A Question for Catholic Creationist

[Pattylt]

As an agnostic, the one evidence of a possible God is how life began. I can’t answer it and so far, neither can science. Luckily, evolution isn’t asking or answering that question. It is only looking at how life developed after.

If a religion demanded that I reject the evidence of evolution, it’s a religion I’d never seek. Evolution absolutely leaves room for God and your Church explains where it does. Of all the atheists and agnostics I know, none left religion due to evolution. There may be some that have, I just don’t know of any and if some did, they didn’t try very hard to understand what evolution says and does not say. Condemning evolution because it doesn’t include God is as silly to me as condemning the theory of gravity because it doesn’t include God either…or the theory of germs…or plate tectonics…

 

[gama232]

First off, I have noticed zero attempts to answer the Church’s objections to evolution. Such as Pope Benedict’s statement that it is not possible to conduct experiments to disprove or verify the the theory.

“denies science” is not my claim. My claims are all based on recent statements from the Church, including denying God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Only the Church acknowledges that role. And some Catholics do not know that.

 

[TMC]

First off, I have noticed zero attempts to answer the Church’s objections to evolution. Such as Pope Benedict’s statement that it is not possible to conduct experiments to disprove or verify the the theory.

“denies science” is not my claim. My claims are all based on recent statements from the Church, including denying God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Only the Church acknowledges that role. And some Catholics do not know that.

How can you say this? Have you read my posts? I have said MANY times that the Church rejects denying a role for God.

Any Catholics that don’t know that are simply not paying attention. Any Catholics that do not know that the Church teaches that evolution is compatible with Catholicism is also not paying attention - or has some other agenda.

Of course, you are still refusing to answer my questions.

 

[JGD]

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

History has eyewitness accounts of the people and events. Science, when it comes to evolution (especially of man), does not.

 

[JGD]

How can you say this? Have you read my posts? I have said MANY times that the Church rejects denying a role for God.

Many??? I actually went back and read all your posts on this thread! Came up with 2.

 

[billsherman]

History has eyewitness accounts of the people and events. Science, when it comes to evolution (especially of man), does not.

History and evolutionary biology are different disciplines, with vastly different methodologies. You should probably read some papers by evolutionary biologists to get a good idea on their methodology and what they use for evidence. It might be a fascinating exercise during this exceptional time.

A simple search of jstor.org for “evolutionary biology” produced hundreds of articles and books chapters that are currently free because of the Covid-19 crisis. You might enjoy delving into some of them.

 

[TMC]

Many??? I actually went back and read all your posts on this thread! Came up with 2.

I didn’t count, but it has certainly been my consistent position. On the other hand, I have not been able to get clear statements of position from the anti-evolutionists.

What about you, 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?

 

[gama232]

“anti-evolutionists”? That sounds like a political label. No, the issue is the truth. When I quote Pope Benedict who wrote it is impossible to conduct experiments to verify or disprove the theory, I’m told he’s wrong. Is he an anti-evolutionist? When I quote Thomas Aquinas as he is quoted in the document Communion and Stewardship about God guiding everything infallibly, I get nothing. God guiding some process infallibly is certainly something God can do but Pope Benedict tells us it - evolution - can’t be demonstrated by testing. Do you see the point?

If something like evolution occurred, it must be linked to God or it falls under the category of ‘explicitly denying to God any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.’ That also from Communion and Stewardship. If I read a Biology textbook I would miss those details. As it is, the whole process is described as happening entirely on its own. God becomes just another word, without meaning.

 

[otjm]

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

If you wish to explore a contrary opinion, I would suggest The Case For Jesus by Brant Pitre, Ph.D. Although it is available on Amazon in hardback, if you go to the Augustine Institute, they have it for $8.95 in paperback; or you may find it in the entry to a Catholic church which may have it available (where I found mine) for something less - and no shipping charge! There is more historical evidence than you may be aware of.

 

[TMC]

When I quote Pope Benedict who wrote it is impossible to conduct experiments to verify or disprove the theory, I’m told he’s wrong. Is he an anti-evolutionist?

You realize Pope Benedict actually accepts evolution and says it is compatible with Catholicism - in fact he dismissed the idea that evolution and faith were in conflict as absurd? And that what Communion and Stewardship (which he approved) actually says is that there is converging evidence from multiple fields of study supporting evolution? And that Pope Francis also accepts evolution?

I don’t want Biology textbooks to teach theology, and neither should you. Biology texts should teach Biology, which is what they do.

Its clear that you have decided to simply deny scientific consensus for some reason. I am just trying to understand the reason. The Church does not, why do you?

 

[Maximus1]

I find it hard to conceptualize an argument where:
People are leaving who are exposed to evolution and science
With
We need to maintain a rigid 6 day belief or we will loose people.
The argument seems based upon:
The observation that people are leaving
And
Things used to be cohesive when everybody accepted 6 day creation.
First, the obvious:
Lack of education and access to natural sciences. This represents the majority of believers once upon a time.
Today, we have Google Earth and a whole bunch of available data.
Point! Are you sure you are not loosing people clinging to flat Earth?
The Church has rightly embraced the only possible Christian position. That faith and science involving the natural universe must be consistent. Scientific proof reveals truth about the authentic spiritual message. To the extent theology might be based upon a solar system revolving around Earth, God’s spiritual message always contemplated the science and truth. We catch up.

 

[Metis1]

As it is, the whole process is described as happening entirely on its own. God becomes just another word, without meaning.

That is a misconception as the ToE simply says literally nothing for or against there being a Divine creator. Unfortunately, many have been told that it does, such I was told by a trusted minister in my Protestant church back when I was a teenager, but it simply is not true.

 

[Kei]

The Church leaves much freedom to each individual Catholic.
A Catholic is totally free to be a young earth creationist.
From what I understand, you seem to be against this freedom, as it seems to allow evolutionists to hold their views. But do understand that the Church offers guidelines even in this. For instance, even evolutionists are supposed to hold that all humanity is from one pair of true humans; souls are not evolved but created directly by God.

The Church offers guidelines but gives a lot of freedom to individuals in terms of what they believe. There are creationist Catholic apostolates, but the Church itself gives us guidelines and within these guidelines much freedom of interpretation. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
If you think this is a very important issue, you as a Catholic would be free to try to do research and join a creationist apostolate that teaches the creationist view. It’s not like you are forced to be an evolutionist or anything.

 

[goout]

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one,

Let me add to your statement:
The story of the creation and fall of man is a True one, in the same sense that the story of the prodigal son is True.

And you should build your faith on Truth, not on lesser journalistic and scientific truths like the fundamentalists do.
Christ himself is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
And Christ is a person, not a set of facts.

 

[gama232]

The usual dodge and weave.

Biology textbooks are fine for atheists.

Pope Benedict tells us it’s not possible to prove - show that it is true - the theory.

 

[billsherman]

Biology textbooks are fine for atheists.

And non-atheists.

Pope Benedict tells us it’s not possible to prove - show that it is true - the theory.

I don’t know what the good Pope said about this, but I know that he isn’t qualified to judge. I assume you are taking his words out of context, because he is sharp enough to know that he isn’t an evolutionary biologist and has no particular expertise in their methodology. Theologians are great people, but they aren’t trained in the techniques and methods of biologists (at least, usually they aren’t. And Pope Benedict certainly isn’t.).

You should look at jstor.org - they have opened up hundreds of journals for the time being. You can read a few articles on evolutionary biology and get a better understanding of their methodology.

 

[gama232]

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.

 

[billsherman]

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

With all due respect to Pope Benedict, he is unqualified to critique the methodology of evolutionary biology.

As I stated above, if their methodology is so important to you - and it appears to be - you can read some of their work at jstor.org (which is largely free now due to corona virus). You will see their methodology.

According to Benedict’s idea, astronomy would also be impossible. But yet the Vatican has an astronomer.

 

[gama232]

Okay, wait. Unqualified? And Pope John Paul II, with the same background, is somehow qualified? Explain that please.

I know all about jstor. I read a lot of technical journals. I do understand.

 

[TMC]

Pope Benedict:

You keep relying on Pope Benedict, while conveniently ignoring that Pope Benedict said that there is no conflict between evolution and faith (and that he approved Communion and Stewardship, which accepts evolution). Why is that?

I am concerned that casual visitors to this forum may come away with the impression that Pope Benedict or the Church deny or condemn evolution, which we both know is not true.