B
buffalo
Guest
He probably got it from the media. They didn’t get it right.
- Status
M
Mike_D30
Guest
Good question, and one I have been struggling with this for a long time now. I can’t reconcile religious faith with evolution at all. If I am a glorified chimp, that leaves little room for a Christian idea of creation. If even the first chapter of the Bible is completely wrong, well then how do I believe anything else as true with confidence?
I was greatly saddened when I learned via P.M. from another poster here that Pope John Paul II had “embraced” evolution. I was greatly saddened. To me, either the Bible is wrong here, or the Pope and Catholic Church is wrong, niether is very comforting to me.
B
buffalo
Guest
N
Nullasalus
Guest
Glorified chimp? You’re anything but that - even the most ardent biologists and evolutionists will swear as much.
And the first chapter of the bible isn’t wrong. God did create everything - all of creation was given form by God. Man became what he did by divine will and plan, and fell of his own accord. Evolution conflicts with none of this.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Mike << I was greatly saddened when I learned via P.M. from another poster here that Pope John Paul II had “embraced” evolution. I was greatly saddened. To me, either the Bible is wrong here, or the Pope and Catholic Church is wrong, niether is very comforting to me. >>
Well you’ll be more saddened to know that Benedict XVI doesn’t interpret Genesis literally either, and accepts biological evolution as “how we got here” while Genesis tells us “who we are.” That’s my position, I’m with the Pope.
"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.
“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”
"In the Beginning…" : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995), A commentary on Genesis 1-3 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (English translation by Boniface Ramsey)
Phil P
Well you’ll be more saddened to know that Benedict XVI doesn’t interpret Genesis literally either, and accepts biological evolution as “how we got here” while Genesis tells us “who we are.” That’s my position, I’m with the Pope.
"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.
“But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.”
"In the Beginning…" : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995), A commentary on Genesis 1-3 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (English translation by Boniface Ramsey)
Phil P
D
Dubervilles
Guest
Hearing Benedicts thoughts on evolution were one of the best things I have heard come out of his papacy. Quite honestly this “theistic evolution” is always what me and my family have believed and it is great to get some back up to that officially from the church.
If anything I find it more miraculous that there was/is evolution than “plop here are some humans, plop here are elephants”
If anything I find it more miraculous that there was/is evolution than “plop here are some humans, plop here are elephants”
M
Mike_D30
Guest
Well I’m not certain why you’re gloating about it, but yes it does sadden me, and it will more than likely force me to leave the faith. Again I’m not certain why the need to gloat it over me though.Well you’ll be more saddened to know that Benedict XVI doesn’t interpret Genesis literally either, and accepts biological evolution as “how we got here” while Genesis tells us “who we are.” That’s my position, I’m with the Pope.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
I can’t speak for PhilVaz - but I believe he may have just been trying to offer you some evidence that the problems you’re having (And that I’m having, honestly) can be reconciled easily with our faith.
The prime reason evolution poses a problem to christianity is because (ardent atheist or otherwise christian-hostile) evolutionists have said that it does, and people believe them. It is not necessarily so.
The prime reason evolution poses a problem to christianity is because (ardent atheist or otherwise christian-hostile) evolutionists have said that it does, and people believe them. It is not necessarily so.
B
buffalo
Guest
As I have posted many times - it doesn’t have to be an either or issue. God could have inserted Adam into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may have been happening evolution wise at the time.
Fr Coyne speaks about chance and necessary processes. He also adds the fertility of the universe.
God has created a fertile universe. God can make the universe more or less fertile for life as He wishes. He designed it to be fertile.
T
Ted_CharlotteNC
Guest
Thank you and welcome to this forum. May God bless your efforts to learn more about Catholics
Jello, as with your faith, there are many that profess that they are Catholic and don’t really act or say things that are correct Catholic church tradition, dogma and teaching.
If you want to see more about what many call “Cafeteria Catholics” (those that choose to believe only parts and not all) all you have to do is surf through all this forum and see the thousands of questions and topics. Most of it has to do with obdience and doing something because the church says he have to.
IMHO, Evolution from the point of view of no creation takes more faith to believe than Creation. Evolution from the point of view of God created everything and we are in some sort of state of change is ok. God, his saints, holy angels and Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God are all interested and actively involved.
M
Mike_D30
Guest
I definitely don’t fall into this category, I’m a Technology Analyst, college graduate, well read, and I like to think a fairly educated guy. Only people who are willing to do complete re-writes of our doctrines, Mental gymnastics on how evolution fits the Bible, and how we read the Bible as ever changing as we find science contradicts it, can reconcile our Christian faith and evolution.
If I’m a chimp, I’m a chimp, and what I thought was a God given moral law, is simply human law that developed over thousands of years of sociological experimentation on how to have a functioning human society and nothing more.
Sorry, but to me at least there are no shades of gray with evolution. Either God created us in HIS likeness, not as a single celled organism and through complete random mutations over billions of years until we happened into what we are today. Or we evolved and I’m a hairless chimp with an enlarged frontal lobe.
I think people who say they can easily reconcile the two, are more delusional than someone like me who loves thier faith, so they just ignore the evidence and bury their head in the sand.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Mike << Well I’m not certain why you’re gloating about it, but yes it does sadden me >>
Well…maybe we need to work on your interpretation of Genesis a little bit. Don’t be sad, have a cookie.
http://www.cookiesinheaven.com/images/cookies/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg
I would be sad too if all I ever read on evolution was AnswersInGenesis and Kolbe Center. :crying:
Phil P
Well…maybe we need to work on your interpretation of Genesis a little bit. Don’t be sad, have a cookie.
http://www.cookiesinheaven.com/images/cookies/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg
I would be sad too if all I ever read on evolution was AnswersInGenesis and Kolbe Center. :crying:
Phil P
M
Mike_D30
Guest
Why are you mocking me? I guess I’ll just ignore you…
I’ve never been to either place you are quoting. I simply have faith in creation, I don’t try to validate creationism with science, because I am honest with myself to admit the two are not going to work. If you have an issue with that, that is your problem. I certainly won’t stoop to your level.
T
trth_skr
Guest
No, Phil, that is not our pope.…Well you’ll be more saddened to know that Benedict XVI doesn’t interpret Genesis literally either, and accepts biological evolution as “how we got here” while Genesis tells us “who we are.” That’s my position, I’m with the Pope.
“All of this is well and good, one might say, …”
"In the Beginning…" : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1986, 1995), A commentary on Genesis 1-3 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (English translation by Boniface Ramsey)
Phil P
That is Cardinal Ratzinger, a brilliant theologian with a speculative and probing mind.
Benedict XVI may see things differently now that he is the sheperd of 1 billion souls.
The world is making demands of him on evolution. We will see where he goes with it. So far he has not met the world’s demands.
*September 4, 2006 – PARIS - Reuters
Pope Benedict and 39 of his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States, a participant said yesterday.
The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended without drawing any conclusions, said Father Joseph Fessio.
Media had speculated the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace “intelligent design,” which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the “creationist” view that God created the world in six days, as the Bible claims.
“It wasn’t that at all,” said Fessio.
“We did not really speak much about intelligent design,” he said. “In fact, that particular controversy did not arise.”
Creationism was “almost off the radar screen of the people in this group,” he added*
Mark Wyatt
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
W
Whiggamore
Guest
In my opinion…
The Church seems to make room for natural selection, a small part of evolution, but not evolution itself. This seems to be a more traditional, reasonable approach to the issue; more in line with the Church fathers than pagan ‘scientists’.
The Church seems to make room for natural selection, a small part of evolution, but not evolution itself. This seems to be a more traditional, reasonable approach to the issue; more in line with the Church fathers than pagan ‘scientists’.
S
siamesecat
Guest
I don’t think most people understand evolution. Even my science teacher said today “we’re not going to evolve soon…we’re not going to grow a tail to swat flies yet.” He sounded like he knew nothing about it. Whether you believe it or not, a common argument is why arent humans evolving still. The answer is because natural selection depends on the weak members of the species dying out and the strong members surviving and having more kids than the average person. In human society, we help the disabled and the less strong men arent forced to fight over food with strong men. With contraception, the strong people aren’t having 12 kids, theyre having 2, which is the same amount a man with cerebal palsy might have, whereas hundreds of years ago he wouldve been unable to be married. Just feel a need to point this out, because no one seems to get this that I know. They make all these comments about humans evolving.
P
Philthy
Guest
It is necessary for one to first consider what specifically constitutes the essential nature of a human being before one can have a hope of understanding this complex topic. What is the essence of the human being? Body and soul. It is possible that the body of a non-human species (primate) developed up to a certain through evolution while still remaining unhuman. The soul of the human being is created “immediately” by God and when God united body and soul into a “human being” that is when humanity began.
H
Hastrman
Guest
God, being omnipotent, can do what He likes as far as creation is concerned, and could have used evolution, six-day literal Genesis, long poems like in the Silmarillion, or a big Wheel-of-Fortune wheel, if He’d wanted to.
My problem with much evolutionary theory is it’s just bad science. It doesn’t bother to explain the irreducible complexity of many cell structures; it makes colossal leaps of logic with the fossil record; and it doesn’t address the complexity of larger structures that would be totally useless in an intermediary stage, if not worse than useless (webbing of primate hands, becoming bat wings: makes it much harder to get around in trees). They just say, “See? It’s not logically impossible, because it’s not a contradiction in terms! Therefore, I’ve proved it!” They also stack their experimental decks (apparently embarrassed about not having any experimental evidence) in things like origin of life experiments.
So, scientists know logic, do they? The famous EPR Paradox (look it up on Wikipedia, I’m tired) is an example of scientists–Einstein, no less–confusing deductive reasoning and the actual transmission of information. These people are less versed in logic than the average high-school janitor; they aren’t fit to find my car keys. Why should we let them settle questions of the origin of life on earth? Why should we give them money? Why don’t we treat them like the vermin they are, and switch their prestige with that of their betters, the janitors? Janitors do real work, at least, and they aren’t very likely to experiment on POWs or blow up A-bombs “because they can”.
My problem with much evolutionary theory is it’s just bad science. It doesn’t bother to explain the irreducible complexity of many cell structures; it makes colossal leaps of logic with the fossil record; and it doesn’t address the complexity of larger structures that would be totally useless in an intermediary stage, if not worse than useless (webbing of primate hands, becoming bat wings: makes it much harder to get around in trees). They just say, “See? It’s not logically impossible, because it’s not a contradiction in terms! Therefore, I’ve proved it!” They also stack their experimental decks (apparently embarrassed about not having any experimental evidence) in things like origin of life experiments.
So, scientists know logic, do they? The famous EPR Paradox (look it up on Wikipedia, I’m tired) is an example of scientists–Einstein, no less–confusing deductive reasoning and the actual transmission of information. These people are less versed in logic than the average high-school janitor; they aren’t fit to find my car keys. Why should we let them settle questions of the origin of life on earth? Why should we give them money? Why don’t we treat them like the vermin they are, and switch their prestige with that of their betters, the janitors? Janitors do real work, at least, and they aren’t very likely to experiment on POWs or blow up A-bombs “because they can”.
- Status