What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Hmmm, I don’t buy the premesis. I think we need to draw the distinction between intellect and technology. Humans have a superior intellect, perhaps related to our capability for reason. It is not at all clear that this has “evolved” at all in thousands of years. We are no smarter than ancient Greeks, but have thousands of years of technology and accumulated learning to draw upon. In turn, this technology helps us cope with competition from animals and a changing environment.

Okay. Not sure I see where you are going with this. I would agree that our intellect would not have evolved. But if it hasn’t, and yet this intellect would certainly affect the evolution of man (I would think), then how can you say man evolved in the way evolution describes it…by natural means resulting from need for survival. If God gave Adam and Eve an intellect that didn’t exist prior to that time, then can’t we say that we did not descend from a common ancestor as apes?

For unless we can account for the evolution of intellect, it seems to me it would indicate that we are not of common descent with other animals…there would be a rather large gap between us and other animals created by the fact that we have an intellect no other animal on earth has, even though other animals may have more chromosomes or a larger brain. So the logic of the theory of evolution would not account for the single most significant difference between man and all other creatures, explaining why we aren’t hairy like apes, or have claws and sharp teeth, etc, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, I haven’t fully developed my thoughts on this, so mostly I am probing for responses from evolutionists. Thanks for your continued replies.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Oh, that’s easy (for me, at least) — if the evidence shows that we derive from more than one “base pair”, that’s fine with me. In that sense, I would disagree with Church teaching. Truth cannot condradict Truth, as they say, so it is more likely to me that the Church teaching is in error (or, more precisely, that our understanding of Divine Truth is imprecise). I believe strongly that God has revealed Himself through His creation of the natural world and the laws and principles it is subject to.

God does reveal Himself through His creation. But that does not mean man will necessarily see God in creation, does it? And what will happen if the God you believe in isn’t seen in the science? Will you conclude the scientific conclusions are right and God doesn’t exist? You’re belief in evolution seems already to be affecting your view of the Church.

Have you looked at abiogenesis? Theistic evolutionists reject the idea that this is part of the theory of evolution. That’s fine for now. But are you ready for the conclusions that will be made by scientists exploring abiogenesis (life originated by natural means)? They will make the same arguments to you about abiogenesis that evolutionists now make to me: “this has been proven beyond any doubt”…“we’ve known how this works for x number of years now”…“you’re just putting you head under the sand, still beliving in theistic evolution”, etc?

Given time, I believe theistic evolutionists will find themselves in the very position I am in now…rejecting the scientific conclusions on principle of faith, because it contradicts God’s revealed Truth. You will then have no choice but to point out, just as I am doing, how the conclusions they’ve reached are merely the result of theory upon theory upon theory, based on their interpretation of evidences.

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

If God created a world where animals were killing other animals, and then declared that this was good, then what possible objection could one have for banning animal fights? If animals killing other animals is good in God’s eyes, then Jesus would have no problem with men enjoying a vicious fight to the death between a bear and a bull, or between a Doberman and a Rottweiler.

The goodness of God’s Creation exists in the fullness of space and time. There is certainly natural evil, and animals do suffer physically, but such is a necessary fulfilment of natural laws and necessary for the existence of beings of free will into which God may imbue His likeness. Where preventable or gratuitous, we ought not to take pleasure in another being’s physical suffering. Such kindness and mercy is certainly consistent with the image and likeness of God. I am awed by the countless dramas for survival that have played out with no human observer — it is compelling to think about all the dinosaur bones with battle scars and toothmarks in them, trying to replay the scene in my head. Was she protecting her eggs? Did she save any? Did she suffer long with these wounds, or did she live a long (and more guarded) life?

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

There is certainly natural evil, and animals do suffer physically, but such is a necessary fulfilment of natural laws and necessary for the existence of beings of free will into which God may imbue His likeness.

Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life; . . .

So careful of the type?" but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, "A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go.

“Thou makest thine appeal to me:
I bring to life, I bring to death:
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.” And he, shall he,

Man, her last work, who seem’d so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who roll’d the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law –
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed – …

In Memoriam, A.H.H. by Alfred Tennyson

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life; . . .

So careful of the type?" but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She cries, "A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go.

“Thou makest thine appeal to me:
I bring to life, I bring to death:
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.” And he, shall he,

Man, her last work, who seem’d so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who roll’d the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law –
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed – É

In Memoriam, A.H.H. by Alfred Tennyson

What a great work. Thanks! I read it once upon a time, I think, but it was long forgotten.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

For unless we can account for the evolution of intellect, it seems to me it would indicate that we are not of common descent with other animals…there would be a rather large gap between us and other animals created by the fact that we have an intellect no other animal on earth has, even though other animals may have more chromosomes or a larger brain. So the logic of the theory of evolution would not account for the single most significant difference between man and all other creatures, explaining why we aren’t hairy like apes, or have claws and sharp teeth, etc, etc.

I usually go the other way — I’d say that there ought to be less of a gap between us and the chimps than there would be without our mental capacity. Being smart doesn’t mean that the rate of genetic diversity changes from generation to generation, it means that any particular genetic handicap possessed by an individual is not necessarily a death sentence. Similarly, any genetic advantage is generally superfluous because of technology. We probably possess a wider existing diversity within our species than most (just guessing). Unneeded traits usually disappear over time, so we really don’t need to be hairy or have sharp claws. We can make coats and knives.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

If you believe our fallen world is Paradise, then you do not believe what is written in the scriptures. You have radically reinterpreted both scriptures and Catholic doctrine so that your novel interpretation of scripture fits your own presuppositions. You are…embracing the heresy of Modernism…

It is certainly Catholic doctrine that original sin has caused the progeny of Adam and Eve to be born in a condition where they possess neither the preternatural gifts, nor sanctifying grace. But Catholic doctrine also teaches that ALL of the physical creation became subject to death, disease and decay because of original sin. :

Wow. First time I’ve been accused of Modernism

Are you saying the Catholic Church officially teaches that death (of all kinds) did not exist prior to the fall of Adam and Eve? If so, I am ignorant of that teaching. I can see how you arrive at that conclusion from your interpretations, but I am unaware that the Catholic Church teaches what you are advocating here. If it does, then I will modify my position to conform to that of the Church.

Matt16_18:

It is Catholic doctrine that at the Resurrection of the Dead that the physical world will be freed from the “slavery to corruption” - that creation will be *restored * to a state it possessed before the Fall. The lion will once more lie down with the lamb.

Obviously the world is not free from corruption and slavery. And obviously the Church teaches that in the end the world will be freed from these things. “that creation will be restored to a state it possessed before the Fall”. So, if it is to be restored to its previous state, wouldn’t that indicate it is the same place…just in need of restoration?

Matt16_18:

You are saying the same thing that Ghosty says, and you are both making God the author of death. God is NOT the author of death, period.

Slow down, man. I’m not saying that at all. God creates life. Does it necessarily have to follow that God must *only * create life that lives forever? I don’t see the logic that dictates that belief. It is not correct to conclude that unless God made everything to live forever, He therefore created death. He just didn’t create everything for eternal life.

Man killing and eating plants and animals *is a good thing * Matt. What do you think God meant when He gave Adam dominion over all the earth, plants and animals? Just so he could claim King of the Hill? Man is the focus of God’s creation. God created an invironment in which man, created in His Own likeness and image, would live. For man to live necessariy means man needs to eat and drink and be sustained. By your theory, it would seem that eating a hamburger, or a salad, would be a sin because it destroys the life of that creation.

Matt16_18:

If God created a world where animals were killing other animals, and then declared that this was good, then what possible objection could one have for banning animal fights? If animals killing other animals is good in God’s eyes, then Jesus would have no problem with men enjoying a vicious fight to the death…

Well, perhaps because animal fighting for entertainment purposes would be an abuse of God’s gift, Matt. It is inhumane. But Animals do fight and eat each other in nature, and that is a good thing, isn’t it? By your theory, it would seem that a lion in Africa killing and eating its prey would be an evil thing. That is absurd. It is not evil. It is what God intended in the natural order of things.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

God does reveal Himself through His creation. But that does not mean man will necessarily see God in creation, does it? And what will happen if the God you believe in isn’t seen in the science? Will you conclude the scientific conclusions are right and God doesn’t exist? You’re belief in evolution seems already to be affecting your view of the Church.

Yes, I think we necessarily see an image, a hint, of God in natural explorations. God is, to me, not simply the author of Creation, but one aspect of God’s character is that He is existence itself. It simply isn’t possible to not see God in science, since the ultimate theories of science are identical with an approximation of that aspect of God’s character. What science concludes that God does not exist? I am not aware of it.

Have you looked at abiogenesis? Theistic evolutionists reject the idea that this is part of the theory of evolution. That’s fine for now. But are you ready for the conclusions that will be made by scientists exploring abiogenesis (life originated by natural means)? They will make the same arguments to you about abiogenesis that evolutionists now make to me: “this has been proven beyond any doubt”…“we’ve known how this works for x number of years now”…“you’re just putting you head under the sand, still beliving in theistic evolution”, etc?

Sure. We may well find that “life” can arise from purely chemical means. So what? This is still distinct from positing a purely physical basis for the soul. We’ve now found faily complex proteins in giant molecular clouds in the interstellar medium, so it seems that the building blocks are in place already when planets form. I feel that sooner or later we’ll find good evidence for bacteria (if not the actual beasts) on other planets, comets, or meteorites.

Given time, I believe theistic evolutionists will find themselves in the very position I am in now…rejecting the scientific conclusions on principle of faith, because it contradicts God’s revealed Truth. You will then have no choice but to point out, just as I am doing, how the conclusions they’ve reached are merely the result of theory upon theory upon theory, based on their interpretation of evidences.

As our scientific understanding changes, our philosophical and theological understanding of the universe changes as well. Our understanding of revealed Truth is not immutable.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

I usually go the other way — I’d say that there ought to be less of a gap between us and the chimps than there would be without our mental capacity. Being smart doesn’t mean that the rate of genetic diversity changes from generation to generation, it means that any particular genetic handicap possessed by an individual is not necessarily a death sentence. Similarly, any genetic advantage is generally superfluous because of technology. We probably possess a wider existing diversity within our species than most (just guessing). Unneeded traits usually disappear over time, so we really don’t need to be hairy or have sharp claws. We can make coats and knives.

Huh? Perhaps you are clever, or perhaps I am not but I cannot disagree with what you said. So, either you didn’t answer my question, or I don’t understand your answer.

Let me try again: I am saying that if evolution cannot account for the single most signifcant difference between man and all other animals, then, we cannot attribute how man came to be as due to biological evolution. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Huh? Perhaps you are clever, or perhaps I am not but I cannot disagree with what you said. So, either you didn’t answer my question, or I don’t understand your answer.

Let me try again: I am saying that if evolution cannot account for the single most signifcant difference between man and all other animals, then, we cannot attribute how man came to be as due to biological evolution. Do you agree or disagree?

Oh, I think I misunderstood. I thought your position was that we should be much more “evolved” than apes physically because we’re intelligent.

Right — if it were somehow impossible to account for our mental functioning purely physically, then our intelligence would probably be divinely attributed. But given that we know so little about how even “simple” brains of primitive organisms work, as well as seeing that some animals and primates possess the same abilities we do, however primal, the jury is probably safely out on that one for a while.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Yes, I think we necessarily see an image, a hint, of God in natural explorations. God is, to me, not simply the author of Creation, but one aspect of God’s character is that He is existence itself. It simply isn’t possible to not see God in science, since the ultimate theories of science are identical with an approximation of that aspect of God’s character. What science concludes that God does not exist? I am not aware of it.

You are starting to sound less Catholic wanerious. I suppose if your god is the animation or essense of the universe, then you will may in fact never risk having science try to disprove your god. But this is not the God of Christianity.

wanerious:

Sure. We may well find that “life” can arise from purely chemical means. So what? This is still distinct from positing a purely physical basis for the soul. We’ve now found faily complex proteins in giant molecular clouds in the interstellar medium, so it seems that the building blocks are in place already when planets form. I feel that sooner or later we’ll find good evidence for bacteria (if not the actual beasts) on other planets, comets, or meteorites.

The God of Christianity is the Creator of life. Therefore, if abiogenesis asserts that life came about by natural means, then it will in fact conflict with Christianity. But I guess you are okay with that?

I have to say I am wondering now who I am talking to. For some reason I had you as a Catholic. I’ll have to re-read the earlier posts.

wanerious:

As our scientific understanding changes, our philosophical and theological understanding of the universe changes as well. Our understanding of revealed Truth is not immutable.

Ahhhh. So God is relative, undefined, and ever changing as our understanding changes? Do you have any crystals layed out in front of you by chance?

I am baffled by the change in your responses, wanerious.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

I don’t believe it is a matter of faith that we must accept that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, nor do we have to believe that Adam was made directly out of clay. I’m pretty sure those fall under the heading of “figurative language to describe a real truth” that the Catechism talks about concerning the Genesis accounts.

** DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?**
The purpose of this essay is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular — not to say outrightly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

Click here for the essay

 

[Joan1969]

Hi Phil,

Simple, I define it [evolution] as scientists define it. Evolution is “descent with modification” with the major mechanism being “natural selection.” This says nothing for or against God’s existence.

I’m going to keep digging here because I think that the real issue is not always discussed when people talk about “evolution” vs. “creation”, and progress can’t be made for that reason.

You have defined evolution as “descent with modification”, plus natural selection, which can actually fit well within an ID perspective. If the modifications come about as a result of some type of detectable intelligent intervention, we are talking about ID regardless of how gradual the process, how common the descent, or how important natural selection might be in the process. Yet advocates of ID and Darwinists regard themselves as adversaries. So there must be more to the Darwinist view than just modification, descent and natural selection.

Based on my exchanges with Darwinists and my exposure to their views, the critical element missing in the definition you gave is the unintelligence of mutations or variations. Modification must be based on random and fully natural mutations of the genetic code. If these modifications are based on any sort of intelligent activity, that makes an advocate of design, someone Darwinists will disagree with.

So the real issue is not common descent vs. special creation or gradual vs. sudden change, the real and core issue is whether God has intervened at all in the development of life on earth. Darwinists simply do not leave any room for His intervention. ID advocates and creationists assert it as a necessity.

My question here would be how a theist, and especially a monotheist or a Christian, can assert that God did not create life, but that it engineered itself using Darwinian mechanisms. This would seem to sharply contradict the Bible and the Judeo-Christian worldview. Also, if something as sophisticated as life is capable of engineering itself, why should we see any logical necessity for God at all?

Behe says he has no problems with “common descent” … See Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God where he asked Behe in debate … whether he accepts the evolution of human beings (homo sapiens), that we, the great apes, and the chimps all had a “common ancestor” several million years ago. Behe’s response was Yes…

I have read Behe, and all I can say is that what he must have been saying is that he believes that humans are physically descended from hominids, and eventually from a common anscestor to the chimps. If he believes in common ancestry, then this is hardly a surprise. But to say he thinks that Darwinian (unintelligent) mechanisms got us from original primate to humans when the same mechanisms can’t even get a flagellum onto a bacterium is hard to believe.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Orogeny]

Joan1969:

My question here would be how a theist, and especially a monotheist or a Christian, can assert that God did not create life, but that it engineered itself using Darwinian mechanisms. This would seem to sharply contradict the Bible and the Judeo-Christian worldview. Also, if something as sophisticated as life is capable of engineering itself, why should we see any logical necessity for God at all?

Hi, Joan. I’m not Phil (obviously), but I would agree with that approach. I believe evolution is one of God’s mechanisms of creation.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Joan << Yet advocates of ID and Darwinists regard themselves as adversaries. So there must be more to the Darwinist view than just modification, descent and natural selection. >>

Depends, yes they are adversaries. But there are both atheist Darwinists (Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, etc) and theist Darwinists (Kenneth Miller). Miller calls himself “an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist” in that 2001 PBS special Evolution. If you want the sophisticated “theist” Darwinist position you’ll want to get his book Finding Darwin’s God where he critiques the likes of Duane Gish, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, AND Richard Dawkins. He devotes chapters to each of their views (young-earth, progressive-creationism, ID-creationism, and atheist Darwinism).

Joan << the real and core issue is whether God has intervened at all in the development of life on earth. Darwinists simply do not leave any room for His intervention. >>

I agree that is a key issue philosophically or religiously, but not scientifically. In my opinion, we can’t know from science whether God intervened anywhere, whether the Big Bang, the origin of life, or to create any or all of the 2 million species we have today. That is where ID argues, yes we can argue from scientific principles for “design” or “divine intervention.” I’m not a biologist, but the vast majority of biologists would disagree with ID here, not just the atheist ones of course, but the theistic ones (Ken Miller, Keith Miller, Lamoureux, Pennock, all the folks I mentioned already).

Joan << My question here would be how a theist, and especially a monotheist or a Christian, can assert that God did not create life, but that it engineered itself using Darwinian mechanisms. This would seem to sharply contradict the Bible and the Judeo-Christian worldview. >>

It’s not that difficult, since most scientists would separate their religion from their science. So you are saying to be a good Catholic Christian, one must believe as a scientist that God intervened to create (for example) the half-wolf, half-whale creature Ambulocetus Natans. No, says most scientists, that’s just evolution and natural selection doing its job. God could intervene anytime He wants since He is all-powerful, the question is whether that would be science or theology (philosophy/religion).

Joan << But to say he thinks that Darwinian (unintelligent) mechanisms got us from original primate to humans when the same mechanisms can’t even get a flagellum onto a bacterium is hard to believe. >>

No, I think that would be Behe’s position. He believes Darwinian (unintelligent) mechanisms got us from the ancient primates, to the hominids, to homo sapiens, or whatever the path was. His ID belief comes in mainly at the origin and “design” we see in the cell, and the molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, or the blot-clotting or other intricate systems. He wouldn’t read intelligent design into everything, like some creationists. He says “natural selection explains many things,” and one of those is apparently human evolution since he doesn’t dispute the evidence.

Of course as a Catholic he would believe man has a soul, but Behe would agree that’s theology not science. And how he reconciles the whole Adam/Eve questions I don’t think he discusses in his writings.

Phil P

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

You are starting to sound less Catholic wanerious. I suppose if your god is the animation or essense of the universe, then you will may in fact never risk having science try to disprove your god. But this is not the God of Christianity.

That’s because I’m not Catholic, I’m Protestant (that should be in my public profile). Science is never a risk or threat, because the process can only (possibly eventually) uncover more accurate natural Truth. The God of the Universe is indeed the same God from whom Christ was begotten.

The God of Christianity is the Creator of life. Therefore, if abiogenesis asserts that life came about by natural means, then it will in fact conflict with Christianity. But I guess you are okay with that?

No, I just disagree with it. God’s design for the universe necessarily implies the potential and realization of life. He is indeed still the Creator, even more wonderously so if His wonderfully complex processes lead to life without miraculous intervention.

I have to say I am wondering now who I am talking to. For some reason I had you as a Catholic. I’ll have to re-read the earlier posts.

Nope, not a Catholic. Just trying to learn more about the Church.

Ahhhh. So God is relative, undefined, and ever changing as our understanding changes? Do you have any crystals layed out in front of you by chance?

No, the map is not the territory. Our understanding of God is never perfect, never complete, and the understanding is never substitute for God Himself. We may, if we carefully consider and actively listen to this Creation, perceive faint notes from the symphony.

I am baffled by the change in your responses, wanerious.

Please let me know if I am at all inconsistent. I hope I have not appeared to be any different from who I really am.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

That’s because I’m not Catholic, I’m Protestant (that should be in my public profile).

Please let me know if I am at all inconsistent. I hope I have not appeared to be any different from who I really am.

My apologies, wanerious. My post was rather rash, but I didn’t realize it until I re-read it and could no longer edit it. I’m sorry.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

My apologies, wanerious. My post was rather rash, but I didn’t realize it until I re-read it and could no longer edit it. I’m sorry.

No need to apologize. I just didn’t want to misrepresent myself.
Back to the topic!

 

[Matt16_18]

ChrisW:

Does it necessarily have to follow that God must only create life that lives forever? I don’t see the logic that dictates that belief. It is not correct to conclude that unless God made everything to live forever, He therefore created death. He just didn’t create everything for eternal life.

When God created the animals, he declared what he had created was good. If God created animals so that they would eventually die, then God is the author of death, at least death for animals. God is NOT the author of death.

Man killing and eating plants and animals is a good thing Matt.

Where did you get that idea? All death is a consequence of sin. Do you really think that in the restored creation that man will still be killing animals?The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall feed;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isaiah 11:6-7

What do you think God meant when He gave Adam dominion over all the earth, plants and animals?

It means that God created Adam to be above nature. Adam committed sin by choosing the created over the Creator. It is a just punishment that Adam had to dwell in a mortal body that is subject to nature.

For man to live necessariy means man needs to eat and drink and be sustained.

Even in the fallen world a cow can eat the leaves of the grass plant without killing the grass plant.

Have you ever heard of the mystical phenomena of inedia? Theresa Neuman, the Blessed Catherine Emmerich, and St. Lydwine all lived for years on the Eucharist alone.

But Animals do fight and eat each other in nature, and that is a good thing, isn’t it?

No, it is not a good thing; it is a tragedy that is a consequence of the Fall. God did not create animals to kill other animals. You are redefining the nature of good by saying that death is good, and by doing that, you are rejecting Catholic doctrine in favor of your own private interpretation of scriptures.

 

[Chris_W]

Matt16_18:

When God created the animals, he declared what he had created was good. If God created animals so that they would eventually die, then God is the author of death, at least death for animals. God is NOT the author of death.

I still don’t see how what I’m saying means God is the author of death. I could create a beautiful ice sculpture and a few hours later it would be melted away. What I did was just create something beautiful, for those who saw it to enjoy, and I had no intention of it lasting forever.

That’s how I view what God has done with the material world (not including mankind, of course, which I agree was created for eternal life).

Matt16_18:

Where did you get that idea? All death is a consequence of sin. Do you really think that in the restored creation that man will still be killing animals? The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall feed;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isaiah 11:6-7

I don’t know. Probably not. But in that time we will be outside of space and time, so the material world will have changed beyond even what God created in the Garden of Eden.

Matt16_18:

No, it is not a good thing; it is a tragedy that is a consequence of the Fall. God did not create animals to kill other animals. You are redefining the nature of good by saying that death is good, and by doing that, you are rejecting Catholic doctrine in favor of your own private interpretation of scriptures.

I never said death of itself is good. I merely said that I think the animals and plants are hear for other animals to eat and sustain life. If I am in error here, Matt, point the Catholic teaching out to me so that I may see and believe. So far, you are merely quoting verses and providing your interpretation to me. You are maintaining that what you say is Catholic doctrine. If so, show me the Church teaching on the matter and I will concede the point to you. (I am open to the possibility I may be wrong on this).

I will re-read your earlier posts in case you have already done so.