Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

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)