The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WileyC1949
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Evolution & Catholicism Are Incompatible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
WileyC1949
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,149 times Debate No: 59539
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Let it be resolved that:

The Modern Synthesis of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.

1st round is for acceptance.
WileyC1949

Con

I accept this debate. I think you will have a tough time proving your position.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of these books is not science or history but religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that had science and history been expressed in a more perfect form this would have proved rather a hindrance than a help[...]

Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any religion.

[These] partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church[...]

- Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis



P1: The belief that the Bible contains scientific error is heresy.

P2: The Bible must be thought to contain scientific error to reconcile it with the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.

C1: Roman Catholicism & the Modern Synthesis of Evolution are incompatible.



[N]o one, relying on his own skill, shall - in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine - wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to[...] the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

- Council of Trent



P3: The Fathers were unanimous in that the Genesis account of Creation took place within 1 literal week.

C2: Arguing that the Genesis account of Creation took longer than 1 literal week defies the consensus of the Fathers.




P4: Defying the consensus of the Fathers requires defying the decree of the Council of Trent.

P5: Defying the Council of Trent is required for a Catholic to subscribe to the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.

C3: The Modern Synthesis of Evolution & Roman Catholicism are incompatible.

WileyC1949

Con

The title of this debate is that Evolution and Catholicism ARE incompatible. "Are" is present tense, not past tense. An argument by a reactionary Pope from 100 years ago does not represent what the Church says today. Time has rolled on and understanding has increased. You overlook the fact that evolution is possible not only with various species but in thought as well. This includes both science and theology.

There can be no conflict between true scientific discovery and theology. BOTH contain sources of God's revelation to man. And BOTH are sciences because they seek to probe and understand the unknown. But whereas science teaches us the truth of the physical universe only, theology probes deeper into the realm of the supernatural in which God is the ultimate source of all truth including scientific truth, and thus is the greater of the two. (Summa Theologica, Question 1, Treatise on Sacred Doctrine, Articles 1-7)

Does that mean that the every word of the Bible is literally true? No. The Bible was not written as a history book, a science book, not a sociology book. Its truth is in what it teaches about the supernatural and therefore it is the MESSAGE which the writers were inspired to proclaim where truth is to be found. The message of the Bible is what is necessary for our own salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72 (702)

If the Bible was interpreted literally was the science in it correct? NO! But that was because the scientific understanding of the day was incorrect. The authors were not inspired to write scientific truth nor historic truth, but rather only that truth which is necessary for our salvation. They did that in reference to what they knew of science and history.
The scientific understanding which is related in the Bible is the scientific understanding OF THE DAY. If the science was incorrect, blame the "scientists" of the day.

That said, it is interesting to note that behind the lines of Genesis Chapter 1 there lies an agreement with not only evolution, but the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and Pangea. Since the argument is about evolution I will reference only that. It can be seen in the order of appearance of the various living things. They correspond almost precisely with that which evolutionary scientists explain. (Genesis 1:11-24) Note also that in both the cases of the vegetation and various animals Scripture does not say that God "created" them, but rather that He caused the EARTH to produce them. (Genesis 1:11, 24). This is exactly what scientists state when they speak about a primordial soup.

Understand that Catholicism is NOT a religion "of the Book". It is not something confined to particular words written thousand of years ago from which only one understanding can be garnered. Rather than this it is a religion inspired by the living WORD of God. The Spirit is continuing to this day to inspire us to a deeper and clearer understanding of the Scriptures.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #108: Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”
73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

You also make reference to the Church Fathers understanding. Once again, their understanding of science and even Scriptures was based on the understanding of the day. In reference to Scripture you passage would only be true when it concern matters of faith and morals - not to issues of the understanding of science. This is the same understanding which we have today concerning Papal infallibility, and even in that case it is limited and superseded by the Cardinals when they are in Session. You also do not state any proof that the Church Fathers were in unanimous consent on the issue of a literal 6 day creation.

In understanding Scriptures it is also important to understand how and why they were written. For example Genesis 1 was originally a SONG. Genesis 2 was essentially a morality play. Just as with songs, plays or movies of today poetic licence is granted to the writers, and the audience understands that the events portrayed may not be exactly has they historically occurred. The same is true concerning idiomatic expressions. Without knowing the meaning of the expressions in the terms of the day it can be completely misinterpreted. The dialogue which Peter had with Christ is an example:

21 Then Peter came and said to Him,
“Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Matthew 18:21-22

A literalist would then come up with that we should forgive 490 times. That is a figure which is passed in some families in less than a year. Without understanding that 7 was the number of fulfillment in the day the meaning is lost. Today we might use the words a "million" or a "billion" for the same purpose. ("I could have eaten a million of those donuts."). What Peter was asking was in reality "Should we always forgive?". Christ response was an exaggeration for emphasis.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #110: In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”
76

So Scripture obviously is not to be taken literally in every case. The same holds true about your argument about a "day" being 24 hours. Even in English the word "day" can mean something other than 24 hours, as in "In the day of the dinosaurs...." which would mean a period of 140 million years.
The Psalmist clearly states "A thousand years in your sight are like yesterDAY now that it has past, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4) At the time a night watch was generally approximately 3 hours. So the psalmist is stating that a thousand years is like 3 hours for God.

As stated, the Church has long stated that there can be no conflict between scientific and religious truth. This is even spoken about in the Catechism.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #159: Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”
37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”38 (283, 2293)

In as far as evolution itself the Church has long stated that there is no conflict between Church teachings and a belief in evolution. For that matter several Catholic scientists were a part of the theory's development. These included Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. Evolution in no way denies the influence of God. This was the basis of the Encyclical Humani Genreris of Pope Pius XII in 1950. Every Pope since has acknowledged that whether a Catholic wishes to believe in evolution or in a specific creation is totally up to the individual. It is a scientific matter, not a theological one, and eventually science may tell us the absolute truth. The Church has never made a pronouncement against evolution.

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation... (Wikipedia: "The Catholic Church and Evolution.)
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

My opponent says,The title of this debate is that Evolution and Catholicism ARE incompatible. "Are" is present tense, not past tense. An argument by a reactionary Pope from 100 years ago does not represent what the Church says today. Time has rolled on and understanding has increased."

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.* - Vatican 1

*anathema means excommunicated, or expelled from the Church



Let's read, again, what Pope Pius X said Modernist heretics say:

In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of these books is not science or history but religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that had science and history been expressed in a more perfect form this would have proved rather a hindrance than a help[...]



Now, let us read what my opponent has just said:

[E]very word of the Bible is literally true? No. The Bible was not written as a history book, a science book, not a sociology book. Its truth is in what it teaches about the supernatural and therefore it is the MESSAGE which the writers were inspired to proclaim where truth is to be found. The message of the Bible is what is necessary for our own salvation[...]

If the Bible was interpreted literally was the science in it correct? NO! But that was because the scientific understanding of the day was incorrect. The authors were not inspired to write scientific truth nor historic truth, but rather only that truth which is necessary for our salvation. They did that in reference to what they knew of science and history. The scientific understanding which is related in the Bible is the scientific understanding OF THE DAY. If the science was incorrect, blame the "scientists" of the day.


The apologetics of Modernist Heresy, and the apologetics of my opponent, are practically indistinguishable as to almost be comical.


I could attempt to rebutt these heretical apologetics, but I'll just requote Pope Pius X:

Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any religion. (emphasis mine)


My opponent says, That said, it is interesting to note that behind the lines of Genesis Chapter 1 there lies an agreement with not only evolution, but the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and Pangea.

There is also at least some agreement between Karl Marx and Ron Paul; I'm sure they would both agree that the sky is blue. This does not make their beliefs compatible; in fact, their beliefs were exact opposites (Libertarianism VS Communism).


My opponent says, They correspond almost precisely with that which evolutionary scientists explain.

This is a concession from my opponent that Genesis and what evolutionary scientists say are not compatible, for there are at least some inconsistencies.


My opponent says, You also do not state any proof that the Church Fathers were in unanimous consent on the issue of a literal 6 day creation.

That's because I never claimed they agreed on a literal 6 day creation. I said that all of them, all the hundreds of them, agreed that creation happened within a literal week. My opponent is incapable of providing even a single counter example.


My opponent says, In understanding Scriptures it is also important to understand how and why they were written. For example Genesis 1 was originally a SONG. Genesis 2 was essentially a morality play.

This is simply nonsense.


21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Matthew 18:21-22

My opponent says, A literalist would then come up with that we should forgive 490 times.

This passage really is to be taken literally. Jesus is saying that if your brother sins against you 490 times, forgive him 490 times. I do not see what problem my opponent has with this. Even mainstream psychologists teach that forgiveness is good and eases the pain of resentment.


Christ response was an exaggeration for emphasis.

No, it wasn't in the slightest.


So Scripture obviously is not to be taken literally in every case.

I'm not arguing that Jesus' parables should be taken literally. After all, Jesus specified that they were parables. Show me where Genesis is specified as a parable in the Bible and I'll forfeit this debate.


As stated, the Church has long stated that there can be no conflict between scientific and religious truth. This is even spoken about in the Catechism.

This has no relevance to this debate. If Evolution is true, the Church is wrong, and vice versa. The compatibility is the topic, not the truth value of either. They could both be wrong and still be incompatible.


In as far as evolution itself the Church has long stated that there is no conflict between Church teachings and a belief in evolution.

That's a great claim with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. Quoting Wikipedia as saying, "In as far as evolution itself the Church has long stated that there is no conflict between Church teachings and a belief in evolution" doesn't count as evidence because I can easily go myself to that page and update it to say that Evolution is heresy.

My arguments from the previous round stand.

WileyC1949

Con

Far to the contrary that your "arguments from the previous round stand" I think even a casual observer would recognize that they lie in shambles.

I found it rather interesting that the only source of information which I used and which you chose to question was the quote from Wikipedia. I also found it interesting that you chose to question the source of the quote and NOT whether or not the quote was true. However the vast majority of my references were from The Catechism of the Catholic Church. And yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated clearly that the Catechism is the source of understanding of the truth concerning Church teachings.

A catechism is a text which contains the fundamental Christian truths formulated in a way that facilitates their understanding. (http://www.usccb.org... Question 1 "What is a catechism??)

As also stated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops about the Catechism: "It is a positive, objective and declarative exposition of Catholic doctrine." (http://www.usccb.org... Question 5 "What is the purpose of the Catechism", reply C)

Yet you chose to ignore what is clearly stated in the Catechism and clearly referenced by me in favor of your own understanding of a quote from Vatican I and what Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. In formulating that which is in the Catechism both of these documents were certainly taken into consideration.

You also fail to understand that a scientific breakthrough or theory has nothing to do with Church DOGMA. Dogma are the fundamental truths of the Church and are encapsulated in the Nicene Creed:


I believe in one God, 
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen


Please note that the word "science" is not mentioned anywhere as part of Church dogma in any document. In as far as evolution, as I stated the Church has never taken a definitive position on it and has clearly left that up to the individual whether or not he/she chooses to acknowledge it. A Catholic is likewise free to believe, if he so wishes, that the Earth is flat or that the moon is made out of cheese. These issues have nothing to do with Church dogma. Still understand that not taking a position on scientific theory is in no way stating that the theory is wrong. As I stated, this point of view was the position taken by the first Pope to write an encyclical concerning science, Pope Pius XII in Humanai Generis in 1950 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net...

Finally my opponent diverges from the topic of the debate in attempting to change the topic from whether or not Evolution and the teaching of the Church is incompatible to one one the necessity of interpreting the Scripture literally. The reference which I made about interpretation of the Scripture was backed by the Catechism and how to interpret Scripture properly. My opponent stated: "Show me where Genesis is specified as a parable in the Bible and I'll forfeit this debate." While I cannot point to that in Scripture, I can certainly point to that in the Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church #337: Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

Please note the word "symbolically". The concept of a literal 6-day creation is a question of science. It is not a position of Church dogma.

Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Far to the contrary that your "arguments from the previous round stand" I think even a casual observer would recognize that they lie in shambles.

Were that true, they would still be in better condition than yours.


I also found it interesting that you chose to question the source of the [Wikipedia] quote and NOT whether or not the quote was true.

The quote is not true. Wikipedia even admits that the threshold for inclusion is "not truth."(1)


However the vast majority of my references were from The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism has no authority where it contradicts official Church teaching. It's like a Biblical commentary on the Bible. If the commentary contradicts the Bible, the commentary is wrong... not the Bible it's commentating on.


And yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated clearly that the Catechism is the source of understanding of the truth concerning Church teachings.

The United States Conference is subject to the greater authority of the Vatican 1 council. Where it contradicts Vatican 1, it is wrong.


You also fail to understand that a scientific breakthrough or theory has nothing to do with Church DOGMA.

Not necessarily true. If a scientific theory contradicts Church dogma (e.g. Any theory that posits that no man can rise from the dead after being in a tomb for 3 days, contradicting the dogma of Christ's resurrection) then it clearly has something to do with Church dogma. If you think none of Church dogma contradicts any scientific theory, you are either sorely misinformed on the vast number of scientific theories out there, or ont he dogma of the Church.


Dogma are the fundamental truths of the Church and are encapsulated in the Nicene Creed:

Not all dogmas are in the Nicene Creed.


In as far as evolution, as I stated the Church has never taken a definitive position on it and has clearly left that up to the individual whether or not he/she chooses to acknowledge it.

You can state that as much as you like, but that's the very point you're unable to prove.


Still understand that not taking a position on scientific theory is in no way stating that the theory is wrong. As I stated, this point of view was the position taken by the first Pope to write an encyclical concerning science, Pope Pius XII in Humanai Generis in 1950

What point of view? What quote in Humanai Generis supports this supposed point of view?


Finally my opponent diverges from the topic of the debate in attempting to change the topic from whether or not Evolution and the teaching of the Church is incompatible to one one the necessity of interpreting the Scripture literally.

That is the topic, actually, since I said the Fathers unanimously considered Genesis creation as having taken place within 1 literal week. Are you Catholic btw?


Catechism of the Catholic Church #337: Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

Please note the word "symbolically". The concept of a literal 6-day creation is a question of science. It is not a position of Church dogma.

First, as I already explained, the Catechism is not an authority where it contradicts with the Church. Second, it is true that Genesis is symbolic. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT IT IS LITERAL. These are NOT mutually exclusive interpretations. For example, the day of God's rest on the 7
th is symbolic of man's prescribed day of rest ont he 7th. Yet, God did indeed rest from creating the universe on the 7th day, literally.


Summary:

I provided direct quotes from Papal Encyclicals and from the Vatican 1 Council. My opponent only provided supporting quotes from the U.S.A. Catechism, an inferior source not even considered infallible by the Church.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

WileyC1949

Con

In your last statement you referred to my reference which was included in Wikipedia concerning the Catholic Church's position on evolution was "not true". As evidence of this you stated "Wikipedia even admits that the threshold for inclusion is "not truth."(1) Your footnote referenced a Wikipedia article on verifiability. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Not only could I NOT find anything close to your statement there, I did find this statement: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (Ibid) The article goes on to explain the care which they take to be certain that the articles are true.

You then stated "The Catechism has no authority where it contradicts official Church teaching."

This statement is untrue as the Catechism is in fact the PRIMARY source of official Catholic teaching. About the Catechism Pope Paul II declared in "APOSTOLIC LETTER LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE":

"The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesiastical communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time."

Pope John Paul II also stated in "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM":
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesiastical communion."

You likewise err by stating that the U.S. Conference of Bishops is subject to the greater authority of Vatican I. It was not the U.S. Conference of Bishops which wrote the Catechism... they merely translated it from Latin. The Catechism was written by a Commission of Cardinals and Bishops convened by Pope John Paul II under the auspices of Vatican II Again I cite "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM": "In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, of course, was later Pope Benedict XVI.

Your example of a supposed scientific theory which disagreed with the Resurrection certainly would conflict with Catholic dogma. However no such theory exists nor is it likely. You then go one to say:
"If you think none of Church dogma contradicts any scientific theory, you are either sorely misinformed on the vast number of scientific theories out there, or ont he (sic) dogma of the Church.". I imagine you meant "don't know" towards the end of that sentence. But it is a rather presumptuous statement that has been asserted without proof. What "theories" or "dogmas" are you referring to? You likewise dismiss my citing of the Nicene Creed by stating that "Not all dogmas are in the Nicene Creed." yet you do not cite one which is appropriate.

In as far as your comment stating my inability to prove my statement concerning whether or not an individual is obliged to reject or accept evolution let me mention the specific text from the source which I already cited as proof, the Papal Encyclical "Humani Genris" by Pope Pius XII:

"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 -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." (#36)

This clearly states that it is the SOUL which is the specific creation of God, not necessarily the physical body which could have developed along an evolutionary process with the guidance of God.

I must admit that I am confused by your next statement which was in response to my comment that it seemed you were changing the topic to whether or not Scripture should be interpreted literally. You said: Finally in your summary you stated that I only cited supporting quotes from the Catechism and said that it was an "inferior" source. However, I have completely proven the the Catechism is considered the definitive source for the understanding of Catholic teachings. Nor was the Catechism my only source. In this discussion I have cited all of these sources:

"Apostolic Constitution Fidei Despositum" by Pope John Paul II
"Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere" by Pope John Paul II
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church" item numbers 107, 108, 110, 159, and 337
"The Catholic Church and Evolution" Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Humanai Genris" by Pope Pius XII
"The New American Bible", Matthew 18 and Psalm 90
"The Nicene Creed"
"Summa Theologica, Treatise on Sacred Doctrine" by Thomas Aquinas
"U.S. Conference of Bishops, Frequently Asked Questions" Questions 1 and 5 (www.usccb.org)
"Wikipedia:Verifiability" Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Con argued for sedevacantism, not that evolution & and Catholicism are compatible.
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
I haven't a clue why sections of my reply are blue or in smaller type... they were not that way when I reviewed them.
Posted by mrPrime 3 years ago
mrPrime
i would have debated this but i'm more confident in protestant teachings than catholic. but i know for a fact protestants support many of the fine points of evolution.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
EVOLUTION AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ARE THEY IN CONFLICT?
http://www.americancatholic.org...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Daktoria you may accept if you want
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
Pro should really take care to remember that Catholics are not Evangelical Protestants. In fact, a lot of the Protestant Reformation itself revolved around this distinction between traditional versus literal reading in that the reformers believed the Catholic Church's corruption originated from not maintaining strictly in tune with the word of God.

A lot of this has to do with the dialectic method of learning though, something which was carried on through the Scholastic school, especially with Thomas Aquinas. The point was to recognize that words can have multiple meanings, and that what you see or hear isn't necessarily the same thing that another wrote or spoke. Therefore, interpretations cannot be reliably literal. Instead, interpretations are intrinsically traditional from how people apply interpretations over time.

If I participate in this debate, I'll cite sources to talk about this, but it's really a classic theological debate that shouldn't need much explanation.
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
It's interesting that the debate says "Catholicism" and not "Christianity".

I might pick up on this if someone else doesn't over the next few days. Catholicism takes a traditional, not literal, interpretation of scripture, so this should be a pretty easy debate to win. One just has to emphasize the value of symbolism in order to show compatibility.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Following.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Hey let's do this! I've changed my mind lol, since you seem to be genuinely interested in this topic
Posted by burtonelsley 3 years ago
burtonelsley
Ah, I should have checked your profile before asking. There are so many atheists and agnostics on this site that I just assumed you were one as well, based on the question. I would love to debate you about the compatibility of scripture and evolution in a more general context sometime, as evolution is one of the central bases of my understanding/interpretation of the Bible. You've probably been a Christian much longer than I have, so I'm willing to admit fault and be corrected if, indeed, my beliefs are heretical.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
GarretKadeDupreWileyC1949Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments started off strong, but con destroyed them and cited recent evidence that overrided Pro's old evidence. Pro's arguments gradually got weaker and he began attacking Con's sources rather than his claims. Con won by a landslide.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
GarretKadeDupreWileyC1949Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited (a) the CCC and (b) a recent Pope, overriding (a) Trent and (b) a less recent pope. V1 applies only if contradiction; newer sources say no contradiction. Further, Pro never referrenced any Biblical passages to contradict evolution. (Except Genesiis 1:1, which relies on literalism, which Con destroyed.)