Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

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...