Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

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...