Author Topic: Evolution (Read 20761 times)

InfiniteFaith · « **on:** September 24, 2011, 03:53:13 PM »

Does Evolution conflict with Traditionalism in the Catholic Church?

According to Wikipedia, Pope John Paul II's Catechism promoted Evolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2011, 03:57:27 PM »

Then that would make JPII a heretic and the Catechism is in heresy.

The Church has always taught that God created all things. The evidence for creation is very strong, while the evidence for evolution is little to none.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2011, 04:05:47 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Then that would make JPII a heretic and the Catechism is in heresy.

The Church has always taught that God created all things. The evidence for creation is very strong, while the evidence for evolution is little to none.

I was just asking

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2011, 04:12:57 PM »

I know that, but why did you thumb down my post? If you don't want people to give their honest responses, don't ask any questions.

twiceborn · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2011, 04:29:18 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

The Church has always taught that God created all things. The evidence for creation is very strong, while the evidence for evolution is little to none.

Well, to be clear, that God created all things (as Vatican I states) does not says anything about the means by which he created them. So this fact alone does not excludes evolution.

Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis allowed a certain freedom of discussion with regards to this question and didn't think it impossible that man, as regards to his body, may have come from pre-existing and living matter. So the idea of evolution per se is not necessarily opposed to the faith. Some forms of it be them theological or scientific may indeed be inconsistent with the faith, but not necessarily all.

Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., who helped draft Humani Generis and is clearly no modernist, saw no incompatibility between the faith and what he termed "moderate transformism", which he described thus:

The Trinity and God the creator, Chapter 37
"Moderate transformism holds that matter is not uncaused but is created by God, that it is not eternal, that the first living beings were created by God, and that God intervened in a special way to produce sensitive life, in the formation of the human body and in the creation of the spiritual soul. This moderate transformism refers to the production of various species of plants and animals which derive by successive transformations from the first living beings. Some of those who hold a moderate transformism think that all plants and animals come from different species created by God; others think that all plants came from one species and all animals came from one species of animal. Those who support the theory of transformism are not agreed on the definition of species; what one calls species another may call a variation."

[...]"This theory does not oppose the teaching of faith. The words of Genesis ("And God said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind") show that there was some difference among the species that God created, but they do not assert that all species were immediately created by God. St. Thomas himself said: "If certain new species should appear, these have existed previously in certain active forces; in this way what is generated by animal putrefaction is produced by the power of the stars and the elements," that is, "by the power of the mover (of the stars), which is a living substance."[1264] Thus St. Thomas maintains inviolate the principle of causality, according to which the more perfect cannot be produced by a less perfect being as a fully sufficient cause."

So it is possible for a Catholic to embrace evolution in a way that is not opposed to the teachings of the faith.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2011, 04:42:30 PM »

I never said that was the only thing against evolution. There is actually a ton of evidence out there against it. For instance, evolutionists believe species "compete" with one another for survival. Mutualism (I think that's what it's called), however, shows that many species help each other to survive. So that definitely contradicts what macroevolution teaches. There's alot of other stuff out there about it, but that's all I'll say for now. I might post more about it later.

twiceborn · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2011, 04:55:28 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I never said that was the only thing against evolution. There is actually a ton of evidence out there against it. For instance, evolutionists believe species "compete" with one another for survival. Mutualism (I think that's what it's called), however, shows that many species help each other to survive. So that definitely contradicts what macroevolution teaches. There's alot of other stuff out there about it, but that's all I'll say for now. I might post more about it later.

Ok, but let's try and keep the following two things separate:

1) The theological question: Wether evolution is necessarily oppposed to the faith

2) The scientific quesiton: Wether evolution is unsupported or contradicted by the scientific evidence.

The first question is to be answered in the negative, as I pointed out in my previous post. Now, that evolution is not necessarily opposed to the faith does not means that it is true, or that young earth creationism is an invalid thesis which Catholics may not embrace.

The second question may indeed be discussed and there are various arguments for or against it. If you would like to discuss some of the things you mention we may, if you want, even though I am by no means an expert in evolution.

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:12:23 PM »

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

twiceborn · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:18:37 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

:thinking:

LordPhan · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:22:50 PM »

I pointed you to a scienfitic website that debunks Evolution with Science run by a person who helped build the USA's Missles back in the 70's. He now runs this non-profit organisation to prove evolution has no scientific basis.

I have no idea what that site you pointed me to is.

LordPhan · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:31:41 PM »

I would also like to point out that evolution is a false religion that is taught to destroy the faith of the one true church. They renamed the 5000 year old science of Husbandry to 'Micro-Evolution' so as to convince people that 'Macro-Evolution' would be true. The fact is Husbandry is the loss of information through inbreeding, how one would get a chihuahua from a wolf after constant inbreeding between relatives who shared common traits etc. "Macro-Evolution" is the belief that everything came about randomly, it's belief is that information could randomly appear turning a fish into a duck etc.

The basis of Evolution theory is that there is no God. They theory you are infering is called Intelligent Design which the Evolutionist religion refuses to teach in schools. That theory believes that God created things over time.

Creationism is the belief that God created everything at once, that is the Catholic Belief. Anything else is heresy.

The Evolutionists confuse people by telling you they 'dated rocks' which is untrue they dated Rock Formations, how does one date a rock formation? By what is in it. You cannot date a rock because no matter which of the three theories above you belief in all rocks are the same age. The Formation is dated thusly. You find a sword, that sword has the inscription William I of England on it. That means that the formation must be from 1066 or later. That is how a historian(real science) dates something. What they do however is decide based on their theory that Dinosaurs are millions of years old, they then tell you that the rock formation is millions of years old because the Rock contained a Dinosaur bone, you then believe that the Dinosaur bone is millions of years old because the rock was said to be millions of years old but the whole thing is circular reasoning and false.

LordPhan · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:37:08 PM »

When the Conquistadors brought home plunder from the America's they included some Vases that had on them images that very closely resemble Steggosaurus... I guess the Evolutionists believe the Inca's were Time Travellers, an Evolutionist sent someone to Africa to find the missing link, he found a pig nose claimed it was the missing link and had an artist draw a portait of a half man half monkey claiming that he had discovered it based on this bone. Years later after he made his millions it was discovered that it was just a pig nose.

An Evolutionist discovered some fish fossils, he claimed they showed legs, they had a big tado about how it was the fish that walked on land, then one of the natives said oh that fish is delicious we eat them all the time. Everyone was laughing at him of course till he brought them to a lake outside his village where in fact there were millions of said fish, they had no legs just weird looking fins.

I can go on and on, but I have no time really.

Caraffa · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2011, 05:42:54 PM »

Cardinal Wiseman: "We cannot shut our eyes to the aim or tendency of modem science which is to demand, not equality, but supremacy; not a fair balance, but a loaded scale, whenever it seems to come into competition with the claims of revelation. The moment the two seem to contend, in disagreement, for the belief of man, science at once exacts that all else should give way; and, unfortunately, too many yield at once, and surrender at discretion. The stump of a fossil tree, the bones of an extinct animal, a broken skull found in some inexplicable place, but requiring a solution equally from our assailants; nay, a potsherd, a sea-shell, the piles of a lake-village, the rudiments of stone instruments, all things—anything is heavy enough to turn the scale in favor of what is called reason. And we are ridiculed as fearing or opposed to science, as narrow-minded and hoodwinked bigots, for not at once adopting this confused mass of immature geognosy, and sacrificing, in honor of our acceptance, whatsoever has been to us venerable, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely. No, if science, as now read by too many, says true, there was no time when God could have created man; no moment in which He could have impressed on him His own divine image. The human race, according to this version, springs from some scarcely organized rudiment of matter, which gradually went on, through millions of ages, unfolding its means and powers of life, till, having passed through various brutish improvements, it reached the stage of existence which immediately preceded the human, providing for our inheritance—for the man the matured intelligence, for the woman the ripened graces, of the ape or the baboon. God help us! that many should have allowed themselves to accept such an origin, while a whole host of proofs assigns to us that of revelation, makes man the bonding link between unthinking matter and the breath of God, which made him sentient, reasoning, moral, and imperishable. Nay, which made him Godlike, and almost God." -- Round Table, p. 6, June 18, 1864.

Caraffa · « **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2011, 07:15:22 PM »

Quote from: twiceborn

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
The Church has always taught that God created all things. The evidence for creation is very strong, while the evidence for evolution is little to none.

Well, to be clear, that God created all things (as Vatican I states) does not says anything about the means by which he created them. So this fact alone does not excludes evolution.

Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis allowed a certain freedom of discussion with regards to this question and didn't think it impossible that man, as regards to his body, may have come from pre-existing and living matter. So the idea of evolution per se is not necessarily opposed to the faith. Some forms of it be them theological or scientific may indeed be inconsistent with the faith, but not necessarily all.

The fact that theistic evolution was promoted by Modernists, Neo-Modernists, and Americanists, ought to make any Traditional Catholic stay away from such an idea. To quote Cardinal Wiseman again, "It is revolting to think that our noble nature should be nothing more than the perfecting of the ape's maliciousness..." For all the Neo-Catholics who promote the Theology of the Body, I find it ironic they would hold to such a theory in theistic evolution that is quite degrading to man's body. To say that man's body evolved, but that that his soul did not, is repackaged dualism.

Quote

Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., who helped draft Humani Generis and is clearly no modernist, saw no incompatibility between the faith and what he termed "moderate transformism", which he described thus:

It's not clear what parts of Humani Generis Fr. Lagrange helped to draft. Pius XII was also influenced by Fr. Bea as well. I should also note that just because someone was opposed to modernism in term as a whole does not neccasirily mean that the had all their anti-modernist ducks in a row at all times.

Quote

The Trinity and God the creator, Chapter 37
"Moderate transformism holds that matter is not uncaused but is created by God, that it is not eternal, that the first living beings were created by God, and that God intervened in a special way to produce sensitive life, in the formation of the human body and in the creation of the spiritual soul. This moderate transformism refers to the production of various species of plants and animals which derive by successive transformations from the first living beings. Some of those who hold a moderate transformism think that all plants and animals come from different species created by God; others think that all plants came from one species and all animals came from one species of animal. Those who support the theory of transformism are not agreed on the definition of species; what one calls species another may call a variation."

[...]"This theory does not oppose the teaching of faith. The words of Genesis ("And God said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind") show that there was some difference among the species that God created, but they do not assert that all species were immediately created by God. St. Thomas himself said: "If certain new species should appear, these have existed previously in certain active forces; in this way what is generated by animal putrefaction is produced by the power of the stars and the elements," that is, "by the power of the mover (of the stars), which is a living substance."[1264] Thus St. Thomas maintains inviolate the principle of causality, according to which the more perfect cannot be produced by a less perfect being as a fully sufficient cause."

I'm not so sure that Fr. Lagrange is talking about macro-evolution here. When he talks about moderate transformism, it sounds more like micro-evolution.

Quote

So it is possible for a Catholic to embrace evolution in a way that is not opposed to the teachings of the faith.

I would disagree for the most part; that is only if a Catholic would do so mistakenly.

twiceborn · « **Reply #14 on:** September 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

The fact that theistic evolution was promoted by Modernists, Neo-Modernists, and Americanists, ought to make any Traditional Catholic stay away from such an idea.

I do have my own reasons along similar lines for doubting evolution, for instance, why did God give it to Darwin, a non-Catholic who repudiated his faith, to discover the means by which he created? Why not to any of the saints and doctors of his Church? How come that evolution, if it is the means by which God created, can turn people away from the faith and embolden the atheists in their position? But just because theistic evolution was promoted by Modernists does not means it is false or incompatible with the faith any more than the fact that Averroes promoted Aristotle meant for St. Thomas that the teachings of Aristotle were false or incompatible with the faith.

Quote

To say that man's body evolved, but that that his soul did not, is repackaged dualism.

That would depend on how you understand the idea of man's body evolving from pre-existing and living matter. Obviously human nature is a composite of both body and soul, it is not body or soul only that makes up human nature but both. This being so, it is clear that a human body could not have evolved, but a non-human one which gradually attained a state in which it had the apt disposition for the operations of the rational soul it was to receive from God. Given that the rational soul is the one substantial form of the human body, the human would have been made immediately by God at the exact moment when this non-human body was bestowed with a rational soul.

Quote

It's not clear what parts of Humani Generis Fr. Lagrange helped to draft. Pius XII was also influenced by Fr. Bea as well. I should also note that just because someone was opposed to modernism in term as a whole does not neccasirily mean that the had all their anti-modernist ducks in a row at all times.

I really don't see how this is relevant, the simple fact is that Pope Pius XII expressed that evolution and the faith are not necessarily opposed and Lagrange, whichever parts of Humani Generis he helped draft, stated the same. You wish to say they fell into modernism in so far as they entertained the idea of evolution being compatible with the faith, well…ok…you may think so. But Catholics who don't aren't going against the faith.

Quote

I'm not so sure that Fr. Lagrange is talking about macro-evolution here. When he talks about moderate transformism, it sounds more like micro-evolution.

He is talking about evolution of one species to another, namely, macro-evolution. As he says, the moderate transformists "do not assert that all species were immediately created by God", so species emerged from other species.

Quote

I would disagree for the most part; that is only if a Catholic would do so mistakenly.

Well, you are free to think so, but the Catholic who chooses to embrace evolution is not necessarily opposing the teachings of The Church.