E
edwest211
Guest
Ah, the old God picked two random, almost humans and dropped souls into them. No evidence.
- Status
A
angel12
Guest
Most people do have to sleep at some point.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Religion is about BELIEF, not evidence! My belief doesn’t effect anyone but myself and I’m quite comfortable with that…Bless you.
B
buffalo
Guest
Ever hear of the 4 horsemen?
B
buffalo
Guest
My faith is based on reason, logic and evidence.
B
buffalo
Guest
They do? Who was there to witness creation? When exactly did time begin?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
John Paul II, “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.
A Brief Exploration of the Catholic Position on Evolution
There is a great misperception in the culture that Catholicism is anti-science. Many college students confront this error when they encounter reductionism, rationalism, and materialism through their professors. These students do not know how to respond–and far too often–dismiss Catholicism...
catholicexchange.com
Clearly, clearly, CLEARLY, the Catholic Church has no problem, in principle, with the idea that biological organisms, including the human body, have evolved over time.
Choose to be a young earth creationist — fine. That is your choice. But stop speaking for the magisterium. The Church has been clear. Though cautious and prudent, the Holy Fathers have been precise to say that evolution as such does not contradict Genesis, the notion of Creation and Divine Providence, design, or the Catholic Faith.
And now, we can move on…
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
All you lovely Creationists out there, why not give bickering at evolution a rest for a while and tell us something about the theology of Creation? So far, we have Semper Catholicus and Crusader who think Genesis is nothing more than a history book, with no further theological meaning. But now Buffalo has at least mentioned the Fall “and how the fall sent the universe into decay and destruction”.
So God created all those trilobites and ichthyosaurs and archaeopteryx and australopithecines, the sabre-toothed tigers and pteranodons and belemnites, and when one human couple fell, annihilated them? You think that’s Christian theology?
And now you have the gall to claim that incessant scientism and science deception has served to make Scripture implausible to the masses. Maybe not. Maybe they just don’t care for such a wasteful God, who visits the sins of a couple of wholly unrelated, unconnected hominids on millions of innocent creatures, creatures only created a few days before, when God saw that it was good!
You wouldn’t have to have even heard of evolution to reject such an appalling theology. If you were my pastor I’d have abandoned the bible long before I’d even seen a fossil.
Come on, all you Creationists! There must be something more than mere history or wanton cruelty to Genesis or it wouldn’t be in the bible. Have none of you any idea what it is?
So God created all those trilobites and ichthyosaurs and archaeopteryx and australopithecines, the sabre-toothed tigers and pteranodons and belemnites, and when one human couple fell, annihilated them? You think that’s Christian theology?
And now you have the gall to claim that incessant scientism and science deception has served to make Scripture implausible to the masses. Maybe not. Maybe they just don’t care for such a wasteful God, who visits the sins of a couple of wholly unrelated, unconnected hominids on millions of innocent creatures, creatures only created a few days before, when God saw that it was good!
You wouldn’t have to have even heard of evolution to reject such an appalling theology. If you were my pastor I’d have abandoned the bible long before I’d even seen a fossil.
Come on, all you Creationists! There must be something more than mere history or wanton cruelty to Genesis or it wouldn’t be in the bible. Have none of you any idea what it is?
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I think the bigger sadness stems from the fact that Creationism is not the Catholic approach to the Sacred Scriptures. Sure, early theologians may have conceived of creation in more literal terms, since there was no (scientific or extra-biblical) reason to think otherwise. They went with the information they had. BUT even that didn’t stop early and medieval figures, like Origin and the Alexandrian school, and Augustine, and Aquinas, from seeing creation in Genesis as non-literal and unscientific.
Catholicism is not a Fundamentalist religion.
Catholicism is not a Fundamentalist religion.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Quoting the Popes - not using my own words - is not “speaking for the magisterium.” I hope you understand that.
Respectfully,
Ed
Respectfully,
Ed
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Yes, I didn’t mean to generalize all creationists on this thread. But a few of the persistent ones seem to suggest evolution is not even compatible with the Church’s teaching.
E
edwest211
Guest
Guided design is the Catholic approach. God works infallibly in Creation.
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. 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).”
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. 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).”
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
This is a very good quote for both sides to read.
In other words, evolution is compatible because it does not inherently take away from the divine providence of God’s creative action.
I think the issue is sometimes, precisely, framing this in terms of “design,” because that has a whole set of connotations when it comes to the evolution debate: Namely, evolution VS. “intelligent design,” as if one side is arguing for design, and one side is arguing for random dirt-compiled chance products with no Spirit or divine guidance.
So as long as people are using “design” in the sense you have illustrated here, it’s good and helpful.
However, I also have to say that it may not be entirely helpful to leave it here, because many learned in the sciences will say this description (divine guidance) is pseudo-science and smells of “God of the Gaps.” I think we also have to be clear that chance factors and processes, as secondary causes, are still perfectly compatible in God’s design, specifically because he does not act contrary to these processes but, rather, as their very foundation and sustainer. He is the Ultimate Mind who has seen everything from all eternity.
In other words, evolution is compatible because it does not inherently take away from the divine providence of God’s creative action.
I think the issue is sometimes, precisely, framing this in terms of “design,” because that has a whole set of connotations when it comes to the evolution debate: Namely, evolution VS. “intelligent design,” as if one side is arguing for design, and one side is arguing for random dirt-compiled chance products with no Spirit or divine guidance.
So as long as people are using “design” in the sense you have illustrated here, it’s good and helpful.
However, I also have to say that it may not be entirely helpful to leave it here, because many learned in the sciences will say this description (divine guidance) is pseudo-science and smells of “God of the Gaps.” I think we also have to be clear that chance factors and processes, as secondary causes, are still perfectly compatible in God’s design, specifically because he does not act contrary to these processes but, rather, as their very foundation and sustainer. He is the Ultimate Mind who has seen everything from all eternity.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Neither do most of us. The issue is Universal Common Descent and Eve coming from Adam.
No problem below. from National Science Teachers Association:
Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is sometimes called “descent with modification.” Biological evolution also encompasses a range of mechanisms that cause populations to change and diverge over time, and include natural selection, migration, and genetic drift. There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.
Now read the national Association of Biology Teachers here:
https://nabt.org/Position-Statements-NABT-Position-Statement-on-Teaching-Evolution
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. The firm and constant Catholic teaching. The fall is responsible.
B
buffalo
Guest
Now we are getting to your meat and potatoes.
You are wrestling still with the problem of evil?
And why, since you are so wedded to methodological naturalism even qualified to comment outside its strict boundaries?
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
No, it’s not. At least, not if you’re saying death and destruction was never part of creation prior to the Fall. (But I may be misunderstanding you)
In fact, I corresponded with Trent Horn of Catholic Answers a year or so ago on this very question, and he referenced Thomas Aquinas, who said that nature has built-in imperfections. Nature has been a certain way because it IS a certain way: Death was always a natural process for biological realities.
What IS Church Teaching is that the Fall of Man threw away the very preternatural gifts – gifts not owed to our nature. That is, WE HUMANS became prone to death and decay after the Fall.
But yes, prior to Fall, animals felt pain, disease was present, earthquakes and hurricanes and meteor showers happened, plants and animals died, entire species became extinct, and so forth.
In fact, I corresponded with Trent Horn of Catholic Answers a year or so ago on this very question, and he referenced Thomas Aquinas, who said that nature has built-in imperfections. Nature has been a certain way because it IS a certain way: Death was always a natural process for biological realities.
What IS Church Teaching is that the Fall of Man threw away the very preternatural gifts – gifts not owed to our nature. That is, WE HUMANS became prone to death and decay after the Fall.
But yes, prior to Fall, animals felt pain, disease was present, earthquakes and hurricanes and meteor showers happened, plants and animals died, entire species became extinct, and so forth.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Wheeee! Heads down chaps, it’s an Edwest quotebomb. On with the tin hats and load the mortar! Ready, Aim, Fire!
“63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. 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. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”
E
edwest211
Guest
“According to” is not an endorsement by the Church. Science has something to say but it is not the whole, complete answer. That is what is missing.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m not commenting; I’m seeking clarification. Your characterisation of the theology of a Creationist interpretation of Genesis is frightful. Somebody must be able to do better than that. No? … sigh …
- Status