Evolution

[Resurrexi]

"For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pope Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[/i], 36-37)

Edited March 13, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Vincent Vega]

TL;DR
I like the Bible and I like Darwin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='13 March 2010 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1268464150' post='2072262']
TL;DR
I like the Bible and I like Darwin.
[/quote]

This really isn't about evolution [i]per se[/i]. It's about abiogensis and polygenism, both of which can be accepted or rejected while at the same time maintaining the theory of evolution.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='13 March 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1268464150' post='2072262']
TL;DR
I like the Bible and I like Darwin.
[/quote]

Yeah, and too many words to look up.

[Veridicus]

too tired to comment today. maybe tomorrow...or...um...later today...

[mortify]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 March 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1268464013' post='2072260']
"Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
[/quote]

I think this is an important point because many Catholics believe Adam evolved out of pre-existing living matter, and this is largely due to the conclusions of contemporary scientists. What we have to remember is that these scientists have adopted a [b]naturalistic[/b] world view, which means all reality is confined to natural laws and materialism, there is no room for the [b]Supernatural[/b]. Therefore in their conclusions they are forced to believe in a gradual process, that simpler organisms generally evolve to more complex ones. We are not bound to these principles because we accept the existence of the supernatural, and so when we read in Genesis that God created man out of the earth, we are not forced to conclude that between earth and Adam there was a gradual process involving millions of step-species in between. We can affirm to the [i]horror[/i] of these naturalists that God did this *immediately*. So I think the Pope is right that too often people (many who are Catholics) presume with certainty that Adam had to come about through an evolutionary process, when no such certainty exists, especially since God has the power to create something out of nothing.

[Saint Therese]

I srsly don't think Jesus was descended from an ape.

[Ephrem Augustine]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='13 March 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1268494723' post='2072322']
I srsly don't think Jesus was descended from an ape.
[/quote]
A monkeys not my uncle...
lol

Edited March 13, 2010 by Ephrem Augustine

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Your title is misleading Rexi (I wonder if you perhaps did this on purpose to get more of a response, you sly dog). Also I wouldn't equate evolution with abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is how life developed once it was present and how it became so varied, not how it originally came into being. It has been linked with everything from Theistic Creation to abiogenesis to explain how life came about but is not necessarily linked to either of these and it is wrong for you to substitute abiogenesis for evolution. They are different ideas and equating them simply brings out a confusion rather than a precision in speech. To do this is not intellectually honest and is harmful to an intellectual community by purposefully setting up an idea to be contradicted when it is not what you are representing it to be.

Also for heads a up, St. Augustine on commenting on Genesis said it was not to be taken literally, had more power as allegory, and that it was unreasonable to assume that animals don't change over time especially since we know their environments change.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Laudate_Dominum]

AMDG - I'm quite sure that Rexi knows the difference between evolution and theories of abiogenesis and I don't think he was intentionally trying to obfuscate matters as you suggest. Perhaps he just had a lot of related issues on his mind and made this thread in haste. We were discussing abiogenesis in tinychat yesterday and our conversations were all over the map as often happens in chat. Blame me. Rexi is cool.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='13 March 2010 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1268494723' post='2072322']
I srsly don't think Jesus was descended from an ape.
[/quote]

No one says we are descended from apes. we share a common ancestor. and Jesus(and everyone else at that time) was descended from a long line of humans.

considering the horrors humanity has brought, i would find it almost more offensive to say he is related to us than to apes, were i to find either offensive.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='13 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1268508791' post='2072449']
AMDG - I'm quite sure that Rexi knows the difference between evolution and theories of abiogenesis and I don't think he was intentionally trying to obfuscate matters as you suggest. Perhaps he just had a lot of related issues on his mind and made this thread in haste. We were discussing abiogenesis in tinychat yesterday and our conversations were all over the map as often happens in chat. Blame me. Rexi is cool.
[/quote]

I did not mean to suggest that Rexi confused them on purpose with any kind of malicious intent that is not conducive to discussion. I meant in my first couple sentences to point out in a jesting way (hence the sly dog comment) that he seemed to equate abiogensis and evolution, not to specifically assert that he did so on purpose. I apologize for not being clearer. I then meant to continue on in my post of a general warning of doing this even accidentally (Godforbid on purpose) since it can be harmful to those in the discussion of not realized. I apologize for the confusion and can no longer edit my comment to temper the language to make it more reflect my point. I shall be more careful next time.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='13 March 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1268507871' post='2072444']
Your title is misleading Rexi (I wonder if you perhaps did this on purpose to get more of a response, you sly dog).
[/quote]

This was why I chose to use the word "evolution" as the title. I thought it might get a better response than "abiogenesis". Also, the other two questions mainly have to do with polygenism, a topic which can be correctly stated to have some connection with the topic of evolution.

[mortify]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='13 March 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1268507871' post='2072444']
Also for heads a up, St. Augustine on commenting on Genesis said it was not to be taken literally, had more power as allegory, and that it was unreasonable to assume that animals don't change over time especially since we know their environments change.
[/quote]

The Word of God has incredible depth, a single passage can teach a variety of things at different levels, and this is certainly true of Genesis. St Augustine took to interpreting Genesis in Books 12 and 13 of his [i]Confessions[/i]. What's worthy of noting is that in Book 12 he discusses the [i]apparent[/i] meaning, i.e. the creation of the formless earth and heavens, and interprets these literally. In Book 13 he delves into the same passage [i]spiritually[/i], unlocking teachings on the Trinity and the Church. The point is these interpretations are not at odds with each other, and although the allegorical interpretation may be more relevant to us living in light of Christ, the apparent meaning holds great value as well. I suppose it's possible *some* things St Augustine said could be used in support of the naturalistic interpretation of Scripture, but as a whole it can't. I think to approach scripture with a naturalist mentality is to approach it incorrectly.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='13 March 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1268511638' post='2072465']
I did not mean to suggest that Rexi confused them on purpose with any kind of malicious intent that is not conducive to discussion. I meant in my first couple sentences to point out in a jesting way (hence the sly dog comment) that he seemed to equate abiogensis and evolution, not to specifically assert that he did so on purpose. I apologize for not being clearer. I then meant to continue on in my post of a general warning of doing this even accidentally (Godforbid on purpose) since it can be harmful to those in the discussion of not realized. I apologize for the confusion and can no longer edit my comment to temper the language to make it more reflect my point. I shall be more careful next time.
[/quote]
Oh, lol. Makes sense. Sorry bro.