Evolution and the CCC
(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Though widely accepted by Catholics since the pontificate of Pius XII, the claim that theistic evolution is not inconsistent with Genesis is incorrect. There is a Catholic organization called the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation that has done a remarkable job of explaining why theistic evolution is incompatible with Catholic theology.

They Kolbe Center is peddling Protestant fundamentalism as if it were Catholic theology.

Hugh Owen, it's founder, has absolutely zero background in theology or philosophy. He has a degree in education. Nevertheless he goes about lecturing on theology and philosophy. As a result he frequently misquotes or misrepresents Scripture, St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church to make his points.

For instance he often quotes 2 Pt 3.3ff as proof that St Peter condemned uniformitarianism (the scientific and philsophical doctrine that physical and natural causes act in a consistent and predictable way). Were this true no scientific study or knowledge would be possible. Absolutely no Catholic scholar, theologian, Pope or Father of the Church has ever interpreted those verses this way, and in fact, Fathers and scholar interpret them as supporting this notion of uniformitarianism.

The center, and Owen, hold as a Catholic dogma a literal six 24-hour day Creation. When challenged at his talks he admits that the Church allows other theological positions, but asserts that they are false and this is because the Church has been weak on this position. He claims that the Fathers and Magisterium support him, but this is easily falsifiable.

The stance on evolution is actually his starting point. He rejects macroevolution outright. This is an acceptable position and shared even by Progressive Creationists.

His reason, as he explains for his rejection, however is not philosophical or theological, but anecdotal. His father was a Eugenicist and atheist and founder of the International Planned Parenthood federation. He clearly sees the connection between Communism, Globalism and the propaganda which pushes an evolutionary theory not only of biology, but also of society, thus abortion, euthanasia, etc. Since this position is atheistic, he sees any possible influence of evolutionary thinking as totally incompatible with Catholic thought, and unfortunately will reinterpret Scripture, the Father, and Magisterium to fit his ideas, and not take them at face value. His "theology" on this level is clearly an emotional reaction to this backstory, since it is mentioned in each talk.

He does get that the Communistic agenda is pushing the evolution narrative as a counter-religious belief to Christian doctrine. The problem is that he starts from the premise that this means that the evolution narrative or anything that sounds like it is inherently this : opposed to Christian doctrine. He assumes the very premise he wishes to demonstrate.

Thus he rejects out of hand anything except what Protestant "Creation Science" would demand (even though this same science makes open mockery of a Catholic understanding of the nature of God and the universe). A literal six 24-hour day Creation is the only possibly correct reading of Genesis for Owen. It is dogma.

The problem is that the Church has never demanded this Protestant reading of Scripture, and the several Father fully reject this interpretation. Of course, his usual retort will be that none support a billions-year-old universe. This is true, but again, it is a red herring and straw man. The very fact that several Fathers reject a 168-hour reading means that another reading is possible, so long as it does not contradict other dogma. That reading could be an instantaneous Creation (favored by like like of St Augustine and some others), or it could be a longer period (favored by St Cyprian, St Bede and some others).

Since there is no unanimity on the interpretation, it cannot bind the faithful, and so to argue that the Fathers say this, even if many do, but notable exceptions do not, is disingenuous. This is why as modern geological sciences developed the Church, through the Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed wide berth in interpreting Genesis and the Hexameron, while insisting that it is real history. "Day" could be a long period, or it could be a day, or it could be a mere logical division.

But Owen and the Kolbe center will reject this, and insist that only they (and Protestants) have the right doctrine.

Oddly enough St Maximilian Kolbe, the center's patron, himself held a non-fundamentalist position.

Own and the Kolbe Center also demands as dogma a global flood, which again, is not the common Catholic teaching and has not been for a long time. They will reject

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: My favorite argument that the Kolbe Center has made against theistic evolution is their pointing out the implications of Our Lady of Lourdes referring to herself as “the Immaculate Conception”. The language used by Our Lady implies that her privilege of being immaculately conceived was singular and unique. Now if Eve was not literally created by God from the rib of Adam as an adult (as Scripture and Tradition clearly teach), but was instead conceived from some kind of sub-human primate, then Eve would also have been immaculately conceived because at this point there was no original sin. One of the antiphons of the Little Office of the BVM makes reference to Our Lady's role as the destroyer of heresies, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in all the world.” It is not irreverent to speculate that Our Lady said what she did at Lourdes precisely to destroy the heresy of evolution. In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

Another red herring/straw man argument, and bad theology. Sounds great, but argues against a point no one has made, and is certainly not the only reading, nor the Church's reading of the assertion in a private revelation of the apparition of the Immaculate Conception.

Even most theistic evolutionists, following Pius XII in Humani Generis, would assert some special intervention in the production of the bodies of our first parents, and certainly of Eve. Progressive evolutionists certainly would assert this for both Adam and Eve. So the argument argues against something no one has asserted as a way of arguing against things which Owen and the Kolbe Center cannot argue against.

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Leo XIII wrote the following in his encyclical Arcanum:
Quote:We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.

And a problem here is if this is dogmatically insisting on a 168-hour Creation (which it is not), then it disagrees with the Fathers, Pontifical Biblical Comission (which Leo XIII set up) and Pius XII among countless others.

If it is dogmatically insisting that Eve's body was miraculous produced from Adams (which it is) then no one who professes the Catholic Faith doubts this.

It is yet another straw man.

This is what happens when non-theologians and non-philosophers do theology. It ends up in Protestantism.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102

Messages In This Thread
Evolution and the CCC - by Tolkien RRJ - 03-31-2019, 01:37 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by St. Camillus - 03-31-2019, 03:01 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Melkite - 03-31-2019, 03:19 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019, 05:23 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Melkite - 03-31-2019, 05:56 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019, 07:48 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Tolkien RRJ - 03-31-2019, 05:38 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019, 05:56 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019, 07:55 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019, 08:17 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 04-01-2019, 07:01 AM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by MagisterMusicae - 04-01-2019, 02:50 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by GangGreen - 03-31-2019, 10:22 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019, 05:01 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019, 06:09 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019, 08:00 PM
RE: Evolution and the CCC - by MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019, 07:21 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)