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


You have obviously put in a lot of effort trying to express your belief in evolution using a Christian metaphor.

While the phrase above expresses an idea, it lacks precise meaning. Obviously, “man” did not actively develop a conscience. He would have been a passive recipient of a “conscience”. The word to me represents our internal dialogue with God, the Good, Love. As such it usually involves His reaching out to us, as He did in the story of Cain. That relationship must pre-exist, which is to say that there needs be an aspect of our soul that includes free will and the capacity to know. We cannot be instinctive creatures, perceiving, understanding and behaving in a preset, determined fashion. So, the suggestion that we may have chosen to have a conscience runs into trouble because it presupposes that a conscience must already exist. There could be no warning not to eat it because we eat what we would have been programmed to eat.

Let’s assume that animals were given spiritual souls à la Aslan in Narnia, where he creates that world giving speech and reason to pairs of animals. This would involve a transformation of a primitive purely material soul into an eternal one. As the core reality of what anything is, I don’t see how it is possible for one soul to become another. It would be like you becoming me. If we consider an embryo or zygote as simply a collection of cells, it could be that a soul is bestowed on them, created as it were using living matter. The genetics and associated processes may have been tweaked to produce a larger brain. Alternatively, the desire of greater intellectual capacity may have driven ape-like creatures to instinctively prefer mates with characteristics that approximated that eventual ideal. Again, the mass of cells arising from a specific couple could have been ensouled with the spirit, the breath of God. The way I see things, what exists does so as a unity. Each kind of living being is capable through God’s gift of life, to reproduce itself; there is no actual ensoulment after the first and animal forebears mankind would produced animal offspring from the embryonic stage onwards. The bottom line is that it boils down to a belief, which if true, would have been stated in Genesis.

I don’t understand what exactly the Pope was talking about stating that mankind could have been created using living matter. It sounds like he is trying to reach a compromise, accepting that it is not necessarily idolatry, worshipping the world as creator of mankind, to believe in evolution. Those who accept it blindly are in a different position than those who advocate for it however, and the latter should reflect on how their beliefs may conflict with those of the church.


I was not addressing you. Your quote was part of the context.


As you have used the term “specie” as a category, a definition particular to one case is too restrictive to have any meaning. Please give us your general definition of “specie”.


Of course, you know that the above is the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. Please try again,


Odd isn’t it, that fundamentalists and atheists alike insist on materialism as proof of a thing, rather than trusting others who participate in common-sense endeavors and find consensus. Consensus is not materialist proof, of course, but when the Church is trusting of these relationships with science and scientists, we should think about that, rather than resort to materialism, as you do above.


Want to run that by me again? The point is one of a logical fallacy offered as argument.


Oh good lord… The standard of evidence/proof particularly concerning qualitative issues, is formed by consensus whether you like that or not.

What is your argument beyond a textbook a-priori?


See Vonsalza above.
What you are doing is akin to demanding evidence the earth is round.
"I don’t believe it, and I can’t see it. You must prove it, or your assertion the earth is round is fallacious. "
We trust consensus literally all the time. The Church trusts consensus. What you consider fallacious is simply a matter of common sense trust of those around us.
Your line of thinking is the same trap that atheism falls into.


Astute observation.

Devout creationists and flat-earthers share a lot of rhetorical similarities.


You might check out “speciation” and links, as I believe I mentioned before, plus I really don’t have the time to do all what would be necessary to find the answers to the questions you ask. Maybe use google to do as such because there’s lots of information on this in books, magazines, and especially the internet.


Actually it’s highly unlikely that everything would be dead even after a full blown nuclear war, heaven forbid.


Well, I was right with him all the way up until the last sentence…

Which I think implies that as so many people believe in God, then He must exist. Now if all of you believed the same thing that might ring true. In fact, I have said pretty much the same thing on previous ocassions.

But the point originally made stands. And has been made many times - that those with fundamentalist views are only waving their arms about because…they have fundamentalist views.

Their God is not your God or goout’s God or Wiley’s. Their God is a small God. The one I learned about in Sunday School when we coloured in pictures of talking snakes and fig leaves and made felt animals two by two.


And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

A thing is not true by force of popular assertion. That is not what is being said.
Consensus is not trusted in a vacuum, consensus can be trusted as part of an integrated whole. You can evaluate the integrity of thought in that consensus, and you can also evaluate the personal and communal integrity of that consensus.

Again, I’ve never been to the moon, but I trust the consensus that it has a dark side I can’t see. I trust those who have done the research, and I also trust the thoughtful evidence. I don’t trust either in a vacuum.


And anyway, you should be in the taverna.


A mistake so many make is that they believe that the basic ToE somehow negates creation, which is simply not true, plus the Church recognizes that both options are viable.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that evolution was not compatible with the Bible, and my first exposure to the fact that the creation accounts can be taken in a way different from that of literalism came from a Catholic priest I ran into at a bowling alley when I was 16. I eventually left that church and converted to Catholicism, but not until about 15 years later.

To me, any religion or denomination that teaches an anti-science agenda should be regarded as being bogus since such basic facts cannot and show not be denied, and the basic concept of evolution has been well established, thus leaving us only the details to be debated.


Well I agree with everything except the first sentence now.

Everything you said (apart from that) is perfectly correct. Unless we have very many years of specific education and access to an enormous amount of information that Joe Public doesn’t have - or would know what to do with if he did, we generally accept, and should accept, expert opinion.

If there is dissent in the ranks then we can examine the pros and cons as best we can. And as far as those proposing ID and the likes of the Discovery Institute, you don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see their agenda. In fact, if you want to look it up, the Discovery Institute actually tells you what their’s is. The only point needing to be mentioned is that those on this tbread who support those type of views will not admit to that.

And atheists can’t object to something in which they don’t believe. That would be silly.


Good lord. Is that the time?


Erm… “specie” is money in metallic form, as coins. For biological “species” see Biological species concept

What does this have to do with your rejection of my two examples of speciation? My earlier definition was sufficient since I was talking about metazoa.



This is all very strange. Relying on religious leaders to support a theory means the theory cannot stand on its own weight. This is clearly a case of attempting to convince Catholics that we need to view accounts of human creation, the Fall and related events as pure symbolism. Pope Pius XII addressed that line of thought in Humani Generis. Catholics need to remember why Jesus Christ was born. The fake ‘God just dropped souls into two random almost humans’ needs to be exposed as being without scientific support. In other words, that idea is being presented as literal - it actually happened, while the rest is being presented as symbolic.


Now you are arguing theology and using science to try to make your point. Whereas you usually try to use theology to deny science.

I’m not sure if this is satire or just ironic. Nah - I’m going ironic. You’d have to know what you were doing to make it satirical.

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.