Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re right. There’s too much speculation with evolutionary claims. Original Sin is dogma.
 
edwest said:
The science only answer is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Science deals with one particular aspect of reality. Of course it’s incomplete by the very nature of it’s method. It has absolutely nothing to say beyond the bounds of it’s underlying epistemology.
 
On a Catholic forum, Catholics should tell everyone that the Church has the complete answer, which includes critical information about who human beings are. Without that, we are just another animal.
 
Why Jesus Christ was born and had to die as a sacrifice means we are much more than our biological bodies.
 
Can you pls explain that.
If you say Evolution is the biological origin of species, then God did not create the first man Adan or Eve (humans simply evolved). Then what happened to garden of eden, disobedience of Adam and Eve and the birth of Original Sin.
If there is no Original Sin then what need is there for Jesus to come down and die for our sins ?
How do you line up Evolution and the Bible. Its not just relationship with God but believing in evolution means the rest of the Bible story would not make sense as I explained above.
I can’t line up Evolution with the Genesis creation story in the Bible.

thank you for all the explanations.
 
samalematina said:
I can’t line up Evolution with the Genesis creation story in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that genesis is a symbolic representation of something that actually happened. Why do you assume that the symbolic presentation is how it literally occurred? If you read in the bible that on the sixth day it started raining cats and dogs, would you simply assume that it was literally raining cats and dogs or would you look for the underlying meaning of the text? The idea that there is a conflict is based on a literalistic reading of genesis which the church has never presented as dogma.

I can understand protestants reading genesis literalistically because they have broken away from the authority of the Catholic church, but i don’t understand why Catholics would be susceptible to that error.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying there is no Original Sin ? (if no literal adam and eve)
Then how would you explain Jesus coming down to die for our sins. (if there was no original sin in garden of eden)

Sorry but this is the point I’m hoping you can talk about.

Literal or symbolic difference I can understand but do you see how Symbolic original Sin doesn’t seem like a good reason for God to send his Son to die for us…
 
Last edited:
samalematina said:
So you are saying there is no Original Sin ? (if no literal adam and eve)
Click to expand...
No. I am saying that genesis is a symbolic representation of God’s creative act and the fall of Adam and eve.

The fact that God created, and the fact that Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace, is true. Original sin is true. But how genesis presents that truth is not to be taken literally. It’s a story, almost like a parable or an allegory, about something that actually happened in history.
 
thanks I will have to think about what you said more.

The other point is that Jesus himself referred to Genesis in the new Testament Mathew 19 and Mark 10.
Jesus seems to be referring to the Creation event in Genesis as if it was the “literal” creation of Adam and Eve as man and woman. Why would Jesus do that if it was only symbolic.
 
The two pillars of evolution are random mutation and natural selection. In real life they are aspects of death, that which destroys the order that goes into the formation of a living physical being. But, they are here repeatedly touted as being creative processes. They represent the workings of a fallen world, which followed from the original sin. To better and more fully explain creation one must look to the supernatural Cause of nature itself.
 
IWantGod said:
But how genesis presents that truth is not to be taken literally. It’s a story, almost like a parable or an allegory, about something that actually happened in history.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in hearing what you think actually happened.
 
Last edited:
samalematina said:
Testament Mathew 19 and Mark 10.
Click to expand...
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Regardless of whether or not genesis is meant to be taken literally, it speaks to the truth of the unification of Adam and Eve as man and wife under God. That’s the point that Jesus is making, and he makes that point using scripture because that is the authority the people of his time understood. That God made them man and female is true regardless of evolution. The Catholic church doesn’t have a problem with the idea that our biological bodies evolved, because it’s the unification of the soul and body that makes us personal beings capable of entering a relationship with God and it is as man and woman that we do so.

Yes, Jesus said God made them male and female, because that is what scripture said. And it can also be true at the same time that our biological being is the result of evolutionary processes that God is the ultimate cause of.

I don’t think it’s necessary for Jesus to explain that our bodies are the result of evolutionary processes since it is God that created the laws that governs physical reality. So either way he created them male and female. And Jesus ultimately speaks to what they can understand and what is most important; he is not going to reveal to them that the world is actually 13 billion years old that at it’s most fundamental level it is made up of quantum events. They are not going to understand that and would probably call him a liar and stone him to death, because that’s the ignorance of man.

They killed Jesus anyway just for saying he is the Son of Father. That’s what religious fundamentalism gets you.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
I would be interested in hearing what you think actually happened.
Click to expand...
What does it matter. The church has made it clear that original sin is true and that God created the world. The scientific evidence reveals a very old world that develops according to laws or rules. So that’s what God created and that’s what actually happened. I see no conflict.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
I can understand protestants reading genesis literalistically because they have broken away from the authority of the Catholic church, but i don’t understand why Catholics would be susceptible to that error.
Click to expand...
Because we do not read scripture in a vacuum. We read in in light of the entire Tradition and long held understanding of it.

There is quite some detail in how God created Eve from Adam’s rib. There is a point where the “symbolic” argument gets downright silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top