No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel

Now we come to another great moment of tension between Christian readings of Scripture and science. This issue’s cover story, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” reports the claims of recent genetic research that the human race did not emerge from pre-human animals as a single pair, as an “Adam” and an “Eve.” The complexity of the human genome, we are told, requires an original population of around 10,000.

Christians have already drawn the line: there must be an original pair of humans endowed with souls—that is, the spiritual capacity to relate to God in the special way Genesis describes. In 1996, John Paul II stressed Pius XII’s dictum that “if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.” And institutional statements of faith, such as Wheaton College’s, set limits by affirming that original couple’s existence: “… God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race … in his own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.”

Link

The “short” version

What Does the Catholic Church (Officially) Teach about Origins and Evolution?

· God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226:  Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be
Adam.)

· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall
(Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII).  She could not have
originated via evolution.

· Various senses are employed in the Bible,  but  the  literal  obvious sense must  be believed unless reason
dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

· Adam and Eve were  created upon an earthly paradise  and would not  have known death if they had
remained obedient (Pius XII).

· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second
Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican
Council I).

· We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or
morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).

· All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.
(Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been
created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

· St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the
then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds
of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)

· The   historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as  most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

· Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)

· Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of
evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

For more information contact:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
952 Kelly Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842, (549) 856-8453
www.kolbecenter.org


Seen at: Bellarmine Theological Forum

Can Catholics (Licitly and/or Faithfully) Accept the Theory of Evolution?


This is a great, two-part series by Monsignor Charles Pope, of the Archdiocese of Washington, who is a constant teacher of the authentic faith of the one, holy, apostolic, and Catholic church.

The reader comments tend to be almost as interesting and informative as the article’s content.

Read part one here

Read part two here

Seen on the web: Comments about the Jesuits and their checkered history

In 1773, the pope states that they were incorrigible and lists all the ways they damaged the Church from the beginning. Their ‘permanent suppression’ was ‘lifted.’ Yet, a mere 70 years later, their continuing damage to the Catholic Church ways were again exposed in their promotion of evolution in the hoax of Piltdown Man. People blame one man, Teilhard de Chardin, for the hoax, but it was not only him — several other Jesuits fostered that hoax. For all intents and purposes, ‘Piltdown Man’ was not a hoax fostered by one Jesuit, or even by some Jesuits, but by the Jesuit order itself, as evidenced by the fact that their superiors never defrocked, suspended, censured or even scolded the Jesuits personally involved in the hoax that caused so much damage to the Church.

If I were to follow the letter of the law as set down by Clement XIV, I would have to say that despite what Pius VII tried to do in 1814, I am not obliged to acknowledge that a Jesuit order or Jesuit priests exist today. Frankly, the faith of the people would be more intact had they taken this view after 1814.

Link

Darwin’s idea has cost lives

Darwin’s second catastrophic error was to promote the view that the poorest sections of society were genetically inferior to the educated middle class and that most, if not all, the traits that led to pauperism were hereditary. Darwin’s analysis generated a fear that if the working class continued to breed faster than the middle class, then the society would continue down a spiral of genetic degeneration.

It was this fear that animated the eugenics movement, which in Britain was largely led by members of Darwin’s own family. His son, Leonard, became the chairman of the Eugenics Society, agitating for the establishment of flying squads of scientists with powers of arrest over the poorest third of the population. The plan was that anyone deemed “unfit” by these tribunals would be segregated in colonies or sterilised to prevent them breeding. Fortunately, the eugenicists did not get all they wanted in Britain. Nevertheless, they did succeed in getting measures passed by Parliament that led to the imprisonment without trial of more than 40,000 people. Many were detained for “moral imbecility” – having children out of wedlock, committing petty crimes, or displaying homosexual inclinations. Some would remain incarcerated for 20 years.

In the United States the eugenicists did succeed in getting compulsory sterilisation laws passed in 33 states. At least 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilised and perhaps a further 100,000 bullied into consenting to the procedure. The last state to revoke its eugenic sterilisation statute did so in 1982.

Read the article

Evolution vs Creation

cutiepie

Question:

Recently my son and I were talking about the origins of humankind. He said that he was offended by the belief that man had descended from the ape family, and was adamant that we all came from Adam and Eve. I on the other hand believe Darwin’s theory to be a more reasonable explanation of our evolution, and think it is ridiculous to continue teaching children the creation myth. As this discussion can go round in circles are you able to shed some light on this age old topic?

Answer:

An elderly rabbi was once on an airplane to Israel sitting next to a self-professed atheist. They were amicably chatting the whole trip.

Every now and then, the rabbi’s grandchild, sitting in another row, would come over to him, bringing him a drink, or asking if he could get anything to make him more comfortable. After this happened several times, the atheist sighed, “I wish my grandchildren would treat me with such respect. They hardly even say hello to me. What’s your secret?”

The rabbi replied, “Think about it. To my grandchildren, I am two generations closer to Adam and Eve, the people made by the hand of G-d. So they look up to me. But according to the philosophy which you teach your grandchildren, you are two generations closer to being an ape. So why should they look up to you?”

Beliefs have consequences. Why do you think children today lack respect and are unable to honour their elders? Why is tradition looked down upon, and the values of the past all but forgotten? Is it not a natural consequence of modern education? If we teach our children that they are merely advanced animals, then they will act that way. And they will treat their parents and teachers like the obsolete versions of humanity that they are.

We have to be aware of the affects of our beliefs. If we believe that humans came about by accident, then life has no meaning. There can be no meaning to something that happens by chance. A random explosion or mutation cannot give us purpose. My life, your life and all human history has no real significance whatsoever. Whether I live a good life or one full of evil makes no difference. It is all a big accident anyway.

We only have purpose if we were created on purpose. Our lives only have meaning if we were created by a meaningful being. If we teach our children that they were created on purpose with a purpose, then they will know that more is expected from them than from an animal. The Adam and Eve story needs to be taught, not just because it is true, but because it is the basis of morality.

Both creationism and Darwinism require faith. To accept that G-d created man and woman requires faith. To accept that a single-celled organism spontaneously mutated billions of times to form the human being also requires faith. But only one of these beliefs demands that we live a moral life. That’s the one I want my kids to know about.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Moss

The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else. ~Rabbi Milton Steinberg

Submitted by Bob Stanley

“The Origin of the Specious”

cutiepie

(Posted 06/16/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) At a scientific convention in Chicago in 1980, over 150 of the world’s leading evolution experts faced the facts of the fossil record and virtually pronounced the death of Darwinism.

They admitted that after 120 years of digging, the fossil record showed that there are no fossil links between one species and another, i.e., there are no transitional fossils. Thus, it was acknowledged that there is indeed a genetic barrier between species which renders impossible the theory that mankind evolved from apes.

These findings should have buried evolutionism forever as a serious scientific concept. Yet, the opposite has happened. Staggering numbers worldwide have continued to embrace evolution’s false doctrines in preference to scriptural and other evidence relating to man’s true origin.

Writing in Nature, vol.123, evolutionist D.M.S Watson offers a typically atheistic, yet revealing, explanation for this phenomenon: The theory of evolution”, he says, “is universally accepted not because it can be proven true but because the alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

There we have it! Evolutionism is not science versus religion but religion versus religion. It is the religion of those who oppose God, even if that opposition contradicts all that human reason and the laws of nature dictate.

Read the article

Submitted by Doria2