without issue for a hundred years and more.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There is absolutely no contradiction between Church theology and science.

There is, however, some contradiction between what the Church teaches and how a handful of scientists chose to interpret their data. More often than not, any apparent contradiction usually stems from a misunderstanding about either the science itself, or about the Church teaching that is supposedly being contradicted.

Science is simply a means of understanding the physical aspects of our reality. Nothing about it could ever contradict the Church, since the Church’s teachings area all about Truth. We regard further scientific development as a positive thing, so long as that development is moral in nature. Your example of evolution stems from either a misunderstanding about Church teaching or a misunderstanding about Darwinian evolution. The Church is fine with evolution, so long as it’s not atheistic evolution (which Darwinian evolution technically was not). So long as scientists don’t mistakenly try to say that the existence of evolution somehow inexplicably means there is no God (a completely baseless and illogical statement), we’re fine with it.

As a last note, remember, Science is completely incapable of proving or disproving God. This is a result of the simple fact that science is limited in scope to our single physical reality. God is outside of the physical reality, therefore there’s nothing that science can do to gain any knowledge about Him one way or the other.

Hope this helps, God Bless. If you have any other examples that are bugging you I’d love to discuss them ^^

 

[Spencerian]

I have had this question in my mind for a bit but wasn’t sure how to ask it but I’ll try any how:

How does the church reconcile apparent contradictions between church teaching and scientific discoveries (male and female only vs intersex persons, monogenism vs genetic analysis/evolution)…

I am looking for a general answer and one that does not explore each of those examples I posted. I just put them there to hopefully make my question easier to understand.

Hi.

There is no contradiction in so much that Church teachings are *theological *statements, while theories and hypotheses are *scientific *statements. For instance, the story of Genesis was pinned ages before Georges Lemaitre established this now-widely accepted theory. Please note: Lemaitre was not only an astronomer and professor of physics, but a Catholic priest. Turns out, the story of Genesis seems to have themes that the Big Bang Theory has discerned in science, despite the point that Scripture isn’t meant to be scientific, nor was the theory designed around Scripture.

Further, there is a very common false dichotomy in society that suggests that religion is opposed to science (and, thus, argues one against the other). Church teachings do not attempt to explain the physical laws, but it does recognize their effects as teachings believe that God established these for keeping matters in order (literally). Same is true for natural laws, such as reproduction.

The Church isn’t a political or scientific body. As such, you will not see them making statements on “this” or “stating their position on that” unless it there is a matter or faith or morals to discuss.

For more, you can listen to an archived 2012 Catholic Answers Live radio program that argues how religion and science aren’t natural enemies. You can also search the forums for other variations to this common question.

In the matter of genetics, please also note that the father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic Monk, as were many many men and women in history who were scientists but also followers in a faith.

The Church defends the dignity of the* human person* and doesn’t make distinctions on gender. It does not particularly make any statements as to the person’s genetic differentiations. Such people are to be treated with the same dignity and respect and right to seek the Gospel as any other human with fewer or no abnormalities.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does not oppose evolution. It is a fact of nature that the Church has accepted without issue for a hundred years and more.

Since we are in the Traditional Catholicism Forum, I will reply that traditionally, the Catholic Church has **not accepted **all forms of evolution and is directly opposed to the evolution theories for human origin and human nature.

Catholic tradition as one of the basic foundations for section 37, Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950,
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

is emphasized in reference to the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church and in footnote 12, Romans 5: 12-19, which contains the basic Catholic original sin doctrine(s) that are denied by evolution theory(s). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 389, points out: “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

When one looks closely at this century’s evolution proposals, one is able to recognize that the latitude of the early 20th century has disappeared. What caused this are the contemporary evolution theories which oppose the foundational Catholic doctrines (human origin, human nature, original sin) flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, the place where Catholic traditionalism begins.

 

[Razanir]

Since we are in the Traditional Catholicism Forum, I will reply that traditionally, the Catholic Church has **not accepted **all forms of evolution and is directly opposed to the evolution theories for human origin and human nature.

Catholic tradition as one of the basic foundations for section 37, Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950,
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

is emphasized in reference to the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church and in footnote 12, Romans 5: 12-19, which contains the basic Catholic original sin doctrine(s) that are denied by evolution theory(s). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 389, points out: “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

When one looks closely at this century’s evolution proposals, one is able to recognize that the latitude of the early 20th century has disappeared. What caused this are the contemporary evolution theories which oppose the foundational Catholic doctrines (human origin, human nature, original sin) flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, the place where Catholic traditionalism begins.

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

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, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

But seriously. We should stop talking so much about evolution, or we might get the thread closed.

 

[grannymh]

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

But seriously. We should stop talking so much about evolution, or we might get the thread closed.

You are correct.
That is why my reply post 17 is from the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. I referred to Church writings as listed here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774820

However,
my intention is simply to cite Humani Generis #37 and Romans 5: 12-19. I do not intend to debate these. My reminder of them is sufficient.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

^ This is not necessarily true as is the case of mosaic DNA. Some cells appear male while others appear female according to genetics. In some cases cells are neither male nor female, but an anonmily such as XXY

XXY people are still males…it’s the Y chromosome that makes a person a male. Actually it’s a specific gene on the Y chromosome that causes male attributes. There are also XYY males, XX males and XXX females …most of the time you wouldn’t know it unless you were tested. XX males often have a portion of the Y chromosome attached to an X chromosome.

Similarly there are cases where an individual is XY but they don’t respond to testosterone and thus develop in to an outward looking female yet they have internal testes. This is called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. These individuals function as females and look like females yet they have no uterus or ovaries and are thus sterile. They can never function as a man so they are brought up as women…most don’t know they have it till puberty hits and they don’t menstruate or develop body hair.

These cases are not common. The ideal is either 46XX or 46XY with no deletions or duplications of genes…but the world is imperfect my daughter has an X duplication (extra genes on one of her X chromosomes).