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


The Church does not speak dogmatically about evolution specifically. The Church does address the relationship between faith and reason.
The Church encourages freedom of thought, the Church does not grant license to ignorance.
Ignorance of science is not freedom of thought.


The ignorance argument is a deflection. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII makes the correct statements about false ideas entering into the minds of theologians. He writes a number of other warnings about this or that approach to Scripture.

“5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”

“10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.”


I’ll also point out that it’s the same encyclical where he says Catholics are allowed to accept the science of evolution.


Ed, do you see the word “some” in there?

Are you able to recognize and make fine distinctions between individual cases and universals? That’s an important cognitive skill.


I have read many NDE of people seeing their pets or that of a relatives pet in Heaven.There are many secrets about Heaven that we don’t know .


I gave the Scripture in the posts above. The Church teaches that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. His sins were his sins alone, our sins are our sins alone. So why would that be any different from the sin of the first human? The tree which according to the story he ate from was the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. In other words he was given a conscience. The “Original Sin” was not his disobedience in eating from that tree. According to the story he had no knowledge that disobeying God was evil, and knowledge is necessary for sin. The first sin came later when with full knowledge he tried to blame Eve for what he did. My point is though that what made him fully human was his conscience which gave him the ability to sin. So we did not inherit his sin. We inherited his ability to commit sin. So yes, through “Adam” sin did come into the world.

I do not accept that it was death itself that came as a result of sin. Pre-humans certainly died, but without a conscience they were still animistic and didn’t think of such matters. They only lived by the status quo, whatever that was at the present minute. What they gained from the conscience is an awareness of that death would come. So yes, awareness of death spread to everyone, and yes everyone has sinned.

If my thoughts here are logically correct and we inherited the ability to commit sin rather than the sin itself then Mary, even though she may have been without sin both before and after Jesus was born, she did possess the ability to sin. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in my mind mental gymnastics to try to work around the concept of Original Sin being a black mark on the soul and Mary giving birth to Christ. And so the concept of the Immaculate Conception was born even though it is not Scriptural. But if we are born not with the sin but with the ability to commit sin that whole concept of inheriting a black mark simply vanishes. We are all born good. It is arguable that Jesus Himself had the ability to commit sin but He always chose to do the will of God. He showed that His personal will differed from that of God when He prayed in the garden that His task be removed from Him. He was in such throes of anguish that He sweat blood! But again He gave Himself over to the will of God. If He did not have the ability to say “No” to what was to happen to Him then His suffering and death were the result of programming, not choice. And as a result His actions would NOT have been a sacrifice. This is why I am confident that He had to have the ability to commit sin but did not. If He had the ability to commit sin then so did Mary.




That’s as nonsensical as blaming Pythagorus if someone used his theorum to build a scaffold.


Yes, the world would be a much happier place if people could distinguish between individuals and universals.


I suppose you mean Pythagoras but we’ve come to expect as little.

Critical thinkers see through the bunk. Get off the stilts and do some thinking instead of just drinking the Kool Aid. And catch up on your reading:

“The leading anthropologist Eugen Fischer and the geneticist Fritz Lenz, both influential figures in racial science during the Nazi period, embraced both Gobineau and Darwinism. Hans-Walter Schmuhl perceptively notes that despite some contradictions between Gobineau’s racism and social Darwinism, “Nonetheless toward the end of the nineteenth century formulations of Gobineauism and social Darwin- ism blended into syncretistic racial theories.” 16 Some leading antisemitic thinkers in early twentieth-century Germany, such as Theodor Fritsch and Willibald Hentschel, incorporated Darwinism into antisemitic ideology. 17 Thus, many Nazi racial theorists interpreted the opposition between the Nordic and Jewish race as an episode in the Darwinian struggle for existence.”
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, Richard Weikart


Well, as frequently happens, they perverted knowledge for evil purposes and they were wrong about their proposals and conclusions.
And at the same time…(key phrase for coherent thought) evolution of species is still well established scientific fact, and the Catholic Church is open to this legitimate scientific inquiry, and accepts the evolution of species as “more than an hypothesis” (St John Paul 2).


That’s as risible an argument against evolution as this is against Christianity:

‘Positive Christianity also rejected what it called “Jewish materialism", which gave an obvious [anti-Semite] slant to it. Rosenberg believed that Christ had actively fought against the “institutionalised Judaism" of the day and that this alone was enough to support why Positive Christianity should be anti-Semite. Rosenberg believed that Christ was an Aryan hero.’ https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/positive-christianity/

I guess that could be entitled: ‘The Role of Christianity in Nazi Racial Thought’.


That’s really getting into another topic. Again, I’ll recommend looking at the Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin and how it relates to Mary ( here’s a useful link: https://melkite.org/tag/conception-of-the-theotokos ) I’d also recommend Tim Staples’ book Behold Your Mother. It has two chapters on The Immaculate Conception (from the Latin view.) If you make a new thread, please mention me as I think this is an interesting discussion overall, but I don’t want to hijack this thread.


I watched a German newsreel from the period. A sub-human was seated in a chair. Two scientists were measuring his head with calipers. Since this man lacked (or had) certain cranial/facial features, they were showing the average person the difference between a human and a sub-human. Ghastly.


I’ll just say that your interpretation is extremely narrow.


In that encyclical, Catholics are told polygenism is not acceptable.


I prefer the explanations offered by the Church.


Don’t quote a fragment of what Pope John Paul II said:

“And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.”

The final judgment is held by theology.


“scientific fact” What use is it?


Rather, that it was in no way apparent how polygenism could be reconciled. With changes in the theory of evolution in regards to man, we’re now seeing ways that polygenism can be reconciled which were in no way apparent to Pope Pius XII due to his lacking knowledge of the scientific developments since then. And thr kind of polygenism proposed during his day is indeed still not reconcilable with Catholic theology. But the polygenism we see today is a different beast and priests like Fr. Spitzer and Dr. Austriaco can find ways to reconcile.

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.