A Question for Catholic Creationist

[TMC]

I wasn’t attacking you at all. I honestly want to know what your definition of “evolution” is as you use/mean it in your statement that “most people accept evolution”.

As I said, I accept the scientific consensus, just as I accept the scientific consensus on what stars are made of, or how far away the moon is. I don’t need to join a particular “school” or “movement” on evolution - its science and I accept the science the same way I do with any other field I am not an expert in. Why wouldn’t all Catholics do the same?

 

[JGD]

As to what I believe, to the extent it matters, I am happy to agree with the consensus of scientific thought. (Just like the Church)

Just what is the “consensus of scientific thought”. Just a link to it will suffice.

Here’s an article from the Vatican website that includes discussion about some of the various types of evolution. Might be good to check and see if what you believe is something the Church agrees with.

It’s a lengthy paper, but you can do a couple of control "f " word searches on “evolution” and “Darwinian” to get to the pertinent sections.

 

[TMC]

Just what is the “consensus of scientific thought”. Just a link to it will suffice.

You realize this is like asking “what is the consensus of scientific thought on astronomy.” Just google “Theory of Evolution” or “Primer on Evolution” if you are curious. Its not some arcane secret; its mainstream science.

Here’s an article from the Vatican website that includes discussion about some of the various types of evolution. Might be good to check and see if what you believe is something the Church agrees with.

Yes, I know that the Church has said for at least 70 years that Catholics cannot accept a theory of origins that denies a role for God. I also know that every Pope for at least that length of time has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism. Unless they were catechized before then, every Catholic learns this as a child, or as part of RCIA. Its not controversial.

 

[JGD]

You realize this is like asking “what is the consensus of scientific thought on astronomy.” Just google “Theory of Evolution” or “Primer on Evolution” if you are curious. Its not some arcane secret; its mainstream science.

You’re the one who used the word “consensus”. I only asked if you could provide a link ---- because you’re sure not giving me any answers about it – or even the content of what you believe about evolution.
I’ve given up on getting an answer.

Yes, I know that the Church has said for at least 70 years that Catholics cannot accept a theory of origins that denies a role for God.

Thank heavens for that much at least, but that’s hardly the full extent of what the Church has taught on the topic of evolution. There are Catholics who have never been taught even that much, and Catholics who were taught it, but reject the Church’s teaching.

I wonder whether or not you accept it (I’m not expecting an answer)— or whether you’re aware there are a lot of scientists who don’t, perhaps enough to constitute a “consensus”, which you say you would go along with. I don’t know - that’s why I wanted a link. And I have googled. I think I asked much earlier in this thread if anyone knew of a poll of scientists regarding their positions on evolution.

I also know that every Pope for at least that length of time has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

I’m unaware of ANY Papal statement as general as that and did not contain more information - clarifying in some way what could be accepted and what could not.

Unless they were catechized before then, every Catholic learns this as a child, or as part of RCIA. Its not controversial.

Any person who received Catholic instruction regarding Church teaching on evolution and received nothing more than what you say - “that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism” received lousy, incomplete instruction. I’m not denying it happened; it very probably did.
Another factor that comes into play is that most Catholic youth go to public school. I taught CCD to junior high boys and girls. I recall one class where evolution (man from apes/animals) was brought up. One girl in particular was shocked when she learned it was a theory and not a scientifically proven fact (as they were teaching her in public school). It’s been more than 30 years ago, but I can still see her face and remember her asking me (almost pleading), “Why didn’t they tell us that?”

It’s been good talking with you TMC, but it’s probably time to call it quits. We’re repeating ourselves. God bless you.

 

[TMC]

You’re the one who used the word “consensus”. I only asked if you could provide a link ---- because you’re sure not giving me any answers about it – or even the content of what you believe about evolution.
I’ve given up on getting an answer.

I am beginning to question your sincerity if you claim you can’t find information about evolution on the internet. How about this: Evolution - Wikipedia

I wonder whether or not you accept it (I’m not expecting an answer)— or whether you’re aware there are a lot of scientists who don’t, perhaps enough to constitute a “consensus”, which you say you would go along with. I don’t know - that’s why I wanted a link. And I have googled. I think I asked much earlier in this thread if anyone knew of a poll of scientists regarding their positions on evolution.

The actual number of scientists who reject evolution in any meaningful way is very, very small. Can you show any information otherwise? Its like asking if scientists agree with germ theory.

I’m unaware of ANY Papal statement as general as that and did not contain more information - clarifying in some way what could be accepted and what could not.

Then you are not paying attention. Here is what I got in a two second google search:

Pope Francis in 2014:

“God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Pope Benedict in 2007:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ks-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...nts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html

There is a lot more available a simple Google search away.

 

[gama232]

The only reason this subject is brought up is to present evolution as fact. The Catholic Church has never accepted a proven, meaning demonstrated as true, position. It would also be true to say science rejects God or anything supernatural. It is ‘science alone’ that should be rejected since science cannot make any other statement about man and that means critical information is missing. No God, no soul and death without judgment. The direct link between a false ‘science only’ and atheist approach to life and how we should live creates problems.

This, and other threads like it, point to science and “these are the facts.” But they exclude God. They exclude the soul and they exclude judgment after death. These facts are facts for all Christians. These facts inform us about our connection to God. Is God real? Who do we pray to? If we pray to no one then why are we Christians?

The danger, and it is a real danger, is accepting the atheist only interpretation which is also the science only interpretation. If a process occurred then it was infallibly guided by God as Thomas Aquinas writes and which is quoted in the document Communion and Stewardship.

 

[JGD]

My gosh, the minute I call it quits you finally come across with some info. Was unable to use your Washington Post link to Pope Francis without subscribing, but found another link. Here are some of the subsequent lines which clarify a bit the evolution he’s referring to.

…The beginning of the world was not a work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big Bang theory, which is proposed today as the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of a divine creator but depends on it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.

As for man, however, there is a change and a novelty. When, on the sixth day in the account of Genesis, comes the moment of the creation of man, God gives the human being another autonomy, an autonomy different from that of nature,…

Regarding Pope Benedict’s statement, he was responding to a question about the mental state of many youth, so he speaks only briefly, not in depth, about evolution in this talk. This is the sentence just before the one you cited:

But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being.

 

[TMC]

The only reason this subject is brought up is to present evolution as fact. The Catholic Church has never accepted a proven, meaning demonstrated as true, position.

Neither has the Catholic Church accepted as true any other scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity, or germ theory (both still theories, just like evolution). In fact, the Church has said a lot more (positive) things about evolution than it has either of those theories.

It would also be true to say science rejects God or anything supernatural.

This is not true. Science does not take any position on God. Many scientists are atheists; many are devoutly religious. Science is silent on the topic. Its a different field.

 

[TMC]

Yes, and nothing there speaks against evolution. Pope Francis, and Pope Emeritus Benedict, and Pope Saint John Paul II before them, have all said that the theory of evolution is compatible with Catholic faith. So what is the issue?

 

[jofa]

All you have to realize is God is the source of reason, and either the Church was given the infallible gift of preserving and teaching God’s Truth, or it wasn’t. If the Church was giving this authority, which I believe is clear it was, then none of this matters. And if reason (fossil record, etc) seems to contradict something in Scripture than it is most likely the interpretation is a preconceived one or you just have to dig deeper. So it’s good that you’re seeking answers. Because reason and faith are never contradictory.

For example: In Genesis, we are told that man (mankind) is made in God’s image, that male and female he made us.
Does that mean we look like God or that God is male and female? Clearly not. God is describing Relationship. Family. As in the Holy Trinity: the Father is forever loving the Son, and the Son is forever loving the Father, and this love is so substantial it IS the Holy Spirit. Now, I’ve simplified a complicated explanation of Dr. Scott Hahn’s from theology class I was in, but to sum up: the human family is an image of the Holy Trinity. The husband and wife love each other and this love perfectly combines to make a third (and fourth, etc.) unique and singular person.

Now, if you read the story of Creation, God uses the Seven Days to also reveal a deep mystery. Notice which days certain things are created. Especially the first three days vs the second three days. Here’s an example: Sky/Heavens are created in 1st three, Birds in second. Birds to rule the sky, so to speak. (Sorry if this is all convoluted but I’m trying to shorten long explanations)
In any case, whatever your interpretation of the Creation Story, even non-Catholic Christians claim it wouldn’t affect your salvation. And that is the most important point.
God Bless

 

[gama232]

The issue will always be (1) Pope John Paul II referred to more than one theory. He spoke of theories of evolution. That is mentioned in more detail in Communion and Stewardship.

Pope Benedict:

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.

(3) Yes, science says nothing about God but the Catholic Church does regarding this subject. God cannot be excluded and science, does exclude anything other than a purely natural process. By doing so, it tells man such a process happens only by itself and has no goal or direction. This would be the whole answer for atheists, but not for Christians. From Communion and Stewardship:

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).

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

---

So when the Church writes “… explicitly deny to divine providence…” What does it mean? Nothing?

 

[gama232]

Source - Catholic Answers:

Adam and Eve: Real People​

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

 

[TMC]

So when the Church writes “… explicitly deny to divine providence…” What does it mean? Nothing?

I have referred to this many time in this thread. What it means is that the Church does not support a theory of origins that expressly denies God. Good news! Evolution does not deny God a role. Some individuals who happen to believe in God are atheists, but believing in evolution does not mean denying God.

 

[gama232]

Pick up any Biology textbook. The average person thinks it all - evolution - happened entirely by itself. That is the problem. That is what Christians must guard against.

 

[TMC]

Pick up any Biology textbook. The average person thinks it all - evolution - happened entirely by itself. That is the problem. That is what Christians must guard against.

I keep hearing this on-line from fundamentalists, but, in real life, I don’t know anyone that feels that way.
Pretty much everyone I know believes in evolution, and pretty much everyone I know believes in God. The handful of atheists I know do not connect their unbelief to evolution. That evolution excludes God is a talking point for fundamentalists, and nothing more.

 

[rosejmj]

Why would anyone trust the Bible over science if the Bible contradicts scientific evidence? If the Bible did contradict science, either it’s wrong or it’s being understood in the wrong way. The Bible isn’t there to tell us how old the Earth is or if evolution has occurred. The Bible is supposed to, according to Christians, supposed to be God’s revelation and to lead us to salvation and happiness. I am sure more people would doubt the Bible if they had to believe something that science was disproving

 

[gama232]

That word “fundamentalists” is designed to stop discussions only. The reality is - Who made us? Some blind, uncaring process? Or God? Too many want people to live a degraded life because they are nothing but animals. The dignity of man comes not just because of our bodies but from our relationship with God and the spirit that lives within us.

 

[gama232]

That criticism is too general. Catholics trust the Bible 100% about the actual physical reality of Jesus Christ.

 

[rosejmj]

Well, there is historical evidence of Jesus existing. However, history is much harder to prove than science and is much more speculative. If science or history disproved Jesus or gave evidence against home or wat was said about him, I’d certainly question Christianity. I already do question Christianity because there is little historical knowledge of who Jesus was and what he did. And the Bi le is neither a science book or a history book

 

[TMC]

That word “fundamentalists” is designed to stop discussions only. The reality is - Who made us? Some blind, uncaring process? Or God? Too many want people to live a degraded life because they are nothing but animals. The dignity of man comes not just because of our bodies but from our relationship with God and the spirit that lives within us.

Nothing in evolution requires disbelief in God. I have said that many times, and I notice you have not denied it. Nothing in evolution requires (or even suggests) that people should be degraded as animals.

If you don’t like the term “fundamentalist” (which I think is merely descriptive and accurate), how would you describe a belief system that denies science as conflicting with the bible?

So what are your beliefs? Do you reject the scientific consensus on evolution? If so, why? Do you agree with the Church that evolution does not contradict faith? If not, why not?