Zone1 Catholics Can Believe in Evolution With only one 'Qualification'. - What is that Qualification?

[Donald H]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

darwin was proven wrong a long time ago,,

 

[JoeB131]

darwin was proven wrong a long time ago,,

Wow, really?

What other firmly established science do you want to deny?

Gravity? Newton was proven wrong a long time ago.

 

[Donald H]

darwin was proven wrong a long time ago,,

You disagree with the Catholic church and so your answer is wrong

Evolution is acceptable to Catholics to believe, with only that one qualification.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

As someone who was brought up Catholic, it's more along the lines of admitting that Evolution is what happened, and the story in Genesis is, at best, a metaphor.

Then they don't dwell on it.

If Evolution happened, there was no Adam or Eve.

No Adam or Eve, no original sin

No Original sin, no reason for Jesus to come to Earth and die for our sins.

 

[progressive hunter]

You disagree with the Catholic church and so your answer is wrong

Evolution is acceptable to Catholics to believe, with only that one qualification.

I never said a word about catholics and dont care what they have to say,,

 

[Donald H]

As someone who was brought up Catholic, it's more along the lines of admitting that Evolution is what happened, and the story in Genesis is, at best, a metaphor.

Then they don't dwell on it.

If Evolution happened, there was no Adam or Eve.

No Adam or Eve, no original sin

No Original sin, no reason for Jesus to come to Earth and die for our sins.

You can believe in evolution but your church insists on your belief being 'qualified'. You don't even know what that qualification is, that's demanded by your church.

I think you're now being introduced to an issue that most Catholics don't even know exists.

And you probably don't even care enough to read the long answer!

Why Evolution is Not a Problem for the Catholic Church - The Society of Catholic Scientists

Some Christians raise theological objections to evolution. This article examines eight of the common ones and explains why they have no force from a Catholic point of view.

catholicscientists.org

 

[Mashmont]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

This is the easiest one ever, and there is not the slightest bit of embarrassment: Evolution is perfectly logical as long as you don't believe the Bible is referring to a 'day' as a manmade 24-hour earth day. In Heaven, there is no time. "A day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a day". This is why the Catholic Church has zero problem with evolution.

It's also why Catholics aren't stuck with the impossible argument that earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[Mashmont]

Guys, I would also add the Catholic Church, being Jesus' own church, has infallible teachings in everything. RCC = truth = science. No inconsistencies. If we don't see that God's teachings are perfect, it is because our views are undeveloped and imperfect. This goes for abortion, birth control, and IVF. The more you study and think, the more you understand this. This is why atheists and even Protestants have such difficulties in life. They think they can make their own rules, and you can't do that without dire earthly consequences.

 

[DGS49]

I went to Catholic grade school, high school, and law school, and Evolution was taught as fact. A scientific "theory" is an explanation for facts or phenomena that cannot be observed or empirically proven. Evolution is the best theory for the evolution of species, but it has huge shortcomings. It has no explanation for the Big Bang, the origin of life on earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and a number of other things, including why I miss two-foot putts.

I was taught that the Genesis creation story was allegorical, and not to be taken literally. God was the creator, or the "Prime Mover," as noted by some guy a long time ago. Once creation was started, He really doesn't get involved except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., Mazeroski's 1960 W.S. homer).

 

[Donald H]

This is the easiest one ever, and there is not the slightest bit of embarrassment: Evolution is perfectly logical as long as you don't believe the Bible is referring to a 'day' as a manmade 24-hour earth day. In Heaven, there is no time. "A day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a day". This is why the Catholic Church has zero problem with evolution.

It's also why Catholics aren't stuck with the impossible argument that earth is only 6000 years old.

No, you've failed to answer the question, but you have at least verified that Catholics are permitted to believe that a day could be any length of time.

So the question still is: You can interpret the bibles the way you like and lthat includes accepting Darwinian evolution.

But there is one necessary qualification to which you must agree and must abide by.

This isn't a trick question. Meriweather or Ding could answer in less than a minute! Isn't the answer obvious?

 

[ding]

it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

The Phenomenon of Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Donald H]

I went to Catholic grade school, high school, and law school, and Evolution was taught as fact. A scientific "theory" is an explanation for facts or phenomena that cannot be observed or empirically proven. Evolution is the best theory for the evolution of species, but it has huge shortcomings. It has no explanation for the Big Bang, the origin of life on earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and a number of other things, including why I miss two-foot putts.

I was taught that the Genesis creation story was allegorical, and not to be taken literally. God was the creator, or the "Prime Mover," as noted by some guy a long time ago. Once creation was started, He really doesn't get involved except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., Mazeroski's 1960 W.S. homer).

I'm surprised that you need to deflect from the question. You don't know the answer either!

The problem that exiists for everyone is that the long answer is just smoke and mirrors and so it can't cut to the chase and just say what it takes pages to hint at.

Ding and Meriweather have at least taken the time to find the answer and have likely stated it.

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Georges Lemaitre: Father of the Big Bang | AMNH

When a Catholic priest and cosmologist first proposed that the universe began as a "primeval atom," it seemed preposterous.

www.amnh.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Jean Buridan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Albertus Magnus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Blaise Pascal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

Roger Bacon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No, it's hardly ever discussed and the reason for that is that it's an embarrassment to most Catholics.

While other Catholics call it heresy and will never accept Darwin's evolution.

What is the 'qualification' that makes it all right? We're only looking for the short answer in less than say 100 words.

George Coyne - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org