Also, I think that religion is more of a theory. Evolution is and it has more factual evidence to support it. Does that seem a bit…odd?
Also, I think that religion is more of a theory. Evolution is and it has more factual evidence to support it. Does that seem a bit…odd?
Evolution is completely ridiculous, however, for the sake of argument, ask him, even if evolution is true, say: “how was life created?” If the universe was created from a ball of mass, then how were the firm unicellular organisms created? These living organisms could not possibly come from something that is not living. That is completely contrary to the most basic biology. So, how did life come about? He must at least admit a Being (God) created the first unicellular organism, which grew into humans, or whatever the latest theory for the absurd idea of evolution is.
I do not reqally understand your question as this pope has stated that it is permissible to believe in either evolution or the original creation story.
The problem with evolution is that it denies we were created by a supernatural being called God. That we were never created in his image, but developed from a lower life form, through many processes, until we became homo sapiens.It is a rejection of the Judeo-Christian beliefs entirely.
[quote=gladtobe]The problem with evolution is that it denies we were created by a supernatural being called God. That we were never created in his image, but developed from a lower life form, through many processes, until we became homo sapiens.It is a rejection of the Judeo-Christian beliefs entirely.
I would expect that your explanation would only apply to some who hold that God either does not exist or did not have a hand in how things were created and evolved.
The church says:
"…Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: “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, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn’t necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn’t reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996?
He said that evolution, so far as it concerns man’s bodily origins, is really a theological non-issue. With certain qualifications such as God’s ultimate role in man’s creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man’s inherent dignity as a person, the theory of evolution needn’t be seen as contrary to Christian revelation. So we’re really back to Pius XII with one proviso.
John Paul II’s Assumption
John Paul II apparently accepts the idea widely (but not universally) held among biologists that the scientific evidence corroborates evolution. But that hardly amounts to a papal “endorsement” of Darwin. John Paul II would be the first to admit that, when it comes to science, he’s a layman. Only when a scientific hypothesis or theory impinges on theological matters does he have any special authority regarding science.
In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly stated that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” At first, some critics of evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated into English here. What he really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English language edition of the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, seemed to concur, until a corrected translation was published. John Paul II did say evolution was “more than a hypothesis,” according to the paper.
In any event, it seems clear that the pope thinks evolution is supported, at least to some extent, by the evidence. Noting various discoveries and evolution’s progressive acceptance by “researchers,” he concluded, “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.”
"…Perhaps John Paul II was making a subtle distinction, sometimes made by philosophers of science, between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis, on this view, is simply a possible explanation of a phenomenon; a theory is an explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and research. The pope appears to think there’s evidence to support evolution, hence it is “more than a hypothesis.”
Catholics and Evolution
Must faithful Catholics accept evolution as true? No, but they may accept it, with the proper theological qualifications in place, without contradicting their faith. Whether man’s body actually evolved from a subhuman species isn’t, as such, a theological issue even if, indirectly, it may have some theological implications; it is mainly a question of scientific evidence. Perhaps John Paul agrees with those who think the scientific evidence supports evolution. But Catholics, as Catholics, are not obliged to hold that scientific assessment. …"
I understand what Pope John Paul said, but are we to accept what the scripture in Genesis 2:7 says or the words of an ecumenical Pope? Genesis 2:7 clearly says that God himself took the dirt from the ground forming man, and then breathing into the man, the breath of lives, thus creating a living soul. Nothing in this passage even suggests evolution, but rather a direct creation by God himself.
[quote=gladtobe]I understand what Pope John Paul said, but are we to accept what the scripture in Genesis 2:7 says or the words of an ecumenical Pope? Genesis 2:7 clearly says that God himself took the dirt from the ground forming man, and then breathing into the man, the breath of lives, thus creating a living soul. Nothing in this passage even suggests evolution, but rather a direct creation by God himself.
I fail to see what ecumenism has to do with evolution? Pius XII was certainly not very expressive regarding ecumenism. Ecumenism deals with trhe relationships between those of the Christian faith - among those groups are those who believe in evolution and those who do not. So in all candor, I do not understand your correlation.
I believe the Genesis passage could be cited as being taken in more than one way:
Literal: apparently as you choose to cite it
Metaphorical: The dust of the ground could be the matter of the universe - creating a life form which once God breathed life into it would evolve as time passed.
Poetic: A way of expressing creation as directed by God in a way which we do not yet fully comprehend nor understand but are still learning about.
While I personally believe in direct creation, I have Catholic acquaintances and writers and apologists who believe in evolution. I do not consider them any less Catholic than myself. And again, some of them are ecumenical and some are not.
I suggest that we can look at the line where He created the heavens (of which Paul said there are 7) and the earth. Were there already dying stars when God creates the heavens? Did the cosmos look like it does today? Were all the planets aligned as we know them? (When Mars turns red appears to be somewhat much later). I believe that Scripture uses many methods to tell us the story of God and man. I also believe it takes as much of an act of faith to believe in evolution as it does in direct creation. I do not consider, as apparently Pius XII felt, that theologically it bothers me - the main thing we know is that man is composed of more than his body, and has a soul. The ancients expressed themelves as best they could looking at the universe around them.
I stated my position and for the record Pope John Paul was very ecumenical with religions and science.
Do not let anyone fool you, Pius XII or JPII did speak about evolution, but they did not speak about the evolution of MAN. Why? Because it has already declared before them, that man did not evolve.
Pope Pelagius I:
“For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man [cf. Gen. 2:7, 22].”
Pope Leo XIII:
“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
Council of Cologne:
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”
"Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God… who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.
[quote=EENS] Evolution is completely ridiculous
Say what?!?!?! :eek:
One of the most proven scientific facts around is "ridiculous?
Stuff and nonsense!
[quote=EENS], however, for the sake of argument, ask him, even if evolution is true, say: “how was life created?” If the universe was created from a ball of mass, then how were the firm unicellular organisms created?
By the process of evolution of course
BTW the universe started with a ball of energy not mass
[quote=EENS]These living organisms could not possibly come from something that is not living. That is completely contrary to the most basic biology.
No it’s not
Humans have been making self replicating organic molecules in the laboratory for 50 years!
What biology books have you been reading?
Carbon; which is essential for organic life (by definition) is a by product of fusion reactions in first generation stars
As are all the heavier elements
A lot of “not living” stuff had to happen before organic chemistry could begin
[quote=EENS]So, how did life come about?
The mechanism was evolution
[quote=EENS]He must at least admit a Being (God) created the first unicellular organism,
There was life well before there were unicellular organisms
Viruses for example
People ask “how did an amoeba arise from nothing?” miss the point that an amoeba is actually a highly developed life form
Life was very primitive for a loooong time before it took off
[quote=EENS] which grew into humans, or whatever the latest theory for the absurd idea of evolution is.
Get thee to a text book!
And whether some believe God did it or not, the mechanism He used was evolution
I have a hard time believing that you have a problem wwith evolution and religion.
If you are Roman Catholic you’ll be relieved to hear this. Rome has said that God created everything. How He did it is not important. That’s straight from Rome.
Your theories of evolution have nothing, zero and nada to do with The Holy Mother Church.
As St. Augustine said many years ago, “Don’t worry about it”.
This was written about 6 years ago, and it’s not a detailed look at evolution, but it’s not bad nonetheless. Do you have a specific question about evolution, rather than “how to refute it”?
Although there is evidence for micro-evolution (small changes in a given species) there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, or evolution as it has been preached to us by the ‘scientific’ community. Evolution is a pseudoscientific MYTH. They continue to preach it and won’t give it up because to do so would mean having to admit the existence of a Creator God.
[quote=romano]Although there is evidence for micro-evolution (small changes in a given species) there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, or evolution as it has been preached to us by the ‘scientific’ community.
This is simply not true. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. You may choose to believe the evidence has been wrongly interpreted, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I happen to believe OJ was guilty, but that doesn’t mean there is no evidence of his innocence.
[quote=romano]They continue to preach it and won’t give it up because to do so would mean having to admit the existence of a Creator God.
I freely admit the existence of a Creator God, so perhaps you can supply another reason why I’m so pig-headed.
Much that is said in OT is a message to people conveyed in a manner that they can understand using references to things that are familiar to them.
Explaining to copper age man that Adam was created out of a primordial soup mix consisting of a combination of chemicals that happened to merge to create a microscopic beginning to life in general, etc,etc would have not been understood.
Sum up the entire process and call this new material mud, which is also correct, then we have understanding.
This is my way of understanding it, the message is that God created Adam in His image… eventually.
As an embryo forming in an egg in a short time, man evolved into his present form over a vast expanse of time. ie: Lemur,Austraopithecus,HomoHabilis,Cro Magnon(probably close to biblical Adam), etc.
Even as we speak, the process to forming a person goes through a form of speed up of evolution in fast forward. From DNA separation at conception, to zygot, to embryo, the process is repeated. So evolution repeats itself for each of us even today.
Evolution is not per se inconsistent witch Christianity. Genesis doesn’t have to be interpreted literally as to translate a Genesis day as a twenty four hour day we know now. Go to Afghanistan and talk genetics and paleobiology with a tribe of shepherds. Now imagine those same shepherds 3000 years ago. Before you shout “blasphemer!”, recall that some time ago they would call you so for suggesting that Earth might not have been 5000 years old.
Evolution is only inconsistent with Christianity when it specifically excludes God’s involvement. What does it matter, 5700 or 6 billion, or whatever? Just how exactly does evolution deny the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross? The point of Genesis is not to deny scientific facts that are proved, so long as they are proved. Evolution is far from perfectly proved and the theory is adhered to by many people after the manner of a religious faith. If they can believe in evolution, why not in God, or even literal seven day creationism? The problem is they are making up yet another faith, a secular religion, and feeding it to people on the wave of the liberal laicisation which tends to be seen as the pinnacle of human philosophy.
[quote=Steve Andersen]One of the most proven scientific facts around is "ridiculous?
Would you please clarify, for me, what you are actually saying? How can a scientific fact be more proven than any other scientific fact? In 1906, the New York Times made similar wild assertions claiming “evolution is now taught in the textbooks of all
schools” and evolution “is no more debatable than the multiplication table”.
[quote=Steve Andersen]Humans have been making self replicating organic molecules in the laboratory for 50 years!
Oh really!?! We can now manufacture DNA (and have been for the last 50 years)! Get real, the Jurassic Park movie was not a documentary, it was fiction.
[quote=Steve Andersen]There was life well before there were unicellular organisms
Viruses for example
Dude, just use some common sense. What were the hosts for these viruses if there were not even unicellular organisms? Other viruses?
[quote=Steve Andersen]Get thee to a text book!
Yes, fine. But before you read the textbook, you will need to throw away your faith. From [font=Arial]Lateran VI:
“Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God… who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.”[/font]
[font=Arial]And from the Council of Cologne:
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”[/font]
The big reason why evolution is incompatible with Christianity is that however you take the Genesis account, even if poetic or mythical (I do not, I take it as historical record) is that it says God pronounced His creation as ‘good.’
Evolution to work requires death, suffering, survival fo the fittest etc. Genesis tells us that God created a paradise initially and death and suffering were intruders brought about by original sin. So those who accept evolution have to accept the idea that God intended for death and sufferring to be a part of the world from the very beginning, as well this would also cause conflict with the Crucifixion of Christ, the last Adam who is supposed to free us from death, one would wonder why bother if that was good from the beginning.
Atheists who believe in evolution reject Christ based on this, and it is a solid enough reason for their rejection of Christianity if not some creator God. Nothing’s going to happen to you if you are Christian and believe in evolution, you will still get through life okay. However for those in the scrutinizing study of Scripture and theology, you’re going to encounter problems in trying to compromise the two worldviews. Jesus Christ stood up for the authority of Scripture, and that’s a good enough reason for me to trust the Old Testament.
Macro-evolution is a well thought up naturalistic explanation of origins, but speculative none the less. Science cannot go back in time to repeat the process. However there’s enough solid science to support biblical special creation as well. If you have the time, examine them both and decide for yourself which one is a better model for the world as we observe it.
Read these two short articles to see some amazing symbology between Genesis and Christ, and browse those sites to learn more (these are Christian sites, not Catholic, but you won’t find any of those issues brought up there, their focus is of course on creation itself):
If you want to find pro-evolution articles try www.talkorigins.org
[***Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. Associate Professor of Theology,***]("http://www.kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.html") ***[Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico]("http://www.kolbecenter.org/harrison.eve.html")***