What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[ISABUS]

Matt,

The story of Adam and Eve is a myth. A story. I’m sorry to be the one to burst your bubble but it’s the truth. And the “FALL” is no more than how mankind from the get go was and still is prone to sin as a result of pride and vanity. Ohhhhhhh… so sad, but true it tiss.

Isabus

 

[ISABUS]

A universe that is infinate with many dimensions!!! Phil, haven’t you been reading what Alec has written. Yes, there is a heaven and yes a place where those souls go once they leave this Earth … a place where there is sadness for a while. It’s in this universe! Alec, can you please tell us about string theory when you are not too busy.

Isabus

 

[PhilVaz]

Isabus << You do know who George V. Coyne is don’t you? I mean every Catholic should know who he especially if they are talking about evolution. >>

Thanks for the notes. Yeah, I remember discovering his name when checking up on a quotation: “Genesis is a myth.” This came up in a debate Karl Keating had many years ago (1987 I think) with Peter Ruckman (the KJV onlyist). Ruckman read off a quotation, supposedly made by John Paul II: “Genesis is a myth.” Fortunately, Ruckman gave the exact source of the quote, and I made the effort to look it up (this was about 10 years ago before I was on the Internet). I believe it was from Nature or Science, one of the prestigious science magazines, from the early 1980s.

It turns out the quote “Genesis is a myth” was listed under a picture of John Paul II, but the quote was not from him (as was clear reading the science article), but was a partial quote actually made by Fr. George V. Coyne (Jesuit astronomer and head of the Vatican Observatory), something on the order of “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” (also attributed to Galileo) and that Genesis was written in the literary genre of “myth.” Maybe more if can find the article.

BTW, I don’t think Matt16 would disagree (for example) that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and that they died well before the appearance of homo sapiens on this earth. He posits a death-free Garden of Eden in a “parallel universe” so its not gonna be in conflict with science. When he posits a Garden of Eden on this earth about 6000 years ago during the Bronze Ages, that’s when we got conflicts with science.

Interesting articles and audio/video from Fr. George Coyne here

Phil P

 

[ISABUS]

PhilVaz:

Isabus << You do know who George V. Coyne is don’t you? I mean every Catholic should know who he especially if they are talking about evolution. >>

Thanks for the notes. Yeah, I remember discovering his name when checking up on a quotation: “Genesis is a myth.” This came up in a debate Karl Keating had many years ago (1987 I think) with Peter Ruckman (the KJV onlyist). Ruckman read off a quotation, supposedly made by John Paul II: “Genesis is a myth.” Fortunately, Ruckman gave the exact source of the quote, and I made the effort to look it up (this was about 10 years ago before I was on the Internet). I believe it was from Nature or Science, one of the prestigious science magazines, from the early 1980s.

It turns out the quote “Genesis is a myth” was listed under a picture of John Paul II, but the quote was not from him (as was clear reading the science article), but was a partial quote actually made by Fr. George V. Coyne (Jesuit astronomer and head of the Vatican Observatory), something on the order of “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” (also attributed to Galileo) and that Genesis was written in the literary genre of “myth.” Maybe more if can find the article.

BTW, I don’t think Matt16 would disagree (for example) that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and that they died well before the appearance of homo sapiens on this earth. He posits a death-free Garden of Eden in a “parallel universe” so its not gonna be in conflict with science. When he posits a Garden of Eden on this earth about 6000 years ago during the Bronze Ages, that’s when we got conflicts with science.

Interesting articles and audio/video from Fr. George Coyne here

Phil P

Thanks for the url Phil. It’s great! Have you read this article from Wired magazine **The Pope’s Astrophysicist -**MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE

wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro.html

The article states the following:
"Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a big pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data — and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.”

Isabus ~

 

[PhilVaz]

Isabus quoting Fr. George Coyne << The claim that all things are created is a religious claim that all that exists depends for its existence on God. It says nothing scientifically of how things came to be … >>

Clap, clap, clap. By jove, I think he’s got it right. Exactly my thinking on the subject in my notes to Joan. There are religious questions that can be answered by the Church, and there are scientific questions that can be answered by astronomy, geology, and biology. Science and religion, two domains, two sets of questions (see Catechism 159, 283-284).

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Besides Fr. George Coyne already mentioned, check out the following liberal modernist heretic apostates

Evolution and Creation, by various folks

Click the link of the liberal, modernist, heretic or apostate on the left frame, and the liberal, modernist, heretic or apostate will speak and be shown on the right frame.

You’ll of course need a fast liberal modernist heretic apostate connection to the liberal modernist heretic apostate Internet.

Phil P

 

[ISABUS]

PhilVaz:

Isabus quoting Fr. George Coyne << The claim that all things are created is a religious claim that all that exists depends for its existence on God. It says nothing scientifically of how things came to be … >>

Clap, clap, clap. By jove, I think he’s got it right. Exactly my thinking on the subject in my notes to Joan. There are religious questions that can be answered by the Church, and there are scientific questions that can be answered by astronomy, geology, and biology. Science and religion, two domains, two sets of questions (see Catechism 159, 283-284).

Phil P

Super!

I had a private revelation several days ago Phil. I always give credit to Jesus since he is my best friend in the whole world. Two things came to my mind in regards to Adam and Eve and Original Sin. Give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

**1) Catecism 359 **"In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

"St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225I was wondering, since Adam was Jesus from the beginning how could Adam have sinned? Christ was the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

**2) **Luke, Chapter 6, verse 43- 45: Jesus speaks-

“For there is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor is there a bad tree that bears good fruit. For every tree is known by its fruit. For from thorns men do not gather figs, neither from a bramble do they harvest grapes. The good man from the good treasure from the good teasure of his heart brings forth that which is good; and the evil man from the evil treasure brings forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

I think Jesus is trying to teach us about the TREE of KNOWLEDGE and how we are in essence that tree. He’s explains this by referring back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Old Testament. How many people at that time lived the life of a false prophet deceiving themself and others. And as a result of it their sin was that of evil, thoughtless ways. People were lead astray because their hearts were filled with pride and vanity rather than thoughts of love for God and their neighbor which resulted in much misery and corruption.

The Tree itself is not bad. However, we must try our best to be a “good” christian for the fruits of our labor and heartfelt intentions to be that of Love (God). We were made in the image of God though we are not perfect as is God. We are human. Well, that’s what I think. Perhaps you may like to add a few ideas of your own… it is still a bit fuzzy

Isabus

 

[Matt16_18]

ISABUS:

The story of Adam and Eve is a myth.

That is your opinion, but the Church teaches otherwise.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

How to read the account of the fall

390** The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.[264] Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[265]

264 Cf. GS 13 § 1.
265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

Besides Fr. George Coyne already mentioned, check out the following liberal modernist heretic apostates

Evolution and Creation, by various folks

Click the link of the liberal, modernist, heretic or apostate on the left frame, and the liberal, modernist, heretic or apostate will speak and be shown on the right frame.

You’ll of course need a fast liberal modernist heretic apostate connection to the liberal modernist heretic apostate Internet.

Phil P

Can you me give a brief explanation of what you think the heresy of Modernism actually is? I get the feeling that we are not communicating on this point, and that you and I have vastly different understandings of the heresy of Modernism.

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt16 << I get the feeling that we are not communicating on this point, and that you and I have vastly different understandings of the heresy of Modernism. >>

The explanation I gave to Svendsen five years ago comes in handy. Too bad he didn’t pay me the $100,000.

Answers to anti-Catholic evangelical Svendsen

Part of what Modernism entails is

(1) agnosticism, both in natural theology and in the symbolic, nonobjective approach to dogmatic content; (2) vital immanence, an exclusive immanence of the divine and a consequent natural vital evolution of revelation; (3) total emancipation of exegesis from dogma and of political-religious movements from ecclesiastical authority.

Pope Pius X and Lamentabili sane exitu lists 65 condemned propositions of Modernism in summary form.

Pascendi and Lamentabili condemned the errors of Modernism.

Fr. George Coyne, Kenneth Miller, and 99.999999999999% of all modern astronomers, biologists, geologists, and paleoanthropologists are definitely liberal modernist heretic apostates according to the above. Just kidding. Put a fork in this thread, she’s done.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

On second thought, I want to see a little more debate on the whole “Adam/Eve is a myth” vs. “Adam/Eve were a literal historical couple” debate. Isabus and Matt16 please go to the mat now, its your turn. But no hitting below the belt.

Take the fork out, put her back in the oven, she’s needs a little more cooking.

Phil P

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz

I think we are closer in our common understanding of the heresy of Modernism heresy of than I first thought.

Fr. George Coyne, Kenneth Miller, and 99.999999999999% of all modern astronomers, biologists, geologists, and paleoanthropologists are definitely liberal modernist heretic apostates according to the above. Just kidding.

You are exaggerating of course, but it is true that many Catholics embrace the heresy of Modernism in their attempts to reconcile evolution with Catholic doctrine. Do you consider yourself to be a Modernist?

 

[Joan1969]

Hi Phil,

What, specifically, is the difference between a “religious” issue and a “scientific” one? Their primary focus may be on different areas, but the truth is the same whenever these areas overlap. No contradictions are permissible. (my original quote)

Religious / philosophical issue: “God created the universe.”
Scientific issue: “The universe is expanding from the point of the Big Bang.” … Do you get the idea? (Phil)

I do not believe you get the idea. The first example you gave shows how science and religion might have a different focus and not necessarily contradict (in fact, many people like me see the Big Bang as excellent support for theism).

But my whole contention here is that the particular idea of Darwinism does contradict a theistic worldview. It’s not just a different focus or a different intellectual methodology.

…Catholics can (and most Catholic scientists do) separate the scientific questions from the religious questions. God is “behind” the creation of life according to Catholic doctrine, but God did not necessarily create Ambulocetus Natans from scratch, he might have used evolution.

How, how, how?? (said with all due respect ) As defined by its defenders, evolution does not involve any sort of intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. Where could God work? If the gene mutations that drive evolutionary change are from God (intelligent) then we are talking Intelligent Design, not Darwinism.

…He [God] might have used evolution, and the evidence from science is quite strong that He did.

I do not agree. Transitions like what you describe are not terribly gradual; each species is quite unique. Even if the transitions were much more gradual, it still would not show that gene mutations and natural selection working alone could explain the changes.

Keep in mind that human technology also involves many transitions, and it is driven by creation and intelligence.

…You complained earlier that I did not really give a clear definition of evolution. However, you seem to be equating “Darwinism” with “atheism.” I define “Darwinism” as simply “descent with modification” with “natural selection” being the major mechanism (which was Darwin’s mechanism). This says nothing for or against God’s existence.

Until you can specifically explain where God and His creative power could possibly fit into this worldview, I have to continue to believe that Darwinism does indeed deny the existence of a theistic God (though not necessarily a deistic one).

God Bless,
Joan

p.s. Realize that I’m not saying here that any believer in Darwin’s theory is necessarily an atheist. What I’m saying is that Christians and other theists who embrace strict Darwinism are not being intellectually consistent.

 

[PhilVaz]

Joan << Until you can specifically explain where God and His creative power could possibly fit into this worldview >>

All right, I cry UNCLE. God created precisely 273,000 of the 2 million species today. The remaining 1,727,000 were “created” by evolution. Seriously, I don’t know how God created anything, He doesn’t say (except “dust” to man, and the animal “kinds” out of thin air). I missed the chapter in Genesis where it explains “How God Created: The Scientific Methods and Processes of the Divine Mind.”

I have an idea: maybe you can tell me “how God created.” I bet you can’t.

My previous statement that “God used evolution” would be purely a faith statement since I don’t believe science can detect God’s creation. Intelligent Design says, yeah science can detect God’s creation. The bacterial flagellum, the cilium, the blood-clotting system were created by the Designer (e.g. God).

And most Catholic biologists would disagree with Behe

Here are a few other responses to Behe

Put a spoon and knive in this thread, she’s done. Take her out before she burns.

 

[ISABUS]

Matt16_18:

That is your opinion, but the Church teaches otherwise.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**How to read the account of the fall **

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.[264] Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[265]

264 Cf. GS 13 § 1.
265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.

Matt, “the Church” doesn’t teach otherwise. “The CHURCH” is made up of approximately ONE BILLION Cathlics worldwide. Who gave you the authority to speak for “The CHURCH” ? Who gave you the authority to speak for me or them? All I can say is thank heavens, you didn’t use your famous line, “Catholics believe yada, yada, yada.” Would you like me continue going through all your 1,206 threads and give the total amount?

Aha, I’m getting a clearer picture of you Matt, everything goes in one eye and out the other. You pick what you like and fling out the rest, constantantly tossing about snippets from the catecism and biblical passages when you find yourself in a fix You’ve completely ignored my threads #219 and #227. Apparently, you think that you have a better grip on Genesis then the head of the Vatican Observatory Fr. George V. Coyne. According to you the Pope’s Astrophysicist knows zip. :tsktsk: You aren’t a Catholic theologian scholar or a scientist.

What do you think “figurative language” means? YOU tell me what catecism 390 means. Give me your take on it since I’ve already given you mine.

Isabus

 

[marciadietrich]

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.

Hello Wanerious… I think my premise stands. We could give our technology to an animal and it means nothing because they don’t have the intellect to use it. We could go back in time and grab a young person from ancient Greece and teach him in our time and he’d learn to use our technology. (And 2000-3000 years is NOTHING in terms of evolution.) A gorilla would not be able to learn what we know, because they lack the intellect. Gorillas didn’t evolve as much intellectually according to science, according to the Church the gorilla doesn’t have a spiritual soul and that is why he is incapable of learning our technology.

Science says intellect and the ability to reason is something that evolved. That is why our closest relatives (chimpanzees) have more ‘intellect’ or ‘reasoning ability’ than the reasoning ability of a cow or a mouse. Just like chimpanzees appear to be closer to us in appearance than a cow or a mouse.

Technology is just a visible result of our intelliegence and reasoning ability. We could start over with no technology, yet we would still have the base intellect and ability to reason and start building the technology again. An animal doesn’t have that (at least not on the same scale). Scientists say what we have today (modern man) has evolved and can be seen in the size of the brain compared to the body (cranial capacity of those skulls which show evolution from primates, thru apes, thru hominids to home sapiens). Especially the greater size of the brain in the frontal lobe, which skulls with sloped foreheads (similiar to chimpanzees and gorillas) would indicate lesser intelligence.

Phil has posted the image with a series skulls at some point … that is evolutionists showing not just physical evolution of the body, that is showing the evolution of intelligence as well. The greater crainial capacity coincides with the beginnings of tool use, weapons, burials and things that evolve towards modern human society, not just a modern human look. Just because technology to some extent today is a building of knowledge and increasing faster than any evolution of intellect doesn’t really change this conflict of science saying we evolved intellect and faith saying it is a result of the soul. It is really regardless of where our technology is in particular but rather based on our innate ability. Just as given differing opportunities we each reach a different level in life, someone with the same potential and little education functions on a different level than someone with a PhD.

Sorry if that is disjointed. But scientists do believe that intellect is evolved and based on brain size … Catholic faith says intellect is the result of the spiritual soul and not other creature has a spiritual soul and there was not an evolution of the human soul.

Marcia

 

[Philthy]

Chris W:

A fair response. Thank you.

I am still of the mindset that there is a real conflict between evolution and Catholicism, primarily with respect to the idea of common descent. I believe Adam and eve were the only two humans who existed at a period in time, and that all of mankind are descendents of those two persons. I think this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Theory of Evolution asserts that we descended from lower life forms (not sure if they use that terminology but I think you know what I mean). I consider myself a pretty logical person, but I cannot comprehend how the two are compatible.

Perhaps the theory will be revised in a way that makes sense to me, but until then I have to conclude the theory is false. Not to say there aren’t parts of it that are true, but the theory as a whole is false. Much like the Protestant denomiations teach a faith that is based on truths, but includes untruths, thereby making their faith as a whole, false.

I regard the Theory of Evolution as a house of cards, very carefully placed so that the house indeed stands. I think someday someone will bump the table though, and the house of cards will fall. My fear is that many people will lose their faith in the meantime by accepting the false theory that exists today (realizing that they need to choose between Christianity and Evolution). I would prefer people, perhaps wrongly, reject evolution than to see people wrongly reject Christianity because of it.

Peace,
Chris W

Chris -
JP ll spoke to this in 1996 - I was reading it today. And he basically said that the theory of evolution in general does not conflict with Catholic teaching and is valid. There are a couple of lines we can’t cross: We must affirm that Adam and Eve were the first two humans and that all humans descended from them; life did not spotaneously evolve from non-living matter, and one other that escapes me. YOu don’t seem to realize that you’ve created a barrier that need not exist. Don’t forget that what separates us from all other creation is that we were made in the image of God, we have a soul. one simple way to unify evolutionary theory with creationsism while remaining entirely Catholic is to view Adam and Eve as the first “beings” to recieve a human soul. That certainly allows for the evolution of our physical nature independent of our spiritual nature. It allows for all the observed realities of science without denying God’s Providence. Not until the evolved physical nature (natural phenomenon observable scientifically) had a human soul imparted to it (supernatural phenomena inaccessable to science) did humanity begin. I think I’m OK with that - how 'bout you?

Phil

 

[ISABUS]

PhilVaz:

On second thought, I want to see a little more debate on the whole “Adam/Eve is a myth” vs. “Adam/Eve were a literal historical couple” debate. Isabus and Matt16 please go to the mat now, its your turn. But no hitting below the belt.

Take the fork out, put her back in the oven, she’s needs a little more cooking.

Phil P

When first I read this Phil, I couldn’t stop laughing. I do appreciate your sense of humor ~ A great gift to have.

Is karate allowed while I’m on the Matt? Last time I attempted karate on someone, they broke my toe. This time I’m wearing my stilettos and pink ballerina outfit. All kicks will be above the deck. Ok, ok? I promise to try my best to be a sweet, loving Catholic girl while only showing my fangs and if I scream, “ADAM, its all your darn fault for eating that rotten apple” then remind me it’s a bad dream!

Phil, you can moderate while helping me out. :yup: All help is appreciated because Matt is a hard cookie to chew.

Isabus

 

[marciadietrich]

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.

Actually I believe that the bolded is wrong. We are relatively narrow in our diversity, despite what we perceive as great differences due to racial characteristics. I have read there is more diversity between major groupings of chimpanzees than all of humanity.

Here you go: sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991108090738.htm

According to Kaessmann, the high degree of diversity in the chimpanzee populations “àshows that humans are unique as a species in that we are all extremely closely related to each other–much more so than even our closest living relatives.”

Humans are not very diverse genetically.

Marcia

 

[PhilVaz]

As the Thread Burns…

Isabus << you think that you have a better grip on Genesis then the head of the Vatican Observatory Fr. George V. Coyne >>

Well, Matt16 is just trying to figure out which category to place Fr. George in, whether liberal, modernist, heretic, or apostate. I like Matt16 though, he makes good points about me and you being modernists. Just kidding.

Oh Isabus is a chick, I didn’t realize. Well just arm wrestle then.

Condemned modernist proposition # 57 is

1. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

Nope, I’m definitely not a modernist. The Catechism paragraphs 159, and 283-284 again.

Phil P