Evolution
#1
What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew
Reply
#2
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew
This depends on what you mean by "evolution".


Reply
#3
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

There are none.  As a matter of fact, that opinion is expressly allowed, by Pius XII in his encyclical, as long as monogenism is respected.
Reply
#4
Check this out: http://www.kolbecenter.org/
Reply
#5
(10-21-2010, 09:26 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

There are none.  As a matter of fact, that opinion is expressly allowed, by Pius XII in his encyclical, as long as monogenism is respected.

Evolution of the human body, ie, that people were not directly created by God involves so many stupid conditions to even remotely be theologically appropriate.

The pure and new creation of the world by God is not what we can imagine. It is very foolish to think that the fallen world and in all its chaos can be used to determine how Adam and Eve were.
Reply
#6
(10-21-2010, 09:36 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(10-21-2010, 09:26 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

There are none.  As a matter of fact, that opinion is expressly allowed, by Pius XII in his encyclical, as long as monogenism is respected.

Evolution of the human body, ie, that people were not directly created by God involves so many stupid conditions to even remotely be theologically appropriate.

The pure and new creation of the world by God is not what we can imagine. It is very foolish to think that the fallen world and in all its chaos can be used to determine how Adam and Eve were.

Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question asked.

I myself now believe that macro-evolution without 'special events' is untenable.
Reply
#7
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

Read the first few chapters of Genesis for starters.  There is no mention of molecules-to-man macro evolution mentioned there, no matter how hard the "theistic evolutionists" try to squeeze billions of years between 2 verses, and how they make stupid arguments that man evolved, suddenly died off except for two fully evolved homo sapiens who were then gifted a soul.  It is all ludicrous.  The traditional position of the Church throughout the ages is that God created all things from nothing about 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, as can be shown in Genesis by following the systematic genealogies (it just matters on which version of Holy Scripture is purely authoritative:  The Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Sarmatian Text or the Greek Septuagint).
Reply
#8
(10-21-2010, 09:26 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-21-2010, 10:21 AM)mirarivos Wrote: What is the Best quote from the Church "against" Evolution of the Human Body?

In Christ,

Andrew

There are none.  As a matter of fact, that opinion is expressly allowed, by Pius XII in his encyclical, as long as monogenism is respected.

And since monogenism cannot be respected, what Pope Pius XII is indirectly stating is that human evolution cannot occur.
Reply
#9
Dr. Dennis Bonnette, a very loyal orthodox Catholic and Thomist (he taught philosophy for 40 years), and good friend of the late Dr. Waters who wrote for Catholic Family News, has devoted a large part of his life for the last number of years to the question of monogenism from evolution. 

I read the article on the kolbe site about the problems of monogenism and evolution and it was very good, and raised good points.

Your argument regarding the "traditional position of the Church" with regard to this question carries no more weight than the "traditional position of the Church" with regard to the shape of the Earth (flat) or its relation to the sun (it goes around the Earth).  This is a scientific question - and to be dogmatic about it is unwarranted.

Young-earth Creationism requires a wholesale repudiation of almost all science.  Almost without exception the only people that accept it are people with no real knowledge of science and the scientific method, applying literally the opposite of the scientific method: proclaim a theory with no evidence and then search for evidence to support it.

It is completely untenable that the universe has existence for only several thousand years and, frankly, many people see no difficulty whatsoever with seeing undetermined spans of time in the Genesis text.

I won't say Old-earth Creationism is untenable.  However, it has many problems indeed.

I think the Intelligent Design crowd is most certainly onto something.  They have done a marvelous job pointing out the gaping holes in the neo-Darwin formulation.  Darwinism has massive holes (the very biggest one of all being that it can't explain the origin of life).

In the end I have no good answer for exactly what I believe, scientifically, and neither does Dr. Bonnette, because the monogenism problem is very big.  However, he has shown that it is *possible*.

One of the many things that young-earth Creationists cannot explain at all are the hundreds of samples of hominid bones we have that are neither ape nor human.  They are most certainly ape-like creatures that no longer exist, and that had some more human-like features.  However, it seems that YECs are actually not really terribly concerned with actually explaining anything, as ultimately they insist their scientific propositions should be accepted on faith.

And then the counter-argument to that is that there are no transitional forms.  We have many samples of a few hominids but not the smooth species-to-species transition that Darwinism predicts and demands.  In fact we have no transitional forms for *any* species which certainly seems to indicate (among other reasons) that macro-evolution simply does not occur and Darwinism is a fairy tale.
Reply
#10
Those transitional humans are not as you state. If they were fresh, they would clerely be ape or Man. Humans have diversity. Apes have diversity. It is only because of the age of remans that they "must" be something else.

The theory was made and evidence was found for it. Evidence did not preceed theory. It is not science...it is unholy dogma.

Think how the Queen of Heaven will view those who so ardently defend the idea that her Son is the offspring of creatures without reason.



 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)