A Few Questions (About Evolution)

[The_Truthinator]

Please, I know you’re excited, but try to keep responses clear and short (if possible). I have a few queries to ask… If you don’t think you can handle an evolution thread, please DO NOT ENTER.

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution? If the Church seems to favor the latter, why do so many here go with the former?
2. Are macro-evolution and the teachings of the Church compatible? If so, how?
3. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.)
4. What’s the deal with polygenism? Is it credible? (Let’s stray away from, “IT’S ALL EVIL LIES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH!” The Holy Father has endorsed a statement giving credance to this theory, and it’s just that anyway: a theory. Nothing scary.)

Please, these threads are usually chaotic, and so I would ask that you try to answer the questions posed here and offer additional helpful information rather than bickering amongst yourselves, which causes little to ultimately be accomplished.

Cool beans! Thanks, guys!

In Jesus and Mary

 

[The_Barbarian]

Please, I know you’re excited, but try to keep responses clear and short (if possible). I have a few queries to ask…

Relax. It’s not that hard.

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution?

ID is creationism with a new name in hopes of making it acceptable in public schools. Theistic evolution is the idea that God is responsible for it.

If the Church seems to favor the latter, why do so many here go with the former?

I’ve been trying to figure that out, myself.

1. Are macro-evolution and the teachings of the Church compatible?

Yep.

If so, how?

They are logically consistent, as Pope Benedict has pointed out.

1. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.)

Since our current Pope has said that it is “virtually certain”, I’d say “yes.”

1. What’s the deal with polygenism? Is it credible? (Let’s stray away from, “IT’S ALL EVIL LIES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH!”

Used to be a common belief among some sects, but I don’t think it has ever been so in the Catholic Church.

The Holy Father has endorsed a statement giving credance to this theory,

Tell us about that.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Used to be a common belief among some sects, but I don’t think it has ever been so in the Catholic Church.

Sects?

Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical of 1950 was considered the writings of a sectarian?

Humani Generis does explicitly condemn a belief in polygenism:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.18

1. Cf. Romans, 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, canon 1-4

 

[Orogeny]

Tell us about that.

Don’t want to speak for the OP, but he may be refering to this from paragraph 63 of Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution? If the Church seems to favor the latter, why do so many here go with the former?

ID says that there are parts of living organisms that cannot have evolved but must have been made by a Designer. Theistic Evolution says that God made all living things via the mechanism of evolution. The ID designer has intervened to keep things on track, while the TE God has not intervened (not so we would notice anyway).

I sometimes use the analogy of two pool players. The ID designer needs to nudge the cue ball after he has hit it in order to keep it on track. The TE God made a perfect shot in the first place and so has no need to nudge the cue ball at all - it goes exactly where He knew it was going all along.

1. Are macro-evolution and the teachings of the Church compatible? If so, how?

I am not a Catholic, so I cannot answer that.

1. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.)

Ditto.

1. What’s the deal with polygenism? Is it credible? (Let’s stray away from, “IT’S ALL EVIL LIES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH!” The Holy Father has endorsed a statement giving credance to this theory, and it’s just that anyway: a theory. Nothing scary.)

The scientific evidence is that the most recent genetic bottleneck in the human population was about 70,000 years ago when the poplation of Homo sapiens was reduced to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs, google Toba catastrophe for details. At no point has the population of Homo sapiens, or any of our close primate ancestors, ever been reduced to a single breeding pair. Having said that it is impossible for science to tell how many of those ancestors had souls (and so were fully human in the Catholic sense) - souls do not fossilise and cannot be detected in DNA. Scientifically it is perfectly possible that there was a population of hoiminids, genetically very similar or identical to ourselves, of which only two had souls.

rossum

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
3. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.)
…

…
Since our current Pope has said that it is “virtually certain”, I’d say “yes.” …

Thanks guys but I do not understand this in this manner. My understanding is the Church teaches that Adam and Eve were real and did not have biological parents. If there is other Catholic Church teachings please share it with us.

Second I think this is the same reason many on the forum appear to oppose evolution. I think it is a communication issue because the church teaches evolution occurs after creation and is not a substitute for creation. This is often falsely interpreted and an absence of evolution.

If anyone knows different please post a Church reference – Thanks

 

[edwest2]

I’ll deal only with 1). Intelligent Design as a concept, as opposed to a political football, tells us that complex, interdependent living systems do not come into being on their own. There is no known natural process that can make them. We human beings understand that only an intelligence can produce such a thing.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to shoehorn naturalistic evolution into divine revelation. Pope Benedict has stated that there is some evidence for evolution but as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote that God was intimately involved in guiding it. This is the complete answer, i.e. science and God. The problem occurs in that naturalistic evolution is being sold as a stand-alone concept and explicitly denies God any truly causal role. As a Catholic, divine revelation and science, which Pope Benedict refers to as complementary, provide the complete, two part answer.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Spirithound]

Don’t want to speak for the OP, but he may be refering to this from paragraph 63 of Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution:

dang…the quote within a quote didn’t carry over. Anyways, in that quote, look at the phrase “common genetic ancestor”, which says that although the population in question was larger than one pair, they descended from one pair

 

[inthecloud]

I’m more a deist/open theist than a Catholic but since I was raised that way and might return to the church here is my take.

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution? If the Church seems to favor the latter, why do so many here go with the former?
   The ID God in a incompetent that cannot predict the result of his laws over time and has to keep improving the creation perodically.
   The TE God did things well from the begining in order to eventually amid the seemely chaos of the universe and biological evolution and human history reachs the result He wanted from the begining. From dust (star dust really) to rational humans beings.
   People like ID becasue they need the confort of seen God actually doing things, but in my opinion is like putting God into a box.
2. Are macro-evolution and the teachings of the Church compatible? If so, how?
   Yes but it requires a more sophisticated reading of Genesis as a symbolic not historical message as modern CC theologicians are doing. And in my opinion Genesis is more convincing that way that in the literal versions for Genesis is amazing for the limited knowledge of the universe of his human (if God inspired) writters. The idea of the creation exnihilo, of life coming out of dust and mud. Of linear time (a expanding universe). If they were just creating stories out of the blue they hit the jackpot several times. Compare to the creation poems in other religions of the time.
3. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.) Yes.
4. What’s the deal with polygenism? Is it credible? (Let’s stray away from, “IT’S ALL EVIL LIES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH!” The Holy Father has endorsed a statement giving credance to this theory, and it’s just that anyway: a theory. Nothing scary.) As long as you believe in a pair of common ancestors of humanity it does not matter that were other humans living at the time as biology teaches. But there has to be a Adam and a Eve.

 

[Donald45]

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution?

It’s important to realize that both of these are theological positions, rather than scientific ones. The former is a contemporary restatement of Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument (known to philosophers as the Teleological Argument), while the latter attributes the workings of nature to divine providence. Again, both are statements of theology, and not science.

I happen to affirm both divine providence and a certain telos (end or goal) in nature. However, I don’t confuse either of these theological convictions with scientific conclusions.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Nope. I have to disagree. Intelligent Design is simply about the fact that functional, complex integrated systems are all designed by an intelligence. Nothing theological about that. This applies to computers, automobile engines and living cells.

Christianity, as it applies to science, always weds the science to the theology. God is the first cause, the Creator, and His qualities are observed and known by all of creation.

But some here choose to separate God from science. Pope Benedict has stated that divine revelation and science are complementary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Please, I know you’re excited, but try to keep responses clear and short (if possible). I have a few queries to ask… If you don’t think you can handle an evolution thread, please DO NOT ENTER.

1. What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution? If the Church seems to favor the latter, why do so many here go with the former?

I doubt there was a difference until creationists tried to pass it off as a creationism. Now its so tainted that it must be replaced with a new phrase. Most it seems choose theistic evolution. Neither are science in any way, but simply philisophical/theological belief statements. They cannot predict nor test their “hypothesis”.

1. Are macro-evolution and the teachings of the Church compatible? If so, how?
   **Sure, 2 popes have said so. **
2. Does the Church permit Catholics to believe in bacterial ancestry? (For instance, humanity began as simple bacteria and eventually evolved into Home sapiens.)

I believe so.

1. What’s the deal with polygenism? Is it credible? (Let’s stray away from, “IT’S ALL EVIL LIES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH!” The Holy Father has endorsed a statement giving credance to this theory, and it’s just that anyway: a theory. Nothing scary.)
   **I’m unclear here. I’ve read stuff from JPII and Benedict which hint that its okay, recognizing that at some point God infused soul into “a” male and female…whatever that actually means. I see no reason why it couldn’t have been an entire population, myself. **

In Jesus and Mary

 

[Donald45]

Nope. I have to disagree. Intelligent Design is simply about the fact that functional, complex integrated systems are all designed by an intelligence. Nothing theological about that. This applies to computers, automobile engines and living cells.

Since the “Intelligence” is not considered to be a part of the natural world (indeed, this Intelligence itself made the world), it is therefore seen as an entity that is beyond or above the physical realm, that is, which transcends the world of nature. This we would call a supernatural Intelligence----i.e., “God.” Thus, the ID approach is simply a theological explanation for the workings of nature----a “god-of-the-gaps” argument.

Christianity, as it applies to science, always weds the science to the theology.

Yes, “Christianity” does this. Clearly, this describes a doctrinal or theological conviction.

But some here choose to separate God from science.

It’s simply a fact that exists at the core of two distinct disciplines (theology and science). It’s interesting that no one insists on references to “theistic gravity,” “intelligent cell mytosis,” “theistic momentum,” or “theistic archaeology.” Although Christians would see the hand of God in all these things, we don’t insist on adding our theology to these aspects of the sciences. So, why do so with reference to evolution?

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is about human origins. As written, it is entirely naturalistic - no God required. Any person being told that he or she got here via purely natural means would be inclined to believe that not only is no intelligence needed but that living things can arise spontaneously.

Spontaneous generation of life is a false idea.

I think people should understand that evolution is not some separate thing that is kept on a shelf. As a concept, it has obvious sociological implications in shaping people’s worldviews. It also leads to conclusions, such as passing eugenics laws that did sterilize morons and others deemed unfit to bear children and pollute the gene pool, against their will.

Clarity about Catholic belief in regards to divine revelation needs to be maintained. God did something, not nothing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Delphinus85]

I sometimes use the analogy of two pool players. The ID designer needs to nudge the cue ball after he has hit it in order to keep it on track. The TE God made a perfect shot in the first place and so has no need to nudge the cue ball at all - it goes exactly where He knew it was going all along.

I love this example. My husband uses the idea of “The Master Computer Programmer” to describe how God made the world to work the way it does. (is it obvious what HE does for a living? hehehe)

BTW he and I are both strong Catholics and Theistic Evolutionists.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Interesting responses, guys! Thanks!

Questions 2.0:

1. If Adam and Eve are regarded as real, historic individuals, where are we to classify them among their *Homo sapien *predecessors (and contemporaries)? Does this imply (necessarily) that they lived amongst identical creatures that were not, for their part, endowed with rational souls? If so, then how do those that maintain such a position hold that their offspring never mated with the “look-alikes,” so to speak?
2. Is there any credance to the theory that two Homo sapiens in the remote past were both biologically and spiritually superior to their contemporaries and thus constituted an Adam-Eve sort of position, from whence modern humans are derived? In other words, two individuals were fundamentally (genetically and spiritually) set apart from their peers and bore a greater resemblance to modern humanity… I’ve heard people asserting something like this, even claiming that Discovery put out an article about the “genetic Eve,” and it sparked my interest.
3. If you are an evolutionist of some type, sort, or nature, briefly explain your conviction please (especially if you feel it particularly in line with Church teaching). No special creation theories right now, please…

Thanks again!

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that polygenism isn’t a Catholic doctrine)
Used to be a common belief among some sects, but I don’t think it has ever been so in the Catholic Church.

Sects?

Yes.

Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical of 1950 was considered the writings of a sectarian?

I don’t know why you’d think that; he explicitly denies polygenism.

I’m puzzled why you’d cite him, when he clearly denies it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution is about human origins.

Origins of our bodies. Our souls are things that science cannot explain.

As written, it is entirely naturalistic - no God required.

Sorry, that’s wrong. Science can’t even say whether or not God is required for nature to be. But scientists can. Most of us know He is.

Any person being told that he or she got here via purely natural means would be inclined to believe that not only is no intelligence needed but that living things can arise spontaneously.

Wrong theory, Ed. We’re talking about evolution.

Spontaneous generation of life is a false idea.

Um, Ed…? Wrong theory. Try again.

I think people should understand that evolution is not some separate thing that is kept on a shelf. As a concept, it has obvious sociological implications in shaping people’s worldviews. It also leads to conclusions, such as passing eugenics laws that did sterilize morons and others deemed unfit to bear children and pollute the gene pool, against their will.

Um, seems that theists invented that notion, Ed. Spartans, for example. And sterilization was forced on a large number of people in the southern states, some of which even outlawed the teaching of evolution. And I’m sure Pope Benedict doesn’t believe that, even if he considers evolution to be true.

Clarity about Catholic belief in regards to divine revelation needs to be maintained. God did something, not nothing.

The salient difference is that the Pope approves of the way He did it, and the creationists/IDers do not.

 

[edwest2]

You are obviously taken by political ideas. None of that concerns me.

From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69:

"An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

divine providence

God bless,
Ed

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Interesting responses, guys! Thanks!

Questions 2.0:

1. If Adam and Eve are regarded as real, historic individuals, where are we to classify them among their *Homo sapien *predecessors (and contemporaries)? Does this imply (necessarily) that they lived amongst identical creatures that were not, for their part, endowed with rational souls? If so, then how do those that maintain such a position hold that their offspring never mated with the “look-alikes,” so to speak?

They are contemporaries and were alone. The offspring married within the family.

1. Is there any credance to the theory that two Homo sapiens in the remote past were both biologically and spiritually superior to their contemporaries and thus constituted an Adam-Eve sort of position, from whence modern humans are derived? In other words, two individuals were fundamentally (genetically and spiritually) set apart from their peers and bore a greater resemblance to modern humanity… I’ve heard people asserting something like this, even claiming that Discovery put out an article about the “genetic Eve,” and it sparked my interest.

the Church teaches these two individuals were the only two individuals

1. If you are an evolutionist of some type, sort, or nature, briefly explain your conviction please (especially if you feel it particularly in line with Church teaching). No special creation theories right now, please…

evolution began after the original creation and involves the physical body not the soul

hope that helps