Does the Roman Catholic Church Condemn Theistic Evolution?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Scope: These forum guidelines apply to all Theology Forums.

1: Scope of Discussions: These forums are for the discussion of Christian Theology, Ethics, and History. For the purposes of the Theology forums, discussion is limited to Christian faith and practice as framed in the Nicene Creed. This includes the study of what Christian churches teach and confess, what Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches.

Discussion of non-Nicene beliefs is limited only to discussion from a Nicene point of view for purposes of evangelism.

2: Provide Citations: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication. If quoting from a hard copy then proper citations must also be used. At a minimum the title of the book, magazine, article etc and the name of the author must be posted.

3: Focus on Topics: Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith. Posters who include egregious personal insults and accusations in their posts have their posts edited by moderator staff, and may be issued notices and/or forum specific bans due to them, depending on the seriousness of the flame.

4: Provide Supporting Statements: Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other. When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

5. Respect Differing Points of Reference: It is expected that people who post in Theology will respect people of faith, including those for whom faith and logic are not contradictions, but complements to one another. To some Christians, arguments from the Bible, from doctrine, and from tradition, are just as valid (and at times more valid) than arguments from logic, reason, science, or history. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, you should respect the other person's point of reference.

6. Accusations of non-Christian doctrine: Stating that another member's church is not Christian is not allowed. However, stating a teaching or belief of another church is not Christian because of X, Y, and Z, is allowed.

7: "Tread Carefully" Topics: Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, antisemitism, etc., are very emotionally laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult. This rule may be referred to as the "tread carefully" rule.

8: Discussion of Historical Figures: Discussion of historical figures important to Christians of many theological backgrounds is a necessary component of theological discourse. Such figures include [but are not limited to]: the Pope, the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, various Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. Such figures are not immune from criticism. However, insults and accusations against these people are not to be posted lightly, and may only be used when accompanied by citation of sources and in the "If X, then Y, because of Z" format. Statements unaccompanied by these requirements will be deemed inflammatory and dealt with appropriately.

9: Report OR Refute, Not Both: When confronted with a post which a member believes to be a violation of the rules, there are two basic options. The member can respond to the post and try to persuade the other member to correct and/or clarify the perceived slight, or they can report the post. Please refrain from both reporting a post, AND responding to it in the thread. Do one, or the other. If it is indeed a violation of the rules, chances are good that it will be edited or deleted, and any responses will either make no sense or will end up deleted in a thread cleanup. Please do not try to "eat your cake and have it, too."

10: Limit quote size: When copying and pasting quotations from other works, limit the size to 20% of the original article, or other work, while providing proper citation as noted above.

Stipulations:



1. ) Longer specific topic description:
The Catholic position as understood from current Catholic edicts and current Papal statements bars the acceptance of theistic evolution as an acceptable understanding of human origins.

2.) Affirmative: mark kennedy
Negative: Papias

3) Three rounds (so each of us makes three posts).

4) mark goes first, with alternating rounds (mark posts, Papias posts, then mark posts, and so on)

6) two week maximum between posts, no minimum.

7) 5000 word maximum length for each post. No minimum length.

8) Outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule.

9) Anytime after today and before memorial day, 2011.

Link to Peanut Gallery Thread Here: Peanut Gallery: Does the Roman Catholic Church Condemn Theistic Evolution?

 

[mark kennedy]

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

First of all since Papias choose the question at hand I expect he has a working definition for 'evolution' with regards to historicity. Darwinian evolution has long been predicated on a cause that is exclusively naturalistic from the 'beginning'. In the words of Charles Darwin:

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ (Preface, On the Origin of Species)​

All evolutionists emphasis that God as the Creator cannot be scientific simply because miracles are not allowed as an explanation. However, in Christian theism God as Creator is a self-evident, primary first cause the the testimony of Scripture is explicit in this regards. There is no hint of gradual adaptive evolution resulting in God creating Adam a living soul in an ape body. Rome has always regarded Adam as our first parent and to deny this is to be guilty of the sin of perdition, indicated by the epitaph, 'let them be anathema'

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)​

When you ask the question 'Does the Roman Catholic Church condemn theistic evolution?', I expect a solid definition for evolution. I know what it is in the genuine article of science but what is it with regards to the history of life on this planet? The challenge before you Papias is to define your central term.

Then we should consider why it's considered anathema to reject the 'original sin' doctrine and the key theological issue is the need for justification in the first place. We will get to the New Testament reasons this is vital but let's first consider what the Church has always taught regarding Adam:

• But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)
• And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
• THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

Early Church Fathers on Original Sin

That is the short list, the link leads to numerous others and I have yet to find anyone denying this from Church history in a non-heretical tradition. Based on the teachings of the early church fathers I ask you this question Papias. If you deny the original sin doctrine are you to be considered 'anathema' in Roman Catholic theology? If so, then why. If not, then why are you not incensed at the theistic evolutionists who call Genesis 3 figurative?

The encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII was written in 1950 "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". While the encyclical makes it clear that there is no problem to Catholics to hold opinions of conjecture regarding evolutionary scenarios there was one point of doctrine that they are in no way, at liberty to hold. He first of all advises moderation. While the origin of the body of Adam can be the subject of conjecture it is in no way completely certain.

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. (Humani Generis 36)​

What the encyclical really says is that Catholics are at liberty to speculate about evolutionary scenarios. This is in no way shape or form a ringing endorsement of evolution as natural history. What was outright condemned as heresy is the belief that Adam and Eve represented a certain number of first parents. This is called polygenism.

37. 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. (Humani Generis 37)​

There is a reason that Rome must affirm the historicity of Adam and original sin and it's not because of Moses, it's because of Paul. Original sin is a Pauline doctrine and Paul explicitly states that the reason that all sin is because when Adam sinned we did not fast. That leads to my final question before I present the most important exposition in this debate.

If Adam was not created from dust then how do you avoid the heresy of polygenism since he would have descended from a population of apes?

There is a reason that Rome finds 'original sin' inescapable, God must be worshiped as Creator in order to be received as Savior and Lord.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to sound doctrine. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whales and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

This is consistently taught by the early church fathers who never dismissed Adam and Eve as mythical. The central emphasis has always been on original sin.

Unlike most theistic evolutionists my opponent is going to attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (henceforth refereed to as RCC). What he is going to find out is that he can't escape the explicit teaching of Paul regarding original sin. Then he is going to have to do some pretty fancy theological acrobatics to escape the teachings of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) that universally regard Adam and Eve to be our first parents and to deny that their sin is ours makes you anathema.

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

Entertaining the multitude of theories regarding evolution as natural history does not affect essential Christian theism. Conjecture along those lines is permissible in the RCC. What has to be affirmed in no uncertain terms is"

• Adam and Eve are literal historical people, the 1st parents of us all.
• The sin of Adam and Eve was and is our sin.
• Denial of these core convictions is a rejection of the Gospel.

Questions posed to my opponent:

1. What is your definition for 'evolution' with regards to historicity?
2. Are those who deny the original sin doctrine to be considered 'anathema'?
3. If Adam was not created from dust then how do you avoid the heresy of polygenism since he would have descended from a population of apes?

The arguments I am fielding from theistic evolutionists are not marked by the the greatest moderation and caution in this question. What I am getting is one long argument against the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. If we are sinners because of Adam then we have no more then two common ancestors, Adam and Eve. It is not the Creationist that is denying the facts regarding human history, it's the evolutionist. What is more 'original sin' is not an optional doctrine for Catholics, a rejection of this vital doctrine of the faith is a rejection of the Gospel according to the dogma of the RCC.

The trend in the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, has been toward Intelligent Design. The reason for it is some times scientific but essentially theological. At some point you are going to have to decide what you are going to stand on because the Theory of Evolution and the Bible as Redemptive history are clearly in conflict. If my opponent has a way of reconciling the clear testimony of Scripture and the worldly philosophy of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic means I have yet to hear it.

With that my opponent will respond as he sees fit. In the spirit of the debate forums, may the truth prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Good Morning everyone-

To determine if the theistic evolution is an acceptable understanding of human origins within the Roman Catholic church, I will look to current Catholic edicts and current Papal statements, as well as other sources of information. I will use the framework below to hopefully make this large post more useful:

Section 1 will address the question of the debate. This will answer the debate question in and of itself.
Section 2 will discuss how the answer in Section 1 works within RCC doctrine.
Section 3 will cover mark’s specific questions from his first post.

**************************************
Section 1.
Questions below:

1Q. Are there current Papal statements that support theistic evolution?

A. Yes. In addition to those by earlier Popes, perhaps the clearest is Pope Benedict’s statement, issued as part of the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. The fact that the Vatican was holding an event for that anniversary is relevant in and of itself as well. :

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence ….

Pope Benedict XVI 2004

This is clear and detailed endorsement of the historical understanding of the universe shown by the findings of science, and with it, the question under debate is answered. I’m not aware of any current Papal statements that contradict this.

2Q. Are there current Catholic Edicts that support theistic evolution?

A. Yes, a clear statement allowing theistic evolution is in paragraph #36 of the official Edict, Humani Generis

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 -

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 36 (1950)

So even well before mark or I were born, the Catholic church had already accepted theistic evolution as a permissible stance, allowing many decades to move to the view of evolution being “virtually certain” in the current Pope’s statement above.

Another official edict is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, in Part I, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 183, has:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church


This is partway between the previous statements in date, and unsurprisingly, allows TE, giving the findings of science more admiration than the 1950 statement.
I’m not aware of any current edicts that contradict this.

3Q. Are there current statements from the Vatican, Vatican publications, and Vatican officials that support theistic evolution?

A. While these are less authoritative, and would be ignored if they contradicted the answers from more official sources, they are nonetheless illustrative and common. For one example, Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture offers this affirmation of science:

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity,"

There are many more, but in the interest of space, they won’t be listed unless requested.

4Q. Is theistic evolution taught in Catholic Sunday Schools, schools and Universities, and by professors who are Catholic?

A. As many of us who went through these types of schools know, theistic evolution is taught to children in Catholic Sunday schools, in Catholic Parochial schools, in Catholic Universities (simply look at the research topics of the professors at any large Catholic University). The teaching of the mechanism of Adam being the first transitional ape to get a soul and rebel against God is so ubiquitous to be commonly used in satire and caricature of Catholic Sunday school. Anyone remotely involved in evolution and Catholicism is likely aware of this, just as many of us here, including myself, were taught the description of Adam being the first transitional ape to get a soul and rebel against God in Catholic school. (an example from a Catholic teacher removed for space)

Also, some of the strongest proponents of evolution, and opponents of creationism, are such Catholic Professors, such as Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Francisco Ayala. Quotes by request.

Perhaps the farthest one could get from those examples would be Professor Michael Behe, who is Catholic. Behe is the main proponent of “Intelligent Design” (ID). However, Behe fully endorses the view that humans evolved from ape ancestors, and as such is in agreement with the theistic evolution view for the purposes of this debate (including full common descent of all life), as part of his ID. Behe’s only divergence with mainstream science is his rejection of mutations being random, instead proposing that mutations are divinely caused by a designer God. This is all clarified in his most recent book (2007).

To wrap up Section 1, it’s probably appropriate to quote mark himself.

I don't deny that Rome is tolerant of TE but his Easter message sounded an awful lot like Intelligent Design to me.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554302-4/, post #31

It sounds like we agree that the RCC does allow the theistic evolution (TE), which is the question of this debate. As shown in the preceding paragraph, Intelligent Design can be practically the same as TE (while in the hands of YEC’s, can be presented as part of the standard YEC attack on evolution as well).

***************************************
Section 2:
Though Section 1 answers the debate question, it is common in the discussion of this topic for doctrinal implications to come up. This is especially relevant in this debate, where mark appears to be more concerned with using the doctrine of Orginal Sin as an objection to Theistic Evolution, regardless of whether or not the RCC allows Theistic Evolution. One of the most common implications of Theistic Evolution discussed in RCC schools is how to reconcile theistic evolution with the idea of original sin, and with a real, literal Adam, who is the father of us all.

This question is easily solved by a standard Catholic position that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first human in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today. As a group of apes gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including brain ability and/or a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. God divinely created a soul in that first individual (Adam). Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus all humans are descended from Adam, and have both souls and Original Sin.

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human and so we have a single person, from whom we all get original sin.

******************************************
Section 3 – some of mark’s specific questions

Though much of post #2 isn’t relevant to the question of the debate, I will address several points contained in it.

mark wrote:

…must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI

Well, of course. That’s why this is about “Theistic Evolution”.

First of all since Papias choose the question at hand I expect he has a working definition for 'evolution' with regards to historicity.

I don’t think any readers here are unclear as to what is meant by “evolution”, but for the purposes of this debate, I’ll tentatively define it as the descent of one species from ancestral stock of another species.

In the words of Charles Darwin:

If you’d like to discuss whether or not Charles Darwin himself objects to the idea of theistic evolution, you are welcome to start a thread on it, and to find a debate partner - it's not relevant to this debate.

If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, …; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)

All of the above (and many other verses you quoted) is consistent with the transitional ape Adam explanation of Original Sin, and with the Pope’s description of the evolution of humans from earlier life as “virtually certain”.

Also, mark, thank you for the link of some of the Saints and fathers, all of whom testify to this first man, Adam. All of their statements, as well, are consistent with the transitional ape Adam explanation of Original Sin given above (though even if some were not, that would be OK, since even Saints can make errors).

If you deny the original sin doctrine are you to be considered 'anathema' in Roman Catholic theology?

Of course.

If so, then why.

It is described that way in numerous edicts.

If not, then why are you not incensed at the theistic evolutionists who call Genesis 3 figurative?

Well, because I’m not the sole enforcer of divine will. That role falls primarily to God, who I am not. After all, in the cause of Christianity I tolerate those heretics who deny the scripture of Tobit, Maccabbees, etc, and other issues that I would ask of both them and you. This too is not relevant to the question of this debate.

Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God'

Of course, because God divinely created him, creating his soul from nothing. Even in your YEC view, you aren’t saying that God had sex with mud, which gave birth to Adam, but are saying, just as I am, that God took pre-existing matter, added a divine soul, to make Adam, his “son”.

indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28).

Of course he had no human parents – he was the first human, and his parents were not quite over the line, and hence, still apes. We are both saying that God took pre-existing matter, added a created divine soul, to make Adam, his “son”.

What has to be affirmed in no uncertain terms is"
• Adam and Eve are literal historical people, the 1st parents of us all.

Yes, real and historical, yes, the first human parents. You’ve yet to show me where, in scripture, it says they didn’t have ape parents (weren’t made partly from pre-existing matter).

• The sin of Adam and Eve was and is our sin.
• Denial of these core convictions is a rejection of the Gospel.

All good.

Questions posed to my opponent:

(all of these are answered above. I’m sorry that I’ve had to cut a lot to be able to post this, so please ask again any questions you don’t feel were answered.)

The trend in the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, has been toward Intelligent Design.

Do you have data for is, or is it just your opinion? Besides, you’ll have to explain what you mean by “intelligent design”. Comparing Humani Generis (1950) to the Popes recent endorsement of common descent (2004), if one is to posit a trend, it would seem to be more towards a full embrace of theistic evolution.



I’ll end with a few questions for mark.

1. Do you agree with the debate question, that the RCC allows theistic evolution as a Christian view of our origin?
2. Even if you don’t personally agree with it, do you see how the Catholic position of a transitional ape Adam preserves a literal Adam, the father of us all, as well as preserving both Original Sin and the need for a second Adam, Jesus?
3. Do you agree that both a literal reading of Genesis as well as the transitional ape Adam describe God creating Adam from a mixture of pre-existing material and a divinely created soul?

With that, I hope to have made it clear that the RCC does allow Theistic Evolution, while explaining how this works well with doctrines such as Original Sin and a literal, real, single, Adam. I also hope to have addressed Mark’s specific questions.

In the spirit of this debate, may we all learn something-

In His love-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

1Q. Are there current Papal statements that support theistic evolution?

A. Yes. In addition to those by earlier Popes, perhaps the clearest is Pope Benedict’s statement

Pope Benedict clearly rejects polygenism and Pope Pius X warned that textual criticism denies even the incarnation when their philosophical foundations are adhered to. What is really being debated is the historicity of Scripture which has been continuously attacked by modernists interested in putting their secular philosophy in vaguely theological terminology while denying the miracles of the Bible categorically.

We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. (Encyclical of Pope Pius X On the Doctrines of Modernists 1907)​

What I have heard continuously is not a moderate or open minded discussion of the pros and cons of evolution from theistic evolutionists. Instead it's been one long argument against creation while Adam is regarded almost unanimously as figurative, no more historical then a pagan myth.

This is clear and detailed endorsement of the historical understanding of the universe shown by the findings of science, and with it, the question under debate is answered. I’m not aware of any current Papal statements that contradict this.

I am aware of at least two, the prohibition against polygenism and the creation of Eve. In 1860 Pope Leo XIII had this to say regarding the creation of Adam and Eve:

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 (Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)​

To be clear, even if Adam descended from apes, Eve was created from Adam's rib according to at least two Popes:

"the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race....". (The Pontifical Biblical Commission decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909)​

Another official edict is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, in Part I, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 183, has:

The actual Catechism is found in paragraph 283 and Papias has quoted it out of context. In the previous paragraph the Catachism clearly connects our origin to teleology (the end to which things are directed). The one that follows more clearly indicates the domain of natural science and the heart of this controversy. Namely, chance and necessity or an Intelligent Designer being the primary cause of life on earth:

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 284)

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. (CCC 289)​

The themes of these catechisms will be familiar to anyone who has explored the subject of evolution as natural history. Teleology, Chance and Necessity, Original Sin and the inextricable link of creation to salvation. Creation is the beginning of God's redemptive history, evolution is one long argument against creation and clearly, these catechisms should never be confused with an endorsement of universal common descent. The RCC has made it crystal clear that to reject creation is to reject the Gospel.

He has further failed to defend the proposition that theistic evolution has managed to reconcile the doctrine of original sin with universal common descent. One of the proponents of evolution in the RCC mentioned by Papias is Dr. Francisco Ayala:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)​

How is that not polygenism? At least 'several thousand individuals is not monogenism and Catholics are not at liberty to hold this 'conjecttural opinion'. Far from being an endorsement of evolution Humani Generis clearly recognized that original sin and universal common descent (aka evolution) cannot be reconciled to the clear testimony of Scripture.

While it remains permissible to entertain conjecture and theories the RCC has never endorsed evolution as natural history. On the contrary, the RCC has made it clear that Adam and Eve were specially created by divine fiat and the evolution of Adam and Eve from modified apes is unknown in RCC doctrine.

3Q. Are there current statements from the Vatican, Vatican publications, and Vatican officials that support theistic evolution?

The quote Papias offers as proof of an endorsement of theistic evolution does not say anything about evolution. Of course we have an obligation to listen to what science has to offer. While it is related in a very general way it is far from being an endorsement of theistic evolution:

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity," (Cardinal Paul Poupard)​

Knowledge of our faith includes the fact that Adam and Eve were specially created, not evolved from apes. It is false to suppose that we can assume a priori that all life descended from primordial bacteria and God's miraculous interposition at the same time. This is the expert voice the Biblical theism brings to modern science, the historicity of the creation of man by divine fiat through the incarnate Word of God.

Behe’s only divergence with mainstream science is his rejection of mutations being random, instead proposing that mutations are divinely caused by a designer God. This is all clarified in his most recent book (2007).

That is utterly absurd. I was unaware of Behe's new book but your description of his views is rivaled only by your rationalization of RCC dogma. I am astonished, Behe calculates in this book, the evolutionary timescale for humans since the split between humans and chimps. He claims that it would take a billion years to get a double mutation like that needed for chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium. How long do you think it would take to accumulate the requisite mutations needed for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes?

This question is easily solved by a standard Catholic position that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first human in the ape to human gradual change.

The differences between humans and apes are not slight and there is neither the time nor the means for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. LS4C Darwinism and the Human Brain

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate, none of them is human and so we have a single person, from whom we all get original sin.

So now you have a human Adam selecting a mate from a community of apes. At least two Popes and the founding prophet of the ancient covenant claim that Eve was created from Adam's rib. I'll just let the absurdity of that statement run it's course in due time.

I don’t think any readers here are unclear as to what is meant by “evolution”, but for the purposes of this debate, I’ll tentatively define it as the descent of one species from ancestral stock of another species.

That's not how it is defined and not how the RCC understands evolution. In the quote you parade as proof positive that theistic evolution is endorsed by Rome it clearly indicates evolution from a single celled common ancestor over 3 billion years ago. Your definition is disappointing at best.

All of the above (and many other verses you quoted) is consistent with the transitional ape Adam explanation of Original Sin, and with the Pope’s description of the evolution of humans from earlier life as “virtually certain”.

Notice not a single Bible verse is mentioned in your response, that speaks volumes for the philosophy of history you endorse. I asked this question:

If you deny the original sin doctrine are you to be considered 'anathema' in Roman Catholic theology?

You replied

Of course.

This is denied categorically by the vast majority of theistic evolutionists who simply consider Adam to be a figure of speech representing humanity.

Of course, because God divinely created him, creating his soul from nothing. Even in your YEC view, you aren’t saying that God had sex with mud, which gave birth to Adam, but are saying, just as I am, that God took pre-existing matter, added a divine soul, to make Adam, his “son”.

Luke says God, not apes, begat Adam. Does the incarnation indicate that God had sex with Mary or was the conception God's miraculous interposition? Genesis says that God created Eve from Adam's rib because there was no suitable mate among the beasts of the field. Clearly you have denied the testimony of Scripture but what is even more astonishing, I don't think you realize it.

Yes, real and historical, yes, the first human parents. You’ve yet to show me where, in scripture, it says they didn’t have ape parents (weren’t made partly from pre-existing matter).

Have you never read?

So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. (Genesis 2:20-21)​

Do you have data for is, or is it just your opinion?

The quote at the top of the OP is clearly an intelligent design view if not full blown creationism.

Do you agree with the debate question, that the RCC allows theistic evolution as a Christian view of our origin?

No, I agree that theistic evolution remains permissible as conjecture but not as proven fact. It is certainly never been endorsed by Rome and in it's most common form is condemned by Rome as anathema.

Even if you don’t personally agree with it, do you see how the Catholic position of a transitional ape Adam preserves a literal Adam, the father of us all, as well as preserving both Original Sin and the need for a second Adam, Jesus?

You retain the vital doctrine of original sin which is my primary doctrinal issue and Rome's. The absurdity with which you do it leaves me convinced that you have did nothing more then beg the question of proof on your hands and knees. While universal common descent is considered 'virtually certain' by secular scientists the special creation of Adam and Eve is a canon of Scripture not subject to the caprices of modernist conjecture.

Do you agree that both a literal reading of Genesis as well as the transitional ape Adam describe God creating Adam from a mixture of pre-existing material and a divinely created soul?

No, a literal reading of Genesis indicates Adam and Eve were created from dust and a rib respectively. This has been affirmed in Papal encyclicals except that instead of dust one Pope called the preexisting material 'slime'. No where has Rome affirmed that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

The question for debate was carefully crafted to evade the real questions raised by the creation/evolution controversy. The real question is who is the author of human history. The author and finisher of our faith is also the Creator. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator. There are only two explanations for the origin of life:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)​

It is misguided to believe that compromise on this topic is acceptable or even possible. Evolutionists have deliberately targeted belief in God's miraculous interposition as the main issue. Choose a side because the middle ground was turned into no man's land centuries ago. One thing is certain, the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent is a categorical denial of God as Creator, something Rome has never endorsed. In fact, the RCC condemns as anathema the denial of the historical Adam and original sin, something the vast majority of theistic evolutionists deny with a modernist apologetic zeal.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

As before, I’ve had to regroup parts of mark’s post to make this post organized.
Section 1.
1Q. current Papal statements

Mark wrote:

Pope Benedict clearly rejects polygenism

Of course he does. So do I. So do all observant Catholics. As explained earlier, polygenism is avoided by the transition ape understanding of Adam.

No where has Rome affirmed that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

mark, you are well aware that Rome sees evolution as “virtually certain”, because not only did I quote His Holiness saying that (since both we and other apes are living), but you yourself stated that His Holiness endorses common descent, as shown by your quote here:

In the quote you parade as proof positive that theistic evolution is endorsed by Rome it clearly indicates evolution from a single celled common ancestor over 3 billion years ago.

It is false to suppose that we can assume a priori that all life descended from primordial bacteria

Please don’t misrepresent His Holiness, who stated that the common origin of life from bacteria is known not from an a priori assumption, but rather from evidence. He says:
“…..about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence …”
Papias wrote:

I’m not aware of any current Papal statements that contradict [theistic evolution].

In response, mark wrote:

I am aware of at least two,

Mark, neither of those are current, both being from over a century ago.
That’s like arguing that today’s Roman Catholic Church supports slavery and geocentrism, both of which are clearly endorsed in outdated and superseded statements by Popes. These quotes are not clearly relevant and outdated anyway.
2Q. current Catholic Edicts
mark wrote:

Papias has quoted it out of context.

How is my quote out of context?
It appears that mark was unable to find any part of the CCC that disallows theistic evolution, so he proceeds to pretend that the Catholic theistic evolution is, in mark’s mind, atheistic evolution, and then proceeds to argue against atheistic evolution, here:

Creation is the beginning of God's redemptive history, evolution is one long argument against creation and clearly, these catechisms should never be confused with an endorsement of universal common descent. The RCC has made it crystal clear that to reject creation is to reject the Gospel.

mark, myself and many others here at CF have pointed out to you that theistic evolution DOES include God (that’s why it’s called theistic evolution), and as such your argument above is nothing more than an argument against a strawman in your own head, and therefore irrelevant to this debate. It may help you to remember that another name for theistic evolution is “Evolutionary Creationism”. You may find that using the term “Evolutionary Creationism” may make evolution more palatable to you in your own mind. It’s been a common theme in marks posts to act as if theistic evolution weren’t theistic, so maybe it’s worthwhile to ask directly: mark, could you please use the term "atheistic evolution" when you mean that?

Far from being an endorsement of evolution Humani Generis clearly recognized that original sin and universal common descent (aka evolution) cannot be reconciled to the clear testimony of Scripture.

Compare mark’s statement to what HG actually says:

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 –

It seems clear that mark is deliberately misrepresenting official statements from God’s representative church on earth.
mark wrote:

Namely, chance and necessity or an Intelligent Designer being the primary cause of life on earth:

Everything mark quotes from CCC 284 and 289 is completely consistent with the transitional ape model of Adam and human origins, as is his quote from Genesis. mark may as well quote Exodus 19:4 as proof that God has wings and flies around ferrying people internationally. Similarly, mark states what a literal reading of genesis requires. That is irrelevant because Genesis, just like Exodus and so on, need not be read only literally.
3Q Statements from the Vatican

The quote Papias offers as proof of an endorsement of theistic evolution does not say anything about evolution.

I called it “illustrative”, not “proof” (please be honest about what I say). The Cardinal said it in the context of supporting the evolutionary origin of humans in November of 205, so yes, it is about evolution. After all, even the clear statement by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t happen to include the specific word “evolution”.
4Q Other Catholic sources:
We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. … there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)
mark wrote:

How is that not polygenism? At least 'several thousand individuals is not monogenism

*Sigh* Very simply. Because nearly all of those individuals, at the dawn of humanity, are not humans. Thus there is only one human root, Adam.
I don’t think that’s very hard to understand, (especially since you indicated in your post that you do understand it by writing “So now you have a human Adam selecting a mate from a community of apes.”), and so I struggle to keep from finding your repeated statements of ignorance of the transitional ape understanding of Adam to be disingenuous.

That is utterly absurd. I was unaware of Behe's new …….I am astonished,

You are welcome to read his book yourself (TEOE). Please don’t blame me if you personally don’t like the fact that Behe fully supports common descent of humans from earlier apes.

Behe calculates in this book, the evolutionary timescale for humans since the split between humans and chimps. He claims that it would take a billion years to get a double mutation like that needed for…..

Of course he does. Behe supports common descent, with God supplying the many beneficial mutations.

How long do you think it would take to accumulate the requisite mutations needed ……?

Again, please understand Behe’s view. He is making evolution look difficult NOT to say it didn’t happen, BUT INSTEAD to say that because we know it did happen, it must have been aided by God delivering the beneficial mutations, allowing the highly improbable to happen easily, by common descent.

genes. LS4C Darwinism and the Human Brain

which has:

Homo habilis …with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc.

mark, in your own page that you referenced, there is a big jump in the fossil record of brain sizes (between 510 cc and 1,025 cc) – mark’s page proceeds to use that “fact” as a reason to reject evolution. However, in reality, we know that this gap is filled by a plethora of fossils with many intermediate sizes. Mark, do you think that doing that gives the appearance of deceptively hiding evidence?
Section two - (a description of the transition ape understanding of Adam) was sufficiently covered in my previous post.
Section three – Other discussion:
mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

Even if you don’t personally agree with it, do you see how the Catholic position of a transitional ape Adam preserves a literal Adam, the father of us all, as well as preserving both Original Sin …..

You retain the vital doctrine of original sin which is my primary doctrinal issue and Rome's. The absurdity with which you do it leaves me convinced that you have did nothing more then beg the question of proof on your hands and knees.

So I’ll take that as a “yes”. The fact that you personally don’t like the transitional ape understanding of Adam is not a problem – you don’t have to subscribe to it yourself to recognize that it solves the issue of original sin for many Catholics.

That's not how it [evolution] is defined…Your definition is disappointing at best.

You asked me to define it for this debate, and I did. I don’t see any relevance in the fact that you personally find it “disappointing”.
mark wrote:

The quote at the top of the OP is clearly an intelligent design view if not full blown creationism.

Well, as we saw with Behe, intelligent design can range well into theistic evolution. The quote you refer to is fully consistent with theistic evolution, which is also known as “evolutionary creationism”.
mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

Do you agree that both a literal reading of Genesis as well as the transitional ape Adam describe God creating Adam from a mixture of pre-existing material and a divinely created soul?

No, a literal reading of Genesis indicates Adam and Eve were created from dust and a rib respectively.

I didn’t ask what a literal reading says those preexisting materials were. I asked if you agreed that God creating Adam from a mixture of pre-existing material and a divinely created soul. So do you?
mark wrote:

What is really being debated is the historicity of Scripture…….

….. What I have heard continuously is not a moderate or open minded discussion of the pros and cons of evolution from theistic evolutionists. Instead ……
Adam is regarded almost unanimously as figurative, no more historical then a pagan myth.

……… This is denied categorically by the vast majority of theistic evolutionists who simply consider Adam to be a figure of speech representing humanity.

Notice not a single Bible verse is mentioned in your response, ……

The question for debate was carefully crafted to evade the real questions raised by the creation/evolution controversy.
The real question is who is the author of human history.


Pope Pius X warned that textual criticism denies

The previous paragraph the Catachism clearly connects our origin to teleology (the end to which things are directed). The one that follows more clearly indicates the domain of natural science and the heart of this controversy.

Evolutionists have deliberately targeted belief in God's miraculous interposition as the main issue.

……… the historical Adam and original sin, something the vast majority of theistic evolutionists deny with a modernist apologetic zeal.

All of these statements are about topics other than the topic of the debate.
It seems that mark wants to have some other debate rather than this debate, because he continually tries to change the topic from the acceptance of evolution by the RCC, to topics like teleology, the actions of non-Catholic theistic evolution supporters, his need for a literal interpretation of his Bible, the overall creationism/evolution discussion, and so on, filling much of his posts with off-topic material. This even extends to complaining about the debate question itself (which mark agreed to beforehand, and the only reason I’m having this debate in the first place is because mark asked me to).
It’s clear that mark’s main point is that he personally doesn’t like the doctrine of the RCC in that it permits and supports theistic evolution. That being the case, mark’s issue is probably best resolved simply by mark simply not joining the Roman Catholic Church. To help accomplish this, and in the interests of peaceful relations, I promise I won’t try to physically drag mark to Holy Mass, Confession, nor to the feast day of Mary, Queen of Heaven.
Perhaps this focus on topics other than the debate topic is because mark has already conceded the debate topic, both in another thread (I quoted him in my previous post – and by not responding to that appears to agree that he conceded then), and again in his previous post:
Papias wrote:

Do you agree with the debate question, that the RCC allows theistic evolution as a Christian view of our origin?

mark replied:

No, I agree that theistic evolution remains permissible as conjecture but not as proven fact.

(my bold)

…
Have a good day everyone-
Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

polygenism is avoided by the transition ape understanding of Adam.

Polygenism is blatantly endorsed by your arguments that Adam had ape ancestors and Eve was selected from a community of apes. Saying that it is avoided and actually avoiding it are two very different things.

mark, you are well aware that Rome sees evolution as “virtually certain”,

Evolution as you have failed to define it is 'virtually certain'.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.​

You never defined evolution in this way, you simply made a general reference to common ancestry. This is nothing more then a theologians response to a homology argument based on all organisms being 'genetically related'. The fact is that this has never been proven with any certainty. The fact of the matter is that human evolution is not described as virtually certain, it is described as complex and subject to revision:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.​

Notice he says that the human species 'common genetic lineage' only goes back 150,000 years. So much for 'evolution' as you failed to define it being 'virtually certain'. Again you have grossly misrepresented the RCC teaching regarding evolution, failed to define your central term and argued in circles around the core doctrinal issues at hand. What is more you are well aware of the fact that human evolution from apes is in no way, shape or form virtually certain yet you pretend that it is.

Please don’t misrepresent His Holiness, who stated that the common origin of life from bacteria is known not from an a priori assumption, but rather from evidence. He says:
“…..about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

First of all I never quoted the Pope as saying anything else. I said that it was false to believe that God created life and that it evolved from a primordial ancestor from over 3 billion years ago and it is. In that statement, that is neither dogma nor doctrinal, the ITC makes a statement based on 'scientific accounts' which in no way, shape or form endorses Theistic Evolution and you know it.

Papias wrote: I’m not aware of any current Papal statements that contradict [theistic evolution].
In response, mark wrote: I am aware of at least two,

Mark, neither of those are current, both being from over a century ago.
That’s like arguing that today’s Roman Catholic Church supports slavery and geocentrism, both of which are clearly endorsed in outdated and superseded statements by Popes. These quotes are not clearly relevant and outdated anyway.

Nonsense, both statements are made based on the Scriptures, the core dogma of the RCC. Slavery and geocentrism are never addressed doctrinally, the creation of life and Adam is. The Creation of life and Adam are at the very foundation of the Christian faith. You said clearly that Eve was taken as a wife from a population of apes and this is your clearest endorsement of polygenism. Instead of defending that view you ignore both the Scriptures and the edicts of the Popes who spoke to these matters. What is even worse you have never addressed the fact that Eve was created from Adam's rib and that no beast of the field was suitable. You contradict Scripture, you contradict Papal encyclicals and you endorse polygenism and pretend that the problem is solved.

It appears that mark was unable to find any part of the CCC that disallows theistic evolution, so he proceeds to pretend that the Catholic theistic evolution is, in mark’s mind, atheistic evolution, and then proceeds to argue against atheistic evolution, here:

]Creation is the beginning of God's redemptive history, evolution is one long argument against creation and clearly, these catechisms should never be confused with an endorsement of universal common descent. The RCC has made it crystal clear that to reject creation is to reject the Gospel.

No I didn't, I argued that the CCC in their proper context does not endorse theistic evolution but rather creation. I further went on to say that the RCC has made it clear, there and elsewhere, that to reject creation is to reject the Gospel. Once again you have argued against something I have not said, from edicts and proclamations the RCC has not made.

mark, could you please use the term "atheistic evolution" when you mean that?

Could you please stop putting words in my mouth, when I mean atheistic evolution I will say that. I have been arguing on here against the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I have always argued that and I spend very little, if any, time on philosophical atheism since it is impossible for God to have escaped the attention of atheists. I have argued and established that the RCC condemns polygenism which is a doctrine you defend while pretending you don't. I have argued and established that the RCC teaches that creation is inextricably linked to the resurrection and new birth, something you have yet to address.

Compare mark’s statement to what HG actually says:

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 –

Then it goes on to say:

...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.​

Then you go on to abandon all moderation and caution to make this incendiary and fallacious charge:

It seems clear that mark is deliberately misrepresenting official statements from God’s representative church on earth.

No sir, it is you who have grossly misrepresented the CCC and the encyclicals with reckless abandon. What is more HUMANI GENERIS has never been an endorsement of theistic evolution but a warning of these dangers:

1. Christian culture being attacked on all sides
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
10. desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
11. some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ
12 the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
17. things (truths of the faith) may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow;
22. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.
28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.​

In other words, Humani Generis is warning against the dangers of theistic evolution.

Everything mark quotes from CCC 284 and 289 is completely consistent with the transitional ape model of Adam and human origins, as is his quote from Genesis. mark may as well quote Exodus 19:4 as proof that God has wings and flies around ferrying people internationally. Similarly, mark states what a literal reading of genesis requires. That is irrelevant because Genesis, just like Exodus and so on, need not be read only literally.

I never quoted Exodus 19:4 and you never quoted CCC 284 and 289. More importantly what Papias is doing is one of the dangers warned of in Humani Generis, specifically:

Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament... By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures. (Humani Generis 23)​

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. … there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)

*Sigh* Very simply. Because nearly all of those individuals, at the dawn of humanity, are not humans. Thus there is only one human root, Adam.

*Sigh* Very simply. You have forgotten that you describe Eve as coming from a community of apes rather then from Adam's rib.

Polygenism is avoided, because though there are plenty of others around in Adam's community, any one of which he can choose as a mate

The RCC has always affirmed that Eve was created from Adam and never endorsed this conjectural opinion that Eve was selected rather then created.

I don’t think that’s very hard to understand, (especially since you indicated in your post that you do understand it by writing “So now you have a human Adam selecting a mate from a community of apes.”), and so I struggle to keep from finding your repeated statements of ignorance of the transitional ape understanding of Adam to be disingenuous.

Its not hard to understand, you are contradicting the Scriptures and failing to heed the warning of the RCC with regards to the authority of Scripture. I understand perfectly well what a transitional ape is and I know the difference between two parents and a population of thousands of apes. Our ancestors were either Adam and Eve or a population of apes, you cannot have it both ways, its one or the other.

mark, in your own page that you referenced, there is a big jump in the fossil record of brain sizes (between 510 cc and 1,025 cc) – mark’s page proceeds to use that “fact” as a reason to reject evolution. However, in reality, we know that this gap is filled by a plethora of fossils with many intermediate sizes. Mark, do you think that doing that gives the appearance of deceptively hiding evidence?

Speaking of deception, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That's easy enough, they are in our lineage marked as Homo XXX or some such. I'm not going to get into the scientific reasons why paleontology and molecular genetics have failed to prove chimpanzee/human common ancestry here just pointing out that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes. That is a position I have argued from the scientific literature for years. Human/chimpanzee common ancestry is anything but a proven fact, it's not even a theory, it's a naturalistic assumption.

So I’ll take that as a “yes”. The fact that you personally don’t like the transitional ape understanding of Adam is not a problem – you don’t have to subscribe to it yourself to recognize that it solves the issue of original sin for many Catholics.

Take it anyway you like, it does nothing of the sort. You never defined your central term, 'evolution' and simply used the word any way that suited you. It's a fallacy called equivocation. That is why in philosophy you always define your terms.

It seems that mark wants to have some other debate rather than this debate, because he continually tries to change the topic from the acceptance of evolution by the RCC, to topics like teleology, the actions of non-Catholic theistic evolution supporters, his need for a literal interpretation of his Bible, the overall creationism/evolution discussion, and so on, filling much of his posts with off-topic material. This even extends to complaining about the debate question itself (which mark agreed to beforehand, and the only reason I’m having this debate in the first place is because mark asked me to).

I never discussed teleology, I simply said that it's mentioned in the CCC in the immediate context of the one you quoted out of context. I only quoted Behe because you mentioned him and apparently you consider the Scriptures to be off topic because you never mentioned them once.

It’s clear that mark’s main point is that he personally doesn’t like the doctrine of the RCC in that it permits and supports theistic evolution.

It's clear that the RCC does nothing of the sort.

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 (HG 36)​

One such person is Papias. He has omitted the creation and by so doing, misunderstood the history of God with man. This grievous error remains the single greatest danger of theistic evolution and he would do well to heed the warnings of the RCC against it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

This post will be organized into three sections:

1. Conversation points
2. Some things we’ve seen in this debate
3. A summary of the debate topic

Section 1:
*****************************************
mark wrote:

You never defined evolution in this way

My definition is necessarily true if the Pope’s statement is true (since humans, being living, had to have evolved from earlier creatures if all life on earth descended from earlier creatures).

The fact of the matter is that human evolution is not described as virtually certain, it is described as complex and subject to revision:

False dichotomy. Many things are both virtually certain, yet complex and subject to revision. Others include gravity, cancer, germ theory, plate tectonics, and many more. Each of those is both “virtually certain”, while also being “complex and subject to revision”.

Notice he says that the human species 'common genetic lineage' only goes back 150,000 years. So much for 'evolution' as you failed to define it being 'virtually certain'.

mark has added the word “only” in an attempt to change the meaning of the quote. I invite everyone to read the full quote (at the top of the page here Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective ), so you can see if mark has fairly represented what His Holiness is saying, or if he has quotemined the Pope, as we’ll see he does later as well.

You never defined your central term, 'evolution' and simply used the word any way that suited you.

Sure I did. In my first post, I wrote:

for the purposes of this debate, I’ll tentatively define it (evolution) as the descent of one species from ancestral stock of another species.



mark wrote:

In other words, Humani Generis is warning against the dangers of theistic evolution.

Humani Generis fully allows theistic evolution (and even says as much, as I’ve quoted in my previous post). As before, we can see that all of mark’s quotes from Catholic sources, including is quote of the list from Humani Generis, are completely consistent with the transitional ape model of Adam and human origins.

The RCC has always affirmed that Eve was created from Adam and never endorsed this conjectural opinion that Eve was selected rather then created.

Eve, even if a transitional ape, is still created by God, as are all creatures. Plenty of Catholic sources do allow theistic evolution, which would include the transitional ape approach, as has already been listed ad naseum. If on top of all that, mark would like a more detailed internet source, here is one, from a Catholic site:

Therefore, it is possible that God evolved the early hominids to a state advanced enough to be endowed with a rational soul and then infused a human soul on two of them. If this is true then the first rational hominids were Adam and Eve …..

from: Common Questions about Bible Passages

mark wrote:

…Our ancestors were either Adam and Eve or a population of apes, you cannot have it both ways,

Sure you can. Our Ancestors could be Adam and Eve, who are members of a population of apes. If you want to fiddle with possible ways, you can imagine other scenarios, also permissible, such as Eve being a twin of an XXY Adam with a disabling mutation to the SRY gene (rendering her female), or a relative in the community (since all relatives will be “flesh of my flesh” to Adam), and God can give Eve a soul at any time (so she’s not a “beast of the field”). Any of these scenarios work well to prevent polygenism, preserving both evolutionary science and scripture. Remember that polygenism is a separate whole population or couples of first humans (giving rise to *separate races*), and of course the original single couple of humans will have two members, who'll have ancestors – that’s not polygenism. I recommend reading a bit about polygenism here Humani Generis
and here: Polygenism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bare assertions like “you can’t have both” are not conducive to a productive debate. Similarly, deceptive tactics are harmful to debate as well.

****************
Section 2: Some of the Deceptive Tactics displayed by mark in this debate:

• Continuing to use exposed falsehoods – perhaps the clearest example of this is his listing of human evolution fossils, leaving out some to make a false “gap”, then immediately claiming this gap is real, which is the point of his own webpage which he referenced. He was called on this deception previously (http://www.christianforums.com/t7552551-4/ . mark deceives in post #31, and is called on it in post #37), and yet mark uses it again in this debate, not even denying his deception when called on it.
• Inconsistent terminology -One of the many examples of this is mark’s use of the term “creation”. Though told many times, mark refuses to acknowledge that theistic evolution includes God as creator of the creation. Some examples -mark wrote:

  evolution is one long argument against creation

  The RCC has made it crystal clear that to reject creation is to reject the Gospel.

  …

  Papias. He has omitted the creation

  And more…..
• Bare assertions – Much of mark’s rambling posts has been bare assertions, with no support given. I’m already up to the word limit, and they are easy to see in earlier posts by mark.
• Misrepresentation- Of the many examples where mark has misrepresented what various Catholic sources have said, the example of his misrepresentation of Humani Generis, given in my previous post, is quite clear. Another example is mark’s claim that the Pope denies evolution. When mark was called on this, he first denied doing so, but then immediately repeated his claim:

  First of all I never quoted the Pope as saying anything else. I said that it was false to believe that God created life and that it evolved from a primordial ancestor from over 3 billion years ago and it is.

  It’s also relevant that this now adds an example of mark moving the goalposts – from “what the Pope says” to saying it is “false to believe that God created life and that it evolved…..”
• Moving the Goalposts – mark has tried to do this throughout the debate. mark continually acts as though merely permitting theistic evolution is not sufficient (despite the agreed upon topic of the debate), but that theistic evolution must be officially stated as a proven fact. One example: mark wrote

  No, I agree that theistic evolution remains permissible as conjecture but not as proven fact.

• Quotemining (misrepresenting a quote to sound like it says the opposite of its original meaning). - His quotemining in his previous post is explained in post #54, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554302-6/ , in addition to earlier example.
• Outright falsehoods -For example:

  Once again you have argued …. from edicts and proclamations the RCC has not made.

  I’ve only argued from existing edicts and proclamations. (check my citations, if you like).
• Ducking questions by changing the topic (red herrings or the “Gish Gallop” - To save room I had to cut another long list of off topic statements. They can each be found by searching mark’s last post for: “assumption of”, “no way, shape”, “foundation”, “chimp”, “Homo”, “paleontology”, “brain”, and “literature”.
• Use of outdated sources - Mark uses outdated Papal statements in his second post.

**************
Section 3:

In summary-

The topic of the debate was:
Is theistic evolution an acceptable understanding of human origins in the Catholic Church as understood from current Catholic edicts and current Papal statements?

Most of the relevant material is my first post, and I don’t have room to repeat it. That includes:

Current Papal Statements (listed at 1Q)

Current Catholic Edicts (at 2Q)

Current Vatican Statements (at 3Q)

Theistic Evolution in Catholic schools. (at 4Q)

All of these sources showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that theistic evolution is allowed by and in the Roman Catholic Church, including support from the Pope himself, as the peanut gallery has noted as well. It’s telling that in addition to all of this evidence, mark himself conceded that the RCC allows theistic evolution in both the peanut gallery as well as in the debate itself. I think it is rather rare for a person to concede the debate point in the debate, and probably rarer still for that that person to keep arguing after doing so. Mark’s concessions:

Mark wrote:

I don't deny that Rome is tolerant of TE, but...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554302-4/ , post #31

and

No, I agree that theistic evolution remains permissible as conjecture but not as proven fact.

In mark’s second post in this debate.

I’d also like to thank the peanut gallery for their observation of this debate.

In closing, I hope that we learned from this debate. It’s sad to see a professed Christian repeatedly violate the 8th (RCC) or 9th (Protestant) Commandment so readily. When Christians repeatedly use deception, it repels non-believers, and hurts the cause of Christ. As Saint Augustine said, losing our credibility hobbles our ability to preach the Gospel (paraphrase for space).

In the love of Christ-

Papias