Why do Protestants object to evolutionary ideas more than Catholics?

[Jaypeeto4]

**But that is not the official Catholic position catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
I respect your view, but only comment on it to avoid any attacks on you or confusion from those who are unaware of Catholic teaching about evolution. **

Actually, the Catholic church has, from the first century to the 20th, ALWAYS believed that Adam and Eve were real, literal, holy people who fell from grace.
It also always believed that the story of Noah and the Flood was a true story, not an allegory. THAT is the historic Catholic position on these issues, and ALL recourse to historic Catholic teaching proves it 100%.

The Church only officially ( I say, officially) soften it’s views on evolution
with Pope Pius XII’s 1950 (?) encyclical, Humani Generis, which permitted study of evolutionary theory but which did NOT endorse it and Pius XII urged GRAVE caution in the study of the theory.
Since then, we now have even “conservative” Catholics who go along with the liberals who believe that Adam and Eve were not real, nor Noah, nor a host of other things that the APOSTLES and the HISTORIC CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE 1950s, ALWAYS assumed were true and historical. My priest-pastor, who is NOT a “liberal,” doesn’t even believe that Sodom and Gomorrah ever actually existed, and believes that historic prophetic books like DANIEL are “inspired” but largely inspired legends meant to teach moral truths but that these things did not necessarily happen. This is very surprising to me, and I’m not at ALL comfortable with it, in my conscience.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**There are also many who say that religion and science must be completely separated. It is perfectly possible that evolution happened. It is perfectly possible that evolution happened because that was God’s design. **

Now, the ABOVE statement, I can AGREE with,
AS LONG AS we do not deny that we had two original First Parents,
Adam and Eve, who were the first fully human, in-the-image-of-God beings,
holy and righteous and innocent, but who fell from Grace.

Deny THAT and we deny the whole Gospel of Salvation and redemption from the Fall.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[MrZetterlund]

**There are also many who say that religion and science must be completely separated. It is perfectly possible that evolution happened. It is perfectly possible that evolution happened because that was God’s design. **

Now, the ABOVE statement, I can AGREE with,
AS LONG AS we do not deny that we had two original First Parents,
Adam and Eve, who were the first fully human, in-the-image-of-God beings,
holy and righteous and innocent, but who fell from Grace.

Deny THAT and we deny the whole Gospel of Salvation and redemption from the Fall.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

I fully disagree. The story of Adam and Eve isn’t a story of what was but of what always is… We are ALL represented in Adam’s sin, and when we sin we partake of the “forbidden fruit” and are cast out of our Edenic paradise (God’s grace) as a result. However, God’s redempive plan for the fruit of Eve’s womb (Christ) will reconcile us and re-unite us wih our Lord…

Our being in the image and likenes of God doesn’t refer to our physical appearence, it lies in our intellectual capabilities of discerning the metaphysical!

“Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm

The person above said “by conscience I am uncomfortable with this…” But by my conscience I am uncomfortable teaching a litteral Adam and Eve that God punishes all of creation for sinning and falling into sin and death, or that he caused a global flood (which we have NO sediment deposits for, btw) to kill everything on planet Earth! I think this is MUCH better approached as a figurative story and is one of the many reasons I left Protestantism!!

"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. " -John Paul II

 

[MrZetterlund]

But that is not the official Catholic position catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
I respect your view, but only comment on it to avoid any attacks on you or confusion from those who are unaware of Catholic teaching about evolution.

Actually, the Catholic church has, from the first century to the 20th, ALWAYS believed that Adam and Eve were real, literal, holy people who fell from grace.
It also always believed that the story of Noah and the Flood was a true story, not an allegory. THAT is the historic Catholic position on these issues, and ALL recourse to historic Catholic teaching proves it 100%.

The Church only officially ( I say, officially) soften it’s views on evolution
with Pope Pius XII’s 1950 (?) encyclical, Humani Generis, which permitted study of evolutionary theory but which did NOT endorse it and Pius XII urged GRAVE caution in the study of the theory.
Since then, we now have even “conservative” Catholics who go along with the liberals who believe that Adam and Eve were not real, nor Noah, nor a host of other things that the APOSTLES and the HISTORIC CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE 1950s, ALWAYS assumed were true and historical. My priest-pastor, who is NOT a “liberal,” doesn’t even believe that Sodom and Gomorrah ever actually existed, and believes that historic prophetic books like DANIEL are “inspired” but largely inspired legends meant to teach moral truths but that these things did not necessarily happen. This is very surprising to me, and I’m not at ALL comfortable with it, in my conscience.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Your priest is absolutely right. Daniel isn’t a historical character. Some inspired texts such as Daniel and Jonah use fiction as inspiration. What does being God’s word mean? It means that it reveals the nature and will of God (i.e. it’s “revelation”) and it is inspired by God’s works or the religious experince of the writer or community. Therefore, the person is “inspired by God” to write down his story. So we say it is “(name removed by moderator)ired.”

The writers didn’t go into a trance and wake up with the Bible!

 

[graceandglory]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Sola Scriptura folk expect it to be true from a scientific perspective. The bible is a religious book with the purpose of teaching faith and morals. Yes, the Bible includes history as well, but not always completely accurate down to the exact factual content. That doesn’t affect it’s veracity when teaching faith and morals.

 

[Rahn]

Your priest is absolutely right. Daniel isn’t a historical character. Some inspired texts such as Daniel and Jonah use fiction as inspiration. What does being God’s word mean? It means that it reveals the nature and will of God (i.e. it’s “revelation”) and it is inspired by God’s works or the religious experince of the writer or community. Therefore, the person is “inspired by God” to write down his story. So we say it is “(name removed by moderator)ired.”

The writers didn’t go into a trance and wake up with the Bible!

That position leaves you with the quandry over who in the Bible are actual historical characters and which are just “inspired” characters. Using that approach, someone could say (and probably already has said) that Jesus is an “inspired” character.

Much safer and saner to believe that all characters in the Bible really existed.

 

[Rahn]

I don’t think it has anything to do with your denomination or sola scriptura. I’m Catholic and I believe Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

We must keep in mind that evolution is a theory: natural selection can be seen in the world on a small scale, but we have not even come close to actually proving that human beings evolved. The problem is that in the secular world (and, more and more among believers) “evolution” is taken to mean an alternative to Genesis 1:1.

We must also keep in mind that science has been given to us by God so that we can discover the greatness of Him through His creation. It was never meant to be used as a tool to doubt God’s word.

 

[Telestia]

Could it be because Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura?
Many people also do not understand the word “evolution” much last DNA/central dogma of molecular biology, natural selection etc.

In my case it has nothing to do with religion, In college I was an evolutionist, but I came to discover that the certainty of scientific facts on evolution in our college textbooks were bogus, as based upon what evolutionary scientists actually say to fellow evolutionary scientists when they talk among themselves. No enlightened person having the true facts of evolution would never believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory based on scientific fact, rather, it is based on an atheistic worldview. The facts of science says NO to evolution.

No sense for me to post the refutations of the Theory of Evolution, when I post on the evolutionary thread in the ‘Back Fence’, my posts were censored by a catholic moderator. I always thought Catholics were opened to Creation by God along the biblical book of Beginnings - Genesis.

I find this strange because my scientific views on with respect to evolution vs Creation by God on the Catholic Forum - CatholicOnLine - was very well received there. On that forum, my name is Arturo. Check the evolution threads if you wish to see my posts and the responses from evolutionists and other Catholics on that forum. My argument were well received there.

And please note that I earned degrees in Physics, Electrical Engineering, Math, and History.

 

[Telestia]

I don’t think it has anything to do with your denomination or sola scriptura. I’m Catholic and I believe Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

We must keep in mind that evolution is a theory: natural selection can be seen in the world on a small scale, but we have not even come close to actually proving that human beings evolved. The problem is that in the secular world (and, more and more among believers) “evolution” is taken to mean an alternative to Genesis 1:1.

We must also keep in mind that science has been given to us by God so that we can discover the greatness of Him through His creation. It was never meant to be used as a tool to doubt God’s word.

I fully agree with you. Several of my Atheist friends who are students of evolution, and very much pro-evolutionary, agreed that if God existed, He would be the best explanation for life on Earth, but they know of no evidence that a god or gods existed.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

In my case it has nothing to do with religion, In college I was an evolutionist, but I came to learn that if the scientific facts on evolution, no enlightened person would believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory based on scientific fact, rather, it is based on an atheistic worldview. The facts of science says NO to evolution.

No sense for me to post the refutations of the Theory of Evolution, when I post on the evolutionary thread in the ‘Back Fence’, my posts were censored by a catholic moderator. I always thought Catholics were opened to Creation by God along the biblical book of Beginnings - Genesis.

I find this strange because my scientific views on with respect to evolution vs Creation by God on the Catholic Forum - CatholicOnLine - was very well received there. On that forum, my name is Arturo. Check the evolution threads if you wish to see my posts and the responses from evolutionists and other Catholics on that forum. My argument were well received there.

Do you at least realize that bacteria develop antibiotic resistance because their DNA replicates very fast? This is an example of “evolution” at a micro level.

Also, evolution is not a single “dogma” like religion. It is a way of explaining things like calculus can explain physics etc.

Did you study science (biochemistry,etc) in undergraduate school? Just curious.

 

[Telestia]

Do you at least realize that bacteria develop antibiotic resistance because their DNA replicates very fast? This is an example of “evolution” at a micro level.

Also, evolution is not a single “dogma” like religion. It is a way of explaining things like calculus can explain physics etc.

Did you study science (biochemistry,etc) in undergraduate school? Just curious.

I studied Chemistry and took just two courses on biology. I did a lot of studying on my own after graduation. But I make no claim on being an expert on these two subjects. My degrees are in Physics, Math, Electrical Engineering, and History

I’m afraid if I answer what you wrote, my reply will be censored. The fact is - the only way that bacteria can survive is by mutating. But all bacteria mutations are simply around a mean, and have no direction toward evolving toward a new body plan that is not bacteria or even a very different type of bacteria. And this is confirmed by observation of the fossil records of bacteria going back a billion years. No evolution what-so-ever.

 

[Telestia]

Here is a quote from Pierre Grasse, who is very well respected and noted scientists and expert on origins with an encyclopedic knowledge of Zoology.

From: Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.87-8

**"Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!

What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.

It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).

How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do? Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process.

Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."**

 

[MrZetterlund]

That position leaves you with the quandry over who in the Bible are actual historical characters and which are just “inspired” characters. Using that approach, someone could say (and probably already has said) that Jesus is an “inspired” character.

Much safer and saner to believe that all characters in the Bible really existed.

Or you could just responsibly research the origin of each of the texts to determine whether it’s meant to be a specific person in history or not. For example, they researched all of the cities meantioned during David’s reign, and the one for Golliath’s origin was coincidentally absent. Hm… Maybe he was an allegorical representation of the Philistine’s Empire? We still use “giants” to portray major political entities in our world today.

I don’t think it has anything to do with your denomination or sola scriptura. I’m Catholic and I believe Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

We must keep in mind that evolution is a theory: natural selection can be seen in the world on a small scale, but we have not even come close to actually proving that human beings evolved. The problem is that in the secular world (and, more and more among believers) “evolution” is taken to mean an alternative to Genesis 1:1.

We must also keep in mind that science has been given to us by God so that we can discover the greatness of Him through His creation. It was never meant to be used as a tool to doubt God’s word.

I believe Genesis 1:1 as well. However, “theory” in science is a very strong word. Much stronger than “hypothesis.” A theory is a broad explanation of a particular subject based off of infirences of various observations and experiments, so it shouldn’t be taken lightly unless we wish to look ignorant to our atheist brothers who use evolution as an alternative to Genesis 1:1. If we do then they’ll assume the only reason we believe in God is because we have no better “alternative.”

In my case it has nothing to do with religion, In college I was an evolutionist, but I came to discover that the certainty of scientific facts on evolution in our college textbooks were bogus, as based upon what evolutionary scientists actually say to fellow evolutionary scientists when they talk among themselves. No enlightened person having the true facts of evolution would never believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory based on scientific fact, rather, it is based on an atheistic worldview. The facts of science says NO to evolution.

Ok, I’d like to challenge that. If evolution isn’t true then why do we find fossils of extinct dinosaurs date to be 49 million to 72 million years old in the Mesozoic Era rather than with the sea creature-like prehistoric fossils of the Paleozoic Era or the variety of types of fossils, birds, reptiles, mammals in the Cenozoic Era from the past 62 Million years?

Why do we only discover mammals in the Tertiary Period and not the Jarassic Period? Why do we find only dinosaurs in the Jarassic Period??? Is God just making species appear to go exinct like a psychotic geanie???

Why do we find perfect transitional fossils like the the Confuciusorus in the Cretaceous Era right before we have birds? It’s a reptile that has wings, feathers and cant fly! It appears at the END of the Mesozoic Era and nearing BEGINNING of the Tertiary Period!!

:coffeeread:

 

[MrZetterlund]

What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

Not all mutations have a function because there is no desired result for evolution. After random mutation occurs natural selection upholds the organism with the most favorable and suited traits for the environment or habitat it’s in.

Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.

It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).

If they mutate then they “evolve.” Because evolution is change that occurs over time. If they “mutate,” they change. If they change they evolve.

How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do?

This is because evolution is inevitable occurence in all species both stable and unstable, becuase evolution pends on: the descent and genetic differences that are hereditary and passed on from generation to generation, the migration of gene flow and the genetic variation that this produces (Hence, Darwin’s finches.)
Not to meantion how different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution…
:coffeeread:

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Do you at least realize that bacteria develop antibiotic resistance because their DNA replicates very fast? This is an example of “evolution” at a micro level.

Also, evolution is not a single “dogma” like religion. It is a way of explaining things like calculus can explain physics etc.

Did you study science (biochemistry,etc) in undergraduate school? Just curious.

Not everything in religion is a dogma. It’s not a dogma that Catholics must use sacramentals everyday, (but some Catholics do.) And Calculus does not explain things* per se*, it’s Physic that is the discipline that studies and explains natural phenomena using the language of Mathematics e.g. Calculus. Interesting to note your comparison between Evolution and Calculus because Calculus doesn’t give an “exact” answers but provides an approximate one.