A Question for Catholic Creationist

[gama232]

Where did I write “condemn”? I quoted Pope Benedict. You can’t haul 10,000 generations into the lab. My point will always be Pope John Paul II spoke of theories of evolution, not just one. Communion and Stewardship makes it clear that to deny God a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe is not acceptable. The Biology textbook leaves that part out. And no, I’m not saying Biology textbooks should add it. But there is a problem in Biology textbooks. Here is one example:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

So, is the above statement accurate? Is science not silent about causes? Because a 15 year old could read that and think he had a common ancestor that was not human.

 

[TMC]

So, is the above statement accurate? Is science not silent about causes? Because a 15 year old could read that and think he had a common ancestor that was not human.

He does have a common ancestor that is not human. Did you read Communion and Stewardship? It says:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of 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.

Biology textbooks should leave theology out. And the idea of common descent is not contrary to Catholicism - that is one of the main points of Communion and Stewardship (a document you have quoted several times here).

 

[gama232]

You are missing the point again. God is directly involved, not the Biology textbook quote I provided. And man, as defined in Communion and Stewardship - the ontological leap to man cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. Again, God is involved. In a number of scientific journals, it is pointed out that man and other organisms have the same or similar genes. Since God placed man on a planet with a certain temperature, a certain atmosphere and certain food choices, He would have given us genetic instructions to develop a certain way in order to survive here. And Communion and Stewardship quotes Thomas Aquinas in stating God acts infallibly in His Creation.

Biology textbook evolution is never presented that way. That is, a bunch of accidents accumulated and then, somehow, men. Two different things – the Church explanation and the Biology textbook explanation. When Pope Benedict writes evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven (shown to be true) theory, how can he be more plain?

 

[TMC]

Biology textbook evolution is never presented that way. That is, a bunch of accidents accumulated and then, somehow, men. Two different things – the Church explanation and the Biology textbook explanation. When Pope Benedict writes evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven (shown to be true) theory, how can he be more plain?

It feels like you are moving the goalposts here. Are you agreeing that evolution is compatible with Catholicism, and merely complaining that evolution is not fully explained (just as the theory of gravity is not fully explained)? Or are you suggesting that public schools should teach Catholic theology? Because I could have sworn you were arguing that evolution is not compatible with Catholicism, but frankly now I am not sure what your point is.

 

[gama232]

Answer the question about what Pope Benedict wrote please. I am aware of the sacred public school where no religion can enter the sacred science classroom. Nor am I suggesting it should. Don’t you see the average 15 year old getting the Biology textbook version only and seeing that Biology textbook quote I posted above? To put it another way - Nothing made you. It all happened by itself. I hope I’m being clear.

Stop with the fake gravity comparison. Living things are not energy fields or angular momentum. The explanation for how gravity works is a lot simpler than how people are made/created.

 

[TMC]

Answer the question about what Pope Benedict wrote please.

I have. Yes, Pope Benedict said one time that he believed evolution cannot be proven, or at least has not been. The same is true of the theory of gravity, at least so far. Pope Benedict also said, many times, that evolution is compatible with Catholicism, and he approved the Church’s statement (the same one you keep quoting) approving common descent and acknowledging the vast amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

I am aware of the sacred public school where no religion can enter the sacred science classroom. Nor am I suggesting it should.

That is good. So why do you keep bringing it up? Should biology just not be taught? What would you suggest instead?

Don’t you see the average 15 year old getting the Biology textbook version only and seeing that Biology textbook quote I posted above? To put it another way - Nothing made you. It all happened by itself. I hope I’m being clear.

Yes, you are being clear. But I don’t agree with you. I read such a biology text forty years ago. My children read one fifteen years ago. Every child does. It doesn’t make them atheist, if that is your suggestion. They know its biology class, not religion class. Again, should children not learn biology?

Stop with the fake gravity comparison. Living things are not energy fields or angular momentum. The explanation for how gravity works is a lot simpler than how people are made/created.

Explain to me why it is not a good comparison. The theory of gravity is a lot more complex than the theory of evolution, and neither has been experimentally proven. What is fake is suggesting that the fact that evolution is a “theory” means it is not valid. We call all of our scientific explanations theories - germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of general relativity, quantum theory. They never graduate to “proven.” The theory of evolution is not less well supported than any of the others I mentioned, should we not teach those things, either?

 

[gama232]

I’d like to get rid of gravity forever, here, if I could. Scientists know exactly how gravity works every time. When I played basketball, I knew exactly how much force I needed to apply to overcome gravity on the way to the net. If astronauts need to do a slingshot maneuver around the moon, mission control tells them exactly what to do, how long to fire the thrusters and so on. We know. We know well enough every time we play basketball or maneuver in space - precisely.

When I learned Biology a little over 40 years ago, I was not confronted by the primary mission statement here, which starts with the question: Do you believe in evolution? No one can opt for NO, of course not. It’s a secular heresy. I mean I may disbelieve String Theory and a whole bunch of other theories, but today, Evolution is a tenet of secular faith and cannot be denied.

Before – no big deal. Today - You, you HERETIC! You anti-Science so on and so forth, etc. You see? Things have changed. I know nothing about cars and people are fine with that. Evolution? Any answer but ‘I believe’ is met with very lengthy threads here and elsewhere. Why? Something to prove? Like what?

 

[TMC]

I’d like to get rid of gravity forever, here, if I could. Scientists know exactly how gravity works every time.

LOL, OK, this is completely untrue. Scientists do not know how gravity works. We can observe how much force it takes to overcome the attraction between bodies, but we do not really know how the force works - or why. There are theories, but it is actually not well understood. (Much less understood than evolution.) It is a very difficult and complex problem. The current theory involves permutations of the Higgs field, but has not been scientifically proven. Saying that observing and predicting the observation of bodies means we understand gravity is like saying we understand genetics because we can see that sons look like their fathers. It is infinitely more complex than that.

When I learned Biology a little over 40 years ago, I was not confronted by the primary mission statement here, which starts with the question: Do you believe in evolution? No one can opt for NO, of course not. It’s a secular heresy. I mean I may disbelieve String Theory and a whole bunch of other theories, but today, Evolution is a tenet of secular faith and cannot be denied.

Evolution is the accepted scientific theory. That is what our children should learn. What should they be taught instead?

Before – no big deal. Today - You, you HERETIC! You anti-Science so on and so forth, etc. You see? Things have changed. I know nothing about cars and people are fine with that. Evolution? Any answer but ‘I believe’ is met with very lengthy threads here and elsewhere. Why? Something to prove? Like what?

No one cares if you know anything about evolution, or understand evolution. People do care when you suggest on a public, Catholic forum that evolution is in conflict with Catholic faith, because that is untrue, and it misleads those that come here to learn about the faith.

 

[whatistrue]

Scientists know exactly how gravity works every time. When I played basketball, I knew exactly how much force I needed to apply to overcome gravity on the way to the net. If astronauts need to do a slingshot maneuver around the moon, mission control tells them exactly what to do, how long to fire the thrusters and so on. We know. We know well enough every time we play basketball or maneuver in space - precisely.

That is the “what are the effects”. It is not “how does it work”. You might be a wonderful driver and be able to maneuver a car with consummate skill, but know absolutely nothing about how a car actually works in the sense of combustion theory and mechanical systems. We know how to plug in the numbers for our particular gravity field to get a projectile to behave the way we want, but we still don’t fully understand how gravity works on a fundamental level.

 

[billsherman]

Scientists know exactly how gravity works every time.

No. Dark matter.

 

[gama232]

Another misleading response. In order to avoid further misleading responses, I will quote what the Church tells me. Again.

Pope Pius XII

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
2. For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Pope Benedict XVI

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.”

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).

 

[TMC]

Another misleading response. In order to avoid further misleading responses, I will quote what the Church tells me. Again.

My responses have been on point and direct. You are refusing to answer my questions. I am despairing of getting good faith answers.

Hopefully the seekers that lurk here will read the Church’s documents and understand that the Church accepts evolution as compatible with faith. Anyone that has questions should read this:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[gama232]

Finding Design in Nature

By Christoph Schönborn

July 7, 2005 [New York Times]

Vienna - EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

 

[gama232]

He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

Note that in this quotation the word “finality” is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

 

[Metis1]

I think the “problem” with those who reject the ToE because part of it deals with chance is that they may believe that God has planned every little or major thing we do in advance, which essentially is “predestination”. But if we are all predestined, then we have no “free will”, thus we are mere puppets on a string . To me, that doesn’t make sense.

Thus, I have no problem accepting there is at least some chance involved. Would God plan a miscarriage, for example? or a tsunami that kills thousands? I simply cannot accept that premise.

 

[vsedriver]

When I learned Biology a little over 40 years ago, I was not confronted by the primary mission statement here, which starts with the question: Do you believe in evolution? No one can opt for NO, of course not. It’s a secular heresy.

I think what your are trying to say is that no Catholic can believe in a random, accidental, non-God created universe and that is what is taught in schools in biology class.

This is taught in biology class because there is no scientific evidence of a God created universe. So as far as science goes God doesn’t come into the conversation. And that is why the ToE is taught as it is in a science class.

The reason you lost faith when you learned this lesson was because you had no counter balance of information. I also learned about ToE in science class 50 years ago and my children also learned it in science class in a Catholic School.

None of us have lost our faith. Why? because we were also taught theology and a study of the bible. So although the church hasn’t ‘taken sides’ on the issue of ToE, I find that the theory is quite eloquent and so logical that it isn’t reasonable to deny the idea that all creatures evolved.

For me, God created everything, and as far as life on earth, evolution is how he did it. That is by far, more amazing to me than just going ‘poof’ for six days. It’s far, far more God-like.

 

[gama232]

Evolution is not more amazing than Jesus raising the dead or multiplying the loaves and fishes. Why do you assume something you do not know? I have the same faith I had as a boy. I have lost faith in evolution. It is being pushed like a drug. You must accept it. You must swallow it.

 

[Kei]

For me, God created everything, and as far as life on earth, evolution is how he did it. That is by far, more amazing to me than just going ‘poof’ for six days. It’s far, far more God-like.

How is it more God-like to create by using preexisting material than by the sheer creative power of His Word?
(Granting that, at first, He created ex nihilo of course).

 

[vsedriver]

Evolution is not more amazing than Jesus raising the dead or multiplying the loaves and fishes

why do you compare a scientific theory with a miracle? I could just as easily claim evolution is a miracle.

I have lost faith in evolution. It is being pushed like a drug. You must accept it. You must swallow it.

you are not obligated theologically to accept the theory of evolution. No one is pushing you to accept it. You are making claims that it causes people to lose faith and so far most have said it doesn’t.

reject it on theological grounds all you want. Rejecting it on scientific grounds is unreasonable.

 

[vsedriver]

How is it more God-like to create by using preexisting material than by the sheer creative power of His Word?

I never claimed it wasn’t ex nihilo.