Should a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Without Qualifications?

[Love me 2]

The right interpretations of Scriptures depends on what genre of a particular scripture passage is written, and on variable other sources used for the interpretation.

 

[Kulindahr]

And to answer the actual topic, I was raised with a catholic upbringing (sunday school and all of that), and NEVER I was told to question Evolution, it was taken as a Fact. I was also disencouraged to interpret "Adam and Eve" sort of tails as literal

The royal chronicle that is the first Creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. Those who do so are ignorantly abusing the account.

 

[Kulindahr]

This sort of thing, from the article you linked in the OP, makes that clear to me:

Yeah. The author is trying to play two sides there. The only way I can make sense of it is that he holds that God designed each and every form that came along, every species and subspecies, and all the changes from one to another -- and did it in a way that to us appears random. The problem with that is it really declares that God is being a bit deceptive, which contradicts part of his thesis.

So, are we thinking of Creation in figurative terms, or scientific terms?

Facts and metaphors each have their place, don't they?

The first Creation account in Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't make it metaphor, either. It's a literary form that summarizes an accomplishment of a king in a memorable way. Those items tied to the theme are meant as fact -- e.g., that God created by declaring what He wanted to happen -- but chronology and sequence are merely a framework. We do this as well; think of a summary of a successful season of a soccer team, which might be done by following the actions of the goalie from game to game, then taking in turn each player who scored. We aren't expected to believe that the goalie did everything and then the scorers; rather, we understand that different actions took place in different games. In the same way, the ancient listeners to the first Creation account understood that the order of things as listed wasn't necessarily literal, that for example God probably made plants and animals in a mixed succession. Such details were unimportant; the tale was told to make it easily remembered, so the hearers would understand that God made everything, gave it His personal attention, put everything in order in its place, and set Man as the crowning element of it all, standing in a place that bridged the gap between the rest of Creation and God, being on the one hand an animal, but on the other the image of God.

They most certainly wouldn't understand how anyone could read it as a literal, blow-by-blow account of what God did. And I seriously doubt they would cling to the sort of kid-making-toy-animals interpretation held by most of today's 'evangelicals'.

The right interpretations of Scriptures depends on what genre of a particular scripture passage is written, and on variable other sources used for the interpretation.

Absolutely. Those who say "the Bible is a letter from God to you" are lying, however much the attempt to drive home the personal aspect of a relationship with God.

 

[medic1]

My beliefs do not contradict Science and I do not take my creation myths literally.

Funny that neither do mine.

 

[medic1]

A lot of medical doctors are religious.
Don't know why tho. Maybe they deal with people everyday like priests ??

Maybe they deal with tragedy everyday,and witness miracles like delivering new-born`s or reviving a clinically dead person.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe they deal with tragedy everyday,and witness miracles like delivering new-born`s or reviving a clinically dead person.

Or as with my mom's doctor, having someone who was clinically dead but "came back" talk about what was going on in the operating room while officially dead.

 

[Telstra]

Maybe they deal with tragedy everyday,and witness miracles like delivering new-born`s or reviving a clinically dead person.

Delivering new born isn't a miracle.
Reviving the dead is not proven. How about those who died and they can't be revived? = not reviving the clinically dead ?

 

[bankside]

Actually to answer the question directly,

No, a Catholic should not accept evolutionary theory without qualifications. That's because nobody should accept any theory without qualifications. Not well-founded theories like evolution or gravitation. And not theories emerging from folklore, like creation or divinity.

We should all, now and for all time, be prepared to ask "But what about...." or "Why doesn't it…." or "Shouldn't we be able to see…." or any other impertinent question of any theory ever presented.

 

[medic1]

Delivering new born isn't a miracle.
Reviving the dead is not proven. How about those who died and they can't be revived? = not reviving the clinically dead ?

Never heard of being clinically dead when colapsing with lets say a cardiac-event,if you manage to carryout aggresive and heroic measures you have a chance of making them breath again and to achieve an out-put from their heart.

Any new-born is a miracle.
Though i will agree with you,when trying to revive a week-old cadaver by intubation and paddle-shock does not succeed.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The first Creation account in Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't make it metaphor, either. It's a literary form that summarizes an accomplishment of a king in a memorable way. Those items tied to the theme are meant as fact -- e.g., that God created by declaring what He wanted to happen -- but chronology and sequence are merely a framework. We do this as well; think of a summary of a successful season of a soccer team, which might be done by following the actions of the goalie from game to game, then taking in turn each player who scored. We aren't expected to believe that the goalie did everything and then the scorers; rather, we understand that different actions took place in different games. In the same way, the ancient listeners to the first Creation account understood that the order of things as listed wasn't necessarily literal, that for example God probably made plants and animals in a mixed succession. Such details were unimportant; the tale was told to make it easily remembered, so the hearers would understand that God made everything, gave it His personal attention, put everything in order in its place, and set Man as the crowning element of it all, standing in a place that bridged the gap between the rest of Creation and God, being on the one hand an animal, but on the other the image of God.

I suppose there are two ways to think of the human mind: as too stupid and ineffectual to contemplate our situation, and so in need of versions of dumbed down figures meant to make things "easily memorable" and understandable.

On the other hand, we may think of the human mind...as a thinker capable of forming complicated thoughts that render truth through seeming contradiction. Such is the sophisticated nature of metaphor.

I'm observant of the limits of our knowing. But moreso, I dislike a "royal chronicle's" cynical rendering of our capacities. Sacred myth ought to open us to the best of human nature, it ought to illuminate, it ought to give us insight. I disagree with you that the best explanation of the first Genesis account is of such trite importance as to merely help people recount a rather simple set of events.

What a shame it must be, that the literature you hold to be most incisive, may actually be only mnemonic in nature.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suppose there are two ways to think of the human mind: as too stupid and ineffectual to contemplate our situation, and so in need of versions of dumbed down figures meant to make things "easily memorable" and understandable.

On the other hand, we may think of the human mind...as a thinker capable of forming complicated thoughts that render truth through seeming contradiction. Such is the sophisticated nature of metaphor.

I'm observant of the limits of our knowing. But moreso, I dislike a "royal chronicle's" cynical rendering of our capacities. Sacred myth ought to open us to the best of human nature, it ought to illuminate, it ought to give us insight. I disagree with you that the best explanation of the first Genesis account is of such trite importance as to merely help people recount a rather simple set of events.

What a shame it must be, that the literature you hold to be most incisive, may actually be only mnemonic in nature.

This makes no sense. Why shouldn't serious truth be couched in a form that's easily memorable?

 

[Telstra]

Never heard of being clinically dead when colapsing with lets say a cardiac-event,if you manage to carryout aggresive and heroic measures you have a chance of making them breath again and to achieve an out-put from their heart.

Any new-born is a miracle.
Though i will agree with you,when trying to revive a week-old cadaver by intubation and paddle-shock does not succeed.

You have cheapen the word "miracle".

 

[bankside]

God does not need a veil to be understood.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Why shouldn't serious truth be couched in a form that's easily memorable?

Because "easy memorability" isn't the best expression of what is serious and true?

[Sure, the serious and true could be written in "easily memorable" terms, but that would seem to imply that such literature was meant for those who...needed such, and is therefore less incisive.]

 

[medic1]

You have cheapen the word "miracle".

In what way? When i have held a newborn that i have delivered,to see such perfection is truly miraculous.

 

[Kulindahr]

Because "easy memorability" isn't the best expression of what is serious and true?

[Sure, the serious and true could be written in "easily memorable" terms, but that would seem to imply that such literature was meant for those who...needed such, and is therefore less incisive.]

A royal chronicle is meant to tell the people of the glorious action of their king. That's what Genesis 1 is about. It is not meant to be a treatise on deep metaphysics or a philosophical excursus.

 

[palemale]

My beliefs do not contradict Science and I do not take my creation myths literally.

A few years ago, in an article in the New York Times about how creationism and hostility to evolution was increasingly impacting public education in more conservative parts of the country, an academic who was studying the phenomenon said that if you really want to make sure your child learns about evolution, you should send them to Catholic school.

 

[kallipolis]

I believe that my earlier post needs to be repeated ensuring that all are correctly informed of the Catholic Church position on Evolutionary Theory:

The Catholic Church accepts that Evolutionary Theory is compatible with belief in God:

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/...-pope-says.htm

Almost 11 years ago, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, caused quite a stir by declaring that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Some Catholics, particularly traditionalists, believed that the Holy Father was stepping outside of his competence in making judgments on scientific matters. Others, including Catholic scientists, welcomed Pope John Paul's reaffirmation of the traditional Catholic principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." In other words, to the extent that the theory of evolution has a solid scientific basis, it must be compatible with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Let's get one thing straight to the people posting here. I am not saying that Catholicism rejects Evolution. Many Catholics accept it. My comments about the science deniers was specifically directed toward Love Me 2 where he openly denied parts of evolution that did not fit his beliefs. It is the same way that he and other Abrahamics deny the science that shows that homosexuality is benign and that sexual repression and denial is not psychologically healthy. In fact Catholics are more progressive when it comes to Evolution then Protestants. However their views on the science of sexuality is way off.

 

[zoltanspawn]

A royal chronicle is meant to tell the people of the glorious action of their king. That's what Genesis 1 is about. It is not meant to be a treatise on deep metaphysics or a philosophical excursus.

I think you're still stuck with the problem of literalism.

Let us suppose that someone said, "John has accomplished a lot as president," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious actions of their leader. That may literally be true. If someone said, "John is the bomb," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious action of their leader, that may metaphorically be true.

The question of figures doesn't disappear because passages intend to invite praise.

The same is true of any passage meant for easy memorability.