Evolution

Are Catholics being encouraged to accept this as the most viable explanation for the origin of man? Patrick Madrid said about as much on the radio not long ago.

1: Evolution is currently on the (temporarily) banned topics list here.

2:

[quote=“Humani Generis”]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.
[/quote]

rossum

Well that’s odd…:confused:

Not really. Sometimes topics have to be banned, at least temporarily, because some people can’t seem to discuss them without resorting to personal insults to those who disagree with them. It’s best to just leave the topic aside for a while.

:wink:

Evolution is a theory, it has been hijacked by atheists who wish to undermine the Book of Genesis. Do not be fooled, theories are not established fact, to claim such is to pervert the fruits of science, especially when used to support a bias. Science has never dispproved anything in the Bible, and in fact the more science discovers and applies theory to, the greater the Glory established by the witness of Creation for the Creator of the material world. Do not let the atheists bamboozle and bully you, with this recent tactic.

Gravity is also a theory: the Theory of Gravity.

In science the word “theory” has a very specific meaning which is not to be confused with the usual common meaning of the word.

Atheists use the existence of evil to argue against God. Do you deny the existence of evil in the world? Just because atheists use something in an argument does not make that thing untrue.

Science has disproved many things that some people find in the Bible; remember Harold Camping? There are many different interpretations of the Bible, and some of them are indeed wrong, and shown to be wrong by science.

rossum

What definition do you reference when you speak of a scientific theory? Is it established fact or applied scientific methodolgy? Please elaborate on something found within the Bible which science has conclusively proven to have not occurred.

The Ultimate Truth is found by humble faith in that which establishes the completeness of Truth, Our Creator, not in the incomplete, yet formidable, ego of the created

Gravity is both a theory and a fact.

• Gravity as fact: things fall down.

• Gravity as theory: things fall down because…

We used to have Newton’s theory of gravity: things fall down because of the force of gravity acting at a distance. That theory turned out to be wrong in some details. We now have Einstein’s theory: things fall down because they are following a geodesic curve in the space-time tensor. Eventually Einstein’s theory will be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity; Einstein’s theory has some problems dealing with the vicinity of black holes.

The fact of gravity remains the same, the theory of gravity is the best current way to explain the facts.

The same with evolution:

• Evolution as fact: the genome of an interbreeding population will change over time.

• Evolution as theory: the genome of an interbreeding population will change over time because…

The fact of evolution remains the same, the theory of evolution is the best current way to explain the facts. If you can find a better explanation then a Nobel prize is yours.

Please elaborate on something found within the Bible which science has conclusively proven to have not occurred.

Genesis 1:6-8 talks about a waterproof layer in the sky, separating the waters above from the waters below. Later on this layer is associated with the sun and moon. No such layer has been found in the solar system.

Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed Him “all” the kingdoms of the world. There is no such mountain; the Earth is a sphere so it is impossible to see all of it’s surface from one place.

You might also wish to compare the dates of King Ahaziah in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2.

rossum

So the fact of Evolution you present in no way contradicts the facts found in Genesis, correct?

Genesis1:6-8. Waterproof? I don’t see that. What does the atmosphere do, rossum? Does it seperate the clouds from the oceans? This layer seperates the sun and moon, are they not seperated by a layer of sky 93 million miles thick Rossum? What composes the sky, but different layers containing different things, clouds, moon, sun, stars all in different layers, and seperated by different layers, correct?

Who says the mountain had to be high? Who said satan is limited in a way that man is? Satan showed Jesus a vision, angels can do that Rossum.

You compare the dates Rossum, what do you find that discredits the Old Testament?

I think that this might be an example of why discussion of evolution is currently banned. Take some advice, fniper, obey the forum rules and quit while you’re behind.

I accept all support that atheists are capablle of giving me. I assume that is why you reprinted my post. Am I being too hopeful?

Yes, you are. I hit the wrong button and reprinted your post before I made any comment…

We share such human frailties.

Which particular interpretation of Genesis are you talking about, there are many. Some interpretations are contradicted by whole swathes of modern science, not just evolution.

Genesis1:6-8. Waterproof?

Yes. It is a description of the standard ANE cosmological model which had a solid waterproof domw, with “windows”.

I don’t see that. What does the atmosphere do, rossum? Does it seperate the clouds from the oceans?

No. It does not prevent evaporated water rising from the ocean to form clouds. It does not prevent rain falling from the clouds back into the ocean. It does not “separate” the two. It also does not contain the Sun (Genesis 1:14-17). We would all be dead if the Sun were contained in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You compare the dates Rossum, what do you find that discredits the Old Testament?

• 2 Kings 8:26 - King Ahaziah was twenty-two when he came to the throne.
• 2 Chronicles 22:2 - King Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he came to the throne.

Twenty-two does not equal forty-two. One or both is wrong.

rossum

Don’t be afraid Branski, I’m not.

Personally, I feel sorry for the OP who asked a valid question about a specific Catholic doctrine. :sad_yes:

The obvious answer is “No”.:yup:

grannymh - I don’t exatly see what doctrine he referenced but you are obviously a wise woman.

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.