I'm confused because not so long ago I read on EWTN about PJPII saying in a speech in front of scientists and made comments that sounded like he supported evolution to a decree. The reason I asked because I just visited http://www.marianland.com/creatio1.html and it doesn't support evolution at all. Granted I only skimmed the main topics and it seemed it's totally against evolution. What's your opinion?

"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 . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

No one is required to believe in Evolution, but you may believe it as long as you also believe that "souls are immediately created by God".

Edit to rephrase: We have to adhere to Genesis, and are forbidden to believe it is fictional. Someone else can probably give a better explanation because I cannot remember the exact details of what this entails.

What is your definition of evolution?

Siggy

Good luck coming to a consensus on what is considered a non-fictional interpretation of Gen 1-2.

Personally, I think evolution under the tenets of Intelligent Design is certainly possible, and that nothing in the universe's creation was left to chance...God guided it every step of the way. I also hold to the special creation of Man, the priveleged nature of Man's soul relative to the animals, namely the intellect and the will, the creation of one man and one woman (as opposed to a community), the fact that these First Parents were formed without original sin, and that they Fell. That is what the Church requires of me.

I know that there are several on this board that think the above line of thinking too loose and want to be more literal in their reading of Genesis. And that's fine too. I only offer mine as an explanation and certainly don't insist on it being dogmatic.

It should be noted that the letter that the Pope wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Science was not directed to the Universal Church, and therefore was his scholarly opinion, and not official church teaching.

I think when it comes to evolution we can accept some of its proven ideas which suggest that organisms evolve (survival of the fittest). This can be seen with new strains of resistant bacteria for which are immune to antibiotics. Evolution becomes a problem when people over step the actual theory and begin making wild claims regarding live being generated from lifeless matter or man evolving from apes. That is bad science. Besides forming living organisms from chemical ingredients defies the law of Entropy which states that things will always go from a state of more order to less order.

Within a closed system the loose statement on entropy (things tending toward increased disorder) is true; however, if energy is introduced from the outside, order can increase (within the system).

Thus, the stuff/junk in my house tends to get more disordered and chaotic; however, if I take the effort to clean it up, I can increase the order (at least temporarily!).


Edward Pothier

I don't see why the Biblical Commission's clear repsonses on Genesis 1-3 shouldn't be agreed on by all.

Catholic dogma teaches that nature fell as a result of original sin.

I'd like to see how the paradisical Garden of Eden, and the fallen state of nature thereafter, was achieved by evolutionary means.

It seems to me that whenever people try to validate belief in evolution as being compatible with Genesis, they fail to explain how

i) Adam evolved from an ape
ii) at the same time and in the same place that Eve evolved from another ape!!!

and

iii) how this evolution gave rise to an earthly paradise
and

iv) how evolution caused this fall from an earthly paradise to the world we now live in.

Any takers?

Even if the first proposition could be explained, the second isn't possible because it's a fact, fundamental to the "foundation of the Christian religion," that the first woman was formed from the first man.

rib -> woman is one pretty big evolutionary leap

Never one to miss a gilt-edged opportunity to plug my favourite book on the subject:
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895556073/qid=1114630156/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6922177-8027849]
Creation Rediscovered: Evolution & the Importance of the Origins Debate[/url] by Gerard Keane

Sure.

i) I don't believe that happened, at least not necessarily. It could have, but I seriously doubt it.

ii) Same as i.

iii) what's to say that the earth wouldn't have been a paradise prior to original sin if evolution was the mechanism? There's no evidence either way. And so long as it was guided by God, the actual mechanism of creating said earthly paradise would be a moot issue. And I am not saying that it wasn't guided by God.

iv)And here you're attributing to evolution more than it claims for itself. Evolutionism, as a materialistic philosophy, would indeed have a problem answering your question. But again, if you view it merely as a mechanism by which God created the world, evolution has no answer nor needs to give one for your question. It is beyond the limits of what it can speak about.

Here's how I see things seanie...I see my take on evolution and creation as a possible explanation for how things occurred. It by no means attempts to fully answer the question. That answer is shrouded in mystery. And I do not discredit your explanation either. Both take the evidence at hand and attempt to formulate a reasoned conclusion, much like Molinism and Thomism on the question of free will and predestination. Neither system says that it is the definitive answer; they only say this is an explanation that attempts to resolve the question while maintaining unity with both Church teaching and what we can see in the natural world.

For number two (ii), it doesn't seem possible that the first woman evolved. How could it have happened when it must be believed that the first woman was formed from the first man?

The problem with evolutionists is that they infrequently grant that any other possibility is credible, and they frequently ignore or dismiss dogmas of the faith. The formation of the first woman from the first man is one example. The creation of all things at the beginning of time is another. The special creation of man is another. The descent of the whole human race from the same original parents is another.

Any "Catholic" articulations of evolution mustn't interfere with or contradict these fundamentals of the Christian faith, and they frequently do so. To me, the effort necessary to avoid contradicting these fundamentals isn't worth spending in defense of evolution. My personal preference is to stick simply with what is known to the faith.

i) glad to hear it.

ii) glad to hear it.

iii) if there's no evidence for evolution, why propose that God directed it?

iv) what do you mean by "what we can see in the natural world"? Evolution (macro- that is) has never been seen in the natural world.

If you'll look at my first post caleb, I said that I personally believe in the special creation of man and woman, as well as the descent of the whole race from the same original parents. I am not trying to get around or ignore these dogmas. I claim liberty only in that it is an explanation, and is one which recent popes have said that, with certain reservations, can be looked into. And I have attempted to hold to those reservations.



iii) I didn't say there was no evidence for evolution. I said (or meant to get across...my apologies if I was not clear) that there was no evidence that the use of evolution presupposes that there couldn't have been an earthly paradise prior to the Fall. There is no evidence, and there can be none for such a conclusion, because evolution does not nor need not claim such an answer or evidence. To say that material evidence can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a supernaturally defined paradise makes no sense. You are asking evolution to "prove" something which it has no business proving. My response is that the mechanism used by God in creating the earthly paradise, be it an evolutionary mechanism or whatever, has no bearing on whether or not there was in fact an earthly paradise prior to Man's Fall.

iv) Using reliable scientific data and dating techniques, which I myself have seen personally employed at college and have no qualms using, I can state that it is reasonable to think that the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and life began perhaps as early as 1 billion years after that. This has nothing to do with biology or crazy theories or whatever. This is simple evidence that the rock these fossils are found in can be dated to a certain era, and it is not unreasonable to assume that the fossils came from the same era as well. And you can follow the increasing complexity through the fossil record. Again, this has nothing to do with proving or setting a theory. This is merely collecting data. I can look at this data and take it as being reliable, and therefore, I should come up with an explanation of what I see. Aquinas himself tells us that when something is observed in the natural world, we should attempt to provide an explanation that satisfies both reason and faith, the seen and the unseen. Evolution, as a natural mechanism guided by God for the purpose of creating a diversity of life on Earth (but not Man "evolving" from apes), seems to provide an explanation.

From what I can tell, this view does not contradict any Church dogma or doctrine which I must hold. From Humani Generis and statements made by the late Pope John Paul II, I believe that with certain philosophical and theological caveats (the creation of Man; the Fall; Original Sin; and general creation) the idea that God used evolution as a mechanism for creating life on Earth and guided the process such that nothing was created without His expressed Will maintains both the important dogmas expressed in Genesis and what I observe in the natural world. I am attempting to satisfy both faith and reason, as Aquinas directs us to do. And lastly, I do not say that this is the only explanation possible. I posit it as a possible explanation, and do not rule that all other inquiries are illogical or unsubstantiated, but rather are another way of trying to reconcile to the human mind the conflict which is before it.

Yes, I understand your beliefs. What I'm asking is, How could it even fall under the scope of "possibility" that the first woman evolved alongside the first man, if the formation of the first woman from the first man is dogmatic? I'm not saying that you believe this possibility. I'm asking why you think it is a possibility for some Catholics to believe it, in opposition to what you "personally believe." Is there a way to explain a separate evolution of the first woman when it must be believed that she was formed from the first man?

Oh, okay, I see what you're asking.

No. I think it's very, very difficult and mind-stretching (even for a guy like me ) to think that a woman could have both evolved alongside man and been formed from him. You'd have to do some severe stretching of the definitions of "to evolve" and "to form". To be honest, I don't see how one can logically get away from the special creation of Man and still adhere to Church doctrine/dogma.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position Rocketman. I have to agree with caleb that the idea that Eve evolved separately can't be reconciled with the Catholic dogma of the creation of Eve.

Now don't you go recommending books! My wishlist is already 20 pages long!