Catholic Views on Evolution/Creation

What They're Saying...on Steve Ray's board at least...

"Of course children should be taught about Darwin's THEORY of Evolution so they will be prepared to refute it. That just makes good sense...." "The answer is 'yes' teach evolution in Catholic schools. Do you want Catholic schools to provide an inferior education?"
"I am against Evolution, I think it has led to other diabolical beliefs. As I investigated it more I have become far more of a creationist. Evolution has led to the Godlessness of society, and degredation of man kind and rejection of God and atheism." "Before Jesus Christ there was 'TROG'! Trog was the 'ancester' who caused original sin and caused the 'second Adam' to have to come down and redeem mankind. So it was not the sin of Adam as that would be a myth, but it was 'in fact' Trog who brought us down. It's funny but I don't hear Christ refer to Trog anywhere..."
"It goes hand in hand with atheism, racism, communism, etc. People are at risk of their faiths when they believe in evolution. Hitler had a hit list for prefered races. (With the Jews on bottom and blacks next.) Part of the title of Darwins book included 'preferred races'. Stalin promoted evolution." "My position is biology should be taught in a biology class, physics in a physics class, and astronomy in an astronomy class. Religion and theology should be taught in a religion or theology class. Very simple."

Should Evolution be Taught in Catholic Schools?

from Steve Ray's Message Board June/July 2003
The Catholic Message Board -> General Discussion ->
The Teaching of Evolution in Catholic Schools

Author: Castilian Location: San Antonio, Texas U.S.A.

Are you for or against it ? I am 100% against it.

God Bless, Spanish Moor

Sun Jun 29, 2003 3:52 pm

Author: Teacher Location: Arizona

Why?

Sun Jun 29, 2003 3:54 pm

Author: Signum Crucis Location: Georgia

Why would a Catholic school teach Darwinianism? You have to look at what the Pope has said about evolution. There is more than one kind, you know.

....

Any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you that you can't even prove science using science.

....

Of course children should be taught about Darwin's THEORY of Evolution so they will be prepared to refute it. That just makes good sense. But as for teaching it as anything other than a theory and not providing rebuttal, that's out of the question. I teach Catholic school. In my home.

Sig

Sun Jun 29, 2003 3:54 pm

Author: havana Location: Arizona

Castilian wrote << Are you for or against it ? I am 100% against it. >>

What do you mean by "it"? Micro-evolution, macro-evolution -- what exactly?

And, more importantly, are you implying that, despite what Scripture and Magisterium teaches on the matter, evolution *couldn't* be created by God Himself? Or, is this merely a case of "throwing the baby out with the water," i.e., making an overall and generally premature judgement against the science teachers in Catholic schools, some of whom might actually be converts who read this message board?

There's a reason conventional wisdom holds that the most educated and intelligent scientists and biologists are conservative, "devout" Catholics. Let's not forget that.

hava

Sun Jun 29, 2003 3:58 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

I am against it (Macro Evolution)! For various reasons it causes people especially with children because when you tell them they came from apes they will act like it. Our faith should be what is taught and science needs to be explained so as to understand God in what He has made. Distortions of Evolution which denies the supernatural, Noah's Ark, the divinity of Christ, marriage and many more issues, causes a critical view towards faith as if Jesus was some kind of Santa Clause.

....

The survival of the fittest does not compute with Love they neighbor. What evolution denies condemns this false theory by anyone who knows the truth. Jesus truly is the annointed one, the Holy one of God. I will take His word over man any day of the week!

....

Siggy, the races of man can find it's beginning at the tower of Babel. That would be the biblical approach to that question. It makes sence to me that as the Holy Spirit diversified the people with altering the languages, other marks were given as well. Note that this was when mankind was creating new nations and with that came about their false gods.

....

I know collage professors who teach biology and are proponents to evolution also lost their faith in Christ. I'm speaking about people who recieved their degrees from Notre Dame. The Catholic Church does recognize an evolutionary process since Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve). Mircro evolution adresses questions as to how environments and diets and society has influenced this process. That is legitiment. But to say life mutates into all the animal kingdoms is far fetched.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:03 pm

Author: Budge Location: Midwest

I am against Evolution, I think it has led to other diabolical beliefs. As I investigated it more I have become far more of a creationist. Evolution has led to the Godlessness of society, and degredation of man kind and rejection of God and atheism. I dont know how someone can look at the patterns in the world, THE DESIGN and believe in Evolution. Evolution actually scientically has holes a truck can be driven through. I am reading more on Intelligent Design myself.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:05 pm

Author: Signum Crucis Location: Georgia

Budge, What kind of evolution are you talking about? Do you believe that God created all the races of peoples when he created Adam and Eve, or do you believe that each race evolved over time as a result of geography and environment?

Sig

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:08 pm

Author: havana Location: Arizona

That they *themselves* (soul and all) came from "apes", or that certain particular *attributes* of basic human physiology, into which our Creator infused the soul and identity, did?

I do think God created us with the capacity to reason, did he not?, and the ability to fully comprehend legitimate scientific theory (if we so choose) before discriminately tossing around words like "Darwinian" as though we've never lived north of the Mason-Dixon line. That's all I'm saying.

....

The famous play and movie adaptation "Inherit The Wind" (which my Catholic alma mater's drama department still stages every couple years - I was a stagehand sophomore year) would answer that for ya.

hava

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

I am against teaching anything as "science" that cannot be empirically proven. All assumptions, conjectures and suppositions belong in philosophy class, not science class.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:14 pm

Author: Castilian Location: San Antonio, Texas U.S.A.

All evolutionary theory as far as I'm concerened.

Cosmic, Stellar and Planatery, Organic (Abiogenesis), Macro

It conflicts with literal genesis. And as far as I'm concerned I either have no faith or all faith believing or disbelieving in a 6,000-7,000 6 day created earth.

YOUNG EARTH CREATION

4000-5000 B.C.

God creates the heavens and the earth,Adam and Eve, Dinosaurs,Mammoths,etc in 6 days ......

2500 B.C. The Great flood occurs.

It throws the ecosystem of this planet out of whack,atmosphere is reduced. Dinosaurs are gone(mostly) humans no longer live up to 900 years like Adam did.

1400 B.C.

Moses founds Judaism(God chose him).

700 B.C.

Isaiah predict the coming of the Messiah(JESUS CHRIST)

3-6. B.C. Mary the husband of Joseph, a peasent carpenter is choosen b yGod to give birth the the messiah Christ is born Christ learns that he is the son of god Christ becomes King of the Jews Most Jews opose this because Christ was not rich as they imagined their predicted massiah to be.

30-33 A.D.

Christ is crusified and ressurected. End times begin The Few Jews and Gentiles who do accept Christ begin the Roman Catholic Church begins

Current what you see today.

Thats a breakdown of what YEC's believe.

However:

Micro-evolution does occur, it is really variation.

God Bless,

Mexico

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:15 pm

Author: mjt

Not another discussion of evolution! Doesn't this board ever discuss anything else? You would think that this is the single most pressing issue in the world.... The answer is 'yes' teach evolution in Catholic schools. Do you want Catholic schools to provide an inferior education?

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:25 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

mit, are you saying that if I tell my children that I oppose "Macro" evolution that my children will be inferior? I don't think so! That's like saying that if you don't teach that Mr. Ed can talk your going to be inferior. Any falsehood not taught is problematic in that we must be informed enough to expose it (Eph 5:11). But it's better to come from the side of truth as most schools do not, they insist it's real.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:32 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender: << But it's better to come from the side of truth as most schools do not, they insist it's real. >>

Your analogy isn't correct. Refusing to teach evolution in high school science, is more like refusing to teach the Quadratic Formula in high school algebra: it is an essential bit of information that they will need later on, and if they don't learn about it, they will not be able to handle college.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:36 pm

Author: P
Science in a Science Class

Castilian says,

<< Are you for or against it ? I am 100% against it. >>

So if evolution is not to be taught, then what is the alternative? In a course on biology or geology or a related science, the 9th and 10th graders (for example) should be taught about how God created the earth and all the creatures on the planet in 144 hours (6 days) in a puff of smoke (from nothing) approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, how Adam and Eve conversed with a talking snake, and how God walked and talked with Adam and Eve and scolded the talking snake. Is that science? If so, how?

And in a Catholic college course on thermodynamics, fluids, and paleontology or some other science about how Noah brought 2 of each of the thousands of dinosaurs, some as heavy as 6 tons and as tall as 20 feet, on this ark made of wood. And they behaved for 40 days and nights while it rained and covered even Mount Everest to the tippy top. And all the millions of species of animals known today are the result of this recent flood. ALL the kangaroos (the marsupials) walked from Mount Ararat to Australia, and ALL the horses galloped from Mount Ararat to the North American continent (i.e. why biogeography supports evolution -- see my article below).

All right, I might be exaggerating the chapters in Genesis a bit. But there are other slight problems with a global flood as described here:

Problems with a Global Flood from TalkOrigins.org

In other words, I am 125% for teaching science not an extremely literal interpretation of Genesis in a science classroom.

Defender says,

<< Distortions of Evolution which denies the supernatural, Noah's Ark, the divinity of Christ, marriage and many more issues, causes a critical view towards faith as if Jesus was some kind of Santa Clause. >>

Science in general and evolution in particular has nothing to say for or against the existence of God. As for distortion, yes some writers on evolution (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker comes to mind) believe that evolution completely rules out God and all nature can be explained without any reference to a deity. But that is a belief. For a response see Finding Darwin's God by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown Univ.

My position is biology should be taught in a biology class, physics in a physics class, and astronomy in an astronomy class. Religion and theology should be taught in a religion or theology class. Very simple. I'm the product of 12 years of Catholic schools, had a good education, but didn't retain a whole lot. I vaguely remember a discussion of evolution in biology class, but had to do my detailed study later on....my unfinished article:

Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:41 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

mjt wrote << it is an essential bit of information that they will need later on, and if they don't learn about it, they will not be able to handle college. >>

My brother, if your assuming that because the theory of evolutions is so popular that you need this understanding in your background to make it in life, a career in science, or just to hold a job at the local bank, I don't believe that's necessary. It's ok to be informed about it, but schools provide evolution with the mind set that this is truth. Survival of the fittest is found where in the bible? It's not there. Nor is that anywhere in the tradition of the Catholic Church!

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:52 pm

Author: mjt

Sig says << That just makes good sense. But as for teaching it as anything other than a theory and not providing rebuttal, that's out of the question. >>

This comment reveals a failure to understand the nature of scientific theory. Yes, evolution is a theory, but this doesn't not mean that it isn't 'true' or 'proven.'

In the popular perception, a theory is distinct from a fact in that, while a fact is something known to be true, a theory is not known to be true. This is not the way that scientists use the term 'theory.' In the nomenclature of science, a 'fact' is something that has been observed, or measured. A theory is a way of organizing and explaining facts in a systematic manner. Merely having information is not enough, the information must be organized in the proper manner. A theory is simply a way of organzing the information we have. All of science is based on theories, but we don't question the existence of observed phenomena simply because the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. No one questions the existence of gravity just because we still don't have a working quantum gravity theory.

....

"Survival of the fittest" is not evolution, it is Darwinism. You must learn the difference.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:54 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

mjt wrote << "Survival of the fittest" is not evolution, it is Darwinism. You must learn the difference. >>

You mean there is a difference? Most of my evolution friends will identify with macro evolution with Darwin. If your speaking from the Micro point of view then that can fall under Catholic tradition. It is sometimes difficult to speak to the difference of the two, but I know you can speak to Micro and be OK even as a theory. I can take the 24 hour day and you can take the thousand years as a day and both of us would be right in that both has valid Catholic insight.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:04 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender << You mean there is a difference? >>

There are many, many, many, many theories of evolution. Most of them non-Darwinian, even anti-Darwinian. What people fail to understand is that, Darwin's original theory, as he published it in 1858, is as good as dead. Strict Darwinism died a century ago. Even the so-called Neo-Darwinians are quite rare. This is to be expected about any scientific theory. There are probably as many theories of evolution as there are evolutionary scientists. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts). There have been many attempts to explain the evolution of species, and there will no doubt be many more. But the only thing about any theory of evolution that need concern Catholics are the numerous philosophical assumptions which, while not part of the theory, nevertheless frequently accompany the teaching of the theory. Chief among them is the assumption that evolutionary processes are purely random and meaningless. But this is a philosophical interepretation of the implications of evolution, and is not part of the theory itself.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:10 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

You know something, this whole time we have been discussing this, I finally happened to look at your avatar and just noticed that face. Man that's not fair. Here I am trying to be all serious and all and I see that. Is that about as close as seeing you as we are going to get!! . That's something. I needed a good laugh my fine orthodox friend! I guess evolution may have fragmented considerable but it still concerns me.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:14 pm

Author: P
Evolution is Fact and Theory

mjt << This comment reveals a failure to understand the nature of scientific theory. Yes, evolution is a theory, but this doesn't not mean that it isn't 'true' or 'proven.' >>

Very good, the analogy that Stephen Jay Gould gives is

"Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome....I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms...." (Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Discover magazine, May 1981)

Once again, the evidence for macroevolution, that we all have common ancestors through descent with modification (the simple definition of evolution) includes

The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree / Transitional Forms and the Tree of Life / The Geological Time Scale (Radiometric Dating, etc) / Past History: Anatomical Vestiges and Atavisms / Embryology / Present and Past Biogeography / Anatomical and Molecular Paralogy / Anatomical and Molecular Analogy / Suboptimal Function / The Molecular Sequence Evidence / Cytochrome C studies / Pseudogenes / and the Fossil Record which includes many transitionals

Evidence for Evolution part 2

Now what is the creationist alternative to this? What should be taught in the science classrooms?

I like this topic since I've done some study on it....

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:16 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

P << Now what is the creationist alternative to this? What should be taught in the science classrooms? I like this topic since I've done some study on it.... >>

P it's not that I can't understand you have this theory, but my problem is that it contradicts Jesus and the Gospel message. Jesus refers back to Genesis 2:24 giving Marriage the foundation as a sacrament. Does Jesus know this was a myth or is He remembering and recalling an event that has a real foundation to it. Jesus as God know everything to include any future evolutionary theories.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:28 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender << I guess evolution may have fragmented considerable but it still concerns me. >>

Why exactly? Even the Pope has said that evolution is okay... and that it appears to fit well with the facts as we understand them. Catholics are by no means obligated to reject evolution, although we are obligated to reject the philosophical assumption that science does away with the need for God, but that isn't science, it is philosophy. Many science teachers may adopt that attitude, but it isn't part of the scientific theory itself.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:33 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

I guess its the argument that denies the truth of our faith. As a result of "Macro" evolution, I had a priest tell me that original sin was no longer taught in the Catholic Church. I can't accept that and see that as heretical. Down right Pelagrian if you ask me. But there are a number of concerns I have that evolution denies or opens the door to regarding the truth of our faith.

....

PS, Rock Mag spoke that the Pope was refering to Micro eveolution, not Marco evolution and I make the difference!

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:41 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

catholic defender wrote << Jesus refers back to Genesis 2:24 giving Marriage the foundation as a sacrament. Does Jesus know this was a myth or is He remembering and recalling an event that has a real foundation to it. Jesus as God know everything to include any future evolutionary theories. >>

Correctamundo, Richie!

Jesus also refers to the Deluge as a real world-wide event. There is no amount of evidence that exists now or ever could exist that would make me doubt the obvious meaning of Our Lord's reference to these two very historical events. Only a direct command from the Magisterium would even make me consider it, and, so far, nothing like it has been forthcoming. Rather, the constant and universal teaching of the Church has been to accept these events carte blanche without reservation.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:56 pm

Author: Teacher Location: Arizona

I asked "why" at the start of the thread and now that I have a few answers I'll chime in. I believe it should be taught in Catholic schools. Why?-because that's the only place where it is ok to interject the Church's teachings on the subject. Like any subject of this kind, it cannot be taught in a vacuum or it can be a danger to the faith.

Listen to Pius XII:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter--for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful...

Humani Generis (1950)

He is making a distinction between the philosophy of evolution (it cannot contradict the Church) and the science of evolution. (Anything is possible with God)

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:16 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

If evolutionism (that is, molecules to man evolution) were presented to the young as Pius has said it should be, who could argue against teaching about it in our schools? Sadly, however, it is never presented that way. It is all over the media and throughout educational facilities as a fact written in stone. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth!

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:28 pm

Author: Teacher Location: Arizona

pax << Yet, nothing could be further from the truth >>

Which is why it should be taught in Catholic schools - so it could be presented that way.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:37 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Teacher, I agree 100% with your premise. The question is: Who is presenting it "that way" in the Catholic schools?

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:41 pm

Author: Teacher Location: Arizona

Those that follow Ex Corde Ecclesiae. No guarantees on those that don't though. (Sadly)

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:50 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

There is a simple solution. The bishops need to throw out the secular union to which Catholic teachers belong and bring back the institution of the Teacher's Guild. Over the Guild, the bishop has absolute authority. Over the union, he has no authority at all.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:54 pm

Author: P
Adam and Eve and the Flood

catholic defender << P it's not that I can't understand you have this theory, but my problem is that it contradicts Jesus and the Gospel message. >>

It does not. It might contradict a literal understanding of Genesis chapters 1 to 11, but it does not contradict Jesus and the Gospel message. What is the Gospel message? I find it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and during Mass: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. Science or evolution does not speak to that much less contradict it.

<< Jesus refers back to Genesis 2:24 giving Marriage the foundation as a sacrament. Does Jesus know this was a myth or is He remembering and recalling an event that has a real foundation to it. >>

That there was an Adam and Eve does not contradict macroevolution. All human beings in an evolutionary context would trace back to a set of first humans. BTW, we did not "evolve from the apes" -- that is a common misconception. But primates and humans had a "common ancestor" several million years ago.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that there was an Adam and Eve, and there was a Fall resulting in Original Sin. Neither is contradicted by the modern theory or theories (plural) on how evolution happened. What modern science would contradict is taking an over-literal understanding of Genesis.

<< Jesus as God know everything to include any future evolutionary theories. >>

He does. But neither Genesis nor the Gospels were intended to teach modern science. The flood could have been a local flood and Jesus could be speaking to that. The "world" at that time didn't include the American continents.

I haven't worked out how to understand Genesis and related points you raise, I was dealing with what we know from science in my article. The last part would deal with some of these objections. BTW, the Pope would be speaking to both micro and macroevolution, since that is what modern science means by evolution:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. 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 this theory." (JPII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 1996)

Since he has no problem with evolution, neither do I. And science provides us the evidence evolution happened, and suggests theories on how it happened. The question that started this thread was: should evolution be taught in Catholic schools in the science classrooms? If it should not, what would you teach in its place?

Evidence for Evolution part 2

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:56 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

P wrote << (JPII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 1996) >>

Phil, This does not fall under charism of infallibility the Holy Father possesses! It is not intended to instruct the entire Church. It is personal opinion, and therefore not relevant to doctrinal teachings already defined by ther Magisterium.

P wrote << If it should not, what would you teach in its place? >>

I would teach empirical science. Nothing more. Nothing less. This would include micro-evolution which is demonstrable; but would exclude macro-evolution, which is not.

O, yeah, Phil, in case you are not clear on this issue: TalkOrigins is fallible. The Magisterium is infallible. Caution is certainly needed when dealing with evolutionists. JP2 also reiterated what P12 said: There is only so far a loyal Catholic can prescind from divine Revelation.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:10 pm

Author: P
What is your alternative theory?

pax << I would teach empirical science. Nothing more. Nothing less. This would include micro-evolution which is demonstrable; but would exclude macro-evolution, which is not. >>

You didn't answer the question. What would you teach in its place? I understand you would not teach macroevolution. So what would you teach in a science classroom on how we got here? Would you teach the earth is 10,000 years old and all creatures on the planet were created in 144 hours? That is one creationist alternative. What would you teach? Also, teaching "evidence against macroevolution" is not teaching an alternative theory.

Yes, TalkOrigins is fallible, but also a very well documented science site. Here are some of the problems you would encounter and questions to answer in not teaching evolution, or simple teaching "against evolution":

Frequently Asked but Never Answered Questions

More Questions for Creationists

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:29 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

P wrote << What would you teach? Also, teaching "evidence against macroevolution" is not teaching an alternative theory. >>

Phil, Why is it so impossible for you to come to grips with the idea that science can be taught using phrases like: We don't know; We aren't sure; or, It is an enigma to us? Why is it so difficult for scientists to say things like: Well, according to uniformitarianistic philosophy, we think the explanation is so-and-so; or, According to materialistic philosophy, we understand these to be.....?

Which is better: To teach our children science according to materialistic philosophy, or according to the scholastic method?

And, no, Phil, I will not return to the TalkOrigins website. I find their condescending and arrogant attitude more than I should subject myself to. Evolutionists are not the only guys in the world to hold post-graduate degrees and chairs at Universities! There a many creation scientists (no, that is not an oxymoron!) who hold degrees and tenures as well.

The issue is far from decided, and, looking at the new information coming out in the study of genetics and Intelligent Design Theory, I think the materialists are losing. The evidence for God is mounting. The TalkOrigins boys are about to go the way of the dinosaur. They know it and it scares them. Dawkins, Sagan, de Duve --all of them wrong; all of them guilty of perpetrating an enormous hoax upon the world. Really, Phil, they make Orson Wells look like a rank amateur!

Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:45 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

I do maintain that Macro evolution is not compatible to Catholic teaching as it calls into question doctrines essential to our faith such as original sin. If original sin is not a true teaching where man did fall from God's grace, then we do not really need a Jesus. That's the ultimate form of Pelagianism I can find. If Genesis was not a true foundation with the creation of Adam and Eve, then what would be wrong with an Adam and Steve. That is the argument they make, that they were born that way. We just fall into their trap and people will lose a generation before we get it right.

Marriage is sacred because God created it so. Jesus confirms it in Matthew 19 when He goes back to the original blueprint. Did Jesus really know what He was saying or is all this hogwash. I don't think so. I think pax brings up a good point about the flood. You can even speak to Jonah and the whale. Much of the Old Testament, the evolutionist crowd treats all this as myths. I've seen it and that maybe largely why I resist evolution. Its humanistic. When I hear priests calling the main issue with the multiplication of the loaves was hospitality, it calls to mind the denial of the destruction of Sodom. I can see where Micro evolution can work but not the Macro.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:18 pm

Author: P
TalkOrigins.org

pax << And, no, Phil, I will not return to the TalkOrigins website. I find their condescending and arrogant attitude more than I should subject myself to. >>

Well, I don't find that in most of the articles (there are some exceptions). I've printed out hundreds of pages of their articles over the years. If you want the scoop on evolution and science, and the best responses to creationists, they are the site to go to first. The site "evolved" (pun intended) from the Internet discussion list Talk Origins.

As for the Intelligent Design movement, I am undecided whether that is really a scientific alternative to evolution. There are some responses and debates you can read:

TalkDesign.org the sister site to TalkOrigins.org

Kenneth Miller's Evolution Page

The main pro-ID movement page is

Discovery Institute

BTW, we aren't talking about the evidence for the existence of God, but the alternative theories to evolution and how we got here. Many if not most evolutionists and scientists already believe in some kind of God. And evolution is the best explanation from science for the existence and development of plants, animals and human beings.

Yes, there are arrogant atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins who is anti-God and anti-religion, and fair ones such as (in my opinion) Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard who while an atheist is quite fair and sympathetic to religion.

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:23 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

P << And evolution is the best explanation from science for the existence and development of plants, animals and human beings. >>

But this is not the Catholic Church! You can argue that 97% of Americans believe in a higher power we call God ranging from new age to cults to witchcraft and anything else. You could even include the first church of the lesbian society. They would all agree with you on evolution! A good reason why I would not!

Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:28 pm

Author: P
Evolution is a FAQ

I know you are one of the regulars here, and I enjoy the board.

I didn't say it was the Catholic Church. Pax implied all evolutionists and scientists are atheists (or for the most part atheists). I do not believe that is true. TalkOrigins.org the pro-evolution site is very sympathetic to religion for the most part (if you read them carefully). No, they are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but neither are they anti-religion. Just a well documented science site.

Have you ever read a single science book on evolution? Not a creationist book, but a real science book that explains, defines, and gives the evidence for evolution? If you haven't you can start here.

Many misunderstandings in your posts on evolution are cleared up here....

Evolution FAQs

....

If you have Real Video and a fast connection you can watch some of these:

Ken Miller, Michael Behe, others in Evolution and Intelligent Design talks

P/p>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:45 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

P wrote << Many misunderstandings in your posts on evolution are cleared up here.... >>

P its not that I don't want to give Macro evolution a fair hearing or anything, and I'm not really mean spirited. Your circle of friends there may really be good people. Just be careful as you move forward. Don't be caught up in a movement simular to the young man in the movie "The Sound of Music". Anyone who has seen this movie knows exactly who I'm talking about.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:05 pm

Author: marciadietrich

catholic defender wrote << Just be careful as you move forward. Don't be caught up in a movement simular to the young man in the movie "The Sound of Music". Anyone who has seen this movie knows exactly who I'm talking about. >>

Yes, people who have seen the movie know what you mean... and I think that is unfair as when Catholics are accused as having been accomplices in the holocaust or that Hitler having been raised Catholic had anything to do with Naziism.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:15 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender << I do maintain that Macro evolution is not compatible to Catholic teaching as it calls into question doctrines essential to our faith such as original sin. >>

I am quite worried that there is a strong Protestant-izing trend in the Catholic Church in America. And I think that, opposition to evolution, and young earth creationist theories being accepted by Catholics, is just one example of that trend. The truth is that the Catholic Church does not oppose, and never has opposed either evolutionary theory or the big bang. Only the influence of Protestant fundamentalists has led some Catholics to do the same. But what you must understand is that strict, literal, verbal interpretation of the Bible, let alone of the first chapters of Genesis, has never been a Catholic thing, it is a fundamentalist Protestant thing. Historically, only fundamentalist Protestants have opposed evolution on religious grounds, but Catholics and Orthodox Jews have not. This is not the Catholic tradition! And, I find it ironic that some of the people who importing this Protestant notion into the Catholic Church, are the very same people who complain about Vatican II allegedly adopting Protestant ideas.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:19 pm

Author: dcs Location: Philadelphia, PA

mjt wrote << The Church can only 'define' the meaning of a particular passage if the meaning was clear by a concensus of the Fathers, which is by no means true in this case. All he can do is give his own personal opinion. >>

There is a consensus among the Fathers -- that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. The Fathers who believed that the six days of creation were not to be taken as 'literal' days followed St. Peter when he wrote that for God 1000 years is like a day, and that a day is like 1000 years, and speculated that the creation of the Earth actually took place over 6000 years.

The Church can define the meaning of a passage whether or not there is a consensus on the passage among the Fathers. What the Church condemns is those who would interpret a passage contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:10 pm

Author: mjt

dcs << and speculated that the creation of the Earth actually took place over 6000 years. >>

I don't believe that it is quite that cut and dried. There was much more diversity of opinion in the Early Church than your either/or option would indicate. At any rate, as Polycarp pointed out in a magnificent thread earlier this week, there is no real biblical basis for believing that the earth is X number of years old, all it teaches that the universe was created by God, not when.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:22 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

mjt wrote << there is no real biblical basis for believing that the earth is X number of years old, all it teaches that the universe was created by God, not when. >>

Perhaps you have a good rational explanation as to why God allowed the sacred writers to insert so many chronologies, the exact ages of the Patriarchs, and the precise time spans between events.

Genesis reads like a very concise record of the creation, including the spread of mankind over the face of the earth.

Now, I am certain you are not implying that God sought to purposely mislead us, nor are you going against the very direct and binding teachings of the Council of Trent and Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV and Pius XII on the historical veracity of Genesis.

What other explanation, then, would you suggest for the precise dates and chronologies recorded in a Book that we are assured by our Holy Mother "has God Himself for its Author"?

Taking Genesis literally is not Protestant fundamentalism. On the contrary, it is Catholic fundamentalism -- that is, taking the Church at her word with self-abnegation and religious assent.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:06 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

marciadietrich wrote << and I think that is unfair as when Catholics are accused as having been accomplices in the holocaust or that Hitler having been raised Catholic had anything to do with Naziism. >>

I know, the point is getting caught up in a movement such as that young man, and later find out you were in the wrong. That's what happens to those who oppose the Catholic Church. Over and over when all seemed lost, the Church prevails. And I will say that it will prevail over the modernist, the humanists, the scandels, and any other worldly phylosophy Satan will muster!

....

Original sin is not a Protestant original! The Catholic Church is clear about her tradition on creation. Now I will say that Micro evolution can fit within this tradition as well. I've been saying this all along here. But the Macro issue is the problem. It denies not the Protestant tradition, whom the base of that comes from us, but Catholic theology. We have never regarded the Old Testament as myths like some have done in the 20th century which breaks from our tradition.

Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:17 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

catholic defender wrote << We have never regarded the Old Testament as myths like some have done in the 20th century which breaks from our tradition. >>

Here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Quote << Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassable, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man's soul He created to His own image and likeness; gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful. >>

Sun Jun 29, 2003 11:30 pm

Author: mjt

pax << Genesis reads like a very concise record of the creation, including the spread of mankind over the face of the earth. >>

No it doesn't, it reads like an account of a myth. There is nothing about it that makes it appear 'concise' or historical. The very names "Adam" and "Eve" appear to be very obviously symbolical. "Adam" means 'man' and 'Eve' means 'mother of all the living', these are symbols, not proper names. A good way of paraphrasing the first two chapters of Genesis in the English idiom, would go something like 'God made stuff. Once he made a guy, this guy got really lonenly, so he told God to make him a partner, so God made him a gal. This gal is the mother of all so lets call her mommy.'

This is mythological writing, not historical. The difference between the first two chapters of Genesis, and the more meaty historical writing in books like Numbers and I,II Kings is obvious. The nearest thing that I can compare the first two chapters of Genesis to is the allegory 'Pilgrim's Progress' by John Bunyan , where characters have names like "Faithful", "Talkative" and "Wordly Wise"

Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:43 am

Author: anawim Location: NYC area

mjt wrote: << where characters have names like "Faithful", "Talkative" and "Wordly Wise" >>

This uses the allegorical sense. Where is the literal?

Sorry, I can no more agree with your assessment, then I can those who utilize a strictly literal sense. I think both are extreme. The truth is somewhere balanced in the middle.

Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:13 am

Author: mjt

"Literal" means 'according to the sense that was intended by the author'. I don't believe that the author was intending to teach literal history here, merely to convey spiritual truth that God created everything. Remember, tradition holds that the guy who wrote Genesis also wrote Numbers, and there is a distinct stylistic difference in the way those two books were written.

Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:45 am

Author: marciadietrich

Hi mjt,

I basically agree with you that the creation account need not be absolute literal man from the dust, I consider myself a theistic evolutionist with maybe a hint of intelligent design leanings.

On the other hand, it would seem Catholics are to believe that there was a real physical Adam and Eve and that all people who live now are their descendents. If Adam and Eve are mythical, was the fall a reality? If it was mythical and our sin is just "nature" then what did Christ come for? How is he the new Adam? Is there really original sin? What does baptism do then?

I think it was Augustine who on one hand said not to be literal and not to contradict science on this issue, but he also leaned that to God everything was created in an instant rather than 6 days (whatever time that might be in reality) because God's power isn't constrained in having to "work" over time. Will have to look that up, I may be a tad off... corrections appreciated.

Marcia

Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:27 am

Author: mjt

marcia << If Adam and Eve are mythical, was the fall a reality? If it was mythical and our sin is just "nature" then what did Christ come for? How is he the new Adam? Is there really original sin? What does baptism do then? >>

To say that something is 'mythical' does not mean that it is false. Myth is just a way of telling a story. In many ways it can be said that myth is more true than literal history. The story of the fall may not convey historical truth, but it teaches that when God created man, he made him in a perfect state, and man lost it through his own fault. This is actually a very common theme in mythological literature, it seems that mankind has a kind of 'memory' of once living in a perfect state, but losing it through stupidity or what have you.

Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:36 am

Author: marciadietrich

Hello CD ...

I don't see where a belief in evolution contradicts or opposes the Church. And despite the round about way of doing it you associated evolutionists with Nazis and I found that unfair.

Truth cannot contradict truth. If evolution on a macro level happened then it is a truth. If the universe is billions of years old then that is a truth. I find the immensity of the universe, the age of the universe, to much better illustrate how awesome God is!

I am reading Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West. In chapter 3 he complains about evolution, but his quote at the start of the chapter same page, CS Lewis - a theistic evolutionist! They are not contradictory unless forced to be, you can believe in both. Some might try to misuse evolutionary theory for their purposes just like some misuse scriptures.

Marcia

Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:37 am

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

marciadietrich wrote << Truth cannot contradict truth. If evolution on a macro level happened then it is a truth. If the universe is billions of years old then that is a truth. I find the immensity of the universe, the age of the universe, to much better illustrate how awesome God is! >>

Any Humanistic philosophy that would either deny the existance of God or at least pervert the truth of God would be vanity. It would be evil. But my point with the young man was really more how he wanted to be accepted by this "new crowd" that he lost his roots. Catholics do that when they open up to secular humanism that would dismiss the supernatural with mere human intellect. Macro evolution attacks the core of our beliefs that bring into question the divinity of Christ, original sin, and the need for a savior. Too much is sacrificed.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:05 pm

Author: Nate Location: New Mexico

pax << Perhaps you have a good rational explanation as to why God allowed the sacred writers to insert so many chronologies, the exact ages of the Patriarchs, and the precise time spans between events. >>

I don't know how good or rational it is, but I have assumed that God did so to show continuity of His presence from the Creation to the present. The purpose of Genesis seems to me to be to show that God created the universe, and did so with man in mind. The rather long lifespans of the patriarchs suggest that we are not to interpret these stories in real time, but have a symbolic significance. People have interpreted the symbolic significance of the declining ages as a growth of evil in the world after the fall. I am not saying I agree with that interpretation, just that I don't think it is reasonable, or necessary, to insist on a literal interpretation that defies scientific evidence.

I have accepted evolution as among the best scientific theories put forth so far, (not Darwinism) and I don't find them incompatible with belief in original sin, or any Catholic dogma. Catholic fundamentalism has been around a long time, and contributed to the condemnation of Galileo, which has not done the Church a lot of good. One good thing that did come out of it was to warn the Church away from that kind of thinking, and they were not participants in the anti evolution trials that, in my opinion, have discredited Protestant fundamentalism.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:27 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

Nate << One good thing that did come out of it was to warn the Church away from that kind of thinking, and they were not participants in the anti evolution trials that, in my opinion, have discredited Protestant fundamentalism. >>

Nate, you can be a consevative and have a thinking mind as well. My opposition to Macro Evolution is not based in some kind of backwoods knee jerk reaction to a monkeys uncle. You can be biblically based and yet a rational thinker as well. We have even went so far as recognized the possibility of Mirco evolution as that can be applied to scripture without knocking it down. You seem to have problems with the stories from the bible, yet your readily able to support evolution as true rather than theory. I would hope to see you come to the middle as opposed to the biblical account totally.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:44 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender << You seem to have problems with the stories from the bible, yet your readily able to support evolution as true rather than theory >>

Not again! Please, please, please, one more time here. When a scientist says that something is a 'theory' he does not, but that term, mean that it isn't true! Theories can be known to be true! To call something a 'theory' doesn't mean that you have some doubt about its truthfulness. 'Theory' is not the opposite of 'truth.'

Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:08 pm

Author: P
Theory on Theory

<< Please, please, please, one more time here. When a scientist says that something is a 'theory' he does not, but that term, mean that it isn't true! Theories can be known to be true! >>

Well, that's just your theory. :)

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution

P/p>

Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:13 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

P wrote: << If you wanna demolish macroevolution, you're gonna have to do it with science. I haven't seen you doing that yet..... Sorry Answers in Genesis and Dr. Dino won't help you. Well, they might help a little, I'll just have to search TalkOrigins for the proper rebuttal. >>

Who is Dr. Dino? Actually, you can't prove Evolution? I have another form of Evolution! It's the evolution of the heart when a person learns their holy Catholic faith and believes it. I can accept that evolution! You can create a multi-million dollar amusement park because of the finding of the "mising link", but I will show you that your "missing link" was the tooth of a chester white sow!

I love tennis, I like to play singles and doubles. The ball is in your court! Tisk!

Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:34 pm

Author: P
human evolution

<< Who is Dr. Dino? >>

Dr Dino with Kent Hovind is your top young-earth creationist fundamentalist site

Answers in Genesis with Ken Ham is another large young-earth creationist fundamentalist site

Both have pretty impressive and well-designed web sites, I give them that. But their science is very lame. See TalkOrigins for your best responses.

<< Actually, you can't prove Evolution? I have another form of Evolution! It's the evolution of the heart when a person learns their holy Catholic faith and believes it. I can accept that evolution! >>

Yep, I've been doing Catholic apologetics online since 1994. But some days my heart isn't in it....I'm trying to have A take my site over once he becomes computer literate enough....

<< You can create a multi-million dollar amusement park because of the finding of the "mising link", but I will show you that your "missing link" was the tooth of a chester white sow! >>

Nice try, here's the response from TalkOrigins

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs....

The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man...was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor...

...Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible.

The full response here

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Creationism and Human Evolution, a series of articles

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution

Now search Dr Dino and Answers in Genesis for a reply. :)

P/p>

Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:00 pm

Author: DaleC Location: Alabama

There's nothing wrong with teaching evolution in Catholic Schools IMO. Nothing must be taught which denies the truths of the Catholic Faith in Catholic Schools, and evolution does not.

Geocentrism, on the other hand, should not be taught in Catholic Schools. This is because it denies the whole body of knowledge which God has permitted man to accumulate with regards to his creation, and would thus make God into a great deciever of men.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:00 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

P << "...Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. " >>

It just goes to show that it was negligible. But so is teaching a theory as if it was absolute. That's really negligible. I wish they can teach this from all these examples and let you decide. I think the Catholic view would be the real power house. We would have the element of faith couple with the backing of science such as Micro evolution to the creationist side. The free expression of ideas in the public place. Your Macro friends are like the feminists who want to take over and run the show.

Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:14 pm

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Phil -- Ask the boys at TalkOrigins how the doctrine of Original Sin fits in with their view of history? Can you give me an axplanation of Original Sin using evolution as a back-drop? Show me how this theory does not obfuscate or overthrow the doctrine of Original Sin and I will believe you.

Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:10 am

Author: P
My boys at TalkOrigins

<< Phil -- Ask the boys at TalkOrigins how the doctrine of Original Sin fits in with their view of history? >>

Original Sin is a belief of the Catholic faith. It is neither proved nor disproved from science. Same with Transubstantiation, etc.

As I read the TalkOrigins material, they are a well documented science site. They don't do theology. For the most part, they are respectful of God and religion, but very skeptical (to put it mildly) about a literal interpretation of Genesis, especially chapters 1 to 11 or so.

If I were to contact my TalkOrigins boys, some of them would perhaps ridicule notions like original sin, etc. But they are a science site. There is the domain of religion, and there is the domain of science. The Catechism put it this way:

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

This board is interesting, seems we are pretty well divided among young earth advocates, some old earth or don't care age of earthers, and the hardcore theistic evolutionists like myself

P/p>

Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:42 am

Author: mjt

catholic defender << But so is teaching a theory as if it was absolute. That's really negligible. I wish they can teach this from all these examples and let you decide. >>

I am getting awfully tired of this. Now, repeat after me 'saying that something is a 'theory' is not the same thing as saying that it isn't known to be true'....

But the idea that 'they teach from these examples and then let you decide' is crazy. None of the people being taught are in any position to be able to figure it out on their own, it takes years of study to be able to do that. I may as well walk into my classroom and say 'well you have your Calculus textbook, decide for yourself what to do' That isn't teaching, that's failure to teach.

<< I think the Catholic view would be the real power house >>

According to the last few Popes, "The Catholic view" looks quite favorably upon evolution.

Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:05 am

Author: marciadietrich

mjt wrote << I am getting awfully tired of this. Now, repeat after me 'saying that something is a 'theory' is not the same thing as saying that it isn't known to be true'.... >>

I think people don't understand that in math and science a theory is within a step of being a "law" (isn't gravity still considered a theory?) ... it is something beyond a hypothesis because it will have a cohesion of research, thought and evidence.

Here is something from the Random House College Dictionary under "theory" (my underline):

Quote << Syn. 1. THEORY, HYPOTHESIS are both often used colloquilly to mean an untested idea or opinion. A THEORY properly is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A HYPOTHESIS is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of certain phenomena or relations, and serves as a basis of argument of experimentation by which to reach the truth: This idea is offered only as a hypothesis. >>

Common language treats theory as a hypothesis, evolution is more than just a hypothesis.

Marcia

Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:32 am

Author: arronrod Location: The Diocese of Charleston

mjt wrote << "Survival of the fittest" is not evolution, it is Darwinism. You must learn the difference. >>

Survival of the fittest is found where "Origin of the Species?"

It isn't. "Survival of the fittest" was coined after the book was published.

If I had based all of my judgments on what someone else told me a book was about, or a religion, or a philosophy, I would have never have found the beauty of the Catholic Church.

The point of Genesis is not a scientific account of creation but an analog of the fact that God is our divine, benevolent creator and that as such He, as our parent and designer, knows what's best for us. The 'how' belongs to the realm of science, the 'who, what, when, and why' is God's. It tell us He has the authority to put the 'unleaded fuel only' stickers on our hearts lest we forget and think we know better and put in diesel.

Evolutionary theory is not, nor needs to be, anti-creationist. There are many who use it as such and, in my opinion, are missing the point.

Look at it this way. Would you, as a parent, explain quantum physics, or better yet human reproductive systems to a three-year-old? Or would you explain the universe in a way that is topically relevant to the child and the context of their question when they ask 'Who made me, why am I here?' Explaining the particulars of sex would not only horrify and confuse the child, but would lose the question's intent entirely.

(is this horse dead yet? I had to get my 2 cents in)

Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:49 am

Author: mjt

The term 'survival of the fittest' comes from the sociologist Herbert Spencer, which he used to describe Darwin's theory. Darwin responsed by saying that Spencer had come with a beautiful one sentence summary of this theory. So, while the phrase doens't come from Darwin, he did acknowledge that it was an accurate summary of his theory.

Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:53 am

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

This is the part I do not understand and am in serious need of having explained to me. We all admit that God is all-poweful, all-knowing, and everywhere present -- yet He cannot tell us "how" He created the universe! I mean, read Gen. 1. Read John 1.

I just.....I don't get it.

....

Marcia -- This is very interesting -- and typical! Personally, I see it as pretty cut and dry. There is no teaching of evolution that I am bound to give the assent of faith to. There are, however, many things concerning Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the temptation and fall of man, as recorded in Genesis that I am obliged to give the assent of faith to! Now, a rational mind cannot hold a dichotomy for very long --in the same way that we cannot serve two masters. Therefore, seeing as I must reject one of these teachings in order to uphold the other, it is a no-brainer which one I reject.

Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:26 pm

Author: mjt

He does tell us how he created the universe, not directly but he gave us the reasoning ability to figure it out on our own, it is called 'science.'

....

Beginning with at least Pius XII, the Popes have made many favorable statements about both science in general and evolution in particular. Most recently in 1996 when John Paul II said that it was time for theologians to recognize that evolution is 'more than a theory.' Take a look at this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

....

You should read some of John Paul II's sermons on Genesis, I really haven't said anything that he hasn't said. It is a little complicated, yes, but the ideas are not completely contradictory.

Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:32 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

Evolution of the heart, a changed mind that brings you into a real relationship with the Lord. That's true evolution! Really look at the message of the Church during lent. It maintains the Biblical view. I think it would be sacriligious to have in a Catholic service a macro evolutionary belief system demonstrated. It would be out of place. Instead of sac cloth and ashes, you would reveal repentance through a science book. Kind of simular to The planet of the apes when the humanoids were worshipping the bomb with christian prayers.

Fri Jul 04, 2003 6:37 pm

Author: marciadietrich

I just converted, and didn't think this would be an issue I'd have to explore prior to conversion. For what little I had read there wasn't a stance that you had to believe in a literal 6 day creation scenario, the Catechism doesn't seem to condemn it and many if not most Catholics seemed friendly to the concept of macroevolution.

Though there might be similiar ideas or conclusions "original sin" in the Catholic sense wasn't something pushed as a major premise in my upbringing. That mankind needed redemption, yes, but more focused on our own personal sins ... "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I was raised with the idea that there was an "age of accountability" and pretty much all innocents or children it was an automatic they'd be heaven bound if they died. Most of my time learning about original sin for conversion I spent trying to relate to the ideas on the Immaculate Conception, baptism of infants or other issues.

If I had thought that I needed to embrace a literal 6 day reading of Genesis - exactly what I was raised with - I wouldn't have took the time to consider Catholicism at all. I'm more than willing to reconcile evolution and Catholic theology, and I believe it can be done. I was hoping to hear from people who have reconciled their understanding of evolution with Catholic doctrine and to know what I am REALLY required to believe as a Catholic, not what some people believe and wish to force on others.

Marcia

Fri Jul 04, 2003 7:43 pm

Author: mjt

<< I haven't bothered to read [this thread] Is it worth reading? >>

Not really, no. The only reason that I keep posting to it is for the benefit of the lurkers, to make sure that all Catholics aren't tarred and feathered with the 'young earth creationist' label.

Sat Jul 05, 2003 10:28 am

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

That's why I keep posting for the same benefit of the lurkers, to make sure that all Catholics aren't tarred and feathered with a Si Fi production of the omega man. I can see it now, before Jesus Christ there was TROG!

Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:40 pm

Author: mjt

<< a Si Fi production of the omega man. I can see it now, before Jesus Christ there was TROG! >>

*****Sigh******* I wish that you anti-evolutionists could see, how your words appear to someone whose primary education is not in philosophy or theology, but rather in mathematics, science and deductive reasoning.... I understand that you mean well, but I wish that could see the scandal that reflexive anti-scientism creates for so many people.

Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:56 pm

Author: Castilian Location: San Antonio, Texas U.S.A.

mjt,

I disagree with your attiture towards evolution and creation, Brother.

To all,

I believe the theory of evolution is misleading many Catholics. And that includes: macro,abiogenesis, the age of the earth, big bang,etc.............

I believe its non-provable(with the exception of micro which is no big deal).

It goes hand in hand with atheism, racism, communism ,etc............

People area at risk of their faiths when they believe in evolution.

Hitler had a hit list for prefered races. (With the Jews on bottom and blacks next.)

Part of the title of Darwins book included 'preferred races'

Stalin promoted evolution.

I do understand the option of teaching both theories.

However I believe things would be fine w/o evolution being taught and just Young Earth Creation.

I have no problem with believing that dinos existed along with Adam, we lived 900 and the flood changed everything about 6000-7000 yrs ago.

In Christ,

Hector

Sat Jul 05, 2003 6:57 pm

Author: mjt

Castilian << I have no problem with believing that dinos existed along with Adam, we lived 900 and the flood changed everything about 6000-7000 yrs ago. >>

None of this is a legitimate argument against the truth of evolutionary theory. It is technically called 'poisoning the well' a logical fallacy. Hitler and Stalin also believed in the Pythagorean theorem, that doesn't mean that square on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle is NOT equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:11 pm

Author: P
Keeping the Evolution Thread Alive

Castilian << I believe the theory of evolution is misleading many Catholics. And that includes: macro, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, big bang,etc >>

You can start learning about some of those here....

Age of the Earth FAQs
Macroevolution FAQs

<< I believe its non-provable (with the exception of micro which is no big deal). >>

Earth: 4.5 billion years old and macroevolution well established in links above.

<< It goes hand in hand with atheism, racism, communism ,etc >>

Where you probably got this idea
A Visit to the ICR Museum

To show the TalkOrigins boys are not anti-God or anti-religion
The God and Evolution FAQ

<< People are at risk of their faiths when they believe in evolution. >>

Depends how well they know their faith, and how well they understand their science.

<< Hitler had a hit list for prefered races. (With the Jews on bottom and blacks next.) Part of the title of Darwins book included 'preferred races' Stalin promoted evolution. >>

Um that's called ad hominem argument. Origin of Species is online. I should read the whole book myself as well....
Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

<< I do understand the option of teaching both theories. >>

Well, what's the other scientific theory?

Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions
Stumper Questions for Creationists
General Anti-Creationism 1
General Anti-Creationism 2

<< However I believe things would be fine w/o evolution being taught and just Young Earth Creation. >>

I agree, if this were 1600 AD. Its 2003 AD however.

<< I have no problem with believing that dinos existed along with Adam, we lived 900 and the flood changed everything about 6000-7000 yrs ago. >>

And your scientific evidence for this is?

Paluxy Dinosaur/Man Track Controversy
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments?
Some Problems with a Global Flood

P/p>

Sat Jul 05, 2003 8:18 pm

Author: mjt

catholic defender << We devoid or negate Catholic truth for the sake of perceived science. >>

In other words, as Catholics, we have much to fear from honest investigations into the truth. I don't know about you, but sure sounds contradictory to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the recent Popes. I wish that you would finally deal with the quote from John Paul II. Could you please explain to me why the Pope is wrong about the Catholic faith, but you are right?

Sun Jul 06, 2003 1:57 pm

Author: Castilian Location: San Antonio, Texas U.S.A.

Look,

As far as am concerned with evolution: THE BIBLE SAYS IT NOT TRUE!

I'll be back with more verses but here one:

N.T.

I forgot where

But Jesus says in the begining wern't man created both man and woman.

Col 2:8 See to it that no man spoils you with a vein philosiphy based on cosmic powers, rather then the teachings of Christ.

Evolution goes against what Christ taught.

*I don't care what any of the Popes think. Or anyone else !*

Were talking about the faiths of people here!

Evolution is published because of $$$$$ nothing else! Imagine how much books would go out if evolution was turned off!

*I don't care what the Government thinks!*

They do it for $$$$$!

No $$$$$ no evolution.

With $$$$$, atheists and a few mislead scientists you get a rock that can turn into a dog!

OR a Turtle that can turn into a 18 wheeler...............

I know where I satnd!

God Bless,

Hector

....

I think Science is great without evolution.

The reason it seems like science needs evolution to survive is because the theory is just mentioned all around the place.

Drop evolution and biology, physics, astronomy are fine.

You will have plenty of pages taken out of every subject text book, but so what THE THEORY SUX!

.................$$$$$ and don't forget what leaves along w/ those pages

Have more loyal Catholics and less mislead Catholics.

In God,

C

Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:24 pm

Author: mjt

Castilian << Evolution is published because of $$$$$ nothing else! Imagine how much books would go out if evolution was turned off! >>

Well, this attitude just proves that nothing you say on this subject matters at all doesn't it? You haven't the foggiest idea what on Earth you are talking about, thanks for making that clear....

Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:29 pm

Author: catholic defender Location: New Orleans

Before Jesus Christ there was "TROG"! Trog was the "ancester" who caused original sin and caused the "second Adam" to have to come down and redeem mankind. So it was not the sin of Adam as that would be a myth, but it was "in fact" Trog who brought us down. It's funny but I don't hear Christ refer to Trog anywhere, but I do Adam. How do you cross the bridge of sanity to insanity? Find the missing link and then make the discovery that God entered the soul of man when he "evolved" into a higher "life form"! 2003 biology 101. Unbelievable!

....

All you Trogites out there, the movie was real cool and had a couple of scarry moments. In the end, it was just a movie!

Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:37 pm

Author: PTrog, the movie (1970) starring Joan Crawford
TROG IS ALIVE!!!!!!!

Oh no, I'm keeping this relatively short thread alive.....

TROG LIVES!!!!

The Official Trog Site Below

TalkTrog.org

P Trogite

....

From the TalkTrog.org site, have any of you non-Trogs read a single link I have posted in this thread? Here are some of them

Why Trogs can believe in God and Evolution

Why Trogs believe Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution by Dr. Trog Theobald

How Trogs Know the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old

More on the Age of the Earth by various Trogites

Why Non-Trog Arguments for a Young Earth are Totally Bogus

How Bad Are Those Non-Trog Arguments for a Young Earth, Bad Very Very Bad

PhilTrog

Author: pax Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Phil equates evolution with science, mj equated evolution with good, honest science. If one were to take the time and read the serious redactors of this theory, one would find that evolution is not science, nor is it good or honest science. Were it the case that evolution were proven in any scientific sense, it is unlikely that so many people holding post-graduate degrees in the sciences would disagree with it and utterly renounce it. Phil constantly refers us to the TalkOrigins website as if they and they alone have a handle on the truth. I would strongly recommend if one is to go to this site that one also go to the AnswersInGenesis site as well. Here is where you will find many post-graduates in the sciences utterly refuting this theory.

From there one can make their own informed decision.

The typical canard of equating young earth creationists with flat-earthers of sub-human intelligence has been tried and found wanting in this and other threads. The debate over evolution/creation is not a debate between the educated and the ignorant. Rather, it is a debate between scientists.

All of the evidence for the old earth immediately dissipates the moment one no longer allows the old-earthers their cherished a priori assumptions. That is the bottom line. The scientific evidence becomes essentially like Scripture: Whatever story it tells depends to a large extent on who is doing the interpreting.

Because some people hold evolutionary theory and science to be one and the same thing, they immediately equate the Church's praise of science to be a praise for evolutionary theory. If, however, one takes the time to carefully read the Church's doctrinal teachings on the creation of the universe and of man, and if one carefully reads Humani Generis and JP2's address to the PAS, one sees that the Church is not opening the door for evolutionary theory and inviting it into her most chaste bridal chamber. On the contrary, in all of these writings the Church is slowly and steadily closing the door on evolutionary theory by condemning and proscribing the philosophies that underlie it.

Up until, say, 100 years ago, God was welcome in science. Now God is not tolerated. In fact many scientific definitions openly declare not only their atheism, but their irreligion (antagonism towards God) as well. It was also noted by men of science that miraculous events can and do occur. Now scientists, puffed up like bladders, will admit no such thing.

I think I can safely say that the Church has always considered atheism and irreligion to be irrational. How is it, then, that Catholics can take the word of irrational men on how the universe began and where man had his beginnings? The work of Michael Behe has been cited, and I also would strongly recommend reading "Darwin's Black Box". It was Behe who coined the term "irreducibly complex systems" to demonstrate how some biological systems defy any evolutionary processes. Then again, Behe is a micro-biologist and he thinks like a micro-biologist; that is, he sees common design as equalling common descent --an ideology not born out by the facts uncovered to date.

Common descent is a theory based upon common design, and it is common design which supposedly proves common descent. It is circular. The many transitionals which Darwin thought would be uncovered in the fossil record, and which would prove common descent in a robust way, simply have not materialized. True, their are many candidates for transitionals, but there are few, if any, which can be pointed to and claimed as bona fide. The fossil record is one of sudden appearance, stasis, and sudden disappearance. This is far more in line with the Biblical account than with the evolutionary account.

The evidence for an old earth are based upon two a priori assumptions. One, that the rate of atomic decay is constant, and, two, that the conditions of production have always been in equilibrium. There is evidence now that neither of these is true or reliable.

Yet still the evolutionists persist. Why?

The best answer to that question is given by Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at Berkley: Evolutionism is not true science, but it is a true philosophy: viz., materialism. When the veneer of science is stripped away from evolutionary theory it is easy to see that Johnson has hit the nail squarely on the head!

Evolutionists have taken science from its true mooring of empiricism. If evolutionists could demonstrate their theories either in the lab or in nature, they would not face the mounting resistence to them that they do. The fact is, there is little, if anything, about evolutionism that can be empirically demonstrated. It is virtually all an interpretation of the data at hand using pre-concieved materialist notions.

And that, in my not so humble opinion, is what makes it so anti-thetical to the Catholic religion. If there is room in Catholicism for materialism, I do not know where it is! Neither does Pope John Paul II. Neither does the entire Magisterium of the Church, from Blessed Peter to the present.

It is difficult at times to sift through evolutionism and separate the science from the philosophy; for the two have become so intertwined they are hardy distinguishable anymore. Ergo, I hold to the position of empiricism. "Show me and I will believe you." What I will NOT accept is the conjecture and the supposition and the constant "we think" and "we believe" from materialists as any kind of a basis for re-thinking or re-formulating what God has clearly revealed to us in His divine Revelation.

And that is the bottom line of all bottom lines.

Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Author: mjt

pax << If one were to take the time and read the serious redactors of this theory, one would find that evolution is not science, nor is it good or honest science. Were it the case that evolution were proven in any scientific sense, it is unlikely that so many people holding post-graduate degrees in the sciences would disagree with it and utterly renounce it. >>

I may as well keep feeding the beast, if nothing else this thread will get me to masters status soon enough.....

Listen, contrary to what you believe, the fact is, that there is no real controversy over evolution among serious scientists, none whatever. I know, I am there in the midst of it, I know of what I speak! There simply are not 'many people with post-graduate degrees in the sciences disagreeing with and renouncing it', or at least, no one that would be taken seriously for more than 3 seconds by mainstream science.

Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:01 pm

edited by P


Back to Philosophy Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links