Chatholics that accept evolution, what is the theology?

Question

So we have honesty, I'm an atheist and the intent of this question is to understand what I think would be theological problems by this.

It would seem to me that evolution would cast doubt on original sin, man's nature, blood sacrifice, the need for Crucifixion, and a few other topics. How does your teaching handle these?

(Note: this is asking to explain your theology. If you're a non-catholic believer who accepts evolution feel free to explain your theology as it relates to this topic. However this is *not* an evaluation of that theology)

Can you be more specific on why original sin isn't important?

The classic reason for blood sacrifice is that god killed animals -shed blood- to cloth or "cover" Adam and Eve. This is taken as a foreshadowing for Christ.

I'd also think that God creating man as inherently good but with free will is a bit different than allowing him to evolve as an inherently sinful creature (maybe this is an assuption.)

no1home2day, no thumbs down from me

I'm going to leave this open to votes.

Thanks to all of you that answered - didn't get what I thought I'd get but that's ok.

Answer 1

I'm Lutheran, we say evolution is real, we don't believe in original sin. I don't know why evolution casts doubt on need for Jesus sacrifice

Answer 2

I went to Catholic school growing up and asked a priest about evolution and some of these topics. He said:

Evolution could have happened if it was the will of God.

Its a diplomatic answer, but after many debates with him, this is what I gathered:
Catholics believe that God created everything, but it grew like how a seed (big bang) turns into a tree (universe). Only by the will of God (thus, intelligent design in it's true form, God created the Big Bang). It's clever, because the Bible makes little mention of God creating intelligent beings other than humans. This provides a cover if aliens ever make a press conference...God created aliens.

As far as changing the meaning of other traditions, I think it bears little effect. Original sin taints the human race only in tradition now. Since (after taking classes on catholic social justice and study of the sacraments) sin is mostly perceived as the conscious act of turning your back on God (or what you percieve to be his will). Some people (ie infants, special needs, etc) cannot purposely turn their back on God, because they don't have the mental capacity to do this. However, original sin can be viewed as "human nature," and thus, still applicable. Since every human sinned before that child, it's inherent that that child not only has the potential to sin, but will in fact, sin. Thus resulting in the need for the Crucifixion...an example of the rejection of human nature/original sin, and proof that humans can rise above to a more spiritual level and be worthy of God.

Answer 3

The only Christians that have a major problem with evolution are those who believe in dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is the belief that the Bible has a tracable timeline that can be broken down chronologicallly. It's a belief that came about in the mid-19th century out of the desire of a small group of Christians that felt it imperative that the Bible define the age of the earth. Nowadays, it's mostly evangelical Christians who believe this way. That's why you hear kooks like Pat Robertson rant and rave on how the earth is only about 12,000 years old.

If you live in the US and watch a lot of CNN, you would probably get the impression that most Christians are evangelical and republican, cut from the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell cloth. However, 70% of the world's Christians are NOT evangelical Christians, most of Christianity (including Catholics) have no issue with evolution.

Remember, evolution does not address the creation of the universe. What gets most Christians up in a tizzy is when quantum physicists and cosmotologists start down the path of the Big Bang Theory and the universe naturally occuring out of a random set of circumstances with no divine implication.

Answer 4

First off, I'm a Christian.

Second, thank you for your honesty, as well as your question.

The issues you raised are legitimate.

I've been asking those very same questions to those who believe that the Bible supports evolution, and that somehow the Creation story in Genesis is symbolic or a parable or something.

One other problem with Genesis as evolution is that the Hebrew word for "day" ("Yom") is understood everywhere else to mean a 24-hour period, without even attempting to define it.

However, in Genesis 1, the same word ("yom") is defined very specifically as "an evening and a morning".

Since I do not support the idea of evolution, I can't answer your question, but I just wanted to comment on it, and tell you that I personally think it's a legitimate question.

I just hope you don't get a bunch of "thumbs down" for asking.

Answer 5

Here is the theory that I find most plausible. The days of creation are not be interpreted as 24 hour days, since the sun was not created until the fourth "day". The days represent epochs spanning millions or billions of years. As Genesis relates God first creates the inorganic world. He then creates life and sculpts it by a process of evolution. This process seems slow to us, but "to God a thousand years is like a day" ; a timeless being is not temporally restricted. God's greatest act of creation is the creation of man, which occurs when he takes a primate animal (the "dust of the earth") and infuses it with an intellectual, immortal soul. Adam and Eve correspond to these first humans. For reasons shrouded in allegory these first humans turn away from God, thus introducing sin to their own souls and by inheritance to the rest of mankind. At the moment chosen by God Christ comes to earth and restores us to grace by the power of his life and crucifixion.

Answer 6

OK, I will give this a try. If you want the real theology, you will have to do research, but as I understand it:

Big Bang = God's creative action.

Dirt, clay, or slime of the earth = pre-human. God added a human soul to a pre-human.

Evolution = six days of creation.

I don't have a problem with people believing in evolution as long as they understand that God created the Big Bang. "Let there be light..."

Answer 7

An engineer is exceeded 2 products. One, he's informed, replaced into created by utilizing an wise alien with a view to record suggestion. the different got here about via random forces and contains some suggestion and diverse junk. Which one is he extra in all probability to study? wise layout isn't the deathbed of clinical inquiry. i'd a lot extremely attempt to decide how God designed existence than to study a random universe in which existence in order that handed off to take position. technology is, at its root, the search for expertise. as long as expertise is being sought, this is technology. technology isn't by utilizing definition naturalistic, in spite of the actual incontrovertible truth that some scientists might want to favor to outline it that way. in reality, they have distinctive technology as naturalistic, thrown out all info that would not help that end as being unscientific, and then concluded that each one the info factors to a naturalistic international. Scientists at present are not any a lot less to blame than scientists of a lengthy time period previous of forcing the suggestion to substantiate to their preconceived beliefs and hence stymieing extra advances. Edit: The info helps wise layout. there is not any way random danger might want to account for abiogenesis. The danger of a unmarried useful protein forming by danger in perfect circumstances over the technique a thousand million years is a million * 10 ^ -60, a volume so small we've project even grasping it. And it takes 1000's of proteins operating in live performance to form a cellular.

Answer 8

The fact is that at this juncture it does not look like evolution can be a subject of Catholic teaching. The reason has to do with its relationship to the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition).

Basically, a scientific claim can have one of three basic relations with the sources of faith: (1) It can be required by them, (2) It can be precluded by them, or (3) It can be free with respect to them.

A scientific claim can be required by the sources of faith because (a) it is directly taught in them or (b) it is needed to protect a truth that is taught in the deposit of faith. An example is that the world has a beginning, that it does not go back forever in time.

Similarly, a scientific claim also can be precluded by the sources of faith because (a) they directly teach it to be false or (b) its falsity must be recognized to protect something else they teach. An example would be the idea that the universe extends back infinitely in time.

Matters that do not fall into either of the above categories are free with respect to the sources of faith, and they must stand or fall on their own scientific merits. As the Pope pointed out in his address, new data accumulates with time, so such claims may seem to stand at one time, fall at another, then get up and stumble again later.

However that plays out, Catholic doctrine is unconcerned because the sources of faith neither require nor preclude them. They are apart from the faith and the Church’s ability to pronounce on them.
Therefore Catholics who accept evolution which conflicts with the teaching of the Magisterium of the church cannot be said to be in unity with the church.

Answer 9

As A Catholic i do not see how evolution and the theological topics you raise are at all incompatible or problematic company. Most Catholics who believe in evolution are mongenesists,that we are descended from one couple as humans, which solves problems with original sin etc.

Answer 10

Maybe this will help:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

I am not sure I follow you. Accepting scientific and historical reality somehow conflicts with sin, human nature, and the need for sacrifice and crucifixion?