Evolution of Man CONTRADICTS the Church

The idea of humans evolving from monkeys is CONTRADICTORY to the Catholic faith:

First, let’s establish the fact that the Church infallibly teaches that Adam was real.

Now, look at what the Church teaches as DOGMA concerning Mary:

Mary is The Immaculate Conception.

Notice the word “the.”

To refer to Mary as THE Immaculate Conception implies there was only ONE immaculate conception.

Now, look at Adam.

Adam was immaculate before the Fall…
However, he was not conceived. If he was conceived (from an earlier human or an ape), Mary would have only been “an” Immaculate Conception, **which would be a **contradiction to the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception!!!

For the first man to have been conceived would be a contradiction of revealed Dogma!

It is perfectly clear that the idea of man having evolved from a lesser creature in simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

Unless his humanity was not present at his conception. Adam was not human until God breathed Adam’s spirit into him, so while God formed and shaped Adam from the clay of the earth (whether in a day or over many years such as some theories of evolution suggest), he wasn’t “man.” It is possible that Adam evolved from lower forms until he was in the form of a man and then in the middle of his life became man when God bestowed a spirit upon him.

<< The idea of humans evolving from monkeys is CONTRADICTORY to the Catholic faith:>>

You have the idea of evolution wrong.

It does NOT say that man came from monkeys.

It says that primates (which include monkeys) and Homo sapiens have a common ancestor.

This is NOT the same thing, though the difference may be too subtle for some people to grasp.

The alternative, which you are positing, says that we are descended from a lump of dirt.

That’s not very complimentary.

Now–something for you to think about: ALL the fossils and skeletons in the world will NEVER tell us how or when the first anthropoid hominid was given a “living soul,” as souls leave no remains.

You do not understand evolution. Evolution does NOT teach we evolved from monkeys. Please educate yourself on what evolution really teaches. Evolution is NOT one creature coming from another. :rolleyes:

Was Adam a real man? Or is it an allegorical story, accepted and taught by religion, to explain the creation? Many cultures have similar creation stories.

:thumbsup:

Does anyone here know if the Church ever declared that Ahdam was “human”?

I don’t think they have. I hope not, because that would certainly mean they have erred.

Even the KJV does not refer to Adam as a “human”, but as “Man” as in the total governance of humanity. The word “human” means “a hue of Man” or “a subtle element of Man”.

If the Church has never declared that Ahdam was a human, then there is still no contradiction between evolution and the Church.

**Our Lady and Evolution

**STRAIGHT TO THE POINT
The human race has not evolved from apes because Our Lady of Lourdes identified herself as, “the immaculate conception”. Before this statement, the possibility of Adam being conceived would have had to be conceded, but in the light of it, Adam, who was certainly immaculate before the original sin, cannot have been conceived since Our Lady is identifying herself as the only creature to have been immaculately conceived.
AND NOW A FULLER EXPLANATION
I’m skeptical of the belief held by many today that the human race has evolved from apes. My skepticism is based on scientific and theological reasons. However, it is in the realm of theology, and private revelation in particular, that I wish to present the following thoughts.
Paragraph 67 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says the following about private revelations:
Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church.
I will confine myself to those private revelations which have been recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church. In my amateur musings on the Evolution debate I have become more and more impressed with the evidence against the theory of evolution both from science and theology. Coupled with this, has been a growing interest in some private revelations of Our Lady.

more…


What “evolution says” evolves. :smiley:

the only thing evolving in the theory of evolution is the theory itself

every few years a new discovery rewrites a major part of the theory that the theory itself is changed

if Adam did not exist, how did sin came to this world? because if no one introduced sin, then what was the purpose of Jesus becoming man and dying on the cross?

The Church teaches that while evolution may not turn out to be the best scientific encapsulation of how God created humans, it would not be a violation of the the Church’s understanding of Scriptures if evolution turned out to be the method by which God chose to make humans.

Read Genesis. In Chapter 1, people are created, not man and then woman, but together, after the creation of the animals. In Chapter 2, man is made before the animals, which he names, and then the woman is made. It makes sense to conclude that these accounts may not be meant as a literal chronology of creation. It would be in keeping with the oral traditions from which these Holy Scriptures came if the accounts were poetic expressions of the truth that God is the ultimate creator of all, that all of creation is good, and that man is not simply one among the animals, but that humans, uniquely among all creatures, bear the likeness of God, and so on.

It is important that we realize our relationship to our Creator and the rest of his creatures and that we live that realization. Finding that God chose to effect our creation in one manner rather than another is relatively unimportant. It was fairly recently that anyone would think it was.

We must realize that the Scriptural accounts of our creation were written before the concept of sterile and strictly literal scientific descriptions artificially divorced from poetry and theology were ever thought of. We are so used to our literal rational way of looking at the world, we often forget how narrow and limited it is. It suits the enterprise of science to be so limited, but that is a poor mindset to have take over one’s whole worldview. It is not the job of Scripture to bend to suit our current way of understanding the truth. Instead, it is our job to bend our Western brains and our narrow modern idea of what a fact is to the Scriptural way of expressing truth.

If you ask why God wouldn’t give us a strictly literal description of creation, one that takes no poetic license with the “facts”, consider that most people didn’t talk or even think that way until relatively recently. We don’t even talk or think that way all of the time. It would be like asking why John referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God, when Jesus was not in fact a sheep and never was. Isn’t Scripture true, after all? It was because it would not dawn on anyone in earshot to dream that John meant that! I mean truly: do we ever use the Scriptural truth that God breathed life into man as evidence that God must literally have physical lungs? I would think not.

Contrast this with Jesus talking about Himself in the Eucharist in John 6. People got mad when they heard him talking that way. Former disciples quit following him. He obviously was being literal, he was being taken that way, and he did not correct his meaning when he found he was being taken that way. The hard meaning was the one he meant. If Jesus’ miracles, for example, all had a natural explanation, had you but been there, then why would Herod have hoped to see Jesus work some miracle? He wouldn’t. Likewise, the story of “doubting Thomas.” When Scripture is saying something that could literally strain credulity, Scripture says so, and reiterates that the difficult meaning is indeed the one that is meant.

It is not a good idea to try to teach the Church how to interpret Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures are from the Church, and God elected to use the Magesterium to guide us through the Scriptures and their meaning. It is the office of the Magesterium to teach us what the Scriptures say, not our job to teach the Magesterium what they say. Using Scriptures to teach our teachers is the road that lead to the thousands of Protestant sects in this country alone. We ought not go there.

humanity is not a speices it is a state of being . chimps and elephants show humanity when they tend to their sick and dieing .

besides who said addam was homo sapien sapien .

the way i was taught (which is by no meens right) was that the pressence of humanity apeared in the first homonid (their brains wernt capable of lying , distrust or imagination, those areas hadent ‘evolved’((even the neathandles didnt have these capabilities)) the perfect human . as the homonids developed they became self aware (clothing being used) upon becoming self aware they lost their innocence for they understood their actions the story of cain and able reflects the time when the diferent speicies of homanids were at war, those homanids that hadent evolved the ability to lie ectra were wiped out hence able being killed

its all a mater of perception and regards of The imaculate conception . when a new species is born it is not a conception but a mutation. eg. it should be a fish it has two fish parents but something has deformed it now has lungs . not conception but mutation.
so if you are going along the lines of evolution adam wasnt conceived because his parents werent man he was a mutation. (alabeit an imaculate one)
science dosnt contradict the bible it just affirms the stories besides the old testement dosnot state that it is the truth othewise creation happened twice as you have two contradicting genisis stories. and who says the time scales are accurate to human calenders we have no idea how long gods days are (how often dose heavan spin on its axis) , " every earthly day god sent a small bird to sharpen his beek upon the highest mountain , only when the mountain became a plane had gods day ended"

This argument is obviously illogical from the start. Jesus was conceived as well.

Edwin

<<
Even the KJV does not refer to Adam as a “human”, but as “Man” as in the total governance of humanity. The word “human” means “a hue of Man” or “a subtle element of Man”.>>

The English word “human” is derived from the Latin cognate “homo”.

Try again.

How you think it was derived isn’t the issue (though obviously flawed). The issue is what it means.

So…emm… “Try again.

How can so many people, even on this forum, give in to Satan in such a way as to rob the human body of its dignity.

No one on this forum, who is Catholic, is doing any such thing. Do not blame others because you lack understanding about actual Church teaching on the subject.

Such is the nature of the “most subtle of all the creatures” - Satan.

It has a variety of “angels” ushering it in. One is “agree to disagree”. Another is “Truth cannot be known”. Another is “Secularism”. Another is that “language creates truth”. Another is “perception is reality”. There is a great horde of them that all support confusion as to who is the “bad guy”, thus leading the judgers to attack their own.

This keeps them weak and blind and even more tempted to attack more strongly.

You are witnessing the true Anti-Christ in action. :o

Never since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species has the Catholic Church ever taught that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in conflict with the Church’s unchanging position that the Holy Scriptures are true.

The Church has always taught that humans are a special creation of God, made in the divine image, and Darwin’s theory didn’t change that. Where a Catholic starts assuming that Satan is at work because some people dare to consider a scientific theory that the Church allows may be considered is beyond me. I don’t know how one does that, without abandoning trust in the Magesterium in favor of the unreliable Scriptural scholarship of Christian fundamentalists outside the Church…another thing Satan would be pretty pleased about.

In addressing the Pontifical Academy of Science (newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)
John Paul II stated the following (the whole speech is worth reading…)
"*In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points

The church’s magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution “Gaudium et Spes” has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is “the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. “Gaudium et Spes,” 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans*."

In other words, the moment we became fully human was the moment God invested us with souls. That moment is invisible to science.

If you don’t understand how evolution may be reconciled with the unique dignity of humankind and other inviolate teachings of the Church and Holy Scriptures, please study the teachings of the Church more carefully.

And what if anything did all of that have to do with MY post?? :confused:

It certainly does. First, we are told that there were no other parents of man. Second, God created Eve from Adam’s side.

Science cannot demonstrate the following:

A) Man reached a particular level of neurological development where he could “detect” God.

B) Man reached a certain state of physical development, meaning he was no longer a hominid, then God picked two and dropped in souls.

Science cannot demonstrate a God - soul - man connection in any way. It cannot detect God or the soul.

Peace,
Ed

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.