Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

[rbarcia]

Sorry if I derailed your thread, sir. I was speaking with two other gentleman who brought up food. Did you tell them, too, or just running off at the mouth at me? Besides, if you are going to do preach to me, as the other person said, at least get the Bible verses right. Anyway, I will let you get back to your thread. Sorry

well, the theme of this thread is not which Bible translation is right, nor wine, beer, or drunks. If you want to discuss those, you are free to start a new thread.

Thanks,

 

[RobHom]

I asked a sincere question on this thread. If you want to joke around go ahead. But if you 9not you specifically)have nothing to contribute to the thread other than jokes, it is a distraction in the conversation.

You need to lighten up…

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.

Unfortunately…it seems that you are. In fact your tone seems somewhat “condescending”…as if you are trying to correct some errant adolescents…

Be cautious and aware…

 

[rbarcia]

You need to lighten up…

Why? I am just talking about a topic.

Unfortunately…it seems that you are. In fact your tone seems somewhat “condescending”…as if you are trying to correct some errant adolescents…

Be cautious and aware…

Tones are a difficult thing to communicate through typing. But if you feel I have a rough tone, sorry.

 

[reteeks21]

well, the theme of this thread is not which Bible translation is right, nor wine, beer, or drunks. If you want to discuss those, you are free to start a new thread.

Thanks,

Hold up…you are the one who brought the preaching about wine/beer up without noticing the obvious joke. And you are also the one who brought up the incorrect translation. So, if you can’t even admit to those things, or even get your scriptures right, why should we even post with you? That would seem to knock your credibility a bit.

 

[rbarcia]

I urge you to move outside the tiny fundamentalist circles (Protestant or Catholic) and learn what real science is about. Go to a library, a biology department, a museum of natural history. Contact Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, or Josef Zycinski, Archibishop of Lublin, Poland (Pope John Paul II’s former see) – the both understand the proper relationship between science and religion.

I have no problem with science, I have a degree in Mathematics. But evolution is a religion, not a science.

You’ve got to move into the 21st century; 1985 paleontology is way out of date. Here are some examples of dinosaur-bird transitions, drawn from allied sciences:

Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).​

Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).​

Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).​

Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.​

Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).​

Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.​

Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).​

Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.​

Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.​

Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.​

All of these descriptions are guesses. The fact that a piece of bone existed on a piece of skeleton in what they believe is some transitional form does not prove it grew from an ancestor.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am Catholic. I also have degrees in anthropology and history. Evolution, you say? The God of Creation is free to use any methodolgy to create. He gave us brains and expects us to use them. We are not pastoralists wandering around some middle-Eastern desert. I see the Hand of God in creation.

It matters not to me that God created us in six days or in six billion years. My faith in God is not challenged. God gave us minds to explore His creation. I have nothing but awe for God’s creation. We are only dimly beginning to understand the scope and majesty of creation. We are infants exploring the realm of God.

I am a theistic evolutionist. God created us. All evolution is is HIS footprints left for us to discover. Gives new meaning to “Leave all things you have and come and follow me”…

 

[rbarcia]

Hold up…you are the one who brought the preaching about wine/beer up without noticing the obvious joke. And you are also the one who brought up the incorrect translation. So, if you can’t even admit to those things, or even get your scriptures right, why should we even post with you? That would seem to knock your credibility a bit.

You see, you want to stay off topic. I posted from an NIV translation. You posted from another. That is a different discussion, and I do not have to admit anything about a translation.

And I am not looking for credibility, just a discussion on evolution vs. creation.

 

[rbarcia]

I am Catholic. I also have degrees in anthropology and history. Evolution, you say? The God of Creation is free to use any methodolgy to create. He gave us brains and expects us to use them. We are not pastoralists wandering around some middle-Eastern desert. I see the Hand of God in creation.

It matters not to me that God created us in six days or in six billion years. My faith in God is not challenged. God gave us minds to explore His creation. I have nothing but awe for God’s creation. We are only dimly beginning to understand the scope and majesty of creation. We are infants exploring the realm of God.

I am a theistic evolutionist. God created us. All evolution is is HIs footprints left for us to discover. Gives new meaning to “Leave all things you have and come and follow me”…

His word says 6 days, so I would take His word for it. Creation shows the glory of God.

Psalm 19: 1

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

 

[RobHom]

Why? I am just talking about a topic.

There is a significant difference when “talking about” and “talking at”.

Tones are a difficult thing to communicate through typing. But if you feel I have a rough tone, sorry.

Yes they are…so we agree on at least one thing!

Smiley’s are weird little things, but sometimes they come in handy.

 

[RobHom]

You see, you want to stay off topic. I posted from an NIV translation. You posted from another. That is a different discussion, and I do not have to admit anything about a translation.

No, I believe it was I who posted from another “Bible”, not he. Where I took the scriptures from was the Douay-Rheims Bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was a translation from the original texts written in their original languages.

No-one is asking you to “admit” anything…there is nothing for you to admit. Do not take this wrong…but the entire planet knows about how much the bible, ( I used a small “b” because in many cases…many bibles are so different from the originals…they are no where close to truth)…have been amended and rewritten and even changed according to mere men’s political wills and agendas…

And I am not looking for credibility, just a discussion on evolution vs. creation.

For the best of over 100 posts you have been receiving the benefit of discussion on evolution vs creation. You just seem to be unwilling to accept anyone’s views other than your own.

Me… I honestly accept that you believe what you believe. I don’t believe the same as you do. I refuse to “box God up” nor do I try to place constraints on reality based on my interpretations of God’s Word…

What you believe is entirely up to you.

 

[Contarini]

Because I believe God’s word to be true.

But you’re begging the question. That is the point of the “parable” analogy. Clearly there are nonliteral narratives in Scripture. Clearly we believe these narratives to be part of God’s Word and hence true. So that is not the point in question. The question is whether the truth found in the early chapters of Genesis is the kind of truth pertinent to a historical narrative or some other kind of truth.

We believe that the first reference to Jesus in Prophecy is in Gen 3:15 in the Fall. If this did not really happen, then neither did hte prophecy.

Why does it matter whether this promise was uttered by an anthropomorphic theophany to two human beings in a garden around six thousand years ago, or whether the Holy Spirit impressed it on the minds of the author(s) of Genesis somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, or whether it happened sometime in between. The truth of the prophecy isn’t affected by these questions.

Same for things like sin, if sin did not enter here, then the belief in Christ saving us becomes questionable.

Again, why does the story need to be a literal historical narrative for it to be a true account of the entry of sin into the world?

Jesus spoke as if creation was literal.

First of all, that’s so broad and sweeping a statement that it needs to be clarified and supported before it can have any weight. But in the second place, “speaking as if” doesn’t carry a lot of weight–we speak as if the sun rises in the sky, for instance. It’s a well-established traditional principle of interpretation that Scripture routinely speaks of scientific events as they appear to the observer. All that is needed is to expand this principle to take into account modern understandings of how ancient sacred texts were formed. If a text speaks of the events in a certain manner, and Jesus speaks of the events using the language of the text, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what the Logos Incarnate desires us to believe about the historical formation of that text, anymore than use of the phrase “the sun rose” commits us to the Ptolemaic as opposed to the Copernican system of astronomy.

Edwin

 

[Robert_in_SD]

i always heard that we didn’t have to believe in a real adam and eve. i always heard that the main part of the creation story was to imply that God was responsible for the earth, animals, trees, etc…

We have to believe in a first set of disobedient parents, from whom we all inherited the stain of Original Sin. Whether they were actually called “Adam” and “Eve” is not necessarily a matter of doctrine. But the belief in a common set of first parents of all humanity - from which came Original Sin - is certainly necessary. At least, that is my general understanding. Here is what the Catechism states in general about it… see especially 404, infra.

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

289 Rom 5:12,19.
290 Rom 5:18.
291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.
293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512

I hope this helps.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ralphinal]

So, He created time but did not give us the meathod of counting it? Is a day one rotation around the sun? Is a day from sunset to sunrise? Is a day 24 hours exactly? No where in the first part of Genesis does God give us a clock or a calander. What am I missing?

 

[rbarcia]

But you’re begging the question. That is the point of the “parable” analogy. Clearly there are nonliteral narratives in Scripture. Clearly we believe these narratives to be part of God’s Word and hence true. So that is not the point in question. The question is whether the truth found in the early chapters of Genesis is the kind of truth pertinent to a historical narrative or some other kind of truth.

This was talked about earlier in the thread. When Jesus spoke in parable, we know He is speaking in parable because the context is clear. Genesis is not a parable. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph for real people.

When in Genesis does it start being real history then Chapter 3? Chapter 5? Chapter 11?

Why does it matter whether this promise was uttered by an anthropomorphic theophany to two human beings in a garden around six thousand years ago, or whether the Holy Spirit impressed it on the minds of the author(s) of Genesis somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, or whether it happened sometime in between. The truth of the prophecy isn’t affected by these questions.

Because it does something that is true is just true, anything else is a lie.

Again, why does the story need to be a literal historical narrative for it to be a true account of the entry of sin into the world?

Because then if I can’t believe Adam to be literal, then why should I believe Jesus to be?

First of all, that’s so broad and sweeping a statement that it needs to be clarified and supported before it can have any weight. But in the second place, “speaking as if” doesn’t carry a lot of weight–we speak as if the sun rises in the sky, for instance. It’s a well-established traditional principle of interpretation that Scripture routinely speaks of scientific events as they appear to the observer. All that is needed is to expand this principle to take into account modern understandings of how ancient sacred texts were formed. If a text speaks of the events in a certain manner, and Jesus speaks of the events using the language of the text, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what the Logos Incarnate desires us to believe about the historical formation of that text, anymore than use of the phrase “the sun rose” commits us to the Ptolemaic as opposed to the Copernican system of astronomy.

Edwin

I quoted earlier, here are some scripture.

Mat 19

“Have you not read that **He who made them at the beginning ** ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Luke 11
50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40– 41).

 

[RobHom]

This was talked about earlier in the thread. When Jesus spoke in parable, we know He is speaking in parable because the context is clear. Genesis is not a parable. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph for real people.
When in Genesis does it start being real history then Chapter 3? Chapter 5? Chapter 11? Because it does something that is true is just true, anything else is a lie. Because then if I can’t believe Adam to be literal, then why should I believe Jesus to be? I quoted earlier, here are some scripture.Mat 19“Have you not read that **He who made them at the beginning ** ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?Luke 1150 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.
We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40– 41).

Thank you for proving my assertion that the argument is “circular”.
The reality is that it is a “non-argument”… The only problem that seems to exist is your pedantic refusal to admit that any other viewpoint or truth exists outside your “box of safety” that you have constructed. So be it.

You have had the benefit of the discussion. This site is not about you “converting” anyone to your beliefs. In fact it is a violation of the forum rules…

 

[brotherhrolf]

His word says 6 days, so I would take His word for it. Creation shows the glory of God.

Psalm 19: 1

I am the product of 13 years of Catholic education. I grew up before Vatican II. I consider myself to be fairly orthodox. The brothers and sisters who taught me told me that Scripture (particularly, Genesis) is metaphor.

God inspired me from my earliest childhood to pursue my interest in anthropology and history. God gave me the wherewithal to discern that the world was not created in six days. We live in a world in which there are discoveries after discoveries on the scientific frontier.

I am a part of that generation who went to Catholic school in the late 50s and through the 60s. HMC NEVER demanded that we believe that the world was created in six days. Never.

The God of Creation is an awesome God. I find it most astounding that He has left us with clues to His Creation. I am not an ancient Hebrew. The more I learn the more I see the Hand of God across Creation. One only needs to watch NOVA on PBS to see the grandeur of Giod.

Evolution is merely the footprint of God. He is behind it all. We merely see His actions.

Our world is billions of years old. As an anthropologist and historian, there is far too much scientific evidence. The world was not created on Sunday, October 23, 2004 BC. I hope and pray that you have not succombed to this Protestant belief.

Did you know that the flood story of the Epic of Gilgamesh (can we say Noah) antedates Scripture yet it is the same story?

God created the Heavens and the Earth. I believe that with all my heart. His Creation is magnificent but he gave us the wherewithall to follow Him. I shall.

 

[Wirraway]

Yes. There is no doubt that occures. THere are too many gaps for me to be forced to accept that man came from monkies.

argument from personal incredulity is flawed reasoning.

man didn’t “come from monkies”, that’s a straw man argument

 

[StAnastasia]

What is sad here is that you are refusing to accept that we accept that God created the world and all that is in it… But what is even sadder is that you are upset and indignant about the fact that we will not accept it on your terms, and then you try to blame Catholics for your failure. We do not appeal to godless scientists for any kind of support for anything. It is you who fails to understand the realities of the world and what God has created…

Although he says he is not a JW, I suspect rbarcia is some sort of Protestant Fundamentalist. They often have a very difficult time accepting scientific evidence even when it smacks them between the eyes, and they will reject the work of 100,000 biologists and other scientists – many of them Catholics – in favor of their own private literalist interpretation of scripture.

St. Anastasia

 

[RobHom]

Although he says he is not a JW, I suspect rbarcia is some sort of Protestant Fundamentalist. They often have a very difficult time accepting scientific evidence even when it smacks them between the eyes, and they will reject the work of 100,000 biologists and other scientists – many of them Catholics – in favor of their own private literalist interpretation of scripture.

St. Anastasia

My thoughts exactly!!

 

[StAnastasia]

Our world is billions of years old. As an anthropologist and historian, there is far too much scientific evidence. The world was not created on Sunday, October 23, 2004 BC. I hope and pray that you have not succombed to this Protestant belief.

Wise words, brotherhrolf! What sort of historical and anthropological work do you do? Do you have any advice as to good books I might read on Catholicism and science?

StAnastasia