How does evolution and the Pope making it unchanging in Faith work?

[Searching4God]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

 

[exchemist]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

Catholic interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis is that they are allegories that express truth about God, Man and the relationships between God, Man and the rest of creation, but which are not to be read literally.

There is a concise definition of allegory here: Definition of ALLEGORY

The Catholic Church has no difficulty accepting the science of evolution.

 

[Brickjectivity]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

The way to parse what is or isn't literal is you start with what is called 'Torah'. That is, there is actually a law encoded there in the texts, and everything in the texts is usually discussing those or aspects of them. Its more of a dialogue, and its intended to make you think about the laws and the principles behind them. Its also a connector to connect people living in different times, and I do think that is intentional.

So if you are interested in working out what is literal you have to start with trying to follow what the Torah instructs and think of everything else as supporting material.

 

[Regiomontanus]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

Hello. Here is a view on the matter, one that makes sense to me:

The BioLogos Foundation - Wikipedia

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

 

[PureX]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

Those are really big questions that are ultimately going to have to be answered, individually. But the start of those answers is to understand that the bible is not a history book. Nor is it a scientific proposition. It's a collection of religious stories created and intended to convey theist ideology to succeeding generations. So there is no reason for anyone to presume that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis should be presumed factual, or in any way anti-scientific. It is a MYTHOLOGICAL story. And mythology has a specific function and intent that has nothing to do with historical or scientific factuality. And so it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, one way or another. Genesis neither supports nor disclaims evolution. The two realms of thought simply have nothing to do with each other.

And once we understand this, the whole "issue" dissolves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic Church has no difficulty accepting the science of evolution.

... except for polygenism, which is a critical part of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Genesis neither supports nor disclaims evolution. The two realms of thought simply have nothing to do with each other.

We first have to read Genesis and actually understand its statements. It argues against 'accidental' creation of anything....especially life. What many assume that it says...it doesn't really say at all.

e.g. the Genesis "days" were not 24 hour periods. They can be periods of undetermined length according to the meaning of the original Hebrew word, "day" (yowm)

According to Strong's Concordance.....
"yôwm, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):—age, always, chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), elder, × end, evening, (for) ever(-lasting, -more), × full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, × required, season, × since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), × whole ( age), (full) year(-ly), younger."

So a "day" can mean a 24 hour period, and science knows that creation of the Universe was an awesome instantaneous event. But what followed in preparing the earth for habitation and the creation of living things was a slow process and there is evidence that shows extinctions and adaptations in the process. So how do we correlate the Bible with science? Easy! The opening verse in Genesis is separate to what came after it. We simply understand that the creative days were thousands if not millions of years in length. We can understand that God is a Creator, not a magician. He took the time to create and to tweak his creation in order to express satisfaction with his accomplishments after each period concluded. He obviously had a goal for each creative period and when it was achieved, he was pleased with his efforts.

Once you understand that....science and the Bible do not argue with each other....the theory of evolution, for which no actual proof exists, is science's way of explaining creation without a Creator. It is all assumption and conjecture based on their interpretation of the "evidence"....they are quick to tell you that there is no proof. Nor do they wish to discuss abiogenesis...for obvious reasons.

Those who try to argue that God used evolution to bring life into existence are trying to have a foot in both camps....sorry, it doesn't work. God as Creator is a choice and it is obvious that he crafted his creation deliberately and with great care, not being constrained by time.

Either there is a Creator or there isn't. The intelligence needed to fine tune all that exists in living organisms and indeed in the universe itself is proof to any thinking person with an ounce of spirituality that none of what we see in creation is an accident. What are the odds that everything in existence is an undirected fluke? Zero in my estimations.

 

[shunyadragon]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it. I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

Evolution is not due to luck, chance, nor the Pope's approval. Whether the Pope endorses evolution is his problem.

Evolution is due to natural laws, natural processes and the proper environment.

I do not believe the Pope mandated the 'belief in evolution.' I have to check exactly what he said concerning science, evolution and cosmology..

The Roman Church varied over time on their view on science, but about 1950 thing did begin to change.

Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]
In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4].

. . . which added a little wish to the wash fo the official version.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997) on faith, evolution and science states:

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....

284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

 

[nPeace]

We first have to read Genesis and actually understand its statements. It argues against 'accidental' creation of anything....especially life. What many assume that it says...it doesn't really say at all.

e.g. the Genesis "days" were not 24 hour periods. They can be periods of undetermined length according to the meaning of the original Hebrew word, "day" (yowm)

According to Strong's Concordance.....
"yôwm, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):—age, always, chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), elder, × end, evening, (for) ever(-lasting, -more), × full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, × required, season, × since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), × whole ( age), (full) year(-ly), younger."

So a "day" can mean a 24 hour period, and science knows that creation of the Universe was an awesome instantaneous event. But what followed in preparing the earth for habitation and the creation of living things was a slow process and there is evidence that shows extinctions and adaptations in the process. So how do we correlate the Bible with science? Easy! The opening verse in Genesis is separate to what came after it. We simply understand that the creative days were thousands if not millions of years in length. We can understand that God is a Creator, not a magician. He took the time to create and to tweak his creation in order to express satisfaction with his accomplishments after each period concluded. He obviously had a goal for each creative period and when it was achieved, he was pleased with his efforts.

Once you understand that....science and the Bible do not argue with each other....the theory of evolution, for which no actual proof exists, is science's way of explaining creation without a Creator.It is all assumption and conjecture based on their interpretation of the "evidence"....they are quick to tell you that there is no proof. Nor do they wish to discuss abiogenesis...for obvious reasons.

Those who try to argue that God used evolution to bring life into existence are trying to have a foot in both camps....sorry, it doesn't work. God as Creator is a choice and it is obvious that he crafted his creation deliberately and with great care, not being constrained by time.

Either there is a Creator or there isn't. The intelligence needed to fine tune all that exists in living organisms and indeed in the universe itself is proof to any thinking person with an ounce of spirituality that none of what we see in creation is an accident. What are the odds that everything in existence is an undirected fluke? Zero in my estimations.

It's interesting to me too Deeje, that the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't. The creation account also explains why man has about 10,000 taste receptors - known to man, that is. Evolution can't.
We can keep adding up those differences by the numbers.
For example the contoured shape of the ear, the fact that the urinary opening is not blocked at birth, and for a good number of years after, as with the vaginal opening... etc. etc.
Nothing about the design of the human body can be written off as chanced processes.
Yet, written off, it is... in the minds of believers in the ToE.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's interesting to me too Deeje, that the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't.

Evolution has explained how sex came about. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.

The creation account also explains why man has about 10,000 taste receptors - known to man, that is. Evolution can't.

Evolution has explained how our taste receptors came about. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.

For example the contoured shape of the ear, the fact that the urinary opening is not blocked at birth, and for a good number of years after, as with the vaginal opening... etc. etc.
Nothing about the design of the human body can be written off as chanced processes.
Yet, written off, it is... in the minds of believers in the ToE.

Evolution has explained all of this came about with objective verifiable evidence.. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.

Your total lale of knowledge in science is only exceeded by your self-imposed ignorance and religious agenda.

 

[nPeace]

Evolution has explained how sex came about. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.



Evolution has explained how our taste receptors came about. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.



Evolution has explained all of this came about with objective verifiable evidence.. A literal Genesis takes a mythical approach.

Your total lale of knowledge in science is only exceeded by your self-imposed ignorance and religious agenda.

These are just some more common self made claims of yours. Please back up your claims with evidence, rather than just saying anything in opposition.

Also, it would make sense to respond to what is actually said, rather than just say anything.
I said... the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't.

The creation account also explains why man has about 10,000 taste receptors - known to man, that is. Evolution can't.

There is no scientific paper that explains any of these things I mentioned.
The maintenance of sexual reproduction in a highly competitive world is one of the major puzzles in biology given that asexual reproduction can reproduce much more quickly as 50% of offspring are not males, unable to produce offspring themselves. Many non-exclusive hypotheses have been proposed...

The dawn of sexual reproduction has always been a puzzle for scientists. Today on Earth 99% of multicellular creatures – the big organisms we can see – reproduce sexually. All have their unique mechanisms, but why this process evolved is actually a subject of great mystery.
Even for Darwin, the father of evolution, sex was confusing. He wrote in 1862: "We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality; why new beings should be produced by the union of the two sexual elements. The whole subject is as yet hidden in darkness."

But just why it began, and when, is not well understood by science.

 

[pearl]

What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?

In Catholic interpretation the 'literal' truth is what the author intended to convey through narrative which may be myth, folklore, legend etc. Interpretation begins with the literal. Some people hold to a 'literalist' understanding which gives to all narrative equal truth.

 

[Father Heathen]

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. The ToE may conflict with literal interpretations of creation fables, but none are prerequisite for belief in god.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

 

[shunyadragon]

These are just some more common self made claims of yours. Please back up your claims with evidence, rather than just saying anything in opposition.

Also, it would make sense to respond to what is actually said, rather than just say anything.
I said... the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't.

The creation account also explains why man has about 10,000 taste receptors - known to man, that is. Evolution can't.

There is no scientific paper that explains any of these things I mentioned.
The maintenance of sexual reproduction in a highly competitive world is one of the major puzzles in biology given that asexual reproduction can reproduce much more quickly as 50% of offspring are not males, unable to produce offspring themselves. Many non-exclusive hypotheses have been proposed...

The dawn of sexual reproduction has always been a puzzle for scientists. Today on Earth 99% of multicellular creatures – the big organisms we can see – reproduce sexually. All have their unique mechanisms, but why this process evolved is actually a subject of great mystery.
Even for Darwin, the father of evolution, sex was confusing. He wrote in 1862: "We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality; why new beings should be produced by the union of the two sexual elements. The whole subject is as yet hidden in darkness."

But just why it began, and when, is not well understood by science.

By definition in the English language Why? is a philosophical speculative claim by many different phyllisophical and religious perspectives concerning Why? the nature of our existence, and none of them are in agreement, consistent and predictable in their conclusions as science is based on the objective verifiable evidence. Philosophical Ontologists will propose 'Why?' from their perspective and disagree wth Theist, agnostics, Monists, or other many conflicted diverse beliefs of 'Why? anything is the way it is.

Science is as science is predictable any consistent world wide as presented in all the major universities as to the How?, When? and Where? of the nature of our physical existence.

Your previous post said 'explain' not why?. Science can explain all of the above.

 

[Valjean]

its official Church of Catholicism stuff. No Catholic can now deny it, and Popes of the future can never change it.

Catholicism has nothing to do with evolution. How are you tying it in?


I think getting evolution due to luck and chance is absurd. How does the Bible work with evolution? What’s literal and what isn’t? In Catholic beliefs?[/QUOTE]
Who said evolution is due to luck and chance? Who said the Bible has to "work with evolution?"

I don't see how you're tying the Bible, Catholicism and evolution together.

 

[Valjean]

It's interesting to me too Deeje, that the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't. The creation account also explains why man has about 10,000 taste receptors - known to man, that is. Evolution can't.

What are you talking about?! What is Genesis' "explanation?"
You obviously don't understand the ToE, or you wouldn't be saying it has no explanation for sex, taste receptors or any other biological features.
We can keep adding up those differences by the numbers.

For example the contoured shape of the ear, the fact that the urinary opening is not blocked at birth, and for a good number of years after, as with the vaginal opening... etc. etc.

And how are these problematic? How do they conflict with evolution?

Nothing about the design of the human body can be written off as chanced processes.
Yet, written off, it is... in the minds of believers in the ToE.

I agree, our design is not due to chance. Your evident belief that this is the purport of the ToE shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Your conclusions are based on incorrect premises.

 

[exchemist]

... except for polygenism, which is a critical part of evolution.

Not according to this: Polygenism - Wikipedia

But if what you are referring to is something slightly different viz. the impossibly fanciful notion that the whole human race must be descended from a single couple, then you have a point, I think. I had a minor argument with our local priest about this when my son was being prepared for 1st Communion. It does seem that the Catholic Church has yet to get its head (officially, at least) around the idea that the human race will have arisen progressively from a population of ancestor primates, rather than all being descended from a single pair of individuals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's interesting to me too Deeje, that the Genesis account explains why sex came about. Evolution theory can't.

Of course evolution can. Sex provides genetic diversity.

Asexual reproduction allows a greater rate of growth for a population and takes less energy to do, but sexual reproduction makes a population less vulnerable to disease. Both have their advantages, depending on their situation.

... though what do you see as the "explanation" for sex in Genesis? By my reading, the Genesis explanation for the two sexes is that it was God's "Plan B" after Adam rejected God's suggestion of every kind of bestiality.

 

[exchemist]

Of course evolution can. Sex provides genetic diversity.

Asexual reproduction allows a greater rate of growth for a population and takes less energy to do, but sexual reproduction makes a population less vulnerable to disease. Both have their advantages, depending on their situation.

... though what do you see as the "explanation" for sex in Genesis? By my reading, the Genesis explanation for the two sexes is that it was God's "Plan B" after Adam rejected God's suggestion of every kind of bestiality.

Quite.

The only thing there is in Genesis about how sex came about is the invitation to "be fruitful and multiply", which was given to Adam and Eve just as it was given to all the other creatures. So, according to the allegory, sex was there from the start and was blessed by God.

So it's not even Plan B: it was Plan A.

 

[Agnostic Christian]

Once you understand that....science and the Bible do not argue with each other....the theory of evolution, for which no actual proof exists, is science's way of explaining creation without a Creator. It is all assumption and conjecture based on their interpretation of the "evidence"....they are quick to tell you that there is no proof. Nor do they wish to discuss abiogenesis...for obvious reasons.

Those who try to argue that God used evolution to bring life into existence are trying to have a foot in both camps....sorry, it doesn't work. God as Creator is a choice and it is obvious that he crafted his creation deliberately and with great care, not being constrained by time.

Either there is a Creator or there isn't. The intelligence needed to fine tune all that exists in living organisms and indeed in the universe itself is proof to any thinking person with an ounce of spirituality that none of what we see in creation is an accident. What are the odds that everything in existence is an undirected fluke? Zero in my estimations.

No one wishes to discuss abiogenesis in the context of evolution because they are different topics, and solid proof for how life began hasn't been found yet. Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence that I'm sure you've been presented before. Your willful ignorance in the face of that is not something that any amount of evidence will dissuade, at this point.

A chemist needs to fine tune their instruments to make accurate calculations. A mechanic needs to fine tune an engine to achieve optimal performance. An engineer needs to fine tune their designs to achieve structural integrity. All these people are working within the confines of universal laws, and therefore need to fine tune their work. An omnipotent creator who sets these rules has no need to "fine tune" anything.

Your estimations are wrong, because your frame of reference is constricted to the boundaries of the system you exist in. What would an ant in an ant farm think of the probability of other colonies existing? Their frame of reference only includes the colony they live in. The only dirt they see is what exists around them; their only food dropped on their heads.