Why accomodate Darwin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prayerman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prayerman said:
Hi Brittant i agree with buffalo and the point is i hear talks on Catholic radio where the priesta say evolution and the Bible are not in conflulict on creation i disagree personally …
Click to expand...
As was Brittany said, the Church allows us freedom to disagree with these matters, as science is not dogma.
On the other hand, the Church does itself say that evolutionary principles and the bible are not in conflict.

You are free to dispute, but you are disputing people like St John Paul 2, who many consider to be a philosopher of the ages.
Bring your A game.
 
My apologies for rejecting your conviction and it’s entirely your right to accept Darwins theory of evolution to be as valid as Eibstein’s relativity theory that was confirned and recorded during a solar eclipse as stellar light was observed to curve around the sun.when observed by that telescope guy oooh what was his name again?? Ah Eddington i believe
 
goout said:
As was Brittany said, the Church allows us freedom to disagree with these matters, as science is not dogma.

On the other hand, the Church does itself say that evolutionary principles and the bible are not in conflict.

You are free to dispute, but you are disputing people like St John Paul 2, who many consider to be a philosopher of the ages.

Bring your A game.
Click to expand...
Humani Generis does not allow polygenism and Eve coming from Adam is constant and firm teaching.

In addition adding a soul to an animal smacks of dualism.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
As was Brittany said, the Church allows us freedom to disagree with these matters, as science is not dogma.

On the other hand, the Church does itself say that evolutionary principles and the bible are not in conflict.

You are free to dispute, but you are disputing people like St John Paul 2, who many consider to be a philosopher of the ages.

Bring your A game.
Click to expand...
Humani Generis does not allow polygenism and Eve coming from Adam is constant and firm teaching.

In addition adding a soul to an animal smacks of dualism.
Click to expand...
I will simply stand with what the Catholic Church says about these matters. You’ve seen it all many times. I won’t disrupt your bluster with quotes and catechetical information.
Your statement about polygenism proves that you don’t really understand the material in the Catholic context. And your statement about dualism demonstrates an ignorance of true human nature.

You can post your opinions for the next 20 years on this topic, and it wont change what the Church teaches one bit.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
You can post your opinions for the next 20 years on this topic, and it wont change what the Church teaches one bit.
Click to expand...
I post what the Church firmly teaches.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no, you definitively do not.
You post information, and pursue information to distorted concusions about the relationship between reason and faith.
 
Last edited:
Human Generis
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
 
buffalo said:
Human Generis
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
Click to expand...
And you point is…
what?

will you now post JP2’s exposition of this?
probably not, cause that’s going to challenge your dogma
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Church DOES work with Scientists…some of the best in the world. What God REVEALS to us to science doesn’t conflict with His truths. How can something He created contradict Himself?
But you re correct, if we believe that God, who IS and always WILL BE created everything out of nothing, we are not wrong.

Some of the best Scientists int he world work at the Vatican, Those who examine miracles for example, and one of the greatest observatories in the world is there.

The Church does not shy away from these issues. That is a misconception on the OP’s part.
It’s not morally wrong to accept evolution. It has little to do with our believe of Adam and Eve as our first parents.
 
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?

A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.

Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?

A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come upon him.

Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?

A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in their marriage union which God then instituted.

Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?

A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay of the earth.

Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?

A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.
 
I sort of figured that, 🤣

My post was more directed to the OP. God bless you
 
buffalo said:
Q. 238. How was Adam’s body formed?

A. God formed Adam’s body out of the clay of the earth and then breathed into it a living soul.

Q. 239. How was Eve’s body formed?

A. Eve’s body was formed from a rib taken from Adam’s side during a deep sleep which God caused to come upon him.

Q. 240. Why did God make Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?

A. God made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs to show the close relationship existing between husband and wife in their marriage union which God then instituted.

Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal?

A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay of the earth.

Q. 242. Could man’s soul and intelligence be formed by the development of animal life and instinct?

A. Man’s soul could not be formed by the development of animal instinct; for, being entirely spiritual, it must be created by God, and it is united to the body as soon as the body is prepared to receive it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and?
Do you need help to find St. John Paul 2’s comments on Humanii Generis? And his statements about evolution, and science in general?
How about Fides et Ratio?
 
Brittany said:
Sorry, meant to say that the Church isn’t meant to guide us in terms of science. She may participate in science herself, but it is not a matter of faith. At least, as far as I know.
Click to expand...
The Church was and is a great patron of science. It was Catholic understanding that the universe was intelligible and worthy of study that gave rise to science.
 
goout said:
Yes, and?

Do you need help to find St. John Paul 2’s comments on Humanii Generis? And his statements about evolution, and science in general?

How about Fides et Ratio?
Click to expand...
Before I proceed - is it your claim that Pope JPII individual comments overturned the constant and firm understanding and teaching?
 
Last edited:
I am not here to teach but to learn and share what i may have read as a child and into my teens abd adult years We read many things and some people believe that what they read is factual all the time because a scientist wrote on the topic. I just think that a fact is a fact and something that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt should not be taught at schools, accademia as pure fact. Nowhere in the Bible is evolution ever mentioned we do not read ‘and God’ made an apelike creature called Adam who was a fish and a fish of a fish from generations of fishes as Dawkins put it. But i respect those who believe in evolution i just say dont teach mt kids your beliefs when u cant prove what you teach.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top