The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Toviyah
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

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 1 vote the winner is...
Toviyah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 707 times Debate No: 59843
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will be arguing that the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.

First round is for acceptance.
Toviyah

Con

Accepted! Good luck pro!
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

All emphases are mine.

According to the 1st Vatican Council:

All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.(1)


The following from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Arcanum qualifies as a 'solemn judgement'proposed by the Church:

The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. 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.(3)



The following from the Pontifical Bibilical Commission also qualifies as a 'solemn judgement' proposed by the Church:

[Can] the literal and historical sense[...] be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in [Genesis 1-3]; for example,[...] the special creation of man [and] the formation of the first woman from the first man[...]?

Reply: In the negative.(2)



This 'special creation of man' and the 'formation of the first woman from the first man' in Genesis are indisputably referring to the special creation of their physical bodies, and not merely of their souls.

This is evident from the fact that Adam is described as having been formed out of the earth, and Eve is described as having been formed from Adam's rib. Since souls are immaterial, they cannot be created from the earth nor a rib, as those are material things.

The immaterial cannot be created from the material.

I can now make the following argument:

Premise 1: Catholicism demands faith that the first woman's body was created from the side of the adult Adam while he slept.

Premise 2: The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution entails the birth of the first woman from a non-human animal.

Conclusion: Catholicism & the Modern Synthesis of Evolution are incompatible.

(1) 1st Vatican Council

(2) 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission

(3) http://www.vatican.va...

Toviyah

Con

Thanks Pro!
I should start off by stating that personally, I do not object to Premise 1 of Pro's argument, so most of my efforts will centre around premise 2. However, I do feel that there is a de jure case to reject it as a premise (which, as this is a debate around compatibility, will be sufficient to negate the resolution).

Church acceptance
It is evident that the Church accepts evolutionary theory, for Pope Pius XII spoke out in favour of it in"Humani Generis 36":

"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 . . . 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"[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" [1]

If the Pope, as the source of absolute authority over Catholicism, accepts evolution, then there is a de facto case that evolution and Catholicism are compatible. The Pope is the authority of Catholicism: if he finds compatibility between evolution and Catholicism, then as the source of absolute authority and indefectability from God, the only reasonable position is an acceptance of their compatibility. In other words, if the Pope finds reconciliation, so does Catholicism; and as the Pope has found reconcilliation, we should conclude that there is. As a Catholic, one should take this to be all the proof needed, considering God's role in the Pope's statements and decrees. We also need not see a conflict between this notion and Pope Leo XIII's decree, as I will now show.

To what extent must we take Genesis literally?
Underlying the whole argument is the charge that Genesis cannot be taken metaphorically, and must be taken literally. But I think that the Catholic can maintain a literal reading of Genesis, without subscribing to YEC or any theory of the sort that undermines evolution.
For instance, we can take a 'topical reading' [2], where there is a literal, historic six-day creation, but with gaps between the days of creation - so it is something like:
Day
Gap
Day
Gap
Day

Etc...
Where the gap could be equivalent to millions of years, and the days of creation 24 hour days. There is nothing in Genesis that states, either explicitly or implicitly, that the days were stricly sequential; but that is not to take away the historicity of Genesis. All the while, there is the capacity for both the time and the gradual process of evolution to take place, under the superintendence of God. Under this reading, there is certainly compatibility. The Genesis account and the evolutionary account are not antonymous and to subscribe to one theory does not preclude the other.
So it is within the Catholic's reason to maintain a literal reading, yet accept evolution: thusly, we now have a de jure case against the argument. Pro may respond that this doesn't directly address either premise. But that's not the point; rather, the point is that there is a de jure reason to offer interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolutionary theory, but still hold to literalism.

Does Evolution claim anything about the first humans?
Simply, no. Recall the definition of evolution:

"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth." [3]

When we see this, it is clear that there is nothing that necessitates the notion that Eve was not formed out of Adam. In theistic evolution, the possibility is still there - all that is required is that all organisms up to humans evolved under God's guidance. There is therefore the capacity, at the genesis of man, for God to have created man and woman separately from the rest of creation, as per the account at Genesis 2 and Premise 1 of Pro's argument. There is simply no contradiction in that. So, the evolutionary Catholic has a de jure reason to reject the second premise: evolutionary theory, in a broad sense of the term, does not occlude God's involvement and consequently, it is impossible to rule out the Genesis account as a means of evolution.

Conclusion
I have shown that Pro's argument fails in three respects:
- The Papacy has spoken in favour of evolutionary theory
- Genesis does not exclude evolution
- Evolution does not exclude Genesis

So he must respond to these if his onus is to be fulfilled, for we have a strong de jure case against the resolution.

Sources
[1]"http://www.vatican.va...
[2]"http://www.catholic.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

All emphases are mine.

Con attacks my conclusion by saying,

It is evident that the Church accepts evolutionary theory, for Pope Pius XII spoke out in favour of it[...]

However, the following quote he took from Pope Pius XII does not actually support his assertion:

"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 . . . 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"[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"



No where in this quote is it demonstrated that either the Pope or the Catholic Church accepts the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. In fact, a reading of the entire source (fair warning: it's pretty long) reveals the exact opposite, and it becomes clear that Con's paraphrasing is abusive.

To get the obvious out of the way: Con's quote only demonstrates acceptance of “research and discussions” regarding evolution. It does not demonstrate acceptance of evolution itself.



Con's quote began with,

the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that [evolution be researched and discussed]



But in reality, the sentence begins with,

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that [evolution be researched and discussed]



So, what are the reasons the Church allows discussion of evolution? We've got to read the source to find out:

Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths[...]



There you have it, folks. The Catholic Church permits discussion and research regarding evolution not because it accepts evolution, but because it considers it a false theory that may have a certain amount of truth contained in it.

Now Con's claims that the Pope & the Catholic Church have “found reconciliation” between faith & [the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of] Evolution can be dismissed.



Con's arguments regarding the length of the days of Creation Week are completely irrelevant as they have nothing to do with Eve's body being formed out of Adam's rib. I did not bring up any argument related to the length of Creation Week.



Con says that, “The Genesis account and the evolutionary account are not antonymous and to subscribe to one theory does not preclude the other.

This is false, as the account of Eve's creation most certainly precludes the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution.



Con says, “Pro may respond that this doesn't directly address either premise. But that's not the point; rather, the point is that there is a de jure reason to offer interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolutionary theory, but still hold to literalism.

I must object that this should be considered nonsense by anyone who has read the Book of Genesis and has a grasp of the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution.

A literal interpretation of Genesis demands not only the first woman's creation from the rib of the adult Adam while he slept, but a global flood where it rained for 40 days and covered the tops of the highest mountains, the waters not receding for a year. It also requires that birds appeared before dinosaurs. These things are wholly incompatible with the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution.



Con says,

Does Evolution claim anything about the first humans?
Simply, no. Recall the definition of evolution:

"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."



It should be immediately obvious that Con is falsely equivocating 'evolution' with 'The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution' in order to undermine my argument. However, remember the resolution! Quoting myself from Round 1:

I will be arguing that the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.”



I was very careful to use the term Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution to avoid the very type of false equivocation my opponent is utilizing here. I hope my efforts have not been wasted and one can see through Con's strategy.



Con says, “So, the evolutionary Catholic has a de jure reason to reject the second premise: evolutionary theory, in a broad sense of the term, does not occlude God's involvement”

This is irrelevant. The resolution is not “The broad sense of the term evolutionary theory does not occlude God's involvement.”

The resolution is actually “the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.”



Con has attacked a strawman, and my position stands. Roman Catholicism is incompatible with the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution because

A) Catholics must believe the first woman was created from the rib of the first adult man while he slept, and

B) The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution entails the birth of the first woman from a brute ape.

The conflict is obvious. We can also throw the whole "Genesis says birds appeared before dinosaurs but the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution says the exact opposite" thing on top of that, too.

Good luck in your next round Con, I look forward to it.

Toviyah

Con

Thanks Pro!

Church Acceptance
Firstly, Pro states that the church: "permits discussion and research regarding evolution not because it accepts evolution, but because it considers it a false theory that may have a certain amount of truth contained in it"
Of course, I disagree. But for reductio, let's grant this notion. Even if there isn't endorsement, the mere acceptance of the research shows that they are compatible. Otherwise, the Church wouldn't permit it! You could barely imagine the church permitting the research and discussion of abortion, murder, warfare, theft, rape, or any of the kind. Why? Because they aren't compatible with Church doctrine. And yet we see the same acceptance for evolutionary theory. For what other reason would the Church issue a decree of acceptance, except for the fact that there is compatibility? It seems that Pro has the wrong end of the stick here. He (either rightly or wrongly) states that the Church doesn't accept evolution as a true theory. But the truth value of evolutionary theory is not the point; the resolution is whether evolution and Catholicism are compatible. And through the decree, it certainly seems so."
In other words, the Church would not permit the research and discussion of something that is not compatible with Church doctrine. But as the Catholic Church permits evolution along these terms, we must conclude that they are compatible.

Genesis
Pro states:
"A literal interpretation of Genesis demands not only the first woman's creation from the rib of the adult Adam while he slept, but a global flood where it rained for 40 days and covered the tops of the highest mountains, the waters not receding for a year. It also requires that birds appeared before dinosaurs. These things are wholly incompatible with the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution."
And I maintain all are compatible with modern evolution. It can say nothing about the first woman (merely that there was one), it certainly says nothing about any sort of flood (that would be a job for geology), and who knows, perhaps some interpretation of Genesis says insects were the only 'birds' (the Hebrew is literally translated to 'flying creatures'(וְעוֹף֙)) before dinosaurs.
As I said, this gives us a logically consistent reason for some form of reconciliation or another. It doesn't need to be actually true. It doesn't even need to be probably true. But provided that it is is not a logically impossible stance to take, and in turn is logically consistent with and given valid interpretation of Genesis, then there is reason to reject its negation. And that is the case we have here; and it is all that's sufficient to fulfil my opus.
If any possible, valid reconciliation is provided (as I have done)"in respect to evolution and Catholicism, then we must admit compatibility.
And then:
"Con's arguments regarding the length of the days of Creation Week are completely irrelevant as they have nothing to do with Eve's body being formed out of Adam's rib. I did not bring up any argument related to the length of Creation Week."
The reason I argued for it is in response to the general assertion that it is an 'either-or' deal with Eve or evolution. If the whole of Genesis can be reconciled with evolution, so too can premise 1 of Pro's argument. It is only a part of my cumulative argument.
Regardless, It brings up the valid point that interpretation is everything. And if we grant this, then there is some interpretation of both Genesis, that, in light of Pope Leo XIII's decree, has the capacity for evolution. And on certain interpretations, like the topical reading or the interpretation I gave in the paragraph above, it is so. We can reject Premise 1 of Pro's argument as a result: we can offer some literal interpretation of the genesis of Man, such as, say, the view that 'formed out of Adam's rib' equates to 'evolved out of Adam's bones', and still maintain literalism.
And so I reiterate my point: there is some literalistic view of Genesis that gives a de jure reason to reject mutual exclusiveness.

'Evolution' vs 'modern synthesis of evolution'
Here Pro states that i am equivocating 'evolution' with 'the modern synthesis of evolution'. But this is just irrelevant semantics. The only difference between the former and the latter is that the latter states that change occurred due to natural selection and mutation, and the former does not do so explicitly. But that is irrelevant to the argument.
The modern synthesis provides nothing on what drove the process; the capacity for some superintender to superintend the process cannot possibly be discounted on the modern synthesis. This is the stance taken by several evolutionary biologists, including the leading scholar Francisco Ayala [1]. And, more importantly in respect to the debate, the modern synthesis of evolution cannot occlude the first woman being made out of the first man's rib as he slept. I simply cannot see how it could possibly exclude that. So, taking the literal interpretation I provided in the last round, along with the fact that evolutionary theory does not divine superintendence gives us a strong case for compatibility.
Therefore, we have no choice but to render this objection futile semantics.

Conclusion
Pro's responses all fail in one respect or another. The fact that the Church accepts or rejects evolution as a true theory is irrelevant in establishing their compatibility. Moreover, I can give some possible interpretation of Genesis that, whether true or not, gives a de jure reason to accept compatibility (like the interpretations I have given in both rounds) and thus negates Premise 1 of Pro's argument. For the remainder of the debate, Pro focuses on irrelevant semantics. The resolution is therefore negated.

Thanks Pro, onto the final round!

Sources
[1]"http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Pro says that if the Church allows discussion & research of something, it means the Church accepts belief in whatever the 'something' is.

To support his point, he says the Church doesn't allow research of abortion and says it's because it doesn't accept abortion. He provides other examples, such as murder, warfare, theft, & rape.

This is a non-sequitur. It's also false. The Church doesn't permit intentional killing of an unborn baby, but that doesn't mean researching abortion requires performing abortions. In fact, the Church had to have researched abortion to know anything about it. You have to research something to understand it. How else would the Church be able to make the decision that abortion is not permissible?

Here is a quote from a page on the Vatican's website where it permits research and discussion of warfare in order to make sure it's used only as a last resort:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration.[...] The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.(5)

How will the conditions for war be evaluated without research and discussion? This is a de facto endoresement by the Church for the research and discussion of war.



When Con says, “In other words, the Church would not permit the research and discussion of something that is not compatible with Church doctrine. But as the Catholic Church permits evolution along these terms, we must conclude that they are compatible.”

He makes a non-sequitur. Acceptance of research and discussion into a topic is not the same as acceptance of the topic itself. e.g. Just because I'm discussing evolution in this debate, and researched it in order to debate it, doesn't mean I accept evolution. Because I obviously don't.



Con says evolution says nothing about the first woman. This is simply false. Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that a woman 'evolving' or whatever out of the rib of the first man while he was an adult is wholly incompatible with modern evolutionary theory.



Con says the word translated as 'birds' in Genesis might mean just 'flying insects.' By arguing so, he puts himself in an even more absurd position, because now it's not birds-before-dinosaurs that must be reconciled with evolutionary theory, but flying insects. Since land creatures, in Genesis, didn't appear until after the 'flying insects', and the only life so far created was fish, Con is de facto arguing that modern evolutionary theory is consistent with insects evolving from fish.

What an absurdity.



Con says, “The modern synthesis provides nothing on what drove the process; the capacity for some superintender to superintend the process cannot possibly be discounted on the modern synthesis.”

That's not the point. The point is that the mechanism of human evolution, as posited by the Modern Synthesis, is not “stem-cell in a rib of an adult male growing into a woman which then mates with the male she evolved from to start the human race.”



I've provided 2 reasons why Catholicism & The Modern Synthesis of Evolution are not compatible, but either one is sufficient to prove my case standing alone.

I never thought I'd one day have to argue that fish didn't evolve directly into flying insects.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(5) http://www.vatican.va...

Toviyah

Con

Thanks Pro!

Church acceptance
Pro gives two charges against my argument: firstly, that it's a non-sequiter. Secondly, that it is false.
i) non-sequiter
The claim that my argument is a non-sequitur has been given no support: and I fail to see how my argument might be construed that way. If we must, we can put it into a syllogism to show that it really isn't a non-sequitur:
1) The Catholic Church would not endorse the research and/or discussion of some subject that is incompatible with Church doctrine
2) The Catholic Church has endorsed the research and/or development of evolutionary theory
3) Therefore, evolutionary theory is not incompatible with Church doctrine

Which is valid through modus tollens. So my argument isn't a non-sequitur, like Pro claims.
ii) false
Now, Pro claims that my argument is false. He cites various pieces of evidence to support this, so I'll respond to each.
a) "How will the conditions for war be evaluated without research and discussion? This is a de facto endoresement by the Church for the research and discussion of war."
I actually agree with Pro here. But far from being detrimental to my argument, it appears that it supports it!"
First let's distinguish between de facto and de jure in legal terms (as opposed to philosophical terms, as I have been using through the"debate). A law that is enforced de facto is one which is actually adopted, either correctly or incorrectly, while a"law that is enforced de jure is one which is formally and legally enforced. For instance, some might say that the possession and use of marijuana is de facto enforced, despite its de jure prohibition.
It is here that we should differentiate between a decree de jure and a de facto practice of some doctrine.
Whether some doctrine is endorsed de facto (as Pro mentions) is irrelevant when establishing compatibility. It is entirely possible that it is entirely incompatible with the de jure (objective, divine) standard. But the de jure standard is the standard we use to establish compatibility! So the de facto acceptance of the Church with warfare is simply an irrelevance. And, the decree was establishing just warfare, which can be compatible with Catholicism. And it is in this context which we should judge Pro's remaining rebuttals - does he de facto object to evolution, or does he de jure object to evolution? It seems that a de facto objection has the capacity for compatibility, while a de jure does not. But it seems that most of Pro's objections are de facto. Perhaps 'warfare' in such a broad sense was a bad example, but I hope you get the general point; the Church is not going to endorse any such doctrine that goes against Catholic doctrine in the way that evolution has been endorsed by Pope Pius.

b) "The Church doesn't permit intentional killing of an unborn baby, but that doesn't mean researching abortion requires performing abortions. In fact, the Church had to have researched abortion to know anything about it. You have to research something to understand it."...
"Just because I'm discussing evolution in this debate, and researched it in order to debate it, doesn't mean I accept evolution. Because I obviously don't."


Again, I would generally agree here. But, I don't see it to be all that important to the resolution. Sure, you could say that. But is it a de jure incompatibility? We can't say.
But perhaps by far the most important point to consider is the context in which the Church issued the decree of acceptance. Is it one that permits the research and development in order to criticise, or is it one that permits the research and development of evolution for the sake of research and development? Well, let's take a look. The decree states:

"research and discussion... 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" [2]

Is this permitting research and development in order to criticise? It seems not. It states what is consistent - id est, the broad term 'evolution', and what is not - id est, materialism. Indeed, it seems that the Humani Generis 37 explicitly states what is not compatible with Church doctrine:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty." [3]

So that there is an implicit acceptance of evolution. While the research and discussion of evolution is permitted, the same cannot be said of polygenism ("the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty"). For what other reason could this be, except that one is compatible and the other not? Why doesn't the church, if we go by Pro's notion that 'You have to research something to understand it', permit the research of polygenism for criticism? Pro's story doesn't add up. It isn't consistent with what the Church has actually stated.
And so, I maintain my point. The endorsement of the research and development of evolution suggests a de jure compatibility between Catholicism and evolution.

Genesis
Pro makes only 2 points to respond to here, so I'll respond to both.
1) "Con says evolution says nothing about the first woman. This is simply false. Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that a woman 'evolving' or whatever out of the rib of the first man while he was an adult is wholly incompatible with modern evolutionary theory."
I beg to differ. The modern synthesis of evolution says nothing about the how the first woman came about, other than she evolved via natural selection and mutation. There is still the capacity here for the Genesis account. How does it even discount it? Just like it cannot discount God, it cannot discount this. So when Pro states: "Any evolutionary biologist will tell you [sic]", I highly doubt this. He is assuming his own premise. Moreover, he needs to cite every evolutionary biologist to affirm that. And I don't think it's possible. We should, then, reject this statement.

2) "Con says the word translated as 'birds' in Genesis might mean just 'flying insects.' By arguing so, he puts himself in an even more absurd position, because now it's not birds-before-dinosaurs that must be reconciled with evolutionary theory, but flying insects. Since land creatures, in Genesis, didn't appear until after the 'flying insects', and the only life so far created was fish, Con is de facto arguing that modern evolutionary theory is consistent with insects evolving from fish."
It appears that Pro attacks somewhat of a strawman. I didn't affirm the above. Rather, the point was that this is a possible literal interpretation of Genesis that is compatible with some possible interpretation of the modern synthesis of evolution. And it seems, according to the MSE, that fish and insects do evolve at around the same time, with fish's evolution starting around 530 million years ago [4] and insects' evolution around 500 million years ago. [5] So there is no contradiction in that! Nor does it require insects to 'evolve out of fish': by day 5 of creation, the land was already established, according to Genesis. I simply see no difficulties; so this too must be rejected.

Evolution
We now come to the last point"
"That's not the point. The point is that the mechanism of human evolution, as posited by the Modern Synthesis, is not "stem-cell in a rib of an adult male growing into a woman which then mates with the male she evolved from to start the human race.""
Of course not. But Pro is attacking only a caricature of what I said. I never affirmed that but, as with the previous point #2 under evolution, Pro is entirely missing my argument. So, I refer him back to my response there. I am giving a (philosophically) de jure case against the resolution. Such a case is likely to be open to such a criticism, but it is ultimately irrelevant, for it is, after all, a de jure case. It gives reason to reject the resolution and that is what it has done.

Conclusion
First off, thanks Pro for a great debate!
I gave three reasons, at the start of the debate, as to why we should think evolution and Catholicism are compatible. They were:"
- The Papacy has spoken in favour of evolutionary theory
- Genesis does not exclude evolution
- Evolution does not exclude Genesis

Have we seen adequate responses? It seems not. Pro's case against the Church acceptance doesn't add up. While the Church permits the research/discussion of evolution, it does not do so of genuine ideas that are against Church doctrine, namely, polygenism. The excuse that was given, which was that one must research and discuss something to criticise it, fails on a basic level and goes against Humanis Generis 37. The response to the final two reasons is no better. Pro has got the wrong end of the stick, and objected to a notion that isn't there. So, I have given a de jure case against the resolution and consequently, my onus is fulfilled.

Sources:
[1] http://www.electronicdesign.com...
[2]"http://www.vatican.va... , Humani Generis 36
[3] ibid, Humani Generis 37
[4]"http://www.en.wikipedia.org...
[5]"http://web.mbb.arizona.edu... (research project 1)
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
bladerunner the resolution was whether they were compatible, in other words, can a Catholic accept it without breaking any Church rules

the resolution wasn't whether catholicism and evolution can 'co-exist', i mean, using your logic, catholicism and atheism can are compatible because they can 'co-exist'
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Thanks 9spaceking XD
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
You trying this again GKD? Even with the exact same wording?
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
I'm putting my money on GKD to win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
GarretKadeDupreToviyahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There were several arguments in this debate. But the most important argument seemed to be the "church acceptance" one--the others were almost incidental. As Con said, if the Pope says it's okay, then it's okay. The burden was on Pro to show that E&C were mutually exclusive, and the decree makes clear that they are not--that even if the church considers it false, it explicitly permits Catholicism and Evolution to "co-exist", as it were, and thus, they can't be mutually exclusive. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.